by Joe Bobs » Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:47 am
Old Zertaxia: You crazy, drunk penguin.
by The Blaatschapen » Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:50 am
by Joe Bobs » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:36 am
Old Zertaxia: You crazy, drunk penguin.
by Ballotonia » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:53 pm
by Joe Bobs » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:17 pm
Ballotonia wrote:This idea would totally destroy WA voting. One nation could have delegacy in enough regions to push a proposal to quorum, all it would take is one buddy to endorse in lots of (passworded) regions.
Invasions would be horrible, as lots of regions would be invaded and stacked, then the army would leave but the stacked vote count (and invader delegate) would remain until someone else could create a bigger stacked vote.
Ballotonia
Old Zertaxia: You crazy, drunk penguin.
by Improving Wordiness » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:31 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Wind in the Willows » Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:06 pm
by Unibot III » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:07 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Sichuan Pepper » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:59 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Yeah but no one here can read. Literacy is a tool used by fendas, like IRC or morals.
by Ballotonia » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:51 am
Improving Wordiness wrote:It already is possible to be the delegate of multiple regions. The window is 12 hours long.
by Sichuan Pepper » Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:16 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Yeah but no one here can read. Literacy is a tool used by fendas, like IRC or morals.
by Joe Bobs » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:54 am
Old Zertaxia: You crazy, drunk penguin.
by Coraxion » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:59 am
by Joe Bobs » Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:08 am
Old Zertaxia: You crazy, drunk penguin.
by Joe Bobs » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:36 am
Jarrinan wrote:I think it's a really interesting idea, to take into account international opinions and influences. Maybe each region could have a delegate and then there could be a delegate for a group of regions who share embassies perhaps.
This could reflect the activities and relations on forums such as the FRA, as these forums are the main way we interact between regions. This would be positive for those involved in forums but may overcomplicate it for those on NS who aren't.
Lemmingtopias wrote:It doesn't need to wreck the WA at all. The WA should still give one approval to each Delegate - not each delegacy. So if a Delegate has 10 regions, he still gets one approval.
Ryno III wrote:I just can't get behind the idea of someone not in the region taking away a person in the regions rightful delegate position.
Some problems:
1. I think that would hurt noobs in the long run. As it would take delegate positions away from them. Some regions would no longer look from within and instead vote for someone they know as a good delegate in another region.
2. Why do you even want a situation where one person has control of a ton of regions at once for a prolonged period of time? If a person gets too many delegate positions then it would be hard to keep track of every region. A delegate should know what is going on in their region.
3. Where is the loyalty to one's region in this? When one commits one's WA to be delegate to a region it shows a willingness to sacrifice having your WA anywhere else, unless you want to lose power.
4. Less positions open to people period. Just imagine being in a region where you worked so hard to become delegate and then this happens and you realize your regionmates decide that some person in a different region would be awesome to have as delegate. Their only reason is that that person is cool and does an ok job at a different region. That doesn't sound cool.
5. The D/R game would be hell. Just imagine that one invader could hold many regions with one WA. Before they had to give up power in one region to be in another (being lead or helping). As long as the regions don't update too close in time to each other they wouldn't have a problem fending off liberation attempts.
6. The power of the WA in the hands of a few is possible in this. Now if they were into repealing every GA proposal that would be great, but more than likely they would block repeals and such. Plus it's better to eliminate the chance of this sort of thing from happening.
7. What about WA delegates using votes against the wishes of the region? Some regions that a person could be delegate could have delegates decision and at the same time others may have regions choice. Combine that with too many regions to keep track of and you have a lot of people unhappy. Also the idea that you could check a box and make it so a delegate can't vote for a region would never go through. It would be silly to let a delegates power in the WA to be taken away. That is the whole point of them.
8. Being able to coup a region from the outside isn't fair. What if natives get tricked into endorsing the couper? A region shouldn't be forced to eject natives to prevent a coup.
9. I don't want to be a part of a game where one person could become delegate in every region I may join and never be in the same region. I don't care how awesome they are or if they were me. They don't deserve it. They'd have too many votes in the WA, too much power (being able to eject too many people in different places, password it, etc...), and have a higher profile in too many regions (they would have a say in governments greater then what they would have had).
9. I wouldn't regard muti-regional delegates to be real delegates. That's just me though.
10. I think this would be a train wreck due to how much chaos this would cause. Some people wouldn't be paying attention and be blindsided with this. This could make people leave and never return.
11. Regions should have different delegates. If they want a delegate of a different region they should either ask them to move to their region or merge into that region. Regions could lose their identities because of this. Region thinks person in a different region would make a good delegate. Region is founderless. Region is also small. Region watches it's region get changed as they watch the delegate's friends join the region for their delegate to keep the natives from making him not delegate anymore. Delegate destroys region and password protects it. This wouldn't have happened so easily if he couldn't be delegate of more then one region. In this they don't want to move.
12. I think some people would just go around trying to convince a bunch of people to make them delegate. Just so they could be delegate of the most regions.
Ok I am done for now. I think I could come up with more. I really think people would abuse this and not use it as intended as well.
Wibblefeet wrote:Frankly, I'd almost prefer some way of combining a region by absorption than this.
Then, if the natives screamed "our region was raided and consumed" - well, go refound it. Can't do that to a region with a founder.
As far as taking this idea on the surface - the only way I can see this working at all would be to have a HUGE discount on endorsements not in the actual region. Or possibly a sizable discount in general, but a huge one on regions without the actual delegate in it.
Example:
Delegate Ralph is delegate over 5 regions.
Big GCR - 143 endos.
UCR - 33 endos, and Ralph in it.
Small raided UCR - 5 endos.
Tiny UCR - 2 endos.
Tiny UCR - 2 endos.
Under the "85% discount for endos not in the region" - Ralph would have effective endo counts of, say: 149, 55, 32, 29, 29.
Under a plan where the endos are discounted heavily where the delegate is not in the region, the math gets uglier, but the goal of the system would be to make the delegate park himself in the region he most wanted to hold. Delegates IN a region with the delegate OUT of the region would have their votes discounted by, oh, 33-50%. Endos from outregion for a delegate who is also outregion would be discounted further, probably 90% or so.
Note that raiders and defenders could play on both of these systems, but the political clout of the GCRs would be huge, simply due to the number of WAs they have available, even at discounts.
None of this deals, by the way, with how the WA functions.
I think the suggestions is POSSIBLY workable - but it would definitely change how NS works.
Lemmingtopias wrote:All very good points. It might be best if it was only possible if two regions 'link' to one another - and that it requires a hell of a lot of influence for a delegate to agree to 'link' to another region. The regions will literally count as one region as far as the WA is concerned.
That way regional alliances and regions with 'spin-off' regions could share a delegate, without getting more than one approval in the WA or couping random regions without being there.
Joe Bobs wrote:Just to address something Ryno said, I actually think this would help the defender cause and address the imbalance we currently have. Raiders are using scripts and hitting the updates well, whereas we simply don't have enough updaters. This system would weaken the power of the update, and it would be about total numbers, not timing any more.
I think a change is needed, R/D has become stale, perhaps because it is understood so well by those who take part. A change would give us something new to learn.
Same with the WA, you can predict if a proposal will be passed the second you read it. It's become completely uninteresting.
Old Zertaxia: You crazy, drunk penguin.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Armed Republic of Korea, Cheblonsk, Eshtrushe, Mechanocracy, Picairn, The Best Empire
Advertisement