2nd Attempt at a United Nations framework

[Master Zen]

I've been thinking during the last couple of days if there was a way to create a viable United Nations for the PTW Demo Games since I fear we might well reach the point many months later that all treaties can be violated at will with no consequence whatsoever. If every team is to be percieved as a backstabber, there will never be any trust left and further demo games will simply degenerate into slug-fests at every opportunity (not that it would be entirely bad... )

So, I think I've come up with a rough framework of a functioning United Nations body, perhaps this demo game would be a little too advanced to implement it, but the PTWDG II has just started so it would be a good way to test it out.

Well, this is kinda long, so bear with me and please post your suggestions, comments and criticism.


------------------------


DRAFT CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of treachery and deceit, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, have resolved to establish a multilateral forum for the solution of international disputes.

CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE

1. The purpose of the United Nations is to discuss, debate and reslove disputes arising between two or more nations, to determine in a neutral and unbiased manner the victims of agression or treachery and the guilty parties involved.

CHAPTER 2
MEMBERSHIP

2. All nations which exist in-game are allowed unconditional and permanent membership in the United Nations.

3. Each nation shall appoint one Permanent Representative which will have voice and vote in all UN proceedings and resolutions. The conditions and length of service of the respresentative shall be dictated by each team.

4. The game historian shall act as the Secretary General of the UN. The Secretary General shall have both voice and vote.

CHAPTER 3
VOTING

5. Each Permanent Representative may bring to the UN a draft resolution asking for mediation of an international dispute. Disputes may include but are not limited to border violations, armed agression and treaty violations. These disputes are preferably related to direct in-game consequences but may also include disputes with indirect in-game consequences (like NAPs). Disputes which do not meet this criteria will not be considered.

6. All resolutions shall be voted upon during a maxium time of 3 in-game turns. Each Permanent Representative shall submit his vote in public with the Secretary General voting at the end.

7. Each Representative may vote in Favor, Against or Abstain. A majority vote is required (50% +1) for a resolution to pass. Should the vote result in a tie, the Secretary General's vote shall be considered as the tie-breaker.

CHAPTER 4
RESOLUTIONS

8. A Draft Resolution is an official document which seeks to resolve a dispute. It may be sponosored by any Permanent Representative or by coalition. During the discussion phase, the draft resolution may be modified by the sponsors before being subjected to vote. Draft Resolutions must include a title referring to the dispute.

9. If a Draft Resolution passes the vote, it becomes a Resolution with a number and a title.

10. Resolutions may not be applied retroactively.

CHAPTER 5
SANCTIONS

11. Should a nation be considered guilty of agression or in violation of written agreements by the United Nations, the nation shall recieve a public reprimand and an opportunity to peacefully rectify the dispute according to the UN's dictate.

12. Should the nation refuse to rectify, it will be considered "in breach" of a United Nations Resolution. Nations in breach have all written agreements made with third parties subject to voluntary withrdrawl by the third party.

13. In case of an extreme act of aggression or treachery, or repeated violations of UN resolutions, the UN may call upon a luxury, resource and/or technology trade embargo on the offending nation. Nations which fail to support the embargo will be considered in breach of the UN.

CHAPTER 6
RATIFICATION

14. This Charter shall be ratified upon signature of all existing nations in the game.


------------------------


And now, like Kofi said, the floor is open for debate

[Master Zen]

Ok, here's an example of how things would work in practice:

before anyone starts pestering me, the sanctions and final words here are purely hypothetical!!!

Vox-GS Conflict

After being attacked by Vox, GS chooses to submit a draft resolution condeming Voxian agression and demanding a trade embargo on Vox.

During the discussions all nations make it known that Vox despite being an agressor did not break any treaties and thus has a legitimate right of beginning armed conflict (remember, the UN here is not for avoiding wars, it's for making backstabbing have consequences). Vote fails.

ND-GoW-RP conflict

RP presents a draft resolution claiming GoW violated a treaty. After a protracted debate ensues to determine if the treaty indeed included a non-agression clause. It didn't and resolution doesn't pass.

ND-GoW-GS Conflict

ND and GoW present draft resolution claming GS violated the GoW-GS NAP by performing hostile acts against GoW. GS is found guilty and is ordered to permit passage by GoW of GS cities in Bob while the NAP is active.

