SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

General discussions about the Particracy web game.

SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:58 am

Hello all.

As many of you may have noticed, the Security Council and the World Congress as a whole have been less than active for a while now. Many people brought up the fact that Great Power rivalry, which used to drive international conflicts and RP, has been rather lacking. Part of this is the result of the system for electing members of the Security Council. Some players have argued that it is rather odd that only one Great Power (as determined by the Military Rankings) is currently on the Security Council. Another complaint is that, given that a few seats are not very competitive, there is a significant burden on running a successful campaign for those seats, which ultimately discourages a lot of nations from even trying to run campaigns.

EDIT: The proposal has been updated in response to player suggestions and comments. This is the most up to date draft proposal.

For that reason we are opening a consultation for the following reforms to the current system for electing the Security Council:

1. Adding the three Great Powers as "Permanent Members" of the SC, with the right to introduce resolutions and vote in case of a tie, but no right to vote otherwise.
2. Removing Seat E, and thus reaching a total of 7 Security Council members.
3. Preserving the current system for the remaining 4 members, and renaming them as "Non-Permanent Members".
4. Not allowing retiring members to seek immediate reelection.
5. Appointing the nation that has not recently been a member in case of a nomination tie.

The consultation will run until the next Security Council elections, at which point, if the proposal is accepted, it will become official and will be used for the election on June 1st 2018.

For comparison, below are the proposed new rules compared with the current rules. New additions and replacements are highlighted in red. Removals are marked with ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶.

Proposal:

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 7-member Security Council, which may pass official resolutions with the support of at least 3 of its members (or 4 in case of a tie). The Security Council is composed of three 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 role-played by the Global Role-Play Team/Continental RP Coordinators or a person designated by them.

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 three 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 seat will be awarded to the nation which was not a member of the Security Council in the previous session. If that method is to no avail, the tie will be resolved by random lottery.

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

A retiring Non-Permanent Member is not eligible for immediate re-election, and 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.̶

Voting in the Security Council

Generally only Non-Permanent Members may vote on resolutions. In order for a resolution to pass it must have the support of at least three Non-Permanent Members.

In the case of a tie the Permanent Members should also cast a vote on the resolution, in these cases a resolution must have the support of at least 4 Members to pass.

Both Permanent and Non-Permanent Members have the right to introduce resolutions.


Current Rules:

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 5-member Security Council, which may pass official resolutions with the support of at least 3 of its members.

The General-Secretary of the World Congress is responsible for chairing General Assembly and Security Council meetings, and is role-played by the Global Role-Play Team or a person designated by them.

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 Security Council members, which they can do using the relevant game mechanic law options.


Security Council elections

Using the relevant game mechanic law options, ALL nations may nominate one nation on ALL FOUR candidate lists. On the first day of each real-life month (or thereabouts), 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 seat will be awarded to the nation which was most recently a member of the Security Council. If that method is to no avail, the tie will be resolved by random lottery.
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 Lemongrab » Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:08 am

Can you list the 3 great powers in this thread? Also, will the great powers rotate based on the update of military rankings over time?
User avatar
Lemongrab
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:19 am

The current Great Powers are Istalia, Kazulia, and Vanuku, listed in the RP Team Economic and Military Rankings linked in the OP. Those might change with the next set of rankings due for the 27th of April, and yeah the Permanent Members will change with each ranking.
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 Auditorii » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:09 am

So Permanent Members are capped at 3? Which means that "Great Powers" are capped at 3?
"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: 977
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Yolo04 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:45 am

Yo I think Klavia or as you call it in the post Keymon should be average on both
Libertarian

Current Party-
Keymon-Keymon Libertarian Front-(KLF)

Old Parties-
Too many too count
Yolo04
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:03 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby FPC » Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:53 am

Yolo04 wrote:Yo I think Klavia or as you call it in the post Keymon should be average on both


This isnt a consultation on where each nations sits on the rankings, it is a consulation about how the SC works.
Used to be a mod xx current Temporary mod
Wiki Admin and Bureaucrat (for some reason)
User avatar
FPC
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:14 am
Location: Scotland

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:21 am

Auditorii wrote:So Permanent Members are capped at 3? Which means that "Great Powers" are capped at 3?


