''World Assembly Woes''

[Sanctaria]

That's what we were aiming for!

Sure. Stuff like this is why I won't be answering issues, whereas before I was picking any option.

Reading is effort, and its too much effort just to avoid accidentally resigning from the WA.

It's stated quite clearly what happens. If you don't want to read, that's up to you.

[Herrebrugh]

I don't really get the point of this new issue...

I mean, general issues change the look of your nations and the capital city/national religion/leader issues allow you new custom fields, but why would I want to resign from the WA by issue? Why would anyone, really.

This issue just doesn't seem to serve a purpose to me.

[Sanctaria]

I don't really get the point of this new issue...

I mean, general issues change the look of your nations and the capital city/national religion/leader issues allow you new custom fields, but why would I want to resign from the WA by issue? Why would anyone, really.

This issue just doesn't seem to serve a purpose to me.

This issue is the exact same as any other issue in the game. The only different is one of the effects it has on your nation, should you chose the relevant option, is resignation from the World Assembly.

While I can't give anything away, the options of this issue also affect your nation in ways other than purely resigning.

[Panageadom]

It's a new method of resigning from the World Assembly. That's it. As far as I'm aware, there are no more plans for issues to interact with the game in this way again. So it's one issue. Chill.

As someone who's most interested in the way that issues manipulate the game (i.e. I treat the game as a political simulator), I'm on board with this, but I could see why gameplayers could be upset by the change, which is a bit of a "one-off", out-of-the-blue event. I'd actually like it if there were more issues that had wider-ranging effects, rather than the plans ending here: and, while gameplayers might not be happy with the upset "purity" of their game, it would at least be something they had to regularly take into account. At the present time - and this is quite probably going broader than the intent of this thread, for which I apologise - NS consists of several modular games (i.e. a political simulator, based on issues and WA resolutions; the R/D game, based on WA elections and regions ; a RP game, based on factbooks and forums), which don't connect to each other particularly well. I would like to seem them connected well, and because I see the political simulator aspect as more core to the notion of what NS is than the other two (I appreciate this is not a view shared by all, or indeed many!), I am glad that issues like this place the political simulation aspect at the core of the network.

[Sanctaria]

It's a new method of resigning from the World Assembly. That's it. As far as I'm aware, there are no more plans for issues to interact with the game in this way again. So it's one issue. Chill.

As someone who's most interested in the way that issues manipulate the game (i.e. I treat the game as a political simulator), I'm on board with this, but I could see why gameplayers could be upset by the change, which is a bit of a "one-off", out-of-the-blue event. I'd actually like it if there were more issues that had wider-ranging effects, rather than the plans ending here: and, while gameplayers might not be happy with the upset "purity" of their game, it would at least be something they had to regularly take into account. At the present time - and this is quite probably going broader than the intent of this thread, for which I apologise - NS consists of several modular games (i.e. a political simulator, based on issues and WA resolutions; the R/D game, based on WA elections and regions ; a RP game, based on factbooks and forums), which don't connect to each other particularly well. I would like to seem them connected well, and because I see the political simulator aspect as more core to the notion of what NS is than the other two (I appreciate this is not a view shared by all, or indeed many!), I am glad that issues like this place the political simulation aspect at the core of the network.

As a player and issue author I agree.

I think if we were to look at this realistically, a leader of a WA nation would be faced with membership of the organisation as an issue on a frequent basis. Just look at the United Kingdom and the European Union. Questions on EU membership come up various times a year.

[JohnnyandtheContusions]

I decided to do it just for the hell of it to see if it would actually resign me. It did. A minute later I was back in the WA. It's not that big a deal.

The readmission to the WA was automatic, or did you have to manually click a button to be readmitted?

[Sanctaria]

I decided to do it just for the hell of it to see if it would actually resign me. It did. A minute later I was back in the WA. It's not that big a deal.

The readmission to the WA was automatic, or did you have to manually click a button to be readmitted?

There remains only one way to join the World Assembly.

[Ethel mermania]

boo

very poorly done. issues and WA policies have never had a cross effect before. a WA member could choose an issue that directly contrevenied WA legislation, thanks for changing the rules without notice.

(although if you took away that ability, with proper notice and discussion. and made it so WA Nations can only choose the side of an issue that matches WA legislation, it might give a more challenging feel to the game.)

[Sanctaria]

boo

very poorly done. issues and WA policies have never had a cross effect before. a WA member could choose an issue that directly contrevenied WA legislation, thanks for changing the rules without notice.

I don't think it was announced when issues created whole new customisable fields. When new issues are added, we don't announce them either.

There are/were no rules about this, as Ballotonia has said. It just hasn't been done before.

[NewTexas]

The Second Longest Serving Delegate in the World Assembly - 8 years 87 days - and this is how we are taken out?!? A freaking unannounced change in game mechanics!

Oh, we are pissed!

[Sanctaria]

The Second Longest Serving Delegate in the World Assembly - 8 years 87 days - and this is how we are taken out?!? A freaking unannounced change in game mechanics!

Oh, we are pissed!

We're sorry about this, but the issue text did explicitly say choosing that option would result in World Assembly resignation.

[Leutria]

The Second Longest Serving Delegate in the World Assembly - 8 years 87 days - and this is how we are taken out?!? A freaking unannounced change in game mechanics!

Oh, we are pissed!

We're sorry about this, but the issue text did explicitly say choosing that option would result in World Assembly resignation.

Perhaps this needs to be amended with an extra line. Something like "Choosing this option will actually resign you from the WA".

Personally this issue doesn't bother me, but this would help avoid people complaining about this.

[Sanctaria]

We're sorry about this, but the issue text did explicitly say choosing that option would result in World Assembly resignation.

Perhaps this needs to be amended with an extra line. Something like "Choosing this option will actually resign you from the WA".

Personally this issue doesn't bother me, but this would help avoid people complaining about this.

I'm pretty sure "We MUST resign from the World Assembly" does the job.

When an issue declared a new leader we didn't need to include "choosing this option will enable you to set a leader". Same with capital city and religion.

[NewTexas]

So how long until the game starts moving your nation around? Like the issue about the coup in Bigtopia - if you say you are going to go stop it, is the game going to move your nation to the region of Bigtopia?

[Sanctaria]

So how long until the game starts moving your nation around? Like the issue about the coup in Bigtopia - if you say you are going to go stop it, is the game going to move your nation to the region of Bigtopia?

Now there's an idea...

On a serious note though, there's no more plans to introduce changes to the way issues interact with the game. And I daresay if there were, we'd learn from this instance.

[NewTexas]

Then why don't you "learn" right freaking now and give us our endorsements back and cancel that damn issue?!?

[Sedgistan]

That's been addressed in your whinge thread in Technical. It's a no to both.

[Biyah]

This is terrible.

At worst, I would have expected a blurb in my nation page that says '... and protesters have lined up outside WA headquarters in the capitol city of X'. Even the issues that opened up the fields of President, Capitol City, etc - were only opening editable fields, something we could chose to ignore if we wanted. There is a radical difference between opening up another detail field, and booting someone from the WA.

Issues for the last 10 years have done two things. Altered your WA category, and added (usually) funny blurbs to your nation. If they're going to start having greater effect, we should be warned, or there should be an OOC warning on them.

~B

[Sedgistan]

The problem there is your expectations, not the issue.

[The Holy Dominion of Inesea]

So...... Can we Condemn the Issue Editor/creator? Or is there a rule against that?

[Sanctaria]

So...... Can we Condemn the Issue Editor/creator? Or is there a rule against that?

That would be commending/condemning a game official for doing a game official's job, so yes it's against the rules.

[The Holy Dominion of Inesea]

So...... Can we Condemn the Issue Editor/creator? Or is there a rule against that?

That would be commending/condemning a game official for doing a game official's job, so yes it's against the rules.

How about the Creator? Since creating Issues is open to any 500 million+ nation, it wouldn't be a Official job, would it?

[Sanctaria]

That would be commending/condemning a game official for doing a game official's job, so yes it's against the rules.

How about the Creator? Since creating Issues is open to any 500 million+ nation, it wouldn't be a Official job, would it?

Yes, against Rule 1 of the SC actually.

For the sake of transparency, I should also disclose that I am the author of this issue.

[Johnson Beef]

The problem there is your expectations, not the issue.

10 years worth of expectations and history Sedge. If you're going to change the fabric of the game, let us know ahead of time. That is not a whole lot to ask.

~B

[The Holy Dominion of Inesea]

Can a GA resolution repeal a Issue?

1. You cannot commend or condemn a moderator for moderating (or an admin for administrating). If you want to commend any of the mods for their actions as a moderator, you can start a thread in Moderation and put up with all the jokes. If you think you've got reason to condemn any of the mods for their actions as a moderator, submit a Getting Help Request.

But making an Issue isn't a mods job. I could make one, but i am not a mod. I am saying Condemn the creator, not the Editor.