The mandate of the Security Council

[Naivetry]

Behind many of the arguments being conducted across this subforum and in the GA thread is the question of the mandate of the Security Council.

There are two basic positions that have been staked out since the creation of this subforum.

Position 1: The World Assembly is still a single organization. Therefore, every piece of legislation it passes should be held up to a single standard, based as it always has been around the concept of a RP'd nation.

Position 2: The World Assembly is a single coded construct used in very different ways by different player groups. Therefore, now that a new subforum has been created to ease this transition, different types of resolutions can be created to deal with a wider range of concerns than WA legislation has historically addressed.

If these two positions are irreducible, then there can be no arrangement.

[movie reference]
Position 2 player: "Well, if there can be no arrangement, then it seems we are at an impasse."
Position 1 player: "I'm afraid so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains."
[/movie reference]

If we're going to resolve this without anyone dying, we either need to find a third position, or find some way to clearly discuss the merits of the first two, including whether or not they really represent absolute, non-negotiable approaches.

Perhaps to get people thinking: In addition to the initial creation reference in this thread, we have this description of the subforum, in classic NS style:

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

So, what is the mandate of the Security Council?

[Ballotonia]

Sounds like a question for the Admin.

This would also answer a lot about the other debate. If Admin takes position 1, then the SC is considered 100% roleplay and as such not interesting from a Gameplay perspective. Position 2 merely states that the current GA rules do not apply to the SC (or the WA at large), and that rules (if any) governing the SC still need to be formed. BTW, I've lost all faith that players will be able to write up rules by themselves. It's come down to a brawl between the roleplayers in the GA and Gameplay types, and the chasm strikes me as utterly unbridgeable.

Ballotonia

[Quintessence of Dust]

If these two positions are irreducible, then there can be no arrangement.

What was wrong with the existing one?

In school, I like playing field hockey. In uni, I liked watching ice hockey. I like both kinds of hockey. I don't see the need for the two to "compromise" on a rules set between them; entertaining as Joe Sakic taking on the Indian women's team at a penalty corner might be, I question it as a fundamental improvement on the two games.

[movie reference]

I trust I shouldn't read too much into the fact that, in that movie, player 1 is poisoned to death.

[Erastide]

If these two positions are irreducible, then there can be no arrangement.

What was wrong with the existing one?

I'm clueless what the mandate of the SC is, can you enlighten us if you have one?

I'm going to quote myself from here because it's about this discussion.

So, I wanted to go through the list of current resolutions and say (as a gameplayer and one who is clueless where the GA is concerned) where there are problems or could be problems.

#2:
Article 5. Definition of war. Not something that gameplayers ascribe to. War happens between regions. Individual nations have no real power when it comes to delegacy, you have to band together.
Article 10. WA remains neutral to international strife. The SC is looking to take an active part in strife.
#14 and a few more later.
They say individual nations, but it comes down to war not being between 2 nations anymore. But could also not be a real problem. The issue is that the GA deals with individual nations and what goes on within those nations. The SC is poised to deal both with individual nations and alliances (regions) of nations. But when it deals with an individual nation, it won't be affecting the rights and freedoms of citizens within that nation, it will affect how the nation can act as a whole.

Honestly, I'd be happy with no SC resolutions (aside from C&C) that deal with individuals. For one thing I think it'd be a waste to have the whole WA vote on doing some action to a single nation when that player could then just use a puppet instead of the nation that was sanctioned or whatever. Second, it would make integration with the GA side harder.

Can you come to agreement where the SC is (sorry for word choice here) regulating alliances between nations and not individuals within a nation?

The idea being that the SC is involved in regional matters, which take place between nations. Since the resolutions passed to date are concerned solely with internal matters or nation to nation, that doesn't seem that hard a divide.

I don't think the rules for GA proposals should just be transferred over the SC. I think they should be a good guideline and that most of them would be good to keep, but there will be differences and possibly new ones added according to the circumstances.

[Havensky]

I take position two.

I don't see why the same standards as the GA would apply to the SC. Mostly because of the metagaming rule in the General Assembly. If the metagaming rule went away in the WA, then I could see a case made for applying the same rules for both chambers.

As far as a mandate goes...I would state it as

The Security Council is responsible for relations between nations and regions.

It's narrow enough to specify just gameplay issues (as the only thing it's responsible for is stuff between nations..not stuff that actaully effect it's stats)...but vague enough to accommodate everything the SC could do.

[Todd McCloud]

I'm a leaner of position two. BUT, I'd like to add an interesting twist: what if the SC was completely separated from the typical WA body, and allowed to be its own entity where gameplayers and WA players can mingle together in. The body would have its own resolutions which can be voted on and passed simultaneously with the WA resolutions. *That* way the WA people may have their realm uninterrupted, and the SC would be allowed to grow with its own group of newer people - a creole of different players from both sides.

EDIT: as far as the SC goes, I feel it must be both IC and OOC, only because players have IC and OOC accomplishments, some which outweigh the others. For instance, Kandarin is a prime example of someone who can have accomplishments in IC and OOC situations. However, the writer of the C&C must choose which to write it for: he or she cannot switch from IC to OOC in the C&C. This makes metagaming trivial.

[Unibot]

I don't see why the same standards as the GA would apply to the SC. Mostly because of the metagaming rule in the General Assembly. If the metagaming rule went away in the WA, then I could see a case made for applying the same rules for both chambers.

As far as a mandate goes...I would state it as

I've always felt the metagaming rule seemed a little odd to me,

We don't metagame in GA proposals, because the WA can't claim to control what it doesn't have power over.

By yet, Nations and Delegates are in the WA, so why not talk about them in proposals?

I see a reason for the GA - writing form. Its better to write without the specifics of nations, regions.

But certainly the executive section of the WA which is dealing with specifics, and specific situations - should mention specifics.

Therefore at least in my mind, Metagaming isn't a problem. I'd fully support the compliance of the GA's laws in the SC - I think I've already stated that somewhere.

(still on vacation - just found a computer, and felt like feeding the addiction)