Athanasios

Well, pollution index is shown on everyone's nation, so it's not a hidden thing. So maybe when looking through the "nations" tab where it says "in category," there could be put an option for pollution. So those with the highest pollution numbers could be found out pretty easily, and the other nations could..... convince...... them into doing something about their high pollution index. But as WISD0MTREE said, the "global" warming factor should be based off a total mean, not just all the pollution indexes added together in my opinion since there's a potentially unlimited amount of people who could be playing this game. I have no idea how hard all this would be to code/implement in-game, but the idea of pollution having a global impact could be a new dynamic for people to use diplomacy, negotiation, and war to solve. I'm all for the idea.

Nation name: The Republic Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6846

That's what I was referring to....... Lol. "After this idea falls".. By "League of Nations feel" I was referring to the fact that this doesn't look like it is gonna catch on, lol. But anyways, thank you for your comments. I do want to stress to those reading however that I agree that an appeasement simulator doesn't sound like any fun and this is not what I'm shooting for here. I tried to design the Constitution so that ultimate power would be in the hands of the Alliance members so they can choose what they want this organization to look like, if it actually works out. Thank you all for your suggestions/comments thus far. Please continue to critique and comment.

Haha yes this so far has a much more "League of Nations" feel than "United Nations" feel. But hey, the League of Nations fell and ended up in World War II, so maybe after this idea falls we could be looking at a big war! Resource price increase for everyone! lol.

No one said that this had to be a peaceful forum, I just put all that "national sovereignty" stuff in there to give it a more legitimate feel. (That all can be taken out if wanted, btw) I just thought that it would be a good idea to have a unified forum for Alliances to discuss their problems, agreements, wars, whatever. As I said, this organization is not supposed to be a UN International Policeman. This is supposed to be a forum where the Alliance Members can turn it into whatever they want. If they want it to be a center of peace and happiness, that's what it will be. If the Alliance Members decide they want it to be a forum to coordinate attacks on weak alliances and increase everyone's wealth, that's what it will be. There's no morality clause attached to this constitution, I just wanted to create an organization that fostered Recognition, Cooperation, and Coordination of Alliances. And Cooperation and Coordination doesn't have to mean peace, it could mean Cooperating and Coordinating beating up all the little non-recognized alliances. What Cooperation and Coordination will look like in practice is up to you all, the leaders of the Alliances. If the Member Alliances felt that - Not by speeches and votes of the majority, are the great questions of the time decided but by iron and blood, then so be it! However I understand where you are coming from on the appeasement issue, but I don't that this organization HAS to look like that if it's created. It's supposed to look like whatever the Member Alliances want it to look like.

Haha I will take that as a no from Terminus Est, thank you for weighing in, lol.

Is there any kind of provision that would make it more attractive to your Alliance? Or do you think the whole thing wont work? I'm up for suggestions on how to improve the idea. Or if its crap and needs to just be thrown out, then we can just throw it out, lol.

I have drafted a prototype constitution for a prospective United Alliances Organization. It's a bit long-winded, so if you only feel like browsing it make sure to check out articles II, IV, and VI. This is a complete draft that I just came up with so it is definitely open to criticism and improvement. If we all put our heads together we could make this a really cool organization. Please take a look at the constitution and add your comments/criticism. I will be sending a PM to each of the Alliance Heads with a link to this Thread to see what they all think of it, and if they'd be willing to sign up for this kind of organization. I was also thinking that instead of having just another thread on the PW forums we could make a whole other forum where only the approved Alliance Member Representatives can post, but anyone can look at it. But that's something to worry about later. Constitution of the United Alliances International Organization Preamble “We the members of United Alliances, subscribing to the rules and regulations of Politics and War, establish this Constitution to govern matters within our organization.†Article I – Identification Section 1 – Name: The name of this organization shall be the United Alliances (UA). Section 2 – Affiliations: This organization is affiliated with all Orbis alliances that have been affirmed through member’s voting into the United Alliance’s ranks. Article II – Purpose Section 1 – Purpose: The purpose of this document is to declare the intentions, structure, organization, and member’s rights of this United Alliances Organization. The purpose of this organization is to (a) Give official Alliance Recognition to legitimate Alliances within Orbis (b Foster cooperation between members Alliances within Orbis (c Solidify foreign policy between Alliances (d) Encourage economic trade, diplomatic conversation, and preservation of peace between Alliances (e) Foster coordination between Alliances to deter the emergence of Nations and Alliances who seek to disrupt international peace, National sovereignty, and the right of Nations to exist without external involvement. Article III – Membership Section 1 – Membership: Any Orbis alliance which (a) Has five (5) or more Nation members (b Has demonstrated a legitimate desire to coordinate, cooperate, and be recognized by the members of the United Alliances (c Has been approved by over fifty percent (50%) of the standing United Alliances members (d) However, any alliance that applies within the first seven (7) days of creation of the United Alliances will be automatically accepted as long as they fulfill requirements (a) and (b. The purpose of this article is to create a legitimate significant membership base that will then be given powers to admit or not admit applying Alliances. Section 2 – Resignation of Membership: Any Orbis alliance that has a wish to resign membership is free to do so for any, or no reason. Section 3 – Removal of Membership: Any Alliance that has incurred the displeasure of the Alliance members can be voted out as long as sixty-seven percent (67%) of total Alliance members cast a vote to remove said member. Article IV – Membership Fees, Obligations and Rights Section 1 – Dues: All member Alliances will owe zero (0) resources and zero (0) daily, monthly, or annual fees to the United Alliances Organization. The Alliance shall keep no bank, and shall distribute no resources or cash. This is not a humanitarian aid group or an organization that will deploy military forces. This organization is simply created to fulfill the purposes outlined in Article II, Section 1. Section 2 – Membership Rights: Members of the United Alliances shall have inalienable, undisputed, irremovable rights including (a) The Right to propose any topic for discussion in the United Alliance Forums (b The Right to vote upon any action item being voted upon in the United Alliance Forums (c The Right to express their Alliance’s needs, opinions, and wants through discussion and voting in the United Alliance Forums (d) The Right to contact the Secretary-General with any questions, concerns or suggestions that the Alliance Member may have. Section 3 – Membership Obligations: Members of the United Alliance obligations shall include (a) Upholding the statutes outlined in this constitution (b Respecting the Rights of all Member Alliances (c Retaining an active, supportive role in the United Alliance Forum by (i) Bringing forth new ideas for policies, treaties, and agreements within Orbis (ii) Discussing policies, treaties, and agreements made in the forums (iii) Voting upon the affirmation of those policies, treaties, and agreement. Section 4 – Members Alliance’s Representation: Each Member Alliance will be represented in the Alliance Forum by (a) An United Alliance Emissary that has been approved within the Member’s Alliance (b The Head of the Alliance (c Two (2) Alliance Government Members that have been approved within the Member’s Alliance. Section 5 – Categories of Membership: The United Alliances Secretary-General shall keep a list of the Members of the United Alliances. The list shall be updated every Saturday at the end of each week. Member Alliances shall be categorized into (a) Active Member Alliances that fulfill their obligations and stay active in the council forum – active is defined as posting at least one (1) time every thirty (30) days (b Inactive Member Alliances that do not fulfill their obligations or have not posted in the council at least one (1) time within the last thirty (30) days (c Former Member Alliances who have resigned or been removed from the United Alliance Membership. Article V – Officers and their Elections Section 1 – Secretary-General: There shall be only one (1) officer in the administration of the United Alliances. This officer shall be named the Secretary-General of the United Alliances. This officers duties will include (a) Logging onto Politics and War at least one (1) time per day (b Responding promptly to any questions, concerns, or suggestions posed by Alliance Members (c Creating new Forum Threads to discuss issues raised by Alliance Members (d) Hosting votes for affirmation of new policies, treaties, and agreements (e) Stepping down peacefully and honorably if voted out of office (f) Must retain no official, unofficial, formal, or informal attachment to any Alliance, the Secretary-General must be an independent facilitator of discussion (g) Must keep record of all legislation that has been approved by the United Alliance Members. Section 2 – Appointment Length of Secretary-General: The Secretary-General, when voted in, will be the sole controller of their position for the period of three (3) real-life months. Section 3 – Elections of Secretary-General: The United Alliances Secretary-General’s position will be up for election 4 times annually. The election will be held for three (3) real time days at the beginning of every third (3rd) real-time month. Elections will be January 1-3, April 1-3, July 1-3, and October 1-3 every real-time year. Candidates for the position of Secretary-General must be nominated by at least three (3) Member Alliances. To be qualified as a candidate, Nations must be Independent Nations. Candidates may not be any part of an Alliance, however they can be former Members of any Alliance. They must leave their Alliance or be currently independent to run for Secretary-General office. The first Secretary-General will be chosen by informal approval of prospective members of this organization while the constitution is being affirmed. Section 4 – Provisions for the Removal of a Defunct Secretary-General: If a Secretary-General does not fulfill his duties, and has consistently not performed them for over seven (7) days without any warning/notice, he will be automatically dismissed and snap elections will be held for three (3) days. Article VI – Voting Section 1 – Voting Procedure: Every Member Alliance has one (1) vote in any election or action item vote. Only the Member Alliance’s Emissary may cast the vote. Other Member Alliance’s Representatives may NOT cast their Alliance’s vote. Any vote that is above fifty percent (50%) will be considered a passing vote. Votes for elections and action items will remain open for three (3) days. The Secretary-General must open a separate Voting Thread for Emissaries to vote in. Section 2 – Election Voting Procedure: Officers must gain a fifty-percent (50%) majority in order to win their position. If multiple candidates are present and none get above 50% majority, a run-off election must be held between the two candidates with the highest vote percentage. Section 3 – Legislative Process: In order for a discussion Thread to be moved to an action item to be voted upon, at least one (1) Alliance Member’s Emissary must write “Motion to be moved to an action item,†upon the discussion Thread and at least one (1) different Alliance Member’s Emissary must write “2nd“ to affirm this action. An item must be on the discussion thread for at least one (1) day to be moved to an action item. The Secretary-General must record all items that are passed in a separate closed and pinned thread. Article VII – Amendments Section 1 – Amendments to this Constitution: Any amendment to this constitution may be made as long and sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters pass this action. Section 2 – Overturning Passed Legislation: Any previously passed legislation may be amended, removed, or revised as long as above fifty percent (50%) of voters agree to do so. Signatures (Sign and Date Below) TL;DR!

I have been thinking about how we can work this kind of idea into Politics and War. I don't know if it's been tried before, but a United Alliances council could be an awesome idea. I would personally suggest an United Alliances council rather than an United Nations council. Having ~500 active nations all arguing on one forum could get crazy. And let's be honest, this game is pretty awesome so we're gonna get a lot more nations online in the future. Though this will be difficult to legitimize, if we set it as a precedent now it will be established and functional by the time we have 1000 daily players, 2000, etc. If we focus on making this an Alliance-based council then it will help everyone prosper. It will also give Nations even more incentive to join alliances, which will ultimately help them in the short and long run. We could limit it so each Alliance can delegate one United Alliances Emissary to be a member on the council to represent each alliance. Only Head of Alliances, 2 approved Alliance government members, and the Emissaries could be allowed, that could limit the forum so it wouldn't just be a mass rambling of all the alliance players on Politics and War. This council could give many benefits to big and small alliances. Here are the first three off the top of my head. #1: Alliance Recognition: A certain criteria, will be set to allow Alliances to gain "Recognition" and an official seat on the UA (United Alliances) Council. (for example: >5 members, good record of non-raiding, etc.) Recognition will allow Alliances to gain legitimacy and recognition by the international community, which will help them to last longer if they play by the international "rules" that this council sets up. Alliances must be voted in by the Alliance Emissaries to gain official recognition and a seat on the council. #2: Alliances Cooperation: Alliances can propose ideas, treaties, and discussion on an open forum that can be read by any player. This will create accountability for Alliances' actions and help to solidify foreign policy that can often be muddled when many Alliance leaders/members are rambling, arguing, and fighting in different sections of the forum and in-game PMs. #3: Alliance Coordination: When different raiding nations/alliances pop up, the Alliances can work together to embargo, boycott, and possibly coordinate military action on these aggressive nations. This will help to regulate the emergence of super-powerful raiding alliances that could wreak havoc in-game. My proposition for creating this unit: #1. We eventually (when we figure out how all this will work) ask the mods to create a pinned discussion panel specifically dedicated to the UA. #2. Only Heads of Alliances, 2 approved government members and 1 UA Emissary from each Alliance will be approved to comment on threads in the forum. #3. Each Alliance can create threads in their own forums where the average Alliance member can weigh in on the topics that will be discussed. The Alliance can then send their Emissary to voice the opinions of the Alliance in the UA Council Forum. #4. This Council will NOT be a reflection of the UN in real life. The UA will NOT collect taxes, will NOT provide any aid, and will NOT act as an International Policeman. This Council will ONLY be a meeting place for Alliances to work out their problems and create policies in an ordered, systematic way. #5. This unit must be completely democratic. Each Alliance will get 1 vote on any issue. The vote MUST be cast by the Alliance Emissary. Any majority above 50% will result in passing of whatever item is under vote. #6. UA Administrative structure: 1 directly elected member (United Alliance Secretary-General) who will create new threads to discuss items that are being brought up in the game. For instance, if any Alliance wishes to discuss an item, (Raiding Policy, Embargoes, etc.) That Alliance's Emissary or Head of Alliance must directly contact the UA Secretary-General, and then the Secretary-General will create a thread where the Alliance Representatives (Heads of Alliances, 2 government members, and UA Emissary) can discuss the item, and then vote on it. These are just some preliminary ideas that we can use to try to set up this council. These are just my personal ideas and they can of course be criticized, changed, or completely thrown out if necessary. However, I will be happy to start writing a draft constitution that can be eventually used as the base of this organization. However, if you feel like my ideas suck or someone else with more experience should head this project, I will be more than happy to step off this project or let someone more qualified take the lead. Just let me know what you all think. We could make this a really awesome aspect of the game while still retaining its fun if we do this right. Let me know your ideas, suggestions, etc.

Exactly. If Alliance 1 has beef with Alliance 2, Alliance 1 can set an Alliance-wide embargo. This will ideally cause Alliance 2 to suffer financially. Eventually, if the embargo is widespread enough, Alliance 2's members will decide that to leave Alliance 2 is more advantageous for them. Therefore Alliance 1 will have the potential to not only hurt Alliance 2 financially, but an effective, multi-alliance embargo could even lead to successful dissolution of Alliance 2. This could work great to dissolve powerful raiding alliances if necessary. Thanks for making that addition Sheepy.

Okay thanks. I was going to invest in valuable resources but I checked out the average price history and prices are currently pretty low it seems, so my thought was to instead invest in commerce, a little more predictable of an income assurance. I figure I'll invest in commerce now to build up my resource pool later.

Comrades, my State is only 1 day old and I'm still getting a hang of things. I'm just a few hours away from having enough money to buy my next 50 infrastructure and my next development. I was considering constructing a bank. So, basically what I'm asking is, should I build up my commerce, or invest in more resource infrastructure in these first few days of statehood?