The WA Army Rule

[Tzorsland]

For the life of me I simply just do not understand why people want to eliminate this rule so badly. Given the nature of the General Assembly it makes no sense whatsoever. The WA/GA is not like the Real World GA or like the WA/SC. No resolutions can target a specific nation. All resolutions target all WA members uniformly through the appropriate stat wank.

So there is literally nothing the WA Army can do. It's not like you can suddenly invade Tzorsland. Since there is no mechanism to get the WA involved in specific incidents (impacting nations in a non uniform manner) there is no way the WA Army can be deployed in a non uniform manner. It becomes even more obvious when you start to custom code the stat wanks. A WA Army would force every nation to increase it's own military. Seeing that this is no different from forcing every WA Army to increase their own military, is this really even worth the effort?

[Bezombia]

For the life of me I simply just do not understand why people want to eliminate this rule so badly. Given the nature of the General Assembly it makes no sense whatsoever. The WA/GA is not like the Real World GA or like the WA/SC. No resolutions can target a specific nation. All resolutions target all WA members uniformly through the appropriate stat wank.

So there is literally nothing the WA Army can do. It's not like you can suddenly invade Tzorsland. Since there is no mechanism to get the WA involved in specific incidents (impacting nations in a non uniform manner) there is no way the WA Army can be deployed in a non uniform manner. It becomes even more obvious when you start to custom code the stat wanks. A WA Army would force every nation to increase it's own military. Seeing that this is no different from forcing every WA Army to increase their own military, is this really even worth the effort?

Who said we were going to pass resolutions to invade people?

[Tzorsland]

Who said we were going to pass resolutions to invade people?

So the purpose of the army is to get everyone's generals to get together and sing Kumbaya? The only major role playing arm of this game doesn't even recognize the WA. (Personally I think we have a bigger problem in this game with the three factions that each refuse to acknowledge the other factions than we have with internal WA policies.)

[Bezombia]

Who said we were going to pass resolutions to invade people?

So the purpose of the army is to get everyone's generals to get together and sing Kumbaya? The only major role playing arm of this game doesn't even recognize the WA. (Personally I think we have a bigger problem in this game with the three factions that each refuse to acknowledge the other factions than we have with internal WA policies.)

Why would role playing be relevant in a discussion about WA?


Does seriously nobody here understand what the rule is actually banning?

[Tzorsland]

Does seriously nobody here understand what the rule is actually banning?

Because there is no functional difference between nations operating under a WA army banner and nations operating under their own separate banners.

If everyone increases their military for cause X, then increasing the military to unite under a single flag for cause X is the same practical thing.

Consider WWII ... you didn't need the League of Nations to allow the Allied nations to fight together. You didn't need the common flag.

But the problem remains. From a GA perspective, there is nothing every single nation in the WA can get together to fight against in the first place.

[Bezombia]

Does seriously nobody here understand what the rule is actually banning?

Because there is no functional difference between nations operating under a WA army banner and nations operating under their own separate banners.

If everyone increases their military for cause X, then increasing the military to unite under a single flag for cause X is the same practical thing.

Consider WWII ... you didn't need the League of Nations to allow the Allied nations to fight together. You didn't need the common flag.

But the problem remains. From a GA perspective, there is nothing every single nation in the WA can get together to fight against in the first place.

Those points are worth raising against the creation of a WA army. They are not, however, particularly relevant to an OOC discussion as to whether the WA should be allowed to have that debate.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

(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.

Unless you're proposing that WA forces be made up of stateless gnomes, like committees are, then no. They really are different, organizationally, functionally and fundamentally, than any other WA bureaucracy. There would have to be some sort of explanation as to why armies can be made up of personnel from member states, but committees cannot. Committees cannot violate anyone's territorial sovereignty, either, so there again, is a dramatic difference.

Finally, the establishment of an army by itself has no real statistical effect on a member state, except that a resolution dictating such may have a minor effect on member state's stability, being that overall they would have less jurisdictional control over their own territory. In the present category system, that would be Furtherment of Democracy. Does that mean establishing an army necessarily increases political freedoms? I wouldn't say so. What would be the proper statistical adjustment for a resolution simply establishing an army, nothing more.

This may mean that those advocating the abolition of both the no-armies rule, and the committee-only rule may need to rethink their position. It's clear any army would have to be added to functional legislation with actual statistical effect on members (presumably in the human-rights arena); otherwise, it's practically null.

(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!

There is no point to invading any member country when they can always resign and get around a military intervention. Unless we're throwing the jurisdictional question out the window entirely to declare that the WA can affect all states, member or not, whenever they feel like, whether affected countries like it or not. The only way this rule can work is if the forces are working with the consent of the host nation. That means peacekeeping and international policing - not humanitarian intervention, just because it sounds nice.

Add to that, at the risk of sounding elitist, I have very little respect for opinions coming from people who use the WA as a debate parlor, who neither draft legislation nor help others in their drafts, and therefore have no respect for the process, coming in here and declaring that rules should be tossed out wholesale, just because things like a WA army sound like fun. They may sound fun, but there are functional hurdles we need to clear first before we can actually make a new regime on WA intervention work.

[Blaccakre]

Unless you're proposing that WA forces be made up of stateless gnomes, like committees are, then no. They really are different, organizationally, functionally and fundamentally, than any other WA bureaucracy. There would have to be some sort of explanation as to why armies can be made up of personnel from member states, but committees cannot. Committees cannot violate anyone's territorial sovereignty, either, so there again, is a dramatic difference.

I agree that's a change that should probably be made to the committee rules as well. But we already have resolutions that require member nations to task certain individuals with WA related duties (Read the Resolution, and WA Trade Conferences (or whatever Auralia called that stupid thing) spring to mind as resolutions that require member nations to send some person from their nation to do some task). A WA army could be made up of "regiments sent by the member nations" the same way members are required to staff a resolution reading room or send econ nerds to trade summits. Point is, there's already some precedent for member nations to send individuals from their nations to do WA mandated things/participate in WA mandated events.

I must admit I've never heard that "committees cannot violate anyone's territorial sovereignty", but I imagine that's a product of the no army/police rule. If we changed that rule, presumably committees could "enforce" their duties over and above the good faith cooperation requirement we see in many resolutions. But that's a tangential, if related matter.

Finally, the establishment of an army by itself has no real statistical effect on a member state, except that a resolution dictating such may have a minor effect on member state's stability, being that overall they would have less jurisdictional control over their own territory. In the present category system, that would be Furtherment of Democracy. Does that mean establishing an army necessarily increases political freedoms? I wouldn't say so. What would be the proper statistical adjustment for a resolution simply establishing an army, nothing more.

This may mean that those advocating the abolition of both the no-armies rule, and the committee-only rule may need to rethink their position. It's clear any army would have to be added to functional legislation with actual statistical effect on members (presumably in the human-rights arena); otherwise, it's practically null.

This is a good point I hadn't thought of. Under the current categories, there isn't a neat place to put "WA Army." But that's not a reason for a no-WA Army rule. If there was no place to put the arm categorically, then the reason why there can't be a WA Army is that any such army would be a category violation, not because some game rule says you can't. The fact that there's no neat place for the army categorically does not tell us anything about the merits of the no army rule.

I do find that players can be terribly creative in fitting ideas to categories. On the chance someone was able to conceive of a WA army that did fit in an appropriate category, it should be legal to pursue that.

There is no point to invading any member country when they can always resign and get around a military intervention. Unless we're throwing the jurisdictional question out the window entirely to declare that the WA can affect all states, member or not, whenever they feel like, whether affected countries like it or not. The only way this rule can work is if the forces are working with the consent of the host nation. That means peacekeeping and international policing - not humanitarian intervention, just because it sounds nice.

There are some WA laws that find a way to reach non-member nations, mostly by making services available to non-members or "incentivizing" non-members to cooperate with members in various ventures. The Sustainable Fishing Act comes to mind.

However, I do see your point. The WA Army presumably could not, for instance, invade a non-member nation with a psychotic dictator to take that individual out, as that would violated the jurisdiction of the WA by affecting things outside of the WA. But I still see that as a separate rule. If a WA army proposal tried to, say direct the army to destroy all non-member nations, that would be illegal for affecting non-members. That rule tells us nothing about whether a proposal could, say, establish an army that would oust a foreign invading force from within a member nation. Again, I think the better move is to remove the No Army rule and allow member nations to experiment to try to come up with a WA Army that still respects harder (i.e. game mechanics related) rules like WA jurisdiction.

Add to that, at the risk of sounding elitist, I have very little respect for opinions coming from people who use the WA as a debate parlor, who neither draft legislation nor help others in their drafts, and therefore have no respect for the process, coming in here and declaring that rules should be tossed out wholesale, just because things like a WA army sound like fun. They may sound fun, but there are functional hurdles we need to clear first before we can actually make a new regime on WA intervention work.

First off, much of your response was a reasoned counterpoint to my argument. So good on you for that!

I just want to point out with respect to the last bit that some nations that appear new may, in fact, be players with considerable experience who have come back from a hiatus and decided to found a new nation rather than reclaim their old one. Mind you, I'm not claiming to be such a nation, just that it's possible some nations are. In any case, even assuming I am one of those "people who use the WA as a debate parlor, who neither draft legislation nor help others in their drafts, and therefore have no respect for the process," even I can make cogent points about the ruleset that should not be dismissed as coming from an inferior authority on the WA.

[Christian Democrats]

The best category for a WA army clearly would be International Security (a resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets). Presumably, nations would need to spend more on their soldiers in order to hand them over to the WA.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

And this is like any other bureaucracy in the WA? Statistical effect is determined not by any effect it would have on all nations, but on those who choose to contribute? What if the WA force is called to counter chemical/biological warfare in a member state (Global Disarmament), or ethnic cleansing (Human Rights), or to deliver aid to disadvantaged populations (Social Justice)? Usually, when a committee is empaneled (remember: an army is just like any other committee!), it is the effect the committee has on global policy that is key. Now not only is effect irrelevant, it is completely inverse to what really matters: how will this affect the advantaged donor nations who don't need the WA's help?

Just like any other committee!

EDIT: written early in the morning...sorry if it doesn't sound very constructive.

[Unibot III]

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.

Not so sure about that, the WA bases consent on term of membership, Omigodtheykilledkenny.

There are two more basic things that need to be satisfied:

- A WA Army cannot target specific nations or regions by name. (Under the current metagaming rules)
- It cannot target non-WA nations (under current rules).

But if the terms of where the WA Army deploys is generalised (e.g., the WA Army will deploy in all cases of genocide - R2P, for example), there is nothing to say that this deployment isn't consensual, per se. You could leave the WA - like we always tell member-states whenever there is a policy we don't like. Now, I don't like this idea and I wouldn't vote for such a proposal, but I don't think the rules should block us from pursuing certain topics just because players don't like the outcome.

In my mind, that's what the WA Army is - it's a rule looking for a legitimate justification.

Also I should add that when I was thinking of R2P - it occurred to me that the WA Army rule not only blocks the creation of a united front, but establishing a military coalition of the willing between member-states.

[Imperializt Russia]

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....

As I recall it being put to me, if a nation was invaded by the WA army (which is presumably as invincible as the gnomes are omniscient) they could resign from the WA and rejoin - the WA army having mysteriously vanished and their crimes forgotten.

It'd be like the guys aboard Nebuchadnezzar hitting the wrong switch and sending a huge glitch through the Matrix.

[Frisbeeteria]

(which is presumably as invincible as the gnomes are omniscient)

This seems to be a common theme, which I believe is entirely misguided.

The UN Peacekeepers don't consist of one platoon each from all 193 member nations. A typical peacekeeper force might consist of representatives from half a dozen countries that are neutral in that particular conflict. Nobody deploys everywhere, and deployments don't affect anyone.

In the same sense, a WA army (whether peacekeeping or otherwise) wouldn't deploy forces from 22,445 member nations. Instead, it would be a roleplay opportunity for people to place an official neutral force into existing conflicts. It wouldn't necessarily by a pure Non-Player-Character, either. I could easily see one player/nation marshalling forces from several other (voluntarily committed) nations to act as umpires / barriers / medics / neutrals.

The idea that one side of a roleplay could summon an Unbeatable Behemoth Army to put an end to the conflict is absurd. Heck, half the time in RL, the UN Peacekeepers aren't even issued ammunition, and they're frequently outgunned and out-armored. Why does anyone expect a sanctioned WA army to be that much more powerful?

[Phydios]

In the same sense, a UN army...

I think you meant "WA" there. That confused me for a second.

[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.

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.

This is not true. The WA can do anything it wants without the consent of its members. Want to get out its all-powerful clutch? Resign and become a non-member.

The notion that any kind of military force -- be it peacekeepers or an iron-fist global army -- needs the consent of those it acts upon is a policy argument, not something that can be found in a rule set that largely enforces the restraints of game mechanics.

Everything you say about military forces must square with the rules on committees. We do not require consent for the activities of committees. You are reaching into the territory of roleplay and trying to use a game mechanics argument to enforce your own policy preference. The reality is that your argument applies to any committee: they have to cease to operate in a nation when it becomes a non-member. That is not a problem for the existing committee rule, so it is not a problem for a glorified military committee.

@Kenny: I find your argument that a "WA Army" is fundamentally different to be lackluster. You are ignoring the fact that committees can and do coordinate the activities of national agencies. Since we are using peacekeeping as an example in this thread, I don't see the issue. Peacekeeping through the auspices of an intergovernmental organization is merely coordination among national military forces. No IO has an army of its own-- it simply has rules and procedures for how national forces should integrate and coordinate on a mission.

We do this with committees already. There is no rule that prohibits committees from intermingling with, or even directing, national agencies. I could write a resolution that has a committee supplanting all the FDAs of the world, and it would be perfectly legal.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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.

This is not true. The WA can do anything it wants without the consent of its members. Want to get out its all-powerful clutch? Resign and become a non-member.

You miss the point entirely, and yet get it perfectly. The very fact that members can resign to get out of it would render it pretty much pointless to try and invade non-cooperative countries and make them do what we want them to. Since we can no longer do anything to them after they leave, the mission would be over before it even started. Which is why sending in troops with the consent of the host nation is the only option that makes sense.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

This is not true. The WA can do anything it wants without the consent of its members. Want to get out its all-powerful clutch? Resign and become a non-member.

You miss the point entirely, and yet get it perfectly. The very fact that members can resign to get out of it would render it pretty much pointless to try and invade non-cooperative countries and make them do what we want them to. Since we can no longer do anything to them after they leave, the mission would be over before it even started. Which is why sending in troops with the consent of the host nation is the only option that makes sense.

Why are we only talking about WA armies? I believe police fall under the same rule do they not? An agency similar to INTERPOL with arrest powers in any nation would still be doable. You would simply have to mandate that such a police force pursue wanted criminals by any means necessary, and that would give them full WA authority to enter any nation membership be damned would it not?

The whole point of this is not to give the WA power to invade other nations, and if it did, I would oppose any such resolution that tried to mandate it. It is to give the WA the power to intervene if member or non-member nations wish it. Any army should still be directly under the origin nations command, and perhaps be permitted to fly the WA flag and be afforded protections by WA law? Nations wishing to form a coalition are still permitted to do so, even under the current rule set, so I really am failing to see the problem here.

[Krioval]

Why are we only talking about WA armies? I believe police fall under the same rule do they not? An agency similar to INTERPOL with arrest powers in any nation would still be doable. You would simply have to mandate that such a police force pursue wanted criminals by any means necessary, and that would give them full WA authority to enter any nation membership be damned would it not?

The whole point of this is not to give the WA power to invade other nations, and if it did, I would oppose any such resolution that tried to mandate it. It is to give the WA the power to intervene if member or non-member nations wish it. Any army should still be directly under the origin nations command, and perhaps be permitted to fly the WA flag and be afforded protections by WA law? Nations wishing to form a coalition are still permitted to do so, even under the current rule set, so I really am failing to see the problem here.

Under what authority can a WA-created organization enter a sovereign non-WA nation without permission? Further, what authority grants a WA-created organization *any* power over non-WA nations? The entire point of the WA is that membership is explicitly voluntarily, and that resolutions cannot be applied to nonmembers by fiat. Certainly a non-WA nation could cooperate with a WA-sanctioned organization/authority, but they are under no compulsion to do so.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is not true. The WA can do anything it wants without the consent of its members. Want to get out its all-powerful clutch? Resign and become a non-member.

You miss the point entirely, and yet get it perfectly. The very fact that members can resign to get out of it would render it pretty much pointless to try and invade non-cooperative countries and make them do what we want them to. Since we can no longer do anything to them after they leave, the mission would be over before it even started. Which is why sending in troops with the consent of the host nation is the only option that makes sense.

Yeah, and that's a good policy argument to make against a resolution that tries to put troops on the ground of an uncooperative member state. That is not an argument on how a WA Army is fundamentally different from a committee and should thus fall under a different rule altogether. Your argument applies perfectly to any old committee, yet we allow committees still to exist.

[New Zorga]

About this rule,

Personally, I think it would be kinda cool if the WA had a supranational peacekeeping force. However, would it work? No Why? because the WA Army cant be in thousands of nations at once.It can't possibly be done. Even if we implement a certain resolution in which we can vote upon, like condemnations and commendations, it would only effect that one nation...and for what, large political instability or a government change? Nations and nation states users have the freedom to change what they want to be. If I wanted to, I could be a kingdom, republic, fascist state, communist state, or an anarchy in 10 minutes if I wanted to.

It just wouldn't work, unless nations pretend that the WA has an army and that they are in that nation for the roleplaying purpose only. And even then, it still wouldn't be official. Besides, the WA Army cant be used as an enforcing tool. WA members violate the "passed resolutions" all the time. There is simply no way it could operate or work.

A cool idea, but no possible way it could be implemented.

(Also, this is my first post, regarding WA affairs. I hope I did good!)

[Frisbeeteria]

No Why? because the WA Army cant be in thousands of nations at once.It can't possibly be done.

Sure it can. Read this post.

It just wouldn't work, unless nations pretend that the WA has an army and that they are in that nation for the roleplaying purpose only. And even then, it still wouldn't be official.

That is precisely how it would work. It would be up to the individual players to roleplay, and it would NEVER be official. Or more accurately, it wouldn't be "canon". We're not likely to add a "Deploy the WA Army" option in the SC, as it's strictly a roleplay device.

There is only one thing that an individual nation can do to another individual nation, and that is to force them to change regions via ejection. The WA as a body can make minor changes in a nation's stats, but moving an army in for whatever purpose wouldn't destroy their economy, or kill their citizens, or damage their infrastructure. It's 100% roleplay.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It just wouldn't work, unless nations pretend that the WA has an army and that they are in that nation for the roleplaying purpose only. And even then, it still wouldn't be official.

That is precisely how it would work. It would be up to the individual players to roleplay, and it would NEVER be official. Or more accurately, it wouldn't be "canon". We're not likely to add a "Deploy the WA Army" option in the SC, as it's strictly a roleplay device.

It's worth noting that all WA-derived roleplay is non-canon like this. If you roleplay a deadly pandemic outbreak and involve the World Health Authority, and suddenly your nation becomes a giant quarantine zone effectively controlled by the WHA, then that's all non-canon. Mods aren't going to roleplaying the WHA for you, or act as some kind of Dungeon Master. The same applies to any committee, just as it would apply to peacekeeping or other WA-derived interventions.

[Tzorsland]

Instead, it would be a roleplay opportunity for people to place an official neutral force into existing conflicts.

OK, I'm game here, A "roleplay opportunity" you say? Where? II doesn't even recognize the WA in the first place. (I'm not even sure they even recognize the game stats, it's one of the reasons why I don't generally go there in the first place.) Such role play would definitely not be allowed in the GA forum ... the Stranger's Bar is tolerated because of tradition only.

The fact is that NS is divided into three factions that never talk to each other, the Role Players of II, the Game Players of the SC and the legislation writers of the WA. People don't want an army for "role play" purposes, they just want to legislate a WA Army because that's what the cool folks at the UN do.

[Glen-Rhodes]

And? Why is that justification for the rule? Literally everything we do here is just doing "what the cool folks at the UN do."

[Divergia]

Considering that the only use for it would be as a RPing Plot device and would be in-able to effect in-game stats I say we should repeal this rule.