NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep, thats the name of a resolution that makes absolutley no sense.

WHEREAS the participants of the NationStates forum, while quite noisy, do not accurately represent the vast majority of the NationStates players, and;

WHEREAS said vast majority of players unequivocably support the Freedom of Humor for all, and;

WHEREAS hippos are indeed quite large,

I hold this truth to be self-evident...

HIPPOS ARE BIG.


I fail to see how this has anything to do with the UN. IF this isn't deleted you can never justify anything getting deleted.

<---- is glad he's no longer a Delegate

HOLY FUCK. IT'S IN THE QUEUE. :shock:

Approvals: 132 (1 Infinite Loop, Francos Spain, Themanistan, Pancake_pl, Xaqon, Tarrican, Apuent, Benlandia, Butthole, Hill People, Slowmo, Arctopia, Mikaelsdaman, Rensel, Helfania, Hagge, Sulon, StovjestovqueX, Cesspit III, Towarzysz Gomulka, Wordem, The Pyrenees, Communist Rebels, Wintermute, Loopyland II, Cutetopia, Beanbag Chairs, St Lafayette, Avalonian Angels, Lamoni, Xeaon, Scotland and Jamaica, Tyrantar, Morphesia, Gormith, Hebrew National, Goldfish Addicts, New North Balwyn, Boblovia, Haida Gwaii, Hedgetopia, Broadbeam, Quite, Libertanica, Doovidle, Assassinopants, Salty Water, Kowdom, Dudemonkeys, Genetic manipulated, Hampster Squared, The Cymreg, Allund, Big Santa, Azbakwurds, Unholy Anarchy MK2, Guevara Rocha, Assasinated Beauty, Adstarion, Petohdom, WNDRBRA, Boaravia, Wyzata, Tremaine, Andinostan, Tara TheGreate, Motala, KelDa, Michopolis, Fruztya, Conrado, BillyDean, Estolad, Nucular, Oplep, Isanistan, Of Fur Traders, Britannian, Squigy II, Mundainia, Bananadine, Endolantron, Arinim, Why and wy not, Goosetnam, Squatia, The Judean Front, Schizophonica, Total Desolation, The All Powerfull Berg, Cheshire and Ted, Ravens Ait, Saturnzero, Kzagblech, The Orion Nebula, Norion, Klonor, Marradon, Ishkari, Anhinga, Polo de la hago, Knootoss, Christ the Messiah, Patalano, Clownfish, Canadagua, Christopher IV, NDak, Fundamentalist Monkies, Nenuial, Valentria, Penguin Troopers, Republican Britain, Whats it to you, Nucleo, Northfiels, Caesarea, Evil puppies, Isfulabul, Saido, Port Coquitlam, Excessive Firepower, The Maple Leaf, Brandiland, APV, New Dorkland, Camarolina, Feces-flinging Monkey, Kings World, Charney, WonderShroomLand, Canine Despotism)

These delegates need to be slapped with several large trout.

I can't understand why anyone would vote for it. Well, I suppose special needs people can access the internet better than ever before.

My IC post on this matter: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99759

Incidentally, you might want to edit your subject line to note that it's a UN proposal...maybe along the lines of "HIPPOS ARE BIG!!!! [In the UN Queue!] The current subject line is rather non-descriptive IMHO if you don't know the subject matter.

Look at some of the names on there. :o

<---- is glad he's no longer a Delegate

HOLY f---. IT'S IN THE QUEUE. :shock:

Approvals: 132 (1 Infinite Loop, Francos Spain, Themanistan, Pancake_pl, Xaqon, Tarrican, Apuent, Benlandia, Butthole, Hill People, Slowmo, Arctopia, Mikaelsdaman, Rensel, Helfania, Hagge, Sulon, StovjestovqueX, Cesspit III, Towarzysz Gomulka, Wordem, The Pyrenees, Communist Rebels, Wintermute, Loopyland II, Cutetopia, Beanbag Chairs, St Lafayette, Avalonian Angels, Lamoni, Xeaon, Scotland and Jamaica, Tyrantar, Morphesia, Gormith, Hebrew National, Goldfish Addicts, New North Balwyn, Boblovia, Haida Gwaii, Hedgetopia, Broadbeam, Quite, Libertanica, Doovidle, Assassinopants, Salty Water, Kowdom, Dudemonkeys, Genetic manipulated, Hampster Squared, The Cymreg, Allund, Big Santa, Azbakwurds, Unholy Anarchy MK2, Guevara Rocha, Assasinated Beauty, Adstarion, Petohdom, WNDRBRA, Boaravia, Wyzata, Tremaine, Andinostan, Tara TheGreate, Motala, KelDa, Michopolis, Fruztya, Conrado, BillyDean, Estolad, Nucular, Oplep, Isanistan, Of Fur Traders, Britannian, Squigy II, Mundainia, Bananadine, Endolantron, Arinim, Why and wy not, Goosetnam, Squatia, The Judean Front, Schizophonica, Total Desolation, The All Powerfull Berg, Cheshire and Ted, Ravens Ait, Saturnzero, Kzagblech, The Orion Nebula, Norion, Klonor, Marradon, Ishkari, Anhinga, Polo de la hago, Knootoss, Christ the Messiah, Patalano, Clownfish, Canadagua, Christopher IV, NDak, Fundamentalist Monkies, Nenuial, Valentria, Penguin Troopers, Republican Britain, Whats it to you, Nucleo, Northfiels, Caesarea, Evil puppies, Isfulabul, Saido, Port Coquitlam, Excessive Firepower, The Maple Leaf, Brandiland, APV, New Dorkland, Camarolina, Feces-flinging Monkey, Kings World, Charney, WonderShroomLand, Canine Despotism)

These delegates need to be slapped with several large trout.

Three Pacific delegates and several frequent forumers!! :x

"Holy ----!!!" is d--n right. :evil:

Edit: added two more including Knoot!!! :shock:

I can't believe that well respoected people endorsed it. I bet they did it thinking nothing would happen.

Well, the next resolution in the queue is "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS", so the mods have plenty of time to delete it.

Sirocco should vote for that :)

Sirocco should vote for that :)

Ironically, he didn't approve it.

I can't believe that well respoected people endorsed it. I bet they did it thinking nothing would happen.
I did that with "The World Heritage List"

I am still kicking myself over that.

I can't believe that well respoected people endorsed it. I bet they did it thinking nothing would happen.
I did that with "The World Heritage List"

I am still kicking myself over that.

Same here.

And I think I just posted the dumbest thing I've ever written on NS: The resolution does not specify the rank of the hippo. It only specifies that hippos are big.

:lol:

Hey, how can you vote against this? That would imply that hippos are not big. Also, it well help people understand more about hippos, and that will mean they will be less confused, and un-confusing people helps human rights :o

:lol:

Hey, how can you vote against this? That would imply that hippos are not big. Also, it well help people understand more about hippos, and that will mean they will be less confused, and un-confusing people helps human rights :o

It's all about perspective...to an elephant, is a hippo big? ;)

Too an elephant a hippo is at least the biggest small thing. Or....yeah.....

Something
:?: :?

Well...If nothing else, it certianly makes more sense then a lot of the proposals that have been passed.

Besides, hippos are, in fact, pretty big.

Well...If nothing else, it certianly makes more sense then a lot of the proposals that have been passed.

Besides, hippos are, in fact, pretty big.

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

3. Joke Proposals
Every now and then someone decides that making a pun about something (usually "The Right to Arm Bears" or "The Right to Bare Arms") would be clever. Beyond the fact that these jokes have appeared at least 25 times each in the proposal queue, the fact that they're not serious proposals will have them deleted.

Well...If nothing else, it certianly makes more sense then a lot of the proposals that have been passed.

Besides, hippos are, in fact, pretty big.
I still dislike spam proposals.

Not Worthy of the UN's Consideration
This is rather a subjective thing and the good news is that it's only used very rarely. A classic example of a proposal which gets deleted under this rule is "We propose that the UN declare war on <nation>." While the role of the real-world UN might involve warfare and the waging thereof, it isn't for this body to fight wars.


3. Joke Proposals
Every now and then someone decides that making a pun about something (usually "The Right to Arm Bears" or "The Right to Bare Arms") would be clever. Beyond the fact that these jokes have appeared at least 25 times each in the proposal queue, the fact that they're not serious proposals will have them deleted.

Edit: d--n!!!

Goober beat me to it.

So are you denying Hippos are Big?

<--- waves to Enodia

Sweet merciful expletives. Thanks for the heads-up.

Thanks Enodia!

Strange that it hadn't migrated to the first page of the proposal list if it had reached quorum. Clearly there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

Thanks Enodia!

Thanks for deleting a resolution that was approved of by more than 130 players? I guess what the players thinks is not important to you now.

Strange that it hadn't migrated to the first page of the proposal list if it had reached quorum. Clearly there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

My observations indicate that the proposals don't migrate to page 1 until the UN proposal server update, which hasn't happened yet.

Thanks Enodia!

Thanks for deleting a resolution that was approved of by more than 130 players? I guess what the players thinks is not important to you now.
If 130 players think that the world is made of green cheese, that doesn't change the reality. The proposal was a clear violation of the rules governing UN proposals, so whether or not it'd reached quorum was immaterial.

Didn't the UN just recently pass the Freedom of Humor act?

Didn't the UN just recently pass the Freedom of Humor act?

I doubt it makes any difference, but:

And let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.

I would argue that allowing this resolution to come to vote is unduly hurtful to the UN by wasting its time, further, that the resolution in question is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the NationStates community, as clarified by the moderators.

but hippos are not big

If it was contrary to the accepted moral standards of the NS community, why was it being overwhelmingly supported? It seems to me that you didn't like it and dicided to see if you could get it thrown out.

If it was contrary to the accepted moral standards of the NS community, why was it being overwhelmingly supported? It seems to me that you didn't like it and dicided to see if you could get it thrown out.

Please note that I didn't start this thread.

You did start the one in the UN forum.

Didn't the UN just recently pass the Freedom of Humor act?

I doubt it makes any difference, but:

And let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.

I would argue that allowing this resolution to come to vote is unduly hurtful to the UN by wasting its time, further, that the resolution in question is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the NationStates community, as clarified by the moderators.

I would argue that a proposal that comes to quorum is not contrary to the moral standards of the NationStates community. Delegates are, in theory, supposed to act on the interests of their region. If such support was shown by these, then the member nations as a whole ought to be given the chance to vote. Furthermore, you are avoiding the question: Do you deny that hippos are, in fact, rather large creatures?

*is glad he doesn't see his name on there*

The reason for its deletion was and is that there is no point to voting on the proposal. Yes, hippos are big. Do we need a UN resolution to know that? NO!

Also, 130 endorsements does not mean overwhelming support. No matter what delegates are supposed to do (get feedback from region members), many to most don't. Especially the pacifics. 130 isn't even a majority of delegates (4000 something according to that census thing Salusa did in September .. I doubt it's shrunk since then).

Numbers check:

It had at 135 endorsements, and would have had a lot more if it hadn't been deleted.

There are 2100 delegates.

The number was still going up. Let the players play the game.

3. Joke Proposals
Every now and then someone decides that making a pun about something (usually "The Right to Arm Bears" or "The Right to Bare Arms") would be clever. Beyond the fact that these jokes have appeared at least 25 times each in the proposal queue, the fact that they're not serious proposals will have them deleted.

This takes power directly away from the UN, though, doesn’t it. I quote “Whereas all the enlightened nations of the world recognize that sentient beings possess certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And whereas these same nations delineate many of these rights and recognize that pre-eminent among them is the freedom of speech and expression. And whereas humor is not merely a pathway toward increased happiness, but can also be used to make important points more gently and succinctly than would otherwise be possible, Therefore let it be resolved that the member states of the United Nations recognize the right to humor as a fundamental right of sentient beings. And let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.” Look at past Un Resolutions, Freedom of Humor.

This has already been quoted, but felt it should be quoted in entirety.

In fact, players have stated that the Un should be allowed to be a method of communication, including humor. This passed resolution was one of the most heavily approved resolutions to date. I don’t see how Hippos Is Big violates the morality of the game, or how it hurts any who don’t find it funny. For this who do find it funny, it provides entertainment. Allowing it to come to vote is a way to see how people feel about the weight of the resolution. And how many players voted to make it a proper res proposal? A lot. A lot of UN Proposals fall flat and don’t make it as far as this one. To me, the vote is a way to determine the value of humor. Humor had been voted in in the past, and might have been accepted again.

Is it dumb, yeah, a lot of things are. To me stopping the vote of someone who somehow out Politcked many other players is less to the benefit then the resolution itself. I didn’t vote for it, because I didn’t find it funny. In the future I would vote for it if allowed, simply because I don’t see how allowing popular humor is more harmful then encouraging censorship based on intrinsic value of the few rather then allowing the community to value or devalue it themselves.


I know, too many words. In short, humor seems to be desired in the game, and was being put before the general UN. Why not allow people to vote on what they value specifically since it has been proven there is an interest? If it was just a spam proposal, it would not have made it as far as it did. Instead, it was likely a smart player who was simply using humor as a political platform. The player looked pretty successful to me, until someone decided to go against Freedom Of Humor act that is…

*is glad he doesn't see his name on there*

The reason for its deletion was and is that there is no point to voting on the proposal. Yes, hippos are big. Do we need a UN resolution to know that? NO!

Also, 130 endorsements does not mean overwhelming support. No matter what delegates are supposed to do (get feedback from region members), many to most don't. Especially the pacifics. 130 isn't even a majority of delegates (4000 something according to that census thing Salusa did in September .. I doubt it's shrunk since then).

There was all sorts of purpose to it. This is a game with a comedic bent. Why not add some comedy?

Beyond that, you can draw your own conclusions from it. Personally, I think the UN is a useless waste of time, hence my not being a part of it. I thought this resolution did a rather nice job of highlighting that.

