NationStates Jolt Archive

United Nations Information Agency
Press Release

UNIA can now accurately project the fate of the current U.N. resolution, "Climate Refugee Commission".

Projection (+/- 2.5%)
Votes For: 52.5%
Votes Against: 47.5%

I very much hope this prediction turns out to be an accurate one. Given the Agency's track record, I should probably feel optimistic. But I have reason to fear that things may still change completely.

Still... We'll see.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I hope the delegation of Pilot is not offended that I currently pray for this to one of their very few upsets.

Pilot, I do hope you're wrong.

It's a horse race, I'm not the only one shooting holes in it now.

< OOC: By the by, Pilot does not run UNIA... in other words, when UNIA issues a projection, it has no affiliation with the Pilotan government. >

Votes For: 52.5%
Votes Against: 47.5% Good.

We'll see about that...

Ya know, given the current momentum, even if this does pass, what is the expected lifespan of this resolution before repeal? A week? A month?

I realize the only thing the CRC is not given is veto powers, but I don'tthink it can survive in the long run.

It's a horse race, I'm not the only one shooting holes in it now.
With respect, I suspect your own contributions barely qualified as warning shots, never mind ones that met their target.

With respect, I suspect your own contributions barely qualified as warning shots, never mind ones that met their target.

More like those loons who "celebrate" by shooting off guns into the air. Those bullets do come back down eventually, y'know, sometimes on your own head.

With respect, I suspect your own contributions barely qualified as warning shots, never mind ones that met their target.


Reguardless, last time I checked the poll, I am starting to win. ;)

Reguardless, last time I checked the poll, I am starting to win. ;)

You are? :confused:

You are? :confused:

Maybe not me personally, or me only, but...

Votes For: 4,690

Votes Against: 4,653

That's what I call a horse race :eek:

Reguardless, last time I checked the poll, I am starting to win. ;)

You are? :confused:
Another victory for Seabear70!

Another victory for Seabear70!


Alright, alright...

I take this issue personally, and the defeat of this bill will be wonderful.

I was there arguing against it from the beginning when no one cared about the effect of the bill or the seriously flawed science behind it.

But no, I did not personally win this one, I can only atribute the failure to the wisdom of the member nations.

29 more votes for science creates a tie.

ok, so there is gonna be some fluctuation :(

Maybe not me personally, or me only, but...

Votes For: 4,690

Votes Against: 4,653

That's what I call a horse race :eek:

Of course not personally, unless you TGed against it. Did you?

Is this not the closest vote in UN history? I remember Jey saying something about that... but the margins don't seem quite so close.

Is this not the closest vote in UN history? I remember Jey saying something about that... but the margins don't seem quite so close.

I think you might see the margin against grow a bit... ;)

Well, I can honestly say I've given it my all. I've spent more hours than I can count campaigning for this, sending heaps of TGs. I got it to quorum, and held it afloat for a long while. It was, almost entirely, a one man campaign. I don't really see what I could have done more.

I'm going to continue my best in what time is left, but I've also got other things to do (in real life), and it's bloody well tiring.

I do remain somewhat frustrated at the fact that so many people (based on what I've seen not only here but on offsite forums and on message boards) have voted against it based on gross misreading of the proposal's contents. To be defeated by people who genuinely disagree with the proposal (and there are some, of course, and I respect that) is one thing. To be defeated by people who vote against it because they're functionally illiterate is... slightly annoying.

My thanks again to anyone who's helped this in any way.

I daresay UNIA may be wrong yet:

Votes For: 4,702

Votes Against: 4,846

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ....um.... ME AND 4,845 OTHER PEOPLE!

Of course not personally, unless you TGed against it. Did you?

I'm not certain what the term TG means, please remember, I'm new here.

I spoke my mind in the forums, and I hope I made it easier for others to do the same.

Well, I can honestly say I've given it my all. I've spent more hours than I can count campaigning for this, sending heaps of TGs. I got it to quorum, and held it afloat for a long while. It was, almost entirely, a one man campaign. I don't really see what I could have done more.

I'm going to continue my best in what time is left, but I've also got other things to do (in real life), and it's bloody well tiring.

I do remain somewhat frustrated at the fact that so many people (based on what I've seen not only here but on offsite forums and on message boards) have voted against it based on gross misreading of the proposal's contents. To be defeated by people who genuinely disagree with the proposal (and there are some, of course, and I respect that) is one thing. To be defeated by people who vote against it because they're functionally illiterate is... slightly annoying.

My thanks again to anyone who's helped this in any way.

your representation of what it meant kept changing depending on who you were arguing against at the time. I personally believe that you did not care about the negative consequences of the resolution, you just wanted to fight global warming.

