[DRAFT] WA Peacekeeping Operations Act

[Fascist Fae Elves]

A great many none WA nations are outwardly hostile to the WA now, so why add fuel to the fire?

Especially since we have starting mandating tariffs to whoever the WA considers to be "in the wrong". If we want better relations with non WA nations, we should seek to improve economic relations with them; not send armies into politically sensitive areas.

[Darenjo]

We don't want the world, we just want the land that touches ours. ~Old Roman saying

Are you serious? You're comparing peacekeeping missions with imperialism!? You're insane!

I actually agree with Cardoness on this one. Much as this would help, i think that it's illegal - what if someone started shooting at the 'peacekeeping force' and the p.k.f. started shooting back? Wouldn't that basically make it an army?

OOC: Remember, in the Hunger Games Trilogy, the Capitol's army was called the 'Peacekeepers'.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I don't understand (1) what does the game code have to do about it? Almost everything we do here in the WA is RP, why is it that when we start talking about militaries everyone starts assuming this is gameplayed? (2) the WA isn't 'sending forces' into non-member states willy-nilly, these non-WA's have asked for their help in facilitating peace. The WA isn't taking sides.. they remain impartial. The WA wouldn't care who started the war, who ended it, who deserved to win.. all of that is dust in the wind, the WA would only care about maintaining the peace.

I really shouldn't be bumping this, but the rules actually have nothing, or very little, to do with roleplay; they are specifically designed to reconcile legislation with gameplay...which is why you can't submit under the wrong category, the wrong strength, address real-life issues, target specific nations or regions, make compliance optional, or try to affect non-member states. The WA in the actual game cannot, and in fact is programmed not to, step out of bounds in any of these areas, so neither should the players.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If that actually was an attempt at a ruling (Ard usually does her rulings with her modly account), it was a rather weak one.. it relied on the same manipulative connotations of "peacekeeping" (some of which I didn't even knew existed) that my opponents have been fearmongering about.. instead attacking the actual peacekeeping operations that this act will secure.

Well, what did you expect? Did you really think you could induce the mods into reasoned debate by deliberately testing them like this? Or did you bother thinking ten seconds ahead and realize that batting you about the head would be the more likely response?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Well, what did you expect? Did you really think you could induce the mods into reasoned debate by deliberately testing them like this? Or did you bother thinking ten seconds ahead and realize that batting you about the head would be the more likely response?

To be fair, the mods were induced into reasoned debate (although faulty reasoning, imo) with the MPA, and then subsequently the ICC (though the ICC's legality was based entirely on the MPA ruling)... The only reason I can think is because those resolutions weren't so facially what the WA Police/Military rule addressed, whereas this one is.