2nd Attempt at a United Nations framework

[vondrack]

I'm with Darekill. I do not need any UN to be able to "see" what's going on, who the bad guy is, nor to justify Lego "legally sanctioning" other teams breaking international treaties. Despite dozens and dozens of (often ridiculous) flameposts, my opinion on international disputes is usually formed by the first couple of posts that reveal the cold facts - there was an NAP here, MPP there. I add my own experience with the parties involved in and make the picture for myself up. No UN can give me a different picture. It would be the same (ridiculous) arguments at a different ground only.

Whatever the UN Charter "allows" is doable even now - Lego is perfectly free to embargo GS or GoW+ND. We could decide that we consider GoW, GS, or ND such backstabbing bastards we no longer honour our past deals with them. No need for an "approval" of other teams through any UN.

Guys, let's face it: honouring treaties or not is part of the game. It's a skill to be able to distinguish between who will honour a treaty, who will "honour" it, and who will simply not... and at what time.

I have repeatedly expressed the opinion everybody is free to do whatever he/she wants (and because of that, I care very little about NAP, MPPs etc.). He/she just has to understand everything has consequences - GoW attacks RP despite having an MPP? Fine, everybody now knows GoW is capable of attacking an MPP partner. I do not care if, technically, NAP was not part of that MPP. I have my common sense. GS accepts the cities from RP? Fine, everybody now knows GS is capable of sticking to the wording of a treaty instead of its spirit (no arguments, please - not meant to start any, strictly my personal PoV only). I don't care what GS says about the non-hostility of this act. I have my common sense. And I could go on and on...

If "the UN [would be] here not for avoiding wars, [but] for making backstabbing consequences", then we do not need it. Backstabbing DOES have consequences, even now. UN would not make them any different.

BTW... where is the guarantee that teams would vote according to the "real justice" and not to maximize their own benefit? Example: if Lego had a "bad" deal with GS in place, we might be tempted to support a resolution against GS simply to make ourselves "legally" able to quit a deal we would no longer like...

[Harovan]

Idiocy.

[DeepO]

Just like the real UN, there will be too many practical problems... this will just become another popularity contest, and another means to diplomaticly backstab nations.

What could work, though, is a high council of eyes: people like Trip, who have all information, and can make unbiased decisions. But even then, if that may remove the bias, it still won't help teams against backstabbing.

DeepO

[nbarclay]

The only way I'd even consider a U.N. in the game was if it were similar to the real U.N. in one key respect: the ability of the world's major powers to veto anything that would adversely affect them. Seriously, the potential for nations to gang up on other nations is bad enough without creating a formal body for them to do it through. In the real world, win/win solutions where the entire world benefits provide a goal for the U.N. to work toward. But in Civ, only one player or team can win, and that pretty much nullifies the ideal of a U.N. that's goal is the common good of everyone.

[Hot_Enamel]

I like the idea of a UN....but would prefer it have zero power to do anything. A toothless tiger.

Rules that will allow a true debate to discuss team actions would be great. Instead of the Flame Fests (R.I.P.) that we have now.

Is a MPP a NAP ?
Are taking cities that were 1 turn from being invaded and then refusing passage considered "hostile action" ?

At the moment, we have an Eye who is chronicling world events. If he writes GoW violated their MPP and attacked RP, then by GoW’s POV this would be an inaccuracy.

Let us debate it and vote.

The in game consequences of such vote = nothing.

[DeepO]

A toothless tiger would do the exact same thing as the flamefest threads: those with the best propaganda win the PR war for the other teams. Maybe there is a little less mudslinging if under the banner of a virtual UN, but I doubt it...

And as it seems GoW is still using a good discussion thread for its own purposes, let me counter with a nice question:
If nation A asks for a NAP with nation B, saying that their presence on the continent is required for defense against backstabs by their partner C, and nation B does exactly that: receive a presence on the continent (close to C), and have no intention whatsoever to attack A, does nation B then even violates the intent of the treaty? From nation B's PoV, they did exactly what's been asked for by nation A, although perhaps geographically a few cities up North.

