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: 2061
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

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?
"The Aldegar Canal, best canal, super watery and the best canal. I know canals. Theyre great. My dad went to Canal IT, he knew all about them. Very smart man. Canal expert. Aldegar canal. Best canal. Anyone else is fake canal news!"
~Vescia
Auditorii
 
Posts: 971
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: 371
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:20 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:29 am

We've decided to postpone the implementation of the reform for one month, given that the new Military and Economic Rankings have not yet been released, and we want to give the community a chance to debate the new rankings, especially since they will have an impact on the Security Council. The new system will be implemented with the elections scheduled for the 1st of June 2018.
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Sat May 05, 2018 3:12 pm

So after thinking this through a bit we decided to give the Permanent Members the right to veto all SC resolutions, at least for a trial run at first. We're concerned this may make them a bit overpowered, but it's worth a shot to see how this works out.

So here's the updated proposal:

Updated Proposal wrote:The World Congress is Particracy's equivalent of the United Nations.

Representatives of all national governments and political parties/groups/organisations may participate in discussions at its General Assembly. However, the governing authority of the World Congress is the ̶5̶-̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ Security Council, which may pass official resolutions with the support of at least 4 of its members. The Security Council is composed of Permanent Members and four Non-Permanent Members.

The General-Secretary of the World Congress is responsible for chairing General Assembly and Security Council meetings, and is elected by the Security Council.

Members of the Security Council will be represented either by their Head of Government or a representative nominated by their Head of Government. A player controlling a Head of Government may opt to nominate another player to role-play the nation's representative at the Security Council.

All nations are entitled to take part in the process of nominating the Non-Permanent Members, which they can do using the relevant game mechanic law options.


Security Council elections

The Great Powers as determined by the Military and Economic Rankings are the Permanent Members of the Security Council.

The Non-Permanent Members of the Security Council are elected by the nations in the game. Using the relevant game mechanic law options, ALL nations may nominate one nation on ALL FOUR candidate lists to the position of Non-Permanent Member. Within three days of the first day of each real-life month, a Moderator will simulate the elections, awarding each seat to the nation which received the highest number of nominations. In the case of a tie, the Permanent Members will decide which nation wins the seat.

If a Permanent Member has the highest number of nominations, the seat is awarded to the next runner up.

A Non-Permanent Member can have a maximum of two consecutive terms, after which it is not eligible for immediate re-election. If the retiring Member has the highest number of nominations, the seat is awarded to the next runner up.


The candidate lists for each seat are as follows...

Seat A (Artania candidates): Aloria, Beluzia, Darnussia, Dorvik, Dundorf, Endralon, Hawu Mumenhes, Hobrazia, Keymon, Kirlawa, Kundrati, Luthori, Malivia, Rutania.
Seat B (Majatra candidates): Badara, Barmenia, Beiteynu, Cildania, Cobura, Deltaria, Istalia, Jakania, Jelbania, Kafuristan, Kalopia, Pontesi, Selucia, Solentia , Vanuku, Zardugal.
Seat C (Seleya candidates): Aldegar, Alduria, Baltusia, Gaduridos, Indrala, Kalistan, Kanjor, Likatonia, Lodamun, Mordusia, Rildanor, Saridan, Tukarali, Valruzia.
Seat D (Dovani, Keris & Macon candidates): Dankuk, Davostan, Dolgaria, Egelion, Hulstria, Hutori, Kazulia, Lourenne, New Endralon, Sekowo, Talmoria, Telamon, Trigunia, Vorona.
̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶f̶t̶h̶ ̶s̶e̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶S̶e̶a̶t̶ ̶E̶,̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶c̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶n̶e̶r̶-̶u̶p̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶d̶i̶d̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶h̶i̶g̶h̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶n̶u̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶n̶o̶m̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶.̶

Security Council Resolutions

Both Permanent and Non-Permanent Members have the right to introduce and vote on Security Council Resolutions.

In order for a resolution to pass it must have the support of at least four Members, and none of the Permanent Members voting against it. If any Permanent Member votes against the resolution the resolution is defeated, irrespective of the total number of votes in favor.

Security Council Resolutions are binding.

General Assembly Resolutions

Any member of the General Assembly or the Security Council can propose a General Assembly Resolution. The proposal should be at most 3 sentences long and must include at least 2 voting variables.

The Resolution must receive the endorsement of five additional nations before it can be voted on.

The Head of Government or a representative nominated by the Head of Government can support a General Assembly Resolution on behalf of their nation. Third World Nations, NGOs, and opposition political parties cannot propose or support Resolutions.

Once a Resolution has received the necessary number of endorsements any Member of the Security Council or presiding officer can post the proposal in the Final Draft Approval thread, and Moderation will introduce the Resolution as a new law in the game system. Moderation reserves the right to refuse to implement Resolutions as laws.

If the Resolution garners a plurality of yes votes from the 58 nations within a month, the Resolution is considered adopted, and Moderation will remove it from the list of in-game laws.

General Assembly Resolutions are not binding but merely recommendations. However the Security Council may choose to enforce General Assembly Resolutions through binding Security Council Resolutions.
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby CCP » Sat May 05, 2018 10:29 pm

What does binding mean?

Does it mean member nations are required to implement the resolutions in their own countries? If yes, in the case of the Security Council, which countries are bound by a SC Resolution? Only members of the Security Council, or all WC member nations? Or does binding simply mean that the WC staff is bound by the resolution and therefore are required to implement it?
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: 946
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Mon May 07, 2018 7:30 am

CCP wrote:What does binding mean?

Does it mean member nations are required to implement the resolutions in their own countries? If yes, in the case of the Security Council, which countries are bound by a SC Resolution? Only members of the Security Council, or all WC member nations? Or does binding simply mean that the WC staff is bound by the resolution and therefore are required to implement it?


Binding in the sense that it becomes a "binding" source of international law. Countries would be RP-required to implement the resolutions, but not because of game rules, but because the SC might end up enforcing the resolution. Nations could ignore the resolution, but they'd be acting at their own peril - they might end up being isolated, left out of international trade, and ultimately have their rankings affected as a result. GA resolutions would instead count as recommendations. Don't think it would be a good idea to actually require each and every nation to change their laws to incorporate resolutions.
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby CCP » Mon May 07, 2018 3:44 pm

Polites wrote:
CCP wrote:What does binding mean?

Does it mean member nations are required to implement the resolutions in their own countries? If yes, in the case of the Security Council, which countries are bound by a SC Resolution? Only members of the Security Council, or all WC member nations? Or does binding simply mean that the WC staff is bound by the resolution and therefore are required to implement it?


Binding in the sense that it becomes a "binding" source of international law. Countries would be RP-required to implement the resolutions, but not because of game rules, but because the SC might end up enforcing the resolution. Nations could ignore the resolution, but they'd be acting at their own peril - they might end up being isolated, left out of international trade, and ultimately have their rankings affected as a result. GA resolutions would instead count as recommendations. Don't think it would be a good idea to actually require each and every nation to change their laws to incorporate resolutions.


Okay that sounds good. Thanks.

What it sounds like is GA Resolutions would need to be enforced by an enabling SC Resolution in order to become anything more than a recommendation. If so, I think that's a good balance and system.
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: 946
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Tue May 08, 2018 2:10 pm

CCP wrote:What it sounds like is GA Resolutions would need to be enforced by an enabling SC Resolution in order to become anything more than a recommendation. If so, I think that's a good balance and system.


Yep that is the idea. Maybe the description could be altered slightly to make this clearer.
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest