Posts: 11
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
If anyone saw that message on South Pacific message board from United States of Grub that was actually the reason why I have proposed that we would have for instance 50 volunteer nations which we could be asking to move to another region for a while.If some one "attacks" to a friendly region that we have promiced to help, we could ask those volunteer nations to move there, endorse a nation which could be best for the peace for that region and maybe the one which could be willing to form a similar group of nations who could also help us if being "attacked" by a group of hostile nations.We are sure that in more than 74 000 nations there would be a considerable amount of nations who would be ready to do that "peace keeping" work.In thrust of peace,President of Garylandia
Posts: 713
Threads: 55
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I'm game for that plan. I'd like to start that region....
Posts: 36
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
that might be a good idea. B)
Posts: 187
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
It would provide the neccessary safter for our region and our allies.
Posts: 63
Threads: 8
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
It sounds good in theory ... but LR would be losing endorsements, and 'colony' nations wouldn't be any good because we can't (offically) have more than one UN Member Nation ... any ideas?
Posts: 953
Threads: 50
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
ask friends, to go? ask those with few endorsements (not much to lose) to go? i'm not sure, it's quite a bind.
Posts: 24
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
It does sound good in theory, the problem is we can't even get a lot of people to join this forum much less be willing to actively take part in a peace keeping force. This idea has been in the works at least since The Fathoms Below took office to help in keeping XYZ from doing a takeover. But preliminary tests showed the people willing to do this were few. Not enough to make much of a difference. It would take a huge effort, time, and a lot of campaigning. Then there's the question of stability, I'm guessing the majority of the people in this peace army would have endorsed LR. It's a good idea, I just don't know if it's the right time.
Posts: 713
Threads: 55
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Guys, I just came up with a brilliant idea. What we could do is ask people to volunteer to put their name on a list that, if the SP has to do something militarily, they will be called upon to do whatever they have to do. We would only need UN members and maybe non-UN people could recruit for the army.
Posts: 194
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
The problem is, how many people will want to lose their endorsements? And like Kyoto said, having a large quantity of UN nations leave the SP could affect LadyRebels. Those people most likely would have endorsed the other top nations, but there is no guarantee of this.The other issue here is, how are we supposed to know who the "good" side is? (Before someone says it's the Intelligence Department's job, we can't know everything about a situation, especially if it's some small region that approaches us) How do we know that whoever we put in place won't be worse than the leaders who were there?I have been thinking of ways to get around the problem of only being able to have one UN nation. If people have easy access at work or at a friends house, perhaps they could set up UN nations there using separate email addresses. They would be accessed through different IPs and it wouldn't be a problem as long as you only accessed one nation through each computer. Also, anyone who doesn't have a fixed IP could have other UN nations as long as they logged off and reconnected to the internet before accessing each nation. I think this would work. This is all incredibly complicated and would take a high degree of dedication. It would also have to be done by people who didn't have much to lose, which rules out most of us who have a fairly high level of endorsments and/or simply value our UN status. However, getting 10 people to have 5 nations each would be much easier than getting 50 UN nations. I am not advocating this, but it is an option.
Posts: 187
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Its a bit risky becouse the consiqences are quite tought, dont people get banned from NS becouse of this.
Posts: 194
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Whoever did it would have to be very careful. But I think it could be done. And I have a feeling that unless things are reported to them or it is a regional delegate that is involved, the mods won't even notice. Even if they did find out, they probably would just eject those nations from the UN. That's why it would have to be done by people who didn't care about endorsments or being in the UN. Finding people who fit this description, but are also serious players of the game who want to help other regions would be difficult at best.
Posts: 713
Threads: 55
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Like i just said, we could just make a list of people rather than making a new region for the army. Whenever they would be needed, we could look at that list and get some amount of nations to do what they need to do.
Posts: 1,051
Threads: 90
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
alright - a list of volunteers would be my reccomendation too...
===
"I learned that dreams don't work without action. I learned that no one could stop me but me. I learned that love is stronger than hate. And most important, I learned that God does exist. He and/or she is right inside you underneath the pain, the sorrow and the shame."
-tsu
Honestly, with all the hard work of several of the nations present, we have to think about the fact that loosing 50 endorsements all at once could put any of us in jeopardy, it is a good idea, and having to loose 50 endorsements may not happen, but say that one nation in a larger region calls for help, then all 50 would have to move to help them, and who is to say that the ones that moved endorsed everyone that was gunning for the Delegate seat, if they only endorsed the Delegate, me at this time, then I would loose but the closest one in endorsements to me would not, then we migh have a little problem, but a list sounds good to me.just a few thoughts from the neighborhood of the insane one 
Posts: 24
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
So far I'm in favor of the list, things to keep in mind when finding people willing:1. We must make sure that they are active probably once a day or at least once every two days. 2. Just like big parties, not everyone is going to be able to attend a certain mission, so it would be wise to have a force of maybe ~753. People work best under a leader that can be there, plus it's easier for one person to make the decisions during a mission, so there should definitely be a commander. It would have to be someone we'd appoint and trust it would also be good if they were popular.4. LR would have to build up her endorsements to keep a safe distance away from the next in line.5. Our intelligence on missions would have to be flawless, to go into a region and take it over will require that we know both sides of the story, as well as the common concensus. If we take over a region and oust a popular delegate in favor of a ruthless one, we'd be doing more harm than good.
Posts: 713
Threads: 55
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:3. People work best under a leader that can be there, plus it's easier for one person to make the decisions during a mission, so there should definitely be a commander. It would have to be someone we'd appoint and trust it would also be good if they were popular.
We'd just have the Secretary of Defense handle that....
Posts: 24
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I'm not so sure if the secretary of defense should lead the peace keeping force. I think an appointed general would be better. The problem with letting the secretary of defense to handle this position is that 1. elections are held monthly, if a mission overlaps from one month to the next then we'd have to set down rules on if the previous secretary keeps fighting etc etc.2. People usually find loyalty with one leader, so if the secretaries keep changing and a person liked secretary number one better than secretary number 2 because they were nicer or something, they just might quit the force. 3. I thought we were going to have an army and a peace keeping force, maybe I was mistaken. But if we do, I think it would be much easier if each had a main general in which the secretary could order to from here4. The final problem is location. I'm never around when Matt-duck comes to check his country because he's an ocean away. I'm supposing that a majority of the people on the list will be from the United States, therefore it would be at great loss of sleep for Matt-duck to have to be there during a mission. Thus, anyone who campaigns for the secretary of defense and is american, would have an advantage. Therefore I think an appointed general is better, maybe even appointed by the council instead of just the secretary of defense.
Posts: 13
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
How exquisite. Things always come back to where they started. The idea of a peackeeping force is very good, almost honorable. It makes me want to vomit, but it is something that oddly enough must be done. These are the issues you must consider in creating such a force:1) As stated earlier, those who venture out to assist other regions not only lose thier endorsements, but those they endorse lose support. If the expeditionary force of 70 nations had supported the current UN Delegate...you do the math.2) Retaliation. As always, no good deed goes unpunished. This is a cosmic law. Rest assured, when the South Pacific joins a conflict, it is a matter of time before that conflict returns home to see what lies undefended. Know it, own it, claim it.3) Who is Right? In the past, there as been a minor detail in determining exactly which side or SIDES are correct in a conflict. To make matters even worse, what if NEITHER side is entirely correct, yet is simply Less Wrong? Who are we to decide the fate of another region?4) Responsibility. In eons past, (ok NS eons which is around a couple months) the self-syled regional defense Director/Minister along with the Director/Minister of Intelligence PLUS the Director/Minister of Foreign Affairs handled the onerous task of determining Who, What, When, Where, and to What Extent intervention would be required. Yes, a time or two the guess was incorrect. A majority of the time they were correct.I do not wish to force my views on those who would take up this task, but I only wish that you know that obstacles that you face. You will not friends all the time in this action. You can GUARANTEE that you will make lifelong enemies.-DD
Posts: 713
Threads: 55
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
DD, you bring up the three major problems we would face with this force. However, we must not let these problems deter us. We must create this peacekeeping force and fix these problems at the same time.
Posts: 13
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Geomania-My message was perhaps a bit too convoluted. Yes, I agree that we should have a peacekeeping force. I strongly contend that we must be absolutely certain where we wish to act who who we wish to assist. That is all.-DD
Posts: 409
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
DD is right. We can't charge in half-cocked and just say "We're doing this because we know this guy and he doesn't like that guy." We must make sure that all our information is as correct as can be. But, if we do go forward with this, wouldn't it be better to place this under the banner of the PRAPA? I'll admit that it would be more complex, but we could gather more willing persons from three regions than one. This would mean that the PRAPA would probably have to have elections for positions. I can see electing a Department of Information, and a Department of Foreign affairs, and a Department of Defense. These three departments would be overseen by a council of delegates from all the regions. This council would have power over the military actions of the PRAPA Special Forces (my name).Anyone agree/disagree?
Posts: 713
Threads: 55
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
That is a great idea, to make an army consisting of nations from all PRAPA regions. That is absolutely ingenious, if I must say so myself.
Posts: 194
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I agree. If the Pacifics were united in this, then we would be much less likely to generate animosity through our actions. Also, it would be much easier and much safer to get 10-20 nations from each region to serve, rather than 50-70 from our region alone.
Posts: 13
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I believe I like that idea even better. An international peacekeeping force has more clout than a simple regional one. Excellent suggestion!-dd
Posts: 520
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Reviving the thread, since Knotoss has been asking about our defense stuff...BTW, MATT-DUCK, what exactly is going on with this? Or did we just kinda let it fade and die?
|
