NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the goal of the UN?
The UN is the sum of nations and nations make decisions thus the UN must work for the nations. Doing more good than bad or in ohter words have a positive net welfare effect on nations.

Does the UN accomplish this?
A Simple model
Lets try to answer this question with a simplified model. It may not be very realistic, but hopefully it allows us to draw some valid conclusions. Lets assume that there are two main groups in the UN: the majority (consisting out of 6000 natios) and the minority (consisting out of 4000 nations). The nations in each group are indentical and always vote the same. Nations are rational and they always act in their own best interest. The UN is allowed to pass any legislation it wants to, and it has the same restrictions as the NSUN. Nations are free to join and to leave the UN.

Say a proposal comes at vote (for example the union proposal because it is still fresh in our minds) and the majority is for it and the minority opposes it. The proposal will pass with 6000 votes for and 4000 votes against. The nations that have voted for gain and those that are against loose welfare. Now imagine that a number of these proposals come at vote, the majority will keep gaining welfare at the cost of the minority. Being rational countries, it would be very masochistic of the minority to stay in the UN. They will realize that while the UN might be good for other countries, it isnt good for theirs and thus they leave.

Now the UN consists out of 6000 identical countries that are always in agreement with eachother passing proposals with unanimity.

We return to our previous question and ask if the UN has succeeded in maximizing welfare of all the 10 000 nations. I will argue that this UN has failed to do so. The minority has left the UN and has turned back all the UN laws. The UN has done nothing for the minority. Has the UN done anything for the majority. Surely yes, they all voted for the proposal so their welfare has increased. But is this really the case? Some things, like unions, can be organized just aswell on the national level as at the level of the UN. So it is reasonable to assume that these countries, firmly believing in unions, would have passed national legislation that unions are allowed with or without a UN. Even for the majority the UN has changed absolutely nothing. So the net welfare effect for the world is zero. Except for providing a forum for the majority to debate on how much they agree with eachother, nothing has changed. This UN has not accomplished its goals.

flaws in the model
However if we look at the reality (the NSUN) we don't see what the model says that should happen. There are no mass resignations from the UN nor are all proposals passed with unanimity. Now I look at why these things do not happen. I believe the answer of this lies in the assumptions of the model. Perhaps there aren't two identical groups but several groups and each nation can be in more groups then one (for example: socialist vs capitist, individualism vs society,...) this would allow that nations can agree with some propasals that have passed and disagree with some, but still have a positive net welfare effect. I argue that there is a certain truth to this, but we still can see two groups quite clear.

The first group are Western Democracies, (I borrow this phrase from a bestseller book called real world) they are the majority. They believe strongly in human rights, democracy, indvidual freedom. They also believe that these rights are not something each individual nation can decide but something that the UN has to enforce. These rights are, in their eyes, universal and fundamental. But they think too much as citizens and not as nations. What they see as universal and fundamental is subjective and valueloaded. There is no right or wrong. A nation can just as well believe that a fundamental right is that citizens can be opprossed or that it is universally good to discriminate against one group. The nations that believe this form the other group and Ill call them police states.

Even though I said earlier that there is no right or wrong in this, in the UN someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. Since the majority wins the vote, the majority is always right.

Another possible reason why nations don't leave the UN (and I believe this to be the most important one) is that they dont recognize the consequences of UN membership. If a proposal passes the only effect on them is that they receive a telegram. I believe that if the consequences (economic or politic collapse of a nation) would be more severe, nations would leave the UN for it. Nations that act in their best interest dont mind being in this UN because they dont experience the negative side. This is mostly due to an imperfection in the world (read game) and in this case we must think about what should happen and not at what does happen.

An alternative UN
More choices
From what I have said above you might believe that I see no role at all for the UN. However I do see a role for the UN. The UN's goal still should be to maximize the welfare of nations but under current rules it cannot do so. I believe the UN should give nations more choices, not less. Proposals like the union one for example restrict choices for nations. Rational nations prefere more choices to less choices. In our union example, nations loose to choice to allow unions and thus they loose welfare. This is logical, if you allow someone to choose A or you allow him to choose A or B, then he can not be worse off. The extra is at least equally good or better.

National level vs UN
An important rule in governance is that if something can be decided at a lower level of government, it should be decided at the lowest possible level. Only when it cannot be decided at a lower level (for example national level) then it should be decided on a higher level (UN level).

If we dont follow the two rules stated above, the UN will turn out to be a group of like minded people deciding internationally what they have already decided nationally. What kind of issues are left for the UN to decide on? I will end my long plea with some examples:

-an international trade court to settle disputes
-an international union deal with multinational organisations
-...

Excellent opinion piece.

My question is 'what is to be done?' (especially within the 'game' as the consequences are lacking to 'prove' or experiment with your ideas.)

Some ideas?:
-rally nations together to act upon these ideas in the form of a 'voting block' (and 'debate squad'?) within the current UN, and/or another international body that models an improved process (more choices, distinction between national and international issues, etc.)
-creating consequences –I’m not sure how it really works, but there may be a way in which the daily issues can used to affect member nations (i.e. making it ‘illegal’ to select certain choices that would violate international resolutions?….) This still poses problems of excessive amounts of work to determine what issues apply and enforcing, as well as the 'meddling in national affairs' line….
-In any case, I think the best way is to gradually model and demonstrate the ‘better way’ of governance, and through persistence, gain a majority of support…..

Just some thoughts, some may be useless, some may prompt better ideas, etc. Perhaps, just discussing the issues is sufficient and action unnecessary in this ‘arena’.?
I would certainly enjoy hearing more on this topic and from other parties interested in improving the UN…..

Well, I won't be having a problem with insomnia for a while...

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

:headbang:hear,hear,i believe that since this has passed that there is a real possibility that unions will become all powerful and begin to buck the government of their nation,now what,what will the nation do,go to (war ) ie civil war?this opens the box of instability.

-rally nations together to act upon these ideas in the form of a 'voting block' (and 'debate squad'?) within the current UN, and/or another international body that models an improved process (more choices, distinction between national and international issues, etc.)


other then forming 'voting blovk', y not increase the percentage that have to agree in order for anything to pass through to be more then 50%, for example, 60-65%. This would show that it is more then the majority that agree on it.

Anyway, in the real world, minority is very difficult to be heard. They are just too small. Would you give up the whole forest for a few trees?

Excellent opinion piece.

My question is 'what is to be done?' (especially within the 'game' as the consequences are lacking to 'prove' or experiment with your ideas.)

Some ideas?:
-rally nations together to act upon these ideas in the form of a 'voting block' (and 'debate squad'?) within the current UN, and/or another international body that models an improved process (more choices, distinction between national and international issues, etc.)
-creating consequences –I’m not sure how it really works, but there may be a way in which the daily issues can used to affect member nations (i.e. making it ‘illegal’ to select certain choices that would violate international resolutions?….) This still poses problems of excessive amounts of work to determine what issues apply and enforcing, as well as the 'meddling in national affairs' line….
It would be great if we could create some real consequences if proposals pass. Even if it would make the NS game more realistic I doubt that we can change the game itself. Another more feasable way would be to pass some UN legislation, but I doubt we will have support for that.

-In any case, I think the best way is to gradually model and demonstrate the ‘better way’ of governance, and through persistence, gain a majority of support…..


I for one will surely try to get as many people as possible to read my text and convince them that it is right.


