 |
|  |
 |
|
Guardian
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001 time: 06:25
|
|
I'd like to add that, as the UN delegate, I will respect and loyally carry out any democratic decision made by the people of our region. This entails that - regardless of my personal opinion - I will vote according to what we have decided. This applies to both approval of proposals and the actual voting on a resolution.
When the UN Delegate votes on a resolution, he or she gets an extra vote for each endorsement held at the time of voting. In addition, each one of those UN members also get to vote once for themselves. This means that, as a large region with many UN members, we can pack an extra punch if we work together and make decisions in a democratic fashion.
Of course, when voting on resolutions, individual UN member is free to vote as they please, but the delegate will vote according to the regional decision.
So, if you oppose a resolution but the regional vote goes in favor of it, you're free to vote against the resolution in the UN, but the regional delegate will vote in favor of it. (Thus, if you endorsed the delegate, you will in effect be voting both for and against this one.) If, on the other hand, you're in favor of a resolution and we have decided that the delegate is to vote in favor, then - if you endorse the delegate - you will effectively be putting in two votes in favor of the resolution. (Your own vote plus the extra vote you've given to the delegate.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Leland
|
|
Archaic: did you join the UN during the past week, or earlier? If it's earlier, then I'm going to remain skeptical. But if someone else can report a successful recent joining of UN from hotmail addy, I'll sign up too. Anyone?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Leland
|
|
Question for the two candidates (or other power-hungry individuals): if you had to choose between a proposal to advance democracy, and a proposal to enhance free trade, which one would you choose? I'll decide my endorsement based on the answer.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Leland
|
|
Alright, another moronic game mechanics proposal is under vote. "Description: The game should allow interaction among players of the game, trade laws, war, treatie, alliance and other options should be allowed."
I think that resolutions like this, or the few previous ones are pointless drivel. Sure the democracy bonus is nice, but since resolutions don't have any effect on gameplay voting stuff like this is just plain idiotic. It's not as if NationStates is a very deep and intricate thing to begin with, but at least we could try being serious about it and have real proposals/resolutions like "compulsory global democracy" or "universal right to bear arms" or "futuristic dress code" or anything that even pretends to be in-game (the preceding examples I pulled out of thin air, btw).
So, I humbly suggest that the current delegate categorically does not give approval to proposals that deal with game mechanics, and on the other hand supports every even remotely sensible proposal there is (okay, the latter isn't really necessary...). It should go without saying that the delegate votes against any game mechanics related proposal that reaches the voting stage. If the current delegate agrees with this course of action, I'd like to rally everyone who can to give their endorsement to him in order to boost his voting power. If the current delegate disagrees, I think we should pick someone who does see the pointlessness of gameplay proposals.
The current proposal, "Interaction", has at the moment 2771 votes for and 512 against, so this may be a futile battle. But it's the principle that counts.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guardian
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001 time: 06:25
|
|
Leland, the current delegate agrees with you wholeheartedly and is voting against the current UN resolution (Interaction) on the grounds that - although it sounds nice - it's stupid OOC stuff that shouldn't be up for voting in the game.
Furthermore, the current delegate is preparing to implement the following policy:
Any and all proposals dealing with OOC stuff like game mechanics will automatically be disqualified from getting our approval. On the other hand, we are willing to approve in-game proposals that make sense and appear to be well thought out, even if we actually disagree with them, in order to help get some resolutions up for voting that are actually worth voting for.
Of course, once the proposal moves up to become a resolution, then we will decide whether to support it or oppose it.
If this is acceptable to you people out there, then an endorsement to Guardinia is a vote in favor of this policy. Otherwise... well, the policy is still negotiable. 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|