What category should I use?
Medicalis
26-01-2006, 07:12
I want to make a proposal that makes it illegal for UN nations to declare war on other UN nations. What category should I use for it?
Forgottenlands
26-01-2006, 07:14
I want to make a proposal that makes it illegal for UN nations to declare war on other UN nations. What category should I use for it?
Trash bin
You're proposing a resolution that I am CERTAIN would be a metagaming violation. It would almost unquestionably be deleted from queue. If you don't believe me, I suggest asking the mods, but I'm pretty freaking sure.
If it is ruled legal, I'd say Political Stability/Strong
Medicalis
26-01-2006, 07:18
You're proposing a resolution that I am CERTAIN would be a metagaming violation. It would almost unquestionably be deleted from queue. If you don't believe me, I suggest asking the mods, but I'm pretty freaking sure.
Opps. Thanks for that.
Gruenberg
26-01-2006, 13:21
Opps. Thanks for that.
Article 4
ยง Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.
So, if it's not a MetaGaming violation, I think it would still be a contradiction and, anyway, just not a good idea. The UN is a game function, not a formal alliance.
Cluichstan
26-01-2006, 13:39
So, if it's not a MetaGaming violation, I think it would still be a contradiction and, anyway, just not a good idea. The UN is a game function, not a formal alliance.
Although I'm sure there are plenty of nations who wouldn't mind an NS Warsaw Pact. ;)
Forgottenlands
26-01-2006, 16:01
So, if it's not a MetaGaming violation, I think it would still be a contradiction and, anyway, just not a good idea. The UN is a game function, not a formal alliance.
How would that be a violation? It says self-defense AGAINST an armed attack - so if one UN member attacks another, the second one has full right to defend itself - but the first one would be dealt with by this resolution (while the second one would not). The only issue might be with a third party alliance....
Gruenberg
26-01-2006, 16:06
How would that be a violation? It says self-defense AGAINST an armed attack - so if one UN member attacks another, the second one has full right to defend itself - but the first one would be dealt with by this resolution (while the second one would not). The only issue might be with a third party alliance....
That would still, surely, entail a declaration of war. And if not - and we could continue to attack people without a formal declaration of war - then it's a pretty pointless 'restriction' anyway. That said, you seemed to have warned him off, so this is probably academic.
St Edmund
26-01-2006, 16:21
Trash bin
You're proposing a resolution that I am CERTAIN would be a metagaming violation. It would almost unquestionably be deleted from queue. If you don't believe me, I suggest asking the mods, but I'm pretty freaking sure.
If it is ruled legal, I'd say Political Stability/Strong
How would it be 'metagaming'? Isn't membership in the UN something that's supposed to be known about by the nations involved, rather than just by the players?
Fonzoland
26-01-2006, 16:32
I read the metagaming rule again, and it doesn't seem to exclude legislation banning war. A bad idea and way out of the UN mandate for sure, but not illegal, I think.
Flibbleites
26-01-2006, 17:47
I read the metagaming rule again, and it doesn't seem to exclude legislation banning war. A bad idea and way out of the UN mandate for sure, but not illegal, I think.
But it's a attempt to control how people RP which I believe would constitute a metagaming violation.
Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Fonzoland
26-01-2006, 18:53
But it's a attempt to control how people RP which I believe would constitute a metagaming violation.
Bob Flibble
UN Representative
I don't want to start discussing the sex of the angels, but there is a difference between controlling how players RP the game and controlling what nations are allowed to do. The latter is fair game, happens everytime a resolution passes, and naturally has consequences for RP.
Forgottenlands
26-01-2006, 19:10
The problem is the nature of the game's design is that war can only be declared at an RP level - therefore you're controlling how players RP thus creating a metagaming violation.
That said, I acknowledge your point and it's why I'm only 98% sure it's illegal (and didn't give an absolute).
Gruen: but the first nation would have broken past the UN Gnomes to end up in that situation, so you would end up with a contradiction since the Gnomes would have changed the attack plans before they were implemented. Also - says who you need to declare war to attack someone?