Office of the UN Delegate

[Guardian]

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

[Kassiopeia]

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

[Guardian]

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]

Ah, that's very nice of you.

[Leland]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Sheep]

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

[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.

[Leland]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Guardian]

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.