2nd Attempt at a United Nations framework

Master Zen · August 2, 2003, 20:20

I've been thinking during the last couple of days if there was a way to create a viable United Nations for the PTW Demo Games since I fear we might well reach the point many months later that all treaties can be violated at will with no consequence whatsoever. If every team is to be percieved as a backstabber, there will never be any trust left and further demo games will simply degenerate into slug-fests at every opportunity (not that it would be entirely bad...

)

So, I think I've come up with a rough framework of a functioning United Nations body, perhaps this demo game would be a little too advanced to implement it, but the PTWDG II has just started so it would be a good way to test it out.

Well, this is kinda long, so bear with me and please post your suggestions, comments and criticism.

------------------------

DRAFT CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of treachery and deceit, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, have resolved to establish a multilateral forum for the solution of international disputes.

CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE

1. The purpose of the United Nations is to discuss, debate and reslove disputes arising between two or more nations, to determine in a neutral and unbiased manner the victims of agression or treachery and the guilty parties involved.

CHAPTER 2
MEMBERSHIP

2. All nations which exist in-game are allowed unconditional and permanent membership in the United Nations.

3. Each nation shall appoint one Permanent Representative which will have voice and vote in all UN proceedings and resolutions. The conditions and length of service of the respresentative shall be dictated by each team.

4. The game historian shall act as the Secretary General of the UN. The Secretary General shall have both voice and vote.

CHAPTER 3
VOTING

5. Each Permanent Representative may bring to the UN a draft resolution asking for mediation of an international dispute. Disputes may include but are not limited to border violations, armed agression and treaty violations. These disputes are preferably related to direct in-game consequences but may also include disputes with indirect in-game consequences (like NAPs). Disputes which do not meet this criteria will not be considered.

6. All resolutions shall be voted upon during a maxium time of 3 in-game turns. Each Permanent Representative shall submit his vote in public with the Secretary General voting at the end.

7. Each Representative may vote in Favor, Against or Abstain. A majority vote is required (50% +1) for a resolution to pass. Should the vote result in a tie, the Secretary General's vote shall be considered as the tie-breaker.

CHAPTER 4
RESOLUTIONS

8. A Draft Resolution is an official document which seeks to resolve a dispute. It may be sponosored by any Permanent Representative or by coalition. During the discussion phase, the draft resolution may be modified by the sponsors before being subjected to vote. Draft Resolutions must include a title referring to the dispute.

9. If a Draft Resolution passes the vote, it becomes a Resolution with a number and a title.

10. Resolutions may not be applied retroactively.

CHAPTER 5
SANCTIONS

11. Should a nation be considered guilty of agression or in violation of written agreements by the United Nations, the nation shall recieve a public reprimand and an opportunity to peacefully rectify the dispute according to the UN's dictate.

12. Should the nation refuse to rectify, it will be considered "in breach" of a United Nations Resolution. Nations in breach have all written agreements made with third parties subject to voluntary withrdrawl by the third party.

13. In case of an extreme act of aggression or treachery, or repeated violations of UN resolutions, the UN may call upon a luxury, resource and/or technology trade embargo on the offending nation. Nations which fail to support the embargo will be considered in breach of the UN.

CHAPTER 6
RATIFICATION

14. This Charter shall be ratified upon signature of all existing nations in the game.

------------------------

And now, like Kofi said, the floor is open for debate

Master Zen · August 2, 2003, 20:33

Ok, here's an example of how things would work in practice:

before anyone starts pestering me, the sanctions and final words here are purely hypothetical!!!

Vox-GS Conflict

After being attacked by Vox, GS chooses to submit a draft resolution condeming Voxian agression and demanding a trade embargo on Vox.

During the discussions all nations make it known that Vox despite being an agressor did not break any treaties and thus has a legitimate right of beginning armed conflict (remember, the UN here is not for avoiding wars, it's for making backstabbing have consequences). Vote fails.

ND-GoW-RP conflict

RP presents a draft resolution claiming GoW violated a treaty. After a protracted debate ensues to determine if the treaty indeed included a non-agression clause. It didn't and resolution doesn't pass.

ND-GoW-GS Conflict

ND and GoW present draft resolution claming GS violated the GoW-GS NAP by performing hostile acts against GoW. GS is found guilty and is ordered to permit passage by GoW of GS cities in Bob while the NAP is active.