GS decides to overrule the resolution in-game. UN finds GS in breach of resolution and dictates a voluntary withdrawl against GS. Lego and Vox decide to legally cancel tech/lux trades with GS as a sign of protest.

Hipothetical post-war backstab

With one city remaining, ND-GoW make peace with RP. However, after the peace treaty ND-GoW troops attack and destroy RP city. Being such a vile and treacherous act, GS-Lego sponsor a draft resolution calling for a permanent trade embargo on ND-GoW. Resolution passes and trade embargo is in effect. Vox however, decides to continue trading with ND-GoW. Vox is automatically declared in breach of resolution forcing a voluntary withdrawl of other nation from treaties with Vox.

[Shiber]

You're giving a lot of power to Trip.
Not that I object to appointing Trip as the secretary general (on the other hand, I support your choice; he has proven to be objective thus far and AFAIK he is trusted more than anyone else in this community), but I find that it is appropriate if he was at least elected (even if the only persona that would rise to offer contendership in the race would be the long-running Mr. Banana himself).

[Master Zen]

Things to work on:

1) How to prevent a diplomatic "gang-bang" by many nations over another (something that may happen against a very weak or very strong civ). Perhaps giving the secretary general veto power?

2) Avoid sanctions calling for armed intervention. I.e. the UN should never be allowed to enforce a war upon another. the UN here is simply to enforce sanctions against backstabbing, not to avoid wars altogether. In other word, it's here to enforce written agreements, not to enforce peace like the real UN.

3) Specifics on types of sanctions should be chiseled out.


That's all I have to say for now, please comment

[Jon Shafer]

While turning down a seat of power is something I'm not often known to do (), I must suggest that the Secretary General be someone else. I vowed in a pledge that I would no longer influence the game in any way, and in return I get to see everything that happens for my own entertainment (and education). I could therefore, not accept an office which gives me influence over the game in any way.

Aside from the moralistic issues, there's also practical ones. Anything I say or do would be heavily scrutinized, and in passing certain judgments I may be accused of favoritism or revealing information, which is unacceptable for the role I'm currently in.

An eye cannot grow teeth, nor should one.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Trip

An eye cannot grow teeth, nor should one.

But it does grow hair

any suggestions on who could be Sec Gen? Perhaps a rotational post? That would be a bit too biased if you ask me... perhaps someone esle who isn't involved?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Oh wonderful! An organization to promote world peace and harmony! It should have the legal authority to play all the teams turns to make sure nothing bad happens and can give them time outs....

[alva]

none.

Again, people will vote what favours their situation and not the issue.
Add to that, that not always/never is all info available to make a judgement.

[Octavian X]

I think Trip would make an excellent Secretary General. I would only take away his voting privlidges in regular votes: he would only break ties. Also, Trip serving as Secretary General would give the U.N. someone able to actually enforce it's resolutions.

And yes, there will be bias. No two ways around it. I would simply allow for a mandatory period of time to allow for public debate before each vote. Hopefully, all the evidence will be used in such a debate to allow for a good judgement.

[Jon Shafer]

The problem is that sometimes the "correct" judgment would be based upon information the team in question would rather not have made public...

[Octavian X]

It's rather obvious that people will manipulate information to their advantage. I just think that the more realistic it gets, the better.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Octavian X
It's rather obvious that people will manipulate information to their advantage. I just think that the more realistic it gets, the better.

Exactly. As if the real UN were truly unbiased...

Perhaps sanctions should be lessened. The idea here is not to make backstabbing a game-losing event, but rather that the team who does it know that there are consequences to doing so.

[Jon Shafer]

The real UN doesn't have God as Secretary General to dish out justice.

[Darekill]

Boys, do we need realy a UN to tell us how we have to judge the acts of the others.

Ok a pov is always biased. The aggressor will always find a way to justify his action if he wants. I say this despite the fact that I don't bother to dig to deep to look for a reason for the aggresion against RP we just simply are aggressive. Rp may ask itself why.

The oponent of this aggression can always fin a reason to state that the aggression is not justifyable.

As far as NAP's ROP's and MPP's are concerned I do belive in public opinion and I know that human players just know whom to trust and why and whom not after a while.....

[Master Zen]

Again, the idea is not for the UN to dish out justice, simply to "officially" determine if a nation did a treacherous deed and allow some leeway for other nations to resond to such treachery without being treacherous themselves...

wow, I said threachery 3 times