Peacezones -Up for debate

[Letoilenoir]

Peacezones?

This isn't my idea and it maybe that it is either not a feasible proposal, or actually serves no purpose, but as Ballotonia has requested here goes:

Whereas the Warzones were specifically designed to be fought over in traditionnal R/D fashion, the feeling I get from the discussion so far on peacezones is that political manouevering rather than sheer military might is envisaged as the primary factor in leading the region, or that is my interpretation

Please feel free to interject at any point, this is just me throwing a few ideas out to see if they hold any water

Now the following is all conjecture so please bear with me, but if we allow that the delegate post will still exist with the WA powers that that entails, we can see that peacezones already exist in the form of GCR's where founder has decreed that the Delegate should be non-executive.

Now it might be that this fact has been overlooked by The Doves of NS - after all they can get their candidate into the delegate spot and thus influence the WA legislation.

However , thats about all they can do , and this may be the primary reason why we are not seeing these regions contested- they cannot agree or rescind embassies and they cannot publicise that their faction has gained "control" because the WFE cannot be amended

If this is indeed what constitutes a "Peacezone" then there is no further need for discussion

However if you want to encourage political competition in a Peacezone to nurture the arts of tact and diplomacy you have to conceed that the Delegate should be more than just the regions "rubber stamp" on WA business

Power to Eject
The first logical step then would be to remove this facility, or have it held in trust by the Founder/WA

Delegates could then still comtrol Embassies, and WFE, but could not simply eject the opposition should they be successful in gaining the delegate post.

Much as they may want to, the Republican Party in the USA could not simply deport all Democrat Party members even if they won overwhelming, in the Senate, Congress and Presidential arenas

But isn't what I have just described what already happens in TRR? If so should we be looking at duplicating the functionality of TRR for GCR's (minus sending ejected nations there of course)

[Warzone Codger]

Well....if there's actually a technical thread for it. I like the original idea, lets try not to over think it.

Peacezone - a region with no founder nor regional delegate. People can get as angry as they want at one another, and disagree as much as they like, but no one can take violent action. People can gain influence, but it doesn't mean anything. People can create forums, but those forums could not be officially tied to the region, as no one has the ability to put them in the WFE. Any "leadership" would be symbolic and powerless, because they have no ability to enforce any policies or exert their will on another nation.

It'd be weird. Possibly completely pointless.

The bold part is what really caught my attention. No powers, not even WFE, so no one could ever claim any sort of in-game "officialness", and any forums/government that succeeds will be because to supreme diplomacy and mutual acceptance.

I wonder if there should be a (powerless) delegate though, and like the Warzones a prominent record on who is the longest delegate. Merely as a vague symbol of who won the most.

Why would anyone play it? Maybe there are more masochists who find this bizzaro world oddly intriguing.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I wonder if there should be a (powerless) delegate though, and like the Warzones a prominent record on who is the longest delegate. Merely as a vague symbol of who won the most.

Why would anyone play it? Maybe there are more masochists who find this bizzaro world oddly intriguing.

I think a powerless delegate would be in the spirit of things, but a record of who's the longest would prompt people to invade and conquer it in hopes of getting that record. Any sense of competition kind of goes against the spirit of peace.

Would anyone play it? Maybe not. Nonetheless, there might be some attractiveness in a region that can never be conquered, you can never be ejected from, and is permanently outside the realm of control of ... anyone. It might be a nice place to retire.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more a delegate doesn't make sense, for the same reasons having a longest delegate record doesn't. It injects an element of competition into a place that should really, in my mind, be devoid of it.

[Syrakhstan]

It would be interesting to see this play out in a founderless region that's willing to - uhm shall we say "play the role of guinea pig." If this were accepted into the game mechanics.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

It would be interesting to see this play out in a founderless region that's willing to - uhm shall we say "play the role of guinea pig." If this were accepted into the game mechanics.

Yeah, I can tell you that ain't gonna happen. As soon as a region declared that they were gonna try it, someone would probably raid them for irony.

[Syrakhstan]

It would be interesting to see this play out in a founderless region that's willing to - uhm shall we say "play the role of guinea pig." If this were accepted into the game mechanics.

Yeah, I can tell you that ain't gonna happen. As soon as a region declared that they were gonna try it, someone would probably raid them for irony.

Why not a not so much founderless region such as Eastern Islands of Dharma, if I'm correct Unibot left and locked it down. I'm not sure if everyone else followed suit.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

There can't really be a true test, because unless it's a game-created region accompanying a news post, we won't see how the general community would treat it.

[Frattastan]

I'd support the creation of a Peacezone as a new GCR, with no access regional controls (no passwords, no WFE changes, no ejections).

If technically possible (probably not), I'd like it there was no Delegate seat at all.

[Bears Armed]

Would anyone play it? Maybe not. Nonetheless, there might be some attractiveness in a region that can never be conquered, you can never be ejected from, and is permanently outside the realm of control of ... anyone. It might be a nice place to retire.

It might be a nice place for a group of friends who just want to answer issues and compare their rankings to each other -- and maybe chat on the RMB a bit -- because they'd be able to count on their nations staying in the same region as each other (for easy comparison, & chatting) but probably wouldn't be as "swamped" by neighbours there as they'd be in any of the sinks...
I agree that such a region having no delegate at all would be better than it having a powerless one.

[Galiantus]

This idea is awesome. I have always wanted to see a truely WA-free, raider/defender free region that could be considered a "middle ground" compared to all regions. There has always been a large amount of conflict between raiders/defenders, GCRs/PCRs, Anti-WA/Pro-WA, and various forms of other regions, but never a place where Gameplayers can have no conflict. I think the creation of such a blank region (GCR or PCR) would provide enough neutral ground that could open up new types of politics in the game.

However, if this idea is implamented, I would like to ask first that if this region is GCR only, that either 1) it is not also a feeder or 2) it is the only feeder(s) and replace(s) the Pacifics. Otherwise its position as the most purely neutral region in the game would be tainted, simply because it would continue to side with the other feeders when voicing opinions on issues like recruiting.

A few things to consider, if the WAD position was completely removed from this region type:
1. No one could regulate the RMB
2. No one could edit the WFE
3. No one could add tags, other than the automatic ones
4. The region would have very little political power in the WA
Although I like the idea of completely removing the WAD position from the region, I want to point out that there needs to be someone who can at least manage the WFE to maintain order. But I guess that might be the point of this region: a place outside the regions.

I would also like to suggest the possibility of allowing players to create the equivilent of "Peace Zones" on their own, by simply adding an option to completely remove the WA delegate seat from the region. Should the founder CTE, there are a host of options to choose from, including automatically moving the residents of the region to the GCR Peace Zone and destroying the region (this game is all about trade-offs in politics, right?)

[Crushing Our Enemies]

A few things to consider, if the WAD position was completely removed from this region type:
1. No one could regulate the RMB
2. No one could edit the WFE
3. No one could add tags, other than the automatic ones
4. The region would have very little political power in the WA
Although I like the idea of completely removing the WAD position from the region, I want to point out that there needs to be someone who can at least manage the WFE to maintain order. But I guess that might be the point of this region: a place outside the regions.

Exactly! Regulation of the RMB would be a form of hard power and political assertion, which goes contrary to the spirit of this suggestion. Similarly, there is no need for tags or WA power, because no one ought to have the right to decide what tags are added, nor how to wield any hard power the region gained in the WA.

I would also like to suggest the possibility of allowing players to create the equivilent of "Peace Zones" on their own, by simply adding an option to completely remove the WA delegate seat from the region. Should the founder CTE, there are a host of options to choose from, including automatically moving the residents of the region to the GCR Peace Zone and destroying the region (this game is all about trade-offs in politics, right?)

Ehh, I don't like this idea. It seems complicated and unnecessary.

I think the name "Peacezone" sounds a little off. "Warzone" makes sense cause that's an actual real life thing. This region should have a name like "No Man's Land" or "Neutral Ground" (although that second one should probably be avoided, to prevent people from thinking it's gameplay-only).

[Improving Wordiness]

Peace zone sounds similar to a creche idea I had a while ago. I had thought that rather than nations spawning into a feeder where they risk ejection that there should be a creche spawn zone.
Nations are born there but a community cannot be formed as there is no one person or government in control. No WFE powers, no delegate, no influence.

[Frattastan]

I agree that such a region having no delegate at all would be better than it having a powerless one.

No delegate is powerless when it comes to voting on resolutions.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I don't like the idea of a feeder peacezone. I'd rather see it develop into a group of nations with a commitment to peace, rather than a place where nations who don't necessarily care about it start out, and no one can make them leave. I think every nation who enters a peace zone should do so by choice.

