|Previous Thread:||Good c3 for me to start on this server? (Little Upsilon)|
|Next Thread:||Countries for Sale (Little Upsilon)|
| Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 11:46 pm |
thanks zen and predator
| Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 11:51 pm |
Billy, a vote was passed by Presidents on GR (see my post above ^^) to stop a player from using nukes.
Nobody should have the right to stop a player using nukes.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 01:26 am |
I know, the resolutions should be more of a warning and a statement saying that there will be reprisals if they DO use nukes.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 01:45 am |
The SC should be able to vote on banning a player from using nukes and also voting to force peace. This is a part of the SC purpose.
However, these votes should not actually stop players from using nukes. Instead, it should be a warning that the world powers will not tolerate their use Players who ignore this warning should have an automatic level 1 boycott. Players could then vote to increase the level of the boycott (or decrease/end it, I suppose).
The same thing for peace votes. If the SC votes for peace, it should force a truce for negotiations and then war would resume after that period of time is exhausted.
These would be SC member votes. If they fail to get a true majority of votes (sounds like it would be 7 yes votes), then the vote could go to Presidents to see if it passes with a majority and would be enacted anyway.
My biggest thing is the vote on the SC should not just be "most votes wins." It should require a "true majority" of members for passage. This would end the "1 vote wins and that vote was the person who created it" problem.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 02:32 am |
Ok, where to start?
First up....I had no idea, up until now, about the attacks on AK47 apart from the sneaks attacks AK was getting. Which is why AK threatened and declared on me. It wasn't until after the threats, dec's and then peace that AK told me why he/she was stressing me.
Also, I was not apart of any attacks on AK47 before during or after my resolution.
Second.....The reason why I put the vote across was to see The security councils point of view on players who seem intent on only wanting to start a nuke war. Why else would you want to ban someone from using Nukes?
Plus it was only one country and AK wouldn't have got through my defences anyways. I also put a request for a boycott
Now, this I thought was interesting:
'Gothamloki (Little Upsilon)
EVEN IF, nix's intentions were not nefarious and were justified, the ability of a single member on the security council to propose and pass a binding resolution by him- or herself alone and then not allowing a general vote IS inappropriate procedure. Regardless of the reasons, etc. It demonstrates a HUGE potential of abuse. And until it's addressed destroys any confidence or respect the security council deserves.'
I say...What about the veto in real life.
Does that not allow one Nation to decide the out come of a Security Council vote?
Mother Natures Dying
Arh...Pred. Just read your last post. Vetos are not the way to go. Thats just as bad as Lazy Security Council Members ;)
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 02:54 am |
Security Council is just like the UN... Toothless and lame.
Its a simple matter really, they saw a weakly defended country with many populations and they wanted it, end of story. Albeit, it took those seasoned war players long enough. I actually thought that they were the noobs and AK47 was the seasoned player, because he held them off so long and killed much their populations. Shame Shame Shame!
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 03:00 am |
As long as you all know that my resolution had nothing to do with AK's wars. And that if needed I would have unleashed the Forces of Nature on AK47. I dont need no Security Council to help me hold my own.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 03:13 am |
(Sorry for the long post ahead of time)
See the prob is coming from so many people suggesting how to solve this and less then 10% of people on this thread know the real issue.
Until recently i was one of them.
Id offer suggestions on how to "fix" war issues without knowing how it truly works. Now i realize my attempts to "help" would have only cause more complexity and issues. See the issue people "News/Non PvP war players" don't see is the issue with the fallout associated with nukes. During my war i was nuked from 13M to 5M population. The issue wasn't myself but with surrounding nations being hurt
..Case 1.................Case 2
1 1 1 1 1..............0 0 1 0 0
1 2 2 2 1..............0 1 2 1 0
1 2 3 2 1..............1 2 3 2 1
1 2 2 2 1..............0 1 2 1 0
1 1 1 1 1..............0 0 1 0 0
If someone drops a Strategic bomb it causes a level 3 fallout to the effected nation. Then that causes 2 to anything touching its boarders. Those secondary countries then cause a level 1 to people touching either borders. Case one is the extreme of every nation touching each other getting hurt. Case 2 is the minimal damage scenario. Either way your looking @ 25nations being hurt or 13nations(also could be more could be less). The only thing that he really did was constant nuke. Seen other wars where news attacked other players and only nuked dropping the war index a 10points. Wars cant be one with only nukes even though a lot think they can. The Main reason the SC can ban nukes is because of the massive amount of damage someone can cause. Nukes have the longest range in the game. What if someone decs you on the other side of the world. You cant send fighter/bombers, cant send land troops. All they can do is nuke, sending missile after missile. Eventually your defense will fade, your only way to stop this is the security council. There so far away you can fight your only way to stop it is to ask for ban.
Recovering from a Large Nuclear War Disaster
160 of the wounded persons recovered. 2426 people returned home. 6490 victims of the disaster died this month.
That message shows up monthly 40TIMES. I lose between 800-6500 per message. That's 32K people MINIMUM. (i lose around 100K people a month to fallout, and i did receive relief aid). Think that's me monthly, there was 11nations near me that where affected and not getting aid.(i was hit by all types of nukes the ones next to me suffered both lvl 1 n 2 so they getting hit twice as hard). The Reason they can ban nukes is to protect people from fallout.
I lose 100K @ lvl 3
People lose (lets say) 66K @ lvl 2
The rest lose 33K @ lvl 1 per 13M pop.
Just around me if everyone suffered lvl 1 that's 350K people a month dead(based they all have 13M pop more pop the more lost). Plus they don't have relief and the fallout is higher so ALOT of innocent people where hurt. In the past people would dec nations next to someone the where going to war and nuke them for the express reason of dropping there pop due to fallout.(this would kill massive amounts of there population but they never accully warred, is that really fair?). All of you say they shouldn't ban players from nuking. But let me ask you this would you really be saying that if the person next to you was being nuked 40+ times and each time they where nuked you suffered as well. Even though you had nothing to do with it you still lose Population instantly plus then you lose population monthly due to fallout.
As for the Request from nix it had nothing to do with my war. In fact he Decced me with B2 After the vote so i don't get the issue on why hes complaining he couldn't defend himself when he used 12other nations to nuke with..
You want Sec Con to be fair why not ask for a revision?
At least half of the Sec Con must vote in the matter(7 out of 15members) and at least a half must agree.(that's 4 of 15). At least your issue is resolved.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 03:49 am |
nix: a veto can only be used to stop a security council resolution, not to approve or enforce one. you cant veto something you agree with. now, if you point out an instance where a single member of the realworld sec con proposed a vote, voted in favor of it, and not getting a single other vote in favor of it, got it passed.... well, I'll concede. But the only time anything was ever "rammed" through the real security council, was when the USSR boycotted a meeting in New York back in the early 80s. (Which is more or less what happened here due to lack of interest by a majority of the current council.)
SuperSolidier: With real respect to what you were going through..... that would be pretty much what I would expect to happen to me if I fumbled into war with a nuclear power. There's a reason the U.S. doesnt just drive tanks into N. Korea.... it would nuke back.
As far as the fairness question.... that's what we're in the process of addressing. And I for one, support a revision of the Sec Con proposal procedures.
Not sure about the last thing you wrote, Super.... We have issue with the very fact that only 1 (not 7) members voted, and it still passed! Is it a glitch? If so...
GMs, can we please have the documented sec con voting rules enforced?