Do the two names in red pass the 'offensive name' test? not complaining but just wondering since I've seen similar ones get bounced.
mess o' names clipped to shorten this post
Butthole, Feces-flinging Monkey,

I reccommend the name 'Hippos Are Big' in protest of the deletion of this most virtuous resolution.

Numbers check:

It had at 135 endorsements, and would have had a lot more if it hadn't been deleted.

There are 2100 delegates.
Hmm...wonder why the big drop then. (Just noticed the thing on the UN page now that you mentioned it ... ).

Anyway, the point still stands that ~130/2100 is not a majority.

Should we then increase the endorsements for a resolution to come to vote to a majority?

So 130 isn't everyone. If it's not enough for this resolution, then it oughtn't be enough for any others.

Numbers check:

It had at 135 endorsements, and would have had a lot more if it hadn't been deleted.

There are 2100 delegates.
Hmm...wonder why the big drop then. (Just noticed the thing on the UN page now that you mentioned it ... ).

Anyway, the point still stands that ~130/2100 is not a majority.

If you stopped all proposals before going into cue, chances are noneor few would ever be the majorty. Sort of a non-issue compared to all else, such as already posted. Agree or disagree, just number seems to be non-issue.

Numbers check:

It had at 135 endorsements, and would have had a lot more if it hadn't been deleted.

There are 2100 delegates.
Hmm...wonder why the big drop then. (Just noticed the thing on the UN page now that you mentioned it ... ).

Anyway, the point still stands that ~130/2100 is not a majority.

If you stopped all proposals before going into cue, chances are noneor few would ever be the majorty. Sort of a non-issue compared to all else, such as already posted. Agree or disagree, just number seems to be non-issue.
Fair enough, it's just that people are complaining about the "will of the players" being opposed in a situation where not many players have even expressed an opinion.

Numbers check:

It had at 135 endorsements, and would have had a lot more if it hadn't been deleted.

There are 2100 delegates.
Hmm...wonder why the big drop then. (Just noticed the thing on the UN page now that you mentioned it ... ).

Anyway, the point still stands that ~130/2100 is not a majority.

If you stopped all proposals before going into cue, chances are noneor few would ever be the majorty. Sort of a non-issue compared to all else, such as already posted. Agree or disagree, just number seems to be non-issue.
Fair enough, it's just that people are complaining about the "will of the players" being opposed in a situation where not many players have even expressed an opinion.

Cool, glad you didn't take offense. I value your opinion, even when I disagree with it. It's thick, but would value your thoughts on any points I brought up earlier:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2269230#2269230

Fair enough, it's just that people are complaining about the "will of the players" being opposed in a situation where not many players have even expressed an opinion.

The will of the players was expressed in the overwhelming success of the Freedom of Humor Act.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2269230#2269230
First off, as I see it the UN is meant to be an in-game political body. In the real world, laws are not used to state facts, but rules. Therefor, the proposals in the UN should not be used as forms of communication (thats why we have the forums), but as rules that should be followed by member states.

The support of the delegates who endorsed it doesn't really mean much to me. Yes, they thought it was funny. They can make jokes anywhere, though, and the UN isn't there for that purpose.

As for the Freedom of Humor act, the act states that "member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group." Personally, I would say that this act is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the UN. Never before has the UN been used as a place to make blatant statements, never before has it been used as a medium to convey humor. The accepted standard is that it is a place where rules and regulations are passed.

Finally, if all else fails .. the body of resolution has little to do with human rights. The problem with a statement of fact is that it has little to do with any of the choices, so no matter what it is submitted as it will be in the wrong category (and therefore deleted).

There is a thread on the UN forum which deals with this issue as well. Quite frankly, I'm not greatly keen on re-typing reasoning from here to there or vice versa, so if you pay attention to both threads I might well seem like a broken record or answering machine service. Anyhow, to answer as many concerns as I can find on this thread:

Didn't the UN just recently pass the Freedom of Humor act?
Quite true. However, there are two points that you've missed here.
1. The passage of one act cannot in game terms be used to justify the deletion or passage of any other act. Case in point, the UN passed "Resolution 245A Proper Grammar" which said that all proposals need to use proper grammar and spelling. Proposals on the books since that time have not been deleted for grammatical lapses or spelling mistakes. There have been poorly-spelled and ungrammatical proposals which have been deleted since that time, but they have not been deleted for this reason.
2. The Act to which you refer was (if memory serves, I can't seem to get the dratted thing to display for me) a straightforward Human Rights proposal. To whit: Allow all people to use humour in their lives or somesuch. This proposal is not anything of the sort. It falls into the same category as "The Right To Arm Bears" because it is a joke pure and simple. Permission from an oppressive regime to tell jokes is a Human Rights concern (well, you could stretch it to cover that), but the actual telling of a joke is not a Human Rights issue in the least bit.

If it was contrary to the accepted moral standards of the NS community, why was it being overwhelmingly supported? The "accepted moral standards" don't really enter the question. What it was contrary to are the rules of the proposal submission system, as defined in my sticky on the UN forum which is linked to from the proposal submission screen. If it helps, call them "accepted moral standards" and call me your moral guardian. The Mods have been referred to in the past as the Geheimestaatspolizei or the Staatssicherheitsdienst - perhaps The Ministry for the Prevention of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue is a useful analogy here.

If such support was shown by these, then the member nations as a whole ought to be given the chance to vote.
To a point, yes they should. If the support were given to a valid proposal, there's nothing wrong with it being voted on. If the proposal dealt with game mechanics, would you claim that quorum meant we should all vote on it? The same principle is in effect here - rules exist and if a proposal goes against them then it doesn't get voted on.

Numbers check:

It had at 135 endorsements, and would have had a lot more if it hadn't been deleted.

There are 2100 delegates.
No proposal that has reached quorum in the past 6 months has had more than 150 approvals, to my knowledge. The reasons for this are obvious: People see the proposal and think "Oh well, my vote won't be needed since it'll be on the floor soon anyway" but, more often than not, delegates simply don't bother to look at the proposal queue to begin with. If you want to imagine that your proposal was going to defy history and somehow gain a majority of the 2100 UN delegates before being voted on by the general populace, you're welcome to do so. Just don't try to claim that it would actually have happened.

Ackbar101 (who wrote a very well thought-out post which I won't take up space by quoting) makes a valid point, but also misses something. That is that a UN resolution, no matter how many people approve it, will not have any effect on the game rules. One of the rules is "don't make joke proposals". Ergo, this resolution everyone's so fond of doesn't actually legalise or ban anything new -> the rules are still the supreme authority.

The will of the players was expressed in the overwhelming success of the Freedom of Humor Act.
So it was. Quite frankly, you know how much that means? Nothing. The will of the players was expressed within the rules of the game in the first instance and the will of some 135 people is being expressed outside of the rules of the game in this second instance. I can see a difference and I'm wondering if anyone else can.

Now, I'm going to say Case Closed here. I'm not going to lock the thread because I don't believe in that sort of thing. Some interesting points have been raised, but just because people can debate things doesn't mean that the decision will automatically be overturned - despite what some players appear to think.
What everyone needs to realise is that the decision has been made, whether you agree with it or not.

Numbers check:

It had at 135 endorsements, and would have had a lot more if it hadn't been deleted.

There are 2100 delegates.
Hmm...wonder why the big drop then. (Just noticed the thing on the UN page now that you mentioned it ... ).

Anyway, the point still stands that ~130/2100 is not a majority.
may not be a majority , but, according to the UN rules it is enough to get into que,


Also, the actions around this proposal have destroyed my faith in teh UN process, from now on, I will only endorse resolutins submitted by residents of the EP or regions I am founder of. or have a puppet in,

You should move a puppet to Adelaide loop ;)

Also, destroyed your faith in the endorsement proccess or the oversight process?

Didn't the UN just recently pass the Freedom of Humor act?
Quite true. However, there are two points that you've missed here.
1. The passage of one act cannot in game terms be used to justify the deletion or passage of any other act. Case in point, the UN passed "Resolution 245A Proper Grammar" which said that all proposals need to use proper grammar and spelling. Proposals on the books since that time have not been deleted for grammatical lapses or spelling mistakes. There have been poorly-spelled and ungrammatical proposals which have been deleted since that time, but they have not been deleted for this reason.


So basically, using your own example, the UN resolutions have no power nor do they have a purpose, they cannot be enforced, therefore what does it matter is a silly one makes it to que, or even makes it to passage to become a law, as its only effect is the immediate effect upon your nation that occures when you recieve the compliance ministry telegram, the law it describes cannot be enforced, but wait, I wouls like to point to these UN resolutions

Search Function
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
*
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Significant Proposed by: Padmez
Description: Delegates are often asked to endorse different proposals, however these are hard to find. I propose that there should be a search function to enable us to find proposals without having to search through 65 pages. This will make it easier to get proposals approved, since there are so many that none of them have enough votes.
Votes For: 6579.
Votes Against: 721.
Implemented: Thu Jan 30 2003


this one appears to be in violation of the rules as it states a change to the game, however even though it is in violation it was allowed to passs and even be implimented as we now have a Search Funciton.


Resolution Restrictions
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
*
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Strong Proposed by: Conservative economics
Description: 1. Whereas, the UN proposal forum is overflowing with pointless and carelessly placed proposals, and 2. Whereas, very few of submitted proposals follow correct parlimentary procedure, and 3. Whereas, there is no current monitoring system for the submissions of proposals, and 4. Whereas, the point of the UN is being ignored and is accomplising very little, 5. BE IT RESOLVED THAT, By this here delegation of the United Nations, that all proposals submitted be subject to monitoring and scrict scrutiny.
Votes For: 11556
Votes Against: 6110
Implemented: Tue Apr 8 2003


and this one it suggests a change to the game mechanics too, in fact it basically sets up your job Enodia, it is blatantly in violation of the rules of the UN.
Just thought I would point out .
I will add the UN rule thingy in here that Im talking about in jsut a minute

*edit* here it is

Game Mechanics
"We should make it so that all UN Members can vote on proposals before they reach the floor", "We should be able to vote on 2 proposals at once", "The UN should create <multinational organisation>". All of these proposals propose changes to the Game Mechanics governing the running of NationStates.
I cannot stress this enough, You Cannot Play God Here. Your proposal may well be a useful change to the way the game works, and a few changes to the game (ejection of nations from regions, proposal search function) had their genesis in proposals. The bottom line is that they were not adopted because of the successful passage of a proposal, and neither will your suggestion be.

and yes I know you got the lil disclaimer thingy in there at the end, but the proposals were as I recall in and passed before the things that they have lead to were adopted, therefore teh Idea as you state had its genesis in the UN resolution but it still made it in violation of UN rules.

Loop, picker or nits.

IC: "Curses! My plan was foiled! How am I supposed to promote chaos if the authorities don't allow mobs to pass illegal absurdities with no meaning under the wrong category, thus rendering the UN (an acursed organization, which must by definition be an enemy of chaos) utterly irrelevant?!?!"
OOC: "HIPPOS ARE BIG" is pointless as a resolution. It's like resolving that the sun is bright, or rocks are heavy. Besides which, what about baby hippos? Are they considered big? And what, exactly, does 'big' mean in this case? The resolution was both pointless and, arguably, incorrect. I support its elimination.

My delegate Knootoss has also supported this resolution. Hmm...

I shall congratulate him on his choice! :D

You should move a puppet to Adelaide loop ;)

Also, destroyed your faith in the endorsement proccess or the oversight process?

pretty much the whole thing, what is the point in having the UN resolution process if it is pointless to even have, the Real UN doesnt have a Nanny smacking Russias hand everytime they make a bad resolution, those resolutions are killed during the vote, and an uyou beleive the uproar that woud occure if a resolution was on its way to quorum and some one said, "Im sorry but I dont like that resolution, you cannot vote on it" and he shredded teh documents.
I mean we Delegates are the ones who are supposed to be in charge of what gets through and what don't that is the reason Max set up the rules the way he did, and we passed this resolution on to quorum, because we liked it sure it wasnt a 1/2 +1 majority but again making it to quorum isnt a majority thing, it is a percentage thing.
I propose that the UN proposal thingy be returned to the Delegates where Max intended it, admitadly Enodia should be out there lookin over them to get rid of the ones which are site TOS violations like making Goatse the official sister site of NS, or ones calling for a page of pr0n links, you know stuff that would get ya deleted for in the first place but Please,
"Let Us Find The Funny!"



we are forbidden from making real world resolutions

4. Real-Life Proposals
George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.


but neither can we make humerous ones

3. Joke Proposals
Every now and then someone decides that making a pun about something (usually "The Right to Arm Bears" or "The Right to Bare Arms") would be clever. Beyond the fact that these jokes have appeared at least 25 times each in the proposal queue, the fact that they're not serious proposals will have them deleted.


this seems to be a self destroying paradox does it not?

Loop:
Wed, 16 Apr 2003
United Nations Creeps Toward Semblance of Order
...Second, admin is deleting inappropriate proposals. ...
So I assume proposals were not deleted ever before this date (and at this point, violet and dredd were doing the work, since there were no mods yet ... or were there game mods? I wasn't around, I wouldn't know)

Resolution Restrictions
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Implemented: Tue Apr 8 2003
So far as I can tell, this is the last game mechanics resolution. Seems to me, the mods and admins have been doing a good job keeping down the game mechanics resolutions since they made the rule.

First of all, have you contacted Max regarding this issue? Since he makes the rules, if there is a rule which stands in contrast to his beliefs regarding what the rules should be, then the rules should be changed.

Your strongest case is that you believe the HIPPOS ARE BIG proposal is in violation of your interpretation of the rules. I disagree with that in any case, but even if I didn't I believe this would be cause for taking another look at that rule.

If both Max and the majority of players disagree with the rule, then what is its purpose? Certainly not to simply give the mods something to do.

No proposal that has reached quorum in the past 6 months has had more than 150 approvals, to my knowledge.

