Advertisement
by Tzorsland » Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:08 am
by Bezombia » Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:10 am
Tzorsland wrote: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?
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
Verdum wrote:Hey girl, is your name Karl Marx? Because your starting an uprising in my lower classes.
Black Hand wrote:New plan is to just make thousands of disposable firearms and dump them out of cargo planes with tiny drag chutes attached.
Spreewerke wrote:The metric system is the only measurement system that truly meters.
Fordorsia wrote:mfw Beano is my dad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSWiMoO8zNE
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
by Tzorsland » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:11 pm
Bezombia wrote:Who said we were going to pass resolutions to invade people?
by Bezombia » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:13 pm
Tzorsland wrote:Bezombia wrote: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.)
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
Verdum wrote:Hey girl, is your name Karl Marx? Because your starting an uprising in my lower classes.
Black Hand wrote:New plan is to just make thousands of disposable firearms and dump them out of cargo planes with tiny drag chutes attached.
Spreewerke wrote:The metric system is the only measurement system that truly meters.
Fordorsia wrote:mfw Beano is my dad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSWiMoO8zNE
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
by Tzorsland » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:23 pm
Bezombia wrote:Does seriously nobody here understand what the rule is actually banning?
by Bezombia » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:46 pm
Tzorsland wrote:Bezombia wrote: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.
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
Verdum wrote:Hey girl, is your name Karl Marx? Because your starting an uprising in my lower classes.
Black Hand wrote:New plan is to just make thousands of disposable firearms and dump them out of cargo planes with tiny drag chutes attached.
Spreewerke wrote:The metric system is the only measurement system that truly meters.
Fordorsia wrote:mfw Beano is my dad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSWiMoO8zNE
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:21 pm
Blaccakre wrote:(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.
(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!
by Blaccakre » Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:02 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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.
by Christian Democrats » Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:37 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:03 am
by Unibot III » Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:31 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Imperializt Russia » Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:34 am
Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote: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....
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Frisbeeteria » Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:41 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:(which is presumably as invincible as the gnomes are omniscient)
by Phydios » Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:26 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:In the same sense, a UN army...
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:15 pm
Krioval wrote:Glen-Rhodes wrote: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.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:21 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Krioval wrote:
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.
by Jean Pierre Trudeau » Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:44 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Glen-Rhodes wrote:
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.
by Krioval » Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:56 pm
Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote: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.
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:00 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Glen-Rhodes wrote:
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.
by New Zorga » Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:07 pm
by Frisbeeteria » Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:38 pm
New Zorga wrote:No Why? because the WA Army cant be in thousands of nations at once.It can't possibly be done.
New Zorga wrote: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.
by Glen-Rhodes » Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:30 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:New Zorga wrote: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.
by Tzorsland » Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:05 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:Instead, it would be a roleplay opportunity for people to place an official neutral force into existing conflicts.
by Glen-Rhodes » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:24 pm
by Divergia » Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:04 pm
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement