Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Squeegy]

Yes, and we replaced them. We had 12 when the game started, just not for long.

[evictedSaint]

Speaking from experience, fewer people often make for a funner game.  I would give streamlining committees and sacrificing realism for game play some serious consideration.  Maybe you can let us in on all the committees and why we absolutely need 12?

[Squeegy]

All of the committees are in my sig, but I'll list them again here:

Assembly Leader: One nation, executive function that ensures the charter is upheld and the game runs smoothly.
Board of First Nations (3):
Holds significant power, especially in the electing of delegates to other committees, and in the veto. Must have 3 nations for a tie-breaker.
Security Council (5):
Admits and ejects nations from the Assembly, punishes delegates for misdeeds and exerts the influence of the Assembly's reputation on non-member nations. Must have an odd number for tiebreaker, must have more than 3 so that the Board of First Nations can't elect itself to be the only ones in this committee.
Policy Committee (5):
Makes changes to the charter and elects nations to the Board of First Nations if there is a vacancy. Must have an odd number for tiebreaker, must have more than 3 so that the Board of First Nations can't elect itself to be the only ones in this committee.
Economic Council (5):
Handles trade agreements, and creates agencies and advisory boards. No reason for it to have fewer members than the previous committees because it is less prestigious.
Humanitarian Committee (6):
Creates programs, deploys EC-created agencies, and creates resolutions that member nations must abide by. Has more members than the other committees because it is less prestigious.
Committee to Promote Justice (7):
Issues legal opinions and rules on cases submitted to the UA. Must have an odd number for tiebreaker. Has 7 instead of 5 because it is less prestigious, and because the U.S. Supreme Court has 9.
General Assembly:
Every nation is a member of this committee. It passes budgets and submits suggestions to other committees. It also has veto power on some resolutions made by other committees.

The idea of the structure is thus: The committees are supposed to be made up of different people, so that a nation has power in some areas and relies on other nations in others. No nation is in more than 4 of the 6 committees, and most nations are only in 2 or 3. Resolutions are supposed to be drafted by small committees, and then argued out in the General Assembly chamber by every nation, just like in the House. This ensures a balance of powers. It could, conceivably, work with only 10 nations, but it simply doesn't work with anything lower, and I firmly believe that 12 is the minimum optimal number. Ideally, every nation would only be on one or two committees, and diplomacy between nations would become more important as each nation would only have sway over a few things that the UA is capable of doing.

It has nothing to do with realism. This is game play. It's how the game is meant to be played.

[evictedSaint]

Well, I suppose I could give it a shot with 12.

I'm worried about there being too many cooks, though, and things getting bogged down in gridlocks.

For example, SC cant enforce an embargo until the CPJ makes a decision, and the CPJ can't make a descision on a trade embargo until the HC approves it, and the HC can't approve without advisement from the EC, and the EC is waiting to see if the BFN is going to veto them, and the BFN is waiting on the SC to elect a new member and the SC cant make a fucking decision because the tie breaker is afk.

[Orange Wizard]

I suppose it hangs on whether or not you find bureaucracy fun.

[hector13]

Tearing through bureaucracy like a burning hamster shot out of a felcher's arse, though... might be more entertaining.

[Squeegy]

If that were the case, the Assembly Leader could hold a meeting of the BFN and vote to remove the tie breaker and replace him with someone else. Or, we could simply replace him with a new player.

For the most part, however, gridlock only occurs in the following ways:

• All the committees need General Assembly or Board of First Nations approval on most of their proposals (sometimes both). I think the Assembly Leader also needs to sign off on some proposals. Until a meeting of either is held (and only one meeting per day, remember, unless the Assembly Leader wants to force people to choose which one to attend), these proposals simply rot.
• ♪ Waiting fooooor that delegate to vote~ ♫
• Only one committee can be held at per in-game day (again, unless they're held at the same time, and people have to choose which one to attend), so if a committee needs to do something it has to wait in line. And the AL decides what order that line is in.
• Agencies created by the EC can only be deployed by the HC. They don't do anything unless deployed.
• None of the UA's proposals that would realistically require funding have any effect if there isn't an active budget.

The CPJ in particular is almost immune to gridlock, because it doesn't require approval from any other committee to pass its proposals. It just has to meet. And there are plenty of checks and balances to keep one committee from shutting down the entire Assembly. In order for that to happen, a majority of the nations on the BFN, SC, and PC, and the AL, would have to be AFK, so that no one could be taken off the committees, no one could be booted from the Assembly, no changes could be made to the charter to work around it, and the AL couldn't hold a new session that the AFK people wouldn't show up for roll call for, thereby allowing the others to vote around them (many bills have been passed because people weren't there to vote against them). At that point, the game is probably dead anyway.

Personally, I find made-up bureaucracy to be immense fun. It's not really like waiting in line at the DMV. It's like being on the planning committee for the DMV. I like the arguing, the double-crossing, the rules lawyering, and the diplomacy. I guess this game is really intended for people like me.

[evictedSaint]

I've changed my mind.

I want my country to be named Backstabistan.

First meeting of the UA, armed gunmen burst in and slaughter the delegates of everyone else's country.  Backstabistan, being the only country there to vote, quickly passes legislation to prevent retribution and have the charter changed to include an all-powerful seat called "Supreme Ruler of the UA" that has absolute last say in everything period.

Joking.

But I think it might be fun to give bureaucracy a try. It might end up being too involved or too slow for me, but who knows?

[Squeegy]

Cool. We just need six more people.

[10ebbor10]

The main problem, for me at least, is that by design, for a large amount of the time a significant amount of players won't be able to play.

[Sheb]

The main problem, for me at least, is that by design, for a large amount of the time a significant amount of players won't be able to play.

^
This

[Squeegy]

No real solution to that. It's an on and off game.

But the biggest problem I had with the last game was how little effort the players really put in. I mean, you guys made nice flag icons. But you put almost no time and effort into writing your proposals. Your budget was an absolute joke. I think that you should spend the time when your committee is not in session, writing proposals and negotiating. Make it look nice. Put some thought in it. Pretend, I don't know, that the effectiveness of what you write has a profound effect on the lives and futures of 7 billion people.

[Sheb]

Well, there IS a solution: let committees meet simultaneously.

[Squeegy]

That's about as much of a solution as removing all the committees except the General Assembly. Yes, that problem is no longer an issue. But you haven't actually made it a better game.

Seriously though, no. Not ever. The only way I could ever see myself allowing multiple committees at once that everyone can attend is if they're in the same thread and you have to talk over each other, so you get the same level of confusion and chaos that such a setup would actually cause. Otherwise, committees can meet simultaneously, you just can only attend one.

[Sheb]

I for one think that it would be a better game. I'd be interested in the other's opinion.