by Kiani » Wed May 12, 2021 2:18 am
by Laka Strolistandiler » Wed May 12, 2021 2:27 am
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by Daarwyrth » Wed May 12, 2021 2:36 am
by Molopovia » Wed May 12, 2021 2:38 am
Daarwyrth wrote:Remember that the real world and NationStates are two separate entities with their own multiverse rules and customs. We literally have nations where magic is real, where there are galaxy-spanning civilizations member of the WA. You don't have that irl, and so the nature of the World Assembly and its resolutions will have to be vastly different from the real world. The very fact that the WA is tolerant of dictatorships and has vastly more power and authority than The Organisation That Shall Not Be Named in real life has, shows that you cannot translate both 1 on 1.
Yet the funny thing in your argument is that you are advocating for censorship. If you truly are concerned about the rise of authoritarianism, then you shouldn't be the one trying to dictate what proposals should be submitted to the WA and which shouldn't. A proposal has to first pass the Delegate approval phase, which is the first barrier for rooting out bad proposals. The second barrier is the vote itself: if member nations find the resolution to be bad or flawed, it will be voted 'against'. On top of that, we have the Secretariat which monitors for illegal proposals and removes them from the queue when needed. That's 3 control mechanisms to ensure that bad proposals don't clog up the voting floor. Will they ensure that no bad proposals will ever come to a vote? No, no system is perfect. But the system is well-protected from objectively bad proposals.
Lastly, you say that the WA is not for personal opinions, yet what you're doing now is exactly what you advocate against. In your opinion, some of the proposals that have passed through the WA are bad. Okay, then repeal the ones that you think are bad. Don't advocate for a censorship system that is purely and entirely based on your personal opinion. That's the pot calling the kettle black.
by Kiani » Wed May 12, 2021 4:11 am
Daarwyrth wrote:Remember that the real world and NationStates are two separate entities with their own multiverse rules and customs. We literally have nations where magic is real, where there are galaxy-spanning civilizations member of the WA. You don't have that irl, and so the nature of the World Assembly and its resolutions will have to be vastly different from the real world. The very fact that the WA is tolerant of dictatorships and has vastly more power and authority than The Organisation That Shall Not Be Named in real life has, shows that you cannot translate both 1 on 1.
Yet the funny thing in your argument is that you are advocating for censorship. If you truly are concerned about the rise of authoritarianism, then you shouldn't be the one trying to dictate what proposals should be submitted to the WA and which shouldn't. A proposal has to first pass the Delegate approval phase, which is the first barrier for rooting out bad proposals. The second barrier is the vote itself: if member nations find the resolution to be bad or flawed, it will be voted 'against'. On top of that, we have the Secretariat which monitors for illegal proposals and removes them from the queue when needed. That's 3 control mechanisms to ensure that bad proposals don't clog up the voting floor. Will they ensure that no bad proposals will ever come to a vote? No, no system is perfect. But the system is well-protected from objectively bad proposals.
Lastly, you say that the WA is not for personal opinions, yet what you're doing now is exactly what you advocate against. In your opinion, some of the proposals that have passed through the WA are bad. Okay, then repeal the ones that you think are bad. Don't advocate for a censorship system that is purely and entirely based on your personal opinion. That's the pot calling the kettle black.
by Daarwyrth » Wed May 12, 2021 4:25 am
Kiani wrote:Simply; stating that I believe there need to be clearer boundaries on what qualifies as a World Assembly proposal VS an Issue, to ensure that there is no conflation or confusion between the two, and to ensure that World assembly proposals do not infringe on individual nation’s right to autonomy.
by Island Girl Herby » Wed May 12, 2021 5:13 am
Kiani wrote:NationStates is a wonderful platform full of incredibly insightful, intelligent, and amicable people where we can freely express and experiment with our view of a better world. Please don’t ruin that by turning the WA into a clown court of personal opinions
by Ardiveds » Wed May 12, 2021 6:45 am
by Kiani » Wed May 12, 2021 8:58 am
Daarwyrth wrote:Kiani wrote:Simply; stating that I believe there need to be clearer boundaries on what qualifies as a World Assembly proposal VS an Issue, to ensure that there is no conflation or confusion between the two, and to ensure that World assembly proposals do not infringe on individual nation’s right to autonomy.
Someone is going to have to define those boundaries. Who? You? Me? The Secretariat? Whoever would define those boundaries would be setting up a system of censorship by definition. It's a very flawed way of thinking that you'll get better proposals by allowing someone/something to censor what constitutes as a proposal and what not.
The merit and quality of proposals should be decided by vote, just like we do now. If there is a proposal that's bad, it will be voted down and defeated in the vote. There's a number of proposals that I disagree with, yet the majority of the WA voted for it. That's simply how democracy works, the majority wins.