:headbang:hear,hear,i believe that since this has passed that there is a real possibility that unions will become all powerful and begin to buck the government of their nation,now what,what will the nation do,go to (war ) ie civil war?this opens the box of instability.

My point even goes further. My problem isnt so much that if legislation passes that can be organized on a national level just as well that it would destabilize many countries. My point is that nations will realize the consequences of this legislation and they would rather leave than apply the regulation. I think I can express my self more clear by using an example, say: a UN law that forbids slavery.

The goal, no doubt a very noble goal, the UN has in mind when it passes such a proposal is to make all slavery disappear in the world and not only all slavery in the UN. Say you are a country that relies heavely on slavery and the UN wants to ban slavery. You will realize that this is very bad and a nation without slavery is just not how you see your utopia. You will therefor leave the UN, because being in the UN has a huge disadvantage, but no advantages.

A bit later the UN wants to pass a law, that can also be organized on a national level just aswell, that you really agree with. Would you join the UN and pass both laws or will you stay out of the UN and only pass the 2nd law. Again the UN has no advantages but some clear disadvantage. In this case the UN hasnt accomplished anything. There is just as much slavery in the world itself.

Of course the UN doesn't only pass laws that can be done on the national level just aswell. There are laws for which you need international coorporation . One could argue that the UN has some advantages, even for a country with slavery. The international issues that the UN solves, can be used as leverage to make slavery countries forbid slavery if they want to join the UN.

However I think this leverage, no matter how moral and noble in intent is wrong, will ultimatly fail aswell. Because it will create an inbalance. The majority, who always agrees with the proposals, has no cost of UN membership (they agree with the national level laws) but they have the advantages of the internatial level laws. The other countries, the minority, disagrees with all the national level laws, and thus have a cost of being in the UN. The minority will percieve this as unfair. They will not like that to gain the benefits of the UNs international laws, they should give up parts of their national identity to become more like the majority.

Eventually the stress will be too large and the minority will leave the UN, to start its own UN. When this happens the world gets polarised and war isnt far away. The UN has created a black-and-white world.


other then forming 'voting blovk', y not increase the percentage that have to agree in order for anything to pass through to be more then 50%, for example, 60-65%. This would show that it is more then the majority that agree on it.

Anyway, in the real world, minority is very difficult to be heard. They are just too small. Would you give up the whole forest for a few trees?

I think that one possible way to make sure that the UN is less biased is: when a proposal comes to vote at least 20% of each specific UN category has to vote for so that even minorities have some influence. After all we want to be a UN for all nations, not just some.

In my continued reading about the UN and how it works (on NS), I found that there are supposedly consequences coded into the game when a resolution is passed. ? There was a bit about how UN members would leave the UN when a resolution that they disagree with is about to pass and then rejoin after it passes to avoid the consequences? (Any comments as to the validity of this and what do we think about that 'loophole'....?)

I think the 20% of each nation caegory is an interesting idea, though some might argue that this would give 'too much' power and make it very difficult to pass anything. (Which for this discussion, might be preferrable as only the 'very best' legislation would get passed....)
As for applications of this idea, this type of representation might be able to be attempted in bringing drafts to quorum..?

I do concur with statements about the UN becoming a divisive body as opposed to a peace making and compromising body due to the majority's ability to dismiss the minority's needs/wants.....

I agree with the current tack of 'spreading the word'. Certainly, a minority might have a hard time being heard, but, especially in this format, a vocal minority might have some influence.

The UN must work for people; not nations.

With regard to nations, they have one absolute right - the right be be a member or not a member of the UN. Why they choose to be a member (or not) is entirely up to them; I'd hope they have a little more stomach rather than resigning just because an ickle tiny wesolution didn't go their way.

In my continued reading about the UN and how it works (on NS), I found that there are supposedly consequences coded into the game when a resolution is passed. ? There was a bit about how UN members would leave the UN when a resolution that they disagree with is about to pass and then rejoin after it passes to avoid the consequences? (Any comments as to the validity of this and what do we think about that 'loophole'....?)

I think the 20% of each nation caegory is an interesting idea, though some might argue that this would give 'too much' power and make it very difficult to pass anything. (Which for this discussion, might be preferrable as only the 'very best' legislation would get passed....)
As for applications of this idea, this type of representation might be able to be attempted in bringing drafts to quorum..?

I do concur with statements about the UN becoming a divisive body as opposed to a peace making and compromising body due to the majority's ability to dismiss the minority's needs/wants.....

I agree with the current tack of 'spreading the word'. Certainly, a minority might have a hard time being heard, but, especially in this format, a vocal minority might have some influence.

Yes, apparently resolutions affect your Nation's statistics (hence the need to categorize them and specify their strength). I don't think that all players in the UN know this, else they might be more likely to skip out to avoid the effects of resolutions and then rejoin. Then again, given the nature of the categorization process, I'm not sure that there are ever any negative consequences coded into the resolutions.

Now read the explanations again and say that with a straight face.

I'm more and more of the opinion that this thread belongs in the Technical forum, not here.

I'm more and more of the opinion that this thread belongs in the Technical forum, not here.

And I'm more and more convinced that this thread simply needs to die. All it is, is more pointless whiny bitching about the way the UN works, the same way it's worked since the game started.

In my continued reading about the UN and how it works (on NS), I found that there are supposedly consequences coded into the game when a resolution is passed. ?

There may be some consequences but probably they aren't very accurate.

There was a bit about how UN members would leave the UN when a resolution that they disagree with is about to pass and then rejoin after it passes to avoid the consequences? (Any comments as to the validity of this and what do we think about that 'loophole'....?)
I thought that when you joined the UN you needed to comply with previous UN laws aswell.

[/quote]I think the 20% of each nation caegory is an interesting idea, though some might argue that this would give 'too much' power and make it very difficult to pass anything. (Which for this discussion, might be preferrable as only the 'very best' legislation would get passed....)
As for applications of this idea, this type of representation might be able to be attempted in bringing drafts to quorum..?

I do concur with statements about the UN becoming a divisive body as opposed to a peace making and compromising body due to the majority's ability to dismiss the minority's needs/wants.....

I agree with the current tack of 'spreading the word'. Certainly, a minority might have a hard time being heard, but, especially in this format, a vocal minority might have some influence.[/QUOTE]

The 20% I mentioned was a purely random number. The exact number is yet to be determined. I only know that it should be more than 0 and less than 50. The general idea behind this is that it gives each group a veto right. If you have a country with two demographic groups for example 51% Huts and 49% Tuts, then the Huts have the absolute majority. If the national tax level was 20% for both groups, the Huts could pass a vote that they themself pay 0% taxes and the Tuts pay little over 40%. Of course most people will feel that this isnt very fair. Even if the Tuts dont have the majority they should be able to say no and veto any law that specificly hurts them as a group.

The UN must work for people; not nations.
A very noble thing to say and I applaud you for it. However this is only true in a perfect world. People don't have the right to vote in the UN, only nations do. And it is true that some nations do (more or less) what is best for the people, this surely doesnt count for all nations. These nations will vote for what is in their best intrest and not in the interest of the people. You can say that the UN must work for people, but it will work for nations and we have to accept this reality.


With regard to nations, they have one absolute right - the right be be a member or not a member of the UN. Why they choose to be a member (or not) is entirely up to them; I'd hope they have a little more stomach rather than resigning just because an ickle tiny wesolution didn't go their way.
They do indeed have the right to leave and they will leave as soon as the costs of membership become greater than the benefits, as I have explained earlier. If its a proposal that nations dont really care about than they won't leave the UN for it. However the UN passes more than one proposal and they vary in strength. It is not hard to conceive that eventually the costs will become greater. For a slave nation, abolishing slavery will be go at a great cost (no doubt it will benefit the people of this nation but they have no say in this), this nation will leave the UN as you have suggested they should do. However, if they leave and keep slavery, the UN hasnt really abolished world slavery, now has it? If the UN next addopts a law (for example that 6packs should now be 8packs) this slave nation can still adopt that law if it thinks its a good law. IT doesnt need the UN for this.

It is easy to say that other nations shouldnt be so paranoid about giving up sovereinity while passing a law that abolishes slavery in a nation that has abolished slavery already. Some nations (the evil ones) will have to give up systematicly more sovereinity than others (the good ones) and this makes the UN a divisive organ instead of a uniting.


Yes, apparently resolutions affect your Nation's statistics (hence the need to categorize them and specify their strength). I don't think that all players in the UN know this, else they might be more likely to skip out to avoid the effects of resolutions and then rejoin. Then again, given the nature of the categorization process, I'm not sure that there are ever any negative consequences coded into the resolutions.

I dont really know anything about the consequences coded in the game but I dont think that when your economy depends totally on slavery and you join the UN who forbids you to have slavery, that your country will fall apart.

Now read the explanations again and say that with a straight face.

I'm more and more of the opinion that this thread belongs in the Technical forum, not here..

Although some matters raised here are about the technical aspect of the game, most of these issues can be solved by IC resolutions. I believe that I have a bigger chance of getting people to pass a resolution than to make people recode the game (even if both of the chances are very small), I prefer to have this topic here.

And I'm more and more convinced that this thread simply needs to die. All it is, is more pointless whiny bitching about the way the UN works, the same way it's worked since the game started.

If you dont like this thread you are free to ignore it. However I will say that having the opinion that something is wrong and feel that it can be improved doesnt necessarly have to be whiny bitching. Since when do we stop to try to change the world for the better just because some people are more comfortable with the way it is now. It is not because something has been wrong since the beginning of time, that we have an excuse not to fix it.

Try to get this through your exceedingly thick skull: THE UN IS ONLY LIMITED TO ITS MEMBERS. THE UN DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE WHOLE MULTIVERSE.

Have a nice day, and do stop complaining, because the system's worked for four years and it's not about to get borked just because someone doesn't like it.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Furthermore, I feel the need to dissect this.

What is the goal of the UN?
The UN is the sum of nations and nations make decisions thus the UN must work for the nations. Doing more good than bad or in ohter words have a positive net welfare effect on nations.

*hysterical laughing*

Does the UN accomplish this?

No.
A Simple model
Lets try to answer this question with a simplified model. It may not be very realistic, but hopefully it allows us to draw some valid conclusions. Lets assume that there are two main groups in the UN: the majority (consisting out of 6000 natios) and the minority (consisting out of 4000 nations). The nations in each group are indentical and always vote the same. Nations are rational and they always act in their own best interest. The UN is allowed to pass any legislation it wants to, and it has the same restrictions as the NSUN. Nations are free to join and to leave the UN.
I hope you realize that none of this is true.

Say a proposal comes at vote (for example the union proposal because it is still fresh in our minds) and the majority is for it and the minority opposes it. The proposal will pass with 6000 votes for and 4000 votes against. The nations that have voted for gain and those that are against loose welfare. Now imagine that a number of these proposals come at vote, the majority will keep gaining welfare at the cost of the minority. Being rational countries, it would be very masochistic of the minority to stay in the UN. They will realize that while the UN might be good for other countries, it isnt good for theirs and thus they leave.

There are no mass resignations.

Now the UN consists out of 6000 identical countries that are always in agreement with eachother passing proposals with unanimity.

There's never unanimous agreements in the UN.

We return to our previous question and ask if the UN has succeeded in maximizing welfare of all the 10 000 nations. I will argue that this UN has failed to do so.

I hope so, because that's not what the UN is here to do.
The minority has left the UN and has turned back all the UN laws. The UN has done nothing for the minority.

That's the minority's own damn fault. They left, and the UN literally can't do anything for them.

Has the UN done anything for the majority. Surely yes, they all voted for the proposal so their welfare has increased.

What is it with you and welfare?

But is this really the case? Some things, like unions, can be organized just as well on the national level as at the level of the UN. So it is reasonable to assume that these countries, firmly believing in unions, would have passed national legislation that unions are allowed with or without a UN. Even for the majority the UN has changed absolutely nothing. So the net welfare effect for the world is zero.

Bzzt, wrong. I'm sorry, we'll have to send you home with a complimentary T-shirt.

Except for providing a forum for the majority to debate on how much they agree with each other,

Reality check: This never happens.

nothing has changed. This UN has not accomplished its goals.

Mainly because the UN doesn't have goals. If it did, those goals would have to be approved by the membership, and that probably wouldn't happen.

flaws in the model
However if we look at the reality (the NSUN) we don't see what the model says that should happen. There are no mass resignations from the UN nor are all proposals passed with unanimity. Now I look at why these things do not happen. I believe the answer of this lies in the assumptions of the model. Perhaps there aren't two identical groups but several groups and each nation can be in more groups then one (for example: socialist vs capitalist, individualism vs society,...) this would allow that nations can agree with some proposals that have passed and disagree with some, but still have a positive net welfare effect. I argue that there is a certain truth to this, but we still can see two groups quite clear.

Enough with the welfare already.

The first group are Western Democracies, (I borrow this phrase from a bestseller book called real world) they are the majority. They believe strongly in human rights, democracy, individual freedom. They also believe that these rights are not something each individual nation can decide but something that the UN has to enforce. These rights are, in their eyes, universal and fundamental. But they think too much as citizens and not as nations. What they see as universal and fundamental is subjective and valueloaded. There is no right or wrong. A nation can just as well believe that a fundamental right is that citizens can be opprossed or that it is universally good to discriminate against one group. The nations that believe this form the other group and Ill call them police states.

So now you've generalized us all down into democracies and police states. Great, thanks. I feel all better knowing that there's absolutely no diversity.

Even though I said earlier that there is no right or wrong in this, in the UN someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. Since the majority wins the vote, the majority is always right.

Not necessarily, hence the repeal function. But then again, the UN is neither right nor wrong. It is also both at the same time. Doublethink.

Another possible reason why nations don't leave the UN (and I believe this to be the most important one) is that they don't recognize the consequences of UN membership. If a proposal passes the only effect on them is that they receive a telegram. I believe that if the consequences (economic or politic collapse of a nation) would be more severe, nations would leave the UN for it. Nations that act in their best interest dont mind being in this UN because they dont experience the negative side. This is mostly due to an imperfection in the world (read game) and in this case we must think about what should happen and not at what does happen.

This has been cleared up, I needn't say anything.


An alternative UN
More choices
From what I have said above you might believe that I see no role at all for the UN.

Don't assume, it makes and ass out of u and me.

However I do see a role for the UN. The UN's goal still should be to maximize the welfare of nations but under current rules it cannot do so. I believe the UN should give nations more choices, not less.

Quit throwing "should"s around and get back to reality. The UN does not pander to you.

Proposals like the union one for example restrict choices for nations. Rational nations prefer more choices to less choices.

I'm from a rational nation, and I'd prefer less choices, given that I don't have to work as hard.

