SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

General discussions about the Particracy web game.

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby FPC » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:52 am

Hi,

After a quick discussion Moderation have decided to try and implement your proposal @CCP. There are a few changes we are going to make, noticeably at the moment the main changes are:

- We are not gonna use a 30 vote requirement for a resolution to pass, as we're not sure that there will always be 30 active players. At first we are going to try having the requirement be a simple plurality of votes. However we will change that if needed after the new SC is up and running.

-Additionally we're not quite sure about the great power veto thing. This might make it less fun for non-great power players, or mean that everyone gravitates towards GPs.


Thanks for your proposal. We will work on a draft set of new rules implementing this proposal which we will release ASAP.
Particracy Moderation
Wiki Admin and Bureaucrat (for some reason)
User avatar
FPC
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:14 am
Location: Scotland

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Corvo Attano » Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:44 pm

I don't want malivia to be promoted to great power though.
Fatherland Front

Nationmaster of Malivia
User avatar
Corvo Attano
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:16 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Maxington » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:22 pm

1. Power to the Player: I believe that there needs to be less restrictions where it pertains to the World Congress and players especially on the grounds of electing players into various positions. At times moderation or the RP Team or whomever have elected individuals into positions and the community (although they have exercised restrain where it pertains to voicing their opinions) have been against said individuals being appointed to said positions mainly due to the fact that they cannot champion their concerns. Where it pertains to the General Secretary, it should be a position in which the community partakes in. It is an extremely important position and has the potential of introducing an interesting side to the World Congress whether the view is impartial or not. In-order to elect said individuals i propose that elections for this seat happens a week prior to the result of the elections of the World Congress Security Council. In the initial 2-3 days, moderation opens the nomination period in which persons can either nominate themselves or be nominated to the position. Posterior to the 2-3 days, moderation closes nominations and immediately begin the voting process. Moderation could then announce the appointment of the General Secretary when they post the results of the election.

2. I could guide you to the Trond Henrichsen Institute for International Affairs and my analysis of the World Congress, its failures and the development of scepticism of the organisation. I believe that nationmasters have an obligation to introduce organisations such as the World Congress and what it stands for to the players within the nation. I have introduced most of players in Kazulia to the World Congress and activity encourage them to become involved with the role-play that occurs within its forums. 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). I have been calling on this since the initial introduction of nationmaster, they need to become involved in informing players within their nation on various forms of RP, RP Laws, RP Rules, RP Principles and encouraging them to become involved in RP, whilst informing them with reliable and fact driven information. When an individual misleads the playerbase within his/her respective nation, it can have damaging effects to that players perception of various systems within the game and could potentially enable the player in developing an incorrect perception and thus individuals are turned off from engaging in partaking in such RP or RP on a whole.
"The future of the Nation is in the children's school bags" ~ Dr. Eric Williams
President of the Trond Henrichsen Institute for International Affairs.
Nationmaster of Kazulia
User avatar
Maxington
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: Look Behind you.

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby CCP » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:32 pm

FPC wrote:Hi,

After a quick discussion Moderation have decided to try and implement your proposal @CCP.


Thanks for considering it.

We are not gonna use a 30 vote requirement for a resolution to pass, as we're not sure that there will always be 30 active players. At first we are going to try having the requirement be a simple plurality of votes. However we will change that if needed after the new SC is up and running.


That makes sense, especially early on.

Additionally we're not quite sure about the great power veto thing. This might make it less fun for non-great power players, or mean that everyone gravitates towards GPs.


Yeah I can see why you would think that, but that's a feature not a bug. The thing is, I'm not sure this setup would work without the veto power. Since the GA is getting resolution authority, No Veto would mean there's little difference between the GA and SC; it would turn SC into an implementer of GA resolutions instead of a hub of global power which is what it should be. Vetos also mimic the real-world UN, which is good because it will be easier for players to understand the system since it will be familiar to them.

I won't say more now because I know there's at least one major player who is still reading the proposal and plans to make comments tomorrow-ish so I don't want to influence the flow of discussion any more than I already have. I would simply suggest we wait a bit to hear from a few different players, especially players like Axxell, Auditorii, Govenor, Reddy, and some casual-style players if possible.
CCP
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:00 am

Alright, here's an updated draft for the proposal, including most of CCP's suggested reforms. Differences from the current rules are marked with red for additions and changes and with ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ for removals.

We decided to change a few things from CCP's proposal. In addition to the changes Fin mentioned above, we decided to remove the SC from the process of approving General Assembly Resolutions and to make SC Resolutions binding and the GA Resolutions non-binding. Hopefully that would be enough to distinguish the two bodies and give the SC some teeth while allowing the GA to intervene in international affairs. We're also considering a two consecutive term limit for the Non-Permanent Members, as a way to weed out inactives without penalizing active members. We'll be officially recognizing the SC's power to elect the General-Secretary, and we're thinking of giving the Permanent Members the power to determine SC membership in case of a nomination tie.


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.

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.
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:20 am

As for the veto right for Permanent Members, I can definitely see the appeal of introducing it, but maybe there's a better way to do this than effectively allowing a single player to kill an RP?
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Auditorii » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:32 am

Polites wrote:As for the veto right for Permanent Members, I can definitely see the appeal of introducing it, but maybe there's a better way to do this than effectively allowing a single player to kill an RP?


Why not introduce a mechanic similar to the US. If a player vetos something it can be re-introduced and if 2/3 Of the SC members vote for it, it goes.
"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 jamescfm » Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:45 am

Apologies if this has already been referenced (I haven’t had time to read through the full discussion, unfortunately) but how are we explaining the great powers being given special powers/rights. In the United Nations the permanent five are essentially a reflection of the winning side in WW2. It seems like it would be difficult to rationalise, in game terms.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 1829
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm
Location: Up In The Sky

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:58 pm

Edited the updated proposal slightly to remove references to international law, after it's been pointed out that IRL GA Resolutions are actually considered a part of international law.

Auditorii wrote:Why not introduce a mechanic similar to the US. If a player vetos something it can be re-introduced and if 2/3 Of the SC members vote for it, it goes.


That's an option. Another would be to give a majority of Permanent Members the power of veto.

jamescfm wrote:Apologies if this has already been referenced (I haven’t had time to read through the full discussion, unfortunately) but how are we explaining the great powers being given special powers/rights. In the United Nations the permanent five are essentially a reflection of the winning side in WW2. It seems like it would be difficult to rationalise, in game terms.


It's not been brought up yet afaik. Maybe we could justify it as a result of the new Terran War (if it happens before the proposal is implemented), or we could just argue it's the result of a SC resolution designed to give the Security Council more power by bringing in the most powerful nations. 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.
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Auditorii » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:25 pm

Polites wrote:
Auditorii wrote:Why not introduce a mechanic similar to the US. If a player vetos something it can be re-introduced and if 2/3 Of the SC members vote for it, it goes.


That's an option. Another would be to give a majority of Permanent Members the power of veto.


I think giving individual Permanent Members the ability to veto with 2/3 of SC members (Permanent and Non-Permanent) able to vote over it is the best.
"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

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest