I think the charter is exceptionally well-written considering it was conceived over the course of about six hours in a feverish stroke of inspiration in the dead of night. I also find it extremely amusing that the very first real action the UA is apparently planning on taking is modifying its charter. The only thing I consider egregious in retrospect is the 24-hour waiting period, but it was intended to give everyone in different time zones time to prepare for a forum or announce that they won't be able to attend it.
If I may be permitted to wax philosophical (and please remember that I make no claim to any authority over what you guys do in this game), you should be careful what you wish for. There is a reason that founding documents are written to be vague, that being that it allows for more flexibility in their interpretation, both so that the most convenient explanation can be selected at the moment, and so that you don't have to go back and rewrite it every single time it becomes out of date. You seem gung ho about amending the process so that you can rush things through as fast as possible, but have you considered that you might not want them to go through so quickly? The best possible course of action to create the most expedient possible United Assembly would be to pass an amendment allowing the Policy Committee to remove chapters (it is currently not capable of doing this or adding sections to chapters), and then removing all of them except for chapter 8, and amending section 2 of chapter 8 to include every single proposal that is currently in another committee. That way you wouldn't have to pass any proposals through any other committee, they would simply originate in the General Assembly and be immediately passed or struck down.
But there's a reason it's structured the way it is and that's because it's intended to have checks and balances. Power is split up and stored with a select few people, and nothing can be rushed through the Assembly fast enough that a delegate could have no power over it. In fact, a change I would make to the charter is to add a rule that no one on the Security Council can be on the Policy Committee or vice versa. It's important to deliberate on things in politics rather than simply make decisions in the heat of the moment. A United Assembly consisting entirely of the General Assembly would place all power in the voting majority. Anything that 7 or more countries wanted to happen would happen. But if you have a little foresight, you might consider that there are some things you wouldn't want to leave up to the tyranny of the majority.
Phew, that was a lot of wax. I don't like making posts like this because I don't want my opinion to influence that of voting delegates. I have absolutely no desire to tell you guys what to do; I relish seeing the ways your conflicting wills interact. That's why I give you creative control over your nation. In a real political situation like this delegates would have to answer to the will of their nation's government. But even though you don't play as your nation's government, since you decide what your nation is like, you in effect decide what your nation would want you to do. The game would be less fun if I passed on messages from your nation's leaders telling you how to vote. Similarly, I don't want to dictate your priorities or tell you what is or isn't the best way to do things. In fact, I look forward to seeing if some of the actions you make have consequences you didn't expect. I just want to create a sense of an outside world that you are a part of and have a tangible impact on, rather than just blowing in the wind. Hence, my only contribution to the IC thread is filing and newspaper clippings.
Author
Topic: The United Assembly OOC - Bureaucracy, Red Tape, Charters (8 Players Needed!) (Read 10838 times)