Particracy Forum

Polites wrote:

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.

Yeah maybe so. Maybe something like "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."

Or something like that maybe. The second sentence needs some work.

I prefer the current system to this proposal, largely on the grounds of simplicity.

One thing I would encourage is to explore the possibilities in terms of increasing the role of the ex-colonies in the World Congress. For example, could we find ways to allow them to play a role in Security Council elections, or even to be elected or appointed to the Security Council themselves?

Bachelot wrote:I prefer the current system to this proposal, largely on the grounds of simplicity.

One thing I would encourage is to explore the possibilities in terms of increasing the role of the ex-colonies in the World Congress. For example, could we find ways to allow them to play a role in Security Council elections, or even to be elected or appointed to the Security Council themselves?

The Old System while simpler has almost completely died out in terms of activity which shows that changes are needed to revitalise it and bring it back to life per say. This is done through the new system by fleshing it out more and righting the wrongs/missing details which hindered Rp regarding it. While I’m personally not very convinced about third world participation it is something that could be looked into. Elections would be somewhat harder to get results for if we included the third world especially if they are able to vote for countries outside of the third world. But maybe a regional representative of some kind. Security Council is also generally for the World Powers and due to the limited Global influence of third world countries both in game and irl, I’m not sure it would make much sense.

Something to think about.

cm9777 wrote:The Old System while simpler has almost completely died out in terms of activity which shows that changes are needed to revitalise it and bring it back to life per say. This is done through the new system by fleshing it out more and righting the wrongs/missing details which hindered Rp regarding it.

Share your disappointment about activity, but will the proposed Permanent Members really prove more active than the Elected Members, and will the proposed 2 term lengths limit for Elected Members really lead to an increase in activity? Or is it more likely to be down to such vagaries as which players are in control of these nations at any one time?

cm9777 wrote:While I’m personally not very convinced about third world participation it is something that could be looked into. Elections would be somewhat harder to get results for if we included the third world especially if they are able to vote for countries outside of the third world. But maybe a regional representative of some kind. Security Council is also generally for the World Powers and due to the limited Global influence of third world countries both in game and irl, I’m not sure it would make much sense.

Something to think about.

It could be considered one of the World Congress's objectives to give representation (or more cynically, at least the appearance of representation!) to the whole of the world's population, not just the rich countries.

BTW the real-life Security Council regularly includes some poorer countries, and currently includes, for example, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea and the Ivory Coast.

I think the former colonies are allowed to participate in the GA.

CCP wrote:I think the former colonies are allowed to participate in the GA.

Yep that is correct

CCP wrote:

Polites wrote:

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.

Yeah maybe so. Maybe something like "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."

Or something like that maybe. The second sentence needs some work.

Added your suggested wording to the current proposal. It sounds alright to me right now, don't know if wording needs to be changed more.

Bachelot wrote:Share your disappointment about activity, but will the proposed Permanent Members really prove more active than the Elected Members, and will the proposed 2 term lengths limit for Elected Members really lead to an increase in activity? Or is it more likely to be down to such vagaries as which players are in control of these nations at any one time?

Only one way to find out!

Bachelot wrote:One thing I would encourage is to explore the possibilities in terms of increasing the role of the ex-colonies in the World Congress. For example, could we find ways to allow them to play a role in Security Council elections, or even to be elected or appointed to the Security Council themselves?

That's an interesting idea. Don't know how feasible it would be to implement, but it is worth considering. For now though I think that participation in the GA should be enough.

Alright, the reform has been implemented and has now been used for the Security Council elections for this month. Hope this all goes smoothly

I encourage players to take advantage of the General Assembly Resolutions mechanism and create some resolutions.

Can the new WC rules be pinned in the WC forums for ease of reference please.

CCP wrote:Can the new WC rules be pinned in the WC forums for ease of reference please.

Done