NationStates Jolt Archive

An
Inquiry
of
Assembly Values



"Politics is more dangerous than war, for in war you are only killed once." Winston Churchill



Over my time in the World Assembly, I have seen n00b after n00b be blasted by the waves of seniority for their attitudes on defense and militaristic endeavors. Though I myself do not believe that militarizing the establishment would be something that could benefit the institution, I also have many opponents that would argue otherwise in this arena of ideologies, because this is democracy. Our authority has prohibited the creation of a World Assembly funded military, be it for defense, intervention, emergencies or peacekeeping missions, with approval from our democratic body in historical years. Let me make myself clear, no arbitrarily established power created the establishment; we rightfully voted on the World Assembly’s creation, no arbitrary power established our laws for us, we are independent from tyranny. At an early time in the Assembly’s history, the bill of “Rights and Duties of WA State (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835552&postcount=4)”, was passed with a sweeping vote.

Yet I fear that the nostalgia that follows such a sacred document instigates trouble for democracy. Moral Relativism dictates that social opinions will change on war and on military. So fine, propose a repeal, (if you can?). Which is where the problem lies, no one wishes to repeal such a sacred and important document, no matter the ideologies that they so wish to please. We consider the consequences of repealing our rights and duties without a swift replacement at hand, as being too hazardous. I feel our establishment made a mistake in penning the most “constitutional” body of work that we can cling too, also one of the of the most debatable of pieces. The Assembly's greatest folly. Condemning the World Assembly from militarism should have been left for a second, more challengeable document.

Are there logistical problems with having an assemblage of international militaries? I see no coding that needs to be endeavoured, as one would argue. A World Assembly’s military or defense can be as nonexistent as any other organization that the World Assembly’s resolutions construct.

Therefore, I believe our legislative positions on antimilitarism need to be re-evaluated for the sake of our modest democracy.

Yours in humble inquiry
Unibot

I believe the bit you're referring to is

As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

But before we get into arguing over interpretation and whatnot, isn't the rule against creating a WA military an OOC one, and one that will stand regardless of what you repeal?

Yes.

If you want to create a WA military force, you'd also need to request a rules change, not just a repeal. Which isn't to say that individual nations couldn't coalesce militarily to enforce a WA mandate or meet some humanitarian goal; you just can't put it in a resolution.

I forget why exactly the moderators outlawed WA forces, but don't expect them to reverse a five-year ban. You're not the first to push for a WA military force, I doubt you'll be the last, and they've pretty much heard it all before. Sorry.

I believe I mentioned that with "(if you can?)".

I understand that the WA military is banned in OOC too ...so? why?

Doesn't it infuriate you that someone else is deciding are institution's ideals, yet this is a democracy we have forged.

If the people wish to have an army of worlds, who are we to say they can't?

I believe I mentioned that with "(if you can?)".

I understand that the WA military is banned in OOC too ...so? why?

Doesn't it infuriate you that someone else is deciding are institution's ideals, yet this is a democracy we have forged.

If the people wish to have an army of worlds, who are we to say they can't?Not really, the rule suits me fine. Even from an RP standpoint it's a dumb idea. UN-led military forces have not been very effective in RL, so why do you think an imaginary NSWA one would function any better?

Also, the mods do not enact rules by democratic vote. This is not a democracy; this is a game, all games have rules, and sometimes you just need to live with it. This is not a rule that is going to be changed anytime soon.

O.O.C. I'm under the impression that a w.a. military is against the rules, not just illegal I.C. I imagine that's because of metagaming or something similar.


I.C. What is being suggested is not in anyway feasible. The complexity of the law which it would take to insure the smooth working and proper oversight, not to mention the logistical aspects, of a w.a. military force could not be contained in a single resolution, and since such a measure could not be created in several resolutions such an undertaking would be impossible.

Of course this does not take in to account the very serious and very complicated moral issues surrounding such a course of action, we imagine that this alone would create insurmountable obstacles to such an endeavour.

And then there are the issues surrounding utility and cost. Why does this organisation need an armed force ? And why should it foot the undoubtedly enormous cost of such a thing ? Both questions would create another insurmountable quantity of obstacles.

Indeed the whole question of such a project is so beset with so many complicated and interwoven difficulties that the resultant levels of controversy and discord which would accompany even its discussion let alone its actual implementation ( which would undoubtedly lead to a mass defection of member states ) that that project would hardly be worth the effort.