While this argument is purely academic at this point, at the rate the proposal was gaining support (even after reaching quorum), anyone who took a reasonable look at the situation would most likely agree that it would have easily broken 150. You have to remember that this proposal was mostly targetted at those who were otherwise disenchanted or disinterested with the current UN system. Not that any of that really matters in this case, of course, but I felt your statement needed correction.

Note that I even though Max told me that humorous proposals were acceptable, I made a point of making the issue something worth discussing. (In short, contributing to the game and making it fun for people, which is the explicit purpose of a game.) I think the threads that have sprung up have lead to a healthy debate, and, hopefully, will result in some perspective with regards to why certain rules exist and what to do when they are no longer justifiable.

No proposal that has reached quorum in the past 6 months has had more than 150 approvals, to my knowledge.
Didnt Freedom of Humor make quorum with like 183 endorsements.

and to that poit what does it matter if it makes it with 150 or 1000, if 130 is enough to make it to quorum, then it has made it and should be voted on,
Heck that World Heritage thing Blatantly violates the entire concept of the UN, and it make it, I mean just how many wars do you think would be fought if the USA suddenly said, Hey Russia, since we got a lot of immigrants from Siberia, and our Alaskan Inuit are originally form Siberia, and well pretty much all of our Aboriginals crossed over to the US via Siberia, we are declaring Siberian a protected Sanctuary to our Heritage, and you gotta quit logging farming , mining and drilling for oil there,

or even worse, jsut imagine, both the Arabs and Jews calim pretty much all of teh Middle east, just imagine how much worse the Middle east woudl be if the real UN passed that resolution.

No proposal that has reached quorum in the past 6 months has had more than 150 approvals, to my knowledge.
Didnt Freedom of Humor make quorum with like 183 endorsements.

If memory serves, it had in excess of 300, until I get home the largest number I can document is 224.

Either way, it's academic. The minimum number required to reach quorum at the time was 119 and it beat that easily, just as the minimum number at the moment is around 125 and "Hippos are Big" had more approvals than that.

From an in character perspective, I would argue that it is unseemly for a body like the United Nations to force its member nations to comply with a resolution without complying with it themselves. Enodia is a Moderator, but from the perspective of the game he is functioning as the UN parlimentarian. UN should amend it own rules (as delineated in the stickied thread) and comply with the Freedom of Humor resolution which passed by something approaching a four to one margin.

In response to Loop's comments of much earlier, which I'll re-print here for logic's sake:

this one [that is, the "Search Function" resolution] appears to be in violation of the rules as it states a change to the game, however even though it is in violation it was allowed to passs and even be implimented as we now have a Search Funciton.
"Appears" is the operative word here. While it looks as though the game went "hey, people have voted on this particular resolution so let's get a search function!" and promptly created the one we have now, that's not actually what happened.
I'm unclear whether admin noticed the resolution and realised that this was a terrible oversight which was easily corrected, or whether the two events are completely unconnected. Either way, the fact that the resolution was passed did not automatically put it on the famous "[violet]'s to-do list".
It was "allowed to pass" because at that time we did not have moderators with the power to delete proposals. In fact, I'm not exactly certain we had mods with any power at that point in time. It might seem as if I've been deleting proposals and warning people since the year dot, but I've only been a Game Mod for a few months and doing this sort of thing for less time than that.

and this one ["Resolution Restrictions"] it suggests a change to the game mechanics too, in fact it basically sets up your job Enodia, it is blatantly in violation of the rules of the UN.
Just thought I would point out .
This is a bit of a cheap shot, Loop. It might well "set up my job", but that's neither here nor there. Again, it was brought into force (inasmuch as it ever can be) long before I could've had any say in the matter from a moderation standpoint.

The bottom line in relation to this proposal is that if Max wants to inform me himself (not second hand via a telegram or Email that someone else posts here) that this sort of proposal is a "protected species", then I'll amend the sticky and allow them all to pass. Unless and until that happens, they'll get deleted.

In relation to the discussion of numbers, yes it's an academic point. The reason I raised it in the first place was that the nation making the proposal (whose name I can never spell correctly and I can't find here to cut-and-paste) made a post which suggested that it was potentially going to receive all 2100 UN delegates' approvals. At least, that's how I read it first up, perhaps that was the wrong interpretation.

Had that Proposal been a thread in General, and two hundred players had endorsed it by posting comments, I would have killed it for spam, and no-one would have made a fuss. This Proposal, and indeed a large proportion of all proposals, was in effect spamming the UN mechanism. And the in-game UN's standards of debate are appalling enough to do without this.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Ok. Let me get my thoughts together. There was a joke proposal. Hippos Are Big, or some such; I'm not in the UN, and I normally don't care about the Proposal Crisis Of The Week. Having read the proposal, it basically says Hippos Are Big. Someone raises a flag, and Enodia deletes it faster than an email from Ali and her sister. Controversy ensues for close to two pages of this thread.

Why was deleting this proposal unreasonable? It might have well said "The Sky Is Blue." It proposed no changes, no sweeping humanitarian aid. It didn't even propose the metric system. It simply made a statement. First, and foremost, this isn't even a proposal. It's a statement. It's not even all that funny.

Proposal Whore Count +1.

Second, as has been pointed out a number of times, it was a joke proposal. The role of a joke proposal is to get deleted, along with the other spam. It got deleted (Come back Ali! Come back Ali's sister!).

What's the problem? This is a big deal that shouldn't be. It's a nonissue. Much ado about nothing.

Had that Proposal been a thread in General, and two hundred players had endorsed it by posting comments, I would have killed it for spam, and no-one would have made a fuss. This Proposal, and indeed a large proportion of all proposals, was in effect spamming the UN mechanism. And the in-game UN's standards of debate are appalling enough to do without this.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

As a frequenter of the General forum, I really have to disagree here. In fact, I'll do so by heading over to General now, and you can tell me why these aren't all locked:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99870
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97838
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99900
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97354
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=67173
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99479
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99639
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96535
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99074

"Club" threads, jokes, and/or inane banter, all. I decided to limit myself to 3 pages, lest I have about 650 pages worth of various "Volcano" links alone. Now, can you tell me why these threads haven't all been locked as spam, and how they differ from the ex-proposal in question?

Not intended as a low blow, and I apoligise if you took it in that maner, I just point it out, .
I guess it is frustration at seeing events traspire as they have,
well I have made my point in my earlier posts.
I mean as I said earlier, the whole purpose of the Delegate approval system is to control what gets to be voted on by the general populace, and it seems that we and our opinion dont matter, do you see my frustration.

</Loop>

Context.

The General Forum exists for debate and chat. And until such a time as Mods are given a mandate to lock every word game thread in sight, those threads will be with us.

The in-game UN mechanism is for UN business which affects the characteristics of nations. A given object is considered large on subjective criteria. Great. How do you code that? Why the hell should the UN mechanism waste a week on something like that? If it cannot be absorbed into the existing variables behind your nation's characteristics, it is toast automatically, regardless of anything anyone has to say about it. You are all familiar with the fact that UN Proposals are deleted if they recommend changes to the game code? Well here is the opposite side of the spectrum. If it has no implications for your nation's stats, it is toast.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

The bottom line in relation to this proposal is that if Max wants to inform me himself (not second hand via a telegram or Email that someone else posts here) that this sort of proposal is a "protected species", then I'll amend the sticky and allow them all to pass.

