UN?

[ZargonX]

So, now that all in the world have met in glorious peace and harmony (...), has anyone given any thought to forming any kind of international body akin to the UN? If anyone is interested, I'm sure we could come up with somethign that would add to the game experience without impinging too much on the game itself.

[Master Zen]

Well, if GoW gets a permanent seat at the Security Council with veto power, I'm all for it

And we could put Trip as Secretary-General

[Jon Shafer]

I'm already inspecting for WMDs.

[Aeson]

No Trip... that's a... um... Granary, not a really big Club.

[ruby_maser]

I think it would be a good idea. Something would have to be worked out to get around having 6 teams now.

We could even have the option of making it a truely democratic process by utilizing polls to insure a voice for the members of all teams in decision-making and reserve policy planning to elected reps or the team leaders.

With any luck, we could create gridlock too...

[mrmitchell]

The real UN was formed after a major war and the victors were all put on the permanent security council...

So now, all we need is a really big war and enough people left to make a UN.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
The real UN was formed after a major war and the victors were all put on the permanent security council...

So now, all we need is a really big war and enough people left to make a UN.

But if there is a major war there may not be enough teams left to form a UN.

[ZargonX]

I think we'd have to forgo a permanant council, as how would the 1 team left out of it feel

redstar1 and I were talking about it earlier, and we were thinking something along the line of each team having 1 or 2 representatives to the council, with either an elected council chair, or perhaps a rotating chair (ala the EU). Discuss!

[Master Zen]

I actually think it's a good idea, and one that can add an interesting new dimension to the game.

IMO, each civ should appoint 1 member as a UN representative, the decision on who and how would be left for each civ to decide.

If you want one civ to "chair" the UN it should be a fair rotation of say 10-20 turns or something like that in the order that the civs play in for example. I like rotation better than election since it leads to less alliances and bureacracy.

I'm all for it ZargonX

[mrmitchell]

Rotated Chair gets to do something special, as in their vote counts for more or something.

[Master Zen]

I'm thinking more on the line that the "rotated chair" is the Secretary-General and it is his duty to organize the UN thread, all resolutions made etc., he would still get one vote though.

BTW, I don't know if you guys are familiar with UN-jargon for resolution writing. It's pretty neat since all resolutions follow the same basic format. In summary, a resolution start with introductory clauses which state the intention of the document. For example:

Resolution 001:
The Establishment of the United Nations for the PTWDG

-Acknowledging that an international body in which all teams are equally represented can serve to ease present and future disputes in a democratic manner

-Recognizing the need for peaceful solutions to conflict

now the next part is the operative clauses, i.e. the "substance" and are numbered.

1. Approves the establishment of the United Nations

2. Authorizes the right of each team to appoint one member as Permanent Representative

3. Appoints a Secretary General on a rotational basis of 15 turns in order of each team play.

Bla bla bla

silly but neat. I actually worked at the U.N. for a while so I know how this stuff works.

[DeepO]

I like the idea, but what would it accomplish? what issues would you want to see resolved before the UN? I can't think of many...

As to the forming of the UN: it's only partly right that it was formed after WWII, there was a previous institution, started in 1930 IIRC (I only know the Dutch name for it: 'Volkerenbond'). They disolved the day the UN was founded, when at the same time the 'victors' of WWII hijacked the security council. Permanent members I can understand, but veto votes? Oh please, how convincing is that to the rest of the world.

DeepO

[Master Zen]

I just think it might be used to solve international disputes (not necesarily related to war) as they arise during the game...

I also agree that it not be too powerful since it would bind the teams needlessly and reduce the strategic aspect of the game considerably

[Nimitz]

Originally posted by DeepO
I like the idea, but what would it accomplish? what issues would you want to see resolved before the UN? I can't think of many...

As to the forming of the UN: it's only partly right that it was formed after WWII, there was a previous institution, started in 1930 IIRC (I only know the Dutch name for it: 'Volkerenbond'). They disolved the day the UN was founded, when at the same time the 'victors' of WWII hijacked the security council. Permanent members I can understand, but veto votes? Oh please, how convincing is that to the rest of the world.

DeepO

It was called the League of Nations, it was formed right after WW1 as part of the peace treaty. It completely failed at all it objectives as it wouldn't or couldn't back up what it wanted, demenstraited by a failure to stop WW2. It was effectively defunked at a the start of WW2 do to its inablity to do anything and dissovled the day the UN formed as was said above.

[redstar1]

The Veto exists primarily because the UK insisted on one. At the time the British Empire was still large and UK had many worldwide interests and responsibilities. It reserved the right to 'veto' any action that might disrupt the Empire. Of course the rest insisted on it as well....