Author Topic: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread  (Read 4580 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tytor

  • Regional Power
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
  • All the world's a stage...
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Tytor
Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« on: June 11, 2020, 12:05:30 AM »
As it's been requested, so it comes into being.  Have at it, y'all.

This thread is for OOC discussions regarding the Tarrenburg Castle Summit.  Off-topic discussion will be met with mild disapproval.

For reference, the original draft charter:
Spoiler: Charter Inside • show
[quote=Draft Charter][center]A Charter for a League of Nations
Adopted on this the [##]th day of June, AD 2020[/center]

Preamble:

We the undersigned representatives of the united Nations and Peoples of Mundus, in order to further the cause of World Peace, promote Justice, secure Equality on the Global Stage, and show our commitment to the Betterment of Humankind, do here and now establish this Charter for a League of Nations, that generations to come may find that we acted in the interest of all.

Chapter I - Goals and Definitions

Article 1: This Charter hereby establishes a league of nations, to be named the [name to be decided] and herein called the League.

Article 2: The purposes of the League are (1) to maintain peace in the world; (2) to secure and develop amicable relations between its Members; (3) to achieve international cooperation toward the continued advancement of better conditions for humankind; and (4) to act as a force for international harmony in pursuit of these ends.

Article 3: Pursuant to the purposes laid out in the preceding article, each Member of the League shall commit (1) to treat as equal all other nations, whether Members of the League or not; (2) to fulfill in good faith all obligations entered into through this Charter and any subsidiary treaties which may follow; (3) to settle international disputes by peaceful means; and (4) avoid to the best of their ability the use or threat of force against other nations.

Article 4: Pursuant to the purposes laid out in Article 2 of this Charter, the League shall take appropriate action within the confines of this Charter to ensure the maintenance of peace in the worldwide community.

Article 5: The League shall have no authority over the internal affairs of its Members beyond what is (a) explicitly granted under the terms of this Charter or (b) surrendered voluntarily by any individual Member.

Chapter II - Membership

Articles herein contained: [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

Chapter III - Organs

Articles herein contained: [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

Chapter IV - The General Assembly

Articles herein contained: [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

Chapter V - The Security Council (OOC note: Can be easily excluded, if that is the consensus.  I feel this one would be best decided OOC.)

Articles herein contained: [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

Chapter VI - The Secretariat (OOC note: See note for Chapter V.)

Articles herein contained: [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

Chapter VII - Arbitration

Articles herein contained: [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

Chapter VIII - Peacekeeping

Articles herein contained: [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

Chapter IX - Miscellaneous Provisions

Articles herein contained: [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

Chapter X - Amendment Process

Articles herein contained: [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

Chapter XI - Ratification

Article #: This Charter shall come into force upon its ratification by a majority of its signatory nations.

Article #: The manner in which a signatory nation ratifies this Charter shall be left to the individual nation in question to decide.

Article #: Once this Charter has come into force, it shall remain in force until such time as it is repealed or replaced; any such repeal or replacement shall be initiated though resolution by the General Assembly [and/or Security Council].

Postscript and Signatures

We the undersigned representatives of the united Nations and Peoples of Mundus hereby declare our commitment to causes espoused in the document above, pledging ourselves to the maintenance thereof as long as we have the ability.

Signed,
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________[/quote]
Code: [Select]
[quote=Draft Charter][center][size=20pt][u]A Charter for a League of Nations[/u][/size]
Adopted on this the [##]th day of June, AD 2020[/center]

[b][u]Preamble:[/u][/b]

[i]We[/i] the undersigned representatives of the united Nations and Peoples of Mundus, in order to further the cause of World Peace, promote Justice, secure Equality on the Global Stage, and show our commitment to the Betterment of Humankind, do here and now establish this Charter for a League of Nations, that generations to come may find that we acted in the interest of all.

[b][u]Chapter I - Goals and Definitions[/u][/b]

[i]Article 1:[/i] This Charter hereby establishes a league of nations, to be named the [name to be decided] and herein called the League.

[i]Article 2:[/i] The purposes of the League are (1) to maintain peace in the world; (2) to secure and develop amicable relations between its Members; (3) to achieve international cooperation toward the continued advancement of better conditions for humankind; and (4) to act as a force for international harmony in pursuit of these ends.

[i]Article 3:[/i] Pursuant to the purposes laid out in the preceding article, each Member of the League shall commit (1) to treat as equal all other nations, whether Members of the League or not; (2) to fulfill in good faith all obligations entered into through this Charter and any subsidiary treaties which may follow; (3) to settle international disputes by peaceful means; and (4) avoid to the best of their ability the use or threat of force against other nations.

[i]Article 4:[/i] Pursuant to the purposes laid out in Article 2 of this Charter, the League shall take appropriate action within the confines of this Charter to ensure the maintenance of peace in the worldwide community.

[i]Article 5:[/i] The League shall have no authority over the internal affairs of its Members beyond what is (a) explicitly granted under the terms of this Charter or (b) surrendered voluntarily by any individual Member.