Are you going to contact him, or should I?

The reason I raised it in the first place was that the nation making the proposal (whose name I can never spell correctly and I can't find here to cut-and-paste) made a post which suggested that it was potentially going to receive all 2100 UN delegates' approvals. At least, that's how I read it first up, perhaps that was the wrong interpretation.

It was the wrong interpretation. I was merely making the point that saying the proposal "only" received X number of endorsements when the endorsement process was cut short is not a valid premise.

I brought up the "will of the people" thing, because we're talking about a rule which was designed for the benefit of the players, but the players (and, more importantly, the author of the game) don't want the rule.

How can I prove Max disagrees with the rule? He told me so.

How can I prove the people disagree with the rule? Well, my thought process was...

...if only there were some informal way of gauging the will of the people, some system for actually voting on things...oh, wait a minute, there is! It's the UN!

...well, if only someone had brought this issue before the UN...oh, geez, I forgot! Someone did! And, the Freedom of Humor was supported by a huge margin.

Again, my fundamental point is that rules should not exist for the sole purpose of being enforced. If there is such a rule and the only ones defending it are the enforcers of the rule in question, then something has gone very wrong.

Given that it is your "job" to interpret and enforce the rules as written, I don't think you necessarily did anything wrong (although I personally think an outright deletion in the face of incredible support was perhaps an overreaction, particularly in light of the recent Freedom of Humor Act).

That said, many rules have changed in the past, and if there seems to be an issue with a standing rule, it's worth spending some time re-examining the value of such a rule.

No, I don't see why you're frustrated. Let me create a scenario. Let's say, I somehow manage to get a proposal passed that permits your inbox to be spammed with goatze any time you post to the forums, Loop.

Now, according to your logic, if I passed that resolution, I could spam you with goatze... what was it? 100 times per day is your average post count? In this scenario, I should be allowed to inundate you with disgusting porn, just because I passed a resolution. It's an extreme example, but I make my point by making it extreme.

Just because a resolution is passed, the rules of the game do not change.

As for the Freedom of Humor act, the act states that "member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group." Personally, I would say that this act is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the UN. Never before has the UN been used as a place to make blatant statements, never before has it been used as a medium to convey humor. The accepted standard is that it is a place where rules and regulations are passed.

I think there is a good discussion as to whether or not humor should be allowed in the UN. I would prefer to see it, as I think humor can be an important form of communication and can see little benefit banning popular humor which is not offensive. Now, it is impossible to say that the UN has not been used for humor before, because it has, this is not the first joke proposal I have seen. This is the first one I recall seeing in que though, and it’s popularity is what lends it something akin to credence to me. I agree with Enodia’s posts that it doesn’t matter what popular opinion is if it is against the rules. However, I would think the recent trend in humor based popularity should at least prompt a review of rules against humor. It would not be the first time a rule had changed, or become more focused onto the benefit of the players.

Again, there is no question that there was some political power behind the proposal, find it stupid or not. If there were not it would not have been in que. For that reason, it justifies the potential for politics through humor to me (anyone remember the Puddists? Such a thing is both possible and entertaining).



Ackbar101 (who wrote a very well thought-out post which I won't take up space by quoting) makes a valid point, but also misses something. That is that a UN resolution, no matter how many people approve it, will not have any effect on the game rules. One of the rules is "don't make joke proposals". Ergo, this resolution everyone's so fond of doesn't actually legalise or ban anything new -> the rules are still the supreme authority.


Well, I think this is a very valid point, obviously (not that I made a good point, but there is a rule against this). However, I do think that a review of game rules limiting political speak is important, and would ask [violet] to do so. I don’t think all things should be open, put I don’t think it makes sense to silence a potential political platform.

Also, if the player was warned for breaking rules, I think an exception should be made, since he was relying on a UN resolution to guide making a UN resolution.

Finally, Architeu mentioned something about Max encouraging such a resolutions, and personal correspondence. If this does indeed exist, then that might be a different story, depending on what Max has said in the past.

I wanted add Enodia, that I appreciate your discussion, and don’t want to paint the same argument over and over for you to become frustrated with. It is an interesting discussion, and regardless whether it continues to be one or not, I simply wanted to thank you for having an intelligent, even-handed discussion with players.




Note that I even though Max told me that humorous proposals were acceptable, I made a point of making the issue something worth discussing. (In short, contributing to the game and making it fun for people, which is the explicit purpose of a game.) I think the threads that have sprung up have lead to a healthy debate, and, hopefully, will result in some perspective with regards to why certain rules exist and what to do when they are no longer justifiable.

This games supposed to be fun? Darn, I've been playing it compleyely wrong. :twisted:



I brought up the "will of the people" thing, because we're talking about a rule which was designed for the benefit of the players, but the players (and, more importantly, the author of the game) don't want the rule.

How can I prove Max disagrees with the rule? He told me so.

How can I prove the people disagree with the rule? Well, my thought process was...

...if only there were some informal way of gauging the will of the people, some system for actually voting on things...oh, wait a minute, there is! It's the UN!

...well, if only someone had brought this issue before the UN...oh, geez, I forgot! Someone did! And, the Freedom of Humor was supported by a huge margin.

Again, my fundamental point is that rules should not exist for the sole purpose of being enforced. If there is such a rule and the only ones defending it are the enforcers of the rule in question, then something has gone very wrong.

Given that it is your "job" to interpret and enforce the rules as written, I don't think you necessarily did anything wrong (although I personally think an outright deletion in the face of incredible support was perhaps an overreaction, particularly in light of the recent Freedom of Humor Act).


I do think humor is important, and I chuckled a bit reading this. There is a line here, and I can certainly appreciate it. We don’t want the UN to be used just to test rules, but if there is popular support for such a movement then I agree it should at least sponsor a review of practices.

No, I don't see why you're frustrated. Let me create a scenario. Let's say, I somehow manage to get a proposal passed that permits your inbox to be spammed with goatze any time you post to the forums, Loop.

Now, according to your logic, if I passed that resolution, I could spam you with goatze... what was it? 100 times per day is your average post count? In this scenario, I should be allowed to inundate you with disgusting porn, just because I passed a resolution. It's an extreme example, but I make my point by making it extreme.

Just because a resolution is passed, the rules of the game do not change.

Your suggestion is far incorrect. Such a proposal would be malicious, potentially illegal (possibly distributing porn to a minor), and to the ill-good of another player. This is simply a joke that you may find pointless but does not cause any harm. You may disagree with this, which is fine, but your example here is not valid.

By the way, I slipped up. It's NEE that has 100 posts a day, not Loop. My bad. :oops:

You make my example even more relevant. Those are all the reasons it wouldn't fly. The same reasons, to a lesser extent, why the Freedom of Humor act doesn't apply in this case.

How can I prove Max disagrees with the rule? He told me so.

That claim does not constitute proof. ("Hey [violet], Max told me I could be Admin, so just TM me that root password, ok?")

