 |
| |
|
|
Guardian
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001
time: 06:25
|
|
Akiria asked a question in the Aplyton Regional HQ over at NationStates a while ago, but I am afraid I missed it...
I have received the following telegram:
quote:
Dear Esteemed UN Delegate, and representative of Guardinia,
I am writing to ask as to why you have voted against the current UN resolution? We haven't has a resolution for days, weeks even, because it requires too many endorsements to become a resolution. This is a resolution designed to reduce that number, so we can have more of a say, and make it more active, yet you vote against? Is this because of your blanket no to game mechanics ones? If so, this isn't so much about game mechanics.
Roleplay it, you're a delegate on the UN council, nothing is coming before you, since nothing gets enough support to be tabled. What do you do? You reduce the amount of support needed to be tabled, and become voted upon. It is in-game as well as game mechanics.
Sorry about being so long winded, but I would like to know why you have voted against it? Could you bring them up in the forum? I know you don't have to, but some discussion on NS would be appreciated.
Many thanks
Drogue - Foreign Delegate of the Commonwealth of Akiria
|
Guardinia's answer:
Dear Foreign Delegate,
The main reason why Guardinia opposed the resolution in question was because the UN had already passed a resolution calling for a reduction in the number of approvals needed to turn a proposal into a resolution, and passing more resolutions calling for the same thing is practically meaningless.
Secondly, I'd point out that the resolution in question was misinformed. At the time it was proposed, an approval rating of 10% was required for a proposal to become a resolution, not 15% as the resolution claimed.
Third, it is my position that the main problem is not inactivity of the delegates in itself, but the amount of rubbish proposals that CAUSE said inactivity. Delegates simply grow tired of digging through 50+ pages of rubbish every day to find the one or two proposals that they might actually support. It seems like a waste of time, and so we tend to end up not doing it. I'm guilty of it myself, and I realize that this can be a problem, but the problem would have been greatly reduced if there were a few less proposals like "Ban drugs", "Legalize drugs", "War on this", "War on that", "Proper grammar" and "kill the niggers". (  )
I hope this clarifies our position somewhat. Feel free to contact me again at any time if there are any further questions or issues you'd like to discuss.
Regards
Guardian
UN Delegate
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
I accept your point, and I think that is the cause, but what should we do to rectify it? We cannot stop people from posting these proposals, therefore we must make it easier for the few decent proposals to become resolutions. I accept the the quarum has been lowered already, but will little effect. Should it not be lowered further? This was not a problem before, because people used to be more active, but as more people join, more an inactive. Therefore I would think a static limit, that does not change with the amount of UN members/delegates would be preferable.
I accept that you don't agree with the proposal, and that is fine. Do you have any thoughs on how we can get more resolutions, it has been quite some time since we had one.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2003 14:16
I am a little puzzled by this. Why go against the wishes of the people? You think we should be forcing our morals onto other nations? I certainly don't, and most of Apolyton seem to feel that way.
)
|