[b][u]Chapter II - Membership[/u][/b]

[i]Articles herein contained:[/i] [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

[b][u]Chapter III - Organs[/u][/b]

[i]Articles herein contained:[/i] [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

[b][u]Chapter IV - The General Assembly[/u][/b]

[i]Articles herein contained:[/i] [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

[b][u]Chapter V - The Security Council[/u][/b] (OOC note: Can be easily excluded, if that is the consensus.  I feel this one would be best decided OOC.)

[i]Articles herein contained:[/i] [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

[b][u]Chapter VI - The Secretariat[/u][/b] (OOC note: See note for Chapter V.)

[i]Articles herein contained:[/i] [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

[b][u]Chapter VII - Arbitration[/u][/b]

[i]Articles herein contained:[/i] [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

[b][u]Chapter VIII - Peacekeeping[/u][/b]

[i]Articles herein contained:[/i] [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

[b][u]Chapter IX - Miscellaneous Provisions[/u][/b]

[i]Articles herein contained:[/i] [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

[b][u]Chapter X - Amendment Process[/u][/b]

[i]Articles herein contained:[/i] [To be determined by discussion among delegates at the Tarrenburg Castle Summit]

[b][u]Chapter XI - Ratification[/u][/b]

[i]Article #:[/i] This Charter shall come into force upon its ratification by a majority of its signatory nations.

[i]Article #:[/i] The manner in which a signatory nation ratifies this Charter shall be left to the individual nation in question to decide.

[i]Article #:[/i] Once this Charter has come into force, it shall remain in force until such time as it is repealed or replaced; any such repeal or replacement shall be initiated though resolution by the General Assembly [and/or Security Council].

[b][u]Postscript and Signatures[/u][/b]

[i]We[/i] the undersigned representatives of the united Nations and Peoples of Mundus hereby declare our commitment to causes espoused in the document above, pledging ourselves to the maintenance thereof as long as we have the ability.

[i]Signed,[/i]
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________
___________, on behalf of ___________[/quote]
« Last Edit: June 11, 2020, 12:17:19 AM by Tytor »
His Majesty Michael the First, by the Grace of God, King of Tytor and her Colonies, and Lord Protector of Floodwater

Factbook -- News -- Press Office

Former Governor-General of The Infinite Alliance
Former Ambassador to Albion and the Global Right Alliance
Former Vice Premier and Speaker of the Senate of the Independent Order
Professional Procrastinator

Non-partisan and proud of it

"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire

Offline Achkaerin

  • Lord Chief Justice
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,967
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: the Holy Empire of Achkaerin
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2020, 12:50:55 AM »
I think there's a general consensus with mind to the OOC discussions that have been had that certain things need to be addressed if the proposed "League" is going to work, we haven't got a treaty proposal yet and that is perhaps something that needs to happen soon-ish in the thread even if it's just what is specific to the General Assembly on an IC level.

I would suggest the following in terms of OOC guidelines for debate should we get a working treaty:

1) Any nation may propose (post) a resolution on any matter that wish to be debated provided it falls within the scope of the charter.

2) Once laid a debate lasting a maximum of 72 hours is tabled (this may be extended if the player running the event to which the debate is tied if there is one agrees) following that a 48 hour voting window occurs, decisions taken on a majority basis.

3) If there is during debate a 24 hour gap in which the motion is not debated or the debate not added to then it be instantly put to vote. (obviously if the tied to event changes somewhat so for example what happened with the Cultists in *cough* Mercia as was *cough* then a motion for the vote to be put should be possible)

4) Decisions on amendments to resolutions (whether they're accepted or not) lie with the proposer.

Those guidelines may solve the speed issue somewhat in that we're then ideally only looking at five days of the League doing its thing. Which is much quicker than most CTO debates.

In terms of logistics I can see this working much like the CTO in terms of it needing probably its own forum and subsequent sub forums for archiving and so on, that in practical terms is me, Dave, Beatrice or CGJ using our forum admin powers to move threads around and do basic admin which is not a problem. And in fact we remove a lot of the trouble if we simply say anyone can post a resolution and therefore start the debate.

Security Council is a big no for me, it's got too many problems - we'd never be able to decide who should have a seat on it or how to determine it so far better not to have it and simply do what the CTO currently would do which is when debating something that would normally be security council business it's presumed to be a closed session (i.e. not publicly known until the resolution vote is over). I would also say this point extends in my view to veto's now yes I can see why it's in Tamora's interests to Icly want a veto and I accept their entitled to pursue ICly but I don't think giving anyone a veto is going to do anything other than cause a lot of frustration and lead to disinterest when everything gets blocked.

Likewise the Secretariat in terms of being an active leadership in an IC sense again doesn't work though I understand that Icly an organisation like this is going to have some backroom administration going on - so I would suggest assuming we get a working treaty that we simply port over the CTO civil service.

