UN/Diplomacy Planning Thread

[Masquerouge]

While going with real world events makes sense since we're suppose to truly represent our countries, I can see the potential for having our own little world.
So I'm in favor of both, and will support anybody who backs giving Fra... allright, allright.

 

[Old Spice]

But then our actions have no meaning, when we start the Model UN we are breaking separate from current events to model our own after the starting point we choose.
I support Frances requests for veto power.

 

[Masquerouge]

But then our actions have no meaning, when we start the Model UN we are breaking separate from current events to model our own after the starting point we choose.
I support Frances requests for veto power.

SCORE!

Anyway I think that the goal is to discuss and align with the countries that would make sense in RL, and then vote on an option about the resolution submitted by the Secretary General.

So the actual events will probably affect alliances, but that would be it.

 

[Red Door]

But then our actions have no meaning, when we start the Model UN we are breaking separate from current events to model our own after the starting point we choose.
I support Frances requests for veto power.

But, we're doing our own independent debate on the events. It works out in the end, believe me, I've done Model UN before. (I'm typing my position paper for a conference ATM )

I think it works better that we do not create hugely ficticious events as a whole.

 

[Old Spice]

But our debates and votes are not going to lead to anything then... or will they?

 

[downtown]

They wouldn't anyways. Its not like we'll submit our answers to a think tank or something.

I would also like to participate, either as sec. general, or leading a country.

 

[Masquerouge]

I would also like to participate, either as sec. general, or leading a country.

go get them tiger! I like ambitious guys!

 

[Old Spice]

You can't eb the Sec general yet you have to be voted in, Whomp is going to start off as the sec general until he is assainated.

 

[Whomp]

Yeah I'm really against creating problems that aren't real life. The idea is to solve real life events through diplomacy and negotiation not the threat of a big stick. What I do think could be interesting is increasing influence based on a point system as Masquerouge suggested. Having the capability to trade your influence points could make things interesting. The question is how do we set a baseline for the point system. Obviously, certain countries would start with more than others.

You can't eb the Sec general yet you have to be voted in, Whomp is going to start off as the sec general until he is assainated.

Character or otherwise?

 

[Red Door]

But our debates and votes are not going to lead to anything then... or will they?

Fake Resolutions, etc.

 

[downtown]

You can't eb the Sec general yet you have to be voted in, Whomp is going to start off as the sec general until he is assainated.

Oh, I thought it was a 4 thread term?

 

[Old Spice]

I don't think this should be a trading card game, if you want diplomacy and negotiation then have that. Other wise if there is a point system there should be a war system. Anyway we could rank points on who has nukes, resources ( oil gold other things) techs (computers and there role in life) and finally human rights.

 

[Masquerouge]

Yeah I'm really against creating problems that aren't real life. The idea is to solve real life events through diplomacy and negotiation not the threat of a big stick. What I do think could be interesting is increasing influence based on a point system as Masquerouge suggested. Having the capability to trade your influence points could make things interesting. The question is how do we set a baseline for the point system. Obviously, certain countries would start with more than others.

I say no. For the sake of interest, countries should start with the same amount of influence.

Here's how influence could be gained (because I REALLY like that idea, Whomp FTW!):
- vote for an option that passes: +1
- vote for the winning candidate for Secretary General: +1
- get elected Secretary General: +5 (will have to be adjusted according to the number of players of course)

Oh, I thought it was a 4 thread term?

No, we're thinking of a one-resolution term. Meaning, you're elected, you suggest a resolution, and once how to resolve that resolution has been voted, a new secretary general is elected.

 

[Old Spice]

I say no. For the sake of interest, countries should start with the same amount of influence.

Here's how influence could be gained (because I REALLY like that idea, Whomp FTW!):
- vote for an option that passes: +1
- vote for the winning candidate for Secretary General: +1
- get elected Secretary General: +5 (will have to be adjusted according to the number of players of course)





.

Then everyone will vote for the majority leader to get points.

 

[Masquerouge]

Then everyone will vote for the majority leader to get points.

? Who is the majority leader?

 

[Old Spice]

Who ever at the time of vote has more votes, unless we have the votes hidden until every one casts there vote.

People will vote for the person who has more votes to gain points.

 

[Masquerouge]

Who ever at the time of vote has more votes, unless we have the votes hidden until every one casts there vote.

People will vote for the person who has more votes to gain points.

Then I guess you gave the solution to your own problem

 

[Sidhe]

Who ever at the time of vote has more votes, unless we have the votes hidden until every one casts there vote.

People will vote for the person who has more votes to gain points.

Sounds a bit complicated, I like the point system but why not just have members vote for a leader like in real life, then you have both a points system and a leader, just like in real life. Those who are most popular are not necessarily the best leaders. In fact often the opposite is true a leader does what is the best for an organisation not necessarily that which is most popular. In the UN this is especially true. The leader needs to be above points.

 

[Old Spice]

Do you trust that everyone on this forum is above points?

 

[Masquerouge]

Sounds a bit complicated, I like the point system but why not just have members vote for a leader like in real life, then you have both a points system and a leader, just like in real life. Those who are most popular are not necessarily the best leaders. In fact often the opposite is true a leader does what is the best for an organisation not necessarily that which is most popular. In the UN this is especially true. The leader needs to be above points.

But you can't deny than being elected Secretary General will gain you influence.
Then it's up to you if you want to vote for people with a lot of influence or not.