Refined More Diplomacy

[Prince Hunter of Bavaria]

Orbis United Nations

 

The Orbis United Nations is a place where every member of Orbis who signs up can bring in ideas and create resolutions etc... It can then go into the GA where Alliances can vote on the Issue at hand.

members write laws, resolutions,bills etc... and for example Nuclear Proliferation, as a result, we can not build new nuclear weapons, or for 2 weeks and such. Or global food distribution, so food production is increased by 10%, the resolutions can be built by members or by the admin, people debate like in the IRC, or with a moderator involved, people can speak if they also want.

 

Alliance should either get 1 vote or 1 vote per 10 members

 

The Reason 1 vote is because alliances would have to push around ask their allies, offer money or resources etc...

 

For Example Alliance A is Neutral, Alliance B is Pro, Alliance C is Negative

 

Resolution Ban Munitions 

Munition Production -10%

Alliance B is pushing this bill

Alliance C has been able to convince others to say no.

Alliance B offers alliance A $1,000,000, and to protect them.

 

I feel like this would bring a much more positive and more friendlier relations. And involve all members from small to big, from alliances at the top to alliances at the bottom.

 

Embassies, Ministers, and Parliament

 

Embassies

 

Embassies are the basic tools of foreign relations, by sending embassies out to other alliances, you can open up Trade deals, bailouts, military relations etc... Embassies would have Ambassadors, they could have Upkeep (Families, Facilities, Protection, Luxuries, etc...)

 

Ministers

 

Ministers are there well just for show, you can create whatever Ministry's you want from Ministry of Soda to Ministry of Kanya, you also can give them personalities and pictures. It is nothing that affects the game, but rather for more roleplay and homey touch

 

Parliament/Senate

 

We should also have a Senate or Parliment, we can have Political Parties we can set their percentage, names, Majority leaders, Minority Leaders etc..., so you can have 40% Republican and 60% Democrats. 

 

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Can you choose not to join the UN?

[Wolfie]

Can you choose not to join the UN?

Yes if you do not want to join the OUN it is  not mandatory, you sign up for it. So it doesn't force members to join it If I am correct?

Edited June 27, 2016 by Empress Wolf

[Prince Hunter of Bavaria]

Yes if you do not want to join the OUN it is  not mandatory, you sign up for it. So it doesn't force members to join it If I am correct?

Yeah it is, and if you want to join it, maybe you have to sign up and it sends you and email and you sign up.

[Wolfie]

Are alliances mandated to join?

[Andrezj Kolarov]

But some resolutions would give economic bonuses to nations who OUN members, yes? That in itself is penalizing members who are not members.

[Auctor]

So what keeps a hundred 1 man AA's from joining and trolling the crap out of the whole thing?

[LordRahl2]

I would like to form a not-UN pact that can do the same thing. My not-UN will be able to do the same thing.

Edited June 27, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Prince Hunter of Bavaria]

So what keeps a hundred 1 man AA's from joining and trolling the crap out of the whole thing?

There are admins, and if an alliance is just there running the debate or resolution etc... they will be removed, and we could also have a process for Alliances getting in, signing up etc...

 

But some resolutions would give economic bonuses to nations who OUN members, yes? That in itself is penalizing members who are not members.

The resolutions would Affect everyone in the game regarless if they vote or not. 

I would like to form a not-UN pact that can do the same thing. My not-UN will be able to do the same thing.

? Could you elaborate this non-UN?

Are alliances mandated to join?

No they are not mandated to join

[Schirminator]

It's definitely a plausible idea to look into but idk how well it would work because it requires opposing spheres to come together and agree which would be fairly difficult.

And what if one alliance in the UN of Orbis disagrees with a law or decision that's passed by the UN? How would the UN enforce the decisions it makes?

Also what alliances are eligible? Is there a minimum member count or score required?

[Jon Snow]

kinda reminds me of the UN Assembly NationStates has, but with teeth...i like it...

[Thalmor]

No

 

/thread

[Greatnate]

We've tried UN type things before on Orbis, it went terribly. When people don't agree about the definitions of inactive or raid, how can you expect parliamentary political discourse? What AA would willingly cut production of a material? Everyone needs all four war sources. Theoretically nuclear non-proliferation would be the only treaty with potential, and it mainly boils down to A. not letting your enemies spend gobs of cash, and B. some how policing 2,000 nations. This is not a thing that has a place on Orbis.

[Prince Hunter of Bavaria]

It's definitely a plausible idea to look into but idk how well it would work because it requires opposing spheres to come together and agree which would be fairly difficult.

And what if one alliance in the UN of Orbis disagrees with a law or decision that's passed by the UN? How would the UN enforce the decisions it makes?

Also what alliances are eligible? Is there a minimum member count or score required?

 The Law is set into the game, so even if 4 alliances vote no, The Food Aid Resolution will pass and the system will increase food production for all nations by 20% for example.

[LordRahl2]

The Law is set into the game, so even if 4 alliances vote no, The Food Aid Resolution will pass and the system will increase food production for all nations by 20% for example.

This is why I want my not-UN thingy so I can vote to increase steel producrion 1 billion %.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

 

 

The resolutions would Affect everyone in the game regarless if they vote or not. 

Then I hate it. I don't want no foreign organization dictating stuff onto my nation, we've already got alliances doing that.

[Jakeman4]

  This idea is ridiculous, not to mention poorly thought out.

 

What happens if an alliance declares war on another? How will that be dealt with? And if by way of military intervention, who the hell is going to volunteer for that?