In our union example, nations loose to choice to allow unions and thus they loose welfare.

That's their own fault. They chose to be in the UN. If you're trying to make the UN habitable for everyone you'll fail miserably.

This is logical, if you allow someone to choose A or you allow him to choose A or B, then he can not be worse off. The extra is at least equally good or better.

The logic meter is reading a big circle-shaped thing. Anybody know what that means?

National level vs UN
An important rule in governance is that if something can be decided at a lower level of government, it should be decided at the lowest possible level. Only when it cannot be decided at a lower level (for example national level) then it should be decided on a higher level (UN level).

Since when was this a rule?

If we don't follow the two rules stated above, the UN will turn out to be a group of like minded people deciding internationally what they have already decided nationally.
That's kind of the point. The members of the UN are generally here to force their politics on other nations, though they don't say so.

What kind of issues are left for the UN to decide on? I will end my long plea with some examples:

-an international trade court to settle disputes
-an international union deal with multinational organisations
-...

Both ridiculous and impossible ideas.

The fact is, you have unrealistic expectations of the UN. Because of that, I can only stick my tongue out and go "nyah" at you.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

There may be some consequences but probably they aren't very accurate.Accurate in terms of what? Real life? They're accurate in terms of game design. And if that's what your knickers are in a twist about, then yes, this is pointless bitching as any number of threads before you have proven. A long perusal of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2) is probably a good idea for you.

I do concur with statements about the UN becoming a divisive body as opposed to a peace making and compromising body due to the majority's ability to dismiss the minority's needs/wants.....You seem to be confused and have yet to provide anything other than your own personal view as to the role of the NSUN, which means, of course, that there are alternative views as to its function and role. Your desire to impose your view on others puts your complaint about minority positions in an interesting perspective.

Frankly, the UN seems a little less divisive than it has been in the past. As for compromise, its place, and successfully so, is in the drafting stage. Resolutions that are too one-sided ideologically have a tendency to fail at either the proposal approval stage or on the floor.

The general idea behind this is that it gives each group a veto right.You're talking about game mechanics again. And UN gridlock if such ever occurred. *insert cold day in hell reference*

A very noble thing to say and I applaud you for it. However this is only true in a perfect world. People don't have the right to vote in the UN, only nations do. And it is true that some nations do (more or less) what is best for the people, this surely doesnt count for all nations. These nations will vote for what is in their best intrest and not in the interest of the people. You can say that the UN must work for people, but it will work for nations and we have to accept this reality.Hirota's view of the UN's purpose is no less valid than your own. And no more likely to be encoded.

It is easy to say that other nations shouldnt be so paranoid about giving up sovereinity while passing a law that abolishes slavery in a nation that has abolished slavery already. Some nations (the evil ones) will have to give up systematicly more sovereinity than others (the good ones) and this makes the UN a divisive organ instead of a uniting.Incorrect. The amount of sovereignty given over by nations to be members of the UN is exactly the same. There is also a balance achieved in that there is no single member* out there who is on the losing side of every single resolution passed. If there are, they are most certainly better off not joining. The people that tend to see the UN as divisive and interfering are those who somehow feel that nations shouldn't be affected at all by UN resolutions ... unless they're ones they support. And honestly, why join?

*I'm excluding those who join in order to play the invader/defender aspect of the game. Their UN status frequently changes and the category and govt. type stats aren't a primary consideration.

Although some matters raised here are about the technical aspect of the game, most of these issues can be solved by IC resolutions. I believe that I have a bigger chance of getting people to pass a resolution than to make people recode the game (even if both of the chances are very small), I prefer to have this topic here.I'm curious how you think you'll be able to make permanent changes to the game via IC resolutions. Keep in mind, the UN cannot pass a resolution that places obligations on future actions of the UN.

However I will say that having the opinion that something is wrong and feel that it can be improved doesnt necessarly have to be whiny bitching. That's true, but this thread seems to certainly qualify.

But of course there are plenty of benefits to being in the UN...

1. Getting to cross swords with fluffies can be invigorating.
2. The days the Thessadorian Ambassador wears tight T-shirts to the Hall.
3. Learning about how politics really work by activily soliciting bribes for your vote.
4. Zombie Mutants live in the Basement of the building, thus enabling an excellent way to releive frustrations by kicking mutant zombie butt.
5. Two Words....Strangers Bar
6. Getting to accociate with such fine species of human such as Sen. Horatio Sulla, Jack Riley, Sammy Faisano, Admiral Rusty Shackleford, and Neville the BarLord.
7. Two more words...Destructor Bunnies.
8. The repealing of crap legislation, baby!
9. Driving you enemies before you, plundering their worldly goods, and hearing the lamentations of their womenfolk.....Ooops! Sorry, this is actually the answer to what is true joy in life.:p
10. Watching Iron Felix defenestrate someone. i could watch those for hours at a time. It never gets old.
11. Did I mention the Thessadorian Ambassador?

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

11. Did I mention the Thessadorian Ambassador?

Indeed, but we feel a visual aid is necessary.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

I just can't bring myself to care about this topic. In fact I wager...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y15/cosmicthoughts/roomofcare.jpg

...about this thread.

I believe the esteemed representatives, Dr Jules Hodz and Rubina provided some good counterpoints. However, they inadvertently provided evidence for the general basis of this opinion piece by going to the old, ‘it’s been this way’ status quo and ‘it’s better now than before’ arguments and referring to opposing viewpoints as whining, etc.….. The immediate dismissal and chastising of minority/unpopular opinions is the alienation of the minority and might, therefore, lead to the consequences suggested by the aforementioned theories.
*Also, I don’t think that merely taking individual sections of a piece and refuting them out of context constitutes good debating tactics. For many of the ‘dissections’, it was randomly commenting on something that was not ‘the point’ or merely supporting the original piece (which often presented opinions, problems and theories and then commented on the validity of the theory/opinion, sometimes even stating the counterargument).

I will incorporate some elements of the opposing arguments that seem useful to continued understanding and formation of ideas and continue adding my ‘two geobacters’….
-Certainly, the drafting process seems to be the area that compromise is most likely possible, though I think that indicates and requires that more involvement is needed there. (perhaps a more vocal minority can have an effect there.)
-Indeed, member nations ‘force’ their politics on other nations to varying extents and in fact, varying awareness or knowledge. I think that this is where a foundation of the current debate sits. How does the UN go about serving as a forum for member nations to accomplish such goals without becoming unbalanced in its actions?
Which then leads us to the argument of what is balanced? And even, is balanced good? With our current biases and systems that allow the majority ‘to rule’, can we truly claim that a majority provides balance? (and on we go to places I can’t think of right now…..)
-The perception of divisiveness and reasons for it within the UN are certainly subject to opinion. Also, the purpose of the UN is subject to opinion. Without more open discussion/debate, a clear(er) purpose (or at least, understanding between nations) will be lacking, and thus, perceptions of divisiveness and disagreement will continue to propagate.

Thanks to all that have supplied ‘food for thought’. In Renastere, ‘food for thought’ is more highly valued than food to eat! (thus explaining the physical malnourishment of most of the population.)

Frege Gott

@Akimonad:

I have chosen not to quote you because a large part of the things you said come down to: "I disagree". However after extensive reading (which means reading the replies more than once and not just simply skim through them) of all the replies in here I have found a few things in your reply that I can answer.

First you asked: what is it with me and welfare.
I believe that the UN must have a goal, something it strives to accomplish. If something does not have a goal, one can question if it should exist at all. In my model I have set a very broad goal for the UN, in line with the Utilitarian tradition which believes that the role of a government is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

I also believe that the UN should not only try to achieve the greatest good for the greatest possible number of UN memberstates, but that it should achieve the greatest good for all nations. Perhaps this is too ambitious but I believe it is very shortsighted to say: we only take care of our own and the others arent our problem.

However because happiness is hard to measure and it is hard to conceive what makes a nation happy, I have replaced the word happiness with welfare. I use the term welfare in a very broad sense of the word. It does not only contain welfare in the sense of "more money" but also in terms of well-being. This still feels kind of abstract to me this is why my definition of welfare is even broader. I ask the question: when can a nation not be worse off then before. The answere here is: if a nation has more choices than before.

A simple example: If someone offers you only beer to drink or he offers you wine or beer to drink, you cannot be worse off in the second case. If you still prefer beer over wine, then you can choose beer over wine and be just as happy as in the first case. However if you prefer wine, you can choose wine in the second case, and because you prefer wine over beer you will be more happy with the second case.

If you believe I should set the goal of the UN at something else and you can make a good case for it, I will certainly consider it.

Second you asked: I hope you realise this isn't right.
You asked this question about the assumptions of the model and yes I do realize they aren't right, this is why a bit later in the text I explain what could be faulty with those assumptions. However, it is not because it isn't right that it is 100% wrong and that it isnt a usefull thinking exercise. By definition a model oversimplifies things to give a more clear picture. The next step is to add more realism to the model and see if the model still remains valid to some degree.

A model is a lot like a road map. If you look at the road map you will notice that the roads on it aren't at scale at all. They are far too wide, if the map was accurate then the road would be 100km wide. But if you made a road map where the roads are at scale, you would hardly see them. You can say that even if a road map makes some wrong assumptions about how wide the road is, you will get to where you wanna be.

@ Palentine:

The representative from the Palentine raises a very valid point, even if he does so on a ludic manner. There are indeed some intrinsic benefits of the UN for nations which will raise the threshold for leaving for nations. The question still remains how much more nations are willing to take to enjoy these intrinsic benefits.

@ Rubina:

I dont see how I am imposing my view on others. I am merely stating an opinion and it is free to everyone to agree with it or not. The title of the topic clearly states OPINION and not "absolute truth that everyone has to agree with or else". You can, however, not hold it against me that when I see something I disagree with I try to make a well argumented case against it to the best of my abilities.

When I say that I believe the game mechanics arent very accurate I mean: that if a nation with an economy totally dependent on slavery join the UN, this nations economy should show some very negative consequences of this, not to mention impact on this nations politics and civil rights. Maybe after a while they can recover, but certainly not instantly. Just because something can conceiveble happen in RL doesnt make it impossible in NS.

I admit that I sometimes question game-mechanics, but this isn't my main goal. Sometimes I go beyond the original point of this topic. You say veto rights will cripply the UNs decisionmaking process and I agree that it CAN cripple that if it is badly designed. However some federalist nations have proved to work very well with limited veto rights. The reason behind this is that even nations that belong in the same category, it is likely that they are internally divided aswell and hence not make the quota needed for the veto. I do not say that I have made such a vetopolicy, I merely recognize the possibility.

I agree the approval process helps a bit with this process although I have to agree with the weaknesses of the process that were exposed by Renastere.

It seems unlikely that there are many nations that disagree with every UN proposal but I think there are a lot of nations that disagree with a lot more proposals than they agree with. You then say to these nations: if you don't like the way we are doing things you should just leave. However I believe that a nation that leaves the UN is a failure for the UN. The UN should not try to do whats best for the UN members, but for the world. Although this is debatable.

To everyone with their oneliner posts on how boring or how whiny this is, please be a bigger person than that. It doesnt help the discussion futher and it is very inpolite. If you don't care about this thread than stay out of it. If you believe you can make a well argued case against what I have said, then I can only encourage you to do so. It has been clearly said bow boring, wrong and whiny I am (something which it totally arbitrary and I am sure you can find people who are willing to say that about every other thread in here) so there is no need to say this further.

I would like to thank anyone who has taken the time to read my rather lenghty posts and has tried to give me the benefit of the doubt for the sake of arguement. In particular I would like to thank Renastere for his input, which is really appreciated. Without him, the mean posts above would have demoralized me enough to quit the UN altoghether.

Indeed, but we feel a visual aid is necessary.I think Palentine suggested before that the Thessadorian ambassador resembles Raquel Welch in One Million Years B.C., only in modern clothing. ;)

As soon as I can resurrect "Thessadoria (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10265696#post10265696)" ...

@Akimonad:

I have chosen not to quote you because a large part of the things you said come down to: "I disagree". However after extensive reading (which means reading the replies more than once and not just simply skim through them) of all the replies in here I have found a few things in your reply that I can answer.

First you asked: what is it with me and welfare.
I believe that the UN must have a goal, something it strives to accomplish. If something does not have a goal, one can question if it should exist at all. In my model I have set a very broad goal for the UN, in line with the Utilitarian tradition which believes that the role of a government is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

I also believe that the UN should not only try to achieve the greatest good for the greatest possible number of UN memberstates, but that it should achieve the greatest good for all nations. Perhaps this is too ambitious but I believe it is very shortsighted to say: we only take care of our own and the others aren't our problem.

We can't extend to nonmembers. Period.

However because happiness is hard to measure and it is hard to conceive what makes a nation happy, I have replaced the word happiness with welfare. I use the term welfare in a very broad sense of the word. It does not only contain welfare in the sense of "more money" but also in terms of well-being. This still feels kind of abstract to me this is why my definition of welfare is even broader. I ask the question: when can a nation not be worse off then before. The answer here is: if a nation has more choices than before.

That's too bad. The UN isn't here to make people happy, it's here to write legislation.

A simple example: If someone offers you only beer to drink or he offers you wine or beer to drink, you cannot be worse off in the second case. If you still prefer beer over wine, then you can choose beer over wine and be just as happy as in the first case. However if you prefer wine, you can choose wine in the second case, and because you prefer wine over beer you will be more happy with the second case.

Suppose I'm a teetotaler?

If you believe I should set the goal of the UN at something else and you can make a good case for it, I will certainly consider it.

Exactly my point: The UN doesn't have goals, and we're too lazy to make ones up.

Second you asked: I hope you realise this isn't right.
You asked this question about the assumptions of the model and yes I do realize they aren't right, this is why a bit later in the text I explain what could be faulty with those assumptions. However, it is not because it isn't right that it is 100% wrong and that it isn't a useful thinking exercise. By definition a model oversimplifies things to give a more clear picture. The next step is to add more realism to the model and see if the model still remains valid to some degree.

Blah, blah, blah. Spare me the lecture; I graduated already.

A model is a lot like a road map. If you look at the road map you will notice that the roads on it aren't at scale at all. They are far too wide, if the map was accurate then the road would be 100km wide. But if you made a road map where the roads are at scale, you would hardly see them. You can say that even if a road map makes some wrong assumptions about how wide the road is, you will get to where you wanna be.


What an inane comparison: "A model is a lot like a road map." Oh, while we're at, apples and oranges are now the same too.

By and large, you have the wrong view of the UN. You come in here, expecting us to be all nice and happy and work for the greater good. Like I said before, people are here for their government's ends, which likely aren't utilitarian, or, more frequently, their own ends, which involve forcing their beliefs on others.