Also keep in mind: while humorously written proposals are certainly ok, joke proposals (as in: there's nothing serious in it that makes it a proposal of something UN worthy) are not.

A lot of things in this game have a light humorous slant to it: the issues, the FAQ, the Forum descriptions... This adds to the game being enjoyable. Total 'nonsense' proposals do not do this.

Ballotonia

How can I prove Max disagrees with the rule? He told me so.

That claim does not constitute proof. ("Hey [violet], Max told me I could be Admin, so just TM me that root password, ok?")

I believe he was asking the mod to check for themselves, not just take his word for it.


A lot of things in this game have a light humorous slant to it: the issues, the FAQ, the Forum descriptions... This adds to the game being enjoyable. Total 'nonsense' proposals do not do this.

Ballotonia
That's your opinion, but it wan't the opinion of the 130+ delegates that voted for it. Please don't state your personal feelings as facts.

Context.

The General Forum exists for debate and chat. And until such a time as Mods are given a mandate to lock every word game thread in sight, those threads will be with us.



Then this would not have been toasted as spam in General, as it falls into the joke category. My point here actually wasn't to be contradictory, just to point out that General should not be used as an example of order. It's much closer to restrained chaos. I personally hate those inane threads snf the way they water down the General forum, and yet, I don't call for their removal, because I know that some people enjoy and support them.

Incidentally, this is in no way an attack on your General forum moderation, which I find quite fair.

OK, in that case the following should clear a few things up:

If it has no implications for your nation's stats, it is toast.
I do believe this yardstick for UN Proposals is fair. Objections? I mean, if it cannot affect your stats when passed, what is the point of it existing?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Well, Balltonia already said this, but..

There is a difference between using humor to convey a point in a proposal and a joke proposal. A humorous proposal would make a suggestion about what should be changed in a nation, but with a humorous slant to it. A joke proposal (if interpeted literally ... obviously it has to have a category) does nothing.

If Architeuthis wanted to test out use the Freedom of Humour resolution by making a serious proposal with a humorous slant, I'm sure the mods would let it go right through and live a natural life. I'd also bet that if this had died a quiet death a day or two earlier, there would have been no complaints about it since the only thing seperating it from the other joke/spam proposals is that it actually got endorsements.

OK, in that case the following should clear a few things up:

If it has no implications for your nation's stats, it is toast.
I do believe this yardstick for UN Proposals is fair. Objections? I mean, if it cannot affect your stats when passed, what is the point of it existing?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

This may be true, however, I'd also think that up to the delegates to decide if it is so inconsequential. What is the point of having having votes and a set quorum number, or even a UN at all, if proposals/resolutions can be smited from on high anyway?

<snip>..... I'd also bet that if this had died a quiet death a day or two earlier, there would have been no complaints about it since the only thing seperating it from the other joke/spam proposals is that it actually got endorsements.

I think this is the jist of the problem. If it was a worthless proposal and nobody supported it then I see no reason not to delete it. This proposal had 130+ votes and still growing. What exactly was it hurting? Why go the extra effort to go against the wishes of the players? It was a very popular proposal. Just because you have the power doesn't mean you have to use it.

No, I don't see why you're frustrated. Let me create a scenario. Let's say, I somehow manage to get a proposal passed that permits your inbox to be spammed with goatze any time you post to the forums, Loop.

Now, according to your logic, if I passed that resolution, I could spam you with goatze... what was it? 100 times per day is your average post count? In this scenario, I should be allowed to inundate you with disgusting porn, just because I passed a resolution. It's an extreme example, but I make my point by making it extreme.

Just because a resolution is passed, the rules of the game do not change.

You obviously didnt read my entire posts, I stated in one, that things such as goastse should be immeadiatly smote and posting of the full link or pics from it, should result in carpet modbombing, at two other forums I visit, they take it so serioulsy I have seen bannings at the IP level for posting the full link or the pic.

all I have said is in my posts reposting it here would be pointless so I will close in saying.

I got to meet Wrestling legend Mr Fuji today!


=-=-=
Loop
My current flag
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/1_infinite_loop.jpg

You still miss my point. It's an exagerration for the purpose of making an argument. Yes, goatze is bad. That's incidental to the argument I was making. My point that just because a resolution passes, the rules don't change, is the result of that exagerrated hypothetical situation. Goatze is bad. Yes, it deserves to be modbombed. That's why I chose it.

Goatze is against the rules. If I spam you with it, I get modbombed.


Joke proposals are against the rules. The hippo thing was a joke proposal. It was against the rules. The Freedom of Humor act does not change the rules, any more than you could pass a resolution forcing the admin to add war to NS.

Is that such a hard point to make? I've had to explain it three times.

hippo:goatze::bad:worse

Ballotonia's point is a valid one. There's nothing wrong with a humorously written proposal - which is one of the reasons why we don't force you all to write like real-world UN delegates when you submit them - but if the proposal itself is just pointless (which you can't deny this was, really) then that will kill it.

Anbar, with all due respect I think you've missed the point somewhat. The mods exist to keep the game running smoothly. The players may well have their own ideas about things, but the UN is a place in which nations campaign for conformity to their own viewpoints. An environmentally-conscious nation makes environmentally-conscious proposals trying to ban cars and the nations with big car manufacturing businesses argue against that. Etc. Agreeing that hippos are big is hardly going to change things one way or another in the manner that any other UN resolution can or should. I recognise that I've expressed this rather poorly, but it's a start at least.

Loop, I didn't mean by saying it was a "cheap shot" that it was a cheap shot in a bad way. All I meant to say was that it wasn't the best argument you could have used, although I can appreciate why you used it in the first place.

Part of this game is thinking outside the box.

In the past, when there have been system hiccups, and even though they were admittedly "unfair", Max has allowed them to stand because, hey, you know, the world is complicated place, and sometimes bizarre stuff happens.

Mods have also stepped in and rewarded cheaters and punished legal players, simply based on unwritten meta-game principles. Despite the fact that everyone agrees that no rules were broken by one side and that many rules were broken by another side, the cheating side was rewarded for reasons outside the scope of the written rule.

The entire forum is essentially "outside the box", in the sense that the forum is only used as a means to discuss what's happening inside the real game.

And now real-life meets are being promoted, which is even further outside the box.

We need to look at the big picture here. What is the purpose of the rule? What is the purpose of a game? What would really be the result of allowing the public to decide on what they think of something like HIPPOS ARE BIG?

The mods exist to keep the game running smoothly.

Exactly. In what way has removing HIPPOS ARE BIG from the floor promoted smoothness? By creating another mod fight? What is the harm in allowing an anomalous proposal to be voted on by the people? Is the threat of levity such a danger that it might turn everyone into Reefer Madness-style crazed loons?

Agreeing that hippos are big is hardly going to change things one way or another in the manner that any other UN resolution can or should.

You know that this resolution is about more than the obvious fact that hippos are indeed large creatures who occasionally wear mittens. It is a reaction to the overbearing, humorless air that sometimes permeates this game.

It's a statement that perhaps everyone could lighten up a little.

