NationStates Jolt Archive

I, the nation of Chowder Shower would like to propose a League of conservative govererments or a chamber of commerce for nationstates. The UN is FAR too liberal, and the a chamber of commererce or the league of conservative states would be a much enjoyed, highly welcome new feature. Of course we would have to block any liberal contry trying to gain access. Any comments or ideas?

Well, the moderators ruling (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) state quite clearly that parallel UN-type organizations are illegal and will result in players being ejected from the UN or even the game.
Flagrant Offences
1. Radical changes to Game Mechanics - including but not limited to the following: setting up parallel UNs, Security Councils etc; allowing individual nations to decide whether or not to abide by resolutions; repeal proposals or proposals supporting the repeal of past resolutions.

Apart from that, have fun. By the way, there's a nice little "I hate the UN" topic for these sorts of posts, too. (edit: I see you've already cross posted this there. Clever lad) This one will most likely be locked by a mod.

Chowder Shower, huh. Cute name.

Well a chamber of commerce would be to a lesser extent than that of the UN, it would be merle be a trade organization so to speak. All I’m trying to do is get a grass roots support among the more conservative players out there, believe me, theres not many. But the economically more successful countries don’t belong to the UN and most of the resolutions that the UN passes are flawed and not practical to begin with anyway. So just for kicks lets see what the people think.

Sophista has an annual GDP of $18,705,000,000,000. Considering our population, that rounds out to about $15,000 per person per annum. I'd consider that to be quite economically sucessful. To dismiss every nation in the UN as a bunch of poor socialists is a grave error, as many other states have similar economic power.

I will grant you that many UN resolutions have been flawed, but that has more to do with the authors than the UN on the whole. If you're given only rotten vegetables, the salad isn't going to taste very good. This is something that myself and other nations are trying to fix by encouraging those wishing to pass legislation to first start with a draft, and work through that draft in the forum.

Also, don't be so quick to cast aside Frisbeteeria's warning. There's a long line of people who've come before you with the same idea, only to see their nations suddenly banned from the forums, or erased completely. Picking a fight with the moderators is never a good idea.

I'm not trying to start a fight, don't care to get in one over this issue, but the UN is unporprotantly liberal. Its not the united nations its the useless nations. I just want everyone to have a good time and to participate fully in the game. I just find that next to impossible because people are willing to vote for anything and everything that comes in the UN. Maybe we should display both sides of the arugement when you bring up the UN not just the dummies unrealistic view of his idea. BUT CHOWDER SHOWER JUST GO TO THE FORUM TO DEBATE THE ISSUES, LOL. I seriously doubt half the people come here to look at the issues. Maybe I don't have all the answers, maybe I don't have any, but i just want to see how many people would think its worthwild to have a trade organizanion.(NOT SOMETHING TO REPLACE THE USELESS NATIONS)

You can roleplay anything you want to, Chowder. You just can't do it inside the UN.

Go over to International Incidents and start some sort of Association. (I'd strongly advise you to read the stickies there and in Nationstates, along with about 100 random topics, before starting) Anything you do there IN-Character is fine, even welcome. But try to set something up that actually changes rules, like your regional association your proposed in the I Hate the UN topic, and you'll be history.

It's not the nations that are liberal, though there are a lot of them. Go play with creating proposals sometime. You'll find that it's almost impossible to create a conservative code combination there. Max set this place up to sell a wacky book with some wacky premises in it, and the coding reflects that. That WILL NOT BE CHANGED. Perhaps added to (Reppy is hinting it's coming), but don't bet on a speedy resolution there.

In the meantime, don't try drumming up support inside the UN. It's frowned upon.

I want to join this league i strongly agree with u.

Well you can't please everyone, and I'm sure as hell not trying too. You know what they say, you can't fight city hall, or in this case the UN and its goons. So from now on I will try to build a Coalition of Willing Conservatives and hopefully turn the tide in the UN, if not may god help us all. So I can’t fight the man, so I might as well vote him out of office. That’s why I started a new region: Land of Conservative Nations….if you’re a conservative and interested in joining please do, but if not please don’t, your not welcome.

It seems like everyone in Nation states hates conservatives!!!! :mad:

I AGREE AND ABOUT 5 times MORE PISSED OFF THAN ANYONE IN THE GAME ABOUT THAT!

I AGREE AND ABOUT 5 times MORE PISSED OFF THAN ANYONE IN THE GAME ABOUT THAT!

EXACTLY!!!!

Really why dont they call this game liberal states

www.wearegayliberals.com that can be the website

I simply can't understand why people would insist that the NS UN is liberal. :rolleyes:

Perhaps that's because I can't think of a good conserative resolution that has been proposed. Generally conserative people don't propose world wide resolutions in the first place. This tends to skew the resolutions offered in the UN considerably.

On the other hand, if you can come up with a good conserative resolution that doesn't violate any NS UN rules I would gladly support it.

Forgive me if I sound cynical, but I very much doubt that you will succeed. There have been a multitude of 'counter-UNs' in the past, none of which have gone anywhere. Or if they have, they don't waste time talking about it in the UN forum.

May I just say as well that just because someone doesn't support a particular ideal, does not mean they hate those who do support that view. For an example, I'll use 'love the sinner, hate the sin', a catch-phrase used by many religious people.

I believe there aren't many conservative resolutions because there aren't many conservatives in the UN. Just look at the resolutions and you understand why. Take for instants the current resolution the reduction of fossil fuels by 80% BS. So what, are cars going to run off wind? The resolution is BS to begin with because they want the conservative or "money making" countries to pay for it and no way in hell is that happening.

As you have continued to ignore every reasonable and helpful suggestion offered you by a multitude of more experienced players, I see no point in continuing to try reason with you.

*Ignored*

Non-existing-son-of-the-non-existing-god-head ... I go to bed for just 12 hours and ... :rolleyes:

I believe there aren't many conservative resolutions because there aren't many conservatives in the UN.Don't worry, next week we'll all get to hear about how there are far too many conservatives.Just look at the resolutions and you understand why.Of course, but ...Take for instants the current resolution the reduction of fossil fuels by 80% BS.I'm sorry, I seem to be having trouble finding that ... probably because you have not actually read the proposal correctly, all it actually calls for is a 2 % increase in sustainable energy generation in all member nations. The big bad 80 % relates only to that is how much is seen as being generated on average as non-sustainable. I'm sure you did not mean too, but please, try not to mis-represent the document to your own ends.So what, are cars going to run off wind?Well, if we're talking about all the wind blowing around this thread, certainly methane based ...The resolution is BS to begin with because they want the conservative or "money making" countries to pay for it and no way in hell is that happening. * Sigh * I'm so not bothering this one witth a 10 foot pole, even if it is called " bob " ...

I've only been at the game for two days and I've already had thoughts of a parallel U.N. for players who aren't spineless liberals. Have to admit I hadn't seen the rules about this, especially ones about repealing U.N. resolutions. That's a load of crap, IMHO. Been reading those resolutions, and some are so vague as to be unenforceable, even in a fantasy world. To remain in character, my nation could never subject itself to the immoral Big Gay Marriage and Let's Give Abortions to Thirteen-Year-Olds resolutions (perhaps I exaggerate a little). My only hope would be to infiltrate the U.N. in order to enact change and rescind the offensive resolutions. But I guess that's not even allowed. Hmm.

What other choice, then, but to create another organization which would preserve sovereignty in member nations without subjecting them to swallow the liberal pill whole? I haven't come across a way to secede from the U.N., without being "kicked out."

There are a number of resolutions which I would support, and which I find quite reasonable. But for the present, I'll eschew U.N. membership. Can't subject my people to abortion-on-demand, nationalized healthcare, or more than two sexes.

Please post a link to your League of Conservative Nations region. Sounds like it's worth checking out.

The name is Land of Conservative Nations.

I think most of the resolutions contradict the religious freedom resolution, even the religious freedom resolution contradicts the religious freedom resolution...

I mistyped my statement, I officially apologize

"Take for instants the current resolution the reduction of fossil fuels by 80% BS."

But the fact still remains; it will cost more developed nations billions of dollars while the underdeveloped get to skip out on the bill. The Conservatives in the UN can't sit ideally by and watch the UN strip away trade. Conservatives must take a stand and fight to get back the UN.

I haven't come across a way to secede from the U.N., without being "kicked out."
If you have joined, then the button to resign from the UN is right there at the top of the UN page.
Please post a link to your League of Conservative Nations region. Sounds like it's worth checking out.
Ah, so now we have it.

Could you all please note: Region pimping is not allowed within the UN Forum. Use the Gameplay forum.

Wouldn't he have to be in our region to pimp it? And since hes not in our region,(not yet) I therefore think you should shut the hell up.

How do u pimp nations anyway??

Wouldn't he have to be in our region to pimp it? And since hes not in our region,(not yet) I therefore think you should shut the hell up.
Actually, you'e the one doing the illegal pimping. And the flaming. And the trolling. I don't think anyone is bothered by Maubachia at all.