If anything, the UN's slogan is "This is the UN, please do not enjoy your stay. Your guest beds have been covered in spikes for your own discomfort. Are you still reading this? Go away."

So, overall, a nice, overly long, emotive essay. Nothing's gonna change. I sense whining in the future.

Anything else?

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Has a strict no-reformers policy.

We can't extend to nonmembers. Period.


"Actually, that's not entirely correct. It has already been established that, although UN resolutions certainly aren't and can't be binding on non-members, we can legally offer non-members relevant benefits in exchange for their voluntary compliance with specific resolutions and offer to let them use the services of specific UN agencies (such as the International Meteorological Organisation) if they meet certain conditions..."


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still, although hopefully not for much longer, required to wear this confounded penguin costume…)

Uh, right.

We too quickly tire of these essays that pop up analyzing what's wrong with the UN every time some newb is displeased with a vote result, and we're not prepared to peruse every long-winded response every post in this thread seems to get, but we would like to point out that this model of Iamloco's is misleading and fraught with error. For one, there are not 10,000 member nations, there are more like 25,000; most simply can't be bothered every time there's a vote. Nor do 10,000 nations actually vote on every proposal: because, did know that delegates all have more than one vote? And consequently, six nations in the six largest regions control something like 1,500 votes between them? Factor in other large regions like Gatesville and Taijitu and you got yourself a great consolidation of power in just a handful of members.

Moreover, the assumption that most members are Western-style democracies seeking to impose their view on the rest of the world is flawed on its face. Assuming UN membership is representative of the NS world at large (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Categories), there is a substantial number of authoritarian regimes, and plenty of consumerist and socialist states to go with. Not all the same nations vote the same way on all resolutions, either (unless you assume we're all mindless zombies who automatically vote the same way on everything). All resolutions pass or fail with differing levels of support. For instance, Recreational Drug Use failed with just 37% support; Child Pornography passed with 90% support. Now how can that be, when the same 60% always votes to pass resolutions over the objections of the same disgruntled 40% minority?

And why don't they all quit when the votes don't go their way? Several reasons. One, most people aren't prepared to pack up and leave every time a single vote ends in a disagreeable result. Also the UN isn't just about passing resolutions, because membership gives nations more power in their respective regions. So, when we consider that most of the 25,000 member nations fail to cast a vote on most proposals, we can assume there are many in this body who are only in it for the power, and don't give a rip what mandates this body passes.

Finally, your "alternatives" are dead on arrival. The UN can't only decide issues that nations can't decide for themselves because we aren't mere arbiters of national disputes; we're a body that makes international law, based upon the majority vote of its membership. Proposals can't be multiple choice. It don't work that way, either in the game or in RL. Resolutions are an expression of the majority view of a body at a particular time, and since we in NS bear the added obstacle of having to adjust statistics on member states for each resolution passed, there can only be one result, not varying ones. And in a "democracy" like the UN, like it or not, the majority rules, and you just have to live with it, even if that result disagrees with you. Or you can resign. There's always that.

@ Akimonad:

If you are a teetotaler then in the first case you would chose to have no drinks and in the second case you will still be able to make the first choice as before.

I didnt say that models are a lot like road maps, I said that road maps ARE models: simplified version of reality that hopes to shed light on a particular issue. Anyway the since you agreed to my defination of a model because you have seen that in school, the comparison between a model and a road map isnt that important. It was only there for didactic purposes.

I can respect that you belief that the UN has no goals and that it is just there to pass a number of random laws. There is no right or wrong here. However for the sake of arguement I take the leap of faith to assume that the UN does have a goal and I do so for reasons that I have mentioned earlier.

I agree that nations are in the UN to maximize their own benefit and not the benefit of others(this includes other nations, other people,...). This was one of my main assumptions (which of course can be wrong, nations dont have to be rational maximizers of their own "happiness"). The UN can be viewed from a utilitarian perspective if you say that the UN is to help achieve the greatest good for all nations, thus for their governments ends.

I did come here with the expectation that people would treat me nice and happy. After all there is no reason to be mean and sad.

@Omigodtheykilledkenny:

How nice of you to start of by calling me a noob (Im not sure what critirea you use for that one) it surely helps the discussion forward. You have also said that you cant be bothered with reading all of the longwinded responses. I wonder how much relevance your criticism of my criticism can have.

You point out that in my model I have assumed that there are 10000 while in fact there are 25000. This doesnt change anything about the end results so your point is really irrelevant. I might have said there are only 3 nations and still be equally right. I agree that the model puts forward arguements that need to be nuanced a bit more, reality wont be as extreme as I put forward. This still doesnt meant that there isnt a form of truth in my proposal.

That weblink you provided is very interesting. There is indeed no category that contains more than half of the total nations. However there are some categories that are a lot bigger than others and they just happen to be what I consider western democracies. There is more than one category that can be viewed as a western democracy and if you add all those together it is possible that that sum does contain more than 51% of the nations (depends of course on your definition of western democracies).

Again you put forward the view: if you dont like it, you can leave. If a lot of nations do this, it will be very polarizing and disruptive. I do not consider nations leaving the UN a good step towards world peace.

I do not consider nations leaving the UN a good step towards world peace.

You'd be surprised how often it is.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

How nice of you to start of by calling me a noobNo, I "called" you a "newb," which is rather benign. As your first post here dates a couple months ago, I deemed the description fair.

I think the flaws in the model that have been illustrated may point towards more than just a ‘majority’ disenfranchising the minority. Due to the fact that there are only 10000 votes on most resolutions AND delegates/‘high standing’ members receive more than one vote, I am starting to think that it is really a powerful (and active/vocal) minority that is able to influence the agenda of the UN. I would like to see if optimists and idealists can actually overcome the resistance put up by ‘power’ and, perhaps more importantly, the apathy of the rest. (And then, will power corrupt the idealists?!)
As for the wonderful attacks, recriminations and even plain old disagreements, I consider them the grindstone to sharpen ideas upon.

If the system is so flawed why has it worked for the past 5 or so years?

Just because a proposal that you didn't like got passed doesn't mean that start saying, "oh well then, something must be wrong with the UN 'cuz the people don't know what they're voting for." It's called Democracy.

If the system is so flawed why has it worked for the past 5 or so years?

Just because a proposal that you didn't like got passed doesn't mean that start saying, "oh well then, something must be wrong with the UN 'cuz the people don't know what they're voting for." It's called Democracy.

"You get a free drink on me, Mr. York."

How has the UN system been able to work for the past 5 years?
@cookesland: I believe I have answered this question before. Nations are either unaware or don't really care about what impact UN resolutions have on their nation. This is due a lack of realism in the game that cannot be helped but if we recognize this we can make a more realistic UN. Further arguements of why this is so can be found in the texts above. There is a real difference with the democracy that we know in our countries and the democracy in the UN. There is a rather big barrier for a citizen to move to another nation because he disagrees with government policy. You can thus impose the view of the majority on the minority. But for nations that can easely leave the UN it is much harder to impose anything on them.

I did not make this case just because im opposed to one proposal and I cant get over the fact that it got passed anyway. I merely try to explain how I see a more realistic UN.

Earlier we were debating about the goal of the UN and people said that the UN didnt really have a goal except to pass legislation. However I have stumbled upon a sentence that illustrates my point.