I've also noticed there's a chapter in the Tytor proposal titled "Peacekeeping" - that would seem to be an element that would normally fall under the security council so I'm not sure why it's got its own bit, perhaps T can elaborate on that.

On a further logistics point if we at the end of this get a working treaty then the CTO and CMA would need to have dissolution resolutions passed first (especially if certain things with subsidiaries are going to happen) so I'm just going to flag that we need to build time in should we get that outcome.

Final point and this will need IC debate but where are we proposing this organisation be headquartered?

Offline Paracambi

  • Order Of The Pen
  • Basically New Zealand
  • **
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Paracambi
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2020, 08:19:57 AM »
The bigger issue for me is the fact that I don't think the majority of the nations in RP are signatories of the major treaties (Uppsala, MCUR, FSC, Space, Hygelac, etc) if that is the case then I don't see how a body can be said to be dealing with these issues. So for example how can a body try and enforce some resolution when its got no basis in laws/rules/treaties etc. The only way I can think of is that membership of an organisation means you actually have agreed to abide by the treaties needed to essentially formulate some kind of international law.

Offline Markus

  • Roleplay Manager
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,337
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Samantra
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2020, 05:21:23 PM »
I think there's a general consensus with mind to the OOC discussions that have been had that certain things need to be addressed if the proposed "League" is going to work, we haven't got a treaty proposal yet and that is perhaps something that needs to happen soon-ish in the thread even if it's just what is specific to the General Assembly on an IC level.

I would suggest the following in terms of OOC guidelines for debate should we get a working treaty:

1) Any nation may propose (post) a resolution on any matter that wish to be debated provided it falls within the scope of the charter.

2) Once laid a debate lasting a maximum of 72 hours is tabled (this may be extended if the player running the event to which the debate is tied if there is one agrees) following that a 48 hour voting window occurs, decisions taken on a majority basis.

3) If there is during debate a 24 hour gap in which the motion is not debated or the debate not added to then it be instantly put to vote. (obviously if the tied to event changes somewhat so for example what happened with the Cultists in *cough* Mercia as was *cough* then a motion for the vote to be put should be possible)

4) Decisions on amendments to resolutions (whether they're accepted or not) lie with the proposer.

Those guidelines may solve the speed issue somewhat in that we're then ideally only looking at five days of the League doing its thing. Which is much quicker than most CTO debates.


Regarding the proposed the timetable. That is insanely short. You could go on a short vacation or be busy and miss the whole thing. Ideally I would see debates taking around one RL month if not more. Sure, if two RL weeks passed and nobody said anything then put it to the vote but otherwise let people debate. Look at the current way we are debating at the summit. Players need time.

I think the problem here is what each player has in mind when it comes to the League of Nation. I see it as a slow deliberative body that would attempt to handle major stuff like poverty, terrorism, space debris, pandemic, food shortages, environmental issues, long lasting conflicts like Kaitaine etc. So there would be little need to rush things.



Quote

In terms of logistics I can see this working much like the CTO in terms of it needing probably its own forum and subsequent sub forums for archiving and so on, that in practical terms is me, Dave, Beatrice or CGJ using our forum admin powers to move threads around and do basic admin which is not a problem. And in fact we remove a lot of the trouble if we simply say anyone can post a resolution and therefore start the debate.

The last thing it needs is a separate forum. Just let anyone post a resolution.
Quote
Security Council is a big no for me, it's got too many problems - we'd never be able to decide who should have a seat on it or how to determine it so far better not to have it and simply do what the CTO currently would do which is when debating something that would normally be security council business it's presumed to be a closed session (i.e. not publicly known until the resolution vote is over).

You can strip members of its privileges and only have it as a token for those that engage more. So all member nations could vote, propose stuff, debate regardless of the status as security council member. So having your nation a member would not bring special powers but it would be a reward for those that engage more. So electing the members might be done via IC vote or by OOC vote (of all players not just those that have nations in UN style body). 
The point of having one would be for vanity, players would be encouraged to do more with the UN style body if they know they get a perk for their nation. At least that’s my logic.



Quote
I would also say this point extends in my view to veto's now yes I can see why it's in Tamora's interests to Icly want a veto and I accept their entitled to pursue ICly but I don't think giving anyone a veto is going to do anything other than cause a lot of frustration and lead to disinterest when everything gets blocked.

The problem with the “frustration argument” is that without it(the veto) you are frustrating other players. I mean I would never join a international organization  like the Council of Albion or the CTO when there are no nations with different views that have the veto. For example when the Council of Albion proposed its measure of handling Merina I couldn’t believe those were acceptable to the member nations but they were cause all the players are on the same page (they ooc share the same general views etc). Same with the Council of Ardia and the anti slavery resolutions there. I was amazed that nobody objected there. So yeah, when all players have the same mindset it is frustrating for them cause they see it as not getting stuff done. They however do not see the frustration of other players like me who scratch their head and say “What the hell?!”. This is personally why I don’t think using arguments like “it frustrates people” is good cause you can’t really know if what you are proposing yourself doesn’t also frustrate others.   