I don't think I am alone here in wanting to form a committee to study climate change and seek to understand it thoroughly.

I also do not think I am alone here in wanting to clean up the environment.

We all seem to want that.

But we want to do it the right way, we want actual results, not a witch hunt, which is what you were advocating.

your representation of what it meant kept changing depending on who you were arguing against at the time. I personally believe that you did not care about the negative consequences of the resolution, you just wanted to fight global warming.


If you really believe that, there's not much I can do for you. Except say that you're wrong. I know what's in my own mind better than you do, thank you.

You seem to have an obsession with "global warming", a rather misleading and simple term for a more complex reality. Fortunately for me, I don't share that obsession. That this proposal is not about "global warming" is clear to more or less everyone, I hope.

And no, my explanation of the proposal never varied. I answered each question, each objection, based on the actual content of the proposal. Which, alas, so many seem to have misread, or not to have read at all.

TGing means sending telegrams to other nations; it's a key aspect of campaigning for your proposal. If you do intend to submit a proposal, you'll soon find out it involves a LOT more than just writing something and submitting it. However consensual it may be, it'll have barely a cat's chance in hell of even reaching quorum unless you're willing to spend a long, tedious time contacting a lot of people to get them to endorse it. And once it reaches quorum, of course... Well, that's when the fun begins.

You'll experience the joy of seeing countless people oppose you because they've completely misinterpreted what you're trying to do. Great fun, that.

If you really believe that, there's not much I can do for you. Except say that you're wrong. I know what's in my own mind better than you do, thank you.

TGing means sending telegrams to other nations; it's a key aspect of campaigning for your proposal. If you do intend to submit a proposal, you'll soon find out it involves a LOT more than just writing something and submitting it. However consensual it may be, it'll have barely a cat's chance in hell of even reaching quorum unless you're willing to spend a long, tedious time contacting a lot of people to get them to endorse it. And once it reaches quorum, of course... Well, that's when the fun begins.

You'll experience the joy of seeing countless people oppose you because they've completely misinterpreted what you're trying to do. Great fun, that.

I cannot judge what is in your mind, only what you have written. I'll leave that alone unless provoked.

I actually have a proposal that I am trying to work out the bugs for, and I am doing it in the open forum, you might be interested in helping with the development.

You may also want ot read my most recent post in the official debate thread with an open mind.

But no, I did not personally win this one, I can only atribute the failure to the wisdom of the member nations.


ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ....um.... ME AND 4,845 OTHER PEOPLE!

Chickens being counted? I'm waiting for the final results before I open any champagne bottles.

As for the continuing debate over the bill, which can be read as "not the results prediction", there is already one at vote debate thread for it, please use that.

Okay, Kiv. But I have the champagne ready, just in case.

< OOC: It appears my models projected this one wrong. >

Watch out for Kenny.... :(

< OOC: It appears my models projected this one wrong. >

More like those loons who "celebrate" by shooting off guns into the air. Those bullets do come back down eventually, y'know, sometimes on your own head.

How about another analogy? How about a clueless wonder that decides to practice his quick draw and shoots himself in the foot -- then keeps on pulling the trigger?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

< OOC: It appears my models projected this one wrong. >

OOC: I was pleased to see you've returned to the game. Please keep those polls coming, they are interesting to see.

More like those loons who "celebrate" by shooting off guns into the air. Those bullets do come back down eventually, y'know, sometimes on your own head.

Didn't MythBusters prove that bullets shot in the air won't kill? (Yeah, they still come down ... unless Mikitivity's Kugelluftschiff can get there in time and catch those crazy bullets!)

Actually, that's true if they're shot straight up in the air, because they don't fall along their aerodynamic lines. However, if it falls in anything resembling a ballistic arch, they can cause serious harm.

*watches more and more "Against" votes tally up, smacks Excel around like an unruly child*

I'm not certain what the term TG means, please remember, I'm new here.

OOC: "TG" is short for "telegram."

I spoke my mind in the forums, and I hope I made it easier for others to do the same.

OOC: You should realise that only a very small minority of those who vote on proposals ever actually read the official threads here. The debate here is largely for our own amusement and roleplaying. To reach the voting masses, one has to TG delegates directly on the NS site, which can be an extremely time-consuming venture.

< OOC: It appears my models projected this one wrong. >

OOC: Indeed, but to be fair, your model couldn't have predicted some lunatic would come along and organise a TG campaign against it at the last minute. ;)


And back IC:

How about another analogy? How about a clueless wonder that decides to practice his quick draw and shoots himself in the foot -- then keeps on pulling the trigger?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Hey, I like that one even better! You've got a drink on me coming to you in the bar for that little gem!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN