Simcountry Home   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Terminology
online games, multiplayer games
bullet Simcountry is an Online Digital World where you are the President of a country.
bullet No download needed!
What is Simcountry?
Beginners Info
What is Simcountry?
| | | | |
Previous Thread: How long to build a corp
Next Thread: Ceo's welcome to build

Golden Council?

Simcountry: Simcountry Bulletin Board  Golden Council?


Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 07:20 am Click here to edit this post
Currently there are major tensions between the two most militarily powerful feds on this world: The Army of the Twelve Monkeys, and the Allied Forces.

This thread is intended for open debate in finding a way to relieve those tensions.

What with the majority of Monkey members being new to this world (myself included), I'm curious about how you've all acquired worldwide peace so far. Is the UN Security Council federation really an effective and fair forum for major federations? Off the boards our fed has been invited to enter countries into it, and I can see the benefits that it would have over simple forum interaction as some things aren't intended for public view.

But from what I've heard, the UN Security Council isn't balanced, has no voting process, and only has at most 3 federations participating in it. This was probably sufficient when the world was a little more roomy, but because of the resets we're all more crowded and consequentially need some more organization.

It would be nice if there were a way for federations to actually vote on things, with equal or representative numbers (larger feds measured on military, economic, and population scales get more seats) of countries from each of the major 5-10 federations. Possibly even very large solitary presidents could be given a seat.

For example, it has recently been agreed upon by most of the governments of the largest federations that a certain player who broke some major rules should be dealt with. However, communication about the logistics of this action was all but nonexistent. This might have been beneficial for the players who are currently taking assets from the cheater, but some organization could have saved a lot of players time and expenses wondering what was happening.

If we had a balanced and fair decision forum, the number of ways this could have gone better is substantial. This is only one example of how organization could eventually benefit us all (not to mention the simple peaceful implications just the symbolic gesture itself would bring about).

I feel the Council would demand respect because right now there is no single fed or player that could afford to go against the rest of the feds alone on both a military and economical level.

If this sounds like a good idea to you, then I think we need to either re-organize the current Council, or create a new one. The number of seats does not need to be private, so we could figure that out here.


Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 07:34 am Click here to edit this post
I agree with all the points presented. With GR in complete chaos with all the rule changes and the transfers, a new forum is needed. War has been on too many players minds lately. It is definitely time to take a pause and focus on the important things like WHY WE STILL HAVE TO CHANGE THE STATUS OF OIL ORDERS TO IMMEDIATE. Sorry got away from the subject. Anyway in short I agree.

Fully Assimilated

Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 08:09 am Click here to edit this post
When we started UNSC, there were only 3 major feds on GR, and there were some tensions between them. We thought UNSC would be a good forum to air our differences and project peace across the planet. initially the invites went out to the four major members of each of Turan, Global Pact, and Allied Forces, but has since expanded to include others.
For most of the previous real-time year, we had a peace enforced by Allied Forces might. As members left or grew bored, and as newplayers came in , other federations have risen in power while AF faded.
Our motto was simple. Protect all human players against predators. For a while it worked very well and many of the current GR powers prospered under that umbrella.With the transfers the balance of power is shifting.
I don't know if that kind of planetary accord is still possible or even desirable. With the various different agendas ,multilateral action may no longer be feasible.
War is a part of the sim and like it or not will remain that way. As one who has probably lost the most recently, I guess I recognize that better than anyone. But many of you are eminent now because I and Allied Forces saved you in the past. There needs to be a new world order to protect and teach the small new players. I re-iterate , the more human players on GR the more stimulating the game. Now all we have to do is decide what fashion that world order takes:anarchy or co-operation.

Grey 2

Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 08:25 am Click here to edit this post
What I am proposing is not expected to be an end to all major wars. It's just a request for a reorganized, more inclusive, balanced and effective council. Without that, I don't see much of a point in having 12 Monkeys representatives. That's only my personal opinion though. I don't know if my fed mates would agree with me on that.

I could give my own ideas for how to hand the seats out, but I figured it would be best to get some feedback first.

Grey 2

Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 08:28 am Click here to edit this post
Thanks for the explanation by the way Fully. =]

Colcafe incorporado

Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 06:17 pm Click here to edit this post
Here is my two cents. I see this as a great idea.

Here is how it should work IMO. (if some one already said this, forgive me im tired.)

ALL the active Feds(subfeds should no count) should get involved. I know thats possyble. There are 25 slots in one federation right (Should be changed IMO)?

Ok, so this is how we can go about it:

1.- 3 representatives from the 3 top largest feds. Military and Assets should be the factor. IMO.

2.- The Chair should be an overall vote from all particpating feds. Only 1 member should be allowed to vote in represantation of his or her fed. Going in depper, the fed itself should vote on who that representaive should vote for and, as well as nominating a candidate for possyble chair status.(voting for your own member should be allowed.) And of course they will also vote who of the 3 members should represent them.

(there should be a certain term that this chair will run and should alsow allowed to run 3 times only.) the amount of time before elections come up agains can be voted on. or if you guys see a better way of doing, do post.

3.- The rest of the seats will be as follows.

a. 4 largest fed should have 2 represantatives.
b. 5th largest fed should also have 2.
c. 6th and below will have one.

4.- The chair who is elected will actually be and extra(not including the 3 members) Meaning that of my fed mates gets the chair, So. thats one member from our fed. Then on top of that 3 other members will represent our fed. This is of course due to the voting factor withing the... we'll call it the "council" (name can be changed).

5.- Everything disscussed should be decided solely on votes and not emotions. There should be a penalty for those members who violated this rule. Say some one declares war on another active for personal issues without discussing it with the "council". I have nothing agains that, but in fairness it should be disscussed for many different reasons. For example: Personal issue is weak and not worth going to war for. Just cuz you dont like him, or he took your award by having 1000 radar planes. Or he cloned his countries and xfered them because SC didnt close the necessary loopholes to prevent this. Etc...

6.- Current conflicts should be resolved before this "council can be created.

7.- The coucil should only be involved in matters that pertain to its cabinet members and their perpective feds. For example if one non-participating fed goes after another fed that does not have any ties with of the cabinet members, we should reamin neutral. Altho it its an entire fed agains a noobie, then that will be a different story. Of course votes shoul come into play.

7.- To make this succesfull the votes that pass shoull fully supported by all cabinet members including thier feds as well. For example, if the council agrees on war, then all feds should by show of suppot and lotalty to the coucil(eventho you dont like it) should also declare. Countires with no military would be exempt.

Thats just about all i can think of for now. This is just an idea and I will hope to get back some feed back and some editing responses to something I did wrong, or you see wrong, or whatever. If this is to work, then it should be agreed by everyone.


Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 10:51 pm Click here to edit this post
First of all, there has been recent discussion within the 12 Monkeys about an idea proposed by a member of another fed of putting one of their members into our fed, and us putting a member into their fed. One of the reasons the 12 Monkeys came into being was in protest this "everyone is in everyone else' fed" mentality. Our federation values its independence.

Putting a member into this Council should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of peace between our feds. That's not the way it works in the real life United Nations, and it is not how it should work here.

Okay, so working off of the parameters listed above, I'll bounce some more ideas around. Please feel free to dispute them:

Federation Rankings

Here's how the feds match up militarily:

1 The Army of the Twelve Monkeys - 45.48 M
2 Allied Forces - 39.68 M
3 TURAN - 36.32 M
4 United Nations Alliance - 33.07 M - Basically a one-man fed
5 UN Security Council - 24.60 M - secondary fed
6 More Monkeys - 23.73 M secondary fed
7 Global Pact - 23.72 M
8 Characteristics - 18.30 M - one man secondary fed
9 Erehwon PAC - 13.85 M - one man secondary fed
10 mutual defence league - 7.23 - one woman secondary fed


1 United Nations Alliance - 70T
2 Allied Forces - 69T
3 UN Security Council - 57T
4 The Army of the Twelve Monkeys - 55T
5 Erehwon PAC - 41T
6 Global Pact - 36T
7 TURAN - 35T
8 Characteristics - 26T
9 More Monkeys - 23T
10 mutual defence league - 20T

Seat Makeup

So going off of that, here is how the seats would be divided:

Allied Forces - 3 seats
12 Monkeys - 3 seats
TURAN - 3 seats
United Nations Alliance - 2 seats
Global Pact - 2 seats

That is only 13 seats, so we still have a lot of room for individual presidents not affiliated with the above federations. Cyriac/Deathsight and Steven/Missouri/Yankee are two who come immediately to mind.

Smaller separate feds are encouraged to enter a seat as well.

This makeup is subject to change as federations rise or drop in the rankings.

Council Chairman

The Chairman should not, in my opinion, be allowed to vote in Council matters. After each fed selects who will hold its seats, those seats can vote on a council chairman.

Current Conflicts

I don't believe these need to be resolved before a Council can form. There will never be a complete absence of conflicts and never should be.

Are any other federations even interested in this? I'd like to know if I'm wasting my time here.


Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 11:06 pm Click here to edit this post
I am all for anything that puts and end to the current chaos.

One rule that needs to be enforced, is no importing of countries onto the borders of active players, it's too infflamatory in light of what has happened.

Another idea as well, is the only time something this major happened on KB, it was settled in part through the exchange of fedmates, this allowed the mixing of ideas, and bonded the feds in alliance.

Additionally to avoid, the problems of fed limitations. The managment of a global council fed could be done through the use an MSN or yahoo group, feds have been managed this way successfully. Plus that way voting could be done with polls, and chat discussions.

I commend the cooler heads for taking this opportunity.


Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:02 am Click here to edit this post
I don't think rules like that can be imposed yet. I don't even know if a rule like that would pass because it seems to me like artificially-imposed rules pertaining to the logistics of war like that have proven themselves to be more of a hassle than a help.

1) Many might not know of the rule if we had it, so it wouldn't exactly be fair to hold it against someone for not knowing.

2) It might make countries too complacent when it comes to protecting themselves against ground attacks.

3) That rule would favor some, and impede others. It seems biased. Who are we to decide where a person puts their country?

Anyway, maybe what we need to concentrate on now before we worry about that is getting the Council up and running.

Simcountry Introduction