The International Sovereign Coalition (ISC) (Signups)

[New Tuva SSR]

You made a slight mistake in the OP. You forgot the "People's" in People's United States of Tuva SSR.

Fixed! Apologies.

No problem.

[New Tuva SSR]

Can I be Director of Foreign Affairs?

[Guadalupador]

Can I be Director of Foreign Affairs?

Get in line, Tuva.

[Patrick OConner]

do we need to reapply since the app has been changed? Also can i get director of justice? Side note i think the armed forces should be subdivided a bit more.

[Aeyariss]

Can I be Director of Foreign Affairs?

Aren't you USN Foreign Affairs already?

[Aeyariss]

Oh I'm just an observer

Still somewhat unready to dive back in.

Well maybe one day. One day.

[Alexiandra]

Can I be Director of Foreign Affairs?

I'll add you to the list. Anyone else?

do we need to reapply since the app has been changed? Also can i get director of justice? Side note i think the armed forces should be subdivided a bit more.

Anyone else wanna run for DoJ?

[The United Remnants of America]

Can I be Director of Foreign Affairs?

Get in line, Tuva.

I think you mean in line behind me, yesyes?

[Great Carlistan]

What are you thinking when you say divide the armed forces? I can imagine that overly complicating things. It might make communication more difficult... do you have a concept?

[New Tuva SSR]

Can I be Director of Foreign Affairs?

Aren't you USN Foreign Affairs already?

Yes.

[Patrick OConner]

What are you thinking when you say divide the armed forces? I can imagine that overly complicating things. It might make communication more difficult... do you have a concept?

Split into three branches ground air and sea

[Pillowlandia]

Given that the forcrs would be a QRF at most , since futher forces would simply be coordinating allied troops, that would make it more complicated then needed.

[Patrick OConner]

Given that the forcrs would be a QRF at most , since futher forces would simply be coordinating allied troops, that would make it more complicated then needed.

I think that QRF will end up being that in name only. If it is to have any kind of punch it will need to be larger. plus you have the whole ground commander who has never been on ships suddenly assgined to command one possiblity

[Taigawa]

Given that the forcrs would be a QRF at most , since futher forces would simply be coordinating allied troops, that would make it more complicated then needed.

I think that QRF will end up being that in name only. If it is to have any kind of punch it will need to be larger. plus you have the whole ground commander who has never been on ships suddenly assgined to command one possiblity

Such incompitence can only lead to defeat.

[The United Remnants of America]

I think that QRF will end up being that in name only. If it is to have any kind of punch it will need to be larger. plus you have the whole ground commander who has never been on ships suddenly assgined to command one possiblity

Such incompitence can only lead to defeat.

Or greatness.

[Semolia]

I have some idea for ISC,
We should form Security Council that will make decisions by Resolutions. 3 Permanent members (or more, they have power of veto, top 2 countries which have largest military and economy and Alexandria) and 3 Temporary members (that will rotate every week). SC should meet every week where countries must define status of security in their countries and their current missions. Chairman of the council should be rotated every meeting. Of course there could be emergency meetings. In that case Chairman is Country which scheduled emergency meeting. Every country should have their speech prepared and there mustn't be interrupting by other members. Also country could request for replica. When Council doesn't agree about resolution there are consultations between members (which are closed to public). Every country must define their Permanent Mission to SC.
What do you think?

[The United Remnants of America]

I have some idea for ISC,
We should form Security Council that will make decisions by Resolutions. 3 Permanent members (or more, they have power of veto, top 2 countries which have largest military and economy and Alexandria) and 3 Temporary members (that will rotate every week). SC should meet every week where countries must define status of security in their countries and their current missions. Chairman of the council should be rotated every meeting. Of course there could be emergency meetings. In that case Chairman is Country which scheduled emergency meeting. Every country should have their speech prepared and there mustn't be interrupting by other members. Also country could request for replica. When Council doesn't agree about resolution there are consultations between members (which are closed to public). Every country must define their Permanent Mission to SC.
What do you think?

Cute idea. Some comments with this.

- Your proposal contains six nations. In the case of a vote, that means a hung jury, so to speak.
- You got rid of the damned inconceivable rule about all permanent members needing to agree, so awesome.
- Weekly rotation is a little too quickly, even for the more active members of the forum. I'd say biweekly, or even monthly.

Other than that, it's a nice idea. It might be a little too complex or too much work(since most larger ideas like this usually fail in NS), but there's no harm in implementing it.

[Savalen]

I have some idea for ISC,
We should form Security Council that will make decisions by Resolutions. 3 Permanent members (or more, they have power of veto, top 2 countries which have largest military and economy and Alexandria) and 3 Temporary members (that will rotate every week). SC should meet every week where countries must define status of security in their countries and their current missions. Chairman of the council should be rotated every meeting. Of course there could be emergency meetings. In that case Chairman is Country which scheduled emergency meeting. Every country should have their speech prepared and there mustn't be interrupting by other members. Also country could request for replica. When Council doesn't agree about resolution there are consultations between members (which are closed to public). Every country must define their Permanent Mission to SC.
What do you think?

Cute idea. Some comments with this.

- Your proposal contains six nations. In the case of a vote, that means a hung jury, so to speak.
- You got rid of the damned inconceivable rule about all permanent members needing to agree, so awesome.
- Weekly rotation is a little too quickly, even for the more active members of the forum. I'd say biweekly, or even monthly.

Other than that, it's a nice idea. It might be a little too complex or too much work(since most larger ideas like this usually fail in NS), but there's no harm in implementing it.

I kinda agree with this, but which three nations will be the permenant ones? I can understand Alexandria and G Carlistan, as founder and head of the QRF, but who else?
What if they were to become inactive (not likely, but possible, no?)
As for rotation, I like bi-weekly.

[The United Remnants of America]

Cute idea. Some comments with this.

- Your proposal contains six nations. In the case of a vote, that means a hung jury, so to speak.
- You got rid of the damned inconceivable rule about all permanent members needing to agree, so awesome.
- Weekly rotation is a little too quickly, even for the more active members of the forum. I'd say biweekly, or even monthly.

Other than that, it's a nice idea. It might be a little too complex or too much work(since most larger ideas like this usually fail in NS), but there's no harm in implementing it.

I kinda agree with this, but which three nations will be the permenant ones? I can understand Alexandria and G Carlistan, as founder and head of the QRF, but who else?
What if they were to become inactive (not likely, but possible, no?)
As for rotation, I like bi-weekly.

The third nation would be Aravea if we're going off of size, both militarily and economically, as well as being the most experienced RP'er on the roster currently.

When you say inactive, do you mean CTE or just not around often? If they CTE we just pick a new person to fill the place on the same criteria as the last, granted, if Alexiandra CTE'd, we have other issues.

[CoraSpia]

I kinda agree with this, but which three nations will be the permenant ones? I can understand Alexandria and G Carlistan, as founder and head of the QRF, but who else?
What if they were to become inactive (not likely, but possible, no?)
As for rotation, I like bi-weekly.

The third nation would be Aravea if we're going off of size, both militarily and economically, as well as being the most experienced RP'er on the roster currently.

When you say inactive, do you mean CTE or just not around often? If they CTE we just pick a new person to fill the place on the same criteria as the last, granted, if Alexiandra CTE'd, we have other issues.

I would have to disagree with your candidates, and would actually make the case for the GVH being on it. I am the most experienced member, myself and Alexiandra were the two people who orignally thought of the idea, and as an OOC consideration I'm extremely active (less so in recent weeks due to exams.)

[The United Remnants of America]

The third nation would be Aravea if we're going off of size, both militarily and economically, as well as being the most experienced RP'er on the roster currently.

When you say inactive, do you mean CTE or just not around often? If they CTE we just pick a new person to fill the place on the same criteria as the last, granted, if Alexiandra CTE'd, we have other issues.

I would have to disagree with your candidates, and would actually make the case for the GVH being on it. I am the most experienced member, myself and Alexiandra were the two people who orignally thought of the idea, and as an OOC consideration I'm extremely active (less so in recent weeks due to exams.)

I'll just reiterate: The third nation would be Aravea if we're going of of size, both militarily and economically, as well as being the most experienced RP'er on the roster currently, due to his time on NS, which surpasses GVH as well as most of us.

[CoraSpia]

I would have to disagree with your candidates, and would actually make the case for the GVH being on it. I am the most experienced member, myself and Alexiandra were the two people who orignally thought of the idea, and as an OOC consideration I'm extremely active (less so in recent weeks due to exams.)

I'll just reiterate: The third nation would be Aravea if we're going of of size, both militarily and economically, as well as being the most experienced RP'er on the roster currently, due to his time on NS, which surpasses GVH as well as most of us.

I started on ns in 2009, so I don't get that one.
And how do you know who in this is superior militarily or economicly?

[The United Remnants of America]

I'll just reiterate: The third nation would be Aravea if we're going of of size, both militarily and economically, as well as being the most experienced RP'er on the roster currently, due to his time on NS, which surpasses GVH as well as most of us.

I started on ns in 2009, so I don't get that one.
And how do you know who in this is superior militarily or economicly?

Thank you for explaining, I was waiting on that, since if you go by all the dates of nations on the roster, Aravea is one of the oldest.

That's the fun part, now isn't it? Who is superior? IRL, the UN decides that because the five permanent members pay the most to support the UN, and they have nukes. We can't necessarily do that here, so the issue with this is it turns into a dick-waving contest on who's biggest and deserves the spot better.

[Great Carlistan]

I do not like the idea and I can tell you my nation will hate it (unless, obviously, being given a permanent seat). This means that people of the International SOVEREIGN Coalition need to give up power in favour of permanent members (What? They do not deserve that, our nation is so much better -> rivalry) and rotating members.
The rotating thing may seem fair at first glance but when thinking about our nations, I do not think so. If something happens while another nation is in the SC, the decision must be adhered to and if nothing happens while you are finally as powerful as you deserve... tough.

It is a valuable experience looking at the current SC reforms of the UN. You have your permanent members as the only ones who were not utterly and completely destroyed in WW2 or too poor to have participated anyway. If it had not been for the instability of the world, it seems one should doubt that England, France, USA would have wanted Commies as veto powers but it happened because, as was said, nukes and the dangers they bring. Now, it is impossible to reform the SC because of the veto powers. Hold up! you say? We do not have veto powers? I know. Nonetheless our SC would have 3 permanent members doing anything possible to retain their position and this means if the SC has to reform itself, three of six will always vote against (tie -> fail). A reform through the GA would prove nasty business also, as the three will have substantial political power.

I can only stress that I have a bad feeling about this and call upon all of you to realise that such a powerful body is not easily reformed, much less gotten rid of.

As to the who: I piggy-back on the previous post saying that we will have enormous rivalry ending in a humongous and unconstructive pissing contest of nations who (obviously) do not want another nation to have more power than them.

[The United Remnants of America]

...

Since this is NS, I've always been a fan of the "democratic dictator" stance, where one person controls the group and leads in the direction based on the general consensus of the group.