NationStates Jolt Archive

Ideally, NS allows you to create your own country, and "run" it as you see fit. In application, however, there are many limitations to this notion; especially when becoming a member of the UN.

When submitting a proposal, your thoughts, ideas, and objectives are "screened" before they can be a part of true diplomacy. While I support the idea that this prevents obscene language and other "unacceptable" behavior, keep in mind that your proposal can be arbitrarily dismissed because a moderator might think it's just "stupid". It can also be dismissed because a moderator might disagree with the category the proposal is listed under. This is hypocritical of the entire UN political process and specifically targets smaller nations.

The idea behind this practice is to prevent the queue from becoming over-filled. In a real democracy, however, the queue has no limit, and each nation should have a fair chance at proposing legislation without someone determining its merit based solely on his or her beliefs. This is why we vote on proposals in the first place.

While I am pleased with most of the way Nation States operates, and believe that certain improvements can always be made, I believe that before we can even worry about expanding game features, we should take a second-glance at the operational procedures that govern Nation States in the first place.

One way to solve this issue is to limit the amount of proposals that a nation can make (per week, month, etc.) for all nations, while continuing to screen for obscenity or inappropriateness, yet not judging the proposal any further.



Basically, here's what we have as a result:

No proposal can be made regarding game-play, or the technical workings of Nation States. Would this mean that proposing a resolution that would prohibit the proposing of other types of resolutions be against the rules? Yep. But that's just what Nation States has done; only it was done arbitrarily, and without the approval of the international community as a RULE, rather than a resolution.

Can a resolution be amended? No. Did this rule have the international community's approval? No. Would such a move reduce the number of independent proposals, and reduce the number of "repeal" proposals that are filling up the queue? You bet. If an amended resolution is repealed, that means the ENTIRE resolution, along with its amendments would be repealed as well. Would this free up space? Definitely.

Can a nation propose that all automobiles be colored pink? No. Should a nation be able to? Yes! This is what democracy and having a voice at the UN is all about. If member nations are expected to abide by the rules of the UN, then this means that every nation should be able to propose whatever it wants, and allow the proposal to be rejected by the international community, rather than the "Nation States Gestapo Illuminati".

What happens if the "Gestapo Illuminati".... (or moderator, for the use of a more common term) decides that you've posted too many "stupid" proposals? You are arbitrarily dismissed from the UN.... without a vote or any kind of influence from the international community.

There's an entire page outlining what constitutes a proposal that is "acceptable" and one that is "unacceptable". The point is, that these criteria were not developed by the United Nations, but they heavily govern the United Nations. While some of the rules are sensible in my opinion, I believe that it's gotten WAY out of hand.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

If the United Nations were allowed to define how the game is played to a greater extent, then the sets of rules governing the procedures for the operation of the United Nations would better represent the players, depict greater accuracy in how it's done in the REAL WORLD, and give everyone a voice and a chance to challenge a rule which some might feel is unfair, through the process of DEMOCRACY.

Without the necessary support from Nation States to make this happen, the entire point of this game is thus defeated in itself, and thus is endorsing political hypocrasy. By allowing the United Nations to actually govern itself, gameplay can be made infinitely more enjoyable.

There are many ways to make this happen with little to no effort on the part of the Nation States Gestapo Illuminati. Instead of addressing these issues in a forum; (away from any chance of players voting on these issues), simply vote on them at the UN. Change the criteria on which a proposal may be submitted, and if any resolutions are passed that require heavy modifications to the programming of the game, then simply amend the resolution to take effect at a later time, until the necessary programming can be done, and make resolutions of that nature PERMANENT, and thus, subject to long-term consideration by the UN.

Allow the UN to govern itself. You might even find that the UN could make it more difficult to repeal a resolution, thus reserving more time for new resolutions, rather than wasting time, passing and repealing. Allow the players to do the work.:rolleyes:

Either way, there's a very strong and concrete line between RULES and RESOLUTIONS. As long as this is the case, there's absolutely no point to this game.

Not happening.