GS decides to overrule the resolution in-game. UN finds GS in breach of resolution and dictates a voluntary withdrawl against GS. Lego and Vox decide to legally cancel tech/lux trades with GS as a sign of protest.

Hipothetical post-war backstab

With one city remaining, ND-GoW make peace with RP. However, after the peace treaty ND-GoW troops attack and destroy RP city. Being such a vile and treacherous act, GS-Lego sponsor a draft resolution calling for a permanent trade embargo on ND-GoW. Resolution passes and trade embargo is in effect. Vox however, decides to continue trading with ND-GoW. Vox is automatically declared in breach of resolution forcing a voluntary withdrawl of other nation from treaties with Vox.

Shiber · August 2, 2003, 20:36

You're giving a lot of power to Trip.
Not that I object to appointing Trip as the secretary general (on the other hand, I support your choice; he has proven to be objective thus far and AFAIK he is trusted more than anyone else in this community), but I find that it is appropriate if he was at least elected (even if the only persona that would rise to offer contendership in the race would be the long-running Mr. Banana himself).

Master Zen · August 2, 2003, 20:37

Things to work on:

1) How to prevent a diplomatic "gang-bang" by many nations over another (something that may happen against a very weak or very strong civ). Perhaps giving the secretary general veto power?

2) Avoid sanctions calling for armed intervention. I.e. the UN should never be allowed to enforce a war upon another. the UN here is simply to enforce sanctions against backstabbing, not to avoid wars altogether. In other word, it's here to enforce written agreements, not to enforce peace like the real UN.

3) Specifics on types of sanctions should be chiseled out.

That's all I have to say for now, please comment

Jon Shafer · August 2, 2003, 21:35

While turning down a seat of power is something I'm not often known to do (

), I must suggest that the Secretary General be someone else. I vowed in a pledge that I would no longer influence the game in any way, and in return I get to see everything that happens for my own entertainment (and education). I could therefore, not accept an office which gives me influence over the game in any way.

Aside from the moralistic issues, there's also practical ones. Anything I say or do would be heavily scrutinized, and in passing certain judgments I may be accused of favoritism or revealing information, which is unacceptable for the role I'm currently in.

An eye cannot grow teeth, nor should one.

Master Zen · August 2, 2003, 21:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

An eye cannot grow teeth, nor should one.

But it does grow hair

any suggestions on who could be Sec Gen? Perhaps a rotational post? That would be a bit too biased if you ask me... perhaps someone esle who isn't involved?

GhengisFarb™ · August 2, 2003, 23:23

Oh wonderful! An organization to promote world peace and harmony! It should have the legal authority to play all the teams turns to make sure nothing bad happens and can give them time outs....

alva · August 3, 2003, 00:51

none.

Again, people will vote what favours their situation and not the issue.
Add to that, that not always/never is all info available to make a judgement.

Octavian X · August 3, 2003, 01:22

I think Trip would make an excellent Secretary General. I would only take away his voting privlidges in regular votes: he would only break ties. Also, Trip serving as Secretary General would give the U.N. someone able to actually enforce it's resolutions.

And yes, there will be bias. No two ways around it. I would simply allow for a mandatory period of time to allow for public debate before each vote. Hopefully, all the evidence will be used in such a debate to allow for a good judgement.

Jon Shafer · August 3, 2003, 01:31

The problem is that sometimes the "correct" judgment would be based upon information the team in question would rather not have made public...

Octavian X · August 3, 2003, 01:45

It's rather obvious that people will manipulate information to their advantage. I just think that the more realistic it gets, the better.

Master Zen · August 3, 2003, 01:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Octavian X
It's rather obvious that people will manipulate information to their advantage. I just think that the more realistic it gets, the better.

Exactly. As if the real UN were truly unbiased...

Perhaps sanctions should be lessened. The idea here is not to make backstabbing a game-losing event, but rather that the team who does it know that there are consequences to doing so.

Jon Shafer · August 3, 2003, 02:23

The real UN doesn't have God as Secretary General to dish out justice.

Darekill · August 3, 2003, 02:29

Boys, do we need realy a UN to tell us how we have to judge the acts of the others.

Ok a pov is always biased. The aggressor will always find a way to justify his action if he wants. I say this despite the fact that I don't bother to dig to deep to look for a reason for the aggresion against RP we just simply are aggressive. Rp may ask itself why.

The oponent of this aggression can always fin a reason to state that the aggression is not justifyable.

As far as NAP's ROP's and MPP's are concerned I do belive in public opinion and I know that human players just know whom to trust and why and whom not after a while.....

Master Zen · August 3, 2003, 03:12

Again, the idea is not for the UN to dish out justice, simply to "officially" determine if a nation did a treacherous deed and allow some leeway for other nations to resond to such treachery without being treacherous themselves...

wow, I said threachery 3 times

vondrack · August 3, 2003, 03:45

I'm with Darekill. I do not need any UN to be able to "see" what's going on, who the bad guy is, nor to justify Lego "legally sanctioning" other teams breaking international treaties. Despite dozens and dozens of (often ridiculous) flameposts, my opinion on international disputes is usually formed by the first couple of posts that reveal the cold facts - there was an NAP here, MPP there. I add my own experience with the parties involved in and make the picture for myself up. No UN can give me a different picture. It would be the same (ridiculous) arguments at a different ground only.

Whatever the UN Charter "allows" is doable even now - Lego is perfectly free to embargo GS or GoW+ND. We could decide that we consider GoW, GS, or ND such backstabbing bastards we no longer honour our past deals with them. No need for an "approval" of other teams through any UN.

Guys, let's face it: honouring treaties or not is part of the game. It's a skill to be able to distinguish between who will honour a treaty, who will "honour" it, and who will simply not... and at what time.

I have repeatedly expressed the opinion everybody is free to do whatever he/she wants (and because of that, I care very little about NAP, MPPs etc.). He/she just has to understand everything has consequences - GoW attacks RP despite having an MPP? Fine, everybody now knows GoW is capable of attacking an MPP partner. I do not care if, technically, NAP was not part of that MPP. I have my common sense. GS accepts the cities from RP? Fine, everybody now knows GS is capable of sticking to the wording of a treaty instead of its spirit (no arguments, please - not meant to start any, strictly my personal PoV only). I don't care what GS says about the non-hostility of this act. I have my common sense. And I could go on and on...

If "the UN [would be] here not for avoiding wars, [but] for making backstabbing consequences", then we do not need it. Backstabbing DOES have consequences, even now. UN would not make them any different.

BTW... where is the guarantee that teams would vote according to the "real justice" and not to maximize their own benefit? Example: if Lego had a "bad" deal with GS in place, we might be tempted to support a resolution against GS simply to make ourselves "legally" able to quit a deal we would no longer like...

Harovan · August 3, 2003, 04:16

Idiocy.

DeepO · August 3, 2003, 04:46

Just like the real UN, there will be too many practical problems... this will just become another popularity contest, and another means to diplomaticly backstab nations.

What could work, though, is a high council of eyes: people like Trip, who have all information, and can make unbiased decisions. But even then, if that may remove the bias, it still won't help teams against backstabbing.

DeepO

nbarclay · August 3, 2003, 04:51

The only way I'd even consider a U.N. in the game was if it were similar to the real U.N. in one key respect: the ability of the world's major powers to veto anything that would adversely affect them.

Seriously, the potential for nations to gang up on other nations is bad enough without creating a formal body for them to do it through. In the real world, win/win solutions where the entire world benefits provide a goal for the U.N. to work toward. But in Civ, only one player or team can win, and that pretty much nullifies the ideal of a U.N. that's goal is the common good of everyone.

Hot_Enamel · August 3, 2003, 05:18

I like the idea of a UN....but would prefer it have zero power to do anything. A toothless tiger.

Rules that will allow a true debate to discuss team actions would be great. Instead of the Flame Fests (R.I.P.) that we have now.

Is a MPP a NAP ?
Are taking cities that were 1 turn from being invaded and then refusing passage considered "hostile action" ?

At the moment, we have an Eye who is chronicling world events. If he writes GoW violated their MPP and attacked RP, then by GoW’s POV this would be an inaccuracy.

Let us debate it and vote.

The in game consequences of such vote = nothing.

DeepO · August 3, 2003, 05:58

A toothless tiger would do the exact same thing as the flamefest threads: those with the best propaganda win the PR war for the other teams. Maybe there is a little less mudslinging if under the banner of a virtual UN, but I doubt it...

And as it seems GoW is still using a good discussion thread for its own purposes, let me counter with a nice question:
If nation A asks for a NAP with nation B, saying that their presence on the continent is required for defense against backstabs by their partner C, and nation B does exactly that: receive a presence on the continent (close to C), and have no intention whatsoever to attack A, does nation B then even violates the intent of the treaty? From nation B's PoV, they did exactly what's been asked for by nation A, although perhaps geographically a few cities up North.

DeepO

Shiber · August 3, 2003, 06:10

This is not going to work.
If you want an organization to determine who is "right" in a conflict, set up an international court that is run by neutral Apolytoners.
But if you set up a UN-like organization, don't be surprised if people start voting according to their interests rather than their conscience.
Besides, the UN is made up of a little more than 6 nations. There are many minor powers that can be influenced. But the organization that you're proposing can easily be dominated by a few alliances.
IMHO an attempt to reduce backstabbing and backroom politics by providing another stage for such acts is doomed to failure.

Hot_Enamel · August 3, 2003, 08:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
This is not going to work.
If you want an organization to determine who is "right" in a conflict, set up an international court that is run by neutral Apolytoners.
But if you set up a UN-like organization, don't be surprised if people start voting according to their interests rather than their conscience.
Besides, the UN is made up of a little more than 6 nations. There are many minor powers that can be influenced. But the organization that you're proposing can easily be dominated by a few alliances.
IMHO an attempt to reduce backstabbing and backroom politics by providing another stage for such acts is doomed to failure.

Yep... that is what I was trying to say.
The court system in the first SP Demo was perfect.

Finding impartial judges would be the problem of course.

But certainly, I would not would not be afraid to put the GoW argument to an impartial judge. And also accept any decision handed down.
It means nothing in-game, other giving the Eye excellent writing material.

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO
And as it seems GoW is still using a good discussion thread for its own purposes, let me counter with a nice question:
If nation A asks for a NAP with nation B, saying that their presence on the continent is required for defense against backstabs by their partner C, and nation B does exactly that: receive a presence on the continent (close to C), and have no intention whatsoever to attack A, does nation B then even violates the intent of the treaty? From nation B's PoV, they did exactly what's been asked for by nation A, although perhaps geographically a few cities up North.

Take a deep breath .. no one is attacking GS in this thread

Your question however is an excellent one ... wouldn't it be great in an "internation court" agrees with you ?

alva · August 3, 2003, 10:35

Quote:

What could work, though, is a high council of eyes: people like Trip, who have all information, and can make unbiased decisions. But even then, if that may remove the bias, it still won't help teams against backstabbing.

Trip actually having the correct info and judging accordingly might and will lead to revealling info that is supposed to be 'secret'.

Theseus · August 3, 2003, 12:13

The public forum IS the UN.

ZargonX · August 3, 2003, 12:45

Hahahah, MZ! Welcome to the hell of trying to propose a U.N.! You should have learned well the lessons of the past

Master Zen · August 3, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by ZargonX
Hahahah, MZ! Welcome to the hell of trying to propose a U.N.! You should have learned well the lessons of the past

Bah! It's always worth a shot

Anyway, don't blame me if by PTWDG IV nobody gives a hoot about written agreements...

GhengisFarb™ · August 3, 2003, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

Bah! It's always worth a shot

Anyway, don't blame me if by PTWDG IV nobody gives a hoot about written agreements...

This is the PTWDG IV? Where was I for the first three.....

LzPrst · August 3, 2003, 17:03

dont be daft. a UN organisation in 50 AD!?
if a civ breaks a treaty their reputation will be damaged among other civs. thats how it worked in the old days.

noone has authority to tell any nation to NOT trade with someone who is under a global embargo (not even the REAL UN). theres an interesting little concept which certain leaders across the world depend on; the sovereignity of the state. that is a very important part of every country's politics, and is the reason why the US still havent lifted its trade embargo on Cuba (which the UN decided was illegal) and South Africa had apartheid for decades despite worldwide condemnation.
The UN is a futile organization as it has no teeth, no real power or influence. why bother?

Just the idea of creating such an oranization at this time in history is just... it's anachronistic.

Maybe we could establish this once the UN wonder is built (is there a UN wonder in civ3? i forget...)

Shiber · August 3, 2003, 18:19

There is a UN wonder, but it triggers the UN vote, which means that the game ends unless there's a tie (in which case the UN vote will be restarted next turn, ad infinitum).