[Frattastan]

Agreed.

Plus, I wouldn't like to alter the current status of the Pacifics.

[Mahaj]

Although adding a new one would be interesting.

Not gonna happen, though.

[Camian WA Mission]

I think a peacezone would be interesting, it would serve as another GCR, which as all of us know, GCRs have a lot of interesting culture. However, I am against the delegate not having power of WFE, tags, etc. The WFE is more of a communication asset, rather than a security asset, which is why it isn't very crucial to potential raiders, but it is crucial to delegates who wish to impose a legitimate culture. However, the "no-ban" rule would be interesting, and thus, the only actual component to what would make a peacezone different from a feeder.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I am against the delegate not having power of WFE, tags, etc. The WFE is more of a communication asset, rather than a security asset, which is why it isn't very crucial to potential raiders, but it is crucial to delegates who wish to impose a legitimate culture.

You've missed the point. This would be a region where NO ONE could "impose" their culture on the rest of the inhabitants. The lack of a delegate is a crucial component of the whole idea. This would be a region devoid of competition and hard power. If someone were able to control the tags and WFE, that could prompt internal factions or outside groups to take the delegacy, in an attempt to impose their culture on the region. Soon, another group or faction would challenge them for that right and BAM - no more peace.

[Weed]

How is this different than a forum not connected to a region? I just don't get it. There's no reason not to try it I suppose.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

A forum has an administrator and usually, a defined set of values or some reason for existence. This would be a community defined by whoever showed up. There would be no mechanism for enforcing an specific policy, or establishing any regime. Much like NationStates itself, it would be whatever the players made it.

[Galiantus]

I think the name "Peacezone" sounds a little off. "Warzone" makes sense cause that's an actual real life thing. This region should have a name like "No Man's Land" or "Neutral Ground" (although that second one should probably be avoided, to prevent people from thinking it's gameplay-only).

*I like this

How is this different than a forum not connected to a region? I just don't get it. There's no reason not to try it I suppose.

The only reason I would honestly support this idea would be if the region was not really a region at all: just a void that replaced the feeders' function and had a completely powerless WA delegete. Would there be a WFE or RMB? I don't know. The existance of either implies, as COE said, a form of tangible power, and would still allow for invasions and political organizations to compete for power; which is the very thing this idea is trying to get rid of.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Would there be a WFE or RMB? I don't know. The existance of either implies, as COE said, a form of tangible power, and would still allow for invasions and political organizations to compete for power; which is the very thing this idea is trying to get rid of.

Well, since there would be no WA delegate, any WFE would be permanent and set by the administrators when the region was created. As for an RMB, I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be one. There's no competitive edge to be gained by the existence of a RMB.

[Ballotonia]

I would also like to suggest the possibility of allowing players to create the equivilent of "Peace Zones" on their own, by simply adding an option to completely remove the WA delegate seat from the region.

This I like. It would create two new region types: with a Founder, and without (or non-exec) Founder.

And for clarity: making new feeder regions is out. There's no need for them. Similarly, any plan which would affect existing feeders would require WAY more discussion (and is far less likely to happen) than discussing a plan which doesn't and limits side-effects.

Ballotonia

[Mousebumples]

Would there be a WFE or RMB? I don't know. The existance of either implies, as COE said, a form of tangible power, and would still allow for invasions and political organizations to compete for power; which is the very thing this idea is trying to get rid of.

Well, since there would be no WA delegate, any WFE would be permanent and set by the administrators when the region was created. As for an RMB, I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be one. There's no competitive edge to be gained by the existence of a RMB.

I guess my WA Delegate related question is this: Should there (still) be a powerless WA Delegate (i.e. unable to ban/kick/etc.) merely for the purposes of voting on WA Resolutions? Of course, I ask this as a resolution author, so I suppose it's quite possible that there are plenty of nations who wouldn't care if their nation/region didn't have a "representative" voting for them in the WA.

I'd think that having an RMB would make sense - just so that there's that way to build a community within the Peacezone. Understandably, a WFE could make it a target for raids - if only to advertise one's "holding" of the area.

Interesting idea. Not one that I'd take part with, with my main - I've only been in my present region for 9+ years - but it seems like a new avenue to explore as an option.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I think it makes the most sense not to have a delegate at all, to avoid the competitive contest it injects.