UN/Diplomacy Planning Thread

[Whomp]

Noncom and I thought it might be a good idea and I kind of like it too.

Here's the thinking. Let's take on real life issues but with a twist. Everyone who participates will be on a team that comes to a consensus on how they'd like to present their stance, how their group would like to handle the problem and debate. Discussions could be set up in your groups own thread or with spoiler tags.

Since this is brand new the first discussion should be about building a ruleset. After that I'd like to discuss the issue of resolving the issue of illiteracy.

Any interest?

Countries

1.Cuba--Francisco Hernan
2.Ethiopia--Redy
3.Russia--Scipian
4.Norway --ArnreHD
5.North Korea--Old Spice
6.France--Masquerouge
7.UK--Gin and Tonic
8.Iran--Noncomformist
9.Palestine--Sidhe
10.Italy--AlCosta
11. US--Whomp of the heartland
12. Brazil--Downtown MB
13.Canada--Admiral Bell
14.China--Taillesskangaru
15. Somaililand--Kraznaya

Ruleset

Secretary General chooses the subject of the next Resolution.
- We allow some time for an individual discussion on it and after a while the Secretary General chooses two options for that resolution.
- Countries then have to align to either one of these resolution, and start polishing their arguments
- a vote is made after a time to see which option wins
- The next secretary general is elected. He/She must belong to the winning faction (just so that there's a motivation to win  )
Rinse and repeat.

We could introduce fun stuff, like votes of no confidence if the options the Secretary General chooses are disavowed by the members, or bans on countries, etc.

Of course politics should come into play, like "if you vote for our option then I'll back up your choice of candidate for UN secretary general", countries can switch allegiances, etc.

 

[Old Spice]

Oh pick me pick me!

I'm interested!

 

[nonconformist]

I am very interested, and potentially very Iranian.

I assume everyone will be in charge of a nation, along with a Secretary General?

 

[Masquerouge]

So are we having two teams, or is each participant a country that has to ally with a team?

And that means I'm interested, of course. I'm very French.

 

[Whomp]

Yeah I think by country may make it very interesting. The ruleset is wide open so I'm open for suggestions.

One thing that I think we should have is one representative from each team lead the UN type debate....of course with all his advisors (team members) on their side. Another thing we should do is set up deadlines for discussion. One week ending on a Friday midnight GMT and then we move on to another topic.

 

[GinandTonic]

Brit 1 standing by.

 

[Old Spice]

I want to be North Korea, pretty please. Sounds good so far whomp, is there going to be vote on anything after all the discussions?

 

[ArneHD]

I'm in. Norway does play a part in international politics anyway.

 

[nonconformist]

I think that the first rules should touch upon that a Secretary General, who is elected, holds rights to direct the debate and votings, and impeachment regulations etc.

 

[Whomp]

I want to be North Korea, pretty please. Sounds good so far whomp, is there going to be vote on anything after all the discussions?

I think it would be a good idea to have team discussions in spoiler tags and other teams can't look so there would be debate in country as well as in the UN. How people arrange their teams should be up to team members I'd think (IE democracy, communist, anarchy etc) and voting for the Secretary General to moderate discussions (maybe for a 4 topic term?)

Ultimately, we need to come to some type of compromise at the conclusion of the topic or we can table it for later if nothing has been settled. I'm not sure on this.

I will update the OP for participants and their sphere of influence. Btw Having non actor states offering influence could add some color to things. Just a thought.

 

[nonconformist]

I think it would be a good idea to have team discussions in spoiler tags and other teams can't look so there would be debate in country as well as in the UN. How people arrange their teams should be up to team members I'd think (IE democracy, communist, anarchy etc) and voting for the Secretary General to moderate discussions (maybe for a 4 topic term?)

Ultimately, we need to come to some type of compromise at the conclusion of the topic or we can table it for later if nothing has been settled. I'm not sure on this.

The panda is intelligent.

I think we need a constitution setting the rules in stone, but not to be restricting, so that people have to find loopholes.

 

[Old Spice]

So is this a more of a model UN, because then we might wan't to give it some sort of war power or police force.

Edit> In that way we don't need to compromise if a minority refuses to listen.

 

[brennan]

Limit exchanges to a few posts each to avoid getting bogged down.

 

[nonconformist]

We'd also want to have everyone act in character;

i.e no US communist revolution, going ona rampage in Canada.

I also suggest you rename this as a thread for working out the game, and then transfer the rules into a new one when it's all sorted.

 

[Red Door]

I suggest we make this a Model UN type thing, and count me in.

 

[Whomp]

OK I'll need some help on how that works. This thread has been renamed the
UN/Diplomacy Planning Thread. We can set up another thread when everything is set and we tackle illiteracy. Are you guys ok with that discussion?

 

[Old Spice]

Yeah thats a okay for starting us off, I think...

I think we should allow each country to decide for its self how it would like to discuss (between its members) the topic at hand.

 

[GinandTonic]

OK I'll need some help on how that works. This thread has been renamed the
UN/Diplomacy Planning Thread. We can set up another thread when everything is set and we tackle illiteracy. Are you guys ok with that discussion?

All good for me.

 

[Sidhe]

Can Truronian be the Cornish?

Can I be erm Palestine, I'm allowed to turn up but since the US has vetoed my inclusion in the UN even though of course most of the world including the UK accepts me as a state, I feel I should be represented

 

[Red Door]

Okay, I'll be Italy.

I think we should work in a system where we have a Security General (preferably Whomp at first, if it picks up steam, we could elect one) who picks the issue, then we all give our opinion on the issue, and begin debate.

Also, we can get together, make resolutions, etc. (all the UN fun stuff), and party. Basically, it's like the UN in a forum. If this picks up steam, we could make councils. Wow, I'm drooling from the possibilities.