World Congress & Security Council

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: World Congress & Security Council

Postby Aquinas » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:36 pm

mpog wrote:I have one concern, one question, and one request.
1.
Rathon wrote:I might support a country now, only to have the HoG change five times between now and November 1st. And then, if the HoG changes during the term, that means the Security Council representative changes too? It just seems very risky to vote for an active nation with a broad political spectrum- a Socialist could vote for a nation and end up supporting a right-wing Security Council member when the HoG changes.

I share this concern.


Agreed; with any system involving electing Security Council nations, there will be a risk of the Head of Government changing after the election. However, I wonder whether you might possibly be over-estimating the amount of instability this would cause? When it comes to foreign affairs policy, governments tend to focus on concerns related to their core national and geopolitical interests - whether they are left-wing or right-wing. In the UK, for example, there are some foreign policy changes whenever we switch from a Labour to a Conservative government or vice versu, but by and large, there tends to be more continuity than change.

Also, bear in mind that Security Council elections will be reasonably regular (once every real-life month), so there will be opportunities for nations to try to eject Security Council members they are unhappy with.

But as I say, I accept the basic point you are making, and yes, this inevitably means it would probably be wise to factor in OOC considerations as well as IC ones when it comes to deciding which nation to nominate. ie. You may want to think in terms of "On balance, which nation is most likely to be a positive/stable presence in the Security Council for the next RL month?"

mpog wrote:Another problem of voting for nations is that due to changing majorities in the elected nations we may end up with players that don't RP in the Council.


Agreed; this is another concern I was wrestling with when considering the scheme. However, here are some reasons to be more optimistic:

* Players who are enthusiastic about Security Council-related RP are likely to gravitate towards Security Council member nations, especially at times when the RP is hotting up. This will make it more likely that those nations participate in the RP.

* As it says in the outline, "A player controlling a Head of Government may opt to nominate another player to RP the nation's representative at the Security Council". So if a player controlling the Head of Government is not interested in Security Council RP (or else perhaps just doesn't happen to have the time available, or whatever), then they can delegate the RP to another player.

mpog wrote:2. What is the role of the Security Council and of the World Congress?


This has not been developed in detail yet, and it will probably take time for more detail to emerge. However, since the World Congress is named in the outline as Particracy's equivalent of the United Nations, we can safely assume the organisation's founders had a general ambition to try to keep the peace, discourage international aggression, build better relations between national governments, and so on.

mpog wrote:3. Could we have the option added to not participate? I don't mean abstaining in votes, but the possibility of nations not being members of the Organisation.


Another good question. Right now, membership of the World Congress is not actually something we have a very defined concept of. By this I mean, for example, that there is no fully sketched-out mechanism for a nation to join the World Congress, leave the World Congress or be compulsorily ejected from the World Congress. Everything has been kept simple. We are working on the assumption that all nations are entitled to participate in Security Council elections if they wish to do so, and also entitled not to do so if they do not wish to do so. Similarly, we are working on an assumption that national governments and other political actors across Terra are entitled to form their own assessments in terms of how much legitimacy/authority they attach to formal resolutions issued by the Security Council.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: World Congress & Security Council

Postby Siggon Kristov » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:51 pm

Just don't make it a powerful/imposing body. Frame it as simply a global forum where governments can express their stances and concerns.
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: World Congress & Security Council

Postby jamescfm » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:58 pm

Aquinas wrote: In the UK, for example, there are some foreign policy changes whenever we switch from a Labour to a Conservative government or vice versu, but by and large, there tends to be more continuity than change.

Labour never took us out of the European Union to be fair...
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: World Congress & Security Council

Postby Siggon Kristov » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:28 pm

By the way, I think we should have discussed the regions before this rapid implementation.
Aquinas, you mention 5 elected members, but you only sorted nations into 4 seats.
It's also odd that Vorona and Talmoria are in the same group as Davostan.

If you include the entire globe, as I suggested, you could do 5 seats.
Seat A - Artania, Makon
Seat B - Majatra
Seat C - South Seleya, Temania, Vascania
Seat D - Dovani, Indrala
Seat E - North Seleya, Keris

With this, the non-playable nations are split up into groups with playable nations, so they won't dominate anywhere.. Btw, in my suggestion to include the entire globe, I was suggesting that non-playable nations would be candidates for the Security Council, but they wouldn't vote. If they win any Security Council seats, the Global RP Team would control them, but they wouldn't vote in the election (we could just say they all abstained).
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: World Congress & Security Council

Postby mpog » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:37 pm

Siggon Kristov wrote:Aquinas, you mention 5 elected members, but you only sorted nations into 4 seats.

It is explained here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6912#p104994
Aquinas wrote:The fifth seat, Seat E, will be allocated to the runner-up candidate with the highest number of nominations


Siggon Kristov wrote:Just don't make it a powerful/imposing body. Frame it as simply a global forum where governments can express their stances and concerns.

The flip-side is: if it has no power, why bother? (I guess this is a problem the real UN has struggled with for decades.)
mpog
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:53 pm

Re: World Congress & Security Council

Postby Siggon Kristov » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:55 pm

mpog wrote:
Siggon Kristov wrote:Aquinas, you mention 5 elected members, but you only sorted nations into 4 seats.

It is explained here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6912#p104994
Aquinas wrote:The fifth seat, Seat E, will be allocated to the runner-up candidate with the highest number of nominations

Ahh, thanks. I guess I can reorganise my list into 4 seats, then.

mpog wrote:
Siggon Kristov wrote:Just don't make it a powerful/imposing body. Frame it as simply a global forum where governments can express their stances and concerns.

The flip-side is: if it has no power, why bother? (I guess this is a problem the real UN has struggled with for decades.)

RP, and bragging rights. This whole thing came up after a long discussion on electing some global leader of Terra who would have no power, just someone who would have a voice.
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: World Congress & Security Council

Postby Aquinas » Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:10 am

Autokrator15 wrote:May I suggest we put the entire World Congress to a seperate forum? Or a sub-forum in the Role-play section? I think its better that way so that its not hidden in conferences and given the importance and status it deserves.


Views on that, anyone?

Autokrator15 wrote:Then on to the questions, I wonder, If I dont change my vote does it stay the same even after the election or will it be reset to abstain when new elections come?


As Siggon said, it stays the same. There is no reset after each election.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: World Congress & Security Council

Postby mpog » Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:04 am

Aquinas wrote:
Autokrator15 wrote:May I suggest we put the entire World Congress to a seperate forum? Or a sub-forum in the Role-play section? I think its better that way so that its not hidden in conferences and given the importance and status it deserves.


Views on that, anyone?

I think a sub-forum in the RP section makes sense. If it isn't really used we can move the contents to the Organisation sub-forum.
mpog
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:53 pm

Re: World Congress & Security Council

Postby Siggon Kristov » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:41 pm

Alright, so I'm proposing that the seat borders be changed like this:

Image

Seat A - Artania, Makon
Seat B - Majatra, Vascania
Seat C - Seleya, Temania
Seat D - Dovani, Keris, Indrala

--

The main intention was to include non-playable nations.

Reasons for doing it this way:
- Indrala is more connected to Dovani than it is to Seleya.
- Makon is closer to Artania than it is to the nations in Dovani.
- Majatra and Vascania are actually close to each other.

--

The problem with my map is that Seat A is the only seat that doesn't have non-playable nations. Non-playable nations are in every seat except Seat A. Also, a lot of non-playable nations end up in Seat D because of the size of Dovani. A suggestion to fix this would be to split Dovani, with the Eastern part being in Seat A with Artania. At least 1 nation in Artania had colonies in Dovani at some point.
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: World Congress & Security Council

Postby Autokrator15 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:12 pm

I oppose what Siggon suggests. This will upset the ballance of power, I know that the current ballance is only as it is now but over the course of this games history we can safely asume it doesnt change directly. In Siggon's proposal the C seat is left without a major superpower. D, now has two major superpowers fighting for the same seat. Trigunia and Indrala are both superpowers and Hutori is a majorpower all three will now contest and fight for the C seat whilest the D seat has NO superpower but only a regional and major powers.
Image
User avatar
Autokrator15
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 4:35 pm
Location: Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Sessions Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests