Day 4 Floor Opens to all

ok so the things to weigh in on

1. What should be any restrictions or requirements for AINTV articles
1A. Should a Sim City wide TV network be organized? Is it practical to start a community wide TV or news site?

2. What should be included in rules of engagement, should we have rules of engagement?
2A. What should happen to those who break those rules?
2B. should we present these rules as union wide or community wide?
2C. Who enforces these rules? What happens if the enforcers break them then who enforces the law?

3. Could a summit take place with a nation or nations being excluded for w/e reason?
3A. under what situation(s) would it be ok to exclude a nation from a summit?

Since AINTV is a union station, all reports need to unified. If not, then AINTV needs to be deleted and everyone has there own separate station. Personally I don't put the blame entirely on AINTV, there was bad communication all around. The SimCity community is too large to try to enact a community-based "television station," so it would be best to try to keep between two or three unions.

Rules of engagement are nice but someone is bound to break them. There should be a general list but when there are extra factors put into play (nuclear weapons, outside assistance, etc.), then a more specific set list should be made. Punishment on those who break the "rules" would, in all honesty, be pointless. The most that could be done is union suspension or banning them from any public office. Because if the rule breaker is thrown out of the union, we lose a member in times when member-recruitment is tough. As stated above, trying to make the rules community-wide would be difficult, just keep it between two or three of the most active unions. A legal commission could be set up to handle these types of situations (something like the councils based in The Hague).

Also, under no circumstances should someone be excluded from summits. There is no point of being a part of a union when one is left out of gatherings/discussions.

||Personal Statement||
I feel that the whole war situation only got out of hand because the non-participants where left in the dark. There should at least been a PM sent to everyone saying something like "the war has already been planned out" or "please PM so-and-so to take part in the conflict to lessen confusion."
I personally feel that it was a PR stunt gone bad and it was badly handled from start to end. There was no mediation of the combatants, "official" press releases on the conflict, or anything showing any positive process trying to get done.
Then comes fact that, once the conflict did reach beyond control, we should erase it from our memories. Completely forget it as it never happened. Why should the union, and the rest of the SimCity community (as it was posted on simsports), totally forget it? Just because outside nations called for a ceasefire?
I don't know, maybe I'm thinking too much on it, but someone needs to claim responsibility for the mass confusion and a serious amount of time and effort must be put in to avoid something like this again.

Tony/orchid22
Aeropolitan Kingdom :aoin:

orchid22 wrote: effort must be put in to avoid something like this again.

Tony/orchid22
Aeropolitan Kingdom :aoin:

Hence why we're having this summit, we're trying to avoid the issues of before

1. What should be any restrictions or requirements for AINTV articles
All I can say is that the media is sometimes bias (Michael Jackson trial) and it is sometimes over-exagerrated (2009 Swime Flu Outbreak in the US). So, as AINTV, before any news article could be "passed", at least most of the AIN members must feel that the particular (esp. those parties involved like Perthshire and Escambia for the recent war for example) news article(s) is of a neutral point-of-view. This could be tedious but at least the confusion and misunderstanding could be avoided.

1A. Should a Sim City wide TV network be organized? Is it practical to start a community wide TV or news site?
I'm not sure about this. It could avoid any misunderstanding at one point but it could be very troublesome at another point.

2. What should be included in rules of engagement, should we have rules of engagement?
I think we should just have one simple and main rule: Post any warning/note/message of any upcoming conflicts a couple of days in advance so that every members/community could plan their actions properly. After this, when the conflict begins, any members/community planning to send their military/peacekeeping forces must post this (look below)
Engagement: Nationland plans to send peacekeeping forces to Stateland. Approved?
The person will then decide whether such actions will disrupt the original plan or not. This will also prevents any misunderstanding.

But, for the person who planned such conflicts, the rule is different: that person is recommended to give a note in advance informing what engagement activity he/she is planning to do. This will ensure that most, if not all, members will understand what will happen next. This is not required but recommended as some engagement activities could be minor.

2A. What should happen to those who break those rules?
Maybe just disallow such offenders not to participate in that particular conflict?

2B. should we present these rules as union wide or community wide?
Community wide.

2C. Who enforces these rules? What happens if the enforcers break them then who enforces the law?
Those who plan such conflicts.

3. Could a summit take place with a nation or nations being excluded for w/e reason?
No. All summits should allow all nations to participate in the summit so that all point-of-views could be taken into consideration to get a neutral and win-win situation.

3A. under what situation(s) would it be ok to exclude a nation from a summit?
Maybe situations where it does not affects other nations other than the immediate parties (e.g. trade agreement, territorial disputes, transportation network, VISA-free agreement, etc.)

1. What should be any restrictions or requirements for AINTV articles
All articles should pass by the administrator team to make sure that they are neutral and true. There should not be violent, racist, sexist, etc.. purposes.

1A. Should a Sim City wide TV network be organized? Is it practical to start a community wide TV or news site?
Yes. All public informations from our alliance will be known by the others, and we will know theirs.

2. What should be included in rules of engagement, should we have rules of engagement?
Everything should be prepared to avoid misunderstanding like in the Belle Chase war and for the rest I agree with the answer of Aranho.

