by Rolamec » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:03 am
by Grays Harbor » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:26 am
by Cinistra » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:20 am
by Kandarin » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:39 pm
Rolamec wrote:I feel it is unjust that commendations, condemnations, and liberations, have been thrown out there right and left. The World Assembly is a neutral organization, and it shouldn't be a mere tool of the majority, whether it be invader or defender. The reason why 10,000 Islands didn't desire a commendation is because it is far too involved in NS politics to receive a prestigious honor from a so called neutral organization. Just like the condemnation of Grub (which didn't pass) would have been a fundamentally wrong resolution.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Rolamec » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:17 pm
by Enn » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:34 pm
by Cinistra » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:11 am
Sedgistan wrote:We don't have an overload of proposals, and several C&C resolutions have been voted down recently. I don't see the problem with the current voting thresholds.
by Cinistra » Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:00 am
Sedgistan wrote:And few of those make it to vote.
by Enn » Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:04 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:19 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:interesting idea. Not a good one, but interesting. would also require a change in game mechanics to do. One thing, it would pretty much guarantee nothing ever gets passed and make the WA even weaker than it is now, perhaps even weaker than the RL organization which cannot be named.
by Rolamec » Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:29 am
by Kandarin » Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:44 am
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Rolamec » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:33 am
Kandarin wrote:I think that there's been some misunderstanding of Liberations lately. Admittedly, some of that is on the part of the people trying to use them, but that's just more reason why we need to sort it out.
Liberations aren't there as a weapon for defenders should they get the majority. They aren't there as a weapon for invaders should they somehow get the majority either. Liberations were put in the game for the purpose of countering the tactic of locking down and trophying regions. It isn't a question of whether invaders or defenders are in the majority, since even most of those who would otherwise support (or are) regular invaders consider password-locking regions and making trophies out of them to be contemptible. Those who say that Liberations used against this sort of tactic are somehow breaking the rules or violating the spirit of the game are missing the point, since setting up a tool for opposing that tactic is precisely the reason the admins gave for putting it into the game. Those who try to use Liberations against regular invasions by groups that don't take trophies are likewise missing the point...but it is possible for the usage of Liberations to be expanded.
by The Archiepelago » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:46 am
Rolamec wrote:I have wondered if the World Assembly should begin requiring that commendations, condemnations, and liberations should have a supermajority (66% or more) to become WA law.
I feel it is unjust that commendations, condemnations, and liberations, have been thrown our there right and left. The World Assembly is a neutral organization, and it shouldn't be a mere tool of the majority, whether it be invader or defender. The reason why 10,000 Islands didn't desire a commendation is because it is far too involvd in NS politics to receive a prestigious honor from a so called neutral organization. Just like the condemnation of Grub (which didn't pass) would have been a fundamentally wrong resolution.
After all the Security Council is holding this great power in it's hands, should that power be susceptible to the will of the majority, which changes all the time?
Please share your thoughts.
by Bears Armed » Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:54 am
The Archiepelago wrote:Rolamec wrote:I have wondered if the World Assembly should begin requiring that commendations, condemnations, and liberations should have a supermajority (66% or more) to become WA law.
I feel it is unjust that commendations, condemnations, and liberations, have been thrown our there right and left. The World Assembly is a neutral organization, and it shouldn't be a mere tool of the majority, whether it be invader or defender. The reason why 10,000 Islands didn't desire a commendation is because it is far too involvd in NS politics to receive a prestigious honor from a so called neutral organization. Just like the condemnation of Grub (which didn't pass) would have been a fundamentally wrong resolution.
After all the Security Council is holding this great power in it's hands, should that power be susceptible to the will of the majority, which changes all the time?
Please share your thoughts.
Ehh. Why not. It shouldn't be left to one thing to be in control of the fate of a lot of things. The majority should also have a say in that power. i guess..my opinion.lol.
by Topid » Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:41 am
by Mad Sheep Railgun » Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:11 am
Topid wrote:So basically we are looking at the SC, which has passed 57% of the resolutions at vote, and the GA which has passed 89% of all the resolutions at vote. Does that not tell you something?
by Topid » Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:04 am
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:Topid wrote:So basically we are looking at the SC, which has passed 57% of the resolutions at vote, and the GA which has passed 89% of all the resolutions at vote. Does that not tell you something?
That GA resolutions tend to be more well-written and the voters have a higher tendency to pass them?
by Jey » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:41 pm
Topid wrote:The SC has been very effective at weeding out bad resolutions that WA members do not agree with so far.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:56 pm
Topid wrote:The SC has been very effective at weeding out bad resolutions that WA members do not agree with so far.
by Topid » Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:22 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Topid wrote:The SC has been very effective at weeding out bad resolutions that WA members do not agree with so far.
Interesting qualifier you put there. Of course the WA isn't going to pass bad resolutions its members do not agree with; it's not going to pass good resolutions its members don't agree with either. The WA is (more or less) a democracy.
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:59 am
Jey wrote:Topid wrote:The SC has been very effective at weeding out bad resolutions that WA members do not agree with so far.
Heh, that's "debatable," to say the least.
I support placing a supermajority on SC resolutions for two reasons:
1) SC resolutions are the only pieces of legislation in which the WA actually takes a formal opinion on a matter. If the GA passes a socialist-leaning resolution, you still can't say that the WA "endorses" socialism officially, nor does it "condemn" or "commend" it. You'd run into an ideology ban trying to make that official. Thus, for the WA to officially pass judgment on something, I think a supermajority would do well to ensure there's a consensus.
2) Less SC resolutions.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement