The WA Army Rule

[Separatist Peoples]

I really can't see how having a WA Army wouldn't just invite an element of forced RP. If peacekeepers/WA Police/WA Horde is sent in under X circumstances in a new proposal, nations would have to RP being under attack or occupation of some sort, or resort to blasting Ignore Cannons against the WA, which many see as godmodding.

I also think that, while the rule hasn't exactly prevented lousy roleplay, it's removal would likely incite a lot more.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Before we go too far down the route of abolishing the rule entirely, it's worth noting that even if it is retained there's significant disagreement over what it means. So I hope that if the consensus ends up being not to get rid of it, there would still be room for better clarifying its scope.

I really can't see how having a WA Army wouldn't just invite an element of forced RP. If peacekeepers/WA Police/WA Horde is sent in under X circumstances in a new proposal, nations would have to RP being under attack or occupation of some sort, or resort to blasting Ignore Cannons against the WA, which many see as godmodding.

I also think that, while the rule hasn't exactly prevented lousy roleplay, it's removal would likely incite a lot more.

No one ever "has to" roleplay anything in this game. We've had elsewhere in the forum moderators claiming the WA isn't even a roleplay game!

[Mousebumples]

No one ever "has to" roleplay anything in this game. We've had elsewhere in the forum moderators claiming the WA isn't even a roleplay game!

Thanks for taking my words out of context, but, yes, I did say that "forced roleplay" is not a part of the WA, so therefore forcing players to RP in response to WA laws passing is right out.

[Halloween Zombie Apocalypse]

The WA should be allowed to have an army. (Of the undead if it so choose.)

WA nations should be allowed to vote to spend their ill-gotten wealth on whatever the WA can use it for, as long as it doesn't interfere with the game mechanics themselves.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Things like Interpol or peacekeepers (actual peacekeepers...the ones who operate with the consent of the host country) should be allowed. Forces that can invade a member country without their consent may not directly constitute forced roleplay (because no one can RP the WA with authority), but in the meta-sense, yeah, they do, and they should not be permitted. This is not the Security Council, where people can act against you without your permission; we should keep it that way.

[Bears Armed]

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

How so?
One resolution to establish the relevant committee and set the terms under which it can order deployments, and maybeso one or two setting the relevant 'rules of engagement' or minimum quality for the troops contributed, and that's it...
Unless each separate deployment requires a separate resolution got authorization? But if that's made the case then I'd rather see 'Peacekeeping Deployment' made a new category for the SC rather than cluttering up the GA...

[The Dark Star Republic]

Interpol

Interpol is already allowed under the existing rule. I agree with you about peacekeepers, though: in fact, "Peacekeeping force" wasn't even part of the original rule, it was only added more recently.

[Bezombia]

I still don't understand why some people think that allowing the creation of an army directly equals the allowing of WA-sponsored invasions.

Like, I really have no idea how you guys are making that logical leap.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Interpol

Interpol is already allowed under the existing rule. I agree with you about peacekeepers, though: in fact, "Peacekeeping force" wasn't even part of the original rule, it was only added more recently.

As far as I know, ICPIN were only advisers to national police; they didn't have actual policing powers. If ICPIN did have such powers, would it have been legal?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Interpol is already allowed under the existing rule. I agree with you about peacekeepers, though: in fact, "Peacekeeping force" wasn't even part of the original rule, it was only added more recently.

As far as I know, ICPIN were only advisers to national police; they didn't have actual policing powers. If ICPIN did have such powers, would it have been legal?

Interpol doesn't have any police powers, either: ICPIN was pretty faithfully modeled on it. It's just a notification agency, really.

But that's kind of what I meant before: even if the rule is kept, it could serve to be clarified.

[Ainocra]

I support keeping it, after all the mission of the WA is International peace.

I can also see any number of your armiez now anzwerz to zee WA!

resolutions popping up.

Even if it were scrapped in it's current form there would have to be some serious protections for the member states, and indeed the non member states to prevent abuse.

[Christian Democrats]

I support keeping it, after all the mission of the WA is International peace.

Wouldn't the point of an international army be to keep the peace?

I can also see any number of your armiez now anzwerz to zee WA!

resolutions popping up.

Are there proposals like this now? Do such players even read the rules?

Even if it were scrapped in it's current form there would have to be some serious protections for the member states, and indeed the non member states to prevent abuse.

Non-member states are protected by other rules, and resolutions could provide the protections for member states that you want. Is "member states should be protected" a good rules argument, or is it a political argument?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I support keeping it, after all the mission of the WA is International peace.

Wouldn't the point of an international army be to keep the peace?

That all depends on what it's used for.

But that's kind of what I meant before: even if the rule is kept, it could serve to be clarified.

Yes, particularly in the case of ICC, which essentially gave the WA arrest and detention powers, and was declared legal for some reason.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The bottom line is that there is no distinguishable difference between peacekeepers, peacemakers, or a "WA army," and any other committee. While there are plenty of policy-minded reasons why an army is a bad idea, there's no basis in the rules for why one can't be attempted.

All the concerns raised so far are best solved through the drafting process. Like Kenny's preference for allowing peacekeeping but disallowing everything else. Or another poster's question of how peacekeeping or peace enforcement would work. Or whatever like that.

Additionally, some of the concerns are overstated. No, we won't get resolutions of players trying to declare war on their enemies through the WA. You can't target specific nations through resolutions. The WA is literally of no use to II, either. So whatever happens here or there is not going to harm or benefit either.

[Krioval]

The bottom line is that there is no distinguishable difference between peacekeepers, peacemakers, or a "WA army," and any other committee. While there are plenty of policy-minded reasons why an army is a bad idea, there's no basis in the rules for why one can't be attempted.

I disagree. Any WA military forces can only act through a nation's implicit consent - otherwise they can resign from the WA and WA forces are no longer allowed to act in their territory. So the threat of a WA invasion is neutralized by the rules directly. Therefore, if we must allow the WA to have any military powers, it should explicitly be limited to those activities that the rules currently support, namely, peacekeeping operations with the consent of governments involved.

[Tinfect]

I think we ought to drop this one. I never really saw the purpose of it, although it would have to be handled very carefully. I have always liked the idea/sound of WA Peacekeepers, but that might just be me.

[Flanderlion]

Edit: Delete this

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

The WA is meant to be an organisation of peace, where nations gather together to discuss laws. Instead it has become an anti-National Sovereignty organisation that passes laws that restrict the ability of a country to decide what would be right for itself.

Are you sure we are talking about the same World Assembly?

[Frisbeeteria]

OOC: Are we allowed to use Real-Life examples for this, I remember somewhere that is banned.

This is a discussion of rules, and is in no way in-character. If your RL examples are relevant, you can use them. Just don't bring in arguments that belong in General.

[Flanderlion]

Edit: Delete this

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

This is a discussion of rules, and is in no way in-character. If your RL examples are relevant, you can use them. Just don't bring in arguments that belong in General.

Sorry about that, and thanks.

The WA is a voluntary organisation, and shouldn't have the power (even if it does or doesn't use it) to make the organisation compulsory and be able to enforce it.

And what precisely would make it compulsory? If a resolution tried to do that, it would be illegal for metagaming (assuming that rule survives).

[Imperium Anglorum]

The WA is meant to be an organisation of peace, where nations gather together to discuss laws. Instead it has become an anti-National Sovereignty organisation that passes laws that restrict the ability of a country to decide what would be right for itself.

The WA not having a military is so that nations and regions can leave without the threat of violence.

No matter what intentions this 'Peace-Keeping Force' will have, over time, like countless other nations, who profess to be there to protect the peace, but instead invade nations that wish to be kept apart from them.

The WA has no need for a 'Peace-Keeping Force' because membership is only allowed if a nation follows the rules set by the WA delegations. If they do not follow the laws, they are removed, not invaded and forced back in.

Allowing the WA to have a military is a slippery slope which will likely end up with compulsory membership, and WA invasions of the uncompliant or unwilling nations, no matter what the intentions of the current delegations.

The Kingdom of Flanderlion is heavily against the proposed repeal of WA Military Act.

OOC: Are we allowed to use Real-Life examples for this, I remember somewhere that is banned.

This is a discussion about the rules of the General Assembly, a discussion about how to best free the creative potential of the NationStates community. What you're speaking of is a biased political change for personal reasons, and we can't have that, can we?

[Flanderlion]

The WA is meant to be an organisation of peace, where nations gather together to discuss laws. Instead it has become an anti-National Sovereignty organisation that passes laws that restrict the ability of a country to decide what would be right for itself.

The WA not having a military is so that nations and regions can leave without the threat of violence.

No matter what intentions this 'Peace-Keeping Force' will have, over time, like countless other nations, who profess to be there to protect the peace, but instead invade nations that wish to be kept apart from them.

The WA has no need for a 'Peace-Keeping Force' because membership is only allowed if a nation follows the rules set by the WA delegations. If they do not follow the laws, they are removed, not invaded and forced back in.

Allowing the WA to have a military is a slippery slope which will likely end up with compulsory membership, and WA invasions of the uncompliant or unwilling nations, no matter what the intentions of the current delegations.

The Kingdom of Flanderlion is heavily against the proposed repeal of WA Military Act.

OOC: Are we allowed to use Real-Life examples for this, I remember somewhere that is banned.

This is a discussion about the rules of the General Assembly, a discussion about how to best free the creative potential of the NationStates community. What you're speaking of is a biased political change for personal reasons, and we can't have that, can we?

I'm obviously not arguing for the right thing in the right forum. I'll delete my posts and clear out. Sorry for wasting your time.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The bottom line is that there is no distinguishable difference between peacekeepers, peacemakers, or a "WA army," and any other committee. While there are plenty of policy-minded reasons why an army is a bad idea, there's no basis in the rules for why one can't be attempted.

I disagree. Any WA military forces can only act through a nation's implicit consent - otherwise they can resign from the WA and WA forces are no longer allowed to act in their territory. So the threat of a WA invasion is neutralized by the rules directly. Therefore, if we must allow the WA to have any military powers, it should explicitly be limited to those activities that the rules formerly supported*, namely, peacekeeping operations with the consent of governments involved.

Fixed. The mods made a point of adding peacekeepers to the list of banned forces a few years ago.

[Blaccakre]

The WA Army Rule should be abolished:

(1) Godmodders are going to do that regardless of the rule. Anyone who would godmod the WA army into a role-play to "win" would also godmod every other WA nation coming to their side, or all of the birds and beasts of the forrest organizing an armed resistance to their enemies, or a single omnipotent super solider, or... I think I've made my point. The WA Army Rule does not, and cannot, prevent godmodding.

(2) The rule shuts off what should be a very productive area of international legislation and discussion. As an added benefit, that discussion might drown out the Abortion debate or the NAPA repeals for 5 minutes.

(3) There's no reason why the WA could not craft a legal proposal that forms an army in the same way it forms any other committee. An army is really no different, organizationally, than the WASP, or any other WA bureaucracy - it just has a different purpose.

(4) There's no reason to limit the WA Army to "peacekeeping." Let the voters decide, via legislation, how broad a function they want. Isn't that the point of a political simulation game? Most of this discussion seems to be that different people are okay with an army but want it to do different things/be limited to certain things. Let that issue go to the voters!

Thank you for your time.