2A. What should happen to those who break those rules?
Take out those who break the rules.

2B. should we present these rules as union wide or community wide?
Community wide

2C. Who enforces these rules? What happens if the enforcers break them then who enforces the law?
Be penalized

3. Could a summit take place with a nation or nations being excluded for w/e reason?
Certainly no. Everyone has something to should come and say it at the summit.

3A. under what situation(s) would it be ok to exclude a nation from a summit?
None

me and saathoff have started work on the new global news service, more information will be coming soon..

cormiermax wrote:me and saathoff have started work on the new global news service, more information will be coming soon..

this is very good news hope it turns out well

so im going to abstain any comments on proposals 1 and 1A

2. Rules of engagement should be very simple
-you can not attack some one unless agreeing upon it with them in a PM
-any peace keeping missions must be signified as peace keeping not invasion
-In the event of an inner union war all other union members must remain neutral

2A. if the rules are broken then the event becomes nul and void

Say for instance Perthshire and Petrova get into a war and Escambia in haste goes to defend Perthshire and attacks Petrova with out asking Petrova if that is ok with them the event becomes null and is erased as if it never happened. If then they ask Petrova and Petrova says no, and then they attack anyways the event is null and removed if a nation dose this more than 2 times (breaks the rule of engagement) then there involvement in the union should be discussed because at that point you're being a dick.

2C. The Admins should run the issue if it breaks 2 times but other than that it should be self policed if someone attacks you with out warning just simply post broke rules of engagement and PM the admins

3. Again I personally apologize for this. No nation should be excluded

3a. unless in the instance like we've had here where the floor was closed to nations not involved in something like a war but then opened latter on.

I agree with Aranho, except 1A: A global news network is needed.

I disagree with one thing, the posts in advance, the thing with Novland and Perthshire was spur of the moment we came up with it in a matter of minutes. In real life things happen on the spur of the moment and if we wish to emulate a real world style RP then we should honor that as best we can. I think problems will be decreased if nations also take a second and think calmly, everyone started to run around with there heads cut off because as far as my knowledge is this was the first country to country war in the SC4 community (defiantly in the AIN) no one knew how it was going down. I tired to calm the fears by mentioning that this would be a short conflict but people continued to freak and that's where things got shaky and I decided to call it off and set things back up for peace.

We all need to remember something even in a time of war, war is a drastic measure. To say you're going to invade someone means death even role played. The I'm going to invade to save lives only works when the number of lives lost would not exceed lives lost if no intervention was taken. We all are very quick to say hey listen Im just going to run in and kick the junk outta you and be the big hero because you're the bad guy blowing up this other guys poor country. I would hope no one here was actually bent on a hitler like regime so I don't think anyone here is aiming for taking over a country just to be a jerk. War needs to be the last option after all others are exhausted and I applaud Petrovar for realizing this, the diplomatic option had not been exhausted just because bombs were falling.

Tomorrow I will post the rankings of each countries military and give a short over site of the countries military capabilities. I would take this census into consideration before any further attacks are made if you are near the bottom of this list to try to take on someone at the top would be irrational. I will pair you guys with a real world country as an example so you are able to make a guestament on where u sit militaristiclu in the nation. For those of you that have higher ratings this is not an invite to start blowing your neighbors but is a statement that hey if things go wrong as the FAM I would expect your countries to supply the most aid and countries that were lower to supply less.

-The Department of Foreign Affairs

Dljrfn2000 wrote:

Tomorrow I will post the rankings of each countries military and give a short over site of the countries military capabilities. I would take this census into consideration before any further attacks are made if you are near the bottom of this list to try to take on someone at the top would be irrational.

-The Department of Foreign Affairs

First, I think a census of military powers is only a part of a complete picture. Quantity does not equate to might - just ask Israel.

Second, Regarding the broader issue of wars and conflict, I think they should orchestrated, planned out and everyone should be informed as to whether or not - and to what level - they would participate in the conflict.

I joined AIN to participate in some cooperative activities like the AIN games and trade. I'm not sure why participants in an "Alliance of Independent Nations", would be eager for a war anyway - aren't we supposed to be getting along? But if that is to be part of the fun, I'll go along a bystander. If this degenerates into a union where there are just random wars and conflicts regardless of who wants to participate, I'll probably pass on AIN altogether. This is based on SimCity after all, not Civilization. I think the Rules of Engagement will address my concerns, so this shouldn't be a problem, however.

Oh I agree, but at the same time we are in essence a role playing community we just use our countries instead of characters and SC4 to illustrate our characters (If I am wrong in viewing the AIN like this someone please tell me) As terrorist attacks or conflicts continue to happen in CJ's it is only our right as members of the union to respond through role playing and it is possible for things like what happened last month to occur. This summit is set up so that if something like what happened last month occurs again people are not as caught off guard. This is not an open invitation to start wars, this is simply a set up so that if wars do occur that they do not leave a trail of confusion and distrust amongst the members.

The set up is hopefully the thing that will prevent the doomsday scenario of the AIN turning into a union where there are just random wars and conflicts regardless of who wants in.