 

If membership is not mandatory then any alliance who doesn't like what's passed will just take their ball and go home.

 

You risk creating an environment in which all the bloated-whales team up into their separate spheres to force stuff down the other's throat. Leading to point #2.

 

What are the limits of power over member alliances that this inevitable monstrosity will have?

 

How are you going to prevent the bloated whales from passing resolutions like "All nations in the Covenant receive a 100% combat bonus against Arrgh, and Arrgh receives a -20% combat bonus against the Covenant nations"?

 

 

This idea is just another example of people forgetting that this is a game and trying to shove RL crap down our throats.

[WISD0MTREE]

Then I hate it. I don't want no foreign organization dictating stuff onto my nation, we've already got alliances doing that.

This. If we can't have alliance embargoes, then we shouldn't have something game-wide. 

[Greene]

I think it would be better if it were not alliance specific but instead nation specific. So every nation could choose to join or not join as they saw fit. Every nation who did join would receive the benefits (and drawbacks) of approved proposals (since I believe there should be pros and cons to every proposal, similar to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s senate function, only using better options).

 

Nations who vote for a proposal that subsequently passes would receive 100% of the benefits and 75% of the drawbacks.

Nations who vote against a proposal that subsequently passes would receive 75% of the benefits and 100% of the drawbacks.

Nations who do not vote for or against a proposal that subsequently passes would receive 75% of the benefits and 125% of the drawbacks.

 

Nations who vote for a proposal that subsequently fails would receive a penalty for the duration of that proposal's would-be lifetime (so if the proposal would have been in effect for 5 days, then the penalty is for 5 days)

Nations who vote against a proposal that subsequently fails would receive a benefit for the duration of that proposal's would-be lifetime.

Nations who do not vote for or against a proposal that subsequently fails would receive a penalty for half the duration of that proposal's would-be lifetime.

 

I would like to also see the fail penalty and fail benefit be included, so that leaders can make a fully informed decision.

 

So for example, let's say the "Safe Food Act" proposal goes up.

Proposal Lifetime: 360 turns (30 days)

The "pass" benefit would be 10% reduction in military costs, while the drawback would be 5% reduction in food production.

The "fail" benefit would be 1% increase in food production, and the drawback would be 1% increase in military costs.

 

If the proposal passes:

Those who voted for the proposal would receive a 10% reduction in military costs, as well as 3.75% reduction in food production.

Those who voted against the proposal would receive 7.5% reduction in military costs, as well as 5% reduction in food production.

Those who did not vote would receive 7.5% reduction in military costs, as well as 6.25% reduction in food production.

These effects would last for 360 turns from when the proposal took effect.

 

If the proposal fails:

Those who voted for the proposal would receive 1% increase in military costs for 360 turns.

Those who voted against the proposal would receive 1% increase in food production for 360 turns.

Those who did not vote would receive 1% increase in military costs for 180 turns.

 

As you can see, there are benefits and drawbacks to both voting and not voting. Of course, nations could simply opt out of the, what are we calling this, the OUN? Those nations wouldn't receive any of the benefits or drawbacks, but would obviously still be affected by the markets.

[Prince Hunter of Bavaria]

I think it would be better if it were not alliance specific but instead nation specific. So every nation could choose to join or not join as they saw fit. Every nation who did join would receive the benefits (and drawbacks) of approved proposals (since I believe there should be pros and cons to every proposal, similar to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s senate function, only using better options).

 

Nations who vote for a proposal that subsequently passes would receive 100% of the benefits and 75% of the drawbacks.

Nations who vote against a proposal that subsequently passes would receive 75% of the benefits and 100% of the drawbacks.

Nations who do not vote for or against a proposal that subsequently passes would receive 75% of the benefits and 125% of the drawbacks.

 

Nations who vote for a proposal that subsequently fails would receive a penalty for the duration of that proposal's would-be lifetime (so if the proposal would have been in effect for 5 days, then the penalty is for 5 days)

Nations who vote against a proposal that subsequently fails would receive a benefit for the duration of that proposal's would-be lifetime.

Nations who do not vote for or against a proposal that subsequently fails would receive a penalty for half the duration of that proposal's would-be lifetime.

 

I would like to also see the fail penalty and fail benefit be included, so that leaders can make a fully informed decision.

 

So for example, let's say the "Safe Food Act" proposal goes up.

Proposal Lifetime: 360 turns (30 days)

The "pass" benefit would be 10% reduction in military costs, while the drawback would be 5% reduction in food production.

The "fail" benefit would be 1% increase in food production, and the drawback would be 1% increase in military costs.

 

If the proposal passes:

Those who voted for the proposal would receive a 10% reduction in military costs, as well as 3.75% reduction in food production.

Those who voted against the proposal would receive 7.5% reduction in military costs, as well as 5% reduction in food production.

Those who did not vote would receive 7.5% reduction in military costs, as well as 6.25% reduction in food production.

These effects would last for 360 turns from when the proposal took effect.

 

If the proposal fails:

Those who voted for the proposal would receive 1% increase in military costs for 360 turns.

Those who voted against the proposal would receive 1% increase in food production for 360 turns.

Those who did not vote would receive 1% increase in military costs for 180 turns.

 

As you can see, there are benefits and drawbacks to both voting and not voting. Of course, nations could simply opt out of the, what are we calling this, the OUN? Those nations wouldn't receive any of the benefits or drawbacks, but would obviously still be affected by the markets.

Seems much better and more thought out than my idea, I do like it.