News from the CIB

Today the three members of the CIB have finished voting on proposals dealing with war in the AIN. We have agreed on the following and now submit these solutions for approval. We need 4 yes votes to make it an AIN 'rule'

Both nations must agree on warfare in PM session before any posts are made considering conflicts

A capital can not be bombed unless both nations agree to being at war

realism must play a factor, you can not 'destroy' a city

If a city is damaged at any degree you must accept that. You can not nullify an attack on your country.

Remember it's a role play don't take it seriously

Any nation can join either as peace keeping or on a particular side

If any of the above rules are broken...
The act is declared null and is treated as if it never occurred
Instances of repeat offenders will be taken on a case by case basis by the CIB and then latter deferred to the AIN for a final verdict.



A peacekeeping force can only be issued by the Foriegn Affairs minister or The Department of Safety and Health head. In order to have a peacekeeping mission you must PM either the FA minister of the DSH head and they will order countries to assist in peacekeeping under there government sections. You can request which nations you would like to help out.

You should also add,

* No excessive forces, I.e having a military might of 10 million in a nation population of 50 million or so

* Realstic weapons, no *This weapon can kill 10 people with its lazar!* Or *My city is protected by sheilds so no bombs can touch it Haha!*
so on....

I used to have a rule of warfare on my computer that I used a while ago maybe if I find it I'll post it here, I think I have deleted it since it was so old.

sorry dude, no added stuff from non CIB members you're new so let me fill you in. The CIB was started after a war between Novland and Perthshire in April we look into what caused that war and what we can do to keep wars realistic. We figure out stuff amongst the three of us (peter, nate and myself) and then submit it to you guys for votes only. If we get 4 yes votes to these ideas then it passes and it becomes part of the AIN rules of engagement. If it fails then we look for possible solutions in CIB meetings. If you have suggestions feel free to PM me.

I see... Well above are suggestions, and you should take suggestion from non CIB members as well to strengthen this.

With that said, do we vote here?

Only CIB members vote

A yes from Raffore Islands.

So CIB makes rule, only CIB can vote on it, and everyone else is expected to follow with no say?

As a member of the CIB, all I can say is that the CIB makes the rules and vote on it. However, as I'm not the president/head/leader of the CIB, I am not sure whether non-CIB members have any say, but generally, non-CIB members may have no say.

I'll see. I know I have the military power to fight, but if I have no reason to do so, I won't.

Being a member of CIB, I understand where the non-CIB is coming from. At the time CIB was created, we didnt really think through about the union-wide say. The CIB members were chosen(I think) from the aftermath of the Novland-Perthshire-Belle Chasse-Escambia War.

Of course, I don't think dljfrn(the head of CIB) will say that only CIB gets a say, since after all, this union is all about freedom. Maybe if there's things y'all don't agree on, we can disscuss this further in the next union summit in september.

This reminds me of League of Nations.

Perhaps I shall start my own :-P

Start your own union? not sure what you mean? And for the CIB i dont mind having non member of the CIB vote.. Its kinda like the UN, certain nations have a veto power kinda.. But overall all nations need a say in CIB resolutions

guys.... grrr.... ok *deep breath*

The CIB discusses policy an ideas either A submitted by the union or B thought up amongst the 3 members. The 3 members then vote on the issues at hand. We then will pass on these resolutions to the Entire AIN for voting. If the Vote receives 4 approve votes then the rules that were approved become sort of a rule of engagement within the AIN. The CIB is not creating all rules but simply rules that deal with. As the name would imply conflicts. (Conflicts Investigation Board)

These conflicts include wars, uprisings, rebellions, coops and WMD's.

The first meeting stemmed from the April war between Perthshire and Novland. We are working on how wars like that can be run so that they don't get out of hand and no one is offended.

Start your own union? not sure what you mean? And for the CIB i dont mind having non member of the CIB vote.. Its kinda like the UN, certain nations have a veto power kinda.. But overall all nations need a say in CIB resolutions

No I meant start my own kind of CIB since it seems its only for "exclusive members" who had been involved in past wars. I believe you can benefit from this GREATLY if you include others. More ideas come from more people than the select few.

From what I've read, your proposal is a good start, but its only a start, its no where near ironclad yet. There are numberous loopholes that I can find, and you guys aren't letting me state my opinion or letting you show where these loopholes are since I'm not a member of the "CIB," which is ridicilous to me, if a proposal is going to affect the entire union, the entire union should have their say and input into it.

Dljrfn2000 wrote:guys.... grrr.... ok *deep breath*

The CIB discusses policy an ideas either A submitted by the union or B thought up amongst the 3 members. The 3 members then vote on the issues at hand.

This is contradictical, if you all agree on the policies and ideas after discussing, why do you even need to vote on them since you all agreed on it.

We then will pass on these resolutions to the Entire AIN for voting.

Ok and where do we vote then? Thats what I asked back up there?

You vote right here.

The CIB is small for 1 reason. Its easier; with large people it gets very messy.

The over all vote is so that the CIB dose not have complete control and so the rest of the AIN has a say.

If you have loophole ideas send a PM to one of the four of us and we will discuss it and the propose our solutions at a latter date.

I disagree with small = more control = better. You may be right about the control, but you get more idea from more people and more comment and suggestion from them. You also get more creative ideas if you include outside sources as well. This balances things out in my opinion.

After reading your proposal, I have to say this isn't IRONCLAD enough to be a final proposal, it needs far more work on it, so my vote is,

NAY

If this gets sent back to the drawing board, you should include the whole union on in this since this affects MORE THAN just the CIB members, this includes the WHOLE union and the WHOLE doesn't have a say, thats a fundamental flaw for me.

Then there shoulda be a CIB. Plus all these ideas came from the summit of the war back in early May.. so everyone did have there word in a way.. You just weren't here yet

^

Yes I realize and do admit I wasn't here, but I've seen no post about this proposal when I joined, nor there was a open topic for people to comment in. As well as another member fromt he first page also said he wasn't allowed to parcipate, and the CIB was limited to three members only (from my understanding, the members who were involved in the war), which they should've included all the union to discuss and debate since this influences them as well.

I think this is a good start, as well as an good start for this union about proposals, but this union needs to learn to be more open about proposals and laws that will affect the whole. Take it from the SCJU, they discuss their laws together and bars nobody from commenting or discussing or adding things to the law, the only downside is they discuss it in their private forum, it would be better if it was out in the open so everybody knows what they're getting into if they want to join the AIN, as well as all members of the AIN can feel involved and feel liek they've done something for the proposal for the better, and would encourage more activeness in the AIN.

So please do take my post not as critisim, but encouragement to make this union better and move forward.

Jiesan does not support the CIB as alliances within unions tend to eventually want independence from unions, as I have experienced before.

Such actions also tend to encourage the creation of other alliances.

I don't think the CIB was created to be a separate entity of AIN, maybe just the judiciary branch that only specializes in wars/conflicts. Sorta like a International Court or The Hague.

If I'm not mistaken, Dljrfn2000 decided to create the CIB and he picked the members. I'm not sure of the criteria used in his selection but they could have or not been involved in the war.

With that being said, I like the initial set of rules so far. I don't expect them to be ironclad because this was the first major conflict and things do change as time goes by. There will be room for amendments and such later if need be.

I am a member of the CIB but I didn't get involved in the war, except for peacekeeping reasons as I'm the minister of safety and defence.

For the CIB rules.. They need to be voted on by AIN members.. tje CIB's job is to investigate war crimes, and other war rules broken, and apply the punishment.. thats it.. i dont think we really got the room to make the rules by ourselves honestly.. its 4 of us.. theres um 19 people in AIN were only 21% of AIN we cant decide for 100% of AIN..

But I think they come up with an idea, then vote amongst themselves to present it to us, and then we vote on it all together.

I understand what everyone is saying, but in order to investigate war crimes and such, a list of rules have to be in order that everyone agrees on. That way, the protocols are set and the CIB (and everyone else) are not crying foul when something goes awry during a conflict.

right.. So we need to vote on these resolutions.. and then the CIB should go back to redo the rules so there what AIN wants