The WA Army Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Creating Military or Police Force

The WA cannot have or form a military, peace keeping force, the World Police or any other such variation. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I say we remove this rule immediately. Why should the WA not be permitted to send in peacekeepers? As long as you aren't referencing the Security Council in any way (even that could use some discussion) where is the problem? No one is going to force the mods into policing role-play as some have mentioned, as the mods are not the WA, they simply police the WA. Does the Secretary-General of U.N. go out and direct combat operations of U.N. forces? Sure it would be cool to see him riding around on a tank, but it isn't going to happen, the same as the mods are not going to police role-play. It is a stupid rule that cuts off a huge area of legislative avenues.

Auralia the floor is now yours....

[Christian Democrats]

Remove. This rule has nothing to do with anything. It's based purely on a subjective preference quite apart from the mechanics of the game. The GA can establish "committees" for everything else -- why not an army or an international police force?

[Luziyca]

Remove. This rule has nothing to do with anything. It's based purely on a subjective preference quite apart from the mechanics of the game. The GA can establish "committees" for everything else -- why not an army or an international police force?

I think the reason why this rule is in place is because it is to prevent n00bs from like "i am WA member, i ignore dis resolution bc i can" and other n00bs respond with "omgz, letz deploy da army/polis n make em do wat i sayz" in RP. Another example is someone threatening to use the WA army/police to get another nation to do what they want, even if they have not violated any resolutions.

[The Dark Star Republic]

If this rule is meant to discourage shitty roleplaying it hasn't exactly been a resounding success.

[Luziyca]

If this rule is meant to discourage shitty roleplaying it hasn't exactly been a resounding success.

Nowhere did I say that it was to discourage shitty roleplaying. It is so people cannot godmod the WA army/police for their own purposes and drag the WA army up into places where they shouldn't be.

[Christian Democrats]

It is so people cannot godmod the WA army/police for their own purposes

The problem seems to be godmodding, not a WA army. Propose a rule against that.

[The Dark Star Republic]

If this rule is meant to discourage shitty roleplaying it hasn't exactly been a resounding success.

Nowhere did I say that it was to discourage shitty roleplaying. It is so people cannot godmod the WA army/police for their own purposes and drag the WA army up into places where they shouldn't be.

Again, though, godmoding is not strictly against the rules of the roleplaying forums. And people actually have roleplayed WA peacekeepers before. The mods don't police roleplay so long as it's not offensive, spam, or illegal content.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The WA should be allowed to have an army, but on condition that they are limited to peace-keeping roles. This should allay the "god mode" concerns.

[Luziyca]

Nowhere did I say that it was to discourage shitty roleplaying. It is so people cannot godmod the WA army/police for their own purposes and drag the WA army up into places where they shouldn't be.

Again, though, godmoding is not strictly against the rules of the roleplaying forums. And people actually have roleplayed WA peacekeepers before. The mods don't police roleplay so long as it's not offensive, spam, or illegal content.

True, although it will get you ostracized within the roleplaying community, especially if you godmod too often.

Also, even if people have RPed WA peacekeepers before, they are not really WA peacekeepers since there is no official resolution related to WA peacekeepers. It would probably be a shortened term for a "multinational peacekeeping force of unknown origin."

The WA should be allowed to have an army, but on condition that they are limited to peace-keeping roles. This should allay the "god mode" concerns.

But, if Nation X and Nation Y were fighting a war. Neither of them want to have peacekeepers be deployed. Nation Z, a participant on the thread decides to propose a resolution to deploy the peacekeepers to both Nation X and Nation Y. It could count as interference in RP.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The WA should be allowed to have an army, but on condition that they are limited to peace-keeping roles. This should allay the "god mode" concerns.

But, if Nation X and Nation Y were fighting a war. Neither of them want to have peacekeepers be deployed. Nation Z, a participant on the thread decides to propose a resolution to deploy the peacekeepers to both Nation X and Nation Y. It could count as interference in RP.

It is not my intention to suggest legalising automatic deployment, but to provide for the availability of peacekeepers when required.

[Bezombia]

Again, though, godmoding is not strictly against the rules of the roleplaying forums. And people actually have roleplayed WA peacekeepers before. The mods don't police roleplay so long as it's not offensive, spam, or illegal content.

True, although it will get you ostracized within the roleplaying community, especially if you godmod too often.

Also, even if people have RPed WA peacekeepers before, they are not really WA peacekeepers since there is no official resolution related to WA peacekeepers. It would probably be a shortened term for a "multinational peacekeeping force of unknown origin."

The WA should be allowed to have an army, but on condition that they are limited to peace-keeping roles. This should allay the "god mode" concerns.

But, if Nation X and Nation Y were fighting a war. Neither of them want to have peacekeepers be deployed. Nation Z, a participant on the thread decides to propose a resolution to deploy the peacekeepers to both Nation X and Nation Y. It could count as interference in RP.

The WA doesn't have anything to do with RP, and the vast majority of RPers know this. Unless you're deliberately RPing in a world where the WA exists, and even then you can get around it by banning metaproposals in the GA.

[Luziyca]

It is so people cannot godmod the WA army/police for their own purposes

The problem seems to be godmodding, not a WA army. Propose a rule against that.

One does not simply get rid of godmodding. But you can take away a method of godmodding.

But, if Nation X and Nation Y were fighting a war. Neither of them want to have peacekeepers be deployed. Nation Z, a participant on the thread decides to propose a resolution to deploy the peacekeepers to both Nation X and Nation Y. It could count as interference in RP.

It is not my intention to suggest legalising automatic deployment.

Very well, Charlotte Ryberg. But if we do get rid of this rule, then what would the policy be for a peacekeeping deployment?

True, although it will get you ostracized within the roleplaying community, especially if you godmod too often.

Also, even if people have RPed WA peacekeepers before, they are not really WA peacekeepers since there is no official resolution related to WA peacekeepers. It would probably be a shortened term for a "multinational peacekeeping force of unknown origin."


But, if Nation X and Nation Y were fighting a war. Neither of them want to have peacekeepers be deployed. Nation Z, a participant on the thread decides to propose a resolution to deploy the peacekeepers to both Nation X and Nation Y. It could count as interference in RP.

The WA doesn't have anything to do with RP, and the vast majority of RPers know this. Unless you're deliberately RPing in a world where the WA exists, and even then you can get around it by banning metaproposals in the GA.

Which they're already banned.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

If this rule is meant to discourage shitty roleplaying it hasn't exactly been a resounding success.

Nowhere did I say that it was to discourage shitty roleplaying. It is so people cannot godmod the WA army/police for their own purposes and drag the WA army up into places where they shouldn't be.

I have participated in my share of role-play's and never once have I seen anyone bring the WA and it's laws into it. In fact most role-plays don't even acknowledge the existence of the WA as the WA is a separate role-play in itself.

It is not my intention to suggest legalising automatic deployment.

Very well, Charlotte Ryberg. But if we do get rid of this rule, then what would the policy be for a peacekeeping deployment?

That would be determined by the resolution(s) and the subsequent committee(s) wouldn't you think?

[Luziyca]

Nowhere did I say that it was to discourage shitty roleplaying. It is so people cannot godmod the WA army/police for their own purposes and drag the WA army up into places where they shouldn't be.

I have participated in my share of role-play's and never once have I seen anyone bring the WA and it's laws into it. In fact most role-plays don't even acknowledge the existence of the WA as the WA is a separate role-play in itself.

You may be among the lucky ones, who has not had to step into RPs where they bring in the WA and their laws. I am not so fortunate.

[Bezombia]

Which they're already banned.

That's my point. This isn't the WASC, we can't just pass a resolution saying we're going to invade someone.

But this rule doesn't prevent that - it prevents any army from being formed at all. And I don't see why that should be a rule.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I have participated in my share of role-play's and never once have I seen anyone bring the WA and it's laws into it. In fact most role-plays don't even acknowledge the existence of the WA as the WA is a separate role-play in itself.

You may be among the lucky ones, who has not had to step into RPs where they bring in the WA and their laws. I am not so fortunate.

So ignore WA law then. Are you a member state? If you're not then you don't have to follow their laws, and if you are role-play you are not a member state. Problem solved.

[Luziyca]

Which they're already banned.

That's my point. This isn't the WASC, we can't just pass a resolution saying we're going to invade someone.

But this rule doesn't prevent that - it prevents any army from being formed at all. And I don't see why that should be a rule.

Indeed. But I believe that it is the main aim, to try and keep n00bs from using the WA as a military organization to defeat their enemies. If this is repealed, the quality of the WA may not be affected, but International Incidents could see their quality drop significantly.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

You may be among the lucky ones, who has not had to step into RPs where they bring in the WA and their laws. I am not so fortunate.

So ignore WA law then. Are you a member state? If you're not then you don't have to follow their laws, and if you are role-play you are not a member state. Problem solved.

Lemme cut to this part 'ere: "and if you are role-play you are not a member state." It is quite ambiguous, if you ask me. Do you mean "if you are, role-play you are not a member state," "or "if you are roleplaying, you are not a member state?"

[Bezombia]

That's my point. This isn't the WASC, we can't just pass a resolution saying we're going to invade someone.

But this rule doesn't prevent that - it prevents any army from being formed at all. And I don't see why that should be a rule.

Indeed. But I believe that it is the main aim, to try and keep n00bs from using the WA as a military organization to defeat their enemies. If this is repealed, the quality of the WA may not be affected, but International Incidents could see their quality drop significantly.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

I find it difficult to believe that II could get any worse. The type of player that would metagame by using the WA to their 'aid' is the same type of player who would metagame in other respects, and thus is not worth considering (or RPing with).

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It is not my intention to suggest legalising automatic deployment.

Very well, Charlotte Ryberg. But if we do get rid of this rule, then what would the policy be for a peacekeeping deployment?

The peacekeeping force would be available for deployment, only on demand. It is beyond the WA's control to determine how roleplays are done, so I think this is the furtherest we can get.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If this rule is meant to discourage shitty roleplaying it hasn't exactly been a resounding success.

Given the quality of discussion in this thread I don't see how repealing it is going to improve things.

But, if Nation X and Nation Y were fighting a war. Neither of them want to have peacekeepers be deployed. Nation Z, a participant on the thread decides to propose a resolution to deploy the peacekeepers to both Nation X and Nation Y. It could count as interference in RP.

You don't deploy peacekeepers in the middle of a war. And you don't deploy peacekeepers without the consent of the administering government.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

If this rule is meant to discourage shitty roleplaying it hasn't exactly been a resounding success.

Given the quality of discussion in this thread I don't see how repealing it is going to improve things.

Nope that it won't, but it sure as hell will make the WA more interesting.

But, if Nation X and Nation Y were fighting a war. Neither of them want to have peacekeepers be deployed. Nation Z, a participant on the thread decides to propose a resolution to deploy the peacekeepers to both Nation X and Nation Y. It could count as interference in RP.

You don't deploy peacekeepers in the middle of a war. And you don't deploy peacekeepers without the consent of the administering government.

Icing on the cake.

[Frisbeeteria]

But if we do get rid of this rule, then what would the policy be for a peacekeeping deployment?

The peacekeeping force would be available for deployment, only on demand. It is beyond the WA's control to determine how roleplays are done, so I think this is the furtherest we can get.

Let's stop talking about the terms of peacekeeping forces. That's the subject of a resolution that assumes we've dropped this rule.

There have been several discussions on this topic already, with some excellent points made. Has anyone made the effort to link them or quote some of the more salient points?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The peacekeeping force would be available for deployment, only on demand. It is beyond the WA's control to determine how roleplays are done, so I think this is the furtherest we can get.

Let's stop talking about the terms of peacekeeping forces. That's the subject of a resolution that assumes we've dropped this rule.

There have been several discussions on this topic already, with some excellent points made. Has anyone made the effort to link them or quote some of the more salient points?

Since it has been some time since I was actively involved in the GA, you might want to put the salient points on the OP.

[Wrapper]

Okay, I've been butting out of the rules discussions because I'll play by whatever rules of the game are and, frankly, I've had better things to do with my time, with RL getting in the way. However....

I've been one who from an in-character perspective (uber-pacifist nation) makes quite a big deal about not having a national army and, by extension, a WA army. That said, I think getting rid of this as a rule and allowing it as an area where the WA can legislate would make for some interesting discussion and, for me, IC character development. It's true that the first thing I would do should GAR#2 be repealed would be to attempt to pass a "no WA army" resolution, but that's where such a rule would belong, in-character, where it can be debated, legislated, repealed, etc., and not as some charter rule that stifles such debate.

I would like to know what the rationale was for having this rule in the first place.