DeepO

[Shiber]

This is not going to work.
If you want an organization to determine who is "right" in a conflict, set up an international court that is run by neutral Apolytoners.
But if you set up a UN-like organization, don't be surprised if people start voting according to their interests rather than their conscience.
Besides, the UN is made up of a little more than 6 nations. There are many minor powers that can be influenced. But the organization that you're proposing can easily be dominated by a few alliances.
IMHO an attempt to reduce backstabbing and backroom politics by providing another stage for such acts is doomed to failure.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Shiber
This is not going to work.
If you want an organization to determine who is "right" in a conflict, set up an international court that is run by neutral Apolytoners.
But if you set up a UN-like organization, don't be surprised if people start voting according to their interests rather than their conscience.
Besides, the UN is made up of a little more than 6 nations. There are many minor powers that can be influenced. But the organization that you're proposing can easily be dominated by a few alliances.
IMHO an attempt to reduce backstabbing and backroom politics by providing another stage for such acts is doomed to failure.

Yep... that is what I was trying to say.
The court system in the first SP Demo was perfect.

Finding impartial judges would be the problem of course.

But certainly, I would not would not be afraid to put the GoW argument to an impartial judge. And also accept any decision handed down.
It means nothing in-game, other giving the Eye excellent writing material.

Originally posted by DeepO
And as it seems GoW is still using a good discussion thread for its own purposes, let me counter with a nice question:
If nation A asks for a NAP with nation B, saying that their presence on the continent is required for defense against backstabs by their partner C, and nation B does exactly that: receive a presence on the continent (close to C), and have no intention whatsoever to attack A, does nation B then even violates the intent of the treaty? From nation B's PoV, they did exactly what's been asked for by nation A, although perhaps geographically a few cities up North.

Take a deep breath .. no one is attacking GS in this thread

Your question however is an excellent one ... wouldn't it be great in an "internation court" agrees with you ?

[alva]

What could work, though, is a high council of eyes: people like Trip, who have all information, and can make unbiased decisions. But even then, if that may remove the bias, it still won't help teams against backstabbing.

Trip actually having the correct info and judging accordingly might and will lead to revealling info that is supposed to be 'secret'.

[Theseus]

The public forum IS the UN.

[ZargonX]

Hahahah, MZ! Welcome to the hell of trying to propose a U.N.! You should have learned well the lessons of the past

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by ZargonX
Hahahah, MZ! Welcome to the hell of trying to propose a U.N.! You should have learned well the lessons of the past

Bah! It's always worth a shot

Anyway, don't blame me if by PTWDG IV nobody gives a hoot about written agreements...

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Bah! It's always worth a shot

Anyway, don't blame me if by PTWDG IV nobody gives a hoot about written agreements...

This is the PTWDG IV? Where was I for the first three.....

[LzPrst]

dont be daft. a UN organisation in 50 AD!?
if a civ breaks a treaty their reputation will be damaged among other civs. thats how it worked in the old days.

noone has authority to tell any nation to NOT trade with someone who is under a global embargo (not even the REAL UN). theres an interesting little concept which certain leaders across the world depend on; the sovereignity of the state. that is a very important part of every country's politics, and is the reason why the US still havent lifted its trade embargo on Cuba (which the UN decided was illegal) and South Africa had apartheid for decades despite worldwide condemnation.
The UN is a futile organization as it has no teeth, no real power or influence. why bother?

Just the idea of creating such an oranization at this time in history is just... it's anachronistic.

Maybe we could establish this once the UN wonder is built (is there a UN wonder in civ3? i forget...)

[Shiber]

There is a UN wonder, but it triggers the UN vote, which means that the game ends unless there's a tie (in which case the UN vote will be restarted next turn, ad infinitum).