UN?

[ZargonX]

So, now that all in the world have met in glorious peace and harmony (...), has anyone given any thought to forming any kind of international body akin to the UN? If anyone is interested, I'm sure we could come up with somethign that would add to the game experience without impinging too much on the game itself.

[Master Zen]

Well, if GoW gets a permanent seat at the Security Council with veto power, I'm all for it

And we could put Trip as Secretary-General

[Jon Shafer]

I'm already inspecting for WMDs.

[Aeson]

No Trip... that's a... um... Granary, not a really big Club.

[ruby_maser]

I think it would be a good idea. Something would have to be worked out to get around having 6 teams now.

We could even have the option of making it a truely democratic process by utilizing polls to insure a voice for the members of all teams in decision-making and reserve policy planning to elected reps or the team leaders.

With any luck, we could create gridlock too...

[mrmitchell]

The real UN was formed after a major war and the victors were all put on the permanent security council...

So now, all we need is a really big war and enough people left to make a UN.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
The real UN was formed after a major war and the victors were all put on the permanent security council...

So now, all we need is a really big war and enough people left to make a UN.

But if there is a major war there may not be enough teams left to form a UN.

[ZargonX]

I think we'd have to forgo a permanant council, as how would the 1 team left out of it feel

redstar1 and I were talking about it earlier, and we were thinking something along the line of each team having 1 or 2 representatives to the council, with either an elected council chair, or perhaps a rotating chair (ala the EU). Discuss!

[Master Zen]

I actually think it's a good idea, and one that can add an interesting new dimension to the game.

IMO, each civ should appoint 1 member as a UN representative, the decision on who and how would be left for each civ to decide.

If you want one civ to "chair" the UN it should be a fair rotation of say 10-20 turns or something like that in the order that the civs play in for example. I like rotation better than election since it leads to less alliances and bureacracy.

I'm all for it ZargonX

[mrmitchell]

Rotated Chair gets to do something special, as in their vote counts for more or something.

[Master Zen]

I'm thinking more on the line that the "rotated chair" is the Secretary-General and it is his duty to organize the UN thread, all resolutions made etc., he would still get one vote though.

BTW, I don't know if you guys are familiar with UN-jargon for resolution writing. It's pretty neat since all resolutions follow the same basic format. In summary, a resolution start with introductory clauses which state the intention of the document. For example:

Resolution 001:
The Establishment of the United Nations for the PTWDG

-Acknowledging that an international body in which all teams are equally represented can serve to ease present and future disputes in a democratic manner

-Recognizing the need for peaceful solutions to conflict

now the next part is the operative clauses, i.e. the "substance" and are numbered.

1. Approves the establishment of the United Nations

2. Authorizes the right of each team to appoint one member as Permanent Representative

3. Appoints a Secretary General on a rotational basis of 15 turns in order of each team play.

Bla bla bla

silly but neat. I actually worked at the U.N. for a while so I know how this stuff works.

[DeepO]

I like the idea, but what would it accomplish? what issues would you want to see resolved before the UN? I can't think of many...

As to the forming of the UN: it's only partly right that it was formed after WWII, there was a previous institution, started in 1930 IIRC (I only know the Dutch name for it: 'Volkerenbond'). They disolved the day the UN was founded, when at the same time the 'victors' of WWII hijacked the security council. Permanent members I can understand, but veto votes? Oh please, how convincing is that to the rest of the world.

DeepO

[Master Zen]

I just think it might be used to solve international disputes (not necesarily related to war) as they arise during the game...

I also agree that it not be too powerful since it would bind the teams needlessly and reduce the strategic aspect of the game considerably

[Nimitz]

Originally posted by DeepO
I like the idea, but what would it accomplish? what issues would you want to see resolved before the UN? I can't think of many...

As to the forming of the UN: it's only partly right that it was formed after WWII, there was a previous institution, started in 1930 IIRC (I only know the Dutch name for it: 'Volkerenbond'). They disolved the day the UN was founded, when at the same time the 'victors' of WWII hijacked the security council. Permanent members I can understand, but veto votes? Oh please, how convincing is that to the rest of the world.

DeepO

It was called the League of Nations, it was formed right after WW1 as part of the peace treaty. It completely failed at all it objectives as it wouldn't or couldn't back up what it wanted, demenstraited by a failure to stop WW2. It was effectively defunked at a the start of WW2 do to its inablity to do anything and dissovled the day the UN formed as was said above.

[redstar1]

The Veto exists primarily because the UK insisted on one. At the time the British Empire was still large and UK had many worldwide interests and responsibilities. It reserved the right to 'veto' any action that might disrupt the Empire. Of course the rest insisted on it as well....

[DeepO]

Ah, the darn Brits did it

Thanks, Nimitz, for correcting me. I don't wholely agree the League of Nations was a failure, at least it was an attempt, which served as inspiration to both the UN and the EU. But let's keep that discussion out of this thread

DeepO

[Master Zen]

So, any ideas on what the UN would do here in the PTWDG?

One idea is perhaps enforcing treaties. Say a treaty is ambigous and one side claims something that is or isn't on the treaty, the UN can act as a neutral referee.

It can also condemn or enforce military action...

[Nuclear Winter]

PEACE KEEPING!!!!
I think it to be a very good Idea indeed
but the problem of it is the small number of teams...
BEsides such, maybe the UN could help weak nations with some form of support, to make the game more competitive in the middle-end.

[Tiberius]

At the request of one of the members, the UN would issue (if voted) resolutions, regarding diverse actions/treaties/whatever (like war, yes). If the targeted civ didn't comply, the UN could impose a trade embargo or other sanctions.

For ex.: in the last international dispute, the Bob civs could have asked for a resolution that would have been forced Vox to leave Bob. If the majority (51%, 66%, ?) had voted that Vox should leave, they must have complied or face the sanctions specified in the UN resolution. (I'm not expressing any opinion here, just an example; also Vox could have asked the UN for the right to settle ...etc).

IMHO this would bring the diplomatic relations to a higher level of... backstabing ; j/k, but seriously, all of the secret alliances or deals (if any ), all the discussions about controversial issues, all of the accusations, etc would have a differet weight.

[mjmacy]

I love this idea, could make this a really interensting game. I also this rotating chair is the best

[Beta]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Vox could have asked the UN for the right to settle ...etc.

Well, if having a UN means we can settle on Bob, then I'm all for it.

[Master Zen]

Well, since there are only 6 civs remaining perhaps the rotating chair Secretary-General's vote could count twice to break the deadlock or have veto power.

I think that in a while after more people comment and give suggestions, each team appoint someone to start a commission which will work on the "UN Charter" (i.e. the guidelines upon which the UN will work)

[zeit]

Instead of having a rotating chair secretary general- why not have Trip- as on of the founders of the game act as secretary-general, with a vote of it's own. Trip will not be influenced by in-game happenings- as he is no longer part of it. Having a team with two votes could prove problematic. Such arrangement will lack the balancing quality which is required for this to work.

[CiverDan]

I can just see it now....As part of a treaty, one must agree to "weapons inpections" to verify no artillery, nukes, whatever...hehe

[Kloreep]

Now that Trip is the Historian of the game, I don't think that would work. He's supposed to observe, not influence. And frankly, what makes him (or any other individual) so impartial? (I can just see the "yea" vote for UN war on Neu Demogyptica... )

If the two-vote idea just doesn't work, I'd say leave it at one vote each and come up with a system for ties.

[Jon Shafer]

Kloreep is right. Though I couldn't vote or influence actions, I could "preside" over discussions and debates to make sure things run smoothly.

[Donegeal]

I don't think we should come up with a system for ties. If it ends in a tie, the UN's offical position is to not have a position.

In the case of Vox settleing on Bob all Vox would have to do is wait until either they, GS or Lego has the seat and then call the issue when a team that supports them has two votes. Then all of a sudden three off continent civs are telling the same number of civs what should happen on their continent. This is not good.

Additionally, what would happen when another team get eliminated? The the remanider of the teams would use the UN to squish out the other teams.
Is short (hahahaha) I am against anytype of UN when there are so few number of teams. This would be great in a 16 team game, but that can't happen.

* Donegeal walks away mumbling curses at Firaxis for limiting the MP games to only 8 players.

[ZargonX]

Donegeal, I would have the system of the rotating Sec-Gen function over a period of game turns (i.e. a team holds the seat for 15-20 game turns.) With this method, if a team is holding out for a certain team to take over the chairmanship, depending at which point in the cycle it is, it could take a while to get a situation like you propose to occur. Besides, in any real government, waiting until people who agree with you come to power is how things work. Trying to stack the Supreme Court is an age-old American tradition, for example

With that said, I don't really think the UN would turn into a Bob vs. Non-Bob affair, as none of the teams really view the world situation that simplistically (I hope ) And, if it did, then the UN clearly would have failed, and we'd have all watched the death of an international entity. So, either way, it'll be fun to see how things go!

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by ZargonX
With that said, I don't really think the UN would turn into a Bob vs. Non-Bob affair, as none of the teams really view the world situation that simplistically (I hope )

Hope springs eternal.

[lmtoops]

Why I am against the UN:

1. A team cannot do what's best (for the team) because the UN has voted against it.

2. Since there are so few teams, it is easy to influence a small few to push through favorable decisions.