Lordie, I gotta get that Ignore Cannon fired up again. It's been in the closet too long.

Actually, you'e the one doing the illegal pimping. And the flaming. And the trolling. I don't think anyone is bothered by Maubachia at all.


Lordie, I gotta get that Ignore Cannon fired up again. It's been in the closet too long.

Does he actually pay the leader of the countries to sleep with them?? Then how the hell does he pimp??

how the hell does he pimp??
Region Pimping is the act of promoting a specific region and inviting others to join. This practice became so pervasive and disruptive of several forums (including the UN), that all such activities were specifically confined to the (then-new) Gameplay Forum.

Region Pimping is permitted in Gameplay. It is forbidden elsewhere.

I c pimp

This is so full of sh!t its eyes are brown, viz.:

Take for instants the current resolution the reduction of fossil fuels by 80% BS.2%. 2% is trivial. It helps to actually read the resolution before you try to criticize it.

So what, are cars going to run off wind?Cars aren't affected by the resolution at all. It's strictly about generating electricity. READ the resolution before you try to criticize it.

The resolution is BS to begin with because they want the conservative or "money making" countries to pay for it and no way in hell is that happening.Oh, so now you speak for every nation with a developed economy, do you? Who appointed you? And by the way, it calls for EVERY nation to participate, mentioning particularly more developed economies because that's where the most electricity is generated.

Typical right winger - pick your simplistic slogan, repeat it ad nauseam, opt out of anything resembling logic and fact-based argument.

By the way, for an example of how progressive goals can be approached through pro-business means that conservatives would likely approve of, have a look at the draft Clean Transportation Incentive program. Read it thoroughly, don't just skim.

Progressive goal: reducing vehicular greenhouse gas emissions.

Pro-business means: government support for private industry.

Because of the means specified, I'm thinking it should be categorized as a Free Trade resolution rather than an Environmental resolution. :p

But why should government tell private industry what to do? It’s pretty bad when you have twenty anti-pollution regulations and you only have a very small amount of people. I wish someone would post actual proof that global warming is caused by humans, how much pollution does a volcano make when it erupts? I bet a hell of a lot more than all the cars on the planet.

Will you kindly READ the proposal before spouting off?

It's not about government telling industry what to do. It's about government giving industry financial incentive to do the right thing. Industry can go on doing what it was doing before if it wants. The proposal rewards industry for taking the action but does not punish for not taking it.

You want proof that human activity is having an impact?

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Environmental Protection Agency: (This is the Bush Administration talking!) Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report, 2001: Almost all greenhouse gases reached their highest recorded levels in the 1990s and continue to increase. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have varied substantially during glacial-interglacial cycles over the past 420,000 years, but even the largest of these earlier values are much less than their current atmospheric concentrations. In terms of radiative forcing by greenhouse gases emitted through human activity, CO2 and CH4 are the first and second most important, respectively. From the years 1750 to 2000, the concentration of CO2 increased by 31±4%, and that of CH4 rose by 151±25%. These rates of increase are unprecedented. Fossil-fuel burning released on average 5.4 Gt C yr-1 during the 1980s, increasing to 6.3 Gt C yr-1 during the 1990s. About three-quarters of the increase in atmospheric CO2 during the 1990s was caused by fossil-fuel burning, with land-use change including deforestation responsible for the rest.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/019.htm

There's a lot more information easily located on the web if you'll open your mind enough to read it.

Will you kindly READ the proposal before spouting off?
Now, now, Jovianica. Chowder Shower is a TRUE conservative. He doesn't NEED the facts before making up his mind. Just a hint of liberalism is enough.

In fact, did you know that the author of the current resolution is actually a puppet owned by Teddy Kennedy? And that one of the mods is secretly Ralph Nader, and he bullied the other mods into letting it get approved?

Should we tell Chowder about the secret, password-protected, Liberal Planning Forum where we all gather to discuss how best to screw over the rest of NS?

Nah, better not.

EXACTLY!!!!

Really why dont they call this game liberal states

www.wearegayliberals.com that can be the websiteActually, I am gay, and fairly liberal too. If you have a problem with that, you can of course take a running jump for all I care, as could any-one else with a similar problem to that, but please, do not try to flame-bait the other players here.
But the fact still remains; it will cost more developed nations billions of dollars while the underdeveloped get to skip out on the bill.No it does not. Does not, does not, does not. Why ? Because it says : " Calls upon all member states, particularly More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs), to fully address the issue of sustainable energy production; a minimum 2% increase in world usage over the next five years " ...

Now, once again if you actualy read the document closely, you'll see it states, " Calls upon all member states, particularly More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs) ". It does not say specifically that these and only these nations must fork out " billions " ... and I'm not even going to go into how mis-representative that statement is.The Conservatives in the UN can't sit ideally by and watch the UN strip away trade.Well, that little line just flew out of no-where, I'd cerainly enjoy your explaination of where you pulled that opinion from.Conservatives must take a stand and fight to get back the UN.Because as we all know, Conservatives must come first in all things.Now, now, Jovianica. Chowder Shower is a TRUE conservative. He doesn't NEED the facts before making up his mind. Just a hint of liberalism is enough.Hmmm, did any-body else get a mental image of the conservative rabble with burning torches and pitch-forks standing out-side the U.N. like angry villagers ? ;)In fact, did you know that the author of the current resolution is actually a puppet owned by Teddy Kennedy? And that one of the mods is secretly Ralph Nader, and he bullied the other mods into letting it get approved?
Don't forget next week, when the Kyoto protocol is going to battle God-zilla then crush down-town Conservatopia, heh.Should we tell Chowder about the secret, password-protected, Liberal Planning Forum where we all gather to discuss how best to screw over the rest of NS?* At this point The Rep of Komokom stuns Fris and has him dragged away and re-programmed for almost letting the " 0MFG-N035 ! LIB3R4LZ T3KZ 0V3R D4 U.N. ! " plan slip out ... :D

The problem with CO2 is we are all using the wrong name. CO2 is indeed a "Greenhouse" gas (along with other gases but they tend to be less talked about) but by calling CO2 a "greenhouse" gas we make an assumption that the only impact additional CO2 has in the atmosphere is thermal. That's not the case.

The reason why temperatures haven't risen the way some thought it would is because CO2 is having an impact on other areas of the environment. It's being absorbed by the oceans, and may threaten coral because it increases the acidity of the water and causes the coral to erode. It has already produced measurable effects of growth in the rain forest, and no one knows the possible impact of that. The word is not in yet on the effect on wetlands, although peat bogs do tend to take in more carbon than they release.

We need to consider options with reguards to CO2. Really this is no different from the previous century when manure in the world's cities was reaching a crisis level. The automobile was a major advance in polution reduction. New technologies will create a similiar deja vu. It was bad for horse shoe makers, but good for the automobile makers. This is also true today. Old companies die and new companies are born. You can't get much more conserative than that!

I, the nation of Chowder Shower would like to propose a League of conservative govererments or a chamber of commerce for nationstates. The UN is FAR too liberal, and the a chamber of commererce or the league of conservative states would be a much enjoyed, highly welcome new feature. Of course we would have to block any liberal contry trying to gain access. Any comments or ideas?

OOC:
May I suggest that such a league within the UN is not really effective? (That is to day, usually such leagues are roleplayed)

Instead of complaining and making a league that will not do much and that will always be dwarfed by the UN; may I suggest making proposals of your own or delivering constructive critisism and pushing for reform. Criticism of the UN is broader then just hardline conservatives. (I for one am most certainly NOT a conservative.) For example, currently I am working on a series of pro-business resolutions (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352950) to reverse the "Destroy economies" trend in the UN. It could really use the support of delegates that value their economies.

It has already produced measurable effects of growth in the rain forest, and no one knows the possible impact of that.Oh no, the trees will inherit the earth ?

As a liberal (I also adopt the term progressive) nation and person, I must express my dismay with conservatism in general.

Conservatives are often the party of anger, of opposition (though mind you, the Democrats over here are QUITE angry at the moment in their eagerness to get rid of George Bush). They push religion into places where it probably shouldn't go. They attempt to ban gay marriage just because it doesn't click with their interpretation of their Bibles.

They consistently back trickle-down economics, even when such systems have not proven particularly successful in the past. They put far too much value in corporate solutions, when corporations are interested in their own bottom line, not the general welfare of all.

Worst of all, they accept as status quo a sort of Social Darwinism that makes me ill to behold. Everyone has their place...and there is Hell to pay if anyone steps out of line. Just look at the differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties here. Democratic conventions are often chaotic scenes as various factions quarrel with each other. Republican conventions march in lockstep with the leaders. It's really frightening to see the masses of people who will not stop and THINK. Why don't conservatives stop for a moment to consider whom they are hurting?

And kudos to Komokom. You are not without allies who will step up and demand your rights and equal protection under the law.

Of course, your name box says you live in Australia, and I was speaking in American terms. So pardon my ignorance.