Security Council

[Hobbes City and Lanos]

To prevent tying up WA time on worthless repeals and whatnot, i propose that only a select few should vote on such SC resolutions, much like the RLUN SC.

*just a suggestion, look at the 4th repeal for SCR#3!*

[Goobergunchia]

There were three votes on repealing "Metric System" and "Sexual Freedom", yet I never saw this as grounds for limiting UN voting power.

Realistically, if there was such a broad consensus that the repeal was worthless, it wouldn't have made quorum.

[Mikertaz Kein]

If there were separate WA pages for voting this would be much better. The Security Council page would have all of those weird 'commend/condemn/liberate' ones and General could have the actual important votes.

[Kandarin]

If there were separate WA pages for voting this would be much better. The Security Council page would have all of those weird 'commend/condemn/liberate' ones and General could have the actual important votes.

RP and Gameplay (and the SC is there to be used by both) are of equal value. One is not more important than the other and all players have the right to play the way that they choose.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

How especially does that refute the argument that the voting queues should be separate? Surely if gameplay is as important as roleplay, the gameplayers ought to be able to discuss their own issues without constant interruption from irrelevant GAers?

[Frisbeeteria]

Who selects? Why? Hardly seems fair to me.

only a select few should vote

I promise you that if I get to be the one selecting "the few" ... you won't be among them.

[Boro and Teeside]

This is all irrelevant because Ray Mallon has decreed that he rules the world.

[Rolamec]

To prevent tying up WA time on worthless repeals and whatnot, i propose that only a select few should vote on such SC resolutions, much like the RLUN SC.

*just a suggestion, look at the 4th repeal for SCR#3!*

"Nein, nein, nein, nein, nein, nein, nein, nein!"

I believe that the World Assembly is already corrupt as it is, it has far too much power over regional sovereignty, and has taken sides, intentionally or not, of the defenders.

Furthermore the Security Council in the UN in real life is the reason why the UN remains so ineffective, inefficient, and unequal.

The World Assembly is an organization composed of all nations, big and small, left and right, themed and non themed (ones based on real life countries). Because of that every resolution deserves the vote of every World Assembly nation.

If the UN in real life came to that conclusion, it wouldn't be a joke. It would be a world forum as it was intended to be. Not operated by the few, powerful elite.

[Kandarin]

How especially does that refute the argument that the voting queues should be separate? Surely if gameplay is as important as roleplay, the gameplayers ought to be able to discuss their own issues without constant interruption from irrelevant GAers?

It is a refutation if the basis of separate queues is the notion that each side believes that what it does is "the actually important part" and that what the other side does is "irrelevant". This is simply not the case for the bulk of the membership of each camp. It must be said that both Gameplay and RP have their share of zealots who believe that only what they do matters, but the number of such zealots still is a bare handful even if they are quite vocal. The sort of vast, popular disdain for the other camp that would call for them to be hidden away from each other simply does not exist in either camp. There is plenty of apathy for the other side, yes, but not the sort of attitude that calls for it to be removed from sight. GPers certainly do not believe GAers to be 'irrelevant', nor do they hold them in contempt. If the opposite is true (and you would know better than I whether it is) the question that should be asked is not how to perpetuate that sentiment but whether the sentiment should be perpetuated at all.

[The Blaatschapen]

This is why Kandarin is recommended (by the WA, not by your doctor)

Anyway, I don't see any good reason for splitting the queues. Yes, perhaps it becomes a burden that a certain repeal is up now for the 3rd time. But think about it, the WA(and before UN) has been around for years and the earlier proposals were also not up to certain standards and practices of modern day. The same is happening now here at the SC, they're just figuring out what exactly the standards and practices are. And apparently the 3rd resolution is very controversial regarding that.

I say, give the SC some time to establish the ground rules, soon everybody will know what's the proper idea behind it and then act accordingly

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

So, in essence, the majority of both the gameplay and RP factions aren't zealots, and we should give the SC time to work out the kinks in proposal-writing. Those are wonderful sentiments, and I applaud both of you for them. But neither are arguments against concurrent voting. We should implement concurrent voting because it will allow both branches of the WA to run more efficiently, without having to switch between branches every four days. If the SC wants to try repealing Condemn NAZI EUROPE for the 20th time, let them; they can do it in a lot less time if they have their own queue to do it in, sans the constant interruptions by the GA. The same with the General Assembly and whether it wants to repeal and replace Fair Trial again and again and again. By the way, I think we need to repeal and replace Fair Trial again.

