Alya wondered when the Morelanders would show up. As she listened to the Morelander speak it was clear to her that he/she (ooc: I can’t figure if the Morelander is a he or a she) had a different agenda. She noticed how he/she reinforced what the previous speaker from the “informal alliance” said by agreeing with the Achkaerin representative just as the Achkaerin representative started by saying she agreed with the Bakkermayan one. She wondered if they had synchronized their agendas so that they could show such common front.
“Thank you so much for sharing your experience with us. It is indeed a valuable one. I am however sure you were just stating Your Majesty’s government opinions based on that experience and did not claim to be authoritative facts since I can assure Your Majesty’s government that those opinions are not in any way shared in Djerb ” she said the Morelanders representative. “The first issue can easily be solved since as I said, should the Tamoran Empire get the veto we will take action so it won’t be the same nations. As for the second issue, I am glad that I have your support for the Tamoran veto. What others nations should also get it is a different matter that we will gladly discuss if there is agreement on the Tamoran veto. We were thinking that all the founding members of the new organization should get one but we are open to any suggestions.” She put an emphasis on suggestions since the Morelander seemed to her to talk as if he/she owned the place.
OOC:
@Tytor: would you be willing to consider an OOC thread? There seem to be a lot of OOC talks and even the IC one is railed by ooc. Players clearly have OOC issues they want to discuss, separating the two can help imo.
“Whatever form this organization takes we need to focus on how we put in place things that stop it killing ongoing RP by being so lengthy. “
I have already alluded to how I think things should be handled, I will explain here in OOC so I can make it more clears. Players from this new body should focus on the issues that are not urgent. So they would leave the Council of Albion to handle the Merina civil war but focus on the Kaitaine one. They can also focus on aspects that not pressured by time: anti-poverty talks and programs, monitoring religious persecutions, talks about how to combat terrorism, environmental issues (not the Heyran one but things like climate change), sending monitors to elections in Rokkenjima, issuing a resolution urging SICR to NOT drop the monarchy since, you know, most Mundus nations (especially the most powerful ones) are monarchies etc.
The second suggestion that I can add now that we are talking OOC would be for the mod to enforce only a 1 RL week on the time freeze for debates of the League of Nations. After that, members of the League of Nations can ask the RP mod for one more week extension. So that would make it 2 RL weeks in total. Obviously, if people think 1 week is too much or too little time that can be changed, I am merely proposing a mechanism here.
“The old organisation had the problem of being seen as a system just for certain nations, from speaking to other users I'd say East Moreland was one of those nations. I for one never intended it to be that way in terms of how I RP'd East Moreland. The problem is though that is how it became perceived. We need to ensure moving forward that is not allowed to happen again and no nation ICly should have powers in this body that not everyone else has.”
Ok, here I strongly disagree. I am vehemently opposed to using OOC to force IC position of nations. What you are suggesting is that we RP differently (ex: I drop the veto even though IC for me that would make no sense) because some players in the past have perceived the organization as focused on some players. Look, I clearly didn’t ignore CTO because of that (I ignored it because no offense but it was dead in my opinion) and I clearly will if there is not at least one nation in the new body with a veto that is not Western style in terms of how it handles international law. Rokk, Tytor, Ach, EM are all the same when it comes to how they interpret, use and act on international law (democracy good, human rights good etc). Any players looking to RP nations that are antagonistic (I can’t find the right term, think Communist China, USSR, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Belarus, Saudi Arabia etc) are going to ignore the organizations if they know all the other member nations are going to gang up on them. This is why I think this argument is no good. You can’t please both sides, one side has to be ignored. Now I have no issue being on the losing side, but I am opposed to not even being allowed to RP my demands cause OOC some people might not like it.
Personally, I think the impossibly long charter and the two tier system of nations were not the reasons why CTO died but lack of activity. So players (those that want to see the body succeed) have to take the time and:
- Propose at least one resolution/initiative whatever every three RL months. Members need to have something to do. It also goes without saying that they have to provide feedback if anyone proposed a motion.
- Reference the new international body at least once a month in news posts/RPs etc. I am not talking anything big but things like: a change in ambassador at the international body, a corruption scandal (or whatever scandal players like), a visit of some kind, an outrageous statement from one of the body’s representatives etc. This is so that all players in tio remember the organization exists.
- Actively promote the organization and attempt to recruit IC, not on Discord but on the forum. So for example in state meetings (especially with new players) there should be invitations to join the organization. It certainly makes more sense than to ask new players to join CSU, CSTO, CNN, SANE or any organization that is very well integrated.
Also players, especially those that have tier 1 nations* in the new international body, should try and do some light RPing with tier 2 nations* where they try to understand their agenda, promise to promote their agenda etc. Having a tier 1 nation means you have to work more to keep interest of the players that have tier 2 nations in the organization. They must see they are not just dead-weight.
Also, under no circumstances should those that want to see the organization succeed kill debates before they start by changing motions based on Discord feedback. Ex: you have an anti slavery motion, you read on discord that there is an issue with the fact it references MCUR so you just say IC “Yeah, I want to remove that part”. That is not RPing. The debates are supposed to be broadcasted love all over Mundus, no nation does something like that in RL.
* tier 1 nations= members of the international body with privileges (security council membership, veto whatever). Tier 2 nations = the other player nations in the organisation.
You can have the best charter in the world, the most egalitarian system of voting if there aren’t at least a couple of players that are willing to take time from RPing their nations and put the time in RPing for this organization then it will never succeed. The organization will always remain a sticky thread that players forget about.
