Office of the UN Delegate

Guardian · January 31, 2003, 04:18

Ladies and gentlemen, the office of the new UN delegate is officially opened. Feel free to drop by at any time to discuss UN matters. Also, if you'd like to open a thread to discuss a particular issue, you can let the thread subject begin with "UN:" to indicate that you'd like the delegate's attention on this one.

For instance, a thread to discuss a proposed resolution to ban the death penalty could be called "UN: Proposal to ban the death penalty".

Discussions are open for everybody, but if we vote on something, the voting will be reserved for UN members. I propose to handle this by having each nation send in their votes by telegram on the NationStates site, where their UN membership can be easily verified.

Guardian · January 31, 2003, 04:54

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.)

Arnelos · January 31, 2003, 05:34

Some of us in the region would like to know how on earth we can get INTO the U.N. so that we might (for instance...) endorse yourself and give our region a larger say

Any chance you raise a stink about the fact that none of us seem to be able to complete the application process to the U.N.? (the difficulty being that none of us get the e-mails... and it definately has nothing to do with our ISP's thinking the e-mails are spam

).

Just a suggestion

Guardian · January 31, 2003, 05:43

Your suggestion is duly noted, and will be acted upon immediately.

I had a problem myself the first time I tried to join. Got the e-mail with the link, but it only took me to my nation's description...

Then I got a second e-mail a few hours later - which actually worked...

Anyway, I am not aware of any possible explanation to the problem you describe, but I shall certainly bring it to the attention of those who may be in a position to find out.

Archaic · January 31, 2003, 06:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
(the difficulty being that none of us get the e-mails... and it definately has nothing to do with our ISP's thinking the e-mails are spam

).

If it's hotmail you're using, it will. Mark nationstates.net as always being allowed in your options for hotmail or whatever other provider you might have, and it'll work.

Guardian · January 31, 2003, 07:12

In response to the suggestion from Arnelos, the following has been posted in the NationStates technical forum, where there was already a thread dedicated to this problem.

Quote:

I have recently been elected UN Delegate of Apolyton, and it has come to my attention that several nations in our region also have this problem.

What actually happens is that they apply to join the UN, get the telegram saying they've been accepted, and then the e-mail never shows up. They believe it's not related to the known problem with spam filters at certain ISPs.

So far, there has been no comment from any NationStates admin regarding this issue. Therefore, an e-mail has been sent to admin@nationstates.net providing a link to the thread in the technical forum and requesting that they check it out.

Hopefully, this is a start...

Leland · January 31, 2003, 07:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
If it's hotmail you're using, it will. Mark nationstates.net as always being allowed in your options for hotmail or whatever other provider you might have, and it'll work.

Because many people who are using hotmail or even their own mail servers (which shouldn't block anything) have reported that they're not getting the confirmation email, I am somewhat skeptical of this claim. If anyone has managed to join the UN during the last week or so, I'd like to know about it.

I'm not going to bother setting up a hotmail account unless I know for a fact that it's going to fix the problem.

Guardian · January 31, 2003, 07:23

Don't know about hotmail, but it worked on yahoo...

That's pretty much exactly two weeks ago now.

Arnelos · January 31, 2003, 07:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
If it's hotmail you're using, it will. Mark nationstates.net as always being allowed in your options for hotmail or whatever other provider you might have, and it'll work.

Nope, I even gave them an AOL e-mail addy... and there is almost no chance that AOL would block anything as spam

That didn't even work...

Since I'm not the only one having the problem, I assume the problem is on nationstates' side and not our various e-mail addy's...

Archaic · January 31, 2003, 09:34

I know for a fact that AOL blocks emails sent from the vB I run as being spam, so I fail to see how that problem might not be happening with nationstates.

The fact of the matter is simple. I tried 3 times to become a UN member using a hotmail address. None worked. I then went into my options, changed the junk mail filter settings so that any from nationstates.net would always be allowed, and 'lo and behold, it worked.

Guardian · January 31, 2003, 10:57

The vote now being 14 to 11, the Free Republic of Greater Finland is once again our UN Delegate. If this is still the case on Monday, I will stand down and endorse Greater Finland.

Have a nice weekend all!

Leland · January 31, 2003, 11:57

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?

Archaic · January 31, 2003, 12:28

Earlier, however I know several people who've joined in the past few days who've used exactly the method I just described.

Arnelos · January 31, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
Earlier, however I know several people who've joined in the past few days who've used exactly the method I just described.

I'll try it.

Leland · February 3, 2003, 22:31

Didn't work for me.

The bright side is that NationStates is down so often that I'm beginning not to give a damn.

Guardian · February 6, 2003, 05:44

Well, it looks like Kass could still get his old job back.
We know both hold 13 endorsements...

Kassiopeia · February 6, 2003, 06:15

Well counter

at you, it's not my fault people endorse me. Wait, it is.

Guardian · February 6, 2003, 06:20

Hey, I never asked you not to be endorsed, now did I?

To the best of my knowledge, no. And I'm not going to.
If you get the job back, that's perfectly fine with me. -And you'll have my endorsement also.

Kassiopeia · February 6, 2003, 06:30

Ah, that's very nice of you.

Leland · February 6, 2003, 11:32

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.

Kassiopeia · February 6, 2003, 11:47

I would advance democracy. Of course, the two are very closely connected, and the other promotes the other, but I consider civil rights more important then corporate rights. For instance, I selected to not allow corporations to fund election candidates in an issue.

Guardian · February 7, 2003, 03:31

Democracy vs. free trade?

That's really no competition in my book.
Free trade can be nice - at least up to a certain point, but democracy is far more important.

Looks like Kass and I are on the same page here.

-Or should I say "here too".

GeneralTacticus · February 7, 2003, 03:33

So, it would appear that those answers haven't made a whole lot of difference, both being the same...

Sheep · February 7, 2003, 03:41

Sheepsta would like to say that even though we believe i peace the UNited Nations is just a grand farce.

Kassiopeia · February 7, 2003, 13:46

As I think I stated in the Apolyton region message lodge (or whatever the thingie is called), Guardinia and Greater Finland have very similar policies. That makes the fact that we have so evenly split endorsements understandable, but on the other hand, it also gives a good picture of the general political climate on Apolyton.

Leland · February 8, 2003, 14:29

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.

Kassiopeia · February 8, 2003, 15:26

The NationStates administration has asked regional delegates not to approve proposals or resolutions that are supposed to effect game mechanics. I agree; though in some cases, as in the resolutions where there was proposed a limit to proposals and the weeding out of useless proposals, the opinion was what counted, not the effect on the game itself. It was a clear message that people were fed up of useless proposals, and hopefully that reduced their number somewhat.

Guardian · February 10, 2003, 03:52

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.

GeneralTacticus · February 10, 2003, 03:55

Centralis offers it's support for this policy and gives Guardinia it's endorsement.

Guardian · February 10, 2003, 03:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
As I think I stated in the Apolyton region message lodge (or whatever the thingie is called), Guardinia and Greater Finland have very similar policies. That makes the fact that we have so evenly split endorsements understandable, but on the other hand, it also gives a good picture of the general political climate on Apolyton.

You did mention this earlier, and you are of course quite correct. Also, I have noticed that we are both endorsed by several of the same people.