Certainly there have been some very bitter disputes in this game, and maybe if everyone took a little time to step back and sniff the hippos, some of that might be aleviated. People need perspective. When there is this level of animosity involved in something which was designed for the purpose of entertainment, then maybe some people need a kick in the ass to remind them not to take things so seriously.

There's room for the hardcore, joyless, rigid, anal, role-playing slaves to conformity, but there should also be room for people like Max, who know that a game should be fun and, like Tom Cruise said, "Sometimes you just have to say, 'What the fuck?'".

EDIT: I am having preposition issues.

Amend my earlier statement (which was kindly quoted) to read "mods are here to protect the players from themselves" perhaps?

Amend my earlier statement (which was kindly quoted) to read "mods are here to protect the players from themselves" perhaps?

Uh, thanks... but no, thanks. I prefer the earlier version.

I can understand, even when I don't agree with the specific actions when the mods step in to essentially break up a fight and keep things from getting out of hand.

But "protect the players from themselves", that's the kind of attitude that, in real life gives us legislated morality, Prohibition, banned books and a lot of other things I find strongly objectionable. An in game analogue would be the players who want invaders banned from the game because their style of play doesn't fit into some narrow role-playing paradigm. (Incidently, please don't infer that I'm lumping you in with any of those folks, but I think their attitude flows from same the sense of moral superiority inherent in the statement "protect the players from themselves.")

I, like most adults am capable of making those decisions for myself. Better we do, indeed, lighten up a little, give each other some space and try to enjoy ourselves.

Once again...the mods aren't preventing humorous proposals, they're preventing joke proposals. For example, if you were in a conversation about programming and you made a joke about programming, then everyone would have a quick laugh and the conversation would go on. Now, if you were to just start telling "your momma" jokes in the middle of that same conversation for no apparent reason, everyone would look at you a little odd. Thats what this Hippo resolution is like, you just went far and again over the line of what is acceptable and relevant humor in the UN ... your proposal crossed the line from "Humorous" to "Joke" so it was deleted.

Amend my earlier statement (which was kindly quoted) to read "mods are here to protect the players from themselves" perhaps?

Uh, thanks... but no, thanks. I prefer the earlier version.

I can understand, even when I don't agree with the specific actions when the mods step in to essentially break up a fight and keep things from getting out of hand.

But "protect the players from themselves", that's the kind of attitude that, in real life gives us legislated morality, Prohibition, banned books and a lot of other things I find strongly objectionable. An in game analogue would be the players who want invaders banned from the game because their style of play doesn't fit into some narrow role-playing paradigm. (Incidently, please don't infer that I'm lumping you in with any of those folks, but I think their attitude flows from same the sense of moral superiority inherent in the statement "protect the players from themselves.")

I, like most adults am capable of making those decisions for myself. Better we do, indeed, lighten up a little, give each other some space and try to enjoy ourselves.
Touche. I was in a bad mood when I suggested it, so don't take it seriously.

Ballotonia's point is a valid one. There's nothing wrong with a humorously written proposal - which is one of the reasons why we don't force you all to write like real-world UN delegates when you submit them - but if the proposal itself is just pointless (which you can't deny this was, really) then that will kill it.

Excellent. I think this is a fair compromise. In the spirit of compromise, I would like to offer the following resolution which I hope will satisify everyone; it has a point on environmental awareness and endangered species and it's (I think anyway) humorously written. Also it has Hippos.

HIPPOS ARE STILL BIG

PREAMBLE: The intent of the UN rules governing proposals is to insure that substantial issues are discussed. It is entirely just and proper that this should be so. Similarly, the intent of the Freedom of Humor Act, which recently passed the UN by an almost 4 to 1 margin, is to allow these issues to be discussed in an entertaining and amusing way. This too is entirely just and proper and will lead to a happier and more humane citizenry. The Whimsical Republic of the Orion Nebula is therefore proud to submit the following for consideration.

HIPPO AWARENESS DAY

WHEREAS, although Hippos are indeed quite large there exists some controversy as to whether they are the second or third largest land animal;

AND WHEREAS the Hippos are known to be distressed by the terrible way that mankind has treated the environment of the Earth;

AND WHEREAS Hippos are not only an endangered species but young Hippos are often mocked in junior high school for their ridiculous looking windbreakers, their large glasses and their round sneakers that resemble above-ground pools;

LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT each member nation of the United Nations declare the first Thursday following the Winter Solstice to be "Hippo Awareness Day".

AND LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that each member nation shall create programs that, on this day, educate its populace to the plight of all endangered species, but mostly Hippos. These programs should also raise the environmental awareness of the citizenry and encourage conservation.

AND LET IT BE EVEN FURTHER RESOLVED that these programs should contain the information that HIPPOS ARE BIG to help them regain their rightful place as the Earth's second largest land animal. Also this could be best accomplished by encouraging people to visit the zoo to see Hippos in the flesh so they can understand just how big Hippos are. This would prevent hurt Hippo feelings when people, unfamiliar with the size of Hippos, say "Wow, Hippos are big!" as opposed to having a comfortable idea about the relative size of Hippos, which would cause them to say "Now, THAT is a big Hippo!" only in the presence of an overtly large representative of the species.

AND LET IT BE STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the member nations of the UN are encouraged to broadcast a national telethon on Hippo Awareness Day to raise money for the establishment of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

ALSO hello.

Coming soon, issues about Hippos.

The above is more reasonable as it implies effects on environmental stats. In contrast, the deleted version was not reasonable as it had no implications for any stats whatsoever and was therefore a waste of the UN mechanism's time, irrespective of the Proposal's democratic approval by the players. At the end of the day, that is the issue here. No amount of player approval is going to get a game mechanics Proposal passed. Similarly, no amount of player approval is going to get a stat-less Proposal passed. Two sides of the same coin, guys.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Sounds like a fair compromise to me. Thanks for keeping this thread open to discussion.

My faith fails me. I am forced to do nothing but laugh.

So...we're allowed to be funny, as long as we're serious about it?

Lucky you, I am obliged to take this stuff seriously. I can't believe that this, of all things, has run to five pages. And they say we are unaccountable. Sigh.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I can't understand why anyone would vote for it. Well, I suppose special needs people can access the internet better than ever before.

Excuse me, but is it REALLY necessary to be abusively insulting about people you don't agree with?

I would also argue that as somebody that takes this game fairly seriously, I found this proposal insulting. It basically implies that the UN has nothing better to do than waste a week voting on a meaningless resolution. However, I have no objection (and would probably vote FOR) the proposal of the Orion Nebula posted above, as it actually DOES something.

People should have the right to play NationStates as seriously or as silly as they want. I find this proposal to be analogous to running into the NationStates forum and posting "You guys take RP too seriously! Lighten up and come into General now." There's no need to force somebody to be silly, just as there's no need to force somebody to be serious...I would find posting "You guys aren't serious enough! Start RPing now." in General just as offensive. But don't force the more serious players of the NS UN to waste our time on jokes such as these.

I feel it has now been adequately established why such Proposals are not acceptable. At its simplest, because they take up lots of the UN's time but do not actually do anything. So, locking.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator