Arnoer's Proposals

[Arnoer]

These are my proposals. Please read all rules before posting.

Rules: These rules include but aren't limited to: Don't say something about groups that aren't true, be nice and remember it is by my discretion on what is inappropriate to post, and I withhold all copyright rights, and proposals I make will be within all the regulations, and If you are feeling down today leave your temper at the door where it belongs.

Proposal 1: Ocean laws.
Description: If nations are after someone on the sea they have to get expressed permission from the WA in order to do so, seeing that they'll be in international waters.

[The Emmerian Unions]

Amendments are illegal.

[Arnoer]

Fine, In that case I propose the same idea's description with a new name. Proposals new name: Laws of the Ocean. As long as this is a proposal you can still help me in creating it, then I believe two people are necessary for a WA member to submit a proposal.

[The Emmerian Unions]

You'd need to repeal the Law of the Sea first.

[Arnoer]

Not necessarily, the law of the sea would state the nations power over their waters, and the law of the ocean would be the WA's power over the international part of the sea. That way both would have similarities and differences, and both would remain intact.

[The Emmerian Unions]

And to enforce your proposal, there will need to be the creation of a WA military, which, is ILLEGAL.

[Arnoer]

No, due to the fact that it is International waters, the WA is naturally in charge. Besides we as nations have or own armies, which can be used in such a case, which is perfectly legal.

[The Emmerian Unions]

No, due to the fact that it is International waters, the WA is naturally in charge. Besides we as nations have or own armies, which can be used in such a case, which is perfectly legal.

Um, NO ONE is in control of international waters. Not even the WA. So if someone comes into a nation's territorial waters, does some bad things to the nation, said nation can go after that group IN international waters, and sink them if need be.

[Arnoer]

Actually if it's international waters the WA has some power over it being an international committee. Not even you can refuse that due to the fact that we're the World Alliance.

[Biteme]

No, due to the fact that it is International waters, the WA is naturally in charge. Besides we as nations have or own armies, which can be used in such a case, which is perfectly legal.

'naturally'? What do you mean by that? Why? Why would anyone need to be 'in charge' of international waters? The UN does not have any similar jurisdiction in real-world ocean activity. What is the point of such a proposal? Why is it needed or important, and how can it be made fair and practical? Not everyone is a member of the WA, yet they would be under their jurisdiction in international waters? Doesn't making non-members subject to WA actions violate the rules?

[Bears Armed]

Actually if it's international waters the WA has some power over it being an international committee. Not even you can refuse that due to the fact that we're the World Alliance.

OOC: Well, the fact that the WA's members are outnumbered roughly 3:1 or 4:1 by non-member nations might make exerting any such control rather problematical...

[Arnoer]

No, due to the fact that it is International waters, the WA is naturally in charge. Besides we as nations have or own armies, which can be used in such a case, which is perfectly legal.

'naturally'? What do you mean by that? Why? Why would anyone need to be 'in charge' of international waters? The UN does not have any similar jurisdiction in real-world ocean activity. What is the point of such a proposal? Why is it needed or important, and how can it be made fair and practical? Not everyone is a member of the WA, yet they would be under their jurisdiction in international waters? Doesn't making non-members subject to WA actions violate the rules?

I mean exactly what the word means, we are a international committee, so we should be the ones in charge of international waters in order to maintain order. No, not every nation is a WA member, but WA members can be representatives for those people. We were in charge before I even proposed this. We are assuming that we are in charge of the Oceans if we can put a policy on them, meaning the Sea Laws.

Actually if it's international waters the WA has some power over it being an international committee. Not even you can refuse that due to the fact that we're the World Alliance.

OOC: Well, the fact that the WA's members are outnumbered roughly 3:1 or 4:1 by non-member nations might make exerting any such control rather problematical...

True, but how many are actually active, and how many just watch their nations progress and don't care what the other nations do. We Commend, Condemn, and also make policies that change the lives of everyone out there. Besides It's not like they couldn't overrule us, after all we can represent our regions.

[Rutianas]

True, but how many are actually active, and how many just watch their nations progress and don't care what the other nations do. We Commend, Condemn, and also make policies that change the lives of everyone out there. Besides It's not like they couldn't overrule us, after all we can represent our regions.