Yours,

Also, the mods do not enact rules by democratic vote. This is not a democracy; this is a game, all games have rules, and sometimes you just need to live with it. This is not a rule that is going to be changed anytime soon.

Then I have lost hope for the World Assembly. It is not a democracy obviously.

An International Military is a basic ideology that needs to be granted to the people if a majority is present. No longer shall the rules dictate our political culture. These rules appear to serve as a road map not a clean political slate to lay our decisions upon.

What is being suggested is not in anyway feasible. The complexity of the law which it would take to insure the smooth working and proper oversight, not to mention the logistical aspects, of a w.a. military force could not be contained in a single resolution, and since such a measure could not be created in several resolutions such an undertaking would be impossible.

I can't speak for the entire WA obviously, but I'd like a try at it.

I can't speak for the entire WA obviously, but I'd like a try at it.


Try it, you will fail honoured Ambassador. No single resolution could contain the quantity of provisions necessary to create a realistic military force.

And what category would such a law be submitted in ? None exists which would properly suit it.

Yours,

Try it, you will fail honoured Ambassador. No single resolution could contain the quantity of provisions necessary to create a realistic military force.

And what category would such a law be submitted in ? None exists which would properly suit it.

Yours,

It would have to be a resolution of sweeping elegance and general language that describes the body of a militaristic organization. One that does not intervene with nations on any other occasion, other than unpreventable natural disasters that nation's require (and ask for) help to recuperate from. National armies already defend the seas from international piracy, and engage themselves with their petty disputes. The WA army would not be an army of petty, diplomatic disputes but one of great, humanitarian feats that only the WA can provide with its sheer volume and power.

What category did the Humanitarian Aid act go in?

Also I would say the WAHQ needs some security. Just saying.

O.O.C. what your describing is a Red Cross not an army. The only purpose for a w.a. army is to police conflict and enforce peace ( and other combat related operations ), and the w.a. has plenty of security .

I forget why exactly the moderators outlawed WA forces, but don't expect them to reverse a five-year ban. You're not the first to push for a WA military force, I doubt you'll be the last, and they've pretty much heard it all before. Sorry.

It's because in order for a WA military to be run fairly it would have to be RPed by one of the mods and they don't need that added to their workload.

Also I would say the WAHQ needs some security. Just saying.

Just what makes you think we don't have any security? What to do you think those of in the Maintenance of Order Department do all day, twiddle out thumbs and play Poker?

Patrick O'Neil
Head of the Maintenance of Order Department
WA Building Management

From Rules for WA Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) (emphasis and editing mine):
Types Of Violations

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires an adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. <snip other examples, segue to the relevant one>

Army, Police, SWAT, etc
The WA doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

So there it is. You can't write a WA proposal to establish a WA army because WA proposals can't change the way the game works. If you write one, it would be deleted as illegal. It's breaking the fourth wall. The game Nation States has a rule that says "no WA army".

If you want changes in the way the game works, you go to Technical and argue for them, but "democracy" is not an argument; "the majority want it" is not an argument; "Max says" is an argument, because it's his game.

As others have mentioned, RPing a coalition of WA member nations' military forces, whether they're the Willing or the Terminally Stupid, is entirely possible in the RP forums.

On the question of security at the WA headquarters, various players have RPd various types of interfering uniformed types wandering round the halls. Mostly they don't catch on, because nobody wants some other nation having a military foot in the door.

There's a vague general acceptance that the Gnomes do lots of stuff, and another comfortable belief that the WA Building Mgmt probably looks after that sort of thing, but, like all RPd stuff, it works only to the extent that other RPers accept it.

Also, WA Resolution #8 has already established the "necessary security" to protect the headquarters. We even had an argument as to whether that language violated the no-armies rule.

:$ true.

(remembered the argument, forgot the outcome)

And, since it's not at all vague ...

furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it


... and thus the OP's main points -- WA international military or WA HQ security -- are covered, I can't see much reason to continue this thread.

Unibot, I'm not sure exactly what you were proposing in your OP: a new resolution establishing an army (illegal), an amendment to an existing resolution (illegal) or the repeal of all the Rights and Duties of WA States. If the latter, do it in a new thread.

At what stage does a thread entirely devoted to answering questions he could find out himself with 30 seconds' research become spam?
I understand that the WA military is banned in OOC too ...so? why?
Read the stickies.
What category did the Humanitarian Aid act go in?
Read the stickies.
Also I would say the WAHQ needs some security. Just saying.
Read the stickies.
Then I have lost hope for the World Assembly.
Excellent. Don't let the door hit you.