The bigger issue for me is the fact that I don't think the majority of the nations in RP are signatories of the major treaties (Uppsala, MCUR, FSC, Space, Hygelac, etc) if that is the case then I don't see how a body can be said to be dealing with these issues. So for example how can a body try and enforce some resolution when its got no basis in laws/rules/treaties etc. The only way I can think of is that membership of an organisation means you actually have agreed to abide by the treaties needed to essentially formulate some kind of international law.


I don’t think anyone implied that the League of Nations in Mundus would seek to impose those on Mundus. The League of Nations would be a body that might (it has not been discussed) try to enforce its motions and only that. The League of Nations might not even pass motions or resolutions that are mandatory for its members.

But to answer your question about how they could enforce it. Just like the Council of Albion threatens to enforce peace in Merina or how the US enforces compliance of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the RL equivalent of Fair Sees) without ever ratifying it. 

I see membership in the UN style body open for all and totally separate from those treaties. Otherwise it is not an international body for Mundus but one for those that agree with those treaties. Which is fine I just that I didn't really get the impression the proposed organisation was about that.

Offline Achkaerin

  • Lord Chief Justice
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,967
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: the Holy Empire of Achkaerin
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2020, 06:06:05 PM »
Trying to define the scope of what the organisation can and can't do is utterly pointless it needs to have everything within its scope and to be fair the proposed timetable is entirely what currently happens within the CTO the only difference is changing the word "minimum" to "maximum" and permitting early voting if required if this organisation is going to work then it needs to be able to respond to any arising situation when it happens and not slow that RP down.

Now yes it's true that people will have different views about what it needs to do, I think it should be a body that can react to both the long term stuff and the short term stuff, we know this model of organisation can debate reasonably well, we know people can be reasonably punctual and timely in those debates - we simply require putting a time limit on the debate that allows it to move quickly.

There's no value in a veto - here's what happens it's reasonable to believe that this organisation might want to debate the hot button issues including slavery now if we know that the resolution is going to be vetoed it will never be Icly put and nations will ignore the organisation, not join it and we'll be where we are now. This same point also extends to Kaitaine to use another example anything in favour of the Soviet's will likely be vetoed by Tamora and anything in favour of the BG gets vetoed by for example Rokk. If this organisation is going to exist then it must be able to debate, must be able to have the votes stand and the action followed through. The veto works against this by through its existence taking various debates off the table and will likely see a decreased membership in the organisation.

Security Council - if we're going to say "Only for active nations" then there's no difference between it and the General Assembly and it's a whole lot easier to have one body dealing with both sets of circumstances and the entire idea of a security council is fraught on an OOC level it's better off not being involved. Electing members again is an issue on the logistics side of it as we discovered OOCly last time. My opinion remains that the Security Council should not exist.

On the Treaty point, most treaties on Mundus such as Uppsalla, FSC and OSSC are worded irrespective of signatory status (because they're worded in that way), the only one where it's different I think would be the MCUR because by definition the MCUR's jurisdiction is the sovereign borders of its signatory states.

Offline Markus

  • Roleplay Manager
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,337
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Samantra
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2020, 06:52:10 PM »
This is just a short reply to acknowledge that I read your reply Ach and we agree to disagree. At almost all aspects you see things that are imo features and great to have as downsides and I admit i see the same with your proposals which quite frankly make me lose any interest in the organization. So I'll leave it like that. We have fundamentally different viewpoints.

Offline Tytor

  • Regional Power
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
  • All the world's a stage...
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Tytor
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2020, 03:59:24 AM »
I'm just going to poke my nose in here to say that I am perfectly willing to scrap the idea of a security council.  I included it so as to invite debate on the issue, and I seem to have achieved my goal.

Now, to answer Ach's question regarding the "Peacekeeping" section, when I put this Treaty together I used the general structure of the UN charter as a guideline.  Chapter VIII is a direct reference to the UN charter's Chapter VII, "Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression", with a shorter title.  It can be very easily cut without affecting the rest of the charter if that's the consensus.
His Majesty Michael the First, by the Grace of God, King of Tytor and her Colonies, and Lord Protector of Floodwater

Factbook -- News -- Press Office

Former Governor-General of The Infinite Alliance
Former Ambassador to Albion and the Global Right Alliance
Former Vice Premier and Speaker of the Senate of the Independent Order
Professional Procrastinator

Non-partisan and proud of it

"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire

Offline Achkaerin

  • Lord Chief Justice
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,967
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: the Holy Empire of Achkaerin
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2020, 12:11:21 PM »
Re Tytor: I would suggest the Peacekeeping article be scrapped and the area rolled into the General Assembly stuff (I would honestly copy and paste the relevant CTO provisions over)

Re Nova:

1) Making generalisations about how nations would vote and how they're split doesn't help anything. See the CTO there are a fair few examples of where the groups you've proposed didn't vote en bloc with each other.