OOC: Go ask on International Incidents or NationStates or any other RP forum as to how many non-WA nations are active and would resent WA control over 'international waters'. I think the answer would surprise you. Also, it would take a WA military to enforce control over 'international waters', and as such, would be an illegal concept. The WA does not get any kind of military. Not a single unit.

[Arnoer]

Actually It would surprise you who would actually not care, as for the military, it is not illegal for NATIONS to back up the WA. Besides if people actually cared they would join the WA, after all we are the ones who make international policies, like it is done in real life.

[Newmanistan]

Besides if people actually cared they would join the WA, after all we are the ones who make international policies, like it is done in real life.

Get that idea out of your head real quick. There are many reasons not to join the WA and it doesn't mean I "care" less. For example, the WA tends to be very "liberal" in what it passes. Newmanistan is not interested in many liberal ideals, so we do not join and therefore don't have to be bothered with some of the crap the WA passes. The WA tends to "devalue" religious ideals. I want my nation extremely devout, therefore I do not join.

I also have no desire to have my nation get involved in any "greeny nonsense". Aka, anything dealing with the environment that would compromise our economy.

You might not like these policies, but it doesn't mean I don't "care" because this nation will never step foot in the WA.

[Tanaara]

I happen to care extensively - and I do NOT care to join the WA. And I completely agree with Newmanistan - the WA doesn't speak for even a reasonable minority of NS, and to say it does is the height of uninformed arrogance.

And NO WA nation will ever represent mine, nor will I allow such to happen.

There is no 'natural' about the WA having any authority over Internaitonal Anything - air, water, space.

And Completely OOC: As I underestand it - Game Mechanics make the WA having any sort of military Illegal.

And what is this Real Life you speak of ? Such holds not one molecule of water or authority here.

[Rutianas]

Actually It would surprise you who would actually not care, as for the military, it is not illegal for NATIONS to back up the WA. Besides if people actually cared they would join the WA, after all we are the ones who make international policies, like it is done in real life.

OOC: Now that two people have spoken, I think you see what I mean. No WA proposal has any bearing on what they do. They're not required in any way to follow them. Heck, they don't even have to acknowledge them. They choose not to join for many reasons. Some choose to leave over IC reasons. Some choose to leave because they just don't want their stats getting messed up anymore. So, if you think the WA has any hold over these non-WA nations, then you need to read up on what the WA is and does.

Oh, and Tanaara is right. Pulling 'real life' out of your pocket here will only get comments such as 'what's real life?' and 'oh, that mythical place?' or sometimes even ignored outright. Real life has no bearing here. This is not a 'real life political simulator'. This is a 'fictional political simulator'. In fact, at times it'd be a stretch to call it a political simulator with how some of the issues get resolved. What it definitely is, is a game. And as any game, real life has no place in a game.

I will touch on the nations bit. First, don't shout. Second, the WA will get Rutianas to patrol/defend international waters/space/air whatever for only one second before I leave the WA. It will not happen. You can't force nations to back up the WA with military units. I, for one, would see that as creating an international military.

[Biteme]

No, due to the fact that it is International waters, the WA is naturally in charge. Besides we as nations have or own armies, which can be used in such a case, which is perfectly legal.

'naturally'? What do you mean by that? Why? Why would anyone need to be 'in charge' of international waters? The UN does not have any similar jurisdiction in real-world ocean activity. What is the point of such a proposal? Why is it needed or important, and how can it be made fair and practical? Not everyone is a member of the WA, yet they would be under their jurisdiction in international waters? Doesn't making non-members subject to WA actions violate the rules?

I mean exactly what the word means, we are a international committee, so we should be the ones in charge of international waters in order to maintain order. No, not every nation is a WA member, but WA members can be representatives for those people. We were in charge before I even proposed this. We are assuming that we are in charge of the Oceans if we can put a policy on them, meaning the Sea Laws

OK, but you still haven't really answered my questions ... at all. Please try again. There's nothing 'natural' about an orgaization with no enforcement capability or authority over most nations claiming authority over non-member nations. How does the WA 'maintain order' with no enforcement capability? Do you have a real-world analog to help explain your ideas?

[Biteme]

Actually It would surprise you who would actually not care, as for the military, it is not illegal for NATIONS to back up the WA. Besides if people actually cared they would join the WA, after all we are the ones who make international policies, like it is done in real life.

Well, in real-life, there is a much higher percentage of nations that are UN members than Ns nations belonging to the WA. Plus, in real life, the UN does not 'control' international waters. If you believe otherwise, please describe how you think that works.

[Biteme]

And what is this Real Life you speak of ? Such holds not one molecule of water or authority here.

Even if it did, actual real life and his concept of real life are not particularly close to each other...

[Flibbleites]

You can't force nations to back up the WA with military units. I, for one, would see that as creating an international military.

OOC: And I suspect the mods would see it the same way.

[Arnoer]

The WA is in charge of international waters ever sense the idea of the sea laws was made. You don't want to join because we are too liberal. That's a load of Bull, the WA is whatever its members are. I am still an independent nation. In real life the UN's Power over International waters are the powers our government permits it. You may not be interested in being in the WA, but you individually have power to make change. You can post can't you, so duh, that's your power. P.S.: I represent Blueharvest, NOT YOU!

Last thing I'll say on Military (If you don't mind I suggest you actually read it otherwise I'll just call you an Idiot) - You can have nations put their military into action to back up the WA, besides who in their right mind would attack a huge organization that has some of the best militaries, let me answer that no one. you are basing your ideas off of madness which is not a politically stable way to go. We imply our power over anything by the regulations we made.

Proposal #2 (comming soon)

[Tanaara]

The WA has no power over my nation and never will and your second paragraph?

Last thing I'll say on Military (If you don't mind I suggest you actually read it otherwise I'll just call you an Idiot) - You can have nations put their military into action to back up the WA, besides who in their right mind would attack a huge organization that has some of the best militaries, let me answer that no one. you are basing your ideas off of madness which is not a politically stable way to go. We imply our power over anything by the regulations we made.

Sorry but that is illegal game mechanics, not allowed by the game, as having a nation (s) military, 'back up' the WA is creating a WA military.

And I'd strongly suggest that you not call any one an idiot, as you are the one that seems to not understand the rules of the game.

[Rutianas]

The WA is in charge of international waters ever sense the idea of the sea laws was made. You don't want to join because we are too liberal. That's a load of Bull, the WA is whatever its members are. I am still an independent nation. In real life the UN's Power over International waters are the powers our government permits it. You may not be interested in being in the WA, but you individually have power to make change. You can post can't you, so duh, that's your power. P.S.: I represent Blueharvest, NOT YOU!

Umm, as several people have pointed out, the WA is not the UN. So please, stop referring to that and read the rules of this game.

Last thing I'll say on Military (If you don't mind I suggest you actually read it otherwise I'll just call you an Idiot) - You can have nations put their military into action to back up the WA, besides who in their right mind would attack a huge organization that has some of the best militaries, let me answer that no one. you are basing your ideas off of madness which is not a politically stable way to go. We imply our power over anything by the regulations we made.

Calling someone an idiot would be very bad around here. Likely will get you a warning from the mods. So, let's not even go there. You're kind of on the edge as is.

The way to look at this is to look at what people are saying. If a group of people are all telling you the same thing, then it's likely it's true. Considering we've all been around longer, it's likely that we do know what rules are.

In any case, where RP is concerned, a nation of 16 million isn't likely to have a very strong military. Not compared to a nation who has 2.4 billion. Now, that said, there are quite a few people out there not in the WA who could kick my butt in a war. Now, we may have some old nations, but I can guarantee you that for every old nation we have in the WA, there's likely to be 2 or 3 that are not in the WA. So, as military strength goes, they probably outnumber us. Why would I want to donate troops to defense of international waters on a planet I don't live on, just to let them get decimated?

In any case, the proposal on WA military (even donated troops) in international waters is illegal.

[Kryozerkia]

Last thing I'll say on Military (If you don't mind I suggest you actually read it otherwise I'll just call you an Idiot) - You can have nations put their military into action to back up the WA, besides who in their right mind would attack a huge organization that has some of the best militaries, let me answer that no one. you are basing your ideas off of madness which is not a politically stable way to go. We imply our power over anything by the regulations we made.

Proposal #2 (comming soon)

Do not flamebait other players. You're purposely trying to get an angry response. Warned.