NationStates Jolt Archive

Imperfectia, UN lurker and founder of the region of Uroca raised this issue on our regional forum. He pointed out how few pieces of UN legislation seem to reach quarom these days, especially considering how many good and well thoguth out pieces we've seen. Coupled with the lack of decisive(not fluffy) proposals and general decline in activity, this paints a somewhat bleak picture for the future of the NSUN, and the whole game.

Given the importance of the issue, I thought it might be a good idea to bring this up before the intellectual elite of our proud fictionverse and discuss what must be done about the future of this virtual society.

I'll take a lack of good proposals reaching quorum over even one bad proposal reaching quorum any day.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yeah, this seems to crop up every time we have a few days without something in queue. It's utterly untrue every time.

A simple statistical analysis of the UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) will quickly show that we've had 12-20 proposals hit queue every quarter since the UN really got rolling in 2003. The fact that we had a particularly strong first quarter 2007 hasn't prevented 13 proposals from making quorum thus far in the 2nd quarter, nor is the failure rate particularly notable.

I don't see anything wrong. It's normal statistical variation.

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, the prolonged lack of anything to vote on is boring, and trust me, it's dangerous to let goblins get bored! :) OTOH, a lot of proposals are steaming piles, including the ones that DO reach the floor. I don't really want to see the standards lower than they are now.

Trust me; you don't want to make it any easier:--- UN Proposals Removed ---
1236 : Frisbeeteria
795 : The Most Glorious Hack

From Wed Sep 6 03:59:08 2006 to Mon Jun 11 23:41:47 2007.

this paints a somewhat bleak picture for the future of the NSUN.

Good.

Hail natsov.

I havn't seen a good UN proposal worthy of getting through recently. I guess I'm biased though, and what I might think of as good might not be the same for everyone else.

I havn't seen a good UN proposal worthy of getting through recently. I guess I'm biased though, and what I might think of as good might not be the same for everyone else.

Indeed. Not many of us would be as keen as you might be on a proposal granting an inalienable right to lapdances. ;)

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

May I ask what good proposals?

May I ask what good proposals?

Quite. I haven't seen any "good" proposals in awhile. Only several poor ones.

Off to the Stranger's Bar, I guess. Drinks on me.

I'll take a lack of good proposals reaching quorum over even one bad proposal reaching quorum any day.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Representive Flibble;

I couldn't have said it better myself. While I am pretty much in the Natsov camp, I am not on all issues. I would rather have 1000 decent proposals shot down or not hit the floor than one terrible one.

Alexei Gramiko
Zrywickian UN Ambassador

Although I have seen few good proposals, I have seen a few. And none have reached quorom. I used to be a regional delegate, and I would patrol the proposals to see which ones were endorsement worthy. The reason so few proposals reach quorom is because of the lack of what i did. Too few delegates search the proposals for good ones due to the massive ammounts of bad ones that are submitted daily. The bad ones make them not want to look for the good ones, and thus the good ones never recieve enough visibility to reach quorom.

Its not just that they aren't getting in quorum, the good ones aren't getting voted in.

e.g. The UN Funding et al.

I am one of those regional delegates that practically LIVES in the proposal queue. Personally, I believe it is the responsibility of every delegate to check the proposals on a regular and semi-frequent basis. What irks me is when I find an actually decent proposal that is worthy not only of my approval but also of my assistance in a telegram campaign, and the delegates I telegram answer me TWO WEEKS LATER saying that they wish they could endorse but they just don't feel like actually fulfilling their delegate responsibilities when the members of their region don't seem to care one way or the other what they do.

One thing to bear in mind is, useful as the UN Timeline is for many purposes, it gives a slightly skewed view of activity. If four proposals reach quorum within a few days - not unknown, last year and earlier this year - and then nothing happens for three weeks, those 20 days will show up on the UN Timeline as uniformly active - one proposal coming to vote every 5 days.

Repeal "UN Biological Weapons Ban" and UN Bio Agent Convention were in quick succession but took months of drafting. Right now, there is a repeal of "End Slavery" being drafted, and a hopeful replacement, but that project has been underway for some time: if the repeal is submitted, and if it reaches quorum, and if etc. etc., then the UN Timeline will still not show it as being any different to a proposal drafted in 5 minutes and hurried to quorum.

There are at least a couple of 'good' - let's leave aside the arrogance of that judgment for now - proposals being drafted. So why hurry them up? We don't have to have proposals at vote all the time, do we? I don't see what the bother is about.

As to the origins of this discussion:
Ok, so lately it seems that UN members can not get their resolutions to quoram to be voted upon by the rest of the assembly. Why is that?
I disagree with 'can't', because that would imply it's suddenly harder. I see no evidence of this: all I see is that no one who knows how to a) TG and b) write a legal proposal has submitted a proposal with intent to get it to quorum lately. So the complaint is null.
Is it because the proposed resolutions are crap?
No: how good a proposal is has little bearing on whether it reaches quorum or not.
Is it because not enough people are writng resolutions anymore?
No: the proposal queue has had more proposals of late than it did when several had reached quorum. This generally happens.
Does it mean that the UN is becoming irrelavant to the game?
No: if anything else, we're all having kittens about a couple of days of inactivity, suggesting the UN isn't irrelevant.
Perhaps the Summer lull has struck early?
The only drop in activity has been in people sending TGs: there've been plenty of posts on this forum and offsite ones, and plenty of proposals submitted. So, no.
I think as older members pass out of the system after a few years it takes others to step up to the mark. I don't want to sound like an old record, but it's happened with Fl here...he did so much people were used to feeding off his thoughts and resolutions etc. Now he is gone someone or several need to step up to the mark and fill the gap. Basically, only will be achieved by someone making an extra effort who is here, or keeping recruiting until we find someone. I believe there is enough potential here.
Not trying to snipe at FL, but he never wrote a resolution: he had a co-author credit on a couple, but one of those was repealed and one of those probably shouldn't have been credited to him (my fault, not his). And plenty of other active legislators are still around.
Basically I see a lull because few controversial issues have any potential to succeed, having already been tried or being highly opposed.
There may be something in this, but in my view a controversial issue would at least stir up activity.
And really those are the ones that people care most to write and put effort into. Others take the easy option and put forward smaller issues, but do so pathetically.
Well, I can only disagree, although not with very much vigour given how little justification is given for the 'pathetically' tag
I think the bigger issue is simply too many UN Delegates, and too few who support proposals. Too many of them simply seem to ignore proposals and their duty to vote, resulting in making it impossible for a proposal to reach quarom.
Crap. The number of delegates and approvals - as, oddly, the poster seems to acknowledge later on - is significantly down. They used to need 130-140 approvals, not just 110-115. And there is no 'duty' for delegates to approve proposals.
I hate to say it, but for the last half year or more I think we've been watching the slow decline of NationStates.
Even if this is true, it was being said when I first joined, two years ago. And people who had been playing the game for two years then said it had been being said from when they started. We'll only truly know NS is dead when there's no one left to whinge about the game dying.
But regardless, for whatever reasons, the UN does not seem to be able to even get things to vote.
Once again, I don't see that people aren't able to now, where they were before. It has been the case one needed a TG campaign to get a proposal to quorum for a very long time; and where there's no fire, there's not likely to be any smoke.
but I think solid and well written proposals shouldn't have much trouble reaching quoram... *shrug*
Well, that's nice, but that's never been the case. Not before, when the UN was 'active'; not now, when not having a proposal at vote for a few days causes the WORLD TO END.
You know what the scariest thing of all is? The UN's current slump began almost exactly when Cluich left.
As with FL, that would have no bearing on proposals reaching quorum.

(And, not hugely relevant to this thread:
The problem with FSA repeal is that there's no real point in repealing a blocker unless you want to propose what it blocks.
And finally, the penny drops.
In terms of other resolution ideas, I have a draft of a possible replacement for MPA lying around, but I not a repeal draft.
Ok, well there's a staggeringly bad idea for starters.)

Not trying to snipe at FL, but he never wrote a resolution: he had a co-author credit on a couple, but one of those was repealed and one of those probably shouldn't have been credited to him (my fault, not his). And plenty of other active legislators are still around.
That quote was about his regional activity, not his activity in the UN.
And finally, the penny drops.
What penny? In case you've forgotten, I was not the one who repealed FSA. Imperfectia gave me persmission to use his draft a while back, but I haven't done so because of that very reason.
Ok, well there's a staggeringly bad idea for starters.)
I was talking long-term there. Hell, the replacement I have is a complete pile of crap. Obviously I'm not going to start drafting a replacement without drafting a repeal. I posted it in that thread because I was wondering if a member of Uroca wanted to draft a repeal. A suggestion to region members on a regional forum? Unfathomable!

That quote was about his regional activity, not his activity in the UN.
It was drawing a parallel; as was I.
What penny? In case you've forgotten, I was not the one who repealed FSA. Imperfectia gave me persmission to use his draft a while back, but I haven't done so because of that very reason.
The penny that repealing a national rights proposal is hard when you have nothing to offer in its stead, something those pushing the repeals of ACL and FSA were singularly blind to at the time.
I was talking long-term there. Hell, the replacement I have is a complete pile of crap. Obviously I'm not going to start drafting a replacement without drafting a repeal. I posted it in that thread because I was wondering if a member of Uroca wanted to draft a repeal. A suggestion to region members on a regional forum? Unfathomable!
If I said to my regionmates 'let's go kill someone and dump their body in a ravine', yes, I think it would be pretty unfathomable. The Marriage Protection Act is a perfectly good resolution: its author is hardly a sovereigntist outlaw (although I'm sure there's a barstool reserved all the same).

My point was: a lot of these complaints aren't even very rational to begin with, so let's not get too worked up about this being a major cause for concern.

If four proposals reach quorum within a few days - not unknown, last year and earlier this year - and then nothing happens for three weeks, those 20 days will show up on the UN Timeline as uniformly active - one proposal coming to vote every 5 days.Which is why my analysis has always been based on the arbitrary convention of a real-world quarter. From a UN activity perspective, having four top-notch proposals hitting within hours of each other is no more statistically interesting than having them spread out over three months. Overall, activity remains fairly constant.

Well, I can only disagree, although not with very much vigour given how little justification is given for the 'pathetically' tag
There has never been a shortage of pathetically awful small proposals. Hack and I delete the illegal ones, and I've always assumed that everyone else simply ignored the idiotic but legal ones whilst paying attention to the well-crafted ones. As a general rule, the quality of proposals that reach quorum seems to back my thesis.

Crap. The number of delegates and approvals - as, oddly, the poster seems to acknowledge later on - is significantly down. They used to need 130-140 approvals, not just 110-115. One factor not often considered is Mod activity. Taking down a few multis can reduce the number of illegally-elected delegates rather dramatically. You'd be surprised at the number of idiots who create half a dozen nations specifically to have three regions with their own delegates, only to lose them a few days later. When we're more active, we catch more of them.


This game waxes and wanes with some regularity. Max isn't worried about it. [violet] isn't worried about it. The mods aren't worried about it. Why should you worry? If you want to see more activity, invite a friend or six.

Seeing as everyone knows the business of the region of Uroca and all our motives for discussing things when we do, how we do, and why we do, I think its great that what we discussed as a region on our own forums was brought over here and posted. Heck, I was even quoted!

I have no problem with DancingBananland mentioning that we were discussing this topic in our region and looking for anwers or thoughts from this community. What I do find a bit irritating is that comments from me, and a couple other players from my region were used here, and appearantly *refuted*, and yet the posted didn't bother to let us know that our words have now been quoted on jolt for the entire NS community to see. At least post somthing in the original discussion so that we know to come over here to make a pretense at defending our names and motives before you tell us how wrong we all are. :rolleyes:

All NS players are more than welcome to join the discussion on our regional forum, but I would ask that a little more tact and less arrogance be used next time when posting things that had not been asked to the entire UN body.

It was drawing a parallel; as was I.

The penny that repealing a national rights proposal is hard when you have nothing to offer in its stead, something those pushing the repeals of ACL and FSA were singularly blind to at the time.
Fine.
If I said to my regionmates 'let's go kill someone and dump their body in a ravine', yes, I think it would be pretty unfathomable. The Marriage Protection Act is a perfectly good resolution: its author is hardly a sovereigntist outlaw (although I'm sure there's a barstool reserved all the same).
That is your opinion. I happen to dislike that resolution. Will I try to repeal it? Possibly. Is it going to happen soon? Not a chance. I would like to point out that Uroca is generally an IntFed-leaning region.
My point was: a lot of these complaints aren't even very rational to begin with, so let's not get too worked up about this being a major cause for concern.
I'm not disagreeing with that when I suggest.

Seeing as everyone knows the business of the region of Uroca and all our motives for discussing things when we do, how we do, and why we do, I think its great that what we discussed as a region on our own forums was brought over here and posted. Heck, I was even quoted!

I have no problem with DancingBananland mentioning that we were discussing this topic in our region and looking for anwers or thoughts from this community. What I do find a bit irritating is that comments from me, and a couple other players from my region were used here, and appearantly *refuted*, and yet the posted didn't bother to let us know that our words have now been quoted on jolt for the entire NS community to see. At least post somthing in the original discussion so that we know to come over here to make a pretense at defending our names and motives before you tell us how wrong we all are. :rolleyes:

All NS players are more than welcome to join the discussion on our regional forum, but I would ask that a little more tact and less arrogance be used next time when posting things that had not been asked to the entire UN body.They're posted in a public forum and as such are fair game. If you don't want public comments to be posted elsewhere for public digestion, make your UN Discussion forum members-only. Then you may have an actual grievance when members disclose comments posted there.

I swear, if I hear one more person pissing and moaning about the failure of the first UNFA, I'm gonna break the nearest pitcher of Weizen over their head.


Respectfully,
Brigadier (Ret.) Marcus Diegaus III
RFGI Rep

I swear, if I hear one more person pissing and moaning about the failure of the first UNFA, I'm gonna break the nearest pitcher of Weizen over their head.


Respectfully,
Brigadier (Ret.) Marcus Diegaus III
RFGI Rep
Why all the anger, honored ambassador?? You know, if UNFA turned out differently, we would not have to ask the source of funding every time we make a resolution that has teeth. And, you seem to have posted it in the wrong thread - UNFA was mentioned over here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529765). They are talking about how we seemed to lack things to vote upon and bicker about these days.

Kyle di Fontana
Just an eighteen-year-old guy working at the Nord-Brutlandese UN Mission

--snip--
What OMGTKK said, plus: this entire thread consists of 'someone on our forum said x'. It's not wildly unreasonable to check out that they actually did say x, and in what way. And if you don't want such matters discussed, then perhaps keep them to your own forum.

Anyway, while you're here, maybe you could provide some evidence for:
Ok, so lately it seems that UN members can not get their resolutions to quoram to be voted upon by the rest of the assembly

I'm afraid I stand to support Imperfectia. Whilst being a public forum, allowing anyone to use it at their free will, it is noted that DBL did not use exact quotations from our forum presumably because he saw what the Uroca forum was....an attempt to stimulate discussion, not state clear facts with bountiful evidence. The conclusions to this discussion, based on several peoples views were brought in a different light to the UN to see whether they were actually true. Why not see why things discussed are true? But there is no need to refer back to another forum to pick apart loosely discussed issues. Context!

In making reference to Fl I was indeed making a parallel, but a parallel needn't be exact action for action. Nowhere did I suggest that FL had made many UN resolutions. Merely I was using the general theme. I think the members of Uroca were clear on that and knew what Fl had done in the UN. If people here want to take bits from a discussion on our forum to here, please do so at least understanding the context.

They're posted in a public forum and as such are fair game.

For linking, yes. For including in a QUOTE box without attribution, no.