In essence, your complaint originates from this:

'Sun Jun 24 19:31:06 2007 stonedhard:What the hell man? I submitted a proposal that would outlaw foreign countries from coming in a burning down my herb, and the proposal got deleted before it could even reach quorum.',


The proposal is completely unnecessary. Invading another nation is an act of war and as such, illegal.

Please take the time to read the rules governing UN proposals here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) before submitting any new proposals.

"Gestapo Illuminati"....you've got to be kidding me.

Proposals cannot be made regarding the workings of the game because they are impossible; they require extra coding, and our code monkeys don't get paid (and have lives in the Real World, to boot).

Resolutions cannot be amended because they are impossible; see above. NationStates' code is a huge agglomeration of bits tacked on here and there, more like a shanty town than a centrally planned, perfectly grid-like metropolis.

I do not think you realize the level of blithering stupidity possible on the Internet. If we did not have the "just plain dumb" clause, the UN would be flooded with crap. Before we had it, UN members reacted badly to having to wade through a sewer all the time.

I think that you have also failed to realize that the UN is not an international World Government in NationStates; it is a mechanism by which players vote on statistical changes made to their nations.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, NationStates has never been a democracy. It's more like a benevolent dictatorship, ruled by a mostly-benevolent dictator, who grants the populace the freedom to live their own lives but watches carefully for anyone to slip up.

It's nice that you think we're some kind of shadowy secret police out to oppress you. But it's not true, and it really hurts your argument to claim so.

Finally, thank you for taking the time to read and understand the UN rules.

~Tsarmageddon has seen the fnords

Thank you guys for supporting my arguement.

Thank you guys for supporting my arguement.

And thank YOU for hauling out both Godwin and the Mod Bias memes on your very first post. Good show.

Wow, such hostility.... all I'm doing here is recommending ways to improve Nation States, with a slight twist of bias and opinion; and I think we can all agree that one of the purposes of the forums is just for that.

As a "newbie", I can't be expected to know about the intricate workings of Nation States. All I can do is make recommendations based on what I know; and that's the best that I can do. I did make every attempt to gain as much of an understanding of this as I could, and for a "first post", you HAVE to admit, it's one hell of a post.

If there's any way that I can be of further immediate disconsideration, please let me know. I'll be happy to help :)

Wow, such hostility.... all I'm doing here is recommending ways to improve Nation States, with a slight twist of bias and opinion; and I think we can all agree that one of the purposes of the forums is just for that.
Actually bias and opinion have no place in the Moderation forum. Facts and truth are what we deal in.

If you have a suggestion that doesn't drastically counter the current rules and care to couch it in language that isn't inflammatory to the very people you're attempting to deal with, then perhaps we can talk.

deal

What strikes me funny about all of this is that it's probably directed at Hack or me, the two most active UN mods. I don't remember deleting any such proposal, and a search of the mod logs (yes, everything we do is logged so that other mods and admins can review our work) reveals nothing recent that meets the description. In fact, the only recent ejection for stupidity was this one: (names removed to protect the stupid)
Tue Jun 26 13:32:38 2007: frisbeeteria sent <nation> the telegram "UN Proposal "<proposal>" deleted. As it seems your only reason for UN membership is to post stupid and annoying proposals, your membership has been revoked.".
To put that in context, here is the RMB of the nation in question
'Tue Jun 26 05:25:42 2007 <nation>:what the hell?
yeah i\'m still not kicked out of the UN so here it goes with another proposal',
'Tue Jun 26 05:34:03 2007 <nation>:support this one please',
'Tue Jun 26 05:34:52 2007 <nation>:<proposal>

Description: <text of proposal> ',
'Tue Jun 26 18:24:43 2007 <nation>:whooo! it worked i got kicked out of the UN, thus my job is done, and this nation will soon die',
This was followed by cheering from his regionmates.

Are you saying that was you? 'Cause it didn't have anything to do with weed. In fact, none of the 287 proposals deleted so far in June seem to have anything to do with the combination of weed and war. Mind you, we don't capture the entire deleted proposal in the logs, just the title, so perhaps your proposal was titled "End copral punnishment" or "Women 2 b 2nd class citizens" or "The Pygmy-possum Act" or "ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKE". Hard to tell with such irrelevancies floating around.

Perhaps if you mentioned the name of the nation that submitted the proposal, or the proposal name, or the reason given by the mods, or any other relevant details. Stonedhard had never been loaded in the Mod Centre by any mod before you posted this thread. Nor were there any warnings on your nation. And I notice that Stonedhard is currently a UN member, so obviously this all happened with one of your other nations. Did this happen recently, or have you spent the last six months working up to that post? We've got logs. Tell us who and what and when, and we'll delve into it.

We don't mind the occasional complaint about our actions. However, we're not exactly jumping at the chance to resolve your issues when you omit EVERY relevant detail that could provide guidance to why-in-the-hell you're bent out of shape over this.

Ball's in your court, Sparky.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the current resolutions in place in the UN don't outlaw war.

It might have been me. Hard to say, really. I spin through the list so quickly these days (did someone shorten the day when I wasn't looking?), that I rarely remember much about what I delete anymore.

I think I recently deleted a few drug Proposals, but that's to be expected, really. You see, the UN has already legislated on drug use, so most drug proposals are duplications (or contradictions) of existing legislation. If having rules makes us the Gestapo, well... sign me up for the shiny, knee-high boots.

If there's some rational complaint in there somewhere, or if you have some specifics, I'd be glad to listen. However, please leave the hyperbole at the door. I really don't have time for that sort of nonsense.

Negative - the proposal that I submitted was entitled "International Discrimination", and it was a proposal to ensure that nations who have banned the use of recreational drugs don't discriminate or oppose against nations that haven't; i.e. burning down drug fields, seizing shipments, etc....

But that's not what my post was even about. My post was about modifying operational procedures within nation states to allow for more democracy by allowing the UN itself to determine NS rules and regulations. I acknowledged that my proposal was "substandard", and consequently, I went to figure out why. The only reason I could come up with is that it was arbitrarily removed because a moderator felt that it wasn't worthy of UN consideration..... leading to this post.

I felt that any lack of democracy in a democratic organization such as the UN (by real-world standards, as this is a simulation) is wrong, or at least not coherent with the purpose of Nation State's objectives. What you're talking about here, has nothing to do with anything.

I'm filled with lots of great ideas, and I'm sure that at least to some extent, if Nation States could somehow be governed by the players, it would DEFINITELY be a lot better and less strenuous for the moderators, as any problems or issues will simply take care of themselves.

Furthermore, Resolution 191 (UN Drug Act) only applies to local drug laws within one nation. It does not address how such practices affect other countries on an international basis. My proposal was to cover the international aspect of it as well..... such as the exportation of recreational drugs between nations using international waters. This idea was to cause the UN to make an official ruling on the banning or legalization of recreational drugs within international waters and areas.

To date, there is no legislation addressing this issue.

I do not think you realize the level of blithering stupidity possible on the Internet. If we did not have the "just plain dumb" clause, the UN would be flooded with crap.More so than it is now, you mean.

But that's not what my post was even about. My post was about modifying operational procedures within nation states to allow for more democracy by allowing the UN itself to determine NS rules and regulations.Right, I can tell you that there's no chance in hell of that happening, ever.
I acknowledged that my proposal was "substandard", and consequently, I went to figure out why.If you happen to have a copy of it, I can probably tell you exactly why it was deleted.

Please keep in mind that when you "spin" through the list so quickly, take into consideration that some people have actually put in a lot of time and effort into drafting these proposals.

I went down the list of every UN resolution to make sure that my proposal wasn't conflicting or redundant.... which led to why I was very confused about it being deleted.

I can only ask the moderators to spend a little more time on these drafts before making a decision as such.

Either way, the issue at hand, and the subject of my posting (regardless of the origin of its inspiration) is a goal of making Nation States completely independent of outside moderation. I'm sure that if there's a fail-proof way of doing it, you guys would support that all the way, as I'm sure your jobs can be very tedious at times.

So here I am, trying to exchange ideas and learn more.... but it seems like I'm the only one with this mindset. If this is going to be counter-productive, then the idea of having a forum for this has also defeated itself, and there's no point in continuing discussion about it, and we should probably just lock this down.

