NationStates

I put this in the GA forum because this is primarily the role play forum.

Is it possible to have a WA conference where members meet to discuss matters regarding their nations and concerns about WA proposals? Sort of like MaxChat but a WA chat.

Certainly, and usually in the "DRAFT," "SUBMITTED," or "AT VOTE" threads, offsite forums, or threads in here with specified topics related to the world or World Assembly. I think it's already being covered.

A mean old man wrote:Certainly, and usually in the "DRAFT," "SUBMITTED," or "AT VOTE" threads, offsite forums, or threads in here with specified topics related to the world or World Assembly. I think it's already being covered.

Yes but I mean an actually conference.

If you're thinking about some sort of massive conference involving any and all matters that nations might bring up, I have an image of a crazed mess of nations all trying to have some sort of massive and jumbled debate over hundreds of different issues at the same time in my head...

You could try to get together a group of the most active WA voices in a private forum and host some sort of conference there. I've seen it done before, but with the same sort of forum and thread based format.

Why would we need such a thing?

A mean old man wrote:If you're thinking about some sort of massive conference involving any and all matters that nations might bring up, I have an image of a crazed mess of nations all trying to have some sort of massive and jumbled debate over hundreds of different issues at the same time in my head...

You could try to get together a group of the most active WA voices in a private forum and host some sort of conference there. I've seen it done before, but with the same sort of forum and thread based format.

Oh yes of course. Even if we had mods administrate the chat and allow nations to speak on 1 issue at a time.

OOC: I'm thinking of doing something like that to promote free trade proposals, but I bet that's not the type of legislation you want to see passed.

You're not even in the WA, Bluntus.

A mean old man wrote:You're not even in the WA, Bluntus.

Sure about that? I will be in a couple of days.

Couldn't help but notice.

Well your very observant.

It comes naturally, no need for any applause. Commend me if you want to.

I can see it now, the next great SC Resolution to reach queue and be passed...

Commend A mean old man

Description: Because he is observant.

Looks like an acceptable SC resolution to me.

A mean old man wrote:It comes naturally, no need for any applause. Commend me if you want to.

I can see it now, the next great SC Resolution to reach queue and be passed...

Commend A mean old man

Description: Because he is observant.

Looks like an acceptable SC resolution to me.

Haha. Seriously though. I think to have a conference is a good idea.

I'm just really not sure what the purpose of any such conference would be. We can already post thoughts about the WA here, people did in the past about the UN.

In particular, I remember the essay 'National Sovereignty and the United Nations, which gave a much-needed veneer of theory to a previously-derided philosophy of UN engagement. It pretty much took the Nat Sov argument from a laughing stock to a major theory of role of the UN, in one move.

Off-site forums are also always possible, if you want to workshop ideas in a particular area. We used to have quite a few of these; I'd like to see them return. Off the top of my head, there was the National Sovereignty Organization, the Green Think Tank, an International Federalism group, a few others, I suppose even the UN Old Guard might count.

That is to say, I don't think we need those particular groups to return. More that I'd like to see groups being formed to put forward quality proposals, so we aren't deluged with a lot of nonsense.

Enn wrote:That is to say, I don't think we need those particular groups to return. More that I'd like to see groups being formed to put forward quality proposals, so we aren't deluged with a lot of nonsense.

*ahem...*

Well, I may not have a defined "group," but I certainly try on my own...

Y'know, this isn't a bad idea... I think I'll start something like this.

Enn wrote:That is to say, I don't think we need those particular groups to return. More that I'd like to see groups being formed to put forward quality proposals, so we aren't deluged with a lot of nonsense.

if there was no nonsense proposals, what would all the snider WA members have to criticize? If they suddenly had no legitimate outlet for their sardonic wit, they may well explode. And I don't know about you, but I full well do not want that on my conscience

Enn wrote:Off-site forums are also always possible, if you want to workshop ideas in a particular area. We used to have quite a few of these; I'd like to see them return. Off the top of my head, there was the National Sovereignty Organization, the Green Think Tank, an International Federalism group, a few others, I suppose even the UN Old Guard might count.

... and there was also DEFCON, which concentrated on proposals concerning 'global security' and 'international disarmament'.

Nothing stopping a community of like-minded nations forming their own off-site resource. If you are really interesting in starting a community like this, then I suggest you define some purpose for this as opposed to just suggesting a random talking shop.

Enn wrote:Off-site forums are also always possible, if you want to workshop ideas in a particular area. We used to have quite a few of these; I'd like to see them return. Off the top of my head, there was the National Sovereignty Organization, the Green Think Tank, an International Federalism group, a few others, I suppose even the UN Old Guard might count.

I still have some of the URL's bookmarked. There was also Reclaimation, and Outside. A some undisclosed secure location I cannot disclose.

There was also a #unitednations IRC channel, although I don't know that anybody much ever used it.

Although I did just grab #worldassembly on irc.esper.net.

Hirota wrote:

Enn wrote:Off-site forums are also always possible, if you want to workshop ideas in a particular area. We used to have quite a few of these; I'd like to see them return. Off the top of my head, there was the National Sovereignty Organization, the Green Think Tank, an International Federalism group, a few others, I suppose even the UN Old Guard might count.

I still have some of the URL's bookmarked. There was also Reclaimation, and Outside. A some undisclosed secure location I cannot disclose.

Don't forget about FAIRTRADE.

I think if we could increase the profile of the WA IRC channel as the exchange of ideas that can be turned into professional proposals then that would be great. i have kinda suggested new WA ideas on the official IRC channel before.

Flibbleites wrote:

Hirota wrote:

Enn"p="1094467 wrote:Off-site forums are also always possible, if you want to workshop ideas in a particular area. We used to have quite a few of these; I'd like to see them return. Off the top of my head, there was the National Sovereignty Organization, the Green Think Tank, an International Federalism group, a few others, I suppose even the UN Old Guard might count.

I still have some of the URL's bookmarked. There was also Reclaimation, and Outside. A some undisclosed secure location I cannot disclose.

Don't forget about FAIRTRADE.

Now if only there was a fair trade group...

Whatever happened to these types of organizations? Exception UNOG, since the answer is just obvious, were they relatively active in the UN?

UNOG and NSO were the two main bodies -- NSO fizzled out in mid-2007, but UNOG is still semi-active. There were other bodies like UN DEFCON, which lasted about a year and a half, and Green Think Tank, which had intermittent spikes in activity for about two years. FAIRTRADE lasted about two months. As to why groups like these haven't sprung up in the WA, I don't know. The core group of regulars is smaller, and more congruous than before, mostly because the WA does not have the UN's years-long history of awful legislation that different groups sought to correct in different ways. Federalists preferred repealing some resolutions and replacing them with stronger mandates, and keeping others and simply "reinforcing" them with concurrent mandates, while the sovereigntists preferred many more repeals and replacing the old resolutions with blockers, if at all. Once all the old resolutions were wiped out it sort of rendered the divide moot.

NSwiki articles on the subject here, here and here.