2) "VETO doesn’t prevent debates at all. It might prevent however resolutions from passing, so what? It’s still lots of fun RP"  - No one is going to waste half an hour or more of their life putting together a resolution when they know it's going to get vetoed and not pass, if this organisation is an RP tool it actually has to be able to do stuff the veto prevents this by taking the slavery debate off the table, it takes Kaitaine off the table, takes Merina off the table etc. This organisation is supposed to be the first port of call in dealing with something having the veto in play makes it the last recourse, because nations will take action independent of the organisation first you might as well forget about any promotion of international cooperation on that basis.

No one has any guarantee with a majority based vote on which motions will pass (as it depends on the activity of any given members in a specific period of time) but at least it's a 50/50 chance, that chance is what enables debate. With the Veto it's a certainty that the motion won't pass.

3) "You’ll have to lobby, and have cordial relations, if you want something to pass." Horse trading takes time believe me we tried this in the CTO - The primary OOC issue with how a UN type body works within an RP context is the time it takes to do anything so that it doesn't kill off the relevant RP through inactivity therefore what is needed is an organisation that can do in about a week what has taken a lot longer in the past, horse trading takes a lot longer and if dealing with a fast changing situation you're going to have the horse trading slowing down.

4) It is NOT for any nation to say what the organisation can and can't debate - if you're going to achieve an active organisation then every crisis must be within its scope.

Offline DaveIronside

  • Roleplay Moderator
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,371
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: East Moreland / Royal Seleucid
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2020, 02:07:24 PM »
For me I think I wouldn't be inclined to spend time writing something if I knew it was going to get vetoed. This makes it a double edged sword, first it means that potentially the organisation will get less things going on which means its not active and we've seen how that goes in the past. The other issue is I'd feel annoyed if after a month of work and debate on something it got veto'd at say the vote stage. That would then make me less likely to want to get involved again if I knew someone was just going to pull it.

I like the idea of discussions on things like say child poverty etc. There are though ways round this without a UN. For example RS attempted to host an event to discuss women's issues. Now this could have been done through a UN organisation but I'm not sure doing so rather than through a single person doing it would change activity levels. The only issue may be the host may influence who arrives in the first place, but this isn't that much dissimilar to whoever presents a resolution.


Offline Markus

  • Roleplay Manager
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,337
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Samantra
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2020, 05:28:06 PM »


I fully agree with what Nova said.



“For me I think I wouldn't be inclined to spend time writing something if I knew it was going to get vetoed.”


I see this argument used a lot. The solution is to not write stuff that you know will get vetoed. It’s really that simple. It’s also interesting that none who use this argument have a problem with the simple majority vote. I mean, why waste time writing a motion when you know it will be rejected at the vote? I suspect that the usual crowd are used to having their resolution passed all the time without any doubt and that’s why they are not worried that a simple majority won’t waste their time. So yeah, now it would suck to write stuff having to consider what other player nation think, if there is a chance for it to pass and what you are willing to give in order to see your resolution approved. 

“This makes it a double edged sword, first it means that potentially the organisation will get less things going on which means its not active and we've seen how that goes in the past. The other issue is I'd feel annoyed if after a month of work and debate on something it got veto'd at say the vote stage. That would then make me less likely to want to get involved again if I knew someone was just going to pull it.”


Look, if you go your usual route it becomes an eco-chamber. Those staying in the organization would only be nations that have the same values and opinions and after a time the organization will become inactive.


“I like the idea of discussions on things like say child poverty etc. There are though ways round this without a UN.”

Everything can be done without the UN like body. In RL the UN is a waste of money and in IC Mundus went just fine without it. In fact with the rise of regional organizations in Mundus it’s clear that is not needed to address crisis.

The issue is whether you want a body to attempt to represent all nations or one that in centered around the usual crowd.

Offline Libby

  • Order Of The Pen
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,062
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Lodja/Kaitaine
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2020, 05:48:01 PM »
"The issue is whether you want a body to attempt to represent all nations or one that in centered around the usual crowd."

That phrase "usual crowd" personally I don't buy it. Anyone is free at anytime to jump into a lot of the role plays. They for whatever reason choose not to. Take the women's conference. I think about four of us attended, was that because the thing was hosted in Royal Seleucid, probably not as some anti rs people attended. Or was it because people either didn't find the content interesting or had no desire to debate it? If its either of those last two then it doesn't matter if we dress it as the UN or just conferences on an issue as the activity level will be the same.

If people want to RP there have never been any barriers to them doing so.

Offline Markus

  • Roleplay Manager
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,337
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Samantra
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2020, 05:56:08 PM »


That phrase "usual crowd" personally I don't buy it.

Then I clearly have wasted my time writing everything in this thread.

Offline DaveIronside

  • Roleplay Moderator
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,371
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: East Moreland / Royal Seleucid
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2020, 06:33:15 PM »
I think this thread has reached a point now where its essentially everyone seems to have given their view and its now just back and forth people saying what their view is while perhaps critiquing others. What we need now is a suggestion on how to move this forward.

As I see it we've two camps. 1) Those who think the veto is a good idea 2) Those who think its a bad idea

We've also got a similar split about the Security Council.

Any suggestions how we break this from just stating our opinions to moving things towards finding a path forward.

Offline Markus

  • Roleplay Manager
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,337
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Samantra
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2020, 06:37:51 PM »
A forum poll.

Offline DaveIronside

  • Roleplay Moderator
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,371
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: East Moreland / Royal Seleucid
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2020, 06:50:22 PM »
If Tytor goes with a poll what would be the options.

Offline Markus

  • Roleplay Manager
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,337
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Samantra
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2020, 06:54:28 PM »
If Tytor goes with a poll what would be the options.

Yes, I would like some nations to have the veto.
No, no nations should have the veto.
I couldn't care less.

Just my two cents.

Offline Achkaerin

  • Lord Chief Justice
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,967
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: the Holy Empire of Achkaerin
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2020, 07:26:09 PM »
If it's going to be polled then it's in the IC Tarrenberg thread of those there. A straight up forum poll is fraught with issues.

The Issue with the Security Council is that OOCly it creates the two tier system, however it is somewhat manageable ICly provided thought goes into how the SC will operate. First issue is model of the SC - permanent, elected or hybrid?

Permanent - Easiest OOCly but troublesome as it's the same nations each time and you've got to agree who said nations will be in a manner reflective of their RP over time.

Elected - Possible as we know from early CTO days, however reliant on activity levels of the elected nations.

Hybrid - Suffers from a two tier but would in theory ensure that there's someone with the clout so to speak on the SC to move things along.

Next issue is size - back when the CTO had one it was subject to the size of the membership of the organisation (the larger the CTO membership the larger the SC). This is impractical, far easier to divide Mundus into constituencies elect say 6 nations to the SC and have them there for X months with the understanding no nation may serve consecutive terms unless their constituency is uncontested. If using the Hybrid model the elected members must outnumber the permanent so if you have five permanent members you need 6 minimum elected.

Scope - The full scope of the SC will likely ICly include (based on experience) resolutions dealing with military operations e.g. Marseilles, and will likely want to do that when the crisis in question arises.

Then the members - who? If you ask me to pick 5 for an SC I'm picking based on their RP track records EM, Ach, UC, Bakkermaya and Rokkenjima - and Rokk only makes that list on account of Seaforth now being an NPC. Polling the forum membership for it is also silly as it has the capability to lead to a somewhat ridiculous result if a straight up forum poll without accounting for IC record were to leave out the active nations.

Now the Veto, the issue with the veto is that it a) essentially prevents debate (as no one will propose a resolution on a matter they know will be vetoed) b) disencourages participation in the organisation (for the same reason as a) and c) ultimately allows one nation on any particular matter to hold the organisation to ransom. From a writing perspective its not acceptable to put a resolution have it voted through with an overwhelming majority to then have the losing side able to pull it.

Also if we're going to only have some nations with the veto then it needs to be decided in a sensible way based on RP who those nations are.

Right now we've got to decide how we're doing this and what we're voting for because if it's a straight up yes or no to both an SC and Veto I'm saying no to both at the moment. However if we have a workable plan on how the SC were to work and who the members were I might say different there. Additionally if the power of the veto were limited and reserved only for certain matters I might change my mind there. But we need a practical suggestion on how the SC and veto will work before we go near a poll.

Offline RobertAgira

  • Order Of The Pen
  • World Power
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Agira Latina
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2020, 01:39:58 PM »
While sat at home I had a bit of a brain wave. Not sure if that's a good thing though.

How about this a system.

1. Straight forward General Assembly resolutions (i.e ones not requiring any military input) are determined by a straight majority of those voting.

2. Any Resolution requiring military input is determined by a "qualified majority". What I envisage is that it must get a majority of those voting but also every continent must agree. So for example if we have a vote where overall its say a 15/6 split in favour, but all 6 dissenting voices come from AK you don't get every continent agreeing and so the resolution is defeated. Think of it almost like a continental veto.

I think this as an idea has merit because it will still see people who may be concerned about veto's ruining RP put ideas forward, but those who like the idea of vetos have a chance to still prevent things.

As I say its just an idea.

Offline Achkaerin

  • Lord Chief Justice
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,967
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: the Holy Empire of Achkaerin
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2020, 02:14:56 PM »
Just going to say my initial reaction to Rob's "Qualified majority" proposal is that I like it.

It addresses my concerns over the veto and we could see a lot of RP activity as the members from the different continents that don't often cooperate try to work together which is interesting.

It could easily be applied as an across the board standard for the organisation if people wanted to do that as well because I don't envisage such a system taking that long to work out if all four continents are in the Aye column.

Offline Markus

  • Roleplay Manager
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,337
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Samantra
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2020, 05:03:00 PM »


How about this a system.



As far as I am concerned it just a cosmetic change, it addresses none of the issues I raised in this thread. In fact as you said, it's not really a veto.

Offline RobertAgira

  • Order Of The Pen
  • World Power
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Agira Latina
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2020, 06:28:12 PM »
So far no one is really addressing anyone's concerns. The OOC thread has essentially become two entrenched views those who want a veto, those that don't. Those that like the idea of security council, those that don't. This is beginning to epitimise a lot of diplomatic RP here where we often have lots of valid talking points but no moves to action. So far we've yet to even reach a decision on some of the most basic functions of the organisation. If someone has a clear idea of where they want this to go then it needs sharing at this point as we've kind of reached an impasse as far as I can see. If it helps I'm happy to knock some parts together to give a focus to the debate rather than us keep going free form.

Offline Achkaerin

  • Lord Chief Justice
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,967
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: the Holy Empire of Achkaerin
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2020, 07:31:15 PM »
If the end goal is creating a UN style org that claims to be representative of the international community then we need a compromise solution on the issue of the veto that works both ICly and OOCly without that this organisation (if we get it established) can't claim to be representative of the international community because it's likely we'll see walkouts one way or the other. So far the only compromise solution on the table that could actually work is what Rob has suggested because it allows nations to block resolutions but also allows the organisation to get stuff done and critically to enact that which it decides, it's not perfect I think we all appreciate that but it does accommodate both sides of the equation and on an IC level that would be more likely in my view to get the support of those in the room who are opposed to the veto. So on the veto that sort of compromise position is what is needed if this is going to advance otherwise we should just collapse the summit right now and save ourselves the bother.

The security council has several issues which have been explained by various people both in this thread and on Discord. Now I'm not entirely sure how many people favour an SC and how many don't. Personally I don't because it's a two tier and logistically I don't see why the General Assembly can't debate those matters.

There also needs to be a question when we ask the question "Are resolutions binding?" I don't think this is going to be a yes or no I think it's more a yes and no in that stuff that mandates action to be taken (for example something like the current COA resolution in relation to Merina) would be binding but stuff that doesn't mandate action would be recommendations and therefore not binding, which I guess is the difference in a sense between the GA and SC.

In terms of a framework for this I cobbled an initial framework together using T's initial headings (not got detailed articles yet but just an idea of my thinking):

Goals - Ok as is but clarification of article 5 would be useful
Membership - adapt the COA provisions on admission of members to this organisation.
Organs - GA, SC (if deciding to have one), Civil Service, ICJ if needed plus whatever ones from the CMA if possible (and possibly other treaties/orgs will explain if asked)
General Assembly - Any member can lay a resolution, details of debate rules, voting rules etc
Security Council (if having one otherwise delete)- Same as GA plus how SC is chosen, rights of members etc.
Peacekeeping (if no SC delete) - follow on from SC sections would reasonably detail the measures that the organisation can take and how it takes them.
Secretariat - not Secretariat basically a short point on the civil service and how it works.
Arbitration - Give GA authority to interpret the treaty and to police the organisation, if having anything like the ICJ it should be included here.
Misc - HQ really the main issue here, where is it going to be?
Amendments - self explanatory should be same as standard GA process but needing a threshold of 2/3 or 3/4 of votes cast plus consider implications of other factors.
Ratification - just needs the legal wrangling to be right.

It's a bit rough but it's just a thought, help welcome as I can stick my ideas so far in a google doc.

Offline Tytor

  • Regional Power
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
  • All the world's a stage...
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: Tytor
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2020, 12:20:55 AM »
Leaving the veto question (mostly) aside for the moment, I want to first address the question of whether resolutions would be binding.  My view on this is fairly simple: we should avoid too much being made mandatory, or else we'll see this project falling apart incredibly quickly.  If anything, I feel that the General Assembly saying a resolution is binding should be sufficient for that purpose, perhaps requiring some greater percentage than merely the usual 50%+1 to make it so.  The veto debate, and by extension the Security Council debate, will, of course, affect the ultimate answer to this question, but I think that may be a good starting point.

Now, Ach, I want to go through your list of ideas for the charter's framework.
  • Goals: What is it about Article 5 that needs clarifying?
  • Membership: That's a good idea there.  The CoA's application process is straightforward enough that it really fits the concept of an international organization that intends to be representative of the global community at large.
  • Organs: We'll probably want to look into porting over the CTO's remaining subsidiaries too, merging duplicates where necessary.
  • General Assembly: It may be a good idea to formalize the idea of a symbolic secretary general here if we're cutting the separate Secretariat chapter.  Such a symbolic head would essentially be little more than a source of prestige for whichever nation the person was from for the duration of their term in office.
  • Security Council: I'm interested to see how we end up deciding this one.
  • Peacekeeping: It may be wise to cut this one regardless of whether there's a Security Council.  What it entails could very easily be covered in either the Security Council's chapter or the one about Arbitration.
  • Secretariat/Civil Service: This change seems fine to me.
  • Arbitration: This looks fine to me, though I wonder whether an ICJ analog would warrant its own chapter.
  • Misc: In terms of HQ, I think it would be best to build a new building in a new location, keeping the old CTO and CMA HQs as subsidiary facilities, like how the real life HQ of the League of Nations in Geneva is now used by the UN.  The exact location should probably be decided through IC agreement.
  • Amendments: This one could make for an interesting debate.  On the one hand, we don't want the amendment process to be too easy, lest it be abused, but on the other hand we don't want it to be impossible.
  • Ratification: If you would elaborate here, that would be wonderful.
His Majesty Michael the First, by the Grace of God, King of Tytor and her Colonies, and Lord Protector of Floodwater

Factbook -- News -- Press Office

Former Governor-General of The Infinite Alliance
Former Ambassador to Albion and the Global Right Alliance
Former Vice Premier and Speaker of the Senate of the Independent Order
Professional Procrastinator

Non-partisan and proud of it

"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire

Offline Achkaerin

  • Lord Chief Justice
  • Global Superpower
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,967
    • View Profile
  • Your Nation: the Holy Empire of Achkaerin
Re: Tarrenburg Castle Summit - OOC Thread
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2020, 01:25:28 AM »
Quote
I want to first address the question of whether resolutions would be binding.  My view on this is fairly simple: we should avoid too much being made mandatory, or else we'll see this project falling apart incredibly quickly.  If anything, I feel that the General Assembly saying a resolution is binding should be sufficient for that purpose, perhaps requiring some greater percentage than merely the usual 50%+1 to make it so.  The veto debate, and by extension the Security Council debate, will, of course, affect the ultimate answer to this question, but I think that may be a good starting point.

As much as I personally oppose having a Security Council this question is actually one where having such a council would be useful because (ironically) the second grouping of the SC would create a distinct separation of remit because we could then legitimately say that everything in the SC is binding (because it potentially mandates military action, embargo's, sanctions, air strikes etc) while everything in the Assembly could be non-binding and therefore be a recommendation not an obligation. Incidentally on the veto point this potentially would mean that veto's (if decided upon) wouldn't be as far as I can see needed in the Assembly if we had an agreed OOC guideline about what the difference between a GA matter and what would be an SC matter is.

Now as per the framework:

Article 5 clarification - "The League shall have no authority over the internal affairs of its Members beyond what is (a) explicitly granted under the terms of this Charter or (b) surrendered voluntarily by any individual Member." 

I think Rob made the point on Discord that the League shouldn't be able to force Nya Aland to change its laws on religious symbols but the League should be able to have the wider debate on religious freedom. Part of me (and I'm a little bit in legal overdrive on about 3 other RP issues so I'm possibly overthinking it) isn't quite 100% that that's what that means, can we just be clear on whether that article prevents the wider debate scenario from taking place.

Organs:

Ok what I would say here is that bringing the subsidiaries over from both makes sense I would actually overhaul the MCA because it needs to be reworked into something far simpler than it is.

General Assembly:

I don't think we need a symbolic Sec-Gen within the organisation as such, I think we can safely operate the Assembly with civil service taking the lead in terms of admin if we need to RP a chair for any purpose. I would also say that in pretty much nearly every CTO debate that I can't remember the chair (whether Sec-Gen or civil service) doing that much, I think the only exceptions to that I can think of are a couple of Tim Carpenter's later debates and the Andean Genocide debates where I (as much as I tried not to) had Serenity doing an awful lot.

That said if we're going to have some sort of figurehead so the symbolic sec-gen I would suggest it be on a rotating basis not an elected basis which I believe is the model the CMA uses.

Security Council: See my point at the top of this post - I suspect how this works or if it exists will be tied into whether we end up with veto's or not. I would suggest if it does exist that we say that everyone is in both and the only reason I can see for the SC existing in this would be to enable us to differentiate between when a resolution is binding and when it isn't.

Peacekeeping: I agree roll it into the SC if we have one or the GA if we don't.

Arbitration:

I suspect having an ICJ would require some defining in terms of its jurisdiction, I would also add that this section would possibly have something regarding the internal policing of the organisation but I'm not entirely sure.

Misc: re HQ definitely agreed on a new HQ I would recommend how the CIS chose its HQ be adapted for this purpose. I'll explain more on this in a separate post.

Amendments: I think this needs to be a super majority and I would actually combine a 2/3 or 3/4 majority with Rob's suggested qualified majority for this specific process because that would ensure it's possible without making it impossible.

Ratification:

It's a technical point but it's all in the timing. Looking at this legally if this treaty achieves a merger of the CTO and the CMA then we've got to dissolve both the CTO and the CMA and transfer their powers to the League which means both CTO and CMA must pass dissolution resolutions. So what I would say here is in regards to the in force date of the League's charter, if we get as far as signing it then we should be saying that two weeks from the day we have the first signature on it is when the treaty comes into force. This allows time for both the CTO and CMA to sort themselves out.