Talk:World government/NPOV conflict
World government NPOV Vote (3/8/1)
- Just a request - could people please remember to sign their votes with 4 tildes (~~~~) and update the vote tally when they vote? Thanks. --Goobergunch
- Uses "left-wing" label, but doesn't use "right-wing" label. Talks about legitimacy, but makes no discussion points about the fact that UN members can come and go as they choose. Doesn't talk about other organizations. Assumes that there are blocs of governments in favour of handing over their sovereignty. Frankly this is hardly objective, and the points raised below about personal differences sounds more like an IRC clique just voting based on friendships. It is a real shame that NSWiki has become a clique driven propoganda tool. I'm not a socialist, nor affliated with them, but the fact that proponents for these piece are using that to defend their position is yet another indicator of their personal biases and attacks coming through. Mikitivity 01:18, 14 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- Pushes right wing ideological framework while pretending to be objective. Pudding 06:55, 14 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- Content not biased per se, but much of the article misleadingly implies that the UN could/does aspire to world government, which is simply not possible while it remains a voluntary club. See arguments below. In response to the 'why don't you just fix the problems?' point made by several voters below, I personally think the changes I'd want would be so drastic as not to be fair to the original author without his/her approval. Hippietania 14:07, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- Be bold in editing. On a wiki, you don't have to worry about the original author's approval. --Goobergunch|? 03:32, 5 Nov 2004 (GMT)
- I realise that, but given the level of fundamental disagreement here and the hostile responses to various criticisms I don't think it would be well received if I just went ahead and made lots of changes anyway. I'm happy for those who've put in all the work on this topic to disagree with my views and leave the page as it is, so long as they consider my (and all the other) arguments fully. Hippietania 17:19, 5 Nov 2004 (GMT)
- See comments below ... → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 02:52, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- Well... yeah. Would be great if people could get personal differences out of their head to think objectively... But NOOOO, this seems to be impossible. → Rezo Θtalk 02:52, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- No bias as far as I saw it. But I'm not one of the socialist elite.komokom
- I don't see any major problems that could not be solved by people contributing opposing points of view. Sunset 09:23, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- As the others said, it would be nice to see some contributions rather then calls to put it in a punishment corner. Also, I would like to note that this article is very much like the Wikipedia: World government entry, only for NS. That article is not disputed either. Really, it is a legitimate subject and some extra paragraphs on alternative points of view could help. That is the spirit of Wiki. Knoot 10:00, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- Yeah, it would be far easier to attempt to fix the alleged NPOV problems then complain about them. However, this article presents both sides and thereby in my opinion does not present a POV violation. If I notice anything after closer review, I'll fix it using the edit button. --Goobergunch? 23:07, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- I vote the article as non-biased (~~~~) Midlonia|
- I agree, not biased --Nevareion 16:41, 15 Dec 2004 (GMT)
Neutral / not clear
- --HotRodia 16:49, 19 Oct 2004 (GMT)It is biased, as all things are, but I just got done editing most of it, so you may want to reassess your positions. I didn't finish editing the last section, because it needs some serious readability changes and I'm out of time for today. Also, I have a suggestion. Knoot, I would like you to add that the article is a statement from you that has been edited by others, because 1.) we don't have to hear people whining about it anymore, and 2.) you get the credit you deserve for it. What do you lose by not having it listed as an NPOV article? Pride?
- accuses self*
Well, I'm leaving this message so the forum crowd (read: HotRodia) has a change to edit. Knoot 12:01, 8 Oct 2004 (GMT)
"...has a 'change' to edit." I think you mean "chance". Sorry, I'm just in editing mode today. :D It's that English Ed. Major in me. I made a few small grammatical and spelling changes (before I created an account), and when I have more time I'll try to do a more thorough edit for readability and neutrality. It looks good on first glance, Knoot. I approve of your changes. ~HotRodia 5:02, 11 October 2004
Tnx. Knoot 22:07, 11 Oct 2004 (GMT)
This article is very biased, and is based on political theories (largely coming from an individual). Personally I feel it should be clearly connected as a role-play tool to the individuals that believe in this concept.
A clear example of why this current draft if biased is how it does not describe a "right-wing", and suggests that "left-wing" nations are seeking to influence other nations. The implication is that non-left-wing nations are not doing so.