I'm reaching out .... and I'm trying to assist all of you in making NS an even better game. Part of this starts with the moderators.

But that's not what my post was even about. My post was about modifying operational procedures within nation states to allow for more democracy by allowing the UN itself to determine NS rules and regulations.Yeah, see, that doesn't work. The owner and creator of the game never intended it to be a democracy, because, frankly, online democracies are anarchies. They fail miserably. Furthermore, he personally approved the rule-set.

To say nothing of the logistical nightmare such a thing would be.

I felt that any lack of democracy in a democratic organization such as the UN (by real-world standards, as this is a simulation) is wrong, or at least not coherent with the purpose of Nation State's objectives. What you're talking about here, has nothing to do with anything.Actually, you're the one in error. The rules are an external construct that limits the actions of an internal entity. The Proposal rules exist on a different level than the UN does. They reside on the same level as "No UN multis", or "don't post illegal things," or "don't hack the game."

The UN is free to legislate on all sorts of in-game things, but it still must be constrained from the outside. Rules are a part of any game. While the rules let you decline to purchase Baltic Ave. in Monopoly, they don't allow you to decide to multiply the dice instead of adding them. It's not a matter of democracy, it's a matter of playing the game properly.

I'm filled with lots of great ideas, and I'm sure that at least to some extent, if Nation States could somehow be governed by the players, it would DEFINITELY be a lot better and less strenuous for the moderators, as any problems or issues will simply take care of themselves.HA! It's been tried on spin-off forums before. One was shut down by its host for violating the TOS, and the other was nearly shut down for the same reason before falling into utter chaos and then disuse within a few months.

A game ruled by the players fails. Miserably. NationStates will never be run by the players. Most players don't want that, none of the Mods want that, none of the Admins want that, and Max Barry (who still owns and runs this thing) doesn't want that.

That sounds like a real challenge. It can be done, as long as lessons are learned about other such entities, and the game is able to adapt and overcome. Afterall, it works in real-life. To me, it would be the perfect game, and whoever can do it first will get all of the credit - a game that governs itself, and actually works.

Nation States seems to be a pioneering game. So why stop now? I mean, you guys are calling the shots, but I think that such an idea would be absolutely incredible.... and more accurately reflect the way things are, politically, in the real world.

All I'm saying is that NS should at least spend some time considering it, and not just reject this idea right away. The rewards would definitely be worth it, I believe.

If not, oh well, I tried. But I'm always available to provide ideas as to how it could work if you guys decide that it's worth a shot, minimizing any programming to make it happen. Remember, even in real-life, governments have marshall law clauses in case the government fails. Such a clause could be included with the operation of NS as well.

If you guys would like to chew on this, I could actually draft out an entire way of making it happen, and subject it to your contructive criticism.... if for no other reason, for entertainment purposes.

You guys might even get a good laugh.

That sounds like a real challenge. It can be done, as long as lessons are learned about other such entities, and the game is able to adapt and overcome. Afterall, it works in real-life. To me, it would be the perfect game, and whoever can do it first will get all of the credit - a game that governs itself, and actually works.

Nation States seems to be a pioneering game. So why stop now? I mean, you guys are calling the shots, but I think that such an idea would be absolutely incredible.... and more accurately reflect the way things are, politically, in the real world.

Kid... person... whatever moniker you like, you must realize something. A "real democracy" has never worked in the history of the world. Nada. Zilch. Never.

Ancient Greece? Nope, only property owning males or all males.

The United States? Buddy, we're the definition of a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, yet we trumpet it all over the world. Why? No idea. But I can bet Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

As the mods have pointed out, and this is something the US Founding Fathers knew, there is a large portion of the population that is stupid, plain and simple. And, as a poster from Despair.com says "Stupidity: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." And that's true. For some reason, the stupid people seem to congregate, take over, and then all hell brakes loose.

Turst me, the game is better this way.

Roger that... I'm an Iraq War veteran: nobody can truly understand the consequences of failed democracy more than people like me. But instead of running from it, I would like to challenge its weaknesses head-on, make the necessary corrections, and implement them.

I'll take your word for it, and hopefully as I learn more, I'll begin to see your point more and more.

I appreciate your feed-back. I do have a slightly better understanding now.

My favorite quote is "If there's no such thing as stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask?"

I have studied stupid people for a very long time. In Iraq, stupid people can be more dangerous than the enemy, and the more that I know about them, the better my chances of survival are. Evidently, it worked - I'm still here. And people like me are VERY familiar with stupid people in large groups; only we had platoons, companies, batallions, divisions, corps, and regiments.

There are a few other traits that ALL stupid people have in common; most notably the capacity for laziness. Stupid people are stupid because they're too lazy to make themselves wiser and more intelligent. As we all know, things are fine until a stupid person begins calling shots, and it's all down-hill from there.

However, this principal can be exploited while allowing everyone a chance at leadership. The US Army's solutions were to implement college requirements, course completion, etc... Here at NS, a requirement to be a delegate or anyone else that could adversely affect the game for the worse could be made that would filter out the stupid people while preserving fairness.

I dunno.... as I've said before, I can actually write down all of the possible ways for this to be 100% fail-proof. As long as you guys are willing to listen, even if just for entertainment, I'd be willing to do it.

In the meantime, I'll continue to take notes, and analyze how the procedures in place preserve the game, and what substitutions can be made without compromising the integrity of the game.

As the founding member of the "NationStates Gestapo Illuminati" I figured that this thread was pertinent to my interests. However, I had trouble taking too much of this very seriously after reading this:
...if Nation States could somehow be governed by the players, it would DEFINITELY be a lot better...

NationStates is governed by the players. Where do you think we came from? Is there some Unholy Moderator Womb of Unspeakable Evil that we burst from at random intervals?

Please. The very nature of internet communities (i.e. someone has to hold the keys, and you can't give them to everyone) prevents a true democracy from ever taking place. In addition to this, Democracy as a governing concept is only viable when you seek to govern nations or regions: private property is, has been, and always will be dealt with in a decidedly more autonomous fashion--and for a good reason. NationStates is not a right, but every once in a while we come across some people who think it should be.

So I guess that's where the real inspiration originated from -- an attempt to actually see a real democracy in place. The way that NS is being run is virtually the same way the US is being run. The consequences? We can start with people like me dying for nothing. That's right. With the passage of the Patriot Act, US citizens have essentially handed away their freedoms.

Now let me ask you guys something......what's the point in dying for everyone's freedom if they're just going to hand it away like that?

This anamoly is a direct result of the people having little say in the development of the rules that govern them. If I was Thomas Jefferson, I wouldn't roll in my grave because of what the US has become; I'd roll in my grave because of what its citizens have become. A true patriot would challenge any sort of system like this -- which is essentially what I'm doing here; only I'm offering alternatives as well.

If we can establish that our forefather's visions can work in a simulation, then we can establish that what we have become was not out of necessity, but rather greed and corruption. It's something that I feel very strongly about, as I nearly laid down my life to preserve these ideas on several occasions.

Please stick to discussing the way NationStates is run in this thread. We have an entire forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227) if you want to discuss the way America is run, and it's not really relevant to NationStates moderation.

If I had to take an educated guess, I'd be willing to bet if I went to the US House of Representatives, and the US Senate, and asked them why the Patriot Act is necessary, they'd tell me all of the same things I'm hearing here.

It's not the absense of democracy itself that's got me concerned; it's the absence of effort to establish and promote one. That goes against everything that I stand for.

At the very least, it would be a pioneering expedition, and it would allow you, the moderators, to better understand what I'm proposing and how I'm proposing it. The fact that you guys don't even want to listen only mirrors why we're experiencing the problems that we have today in the real-world.

In that regard, the simulation is a 100% success.

Please stick to discussing the way NationStates is run in this thread. We have an entire forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227) if you want to discuss the way America is run, and it's not really relevant to NationStates moderation.

Ambrose-Douglas brought in all of that; I just simply replied. I mean seriously... I'm even limited to the things that I can and cannot say here. Can you understand why I chose to use the term "Gestapo Illuminati" now?

All I'm asking here is that you guys hear me out. I'll sit down, do a lot of research, and lobby the specifics. If you guys don't want to hear me out, then you've proven my point, and there's no need to continue this any further, and I'll disappear into the "political" webs of NS forever. Yay? or Nay?

It's been tried.

Nay.

We are trying to hear you out. It just seems that you're not hearing us; we've explained that the NSUN is not the global governing body you'd like it to be, and what you envision is so far from the function of the NSUN it never could be.

I'd hazard to say that we all believe in democracy where it is appropriate; it doesn't tend to work on Internet forums. In lieu of that, we do our best to appoint only fair, impartial judges.

We are neither secretive nor oppressive; hence we're discussing this right here, where everyone can see. Thus calling us "Gestapo Illuminati" is hurtful, inaccurate, and detracts from your argument. We're not evil demon gods - we're players.

Absolutely.... I understand the points that the moderators have brought up... and they're all very good points. All I'm asking is that you guys keep your opinions as they are, and allow me at a later date to go more in-depth with what I'm saying here.

You guys think that this is impossible. I don't seem to think so, and I'd like to have the opportunity to prove it.... which is what I'm asking you for.

A long time ago, the idea of flight or walking on the moon was probably the most impossible "nonsense" that anyone could ever dream up. But we continued to listen until it became a reality.

All I'm wanting from you guys is to allow me to further explain myself. I don't want to take the time to really research and develop unless I know I can come back to an audience......

I mean, if you guys would be willing to let me prove myself, I can promise you I'd blow your socks off with what I can come up with. Ultimately, there's nothing to lose. And in the rare event that you guys actually LIKE what I produce, it can even be experiemented with on a very small scale in a test environment.

All I'm asking for is your audience. You just might be surprized.... I can take a month or two to really put something together, and get back with you guys on this. Truely, it's up to NS to do with my ideas what it wants to anyway.

Here. Read this (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405771).

We've heard this song and dance before, and we're not interested. Furthermore, even if we were, we're not the ones you need to convince. We don't own the game. And as I've stated, the owner isn't interested, and ultimately, he calls the shots.

On a tangentially related note, I'd come up with this idea a while back and was wondering if it would be at all possible to implement:

Basically, we have the governments of NSG (Parliament, the Senate, most of which are now defunct but see a resurgence periodically), and it struck me that despite whatever resolutions and proposal get passed, nothing ever comes of it. What if, pending mod approval, proposals could be brought to these NSG governments related to behavior in NSG, and then could be voted on by MPs/Senators/delegates/etc. and potentially made "law."

These would all be whimsical, generally amusing rules that wouldn't necessarily require mod enforcement, but...well...could we do something like this?

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I caught the scent of a UN proposal being discussed. Stonedhard, problems with NS, the way the rules are conceived, the moderators, etc., all aside, your proposal idea is probably workable, to judge by the latest version (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=ii). Whether you want to continue this discussion is your call, but could I suggest you start a thread in the UN forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1225) in which you post your proposal and say what you are trying to accomplish with it (it is similar in idea to a proposal I tried long (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442015) ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442039), and in a slightly different vein to an excellent effort by Emen Un (http://www.nation-states.com/showthread.php?t=522867), who may no longer be around but is probably contactable) and you might get some constructive feedback from UN forum posters on how to make your proposal legal, how to make it better, and how to get it passed.

and our code monkeys don't get paid (and have lives in the Real World, to boot).

Writing a new Shakespeare play? ;)

as for the idea, the mods tried it as a joke for april fools. Even with that, it was proven that it would be a bad idea.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522669

"democracy" on the internet fails because there is no consequence and total anonymity. It won't work, and the owner doesn't want to join the long list of sites that prove that fact.


not a mod, as always

as for the idea, the mods tried it as a joke for april fools.

Which reminds me, there was talk about releasing some of the funnier uses for all of us to see. What ever happened to that idea? (apologies for the hijack)

They weren't funny.


I think we're done here.