SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

General discussions about the Particracy web game.

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby jamescfm » Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:24 pm

Polites wrote:But I'd rather not focus on the RP justification just now, we can always come up with one after we have a working and acceptable proposal.

That's fine but my reason for bringing it up relates to the relationship between the rankings and the Security Council. In real life, the permanent members of the SC don't change based on changes in the most powerful or prosperous nations- like I think is being proposed here. It does seem strange to me to tie permanent member status to (primarily subjective) economic and military rankings. Once again apologies if this has already been discussed, but wouldn't picking permanent members and having them remain permanent make more sense?
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 1829
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm
Location: Up In The Sky

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Auditorii » Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:00 pm

jamescfm wrote:
Polites wrote:But I'd rather not focus on the RP justification just now, we can always come up with one after we have a working and acceptable proposal.

That's fine but my reason for bringing it up relates to the relationship between the rankings and the Security Council. In real life, the permanent members of the SC don't change based on changes in the most powerful or prosperous nations- like I think is being proposed here. It does seem strange to me to tie permanent member status to (primarily subjective) economic and military rankings. Once again apologies if this has already been discussed, but wouldn't picking permanent members and having them remain permanent make more sense?


This was the original proposal I believe when we had originally discussed security council reform. The overall issue we had was "What happens when someone falls inactive?" as a Permanent Member?
"An Empire is never peaceably acquired or maintained. It is willed into existence. We are that will."
PT Wiki Aficionado & Fmr. RP Team Member
Eastern Homeland Association (Dolgavia)
Auditorii
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby PhilG » Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:52 pm

Auditorii wrote:
jamescfm wrote:That's fine but my reason for bringing it up relates to the relationship between the rankings and the Security Council. In real life, the permanent members of the SC don't change based on changes in the most powerful or prosperous nations- like I think is being proposed here. It does seem strange to me to tie permanent member status to (primarily subjective) economic and military rankings. Once again apologies if this has already been discussed, but wouldn't picking permanent members and having them remain permanent make more sense?


This was the original proposal I believe when we had originally discussed security council reform. The overall issue we had was "What happens when someone falls inactive?" as a Permanent Member?


There's also the basic issue of this not being real life. Geopolitics in Terra aren't as solid as they are in the real world, where change can take time. Months and years fly by in this game, so the RP institutions still need to reflect that fact. We have no way of knowing what the UN will look like in 100 years, so we shouldn't try to make things so long-term here because it would just create awkward situations IMO.
Briser les chânes !
PhilG
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:09 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Govenor12 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:42 pm

In the analysis I had i indirectly highlighted the fact that personalities within the game seek to peddle an inaccurate narrative and feed misinformation to various players within their nation, this can be seen in Govenor's campaign where he feed the players within Solentia incorrect information whilst misleading them into the perception that the Accord was a plot by moderation to "take control" of Solentia (but that is an argument for another day).


We had a discussion in which I put forward my views and the other side put forward its views. I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that there has been any kind of champaign when there was one vote and one bill with a discussion evaluating the pros and cons in great detail. In the end there was a decision taken and my arguments won and this is democracy. Your claims are especially strange, because in the discord chat you addmitted this tense discussion: "but the funniest is how that istalian party roasts him".
Yes, it is still my confirmed view that all Solentian players gained a great amount of freedom back by exiting the accord and I am proud of this.


-----------
On the matter:

1. The current rule that all resolutions must be discussed in the general assembly is a valuable and important rule, because it tends to energize and engange the whole player community. Think of all the hot-heated debates we had about Beiteynu etc...
2. There is also the question of specified time limits for both kinds of resolutions, because a the moment only the General Assembly resolutions having a limit of one month.
3. Additionally the General Assembly should have the right to revoke any kind of resolution by a majority vote and question the security council on its daily business and the General Assembly resolutions should be binding just like the security council resolutions.
4.The General Secretary should be voted not in the Security Council but in the General Assembly, because this would make him more accountable to this much wider forum and just like in the real world the general assembly also should play an important role in chossing this important office. The General Assembly should also have the right to veto/outvote a General Secretary and any non-permanent member of the security council for misconduct.
5. The thereshold for revoking/adapting a resolution in the general assembly should be not the majority of all countries but rather the majority of all votes casted, making a General Assembly resolution much more likely and engaging more players and again this section assums that all nations are members of the United Nations which should not be the case.
6. In case a veto has been exercised, just like in the real UN, the General Assembly should have the right to pass this motion by a simple majority of the votes casted in the General Assembly.
Brace yourself for the Solentian Rebirth
Govenor12
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:20 am

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest