Taijitu
Taijitu World Building => Planning Room => Topic started by: Funkadelia on August 01, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
-
Some of us were previously having a discussion about a Taijitu form of the United Nations, and I think it could put an interesting spin on 20th century Taijitu history, and perhaps we could shift some historical events to make the UN play a role in these things.
I am torn between having it, in practice, function as a more idealistic form of what the UN should be, or terrible, corrupt, and ineffective like the actual UN is.
Anyway, I think it would be an interesting idea and help to facilitate some cool RP as well. What are your thoughts?
-
(http://wiki.taijitu.org/w/images/thumb/4/45/Flag_of_the_Taijitu_United_Nations.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_Taijitu_United_Nations.svg.png) (http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Taijitu_United_Nations.svg)
Hopefully I will have more to say later.
-
Maybe we need a second big war.
-
I would be very interested in this. I love corruption, but an idealistic Gene Roddenberry UN could be interesting too.
-
Maybe we need a second big war.
Poor Funkadelia would be decimated by that. :( UN help!
-
Definitely interested!!
-
We could do a conference RP between the leaders of the nations founding this organization. Keep it personal and high-level.
-
We could do a conference RP between the leaders of the nations founding this organization. Keep it personal and high-level.
I do like this idea.
-
Should we decide on a name? Then vote?
I would also be interested in doing the organizations logo/flag ... or if Delfos or anyone else would want to we could make it a vote or collaboration or whatever?
Also, if we are doing a Second Great War, will this organization for before or after....or because of?
-
Because of, I imagine.
-
I concur with Eluvatar. I also think a name for the organization could probably be worked out in-character as we write the piece.
-
I concur with Eluvatar. I also think a name for the organization could probably be worked out in-character as we write the piece.
Sounds good to me!
-
IPO is part of the past RP History, it'd be a good way to honor past RP/RPers to name this one after the old one.
International Peace Organization:
(http://i.imgur.com/Gvlf99u.png)
IPO's headquarters
(old New Delfos flag 3rd from the right)
and it's "UN blue helmets" as the IPO's Candy Helmets
(http://i.imgur.com/1jwYIyu.png)
http://forum.taijitu.org/ipo/ipo-archives/
as a matter of fact, all the treaty topics are still available, to whoever wants to read awesome proposals.
Rotative Administration is paramount to success :D
-
While IPO does sound like "Initial Public Offering," we need not rule it out.
-
I think it would be a neat way to recall our history... though maybe without the pink helmets! ;)
-
A corrupt international organization has a lot more inherent story/conflict potential than an open, altruistic one. Just sayin'. ;)
-
A corrupt international organization has a lot more inherent story/conflict potential than an open, altruistic one. Just sayin'. ;)
we will always have the Pax Imperium and Aurorean Coalition type treaties in place, no need to worry.
-
If we do decide to do a United Nations-esque organization, I would offer the headquarters in Kerras itself. An island city-state that has a history of being fought over by three powers, and is a liberal haven for the downtrodden from around the world.
-
I think that'd be a neat idea. Location could also be one of those things fought over at the conference. I'm sure the USSR made sure there were plenty of concessions in place to allow the UN headquarters to be in New York, and we could do similar conflict and compromise at our own conference.
-
Name suggestions:
ersatz League of Nations: The Peace Coalition
ersatz United Nations: The International Peace[keeping] Organization
(Brainstorming)
-
Name suggestions:
ersatz League of Nations: The Peace Coalition
ersatz United Nations: The International Peace[keeping] Organization
(Brainstorming)
Peacekeepers would be cool if we had Scarrans as well.
-
Name suggestions:
ersatz League of Nations: The Peace Coalition
ersatz United Nations: The International Peace[keeping] Organization
(Brainstorming)
Peacekeepers would be cool if we had Scarrans as well.
(http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/i-understood-that-reference.gif)
-
I am slightly opposed to using the word "Peace" in the organization name. MO would have a hard time reconciling the heavy "war/expansion is good and necessary" belief with joining a league committed to peace.
I admit I can't think of a more neutral name like "United Nations" or "World Assembly," but I'm hoping we can do something in that vein.
If our organization is going to be solely peacekeepers, my argument weakens, but I assume humanitarian aid, weapons inspections, pollution treaties, etc. will be part of this...
-
humanitarian aid, weapons inspections, pollution treaties, etc. will be part of this...
that, ultimately, is for peace, to maintain a balance and respect between nation states
-
humanitarian aid, weapons inspections, pollution treaties, etc. will be part of this...
that, ultimately, is for peace, to maintain a balance and respect between nation states
That definition could easily include war itself, could it not? War is often about correcting a perceived imbalance or lack of respect. Peace is a state of being, not a sum of the elements used to bring it about or maintain it.
-
An idealistic, well-working international organization seems boring to me. It's basically just another layer of government added on top. While the composite nations of Taijitu surely agree on some matters, it would be only natural if they form factions and compete with each other on different occasions.
Each nation has different strengths, be they economically, militarily, diplomatically or by virtue of not having to lose or gain a lot, so they can sell their votes for the greater good - or the greater gain. Now that I think of it, wouldn't it be most interesting if this supranational organization was mostly employed to forge alliances and broker deals, while "normal" politics go on as usual around it?
-
humanitarian aid, weapons inspections, pollution treaties, etc. will be part of this...
that, ultimately, is for peace, to maintain a balance and respect between nation states
That definition could easily include war itself, could it not? War is often about correcting a perceived imbalance or lack of respect. Peace is a state of being, not a sum of the elements used to bring it about or maintain it.
Nope, that is a very american thing to say, war comes to correct a wrong, or to correct an inbalance. you're wrong and your wars are wrong. okthxbye
-
humanitarian aid, weapons inspections, pollution treaties, etc. will be part of this...
that, ultimately, is for peace, to maintain a balance and respect between nation states
That definition could easily include war itself, could it not? War is often about correcting a perceived imbalance or lack of respect. Peace is a state of being, not a sum of the elements used to bring it about or maintain it.
Nope, that is a very american thing to say, war comes to correct a wrong, or to correct an inbalance. you're wrong and your wars are wrong. okthxbye
Ha! I'm not arguing over whether it's a correct view or not. Just pointing out that war being used to "correct a perceived imbalance" and peace as a state of being is a common thing. Especially, as you so adeptly pointed out, when it comes to America. Also other nations. So a realistic-ish organization, I would think, would reflect the views of all members. And some members (USA/MO) might realistically balk at joining a "Peace" organization under the assumption that it would limit their ability to conduct war.
-
humanitarian aid, weapons inspections, pollution treaties, etc. will be part of this...
that, ultimately, is for peace, to maintain a balance and respect between nation states
That definition could easily include war itself, could it not? War is often about correcting a perceived imbalance or lack of respect. Peace is a state of being, not a sum of the elements used to bring it about or maintain it.
Nope, that is a very american thing to say, war comes to correct a wrong, or to correct an inbalance. you're wrong and your wars are wrong. okthxbye
Ha! I'm not arguing over whether it's a correct view or not. Just pointing out that war being used to "correct a perceived imbalance" and peace as a state of being is a common thing. Especially, as you so adeptly pointed out, when it comes to America. Also other nations. So a realistic-ish organization, I would think, would reflect the views of all members. And some members (USA/MO) might realistically balk at joining a "Peace" organization under the assumption that it would limit their ability to conduct war.
It didn't stop us to form the Aurorean coalition against PI expansionism, it didn't stop us from invading Dysannii. You're wrong but having "Peace" in the name doesn't prevent you to do go war, as UN should and doesn't.
-
You're wrong but having "Peace" in the name doesn't prevent you to do go war, as UN should and doesn't.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say in that sentence. :shrug:
-
I think what Ben is saying is something that any military power would say, not just America. I think he makes a good point and it is something that should be discussed, if not OOC then IC when we discuss what to name this organization. None of the Security Council nations and few non-Security Council nations would have joined the UN if it seriously thought it would impede their ability to wage war, and that's something we should keep in mind when we discuss this organization.
-
IMO, an IPO rife with bureaucratic inertia, ulterior agendas and suspiciously powerful heads of the Council that still gets the job done remarkably often gives you the best of both worlds. Who cares about a few corrupt members if you have a tenacious Commandant-General or something swatting away their plans -- likewise, the stubborn Finances General would choose to keep the status quo of slow ratifications of resolutions and missing resources to stall international conflicts and tensions.
-
An idealistic, well-working international organization seems boring to me. It's basically just another layer of government added on top. While the composite nations of Taijitu surely agree on some matters, it would be only natural if they form factions and compete with each other on different occasions.
Each nation has different strengths, be they economically, militarily, diplomatically or by virtue of not having to lose or gain a lot, so they can sell their votes for the greater good - or the greater gain. Now that I think of it, wouldn't it be most interesting if this supranational organization was mostly employed to forge alliances and broker deals, while "normal" politics go on as usual around it?
This makes me contemplate that the organization might do well being in a stickied topic or subforum.
IMO, an IPO rife with bureaucratic inertia, ulterior agendas and suspiciously powerful heads of the Council that still gets the job done remarkably often gives you the best of both worlds. Who cares about a few corrupt members if you have a tenacious Commandant-General or something swatting away their plans -- likewise, the stubborn Finances General would choose to keep the status quo of slow ratifications of resolutions and missing resources to stall international conflicts and tensions.
I'm definitely in favor of the potential for this dramatically speaking. We could even write up specific events of corruption while assuming that in general the organization was doing its job, very clever.