Talk:Assembly of Nations

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Any user is free to add countries (or any faction(s) ruling a country) to the list of members.


Template

Excellent!--Luciano (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2015 (CET)

Thanks for making the excellent template! --Isleño (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2015 (CET)
If you have any "requests" for additions to template, I can try to implement them.--Luciano (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2015 (CET)
Hm... is there a way to override the 190px limit for the logo, allowing it to fill the full width of the box? No worries if it can't be done, just wondering. --Isleño (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2015 (CET)
Ahh, that was just a cut-n-paste error. I made the default 280px (to give it some margins) but also made an override parameter logo_size --Luciano (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2015 (CET)
Looks great, thanks! --Isleño (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2015 (CET)

Founding Date

I have some trouble with a founding date of 1966. Especially as the headquartes was also built in 1966. But mostly because I need some kind of a supranational organization before that date. As there is no agreement yet over when "The World War" ended, which might be a good point to found the AN, the AN could have existed before that. Maybe 50 years earlier, since 1916. Then the new headquartes would coincide with the 50th anniversary. Alternatively, I would need an older onganization, replaced by the AN.

Any opinions? --Toadwart (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2017 (CEST)

Maybe think about something like League of Nations? I don't find any chance to "The World War" if Assembly of Nations existed in current form. It should be smaller (more exclusive?) and less effective, as IRL League of Nations was. Rustem Pasha (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2017 (CEST)
Yes! For the Antharian history I'd necessarily need an OGF League of Nations already in 1925, I mean the real world one appeared in 1920 --Stjur (talkOGF) 11:25, 1 September 2017 (CEST)

We would need a name and a symbol/flag. I have no pereferences for the name but for the flag I would prefer the AN white-cyan colour scheme.
If we have one more exclusive one, would we have a second one, competing for influence? The AN distancing itself from both organizations' heritage.
Or we have one major organization, which is part of AN's tradition, the "first, unsuccessful attempt". (my preference)
I would suggest to have it founded in 191x, so we have enough space. --Toadwart (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2017 (CEST)

Well, I see this organisation as the "first usuccessful attemp" too. For more exclusive I meant it was easier to get fired from LoN than UN and there were some conditions when country can be accepted as a member. Also it was really begging of global collaboration and some countries weren't really interested in joining, the same should be in OGF version of LoN. Or even OGF version of LoN should be unsuccesful much more, because colonization in OGF was made on smaller scale than IRL (the world was more divided, so cooperation needs more equal members to be succesful). I don't want to discuss the flag, because I am not very good at aestethics but the color scheme seems good. Rustem Pasha (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2017 (CEST)

I also think the founding date is a bit curious given the general consensus that a major global conflict happened twenty years earlier. And, to Rustem said, I actually think the AN is likely a good choice for the "first unsuccessful attempt" at international cooperation. Maybe the body has matured and grown into its role a bit, but I don't see it as anything like our real world UN. — Alessa (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2017 (CEST)

So, one option would be to extend the AN to earlier times.
Then we would have the LoN-era and the UN-era all under one roof. There would be simply an explanation in the history section about some kind of decline preceding the war and a renaissance after the war. So, no one needs to bother about membership of a preceding organization. This change would not have too much impact on other users' histories. It is not narrowing down possibilities or creating storyline conflicts. And if later on someone wants to make a separate organization, we could simple split the entire thing. --Toadwart (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2017 (CEST)

So after discussing the above, is the founding date 1920 or something? Actually this helps as my country became a communist state (1946-1972) and was in conflict with the organisation, due to issues like human rights and launching nuclear weapons.--Happy mapping and God bless, Zhenkang (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2017 (CET)

I think you are safe assuming 1920. I didn't do anything about it yet, because it was not yet important for my timeline. --Toadwart (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2017 (CET)

Eshein

Esheinflag.png Eshein would love to host one on AN's buildings. --Ifgus (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2017 (EET)

Thanks!

Thanks for hosting the AN, Bhj! I think St. Richards is a great choice. --Isleño (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2015 (CET)

No problem! I want to work on making St. Richards a real world class city. I am allowing anyone to go in an start building hotels and the like. Bhj867 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2015 (CET)
Definitely looking forward to see how it develops! --Isleño (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2015 (CET)

Embasies

I would really love it if everyone would start placing embassies in St. Richards, Pretany around the Assembly of Nations. Thank you Bhj867 (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2015 (CEST)

Do I need to move mine? I had originally placed the Freedemian embassy closer to Royal Hill. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2015 (CEST)
Just added seven embassies (my countries plus blue countries) within one mile of the AN. --Isleño (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2015 (CEST)
You are ok with putting your embassies near the AN building or across the river near Royal Hill. Your choice. :) Bhj867 (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2015 (CEST)
Hello. Can Renkistan embassy be built there too? Greetings (p.s.: I dont know how to add a post, I just edit the talk) Renkon (talk)
Absolutely, all countries are welcome. Bhj867 (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2015 (CEST)
I will add an 'embassy' for Telkhug Ēkdŭn if that's all ok with you. Telkhug Ē is not a country or a government, but it is an entity representing a large group of people who are not represented in any other way. It doesn't have to be a 'full member' of AN of course (that debate isn't yet closed, I think), but it would be good if it had a building that would allow its members to attend AN. Thanks --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2015 (CET)

Unrecognised Countries

I'd like to add in a secondary list of unrecognised countries - that is, countries that have explicitly been stated not to be members of AN. Sound ok? --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2015 (CET)

Very good idea, I think! -- BMSOUZA (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2015 (CET)
One observation, however: I think the way AN membership is defined ("opt-out", rather than "opt-in") makes the AN different from our Real World UN; thus I think the barrier to recognition by the AN is much lower than the Real World. I tried to imply this when I wrote my recent article about the Jeres Collective - although recognized by only a few countries, they sat at the AN during their brief existence, much to the annoyance and consternation of the Mahhalian government.--Luciano (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2015 (CET)

That is a good point. I suppose the question relates to Goytakanya. Have they opted out of AN? If not, and they are recognised by AN, do they need other countries to recognise them independently? --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2015 (CET)

Yes, I think they need to, despite AN membership. In the UN there are also member states that don't recognise each other (mostly involving e.g. Israel etc). Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2015 (CET)

Goytakanya itself doesn't appear to be recognised by AN. Maybe a bureaucrat has made a terrible error and forgotten to fill the right form in. Or maybe there has been some foul play by the Suvumese! As the Goytakanyan government knows, Ionadàlban government recognises all countries that are recognised by the AN. Maybe the phone lines are down...

But still, another question also arises: if two countries claim one area of land, and the AN recognises both of them, whose claim then is valid and which side will the AN peacekeepers take? Or will the AN end up tangling them all up in red tape? --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2015 (CET)

The reasoning behind the liberal AN membership policy is to ensure that all parties in any major dispute can sit at the same table and resolve their issues, so any rebel group that exercises reasonably stable de facto sovereignty over a territory and population would be considered a member. (I guess there would be some committee to decide whether or not they've met that requirement, but presumably it would be a very low bar.) Consequently, as Luciano points out, AN membership doesn't have the same prestige or the same meaning that UN membership does in real life. So Goytakanya certainly would have had a seat at the AN for the past 40 years, as would any similar group. So although Suvuma might be annoyed, they wouldn't be outraged, as this is standard AN procedure. Getting a seat at the AN would be very easy, much easier than getting diplomatic recognition from other sovereign states. As for territorial claims, while sovereign states may choose to recognize or not recognize the claims of others, I would imagine that the AN wouldn't recognize any territorial claims at all. I suppose AN peacekeepers could be deployed in any sort of mission the AN votes to approve (regardless of members' conflicting territorial claims), although I imagine the rules of the AN charter would make it rather difficult to get approval for such deployments. In any case, I don't think there would be any countries "unrecognized" by the AN, unless they chose to refuse membership. --Isleño (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2015 (CET)
I think there has also to be some de jure sovereignity, like recognition by some AN members (or an AN committee). When only a claim on a country and a conquest with force is made, that would not be enough for AN membership in my opinion. If we mirror this situation onto our own world, this would mean that terrorist organisations like IS(IS), Boko Haram and Al Qaeda would be member. I think there are three major issues with that:
  1. Diplomats of those terrorists can be killed by secret forces because they are wanted (what would have happened when Bin Laden came to New York for a UN meeting?)
  2. The credibility of the AN is totally distroyed be 'recognising' such organistations.
  3. Terrorists can easily attack AN itself, because its people are allowed to enter the building.
Therefore I think that 'countries' can be and should be 'unrecognized' by the AN. KVh (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (CET)
Unlike the UN, I wouldn't describe the AN as "recognizing" or "legitimizing" anyone. It just serves as a forum for mutual interaction and opportunity to interface with the AN resources available. So yes, any group that exerts stable control over territory and population would be allowed to participate (including ISIS, Boko Haram and Al Qaeda, provided they meet those criteria). I doubt such groups would physically come to the AN because of course that would mean risking capture. We could say that any persons barred from entering the host country (Pretany) would enjoy no diplomatic immunity there and would probably need to participate remotely. On the AN campus itself, of course, security can be maintained with standard security checkpoints. That said, a membership structure like this does have ramifications, and it does imply additional differences from the UN. For example, you couldn't have a "one member, one vote" system like in the UN General Assembly. And you couldn't keep putting up and taking down new flags in front of the AN building every time the membership changes, so things like these would perhaps need a minimum population and/or permanence threshhold. --Isleño (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2015 (CET)


This is a complex discussion; I'll try and tease some of the strands out of it. Part of the issue hinges on what is a nation - and remember that we are talking about the Assembly of Nations.

In fact,I think we basically have two issues to reconcile and resolve: the first is the functioning of the 'out of OGF' admin system. The second is 'verisimilitude'.

Any registered user can create on the OGF map and wiki something that would resemble a 'nation' (a nation being defined as a group of people sharing common characteristics). That ‘nation’, if in one of the blue areas, would be part of a larger 'free to edit' country, so would not be an 'independent nation', (in OGF). The status of the areas mapped and the people in them is unknown unless clearly defined by a user in the map and /or wiki. However, once a user has agreed with an admin their own territory to edit in, that then is a country - and it could be a separate nation, though it could later be split or joined to other nations. As a result of this we have a fairly clear definition of 'country', even while 'nation' is more controversial. But we are talking about the ‘Assembly of Nations’ , not the ‘Assembly of Countries'.

What we come to next is the way in which nations, as defined by individual users, are represented at the 'Assembly of Nations'. The 'low bar’ for admission policy allows pretty much any country to be represented( but that is not an issue). The original text of the AN admission policy was: "by default, all independent sovereign states are automatically considered to be members of the AN, unless they explicitly reject membership". To act as a low bar it is pretty clear that this is unworkable, because sovereign states are a fairly 'high bar', being firstly a juridicial personality and secondly (when mapped or wikied), a fact, in law and in reality (although the reality of the fact relates back to the 'in OGF' validity of the wiki!). Not all the countries in OGF - take Commonia for instance - can be sovereign states. It is right that that text should be amended. However, the amendment made by Isleño yesterday, and the recent comments above, bring up a few issues.

The question is: what sort of 'entities' should be represented at or by the AN? Or to put it another way, what is the definition of ‘Nation’ as used by the AN. The AN is (or appears to be) an ‘Intergovernmental Organisation’, so it is likely that governments are represented, and not terrorist groups. One of the ANs primary aims is ‘ ..to defend the human rights and individual freedoms of people everywhere.’ As KVh says, terrorist organizations are clearly in conflict with this aim (whether they claim nationhood or not). In fact, all forms of oppression and dictatorship conflict with this aim too (whether they are by governments or not). I accept that it is only an aim, and that the AN decision of recognition may rest on attempting to enable this aim by allowing conflicting parties to sit at the same table (remotely or not) and resolve their issues, as explained by Isleño. So this may not prevent membership; the bar is now very low.

However, to admit ‘any rebel group that exercises reasonably stable de facto sovereignty over a territory and population’ would be in massive conflict with the AN's humanitarian aim, and would, as KVh says, totally destroy the AN’s credibility. If that is the case, there is no believability that the AN could be a humanitarian organisation. Furthermore, AN peacekeepers would have no possible way to tell which side to take in a conflict (and, if this hasn't happened in the history of the AN, then that is not believable either). So I feel there is an issue of verisimilitude here. Sovereignty is a legal concept and the existence of 'de facto sovereignty' must be debatable. Sovereignty would have to be decided upon ‘’’before’’’ a group (‘nation’) was deemed (presumably by the International Court of the AN?) to be, or not to be a ‘sovereign entity’. I would argue that that decision is unavoidably a legal one, although it could be based on fact (i.e. OGF fact).

Finally, relating to groups of people, whether tied to a place or not, who are unable to recognize the legitimacy of the AN, for example through repression or ignorance: what is the status of those people? They appear to be ‘stateless’, ‘personae nullis’ without any (international) legal standing or rights? How could the AN then uphold their human rights?

I suggest three revisions or ‘clarifications’ of the AN position (other users may want to add more):

1. A legal committee (or court) which decides whether a group of people comprise a ‘’‘Nation’’’. Definition likely to be based on 'de facto' evidence. (Eligibility for Membership Criterion). ( In OGF, this is likely to be some of the admin team, but I agree it would be a lot of work to put up every flag of every nation!)

2. A requirement from prospective member nations that they will use the AN to resolve any conflicts to resolve issues through diplomacy, not violence (Assembly of Nations’ – Recognition of Mediatory Role Criterion). (In OGF a simple message could be sent to new country owners – of course some might chose not to be AN members!)

3. A commitment from the AN to uphold the rights of individuals suffering oppression (reference to a ‘Human Rights’ charter or declaration and to an independent (i.e. new) International Court of Human Rights (since this is not the jurisprudence of an International Criminal Court – although the prosecution of individuals causing oppression would be)). (In OGF, the lack of the physical evidence of this in say Commonia, could be referred back to lack of budget etc)

To be admitted to the AN, ‘member nations’ should commit to recognizing these articles.

--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2015 (CET)

Thanks Udi for this good discussion. I think the central question here is a simple one: "what sort of 'entities' should be represented?" To which the proposed answer above is "governments, not terrorist groups." For me, the problem with that answer is that the line between the two can be blurry. If a terrorist group is just blowing stuff up and hiding in caves, then no, they're not a government. But when a "terrorist group" actually exerts stable control over a territory and a population, then it is in fact governing the people under its control. It is their government, no matter how evil it may be. Not de jure government, but de facto government. And a strong case can be made for it to participate in this type of intergovernmental organization.
Of course if the AN were a prestige club like the UN, then it would be easy to say, no, allowing these parties to participate wrongly "legitimizes" them. But the AN is more like a way for members to discuss their differences (which is a very good reason to allow these controversial parties to participate) as well as for members to interface with important AN resources (such as World Food Aid, World Health Organization, etc. — another very good reason to allow controversial parties to participate).
As far as I can see, the only other reasons against including these de facto governments are as follows: One, some people would not call them "nations," which conflicts with the name "Assembly of Nations." Two, letting these groups participate would conflict with the AN's humanitarian goals. And three, peacekeepers would have no way to tell which side to take in a conflict. Here are some responses:
First, there can certainly be exceptions to the name... It's not like everyone would call every UN member a "nation" either, so it's fine for the AN to have the same issue. Second, I don't see how the participation of these controversial groups would hurt the noble aims of the AN any more than including the brutally violent dictatorships that are recognized by everyone. In real life, UN members commit horrific violations of human rights, but that doesn't stop the UN from being a humanitarian organization. Plus you could easily have a situation where an unrecognized rebel group respects human rights while fighting to overthrow a fully recognized regime of the utmost brutality, which would arguably make the AN (which would include the rebels) more supportive of human rights than the UN (which wouldn't). And third, peacekeeping missions are not decided by unanimous vote. In real life, the UN definitely has the option of picking sides in a conflict, even sending peacekeepers to fight against a member state if necessary. I don't see why the AN can't do so as well.
I agree there should be a committee that determines AN membership. However I think it should be entirely fictional — not an actual person, just an imaginary committee written into the wiki article that simply makes a (sometimes difficult) judgement about whether an entity has stable control over a territory and population (I agree the question of whether an entity has established de facto sovereignty is certainly debatable). As for the AN wiki article, I'm not sure I see any reason to change the way it works now, where every country is automatically assumed to be an AN member and simply added to the list whenever anyone remembers to do so (I think it's OK if the list isn't always fully up to date; its real purpose is to make you think of the UN with all the pretty flags). I do think there should be a separate list for entities that have rejected AN membership. As for putting requirements on AN membership (such as a commitment to use the AN to resolve conflicts) I'd really rather not make things any more complicated — I think new users have enough to think about already; and besides, someone could always ignore such a commitment even if they had initially agreed to it. I'm also unsure I see the reason for an additional commitment from the AN to uphold human rights, when that's already stated to be part of its mission.
At the end of the day, I'd just like to keep the AN as simple as possible, which for me means assuming everyone is a member unless they state otherwise, not putting any requirements on members, letting everyone decide for themselves which entities within their territories may or may not participate in the AN, and avoiding the possibility of the OGF community having to determine the AN membership of any given entity. To me, the current "opt-out" system is an easy way to check all of these boxes...
--Isleño (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2015 (CET)
Just a thought on the flags part...perhaps in this day and age we could have an electronic display for the newer entries? In Freedemia one of our monuments is largely digital to add in more names. This way we don't have to put up a new flag physically for every new nation? --Ernestpcosby (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2015 (CET)
Interesting idea! --Isleño (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2015 (CET)

Thanks Isleño - I pretty much agree with all those points! What I think should be made clear is that, in OGF, the Assembly of Nations does have all this legislation in place to decide all these complicated issues (even if in actual fact it is a very simple system for us users). I very much appreciate that it is good to keep things as clear and as easy as possible for users, especially new ones - that suggestion of mine was just to allow users to be aware that there is an AN, but of course they'll find out in time, or not. The main point is that the way the text reads at the moment is slightly unbelievable, but that could be sorted out. It certainly would also add interest if user's did 'opt out' some countries, perhaps the undemocratic ones, but not as if they had chosen to 'opt out': what I mean by that is that they write in the AN article that their country has been 'thrown out', 'sanctioned', 'unrecognised as a sovereign state' etc. It is a very good point that a rebel group might respect human rights while fighting to overthrow a 'fully recognized' regime of brutality, and I agree these groups should be included in AN, which should be easy to do, and could make for some interesting groups developing. In fact, AN peacekeepers (based on the decisions of the hypothetical security council) might even intervene/have intervened in some of these conflicts? And finally, I would expect that the AN has plenty of spare diplomats who would be happy to spend some time raising and lowering flags. Maybe even a diplomatic flag-raising exercise class to the tune of each country's national anthem...hehe......going too far. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (CET)

Yeah, I agree the article as it's written isn't ideal. The "opt-out" paragraph could be clarified/rewritten. What if we add a brief section called "Membership policy" with a paragraph explaining the rationale for including unrecognized entities, and outlining the fictional membership approval process? We could also add a "Sanctions" section — there are a lot of interesting possibilities for the AN to punish a country, even if we decide that revoking membership is not an option. For example, being reprimanded or censured; being denied voting rights or committee seats; being restricted to remote participation; being restricted to private dialogue only, i.e. no using the AN as a platform for addressing the world public; being hit with an AN-coordinated economic punishment, travel restrictions, etc. And of course there's the option of sending in peacekeepers when necessary. And of course various AN members could additionally withdraw their recognition of such a country, institute their own trade restrictions, etc, etc. As for helping new users find this page, it might be good to create a guide on the wiki for them, like "OGF:Where to add your country in the wiki" or something, which would list all the places in the wiki where they may want to add their country — the AN page would certainly be one of those places. That way, new users who want to dive into the wiki would know where to go, but other new users wouldn't necessarily need to think about it. --Isleño (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2015 (CET)

AN membership and it's impact on nations laws

Hi! Is AN affecting laws of countries that join? I would like to get in, but i don't want my laws to be changed because of that. On my country there are laws that allow government to deport pepole that meet certain conditions. If i come in to AN, then will they be affected? --Trabantemnaksiezyc (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2016 (CEST)

Hi! Every country is automatically considered to be an AN member (unless they opt out), so no, there would be no effect on a nation's laws. --Isleño (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2016 (CEST)
Great, im in. Thanks! --Trabantemnaksiezyc (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2016 (CEST)

Can a country first opt out of the AN, then after a change in government join the AN? --Zhenkang (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2016 (CET)

Yes, presumably not all countries that existed in 1966 were inaugural members, some probably joined later.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2016 (CET)

Franquese name

Shouldn't the AN's name in Franquese/French be Assemblée des Nations (Assembly of Nations) rather than Nations Assemblées (Nations Assembled)? -- Pawl (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2016 (CEST)

Definitely, well noted! I thought of it as a translation like with the UN, but that's not correct in this case. --PortCal (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2016 (CEST)

List

I have a question to the list of members. Is everyone allowed to put in their country? Tito zz (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2017 (CET)

Yes.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2017 (CET)
Ok! --Tito zz (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2017 (CET)

Membership

Any sovereign and independent country or any organisation ruling a country is automatically part of the AN. Any nation or organisation may chose to opt out of the organisation, but the AN's decision is final in regrading whether to let the country remain or opt out. If a country has already opted out, but in the future wishes to join again is free to do so. The AN is a peace-keeping, neutral party, so it is not allied with any parties during any war. Any country can choose not to recognise the AN, in the case of Ūdzđąnąrąt.--Happy mapping and God bless, Zhenkang (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2017 (CET)

This is not the case. Ūdzđąnąrąt cannot choose to recognise the AN or not: it is not capable of doing this. It is not a member because it has no representative body able to say whether or not its a member.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (CET)
Oh well, then 'Any country can choose not to recognise the AN. However, for certain cases for states like Ūdzđąnąrąt or other sovereign states with no representative body or technically ruled under an anarchy, the state will not be able to say it does not recognise the AN.' Actually, if it is like this, then Commonia should not be on the list of members, since it is an anarchic nation. It should be replaced by the ANCC, the North Commonian Alliance and the Commonian Confederation. --Happy mapping and God bless, Zhenkang (talk)

Permanent membership

One question: Who are the 5 permanent members of the AN?--Happy mapping and God bless, Zhenkang (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2017 (CET)

TBD--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (CET)
If what you mean is what I think, than there is nothing to be determined, because there is no such thing. If you mean what you write, then we have to remove all but 5 members from the AN. --Toadwart (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2017 (CET)
I guess a lot of things about AN are 'TBD'. I think Zhenkang's question refers to the 'security council'? Its not determined if there is a security council, if there are permanent members of that council, if there are 5 members of that council. As the page says, all sovereign states are automatically considered members. If someone 'makes' a sovereign state, it can therefore be a member, permanently or not, as its creators choose.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (CET)

Establishing AN-Affiliated Institutions

Is there a protocol for establishing AN-affiliated institutions in our countries? I would like to propose the location of the AN Commission on Urbanization and Settlement Patterns (AN-CUSP), which would be headquartered in the Patermatian city of Aecera. I would be basing it off of the real-world [UN-HABITAT]. Does this need to be discussed somewhere, or can I simply add it to the list of affiliated institutions? -- LW (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2018 (EST)

There's no established protocol for this yet. If you map it first and then wiki it, it'll almost certainly be fine. Anyone who questions it - say if a similar thing has already been mapped somewhere else - can post here.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (CET)
Got it, thanks. I will hold off for now, since Aercera is not sufficiently mapped yet for me to add something like this. Establishing for posterity that I am planning to host a HABITAT-like org in Patermas, so if anyone wants to swipe the honor they'll have to arm wrestle me for it first! ;-D -- LW (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2018 (EST)
If we are planning on making an AN organization, would it be a good idea to propose it here first? If this is true, I am proposing the World Science Council in Bélice, possibly somewhere near my nuclear power plant.

Loading map...

--Trombonist2003 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2018 (CEST)