I must admit it threw me to read a quote of conversations that I knew hadn't occurred in this thread. Common courtesy when referencing other forums would be to link it at the very least.

I'd also be very cautious about quoting by player name, as I know that I haven't created a 'Frisbeeteria' account on Uroca's forum, but that doesn't prevent someone from impersonating me there. I sure as hell don't want somebody considering a statement by some impersonator muppet on another site as authoritative here.

I'm not going to go so far as to add this to the One Stop Rules Shop, but I'd group it in the 'malicious' group of offenses. Don't do it again.

Why all the anger, honored ambassador?? You know, if UNFA turned out differently, we would not have to ask the source of funding every time we make a resolution that has teeth. And, you seem to have posted it in the wrong thread - UNFA was mentioned over here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529765). They are talking about how we seemed to lack things to vote upon and bicker about these days.

Kyle di Fontana
Just an eighteen-year-old guy working at the Nord-Brutlandese UN Mission

Honorable di Fontana:

It pisses me off, because while everyone complains about it, no one will put another one up. Ergo, people are only complaining for the sake of complaining, to point the finger at those who initially voted against the First UNFA saying "If voted for it in the first place, we wouldn't have to ask these same questions over and over."

Hence my anger.

Insolence shouldn't be tolerated by ambassadors plenipotentiary of sovereign nations. They are supposed to be learned men, women, beasts, and gnomes. Not children.


M. Diegaus, III
RFGI Rep

Honorable di Fontana:

It pisses me off, because while everyone complains about it, no one will put another one up.

M. Diegaus, III
RFGI Rep

If I recall correctly, the delegation from Karmicaria is working on one, be patient.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Quite. I haven't seen any "good" proposals in awhile. Only several poor ones.

Off to the Stranger's Bar, I guess. Drinks on me.

I'm in agreeance there.

I'm not going to go so far as to add this to the One Stop Rules Shop, but I'd group it in the 'malicious' group of offenses. Don't do it again.Good thing, then, that I never did it to begin with...

Good thing, then, that I never did it to begin with...

Damn the English language for its failure to include a decent 'implied second person plural' form.

Damn the English language for its failure to include a decent 'implied second person plural' form.

Y'all?
:-)

Alright, as the starter of the thread I must say I never meant to start a heated debate. I was simply trying to start the discussion of what(if anything) might be wrong with the United Nations. I quoted the Uroca post simply to credit Imperfectia with bringing the issue to attention and starting discussion. Why QoD had to go through the Uroca thread and arguementativley destroy all the "claims" is beyond me.

Now, can we get back on topic and disucss the current nature of the UN, or should we just request a modlock?

Now, can we get back on topic and disucss the current nature of the UN, or should we just request a modlock?

I think we've had plenty of discussion on the current nature of the UN, and the general consensus is that there is nothing much wrong with it.

We don't lock threads just because people have run out of things to say.

I was simply trying to start the discussion of what(if anything) might be wrong with the United Nations. [*snip*] Why QoD had to go through the Uroca thread and arguementativley destroy all the "claims" is beyond me.
It's generally referred to as "discussing the issue."

I gotta agree with the motion.
Scanning thorugh the motions that have only one or two endorsements (as my motions seem to usually lie in those backwoods :( ), there is admittedly many badly phrased and just plain silly notions, but then there are also a lot of good ones that are (or or) well phrased etc. but don't seem to make it very far up the charts. In fact, some of them seem far better than the motions at vote!
My theory is that, like other MMO's, friends get friends to support their notion, and other people only bother to look at the first 10.
The solution would be to stop bias towards friends, and to look through the lower-down proposals as well.

and to look through the lower-down proposals as well.

Proposals are listed in the order they're submitted, as proposals run out of time or are deleted the others move up.

My theory is that, like other MMO's, friends get friends to support their notion, and other people only bother to look at the first 10.

The solution would be to stop bias towards friends, and to look through the lower-down proposals as well.

Alternatively, you could tell people about your proposal by (say) drafting it in public and telegramming delegates to get their approval. Like the successful ones do.