Unfortunately capping the number at 3 is the most workable option. If it turns out we need 4 Great Powers we'd be open to re-introducing Seat E in order to have an odd number of SC members, but I think the proposed setup is the best, as it leaves an even number of Non-Permanent Members and thus gives the Permanents a chance to vote on resolutions without giving them full voting rights, which I think would be a little overpowered.
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 Auditorii » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:18 pm

Polites wrote:
Auditorii wrote:So Permanent Members are capped at 3? Which means that "Great Powers" are capped at 3?


Unfortunately capping the number at 3 is the most workable option. If it turns out we need 4 Great Powers we'd be open to re-introducing Seat E in order to have an odd number of SC members, but I think the proposed setup is the best, as it leaves an even number of Non-Permanent Members and thus gives the Permanents a chance to vote on resolutions without giving them full voting rights, which I think would be a little overpowered.


The more and more I think about it, it doesn’t make sense that Permanent Members don’t have voting rights. Great Powers rarely, if ever, agree and usually form blocs for other countries that support their goals. Why don’t have Permanent Members have voting rights? It’s realistic and it also means aspiring to be a Great Power means something in the SC. As of right now, Dorvik could become a Great Power and because 3 others are “ahead” of me, they get the seats and I don’t? That doesn’t make much sense.

My proposal would be allow Permanent Members to vote, keep the existing 5 elected seats and call it a day. We rarely have more than 2-5 “Great Powers” So in the event that we have 5 GP/ 5 Elected we can simply use the presiding officer of the Security Council from some random country to break the tie.
"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: 977
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:53 pm

Yeah that's something we've been pondering quite a bit. I'd still think that, in pure gameplay terms, making some nations (determined by Moderation-appointed players no less) be on the SC for months and also giving them full voting rights would give them too much power. The proposal balances things out a bit, as Non-Permanent Members will only be on the SC for a month at a time but have full voting rights, and the Permanent Members will be there for six months (and potentially more if they retain their ranking) but have their voting rights limited. This way the GPs can have lasting influence on the workings of the SC as they will still be able to introduce resolutions, and will have to obtain the support of RP weaker nations that were nonetheless elected. I fear that having parity between the Permanent and Non-Permanent members will make the latter irrelevant and shift the balance too much in favor of the RP Team/CRCs.

I'm curious to see what other people think about this idea. The 3 GP cap is something we expected to receive opposition, but I'm sure some people would be opposed to the very idea of adding non-elected (and indirectly Moderation-appointed) members on the SC.
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 Auditorii » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:02 pm

Polites wrote:Yeah that's something we've been pondering quite a bit. I'd still think that, in pure gameplay terms, making some nations (determined by Moderation-appointed players no less) be on the SC for months and also giving them full voting rights would give them too much power. The proposal balances things out a bit, as Non-Permanent Members will only be on the SC for a month at a time but have full voting rights, and the Permanent Members will be there for six months (and potentially more if they retain their ranking) but have their voting rights limited. This way the GPs can have lasting influence on the workings of the SC as they will still be able to introduce resolutions, and will have to obtain the support of RP weaker nations that were nonetheless elected. I fear that having parity between the Permanent and Non-Permanent members will make the latter irrelevant and shift the balance too much in favor of the RP Team/CRCs.

I'm curious to see what other people think about this idea. The 3 GP cap is something we expected to receive opposition, but I'm sure some people would be opposed to the very idea of adding non-elected (and indirectly Moderation-appointed) members on the SC.


That doesn’t really make any sense to be honest. Countries and players who attain Great Power status and are active or want to be active within the SC are reliant on traditionally inactive elected members of the SC? That’s a recipe for the same disaster we have now in the SC. Why limit the voting of people who actively want to RP?

For example Dorvik brings Res 1 to the SC, only 1 of the 5 elected members are active...the 2 other GPS and the 1 elected sit and stare at each other?

The arbitrary limit in GP’s is just silly. At one point in the world we had dozens of great powes and it incredibly hampers RP abilities.
Last edited by Auditorii on Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 977
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest