UN/Diplomacy Planning Thread

[Whomp]

Personally, I see no problem how people organize their internal structure as long as they are willing to give and take based on what's in the national interest of their country. This does not mean your country needs to follow the current course of action the filthy politicians in these countries follow today.

I know the US and we need a moderate right voice from the heartland so I'll join the US group.

As far as Palestine goes I think theyshould have representation in the UN.

 

[Old Spice]

I think that after we get so many countries around 20 or so we should start voting on who we let in after that. Plus make them conform to so guide lines...

 

[Red Door]

Personally, I see no problem how people organize their internal structure as long as they are willing to give and take based on what's in the national interest of their country. This does not mean your country needs to follow the current course of action the filthy politicians in these countries follow today.

I know the US and we need a moderate right voice from the heartland so I'll join the US group.

As far as Palestine goes I think theyshould have representation in the UN.

Yes, I think it should be a requirement that you follow your real life country's interests.

Palestine is shaky, if we allow them, should we do the same for Western Sahara, Gaza, and other places like that if someone chooses to be them?

 

[Masquerouge]

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.

Seconded.

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.

Seconded.

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?

Seconded.

Here are my suggestions:
- Whomp is the first Secretary General. He 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]

No, they would have to jump through the same hoops that any new country has to. First get some other countries to support you and bring the topic to the UN, it can then be dusscused and voted on.

 

[Masquerouge]

No, they would have to jump through the same hoops that any new country has to. First get some other countries to support you and bring the topic to the UN, it can then be dusscused and voted on.

Are you talking about introducing new members to the UN? If yes, I agree.

 

[Sidhe]

Seconded.



Seconded.



Seconded.

Here are my suggestions:
- Whomp is the first Secretary General. He 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.

What about powers of veto

And I'd like to nominate myself as a candidate for another secretary I think more than one is needed perhaps three so there's more of a spread of opinion? I think I'd make an impartial one as I have no interest in playing sides?

But if you think I'm a bad candidate so be it?

Can someone nominate me?

With three of course a motion would only be carried if the general and his advisors agreed 2 to 1. The UN has this sort of sytem of advisors and a general.

Although of course he could overrule.

 

[Masquerouge]

What about powers of veto

I suggest powers of veto should be discussed in a resolution

And I'd like to nominate myself as a candidate for another secretary, I think I'd make an impartial one as I have no interest in playing sides?

I'll back up your candidacy
1. in the sake of democracy
2. if you back up my soon-to-come proposal to give France powers of veto

 

[Masquerouge]

Also to make it fun we should give points when you vote for a winning option, and keep a track record...

 

[Old Spice]

Are you talking about introducing new members to the UN? If yes, I agree.

Yes but theres a word that I can't quite remember how to spell, anyway so many countries would have to support you before you could be introduced to the UN, and allowed to voice your concern.

 

[Whomp]

Palestine is shaky, if we allow them, should we do the same for Western Sahara, Gaza, and other places like that if someone chooses to be them?

The only reason why I think Palestine makes sense is because this will be a very hot topic issue at some point.

Here are my suggestions:
- Whomp is the first Secretary General. He 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.

I really like that Masq. The only thing I would like to avoid is elitism amongst our posters. Let's not make it personal but based on the issues.

All that agree please say "aye".

 

[Sidhe]

I suggest powers of veto should be discussed in a resolution

Agreed.

And aye to the suggestion by Whomp.

I'll go for being the Palestinian representative.

 

[Masquerouge]

The only reason why I think Palestine makes sense is because this will be a very hot topic issue at some point.

Yay! Discussion!

I really like that Masq. The only thing I would like to avoid is elitism amongst our posters. Let's not make it personal but based on the issues.

Well that will be up to the appointed Secretary General, won't it?

All that agree please say "aye".

I'll say "aye" only if you agree to back up my proposal to give France powers of veto

 

[Red Door]

The only reason why I think Palestine makes sense is because this will be a very hot topic issue at some point.

I really like that Masq. The only thing I would like to avoid is elitism amongst our posters. Let's not make it personal but based on the issues.

All that agree please say "aye".

Aye.

The way this is shaping up, it almost sounds like we'll need our own forum, since this is shaping to be some kind of NES.

 

[Old Spice]

OK what about wars? Are going to even have them, and if we do how will they be conducted?

 

[GinandTonic]

The SG had to be from an insignificant country with no alliances.

For the same reason as in the real world.

EDIT - Nothing personal whomp

 

[Masquerouge]

OK what about wars? Are going to even have them, and if we do how will they be conducted?

I suggest we don't initiate wars. We just go along with the real ones.
I.e. if suddenly Iran declares war on, errr, Syria, then we can discuss that matter with their respective representatives.
And I'll back them only if they back my proposal to give France powers of veto .

I might be roleplaying "annoying France" a bit too much here

 

[Red Door]

OK what about wars? Are going to even have them, and if we do how will they be conducted?

Maybe a UN Security Resolution, something like Persian Gulf I, in event of certain events.

But, this brings up a new issue, how are we going to get events to debate? Are we going to use real-world events, or are we going to make up events?

 

[Old Spice]

Thats not really roleplaying....

So then are going along with real current events or making are own little world?

 

[Sidhe]

Thats not really roleplaying....

So then are going along with real current events or making are own little world?

Reality makes the most sense, roleplaying fictional situations is liable to be less interesting and less charged IMO. And of course real life factors will reveal themselves as we go along.