Tzorsland wrote:I don't want to be overly annoying, but what is this damn "role play" you are referring to? The Role Playing groups in NS generally don't even acknowledge the existence of the WA in the first place. Role playing in the WA/GA forum is confined to the drafting and debating of resolutions is done by the smallest fraction of people who actively participate in WA GA resolution voting. There is no real nation based forum where national compliance with WA resolutions are carried out. This is the sad truth. Gnomes are a practical solution to the problem.
"Realism?" Please give me a break. You have to redesign everything from the ground up, and I don't mean the game, I mean the players!
And don't get me started on what you need to do on a game mechanic basis. In spite of what everyone claims is true, there is no mechanism that keeps member nations from selecting daily issues in blatant violation of WA law which they are supposed to faithfully maintain even though it was passed before they joined and never stat wanked them in the first place.
I'm not really sure who you are talking to. Auralia didn't say anything about role play, but nothing you said really has anything to do with what I said.
Auralia wrote:I don't understand your position. It's not necessary to roleplay a failed World Assembly peacekeeping mission to realize that sending unarmed peacekeepers into a conflict zone will be a disaster, and to take that into account when drafting a World Assembly resolution. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, nobody directly roleplays the consequences of international legislation; that hasn't stopped ambassadors from criticizing proposals for having likely adverse effects.
Speak for yourself. I roleplay the consequences of WA legislation all the time.
And no, sending unarmed gnomes will not have any disastrous effects. Firstly, because a million gnomes could die and no one would suffer for it. Secondly, because the WA already sends gnomes to into conflict zones. We already have committees for international mediation, monitoring ceasefires, overseeing elections, disarming mines, etc... all activities the Peacekeepers are tasked with doing. Sending more will not be worse.
I accept the rules state that we can't name specific people to sit on committees. I don't see how that is an impediment to realism.
It isn't. It's the rules stating that we can't specify "how members are chosen, and term lengths" that is the problem. We can't say, for example, that the International Criminal Court Mk 2 will be staffed by 9 judges with life terms, who have to pass an examination... and these are things that a real life legislative body would do.
A great deal of real-life international legislation leaves the details of committee membership to bureaucracies as well.
It doesn't often leave the selection process totally up to... nobody, honestly. Not a single WA resolution specifies who chooses to staff committees, so there is no "bureaucracy" to leave the details to... staff must either select themselves (how realistic, people just choosing to be on a committee!) or literally spring into existence as WA staff members.
However, the rules emphatically do not state that committees are staffed by magical gnomes, or that these gnomes are infallible. In my view, World Assembly committees are staffed by human beings who can be corrupt or make mistakes or exceed their mandate, just like anybody else.
Where do those humans come from? Who said they could be on the committee? By what authority did that person or persons say they could be on the committee? Why only humans, and not Birrin or Bears or Sapient Plants or Indevians or robotic K9s or anything else that has wandered these halls? Can these humans be fired? Who decides how much they get paid?
In real life, the WA would have, at the very least, established who was responsible for selecting staff members, and who decided the budget. Instead, the entire WA bureaucracy must create itself, as the staff have almost no rules governing their operations. That's just not realistic.