Also, you're basically arguing from a national sovereignty standpoint. You're part of an international community, which means you are bound by international rules. If you want to be a part of such a community, then you'll have to accept the fact that your national autonomy will be restricted at times. If you don't want your national autonomy to be restricted, then the WA may not be for you. No one is forced to stay a member of the World Assembly if they don't like the rules and legislation they are bound by.
EDIT: Besides, we already have rules in place for proposal writing, look over the thread GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice, if you haven't done so already.
by Kiani » Wed May 12, 2021 9:19 am
Island Girl Herby wrote:Kiani wrote:NationStates is a wonderful platform full of incredibly insightful, intelligent, and amicable people where we can freely express and experiment with our view of a better world. Please don’t ruin that by turning the WA into a clown court of personal opinions
So......... you want to take the politics out of a political simulation? I mean have you ever watched the UN or the US Congress in action?
by Daarwyrth » Wed May 12, 2021 9:21 am
Kiani wrote:Daarwyrth wrote:Someone is going to have to define those boundaries. Who? You? Me? The Secretariat? Whoever would define those boundaries would be setting up a system of censorship by definition. It's a very flawed way of thinking that you'll get better proposals by allowing someone/something to censor what constitutes as a proposal and what not.
The merit and quality of proposals should be decided by vote, just like we do now. If there is a proposal that's bad, it will be voted down and defeated in the vote. There's a number of proposals that I disagree with, yet the majority of the WA voted for it. That's simply how democracy works, the majority wins.
Also, you're basically arguing from a national sovereignty standpoint. You're part of an international community, which means you are bound by international rules. If you want to be a part of such a community, then you'll have to accept the fact that your national autonomy will be restricted at times. If you don't want your national autonomy to be restricted, then the WA may not be for you. No one is forced to stay a member of the World Assembly if they don't like the rules and legislation they are bound by.
EDIT: Besides, we already have rules in place for proposal writing, look over the thread GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice, if you haven't done so already.
Oh! Yikes I’m sorry, that’s not what I want at all. I understand your point. Living in the U.K. with family living in the EU during Brexit and the panini has created a whole new framework of perspective for the case of International vs National democracy. Thank you for unintentionally explaining how it fits in with that perspective, I’m going to check my biases, rethink things and possibly come back with a more intelligent idea but more likely just accept I was wrong and move on. Thank you for your time and merit in this conversation, I learnt a lot.
by Kiani » Wed May 12, 2021 9:39 am
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: first, issues and GA are seperate aspects of the game that can't and don't influence each other.
Second, the example you gave of "improving" human rights (despite that phrase being incorrect in the context of the WA) is actually useless since countries who would volunteer are already helping those refugees. Moreover, you're relying on countries simply letting those people flee and those people fleeing through god knows what conditions.
Third, what constitutes "baseline minimum human rights" is itself a matter of opinion. There's no strict definition for such a thing.
So you're basically proposing a WA where a nation can do whatever it claims is "working towards baseline minimum human rights" and any change brought about by the WA is optional; in other words, a WA that only exists in name, and even more useless than the League of Nations.
by Island Girl Herby » Thu May 13, 2021 5:11 am
Kiani wrote:Island Girl Herby wrote:So......... you want to take the politics out of a political simulation? I mean have you ever watched the UN or the US Congress in action?
Politics is defined as the academic study of government and the state, and the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: and is meant to be civilised, intelligent, pragmatic sociological debate between leaders/parties in power; but have you seen the U.K. PMQ’s? Or brexshit? It’s embarrassing for politics and the cause of numerous issues including but not restricted to: political apathy, public disgust, media shaming, and international embarrassment. The dodgy Dave incident was both hilarious and disappointing, because he should have had the right to free speech but somehow the room reacted like a primary school classroom.
by Kiani » Fri May 14, 2021 9:56 am
Island Girl Herby wrote:Kiani wrote:
Politics is defined as the academic study of government and the state, and the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: and is meant to be civilised, intelligent, pragmatic sociological debate between leaders/parties in power; but have you seen the U.K. PMQ’s? Or brexshit? It’s embarrassing for politics and the cause of numerous issues including but not restricted to: political apathy, public disgust, media shaming, and international embarrassment. The dodgy Dave incident was both hilarious and disappointing, because he should have had the right to free speech but somehow the room reacted like a primary school classroom.
In practice (not in theory) politics is all about giving people a platform to shout out their opinions and belittle their opponents, all so they can score points with the portion of the populace that happens to agree with them. The more they can energize their followers the louder they become, drowning out all other voices. It has nothing to do with advancing human rights, bring civilized, etc.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Fachumonn, First Nightmare, Spode Humbled Minions
Advertisement