Sanctions for the WA?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I am not sure how it is easy to enforce sanctions because regions have never been designed to apply one uniform stat change across its residents, unless the principle from the WA GA resolutions could be imported to such sanctions resolution.

As for forcing a nation to stay in a region, impossible. Regions were never designed to do that, except to record founders and active delegates. Warzone regions keep record of the longest serving delegate. As for ejection and banning, this should be left to each region controller.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Has there been a sudden upsurge in RPer interest in the SC to justify this change? I'm banking not. Most hardcore RPers ignore the WA (and not just the SC part), and have a mostly contemptuous (that is, the WA is beneath their contempt) view toward it. Add to that the outrage RPers will have at the WA targeting their stats for the capital crime of roleplaying, whether they are members of the WA or not. The WA players' game has been affected enough by these changes, let's not expand the discontent to other areas of the game. Also, could we for once use this forum to discuss technical changes that are actually needed in the game (i.e., the purpose for which is is intended), not for needlessly speculating on random ideas just because they would be "cool to have"?

Well I could dig up the threads for you, but atleast since the Security Council's introduction, n00bs have been posting proposals in the General Assembly to sanction nations and regions unusually frequently. So apparently the newer generation sees some importance in it -- though they also see the importance of proposals to buy the moon ( ). This could be a way of incorporating roleplaying from II more into the game if they liked. Also the Security Council needs more buttons to push... hehehehe, I'll be posting a thread on my "Preservation" category idea in a little while for a more direct way to prevent nefarious refoundings of founderless regions.

You've only replied to the first sentence of my post. What about the outrage this will likely engender among IIers, who will view these changes as undue meddling in nations' stats just because they decided to roleplay a dastardly deed? The game has already been upended for WA players, why do we want to spread the misery to other sectors of the NS-verse?

And new players bother the WA about roleplayed genocide, WMD attacks, etc., precisely because they are new players and don't understand that II roleplay is not dependent upon the WA at all. (And they have done this ever since the UN was created, long before the days of the SC.) Distressing an entire roleplaying community because one or two newbs think it might be cool to have the SC start actively penalizing nations for RPed actions -- or just because SCers want "more buttons to push" -- will not be beneficial to the game, but rather spark another fractious C&C-type controversy and cause other players either to leave the game or downgrade their NS activities.

[Sedgistan]

Has there been a sudden upsurge in RPer interest in the SC to justify this change? I'm banking not. Most hardcore RPers ignore the WA (and not just the SC part), and have a mostly contemptuous (that is, the WA is beneath their contempt) view toward it. Add to that the outrage RPers will have at the WA targeting their stats for the capital crime of roleplaying, whether they are members of the WA or not. The WA players' game has been affected enough by these changes, let's not expand the discontent to other areas of the game. Also, could we for once use this forum to discuss technical changes that are actually needed in the game (i.e., the purpose for which is is intended), not for needlessly speculating on random ideas just because they would be "cool to have"?

Most gameplayers (particularly invaders/defenders) ignored the WA prior to the Security Council, but now many of them are involved in it. You can't expect them to be already interested in a body which doesn't have an affect on the way they currently play NS.

I'm not an RPer, so I can't say what their reaction would be to this change - someone would have to consult them. However, I don't think we should just discuss changes that are needed - I know it wouldn't be a priority, but there's nothing wrong with suggesting things that would be 'cool to have' but are possible, and would benefit the game.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

...except that it wouldn't benefit the game, just piss a lot of RPers off. I've been familiar with II and its major players for quite awhile, and I know how they would react to such things. Nonetheless, I can start a poll in II and see exactly how they would react.

[Glen-Rhodes]

...except that it wouldn't benefit the game, just piss a lot of RPers off. I've been familiar with II and its major players for quite awhile, and I know how they would react to such things. Nonetheless, I can start a poll in II and see exactly how they would react.

I'm not involved in II or NS, but isn't the main problem the stats effects resolutions have on the entirety of those nations? From something they never had any say in? With sanctions, they would have say, much like Gameplayers suddenly had a say with C&Cs and Liberations and pounced on their use. I think this idea is at least worth discussing.

[Topid]

I still don't think it's likely any RPers who would use this... But for the sake of discussion...

How would a repeal work? Would all the negative effects be undone? Or would the economy be allowed to rise on it's own again (by answering issues)?

[Sedgistan]

I still don't think it's likely any RPers who would use this... But for the sake of discussion...

How would a repeal work? Would all the negative effects be undone? Or would the economy be allowed to rise on it's own again (by answering issues)?

The same as repealing GA resolutions I guess - which is the latter.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Firstly, repeals do reverse the effects of a resolution, but only partially. Secondly:

I'm not involved in II or NS, but isn't the main problem the stats effects resolutions have on the entirety of those nations? From something they never had any say in? With sanctions, they would have say...

You can always resign or puppetwank if you don't like the stat effects of resolutions, as opposed to sanctions, in which case your nation gets the shaft, whether you're in the WA or not. (If sanctions were tailored so that only WA nations were affected, anyone could always avoid the effect by resigning, meaning the sanctions regime would be much like the RL UN's -- toothless.)

I'm not a hardcore IIer either, but I would bet big bucks that the more hardcore RPers (who don't even recognize the WA) would take much umbrage if their RP partners were able to use a non-existent entity to statistically injure their opponents.

[United Marktoria]

Sanctions would be interesting... it would actually make the SC EFFECTIVE for once.

[Cerantia]

Sanctions would be interesting... it would actually make the SC EFFECTIVE for once.

And that should be our goal here - we need a more effective SC, even in Roleplay.

[Sedgistan]

Nonetheless, I can start a poll in II and see exactly how they would react.

Did you do that? If not, you really should - as (so long as you didn't have a 'loaded' question) the results could prove your argument correct - or invalid.

[Andrewboy]

Well, here I go:

My country was recently (in a role play) bombed and ruthlessly attacked. I seeked the WA for help - then, upon doing so, realized that the WA could not do much more than condem them. Then the idea dawned on me (of course, with a sugestion from another player to do so) to suggest to you (you as in reffering to whoever can do this) that a "Sanctions" option be available to the WA. In such cases, the "Sanctions" would be able to do things such as: Humanitarian aide, trade embargo, and other peacefull aids/repracutions. Please, if this is at all possible, add this, if for nothing else than a better Roleplay experiance.

I personaly dont see wht it would accomplish. the WA dosent actualy have much power. the only type of proposal that really does anything is liberation. I dont see the point in condemn/comend. all you get is a badge. big deal.

[Cerantia]

Which is exactly why we need sanctions - to give more power to the WA, be it in roleplay or in any other matter.

[Kalibarr]

Which is exactly why we need sanctions - to give more power to the WA, be it in roleplay or in any other matter.

so the defenders would start screwing with raider nation economic stats?

[Fit battion]

Which is exactly why we need sanctions - to give more power to the WA, be it in roleplay or in any other matter.

so the defenders would start screwing with raider nation economic stats?

Yeah, because we have nothing better to do with our time.

[Sedgistan]

Which is exactly why we need sanctions - to give more power to the WA, be it in roleplay or in any other matter.

so the defenders would start screwing with raider nation economic stats?

I imagine that it wouldn't be used much by the raider/defender community, since it'd have no impact on our way of playing the game. As stated before, it'd be a tool for RPers instead.

[Brewdomia]

Which is exactly why we need sanctions - to give more power to the WA, be it in roleplay or in any other matter.

so the defenders would start screwing with raider nation economic stats?

I imagine that it wouldn't be used much by the raider/defender community, since it'd have no impact on our way of playing the game. As stated before, it'd be a tool for RPers instead.

As a pretty big RPer, I would not support it because it would really curb our imagination (Our need for warmongering), and then most of us will Ignore our Game Stats (Which we already do), But I want to know, how exactly would this work?

Of course I only speak for myelf, I don't know what the other's opinion will be.