Where UN members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

This is what the UN forum says about the UN. Notice how it says improve the world and not the UN. So even if we can agree on that the UN has been able to work for the last 5 years, it is still debatable if it has worked well. Lately I have heard the arguement "if you dont like this law you can always leave the UN". However every time a nation leaves the UN, the UN has failed. It is true that the UN has hardly any power over nations that leave, but if the UN can encourage nations to join again, then the UN has won.

This can be clarified with a small example. Assume there are three nations in the UN. Two have abolished slavery and one has not. The goal of the UN is to improve the world, one resolution at a time. If slavery is deemed bad for the world than the UN will have accomplished its goal when all three nations have abolished slavery. The instrument the UN uses to achieve its goals are rules and regulations. Let's see what happens when the UN passes a law to abolish slavery.

The UN failes
A law to abolish slavery comes at vote, two nations vote for and one votes against. If there is an arguement and the first two nations say to the last: "well if you dont like our well written proposal, you can just leave" and the third nation does leave, then the UN has NOT achieved its goal. There is a much slavery in the world before the proposal as after the proposal.

The UN succeeds
Another plausible option is that the third country doesnt really care about wether it has slavery or not and it stay in the UN. The world is rid of slavery and the UN has achieved its goal. It is my belief that the number of nations in this UN that doesnt really care about a proposal is much higher because of the earlier explained lack of consequences.


The problem with the rules and regulations method is that it does not allow for any flexibility. Either you comply or you dont. It also doesnt take in account the costs of applying the law for each sepperate country. The cost for the first two countries will be 0, nothing has really changed for them, while the cost for the third country can be very high. This law will be perceived as unfair by the third country and it might give them even more incentive to leave the UN.

An alternative method to abolish slavery could be to try to establish a market for slavery (no not a slave market). You could ask the first two nations: "how much are you willing to pay to live in a world free of slavery" and at the same time ask the third nation "how much would it cost you to give up slavery". Say the first two nations each answer "25" and the third nation answers "50", then we have a compromise. Everyone is happy, the UN is happy because it has achieved its goals. The first two nations are happy aswell because they were willing to pay 25 to have a slave free world and they got a slave free world. The third nation is happy because the costs for abolishing slavery were abolished.

There are however some obvious shortcommings with the above proposal. First of all you need to get a comprimise, or in other words: the willingness-to-pay should be equal to or larger than the willingness-to-give-up if you want to abolish all slavery in the world. What to do when the willingness-to-pay is smaller than the willingness-to-give-up. In our 3-country world the solution is hard to come by, but if you make the world 100 times bigger, so that the first group of nations consist out of 200 nations and the second out of 100 nations. You then make the sum of the total willingness-to-pay from the 200 countries and you order the willingness-to-give-up from small to large. With this total sum you start paying the cheapest country and then try to pay as much countries as possible. You will get rid of some slavery, but not all. The UN has partly achieved its goals. There are some further shortcommings of this approach such as nations lying about the willingness which reduce the practical use of this approach, but I still feel this was a useful mind excercice.

Should we change the UN?
When you look at it from an IC point of view, I still believe it would be more realistic if the UN was changed. However from an OOC view it can be best to leave the UN like it is now. People play this game and join the UN because they enjoy it and they like to make random proposals about any issue they feel strongly about. When Akimonad said: the UN has no goal except to make proposals, he was actually right in an OOC sort of way. If people like writing proposals, they would prefer to write more proposals instead of less proposals. My IC arguements against the way the UN works have nothing to do with the OOC goal of the UN, so maybe we should not change anything at all.

Perhaps this is why so many people felt so intuitivly strong against it?

I think the flaws in the model that have been illustrated may point towards more than just a ‘majority’ disenfranchising the minority. Due to the fact that there are only 10000 votes on most resolutions AND delegates/‘high standing’ members receive more than one vote,Um, since when do "high standing members" (whatever the hell those are) get more than one vote?
I am starting to think that it is really a powerful (and active/vocal) minority that is able to influence the agenda of the UN. I would like to see if optimists and idealists can actually overcome the resistance put up by ‘power’ and, perhaps more importantly, the apathy of the rest. (And then, will power corrupt the idealists?!)We did, we're called the National Sovereignty Organization (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx). Founded during a time when most resolutions were decidedly sovereignty unfriendly, we joined forces and have managed to pass quite a long list (http://z11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?showtopic=239) of resolutions most of which are sovereignty friendly.

[QUOTE=Iamloco;12934931]Snip long pointless ramble.

Or we could keep in mind that this is a game. A game who's original purpose is to sell a book (http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/). A game that was created, not by a team of highly skilled programmers, not even by one highly skilled programmer, but by an author (http://www.maxbarry.com/) (and not even an author of books on computer programming:D).

tl;dr

Or we could keep in mind that this is a game. A game who's original purpose is to sell a book (http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/). A game that was created, not by a team of highly skilled programmers, not even by one highly skilled programmer, but by an author (http://www.maxbarry.com/) (and not even an author of books on computer programming:D).

This is why I said from an OOC view I think we should NOT change the game. I dont understand why you gotta say my ramble is pointless. I enjoy to write it so its not pointless for me. You enjoy to reply to it (even if not read entirely) so its not pointless to you.

@The Most Glorious Hack
tl;dr? I dont care if you didnt read it. Its very impolite to say so and this comming from a moderator. I thought you had to be above this. Perhaps I just have other interests than you guys? Am I therefor boring? If you think it is appropriate to go post in every thread you dont care about that you don't care about it, I better go post in every other thread in here that in my opinion its all very boring. Is this appropriate? NO! If you think its too long, dont read it. If you think its boring dont read it. But please do have the curtesy to let other people discuss what they like to discuss. I think since you are a moderator, you can at least apoligize.

I'll keep it short, which is odd for me.

Firstly: The UN is not here to serve the people or the nations. The UN is the nations, which are made up of the people.

Secondly: That nations are able to bypass UN legislation is very realistic. How many RL UN nations regularly flout UN rule with no consequences at all ever levied at them? Sometimes even the members of the RLUNSC are included in that.

Thirdly: Your first post was a ridiculously long way of saying that you don't like the way the UN works and think there should be changes. The IC response is going to be very similar to that of Hack, who was well within his rights as a player and a moderator to make the remark he did. The OOC response is that the programmers are not interested in making any alterations to the game code in such regards. The game and the UN have slowly evolved over the last few years and will probably continue to do so in the future, but it will be a long involved process for the people who volunteer their time to do such work for us.

All that said, you are more than welcome to your opinion, but you have to accept that the instant you put it out there, you were granting everyone full rights to shoot it full of holes and knock it out of the sky. Why? Because that is their opinion of your opinion. If you are entitled to say, at any length, that you wish things were different, then they are entitled to say that you are being a whiny newb.

All in all, be patient and ask the right questions and the current state of things will begin to make a great deal of sense.

Here's my 2 cents on this:

From an OOC POV, the game mechanics are what they are. I don't see much change happening there.

From an IC POV, each nation has their own ideas of how to play their nation. My current UN nation is a "Left Wing Utopia" so, naturally it's FOR some of those proposals you right-wingers complain about. Of course if a bunch of right-wing UN laws passed, THEN I do some, er, creative interpretation.

I also want to mention that "just resigning" isn't always as easy as it sounds. I might be unusual here. I do care about the UN consequences to my nation, but I'm also involved in regional politics. If I'm in a position to storm out because of an unpleasant vote, I might do so, with appropriate political posturing, but if doing so would hurt my region, or my political ambitions in it, I'll stay in with appropriate speeches about how I'm a better person for staying in.

