OOC/Planning Thread

An archive of previous sessions of both the General Assembly and Security Council as well as various ad hoc consultations and meetings.

Moderator: RP Committee

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby jamescfm » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:20 pm

Specifically, I'd like it to read something like 'Moderator approval is required in order to exercise this provision'. At the moment, it feels like appeals should be directed to us whereas I'd rather we were involved beforehand.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby Auditorii » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:23 pm

OOC Provision: This was done by members of the RP Team and Veteran RPers in the game to combat the often inactivity of SC members. This would allow for the SC members to remove inactive members of the SC. This is an IC mechanic for an OOC problem. The World Congress, notably the Security Council, is heavily reliant on player interaction. We understand if we are informed a player is going away or is possibly inactive for a few days but outright neglect cannot allow this system to function. Any issues involving this can be pointed to the RP Team's World Congress Member or Moderation. Consultation of Moderation is required before this measure can be invoked.
Image Dorvik | Image Zardugal | Image Ostland (FBC)
Moderator
-- Particracy Game Rules
-- Moderation Requests
-- Game Information
-- Particracy Discord
Auditorii
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby jamescfm » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:27 pm

Perfect. Since the provision hasn't been enacted yet anyway, the simple explanation is that the bureaucracy sent it back to the Security Council for amendment.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby Zanz » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:45 pm

I'm unclear why I need to define "active status" and am further unclear on what exactly I should define it as. It's the absence of probationary status. I don't think it really matters as the corresponding conflict has ended now.
Just a bunch of shit.
User avatar
Zanz
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby Auditorii » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:46 pm

Zanz wrote:I'm unclear why I need to define "active status" and am further unclear on what exactly I should define it as. It's the absence of probationary status. I don't think it really matters as the corresponding conflict has ended now.


Probationary Status would mean that they have violated or possibly gone against resolutions of the Security Council, they are therefore on notice to potentially have their status as a WC member suspended; perhaps meaning they're vote and any votes for them are not counted?
Image Dorvik | Image Zardugal | Image Ostland (FBC)
Moderator
-- Particracy Game Rules
-- Moderation Requests
-- Game Information
-- Particracy Discord
Auditorii
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby jamescfm » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:54 pm

Zanz wrote:I'm unclear why I need to define "active status" and am further unclear on what exactly I should define it as. It's the absence of probationary status. I don't think it really matters as the corresponding conflict has ended now.

My bad, I worded it poorly. The last part of the resolution reads:
DEFINES "probationary status" as grounds for immediate removal from the Security Council (if applicable) and grounds for the consideration of removal, by 2/3rds vote of those representatives of the nations of the World Congress which vote within 18 months (OOC: 3 RL days) of the calling of the vote, from active status in the World Congress itself.

What needs clarification is what "removal from active status in the World Congress itself" would amount to, would it mean representatives can't attend the General Assembly, that they wouldn't be entitled to vote in Security Council elections? If so, then I don't think we could enforce it because it does seem to run contrary to the spirit of the body.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby CCP » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:56 pm

jamescfm wrote:[list][*]Resolution 29 may need a slight amendment or at least a clarification about what "active status in the World Congress itself"; it is enforceable, though, since it refers to the WC and not the GA


Its reference to the World Congress is precisely the problem. The "world congress" = SC+GA+GS. Resolution 29 says "2/3rds vote of those representatives of the nations of the World Congress." Who are "the nations of the World Congress?" Are they the members of the SC? Are they the "members" of the GA? Do they include the GS? Does the GS get a vote? Twice now, I've taken time at length to emphasize that the general assembly is not a group of nations -- it's a group of players, and it can include representatives of both the game system countries and the third world countries, and it could also include any RPed "subnational countries" that players create within the borders of the 58 game system nations from time to time. Which of these groups is resolution 29 referring to as "nations of the World Congress?" Presumably, Zanz meant to refer to only the 58 game system governments, as I emphasized above. If that's correct, Resolution 29's reference to the World Congress is entirely unenforceable since, again, the World Congress as currently constituted includes entities and persons in addition to the 58 game system nations. Please address this point specifically because, as I have repeatedly said, it is the crux of the problem here.

jamescfm wrote:[*]Resolution 30 has no issues as far as I can see and is absolutely enforceable


It has the same issues as Resolution 29.

jamescfm wrote:Aquinas' post shouldn't be considered the rules which govern the WC, my 'Structure of the World Congress' post should.


You should've made that clear to me when I PMed you before writing the DGS's ruling because I specifically told you that I would be rejecting all four resolutions on grounds of rules violations. Also, do I remember correctly that you wrote the "Structure of the World Congress" post when you were the RP Team WC member? If so, that obviously isn't reasonable to expect that a policy written by a non-mod should be taken to be a rule. Just as I expect my GS characters' policies could well be overturned by the next WC RP Team member, I considered your "Structure" post to be just as ephemeral and enforceable just for the period during which you controlled the GS. I intended to ask you to edit the "Structure" post when I noticed its contradictions with Aquinas's rules, but wanted to resolve the current activities before doing so. If on the other hand you wrote the "Structure" post after becoming a mod, then that was a genuine case of misunderstanding on my part due to your having played both the RP Team and mod roles back to back. If you wrote it as a RP Team member and are now using your authority as mod to make it a rule, you need to inform the whole game of that in a dedicated post in General Discussion so everyone's aware, and you should probably make a note in the Game Rules thread too.

Zanz wrote:We should have been given more advanced warning that what we were doing was not going to fly. When everyone started RPing in response to the resolutions we passed (particularly Resolution 29), we should have been given the benefit of the doubt - the rules also say that acknowledging RP means accepting its validity. Plenty of the most active RPers on this forum now acknowledged Resolution 29. What has effectively happened, regardless of your justification for it happening, is that one person's interpretation of rules written by someone no longer here has led us to void the active role play efforts of multiple people. Then, once that action to void was taken, we've gone about 3 days now without clarity on what exactly we can do going forward. I'm not questioning you in particular, because as I said, I think your intent is good, but your actions here have meant that several of us have been unable to continue the storyline we were undertaking.


Yea I get that, and I did consider contacting you, Auditorii and Axxell before writing the ruling. The problem was that I was PMing with James and Maxington from the start of this, and before we all got our responses back to one another, some players had begun acting on the presumption that they'd be able to expel countries with your resolution. Rather than step in and ask players to stop making those in character comments -- since they were only statements of intent as far as I saw, please correct me if I'm wrong here -- I decided to let them be since their political positions presumably wouldn't change just because the expulsion power wasn't implemented. The other IC reactions I saw were that some belligerents and interventionists in the Badaran conflict pulled out in part on the strength of the expectation that Resolution 29 could be used to expel some opponents. I didn't intervene there because my reading of the RP was that most players wanted those parties to withdraw from Badara, so the effect as far as I could see seemed to be the same with or without official passage of the resolution. My bottom line impression was that the RPs could go on without official implementation of R29. Please inform if I missed any important details here.
Last edited by CCP on Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby jamescfm » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:08 pm

CCP wrote:Who are "the nations of the World Congress?" Are they the members of the SC? Are the "members" of the GA? Do they include the GS? Does the GS get a vote?
[...]
the World Congress as currently constituted includes entities and persons in addition to the 58 game system nations

The World Congress refers to the 58 nations eligible to vote in SC elections. The fact that the GA is open to other parties isn't relevant. Clearly, the World Congress is one organisation, composed of the 58 nations and the GA and SC are two organs of it, composed of different parties, nation etc. Either way, it can be ammended to read "the nations eligible to vote in SC elections" if you feel that's necessary.

Regarding the Structure of the World Congress post, I wrote it as RP Team member but to formalise the rules which govern the WC. As far as I know, there are no contradictions between the original post and my later one but I apologise if I'm wrong about that. That comment was made in passing and can be addressed properly at some later date.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby Eugene19872 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:26 pm

I will first say that I skimmed over this thread due to time constraints but I got the jest of what was going on.

In respect to the World Council, its a good idea and brings a great deal of ideas to the overall RP feel of the game. That being said for a World Council to be "fleshed out" you have to have a governing charter and declaration to mandate what power the WC has, what it's purpose is, what procedure is and so on. Along with that you have to have some OOC decorum that all acknowledge and have input with.

Second, the Security Council needs to be active, and a set of rules and regulations both IC and OOC need to be made for these members. A set of procedures need to be made for creating, voting and enforcing Resolutions and so on.

Look to the UN Charter and Declaration for ideas if need be.

There also needs to be an open line of communication between Mods and the SC for certain, if a Mod notices that a SC or two are not doing anything maybe they then to generate a random event that makes people take notice and change their votes to someone that is more active...just an idea of course.
Party Founder: Alinar Balkian
Party Name: Pontesian Progressive Party
Nation: Sovereign Republic of Pontesia
Eugene19872
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:42 pm
Location: Ledbetter KY, USA

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby CCP » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:29 pm

jamescfm wrote:The World Congress refers to the 58 nations eligible to vote in SC elections. The fact that the GA is open to other parties isn't relevant. Clearly, the World Congress is one organisation, composed of the 58 nations and the GA and SC are two organs of it, composed of different parties, nation etc. Either way, it can be ammended to read "the nations eligible to vote in SC elections" if you feel that's necessary.


So that means if a R29 motion is posted somewhere (presumably in the GA), that you want the GS to count the "will" of the 58 game system nations? How would I as GS controller count their will? And how would I distinguish the 58 game system nations' "will" from the wills of everyone else who posts in the GA? Do I have to request credentials from the GA participants who claim to represent a game system government? Do I have to confirm their credentials with the 58 heads of government? And what is their "will?" Is it a vote? Do I count their "wills" as votes?

I understand that asking these questions back to back may make them read as pedantic or peevish. Please accept my assurance that they are not intended that way. These are genuine problems that I'm going to have to know how to resolve when a R29 motion comes up.

jamescfm wrote:Regarding the Structure of the World Congress post, I wrote it as RP Team member but to formalise the rules which govern the WC. As far as I know, there are no contradictions between the original post and my later one but I apologise if I'm wrong about that. That comment was made in passing and can be addressed properly at some later date.


I'll PM you about this one because it seems we're referring to multiple posts now, and in general, if the rules have changes, we just need to get all the relevant posts edited.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sessions Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests