Office of the UN Delegate - Page 3

Guardian · March 11, 2003, 05:16

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Also, we would like to ask for our delegate's opinion on this:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/vi...t=8425&start=0

Should we agree to support this endeavour?

I think we should. The fewer weapons of mass destruction, the better!

DarkCloud · March 12, 2003, 21:18

This is strange? How can the UN pass votes so quickly- I dont' think any proposals last more than a few hours? another was just passed when I looged on that wasn't even in the ballot box yesterday?

somethings wrong with the UN?

GeneralTacticus · March 13, 2003, 01:58

They spend ages with no resolutions up, then pass them before anybody can acutally wake up to vote

Guardian · March 21, 2003, 06:01

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 · March 21, 2003, 08:45

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.

Guardian · March 24, 2003, 03:28

Well, the last resolution calling for lowering the quorum specified 5%, not the 10% that are currently required. However, I accept your point that a flat 100 approvals required would probably work better than any specified percentage. Perhaps the resolution wasn't so bad after all...

Drogue · April 1, 2003, 15:17

Guardian: I must say I am a little miffed about the coting situtation. I realise it is your choice as delegate, but despite the vast majority calling for you to vote no on the last resolution (5 to 1 in terms of vocal support) you preceded to vote yes

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.

Guardian · April 2, 2003, 01:40

Sorry about that. I honestly didn't know you people had a preference either way. I just saw you asking me to vote on something, so I went and voted to get it over with. (I have to admit that I haven't been reading all the messages lately...

)

For the record, Guardinia's vote as been changed and is now AGAINST the resolution.

This IS a democracy after all.

Drogue · April 2, 2003, 09:41

Many thanks Guardinia. A wise decision I feel. Are you intending to run for Justice?

Guardian · April 2, 2003, 09:42

I don't know... Think I should?

Drogue · April 2, 2003, 10:07

Well, no harm in it, people obviously support you, sicne youn are our delegate. If you have the time and inclanation, it could be good.

Guardian · April 3, 2003, 04:03

Well, coming from you, I suppose that's the best compliment I've gotten in a while. (Thanks man!)

The time is some times in kind of short supply though, so I think I'll stick with being a delegate for now.