Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Costa Fierro]

Hey, look, I'm right!

No. North Korea's economy was bankrolled by the Soviet Union, who also was the main source of their fuel. When it died, so did the aid and fuel. Couple that to a series of natural disasters and Songun and you have North Korea's financial and economic hole it currently occupies.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

reapoast

Regular Police Uniform and Equipment

Uniform:

peaked cap
white short sleeve shirt
pants
jacket
gloves (sap, hard knuckles, puncture proof)
low boots (hard tip)

eyeshields

cap badge (only 1 issued)
badge (only 1 issued)

Equipment:

Body vest (NIJ 3A + Stab 2 protection)

Communications device
Badge holder
Taser X2 in level 2 holster w/ 2x taser cartridge
Pistol in level 2 holster w/ 1x pistol mag
2x spare pistol mag in 2x single mag pouch
8x spare taser cartridges in 2x quad cartridge pouch
telescopic baton in holder
flashlight in holder
5x plastic cuff pairs on carabiner
2x metal hinged cuff pairs in holder
disposable glove, non-sterile, 50 pack in holder
disposable mask, non-sterile, 25 pack in holder
small first aid kit in pouch
spray in pouch
multitool in pouch

service knife
chest-mounted flashlight
whistle

[Vorkova]

Hey, look, I'm right!

No. North Korea's economy was bankrolled by the Soviet Union, who also was the main source of their fuel. When it died, so did the aid and fuel. Couple that to a series of natural disasters and Songun and you have North Korea's financial and economic hole it currently occupies.

Economic hole? Best Korea is economic giant powered by cold fusion reactors!

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

bump . . .

EDIT: For my cop cars, I was considering this - imagine a modernized Mercury Marauder / Crown Vic P-71 (heavy duty / fleet/taxi spec) , LWB, possibly with a station wagon version. Now that's what I'd call a cruiser. I'll maybe do this someday.

[Britinthia]

Are direct-democracy and a two house parliment mutually exclusive?
My nation works as close as possible to direct democracy, allowing nationwide votes to be held if as little as 0.12% of the population (50,000) register their wish to hold a referendum. I also like the idea of an unelected, neutral upper house of lords (based upon the UK house of the same name), scrutinising laws before they are passed to make sure they make sense. However this seems to go against the idea of the people having their say be final.

Thoughts? Am I over-thinking this too much?

[Vorkova]

Are direct-democracy and a two house parliment mutually exclusive?
My nation works as close as possible to direct democracy, allowing nationwide votes to be held if as little as 0.12% of the population (50,000) register their wish to hold a referendum. I also like the idea of an unelected, neutral upper house of lords (based upon the UK house of the same name), scrutinising laws before they are passed to make sure they make sense. However this seems to go against the idea of the people having their say be final.

Thoughts? Am I over-thinking this too much?

I think the most important question here is how are your lords selected? I agree with the idea of an upper house scrutinising bills, but only if it's members are appointed through meritocracy.

[Britinthia]

Are direct-democracy and a two house parliment mutually exclusive?
My nation works as close as possible to direct democracy, allowing nationwide votes to be held if as little as 0.12% of the . population (50,000) register their wish to hold a referendum. I also like the idea of an unelected, neutral upper house of lords (based upon the UK house of the same name), scrutinising laws before they are passed to make sure they make sense. However this seems to go against the idea of the people having their say be final.

Thoughts? Am I over-thinking this too much?

I think the most important question here is how are your lords selected? I agree with the idea of an upper house scrutinising bills, but only if it's members are appointed through meritocracy.

Exactly that. They are mostly appointed through meritocracy, sometimes on the basis of having provided extraordinary service to the nation. Historically they would have been made up of the upper classes, but these days social class is all but non-existent.
I would also mention there are no political parties here, all independant MPs, so parties cant push their preferred candidate into Lords.

[Vorkova]

I think the most important question here is how are your lords selected? I agree with the idea of an upper house scrutinising bills, but only if it's members are appointed through meritocracy.

Exactly that. They are mostly appointed through meritocracy, sometimes on the basis of having provided extraordinary service to the nation. Historically they would have been made up of the upper classes, but these days social class is all but non-existent.
I would also mention there are no political parties here, all independant MPs, so parties cant push their preferred candidate into Lords.

I see no reason why your legislature shouldn't work under this structure. I recognise what you said about direct democracy and the people having the final say, but they can be wrong and "mob rule" isn't always right. A solid upper house which is appointed through meritocracy could prevent the passage of an undesirable bill through your legislature. Take the recent gay discrimination bill in Kansas as an example. It passed the lower house, but the senate refused to even consider it.

[Britinthia]

Exactly that. They are mostly appointed through meritocracy, sometimes on the basis of having provided extraordinary service to the nation. Historically they would have been made up of the upper classes, but these days social class is all but non-existent.
I would also mention there are no political parties here, all independant MPs, so parties cant push their preferred candidate into Lords.

I see no reason why your legislature shouldn't work under this structure. I recognise what you said about direct democracy and the people having the final say, but they can be wrong and "mob rule" isn't always right. A solid upper house which is appointed through meritocracy could prevent the passage of an undesirable bill through your legislature. Take the recent gay discrimination bill in Kansas as an example. It passed the lower house, but the senate refused to even consider it.

Good point. So now that works I have another question. Would it make more sense to have the Prime minister voted in by the voters from a list of candidates or elected by the parliment? Im happy to allow the PM to choose his or her own cabinet and government.

[Vorkova]

I see no reason why your legislature shouldn't work under this structure. I recognise what you said about direct democracy and the people having the final say, but they can be wrong and "mob rule" isn't always right. A solid upper house which is appointed through meritocracy could prevent the passage of an undesirable bill through your legislature. Take the recent gay discrimination bill in Kansas as an example. It passed the lower house, but the senate refused to even consider it.

Good point. So now that works I have another question. Would it make more sense to have the Prime minister voted in by the voters from a list of candidates or elected by the parliment? Im happy to allow the PM to choose his or her own cabinet and government.

If you want the people to be the real power in your nation then a direct election makes the most sense. You said you practice direct democracy so I assume your people could recall their PM too?

[Britinthia]

Good point. So now that works I have another question. Would it make more sense to have the Prime minister voted in by the voters from a list of candidates or elected by the parliment? Im happy to allow the PM to choose his or her own cabinet and government.

If you want the people to be the real power in your nation then a direct election makes the most sense. You said you practice direct democracy so I assume your people could recall the PM too?

If the PM was particularly unpopular then a re-election could be forced. I guess the best way would be to have a direct election even if it is a bit more complicated.

[Vorkova]

If you want the people to be the real power in your nation then a direct election makes the most sense. You said you practice direct democracy so I assume your people could recall the PM too?

If the PM was particularly unpopular then a re-election could be forced. I guess the best way would be to have a direct election even if it is a bit more complicated.

It will be more complicated and costly, but the idea of the legislature choosing the leader screams vote buying to me. I think a direct election is much fairer and closer to the idea of direct democracy.

[Bears Armed]

Would it make sense to have most civilian cars powered by steam? Like, with water boilers or some such? Or maybe wood burners? My justification is that petrol is rationed so frequently and personal civilian use ration cards get so little.

y u no ethanol

Growing crops to produce ethanol as fuel cuts into growing crops for food.
I would agree that liquid fuels are more practical than solid ones (such as logs), though: IIRC what most of the later steam-cars in RL used was paraffin (USA = 'kerosene'?).

[The Akasha Colony]

I think the most important question here is how are your lords selected? I agree with the idea of an upper house scrutinising bills, but only if it's members are appointed through meritocracy.

Exactly that. They are mostly appointed through meritocracy, sometimes on the basis of having provided extraordinary service to the nation. Historically they would have been made up of the upper classes, but these days social class is all but non-existent.
I would also mention there are no political parties here, all independant MPs, so parties cant push their preferred candidate into Lords.

Political parties seem to be a favorite target for hate, but at the same time, they are the natural outgrowth of a free election process. Even Switzerland, the closest to a direct democracy we currently have, has political parties.

The development of a political party comes about from the basic principle of shared interests. All it takes is two or more people to realize 'Hey, we've got a shared interest here, why don't we work together for mutual benefit?' to form the sort of associations that will lead to a coalition and in turn a modern political party. Unless the very concept of freedom of assembly is banned, any ban on political parties would be one in name only.

[Britinthia]

Exactly that. They are mostly appointed through meritocracy, sometimes on the basis of having provided extraordinary service to the nation. Historically they would have been made up of the upper classes, but these days social class is all but non-existent.
I would also mention there are no political parties here, all independant MPs, so parties cant push their preferred candidate into Lords.

Political parties seem to be a favorite target for hate, but at the same time, they are the natural outgrowth of a free election process. Even Switzerland, the closest to a direct democracy we currently have, has political parties.

The development of a political party comes about from the basic principle of shared interests. All it takes is two or more people to realize 'Hey, we've got a shared interest here, why don't we work together for mutual benefit?' to form the sort of associations that will lead to a coalition and in turn a modern political party. Unless the very concept of freedom of assembly is banned, any ban on political parties would be one in name only.

Well the very basis of parliament is to debate issues and if necessary take action on them. Of course there will be politicians on both sides who share ideals and opinions who will vote the same way, etc. The PM is always going to choose MPs who share similar ideas for government in order to help streamline the legislative process. This in itself will cause a divide, those in government and the rest of parliament.
However the concept of parties fighting for power is a flawed one and in my experience does more to harm than good. MPs start pushing the ideals of their parties rather than the voicing the concerns of their constituents.
If on the other hand the MPs are working to benefit the people they represent, forming temporary alliances only as the need arises then IMHO more people win overall.

I accept that I may very well be wrong, but my opinion is skewed by a government that doesn't work.

[The Akasha Colony]

However the concept of parties fighting for power is a flawed one and in my experience does more to harm than good. MPs start pushing the ideals of their parties rather than the voicing the concerns of their constituents.
If on the other hand the MPs are working to benefit the people they represent, forming temporary alliances only as the need arises then IMHO more people win overall.

I accept that I may very well be wrong, but my opinion is skewed by a government that doesn't work.

The problem is that the formation of political parties is an inherent outgrowth of the desire to compete and form competitive groups. An organized political coalition, commonly known as a 'party,' will be better able to use its voting power, influence, and money in a concerted manner, and will thus succeed over an unorganized, ad hoc alliance. There are numerous benefits to organizing in such a way, such as division of labor (party secretaries, treasurers, fundraisers, and PR chairs can all be selected to centralize the handling of affairs, ideally choosing those most capable of the job) and a unified front in government and public relations. An organized party is able to choose the best among its members as its public faces, which in turn allows less popular members to trade on the names of more popular ones for their benefit.

The only choice for this ad hoc alliance then is to organize itself similarly in order to maintain an even playing field. This is why labor unions, corporations, nonprofits, and even school clubs organize themselves in largely the same way. It's far easier and more efficient to operate as an organized group than as a random collection of personalities. If a contentious issue comes up for a debate, an organized party can have a committee sit down immediately to start formulating a policy, whereas a temporary alliance must waste time forming itself and persuading members to join. The initiative has thus been ceded to the organized party, who can propose legislation faster and begin a public relations campaign with a unified message more effectively.

If you were to ask most people living in democratic societies, each would likely decry the ineffectiveness of its government. Approval ratings of Congress in the US are nearing the single digits, and the government shut down last year. The French are fed up with their extreme tax rates, and the government just keeps laying on more. The Italians have had no share of scandals with Berlusconi and the poor economy and go through prime ministers faster than an Irishmen goes through Guinness. Greece is concerned about ultra-nationalist takeovers and the collapse of their economy. The Japanese don't seem to be able to keep a prime minister in office for more than a year; in fact, one of the more successful legislative tactics seems to be to offer the carrot of resignation if only the Diet will pass one last piece of legislation. The Germans complain about how much the Merkel government has been handing out to the troubled Eurozone economies. The Swiss have been torn over immigration, economic inequality, and taxes, although the limited power of their government means most of the debate focuses on referendums.

But these complaints have existed since democracy was first instituted. As the saying goes, democracy is the worst form of government except for every other that has been tried. The existence of parties is not the problem. Blind adherence to the party line is part of the problem, to be sure. But parties would form no matter what, because they offer compelling competitive advantages to their members. One can also blame the media, for furthering polarization on the issues and drawing an ever deeper line between political positions. The arcane rules of the legislature itself, for giving minority groups powers like the filibuster in the US. And even politicians serving their constituents over the good of the nation.

[Britinthia]

The problem is that the formation of political parties is an inherent outgrowth of the desire to compete and form competitive groups. An organized political coalition, commonly known as a 'party,' will be better able to use its voting power, influence, and money in a concerted manner, and will thus succeed over an unorganized, ad hoc alliance. There are numerous benefits to organizing in such a way, such as division of labor (party secretaries, treasurers, fundraisers, and PR chairs can all be selected to centralize the handling of affairs, ideally choosing those most capable of the job) and a unified front in government and public relations. An organized party is able to choose the best among its members as its public faces, which in turn allows less popular members to trade on the names of more popular ones for their benefit.

The only choice for this ad hoc alliance then is to organize itself similarly in order to maintain an even playing field. This is why labor unions, corporations, nonprofits, and even school clubs organize themselves in largely the same way. It's far easier and more efficient to operate as an organized group than as a random collection of personalities. If a contentious issue comes up for a debate, an organized party can have a committee sit down immediately to start formulating a policy, whereas a temporary alliance must waste time forming itself and persuading members to join. The initiative has thus been ceded to the organized party, who can propose legislation faster and begin a public relations campaign with a unified message more effectively.

If you were to ask most people living in democratic societies, each would likely decry the ineffectiveness of its government. Approval ratings of Congress in the US are nearing the single digits, and the government shut down last year. The French are fed up with their extreme tax rates, and the government just keeps laying on more. The Italians have had no share of scandals with Berlusconi and the poor economy and go through prime ministers faster than an Irishmen goes through Guinness. Greece is concerned about ultra-nationalist takeovers and the collapse of their economy. The Japanese don't seem to be able to keep a prime minister in office for more than a year; in fact, one of the more successful legislative tactics seems to be to offer the carrot of resignation if only the Diet will pass one last piece of legislation. The Germans complain about how much the Merkel government has been handing out to the troubled Eurozone economies. The Swiss have been torn over immigration, economic inequality, and taxes, although the limited power of their government means most of the debate focuses on referendums.

But these complaints have existed since democracy was first instituted. As the saying goes, democracy is the worst form of government except for every other that has been tried. The existence of parties is not the problem. Blind adherence to the party line is part of the problem, to be sure. But parties would form no matter what, because they offer compelling competitive advantages to their members. One can also blame the media, for furthering polarization on the issues and drawing an ever deeper line between political positions. The arcane rules of the legislature itself, for giving minority groups powers like the filibuster in the US. And even politicians serving their constituents over the good of the nation.

I can't argue with you, you are quite right. Everything you have said is a symptom of the (western) society we live in. I say symptom over cause or effect because that's what it is, a nasty side effect of having hundreds, if not thousands of years of social evolution clashing with contemporary governing ideals and methods that just aren't going to work until we change our entire view of life.
My short answers must be annoying now, but I really don't have a defence.

My only rebuttal is that, in context of NS, I can say that my nation's citizens have been able to evolve in a different manner, a way in which people are happy and relaxed and have different priorities (doing the right thing, helping others over gaining power and wealth). Coupled with a strict constitution that restricts the formation of parties. So for me it works, even though as far as RL goes its seriously flawed.

[Britinthia]

Embassies. On NS they seem to be heavily armed with rifle armed. special forces style guards, and have 50+ staff. They operate out of buildings that make the White House look like a shack. This to me seems like far too much.

What are sensible amounts of staff to have?
I reckon i need, for an average embassy;
1 Ambassador + family.
3-4 diplomatic staff, on 12 month rotation,
6 service staff, hired locally as needed,
3-4 security, pepperspray - baton - taser as appropriate, on 12 month rotation.
1 car, bought locally if possible.

If i have embassies in 200 nations. Thats 3000 personnel and 200 vehicles. A cost of around 95,000,000NS per year. Im not sure I could justify more than that tbh.

[Radictistan]

To be fair, U.S. embassies built since 9/11 make most NS embassies look like shacks.

[Britinthia]

To be fair, U.S. embassies built since 9/11 make most NS embassies look like shacks.

This is true. Thats sort of why I am asking here. When i searched the net I got mostly lolol 15,000 strong U.S. embassies.

[Bears Armed]

It depends on how much you actually have to do with the other nation involved.

A major embassy could easily have more than diplomatic staff than you suggest, not just for general 'diplomatic' duties but also as specialised Attachés of various kinds (defence, commercial, legal, cultural, etc). There could be a 'Consular section' attached to help visitors to that country from your own nation. Are the staff there responsible for issuing visas for travel from that nation into yours, and if so then how much work does that entail?
Is the security situation such that you need [non-'local'] cypher clerks and at least one radio operator? Is the surrounding city "safe", or do your people need security personnel as escorts when travelling around? Is the local cuisine "suitable" enough or do you "need" to import your own cook?

[Britinthia]

It depends on how much you actually have to do with the other nation involved.

A major embassy could easily have more than diplomatic staff than you suggest, not just for general 'diplomatic' duties but also as specialised Att. achés of various kinds (defence, commercial, legal, cultural, etc). There could be a 'Consular section' attached to help visitors to that country from your own nation. Are the staff there responsible for issuing visas for travel from that nation into yours, and if so then how much work does that entail?
Is the security situation such that you need [non-'local'] cypher clerks and at least one radio operator? Is the surrounding city "safe", or do your people need security personnel as escorts when travelling around? Is the local cuisine "suitable" enough or do you "need" to import your own cook?

Well my embassies are responsible for issuing visas, which entails issuing and review of applications, and face-to-face interviews in some cases. I expect to have a consular attachment. I dont foresee any security situation requiring more than a token security presence. I am sure some ambassadors may wish Britinthian cooks, but again its not a massive outlay.

[Radictistan]

Unfortunately I can't imagine that asking around for embassy employee tallies would be well received.

[Britinthia]

Unfortunately I can't imagine that asking around for embassy employee tallies would be well received.

In RL? That'd probably end up with me being tased alot. D:

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Embassies. On NS they seem to be heavily armed with rifle armed. special forces style guards, and have 50+ staff. They operate out of buildings that make the White House look like a shack. This to me seems like far too much.

What are sensible amounts of staff to have?
I reckon i need, for an average embassy;
1 Ambassador + family.
3-4 diplomatic staff, on 12 month rotation,
6 service staff, hired locally as needed,
3-4 security, pepperspray - baton - taser as appropriate, on 12 month rotation.
1 car, bought locally if possible.

If i have embassies in 200 nations. Thats 3000 personnel and 200 vehicles. A cost of around 95,000,000NS per year. Im not sure I could justify more than that tbh.

It's fine by me if you don't like guns but most people for whatever reason seem to merge the issue of unarmed population with the issue of unarmed police/security, they aren't the same thing and they are not mutually inclusive so to speak. Also 99% of the arguments for one do not apply to the other. This seems to be a trend. Rifle armed =/= special forces and IRL this is the norm for many embassies located in high or medium threat zones, not only for the US. This hoplophobia thingy is going a bit over the top, I mean, come on, if you don't arm even your embassy guards with firearms then who do you? Does your military have an Armed Response Branch?