Ain't politics fun? :D

I never knew how much fun politics were!! (I guess I'll blame 'politics' for the long post!)

Thanks to Flibbleites for including the link to the National Sovereignty Organization. I plan to look into it as soon as time allows.
As for the question about 'high standing members'; As I understand it, (and I don't mind being corrected) regional delegates carry additional votes based on the size of their region. Therefore, the delegates from larger regions would be 'high standing'? My reference is the UN reference guide thread. I do wonder if this has been the ‘way it’s always been’...?

Thanks to the great comments from South Romanar. Those comments again illustrate methods in which nations attempt to mitigate the effects of the UN. Most illuminating were the comments regarding reasons and political forces members face in regards to resigning. This shows that the frequent, “if you don’t like it, then resign” comments are indeed evidence that those who use this form of debating are indeed just using tactics akin to ‘taunting’ or even ‘bullying’. Which, in turn, supports the idea that the UN can essentially ‘bully’ nations into compliance about whatever value system(s) the majority endorses. (We return to the discussion regarding the ’correctness’ of this….)

Again, it has come up that this discussion is solely about those who don’t like the way the UN works and those who defend it…. This is oversimplification of a quality discussion about an interesting model/theory with many applications and tangents about the hows, whys and ‘the way it could(or should) be’ conjectures. I would ask that the discussion continue with the introduction of more theories, opinions, and answers to questions posed. I have yet to hear a differing model, theory or opinion piece. What are the predictions or explanations of the positive results of the current system?


OOC
I think there is a great deal of interruption to this discussion because many comments lack the basic decency of addressing ideas and arguments without personalizing or getting defensive/offensive (especially when ‘not attacked’ or in defense of a fictional legislative body??). If you think that discussing the validity, effectiveness and/or ‘rightness’ of the current NSUN system will harm it or someone, etc. then make it known as such a threat.
If it is in your character's role play to be disrespectful and to make rude statements, then that is part of ‘the game’. However, too often contributions to this discussion have included personal attacks and basically name calling in a manner that indicates it to be out of character (i.e. 'whiny newb' wants the game changed, etc….). Often, these statements are made in conjunction with a misinterpretation of previous posts and/or just to dismiss the ideas without a reason. A good example of someone who attempts to make sure that rude statements are in character is Akimonad, who often signs posts ~Dr. Jules Hodz.
Being that this discussion was partially in and partially out of character in nature, I am sure we can all cut each other a little slack in that regards. But it would be so much better if we were more respectful and more creative in showing disrespect, if so desired

OOC
I think there is a great deal of interruption to this discussion because many comments lack the basic decency of addressing ideas and arguments without personalizing or getting defensive/offensive (especially when ‘not attacked’ or in defense of a fictional legislative body??). If you think that discussing the validity, effectiveness and/or ‘rightness’ of the current NSUN system will harm it or someone, etc. then make it known as such a threat.
If it is in your character's role play to be disrespectful and to make rude statements, then that is part of ‘the game’. However, too often contributions to this discussion have included personal attacks and basically name calling in a manner that indicates it to be out of character (i.e. 'whiny newb' wants the game changed, etc….). Often, these statements are made in conjunction with a misinterpretation of previous posts and/or just to dismiss the ideas without a reason. A good example of someone who attempts to make sure that rude statements are in character is Akimonad, who often signs posts ~Dr. Jules Hodz.
Being that this discussion was partially in and partially out of character in nature, I am sure we can all cut each other a little slack in that regards. But it would be so much better if we were more respectful and more creative in showing disrespect, if so desired

OOC: It's called the UN, get used to it. And characters are allowed to be rude, to a point. My character thinks you're all being whiny. You gotta problem with that?

OOC: and my player continues to think that this almost entirely character-free discussion of game mechanics is in the wrong forum.

OOC: and my player continues to think that this almost entirely character-free discussion of game mechanics is in the wrong forum.

I think I have to agree with you.

OOC: It's called the UN, get used to it. And characters are allowed to be rude, to a point. My character thinks you're all being whiny. You gotta problem with that?

OOC
I think that might be the cause of a lot of anti-UN sentiment.
Yes, my intention was to illustrate that Dr Jules Hodz is a more appropriate and creative method of being rude. (I apologize that intention wasn’t clearer.)
Indeed, all parties (on both ends of the spectrum) could easily be considered 'whiny'.
And yes, my character has a problem with 'verbal intimidation', but acknowledges it as part of NS (the game) and deals with it as such.... My request was for more people to stick to the discussion and reduce the personal attacks/disrespect and out of character disdain…. (Now I realize that by such a request, I have created a tangent as well.)
Shall we get back to the theorizing, discussing and ‘opinion pushing’?

I swear I will defenestrate the next person to piss and moan about the UN and how it works.


M. Diegaus III

Summary

It is my opinion that, under strict limitations, when the UN passes a law the nations that vote for the law are the ones that have already applied this law at the national level and the nations that vote against are the ones that haven't applied this law at the national level.

The UN law will have no effect on the world if the nations that vote against it leave the UN and the only nations that follow the new UN law are the ones that had already applied at the national level.

If there is a group that always wins the vote because they have the majority and there is a group that always looses because they are the minority, then it is possible that the UN makes the world a more dangerous place by polarising it into two groups.

Some of the strict limitations I mentioned earlier(these may not be right or realistic):

-all the laws passed are laws that can be organized on the national level aswell
-countries feel the consequences of every law passed
-nations are rational, self interested benefit maximizers
-when nations see that the UN hurts them more than it benefits them, they will leave the UN
-and many many more

Yes, yes, you have an opinion on the UN. Super. However, since nobody else has felt inclined to comment further on this, how about moving on?

I just can't bring myself to care about this topic. In fact I wager...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y15/cosmicthoughts/roomofcare.jpg

...about this thread.

The UN must work for people; not nations.

With regard to nations, they have one absolute right - the right be be a member or not a member of the UN. Why they choose to be a member (or not) is entirely up to them; I'd hope they have a little more stomach rather than resigning just because an ickle tiny wesolution didn't go their way.

Yes, yes, you have an opinion on the UN. Super. However, since nobody else has felt inclined to comment further on this, how about moving on?

If you dont care about a thread, dont open it. Its that simple! You've been commenting here since page one, so you know what it is about. You still seem to wanna comment further and further. This is the second time you said you dont care about this thread. Instead of saying over and over that you dont care, act like you dont care and dont post in this thread or an ever better way to show that you dont care: dont even open this thread.

If you dont care about a thread, dont open it. Its that simple! You've been commenting here since page one, so you know what it is about. You still seem to wanna comment further and further. This is the second time you said you dont care about this thread. Instead of saying over and over that you dont care, act like you dont care and dont post in this thread or an ever better way to show that you dont care: dont even open this thread.

Or, you could take the hint and stop the whining and just let this thread die.

Ill let this thread die when I want to, not because people dont like whatever im saying. Really whats happened with freedom of opinion these days. Besides every reply you make like that is another bump. Its just not done saying one thread needs to die and another needs to live. How would you like it if everyone just started posting in every thread: boring, thread die plx bye bye. Because I am sure it is not hard to find for every thread 10 people who find it boring. This thread is not breaking forum rules (although with all this trolling here it might be) , it has just as much right to be here as any other thread. Report it if you feel its illegal but, when its not please dont whine here.