But it's not like discussing this matters; [violet] refuses to separate the branches, because she needs an excuse for both the GA and the SC, two fundamentally and irreconcilably different creatures, to operate together as "the World Assembly." This ignores the fact that two disparate branches cannot be reconciled by an infuriating and inefficient voting model, but that's neither here nor there. This isn't my game and I do not make the decisions.

EDIT: oh, and Blaatschapen, the word is "commended."

[Mikertaz Kein]

^^

If more people thought like this, perhaps the wold itself would be a more efficient place. For those who still don't quite grasp the concept, let me illustrate it:

1-) Toyota is producing two models of car at their factory. These models are quite different and require a change in parts whenever the other model is produced. Rather than have to switch parts out every five days, they build a separate assembly line for these models to be produced on. Not only does this make the factory more efficient, it also makes it produce much faster than it would have without the second line.


2-) A store has one line for all of its customers. A couple people buy in bulk, taking up most of the line time. Other people buy little, but still have to wait an hour for the cashier to check the first out. Instead of having to wait forever for the cashier to finish with these large amounts, the store opens up an 'express' line. Everyone who buys in bulk uses the regular line but those with 20 items or less get the 'express' line.

This could be the WA. The sidebar would still have one link to the World Assembly but the page inside links to the general assembly, the security council, the past resolutions, etc. It basically involves making a new page to put all of these links and information on, like the main forum index. I am taking a web design class right now, heck I could build a link page in my sleep. I will screen-shot a preview later.

[Frisbeeteria]

For those who still don't quite grasp the concept, let me illustrate it:

You do realize that the original post was about limiting the voting pool, right? It was only later that you introduced the idea of separating SC and GA proposals, which I believe had already been extensively discussed elsewhere.

I am taking a web design class right now, heck I could build a link page in my sleep. I will screen-shot a preview later.

Building the page is nothing. You can save your screenshot. The problem is in the back end, which you know nothing about. Separating the queues is not a trivial exercise.

[Krioval]

It is a refutation if the basis of separate queues is the notion that each side believes that what it does is "the actually important part" and that what the other side does is "irrelevant". This is simply not the case for the bulk of the membership of each camp. It must be said that both Gameplay and RP have their share of zealots who believe that only what they do matters, but the number of such zealots still is a bare handful even if they are quite vocal. The sort of vast, popular disdain for the other camp that would call for them to be hidden away from each other simply does not exist in either camp. There is plenty of apathy for the other side, yes, but not the sort of attitude that calls for it to be removed from sight. GPers certainly do not believe GAers to be 'irrelevant', nor do they hold them in contempt. If the opposite is true (and you would know better than I whether it is) the question that should be asked is not how to perpetuate that sentiment but whether the sentiment should be perpetuated at all.

I should think that there are plenty of GPers who think that GA RP is irrelevant, considering the mechanics of the invader/defender game, namely creating puppets, joining the WA, participating in one military action with said puppet, and then never touching it again. If that isn't treating the RP aspect as irrelevant, I don't know what would be. Of course, I will concede that they're not trumpeting their feelings on the forums, mainly because they consider them, well, irrelevant.

Concurrent voting would allow for business to be transacted in both chambers simultaneously, which might increase interest in both chambers. It would prevent a long chain of queued proposals in one chamber from being blocked up for longer time because a proposal in the other chamber was rushed to quorum. I personally have little stake in the matter, though my anti-SC bias is probably well enough known; I'd still continue to act in the SC because I enjoy having political influence in the game.

I guess I'm wondering how concurrent voting would hurt the SC. Both chambers could be listed on the left, include links to the other, and maybe even encourage players to visit the other chamber when something was up for vote. Wouldn't that increase the visibility of the SC?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Of course the Security Council would benefit from its own sidebar, page and voting queue, but whether it's due to technical issues -- or they just want to get back at us for ruining their C&C surprise -- they stubbornly refuse to do it.