United Nations/Alliances

[Garrett Tipton]

This sort of idea was brought up back in August here:

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2485-continental-congress-idea/

 

and here 

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2497-non-alliance-politicking-big-idea-thread/

 

, but there hasn't been much said about it since then, so I thought I'd bring it up again.

 

Why don't we have a world government, United Nations type place in this game yet? The above threads suggest dividing the assembly up by color and/or continent. I think this is a good starting point, but why not divide it up by alliances? It would parallel the real world much more closely, and would not exclude smaller alliances . How many votes the smaller alliances get in comparison to the larger ones is debatable. Of course, the assembly would have no real power, and members would vote on resolutions such as condemning the actions of alliances and individual nations. This should help promote international cooperation (and strife).

I don't know if Sheepy ever officially decided to go through with the original ideas, but I thought I would bring it up again just in case.

[glad30]

I like this idea! Often, it is the little guys that have some of the biggest ideas, so if we contained their input, than the game could be fair and fun for all!

[Alex]

I love the idea, I just don't know where to go with it.

 

What powers could this "world government" have that wouldn't be too powerful but would also matter?

[Garrett Tipton]

I love the idea, I just don't know where to go with it.

 

What powers could this "world government" have that wouldn't be too powerful but would also matter?

I was thinking they would pass resolutions such as

1) Embargoes (50% majority vote)

2) Joint declarations of war against possible threats [such as people like the Red Guards] (67% majority vote)

3) Coordinating economic efforts [perhaps passing resolutions suggesting certain members increase/decrease production of a certain resource]        (67% majority)

4) Maybe if we have enough tree huggers they might pass a resolution requiring member alliances to reduce pollution (50% majority)

 

Of course, none of this would be enforceable, member alliances would have to be allowed to leave at their discretion, and I think new alliances would have to be admitted by the existing body with a simple majority vote.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Garrett Tipton

[Alex]

I was thinking they would pass resolutions such as

1) Embargoes (50% majority vote)

2) Joint declarations of war against possible threats [such as people like the Red Guards] (67% majority vote)

3) Coordinating economic efforts [perhaps passing resolutions suggesting certain members increase/decrease production of a certain resource]        (67% majority)

4) Maybe if we have enough tree huggers they might pass a resolution requiring member alliances to reduce pollution (50% majority)

 

Of course, none of this would be enforceable, member alliances would have to be allowed to leave at their discretion, and I think new alliances would have to be admitted by the existing body with a simple majority vote.

 

This all sounds like something that could be set up with cooperation from existing alliances, the trouble is I doubt they'll be willing to give up part of their sovereignty. Basically, to do all of this, you'd just need cooperative alliances and not new game mechanics.

[Garrett Tipton]

This all sounds like something that could be set up with cooperation from existing alliances, the trouble is I doubt they'll be willing to give up part of their sovereignty. Basically, to do all of this, you'd just need cooperative alliances and not new game mechanics.

1) They're not really giving up their sovereignty if they can just leave the assembly at any time.

2) What if the resolutions were enforceable? 

     For example, alliances have the option of setting an alliance wide tax level and embargoes. What if the assembly could do the same thing with embargoes? Also, if we take my 4th point, what if there was a fine for all those who didn't comply with pollution levels, crime rates, etc.

[Alex]

1) They're not really giving up their sovereignty if they can just leave the assembly at any time.

2) What if the resolutions were enforceable? 

     For example, alliances have the option of setting an alliance wide tax level and embargoes. What if the assembly could do the same thing with embargoes? Also, if we take my 4th point, what if there was a fine for all those who didn't comply with pollution levels, crime rates, etc.

 

If they can just leave the assembly, things aren't really enforceable then, which brings us back to- why not just do it without in-game mechanics?

[Garrett Tipton]

I see your point although I do think you'll find at least a couple of alliances that will be willing to remain in the assembly even if everything doesn't go their way. Nevertheless, I agree, the majority of alliances wouldn't put up with that. More than likely, we'd end up with one group of alliances (TC anybody?) dominating the whole thing. The only way to counter that would be if other coalitions formed. We can't force alliances to stay in the assembly once they join because then nobody would join. (I realize I'm stating the obvious, I'm just thinking out loud and letting you know I understand)

I was hoping to get inspiration from the real UN charter, but they don't technically allow members to leave, although nothing really prevents that behavior.

Oh well. I'll think about it and see what I come up with.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Garrett Tipton

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I think it would be nice to see alliances not as the solely sovereign entities.  Somewhere in Bob, we all agreed nations were not sovereign, but were citizens, and alliances were sovereign.  That carried to Orbis.  Adding non-alliances based organizations might help create a more fluid political structure.

 

I'd prefer to see limited powers to such an institution.  Aid to new nations, war recovery aid, embargoes, etc.

Elections from the general assembly to the security council.  And random events the GA or SC vote on similar to how Bob implemented color events.

 

And membership is voluntary. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Greene]

Technically, there are incentives to joining the United Nations. International prestige, etc. etc., but it comes from the fact that the member states work together to ensure that this prestige exists, right? I love the idea of having a UN-type-thing in-game, and I also love the idea of members being allowed to petition into and out of the assembly. Perhaps we create incentives for being a member based on the number of other nations? Something like (very small)% increase to income per member? Something like 0.001% per nation who is a member? Just one or two members won't make the biggest of difference, but if 1000 members join that's 1% income boost. Or maybe we could make it relative and do percentage of players in the council. If we did this, I would say that if 100% of the game is in the council, then everyone gets a 10% income bonus. If only 65% of the game is in the assembly, then the bonus for those in the assembly is only 6.5%

[Ashland]

I don't know if I like this idea.  It sounds like it would have us trend toward mediocrity.

[T Servo]

This would be a good idea, as long as the alliance has the option to opt in or out of it. 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

This would be a good idea, as long as the alliance has the option to opt in or out of it. 

And I'd want it to be the "nation opting in or out" in an effort to transfer some sovereignity back to nations.

[Nicholas II]

I had an idea a while back that would work like this...

 

What if someone created an off-site forum for all of the alliance leaders to convene. I am very certain that this, even if not delegated the power to do anything (it was just a forum), would develop into something bigger.

[Garrett Tipton]

I had an idea a while back that would work like this...

 

What if someone created an off-site forum for all of the alliance leaders to convene. I am very certain that this, even if not delegated the power to do anything (it was just a forum), would develop into something bigger.

Would only members of the assembly be allowed access to the forum, or would all nations be allowed to witness it? Also, I think we would all rest easier if the forum was created and run by a neutral party (which is why I kinda wanted Sheepy to do it), but this could work as a starting point.

[SoS]

We could have UN issues made up by Sheepy to vote on, like policy thing.

 

Sheepy likes his game simple. He likes 5x5 improvements, 6 resources, and slot machine wars. You gotta come up with something pretty compelling and developed to sway him. And simple too.

Edited November 5, 2014 by SoS

[Ayayay]

The United Nations idea has been done to death and most people (read: the larger alliances) tend to not care for it. The Rainbow Council idea will have more traction than a UN ever will and even then it is one of those situations where people just want to try it to see what happens, as opposed to any real hope that it will change the game up much.

[Nicholas II]

I forgot all about this thread until just now, sorry to bump it.
 

The United Nations idea has been done to death and most people (read: the larger alliances) tend to not care for it. The Rainbow Council idea will have more traction than a UN ever will and even then it is one of those situations where people just want to try it to see what happens, as opposed to any real hope that it will change the game up much.

 I like P&W for it being, in a simplistic sense, realistic. The naturally created tiers (newer countries export raw materials to larger ones which produce manufactured resources), alliances (and their assorted types of government), etc. The only fictitious thing that comes to mind are the colours. I disagree with the Rainbow council for this reason. I much prefer the UN type thing (but in the manner I have written below).
 
 

Would only members of the assembly be allowed access to the forum, or would all nations be allowed to witness it? Also, I think we would all rest easier if the forum was created and run by a neutral party (which is why I kinda wanted Sheepy to do it), but this could work as a starting point.

Well you spoke of the UN idea as a game mechanic. I meant that there would be no game mechanic. Someone (as you said, a neutral party) would create an offsite forum, alliance leaders (who so choose) and perhaps a couple of other representatives from their alliances would make accounts and convene over global issues and vote. Specific boards could be created for alliances wishing to convene without others' prying eyes. If someone breaks the parameters of whatever decision (which would be voted on among the alliance heads and reps), then I suppose they could all decide what to do with the rouge alliance. Vote to embargo, vote to war, etc. It could also serve to legitimately place concerns and declarations (of war, or whatever else) on the world stage.

 

As I typed that, it sounded somewhat like the P&W forum. But when viewing those threads (in the alliance, and national, affairs boards) I tend to have information slip through the cracks. I feel that this proposed forum would be efficient and useful.

 

As I stated before I feel that this, although not a game mechanic, would develop into something larger through its universal applicability and usefulness.
 

[Alex]

I had an idea a while back that would work like this...

 

What if someone created an off-site forum for all of the alliance leaders to convene. I am very certain that this, even if not delegated the power to do anything (it was just a forum), would develop into something bigger.

 

Why use an offsite forum when you could just use this forum?

[Simmons]

I find it convenient to have the UN/alliances related ideas in game instead of having to go to the forums. It just makes it easier and faster, kind of like Nationstates and their world assembly. Besides probably most casual players in browser games just do a quick check and rarely use the forums. Just my two cents on this idea.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Simmons

[Simmons]

Accident double post, sorry about that.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Simmons

[Nicholas II]

Why use an offsite forum when you could just use this forum?

As I stated in my second post, I realized that this sounded very much like these forums could be used. With this "UN"-esque entity having its own board to convene.

[Emmad]

I like the idea. But I think a lot of games that have this concept seem to forget that in real life countries can refuse to do what the UN votes on. You are just kind of forced into doing whatever they say, and some people like that I guess...but the fact that this game has an embargo option would allow for an alternative method of enforcement other than it automatically happening. So I say if you DO put a world gov in place, give people the option to defy their resolutions.

 

(Great example of being forced into it would be the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) senate)

 

That said I would prefer a UN type thing.

 

But going by what Sheepy said, Alliances kind of fill in the niche of a global gov. 

Edited November 18, 2014 by Emmad