| nix001 | Friday, February 5, 2010 - 11:30 pm 
I have an idea.
I think the Security Councils need an armed wing.
Each continant will have its own Security Council Federation (SCF) made up of one slave of a Security Council Member (SCM). They would be the chairman. And one slave from any other President of that continent, who wished to become a member of that continents SCF.
Only one seat per President throughout each World.
All members of the SCF would be required to switch on the war treaty. If found not to have, the SCM would be in their rights to remove such President from the SCF.
Each President would be required to maintain X amount of D-Wings in the air.
Then when the Security Council Members become aware of any SECURITY problems and vote in favour of action, they will have the means to deal with it. |
| nix001 | Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 12:33 am
It would be upto the Security Council Members to maintain the Security Council Federations.
New Security Council Members would take over the Chairmanship of the SCF of the out going SCM. |
| Scarlet (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 04:42 am
They have always had the means to deal with it, just not the cohesiveness.
No world government or security council can be effective unless everyone agrees that they want it to be effective. I assume most people would rather pursue their own or their federation interests rather than play world police.
Just like real life. |
| Inanna (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 04:50 am
Following the a major deal by security council members on GR, world war quickly shadowed that agreement after most everyone signed on.
Unfortunately, this proposal is not very realistic. Even though the UN has a military 'peace keeping force' they would be embarrassingly ineffective at war. And to add to it, the permanent security council seems locked in a cold war of sorts atm. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 03:00 pm
effective feds that work best are those that have a close relationship with one another. they also have a longevity in those relationships. because of the nature of the security council this probably won't exist. members come and go and have different goals in the game. some council members are even inactive. not to mention that i don't see the role of the sec council to be the policeman of the worlds. so, my vote goes with Wendy and Scarlet--not realistic. |
| nix001 | Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 04:35 pm
Hello Scarlet.
What means do the Security Council have? Apart from their own?
Surely its in everyones best interest to have a Security Council that is able to protect everyones assets?
Hi Wendy.
This is the point. The Security Council made a ruling, but unless they were prepared to put up their own assets or Feds to uphold that ruling nothing happened. I dont think it is fair to ask them to sacrifice their own assets for our assets.
But if individual Presidents put up a slave to ensure the Security of the world, the Security Council would have around 200 countries at their disposal.
I'm sure then rulings would be up held.
One reason why the UN is ineffective is due to the responsibility of taking life. This is why they are called a peace keeping force.
Another reason is the Veto.
Another is the USA. The USA wants to be World Police. It will do anything to undermine and weaken the UN.
That would not happen in our SC due to there being no Veto and every SCM being equal.
Bonjour Parsifal.
Who would you see as being world Policemen? Those who have amassed large amounts of assets through robbing others?
Maybe those who are big enough to tell but not be told?
Also, have the yanks not just had a change of leader in the middle of war? A SCF ruling will not change just because a SCM has been changed.
When a player becomes a SCM their whole idea of the game should change. It should be a position of responsibility and honour. Like being made captain. No longer are you there doing your own thing. You are now the leader. If the Security Council had a mandate, why would'nt the SCM's not have the same goal?
Plus if a SCM becomes in-active and the continent they are responsible for becomes riddled with thieves and warmongers, it would be that SCM who would be held responsible and it would be their name that would be stained with the words 'NOT CAPABLE' |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 08:29 pm
but the sec council is made up of different interests. they may not even like each other and have fought one another. the council can't be any more effective than direct negotiations are now. as i see it the only real power of the council is to give aid. sanctions on nukes isn't even very effective. |
| Scarlet (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 10:47 pm
Suppose your proposal is implemented... how could one guarantee that it would not be used to further their personal and federation interests?
The closest to a world peacekeeping force that could ever realistically occur is a union of players seeking to eliminate a common threat. However, this can always be done without bothering to configure draconian game rules regarding the security council.
I will note that it has happened that a certain federation-dominated security council used the anti-nuke resolution to prevent fair retaliation in a federation war. |
| nix001 | Sunday, February 7, 2010 - 08:35 am
I recon Parsifal answered your question Scarlet about 'how could one guarantee that it would not be used to further their personal and federation interests?'
As Parsifal put it 'they may not even like each other and have fought one another'
That alone should make it impartial.
Plus you added 'However, this can always be done without bothering to configure draconian game rules regarding the security council.'
Why state something without giving the alternative? |
| nix001 | Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - 12:42 am
OK Parsifal, what happens when negotiations break down because all one side wants is WAR? WAR. Then wot?
Fine on Fearless Blue. After all, the GM gave us this World to have fun on. On FB anything goes. Hell I could rob someone if I wanted and feel no way about it (maybe? Ok, I might feel some guilt. But thats because I'm soft)
Anyways, on the other Worlds, Wars and actions that should only be tolerated on FB, affect innocent victims in ways that should only be experienced on FB. These innocent victims of GR, WG, KB and LU who have been led to believe that they are safe from the brutality and oppression of Fearless Blue deserve more.
They deserve Security councils that has standing Armys ready to defend these Worlds from those who prefer they ways of FB.
If these Armys were to be made up of individual Presidents on each continent and the Security Council voted for action against a aggressor/s on that continent, the whole continent would come to arms against the aggressor/s.
Thus bringing a sense of well being, friendship and togetherness to the whole of the land. PEACE.
FB is a different matter though. There should be no Security Council Armed Wing on FB. FB is for pain. It's the fiery pit of Hell.
It should be kept that way.
WAR.
|
| SaintAugustine (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 03:20 pm
Good Idea, If This in on LU, I Aprove it as of my vote on lu since I'm memeber of LU Counsil
From SaintAgustine
Wrighting S.C Book of Life |
| nix001 | Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 12:09 am
Nice one.
I'm thinking that alot might not like this idea out of worry that the Fed they have built up would be no longer needed.
But due to the complexity of implementing a Security Council Resolution to go-to war, the likely hood of war being implemented would only come about if most Security Council Members were in fear of doing nothing. It would have to be a World War or a Band of rebels from Fearless Blue to get any kind of Resolution passed for war.
This would mean Federations for day to day protection of individual assets and friends will always be needed.
What the Security Council Federation would do is give a hope of action to those who only have a voice.
And can you imagine the fun to be had if the SCF were to ever implement war? I recon X that by 1,000
I guess the only problem would be is if a SCF were to decide to invade another world.............But that would need complete trust between members. And due to Security Council Members coming and going, I don't think that trust would be found. |