Personally I don't see enough "neutral" material in this post to actually believe that minor edits can fix the problem here, but my suggestion is that this be relabeled / moved to be clearly viewed by new readers as being "World Government (Opinion from Neo-Liberals)", which I feel is the term being promoted here.
I also suggest that since it is not really clear what Neo-Liberal means, that the theory of what they are, also be described.
Personally I feel it is a bit of a shame, because the terms used in this article really are self-applied labels and don't fit in with the UN Categories of nation types.
I'd rather the minor edit be made (i.e. moving this opinion piece) and then focusing on actually improving the NSWiki by adding entries that would actually be useful to more than players trying to sell a single style of play / world vision.
(p.s. I'm new to leaving comments, and this can be edited by all ... though I'd ask that 3rd party edits be used in this case. This is me Michael ... I wasn't sure how to properly leave a trail to my comment, but felt it important!) -- Mikitivity
Well, I *am* glad that some others of the OMG SECRAT forum think the minor edits solved a whole lot of things, and I'm looking forward to some more editing by HotRodia. I already adressed many of your concerns but you continue to say you only give 'examples.' I would love a more comprehenisve criticism.
I can try to understand your personal feelings but if even vastly different players like Ecopoeia and (largely) Hotrodia seem to be able to accept it. (As well as some positive IRC comments from others.) I hope to explain some choices to you, and that some sort of neutral exchange can take place. I welcome third-party input here from others too. Still, in the end I *do* feel that there are enough people who think this could be reworked into something reasonably unbiased to give it a shot rather then just putting it away in the OMG BIASED punishment corner. This thing has been improved a LOT since its original form and I think it would be good to improve it some more. That is what the edit button is for.
See also: "Wikipedia: World government and its external links, which have, in large part, been an inspiration for this article. (Definitions, groupings.) Note also that its NPOV is not disputed by anyone else in the 'real' Wiki.
First: the groupings. If you look at the description of the title of the groupings bit is: 1 Proponents of world government and their power It is important to note that this is not supposed to be a comprehensive description of all factions in NS, or in the NSUN, but rather only a description of those groups which would want a "World Government" of some kind for various motives (which are explained). It does not have anything to do with UN categories. So the question is: do you feel that I have missed important NSUN groups aspiring world government then or described the cateogories I mentioned in a wrong way?
To give you an idea where I got this from: these entries are taken from the (undisputed) Wikipedia: World Government entry on the main WikiPedia and I have adapted them for NS (namely by grouping anarchists with communists and using a more broad scope since they tend to mingle more in NS, and by removing the 'conspiracy theory' bit which is irrelevant for NS.) Did you miss the bits on fascism and neoliberalism? I would tend to think that they qualify as "non left-wing" groupings.
Definition of neo-liberal. Do you see the shiny link to "Wikipedia: Neoliberalism". If you look carefully you see that it is also in the entry. The really short description in the entry itself is from the afforementioned 'world government' entry, and it closely matches the Wiki definitions and my own textbook definiton. (Of a book on Sociology and society written by a Mr. Faulks - sciency guy extraordinaire of something. EDIT: Link: here) This link is there for people who want to know what it actually is. This is IMO more efficient then elaborately describing the phenomenon. Note that the NPOV of the Neoliberalism Wiki article is not doubted either and neither are any of the other links AFAIK. Knoot 20:14, 12 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- This article looks neutral to me. --Defaultia 20:56, 12 Oct 2004 (GMT)
If it were netural, then in addition there would be references to left and right-wing groups. I didn't see that originally. And, I don't really feel that in the game that there are *any* groups aspiring to world a single world government. Personally, I'd like to see perhaps some of these nations revealed. Bottom line it still reads has an anti-UN piece and comes across as though there is some struggle of conservative nations against a series of organized liberal groups. I've seen nothing like that in the UN forums or votes. The most organized NS groups are actually the invader groups and seem to have little to do with the UN. The most fundamental question I have is why do you feel we need this piece? Discussions of the theory of "World Government" are by their nature opinionated, and frankly I don't think you'd care for me to begin a UN category entry on the concept of "Use of Propoganda" or "Use of McCarthyism" in UN debates. And yet both of these are common enough theories in the game as well. Mikitivity 02:02, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT) Mikitivity
- Given that over two-thirds of NS aren't UN members and don't frequent the UN forum, it's reasonable to assume that there have been and currently are many active anti-UN groups, with assorted agendas. Their absence from the UN forum is not definitive in any way.
- I've been creating Regions pages here in the Wiki for large regions that have Wiki members, but those members hadn't yet posted a region. I've visited several regions pages, some of them 100 members or more, where UN membership was listed as reason for expulsion. I consider that proof positive that Anti-UN sentiment exists, and it's been my experience that there is more against than for (with a strong third group of "ehh, don't bother with the UN - it screws up your stats" crowd.)
- Representing the entire NS spectrum of political thought in a single document simply isn't possible, but I think this document (so far) is fairly evenhanded. I would like to point out that the nature of a Wiki explicitly allows for the collaborative process, but so far the entire contextual changes have been made by Knootoss, with a couple of other authors contributing only grammar and formatting adjustments. If Mikitivity or anyone else wanted to add a balancing paragraph or two, they certainly could. Subject to the fact that they too could be adjusted or replaced, of course.
- In summary, I disagree with the NPOV call. I think it's fine. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 02:52, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Pudding - This article is incredibly biased as well as outright inaccurate. However, the crux of the NPOV violation is that this is not marked ‘K’s propaganda about the UN and Globalism.’ You cannot insert a handful of hedge paragraphs and undo an article full of bias; asking those who disagree with the bias of this article to contribute is asking them to uphold the framework as it is already constructed, viz. how terms are defined, used and colored. You cannot ignore the impact of the implicit assumptions included in expository writing, if one was to grant, arguendo, that this is an expository piece. Because this comes from a biased framework, and is not labeled as such, it cannot be viewed of neutral.
So, since every article is based on the creators biased views, you wouldn't mind me marking any and all of your articles as biased, since they are, well, biased due to the fact that you (an individual with defined, 'biased' views), and requesting their deletion? Good to know. Oh, and it is *very* amusing that you just rant and complain and whine, rather than, say, contribute. Very productive point of view, you have. Rezo 08:58, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
While, like anything else of a political nature, this is biased I don't find the bias to be either overwhelming or prominent. It absolutely needs an opposing point of view and again the statement must be added: If you don't like it - contribute. This is a document that should be balanced by an article by those with an opposing viewpoint. In no way should it be removed however - it is a valid opinion piece backed by facts and it should be rebutted along with facts supporting that arguement.
Sunset 09:23, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Komokom Makes Brief Comment
Just have to say Pudding, how kind of you not to contribute anything useful removed
Pudding 10:27, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT) -
I am under no obligation to attempt to fix an article that is beyond repain, which is why I'm challenging it's neutrality in the first place. Pushing a specific ideological framework, which this does, means, prima facia, it cannot be neutral. If this is just renamed 'K's Opinion' then there's not problem, so why not do that? Why pretend the objectivity?
There is a way to discuss issue without bias, with objectivity, but they require the examination of social institutions as amoral, non-ethical institutions, which this doesn't, which is fine, as long as it's clearly marked as an opinion.
Personal attacks, of course, are the last resort of people who can't mount an intelligent defense. Think about that before making any more comments about those who have the audacity to disagree with you.
Bulletpoint replies to Mikitivity, some pudding stuff
Bulletpoint replies to Mikitivity:
- Its good, then, that you've seen the references to left and right-wing groups now. :)
- Regarding the "there are no such groups" argument, I think its rather obvious that some nations with certain ideologies and ideas on how the NSUN should work are striving for things like a world government as defined in the article, and the vote as it stands now reflects this.
- What makes this an anti-UN piece? This is how you "read it", but I don't see any scathing anti--UN comments here. Is it forbidden to give an account of a (very common) criticism of the NSUN (as Frisbeeteria pointed out) while also providing the counterarguments? I have a feeling that this is your principle objection to the entry, am I correct?
- I do not think that we should avoid all matters beyond copying moderator rulings and sticked threads. The REAL Wiki has an article on world government, on neoliberalism, on politics, on abortion, on communism, etc etc. The idea of an open-ended encyclopedia, IMO, is not to AVOID all theoretically biased pieces but to write an article in a way where one side of the argument is not presented as 'more right' and where both sides of the argument are presented. Because you do things together, you'll come to something that is common consensus. Knoot 10:49, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
re: Pudding: As a student in public administration, I beg to differ that the examination of social institutions should be examined only "as amoral, non-ethical institutions" precisely because ethics are vital to how an organisation functions internally and externally. This is NOT the same as giving some sort of definitive moral judgement, which is not what this entry does or aspires to do. After all, counter arguments are provided in the entry (and, again, there could be more arguments but that is why Wiki is open.)
Public organisations like the NSUN function in an environment where legitimacy is important, and as such there have been libraries full of scientific books on the subject of what makes a State or an organisation legitimate, how it matters, etc etc. If you want to examine the NSUN as a (potential) world government, then you should look beyond the mere organisational possibility of it to function as a world government. Democracic legitimacy (pro and con) is the bit I wrote because I felt it was the most important, but there are other ways of making something legitimate (like "divine right of kings", or perhaps even something based on anticapitalist principles) and an entry on that would be welcomed.
In addition, it should be noted that the LEGITIMACY is the issue that is being questioned time and again by anti-NSUN groups. Not touching it would leave out something that is very important in all the debates about the NSUN. (See: why are you writing this thing in the first place.
Pudding 11:13, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT) -
So why is it you won't just change this to 'K's Opinion'? Why does it have to remain the one difinitive article on World Government, with everyone else merely contributing to your article?
Moreover, read my previous posting: in order to be OBJECTIVE you must be amoral and non-ethical. You are not objective, and you shouldn't be required to be, provided you do not pretend you are. Just label this as your opinion and be done with it.
Answer: Because having one article with multiple people contributing is the basic idea behind NSWiki.
Moreover, discussing legitimacy and various developed points of view is not the same thing as giving a moral judgement. This entry is unbiased for as far as anything produced by a human being can be unbiased, and it will become better with people actually contributing. Knoot 11:24, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
This demonstrates how embedded you are in your ideology; to paraphrase Chumpsky, 'you can't be neutral on a moving train.' You might treat the subjects with neutrality, but the entire manner in which you present it pushes your framework. The same goes for EVERYONE; I would never mark something I wrote for a Wiki as 'unbiased, neutral, the perfect resource material' exactly because I am examining the world through my framework and paradigm. If you can't muster the strenth to admit this simple fact, and can't understand that this is not the end of history, and that the world is filled with competing paradigms, then there's no point in even talking to you.
Just mark it as an opinion and be done with it. Why can't you just do that? When other people are TELLING YOU that your article is biased, which means that clearly they approach the issue from a different viewpoint, and ask you to mark it as your opinion and move on, why do you insist on keeping your article, your framework, your text as the base? Just let go. Pudding 21:44, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)
I vote that this violates the neutral policy. Mikitivity 01:06, 14 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Now to explain why:
First, the document lumps all the left-wing groups into one description, but I couldn't find any reference to a right-wing. This indicates a bias in favour of right-wing governments.
Second, the concept of legitimacy of the UN is an opinion piece. For example, a discussion of the US Presidency is not going to include a prominent section dedicated to questioning the legitimacy of the US President. While people do have opinions that a President can be elected by less than 50% of the popular vote, it is BIASED to claim that the Presidency is without legitimacy without also going into detail WHY an Electoral College exists. Frankly I'm surprised and disappointed that some of you have not recognized that membership in the NS UN is voluntary. Nations aren't forced to join, and if a nation has a problem with the UN it can leave. But once it leaves, it shouldn't care how the UN votes are reached, because it left. Frankly if my *nation* wanted to elect is "mayors" by a thumb war, that is its own business. The UN too should be allowed to determine its own election / decision making processes. The Game Moderators have MANY TIMES pointed out that if you don't like the UN, leave. The point Knoot was trying to make by saying a decision can be reached with 49% of the nations disagreeing is something that is also moot. Who cares? First, most resolutions are passed by a super majority (another term not used in the article). Second, a repeal process exists such that close votes can be reconsidered and consensus can be reached at a later date (if desired).
The bottom line is this piece is still highly biased in favour of right-wing conservative governments. The issue is they fear other nations working together, and well they should, for as nations work closely together in the real world, they begin to lower barriers and essentially leave out other nations that don't join in. The problem I have with this opinion piece (which I'm disappointed that my vote against it hasn't been registered yet) is that it is attempting to assert that there is a "UBER SECRET GROUP OUT TO FORM A WORLD GOVERNMENT!" The NS UN is just one of many organizations, but it is unique in NS in that it is sancationed / run by the game mods.
- Recent changes by an unspecified (IP) user look like a good start on the road to NPOV. This deserves a reread. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 16:45, 19 Oct 2004 (GMT)
--HotRodia 16:52, 19 Oct 2004 (GMT)Consider it specified. ;)
Tried a bit more balancing, particularly by adding an "opponents" section (which could use improvement) and changing titles to divorce left/right somewhat from pro/anti world government. I can see two problems still there: the first two paragraphs tend to contradict each other, suggesting a powerful movement towards world government thru the NSUN and then saying the NSUN has no real power. The last section, i think, needs a bit more thought about liberal ideas of the sovereign individual giving up some of her sovereignty to the national unit, and some taking into account of the idea that the nation can voluntarily give up a portion of sovereignty to the international level -- see current debates on "the right to protect." TB 03:16, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Looks good. Agree with your comments here. The 'opponents' section still needs work, but you said that yourself. Will be contributing a bit more later.
One question though... which NSUN resolution would you classify as "neoliberal"? (see that part of the entry) --Knoot 14:43, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
My wording was unclear. I meant a resolution had been passed under the free-trade category, although i sure wouldn't claim the law of the sea was neoliberal. Hopefully re-word is clearer. I also think it's important to call the neoliberalism section "the right-wing" to keep a balance. TB 15:40, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
I added a section called Mixed Views and edited the Anarchism bit to make it gender-neutral.--HotRodia 15:43, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Neoliberalism is NOT the same as right-wing. This has nothing to do with balance, it is simply not true. It may look nicer on a balance sheet but the ideas are DISTINCTLY different. I have changed it back now, but I'm willing to explain what the difference is (IMO) between a neoliberal and a "right-wing" approach.
Also, if the resolution is not neoliberal or right-wing... why should it be mentioned in that section?
EDITED IN: Regarding the "Mixed Views" section... as I stated before the idea was not to give a comprehensive overview of all ideologies and all nations but rather an overview of pro- (and now also anti-) world government ideologies. The suggestion that a state can be in more then one category is, well, quite obvious. Perhaps a somewhat smaller note would serve the article better then making it a "chapter three", which is much smaller then anything else. Perhaps a reworded note of this in the 'propoenents' section?
--[[User:Knootoss|Knoot - Knootalk ]] 16:18, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Fair enough. I like what you did with the 'mixed views' section. You did spell 'maybe' wrong but that was easy enough to fix. In terms of it being obvious, that may very well be the case, but that which is so obvious that it is left unstated often ends up being forgotten because of that fact. --126.96.36.199 18:35, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Edited In: Dammit! This site keeps logging me out! Arg! --HotRodia 18:37, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Thanks :). I corrected it again, since just 'may' would actually suffice. [[User:Knootoss|Knoot - Knootalk ]]
Neoliberalism is not the same as right-wing, no. However, it's a phenomenon of the right in the same way that socialism, communism and (arguably) anarchism are of the left. How about changing "the left-wing" heading to something else? It seems like a major objection is that the article describes a blanket left movement with no reference to a blanket right movement, and i think tinkering with the way the article is presented in titles may be able to get us to consensus. TB 19:21, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Well, that seems to be Mikitivities objection (even though both "right" and "left" are mentioned so I disagree that it is warranted criticism. Did I mention believing they are artificial constructs?) Anyway, I'd like your informed opinion on this one. After all, it is in the interest of the readers to give an accurate description.
On the other hand, there *is* no "right-wing" ideological approach to World Government and the NSUN. If you define "right-wing" as "non-leftist" you get vastly different nations and approaches. Knootian right-wing is totally different from Iesus right-wing. Many neoliberal ideas are completely rejected by conservatives. (Just look at the egocentric 'America First' protectionist rhetoric that is so pervasive in the US Electoral campaign. Clinton was more pro-market IMO then Bush who seems to be pro-corporate cronyism or pro-corruption or whatever. Tariffs and no-bid contracts are hardly neoliberal. Just as an illustration.) To say 'right-wing' = 'neoliberal' = 'pro world economic order' would be a wild distortion of the facts. Most conservative folks would fit the nationalism category better. (That, and I refuse to be lumped together with the 'genocide is an internal affair' folks ;) )
I would not mind split-offs within the 'left-wing' section (which you know better, I guess) provided that there are serious differences in their approach to the NSUN and world government because that is what should matter in categorising. Frankly, I do not see those differences in the NSUN day-to-day operations. Everyone seems to be able to cooperate snuggly well on the issues (more rules for OMG EVIL corporations, banning some random economic activity, raising taxes, protecting the environment, protecting the environment some more and raising taxes again...) even when there can be serious disagreement on actual content. The idea that connects them is that the NSUN has the Right(tm) to do all this. The only difference is, perhaps, how far they wil go. Hence I sortof lumped communists, socialists and "American liberals" together because, basically, their approach to the issue of World Government is the same. (Universal Rights)
Feel free to prove me wrong on that interpretation, but that *is* how I (as an outsider) see it in an un-nuanced nutshell stripped of all political correctness. --[[User:Knootoss|Knootalk ]]]] 21:19, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Absolutely. Left & right are constructs, just like all other human ideas. You object, understandably enough, to being lumped with the genocide crowd. I object to being lumped with this monolithic "left-wing" world government crowd (they never support my resolutions either, bastards!). But i really think this can be fixed to some extent by alterations in terminology. I suggest taking your term "Universal Rights' and using that as the title for the section now labelled left-wing, if that's what you see as the common approach: it would define a common approach to the question of world government, rather than use an artificial ideological construct. ;)
In a larger sense it's all points on a spectrum, not pro or anti world government. If you reject the position "Country X has the right to commit genocide within its sovereign national territory" then you believe in SOME form of universal rights. You just draw the line in a different place. But that's enough political philosophy for now. TB 23:08, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)
I like that idea. Of course, you'd still be grouped in the same group, just with a different name.
One thing though... "Universal rights" (which was my really basic summary) is kinda vague because it has more-then-one interpretation and generates fuzzy positive feelings for all. Knootoss has always supported formal equality. Liberals would argue the only 'univerdal' rights are formal rights. Clearly, the environmental and social justice proposals go further then that.
Would "Social Rights" not be a better name, perhaps?
Apart from ways of how far people will go, there are different motives for and against world government (which is what the categories are all about right now, as I see it.)-- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 23:32, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)
I don't think the page is particularly biased, but like Mikitivity I'm afraid I don't see the point of it at all. The definition of World Govenrment right at the top says "a single government with authority over an entire planet." By definition this is impossible in the NS world since UN membership is voluntary, and the UN's decisions cannot affect non-members. In RL a world-government is theoretically possible (however unlikely) through conquest/compulsion but as far as I can see in NS it's simply forbidden by the rules. IMO that's why the comparisons with the Wikipedia entry on WG are irrelevant. Hippietania 16:28, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Well, the point of it all is that it is a matter that is widely discussed (and contested) in the UN forums and elsewhere. Therefore, it is useful to have an article that covers a very hot debate that is uniquely something for NationStates with all of its specific aspects.
There is no explicit 'there shall be no world government' rule in NS. Your argument is valid (and mentioned in the entry!) However this does not make it impossible for actors within the system to strive for it, as the entry describes. Nor does it make it impossible for others to oppose it. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 17:50, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)
There's no explicit rule against World Govenrment, but in NS a country can exist in absolute isolation from all the other nations in the universe - unlike in RL. This fact makes World Government implicitly impossible. I think implying that the NSUN is or could be a World Government is a small but significant slur on that institution. It's just my opinion, but it does seem to me like the authors are trying (not maliciously, I'm sure) to transfer people's concerns about the real UN and its potential role as a WG to the NSUN, where the same arguments don't apply. As you say, the voluntary nature of UN membership is mentioned, but the fact that - as far as I'm concerned anyway - this basically undermines the rest of the article isn't. My constructive suggestions would be to rename the article something like 'debates about the role of the UN', and make clearer the fact that the UN can't ever be a real WG, despite what some people undoubtedly might want. Hippietania 09:01, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)
A further thought: perhaps it helps to see the problem in terms of OOC and IC. OOC, we know that the UN cannot be a world government in any meaningful sense without a significant change to the rules of NS. But of course there's no problem with claiming IC for RP purposes that it could be, or is becoming one. The question is therefore one of making clear the distinction between an IC suggestion that the UN could/should be a WG and an OOC admission that it can't. So I'd suggest a title change or an acknowledgment that this is an individual/group's opinion.Hippietania 09:36, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Look... we had this principle discussion here, including the vote you can see up there. We are having the same discussion all over again now. I am firmly against a title change or some "this is all IC bullshit" line that would essentially give one side in the argument the "this is True" feather of rightiousness.
Even if some of you may disagree, there is a VERY big group of people who have these concerns in NS and it seems only fair that their story is also presented in a balanced manner with all of the other possible critiques from the people who do not believe it. There are people who believe it can happen, and there are people who believe it cannot happen. As with communism and other highly controversial issues, the NPOV thing to do is to present both sides of the argument on an equal footing. We probably cannot resolve who is 'right' here by discussing endlessly on the talk page and we should not try to because the arguments *outside* of this talk page, in the "we hate the UN" thread and in the host of meritocracy-esque regions that BAN UNmembership, in the vast majority of RPing nations that is not in the UN etc etc. What you are essentially giving is content arguments: ("Oh but communism is wrong because of argument X so this entire paragraph about how it could work is not needed.")
I firmly deny that this is in any way transferring of concerns regarding the RL UN to the NSUN, and it should not be read like that. The NSUN is different and has more potential for WG (as pointed out.) (Not to enter a content discussion but to refresh your memory: Even if some nations work in isolation, you can have an institution that acts as a world government. There is the deepening of relations where the NSUN acts as a government that is above states like a vast supranational organisation that sometimes mircomanages national affairs. Not everyone does have to be in the NSUN for it to act as a world government. Secondly there is global legislation, such as the law of the seas and other resolutions that materially seek to act for everyone rather then just its members.) -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 11:06, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)
I'm sorry to be arguing over this, as it's obvious you've put lots of work in and I think that as an analysis of various ambitions towards WG the article is reasonably fair and balanced. My point remains that these ambitions are just impossible, given the definition of WG as a "single government with authority over an entire planet". Whether, say, Communism is 'right' or 'wrong' is a moral and political question: so NPOV has to give both sides of the debate with appropriate facts. The same applies for whether WG is 'legitimate' or 'desirable' or whatever. But whether it's possible in NS is surely a question of game mechanics - a straightforward matter of fact. And just as you would take issue with an article on Communism which denied certain historically well-documented facts, I'm trying to take issue with the claim that the NSUN could ever be a WG - nothing you've said suggests to me that it could, on your definition of WG. Sure, it sometimes micromanages national affairs, but only of those nations who want their affairs micromanaged. As an analogy, in a free country you can join various associations or clubs which might have very strict rules on personal behaviour. But you wouldn't call these governments, since if you don't like the micromanagement of your life you can leave. I think the same thing applies to the NSUN. Hippietania 12:03, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Well, I quite understand your argument but myself and others disagree for reasons outlined above. If the question of whether it is possible is a political question (just as the question if communism is possible is a political question) then both Points of View deserve to be represented. Especially if lots of people are leaving the NSUN under this presumption. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 13:14, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)
OK fair enough. At least we agree on the point of disagreement! If you're sticking to your guns, then I'll simply add my vote appropriately and urge you and others to reconsider whether the NSUN really could be a WG according to your own definition. Hippietania 14:04, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)
I must strongly disagree with Hippietania's notion that the NSUN is just like a club. The critical difference between the NSUN and other organizations is that it is built into the structure of the game, dammit. There are in-game wars fought using the power of U.N. member nations to control a region. I cannot leave the U.N. entirely because my region does not have a Founder and I must help secure the region with the presence of my U.N. nation. I get so damn tired of that bullshit argument because I hear it over and over again, a mantra for those who have the luxury of leaving the U.N. and not having it make their region less secure.--HotRodia 17:57, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)