Page 1 of 2
Sanctions for the WA?
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:43 pmby Cerantia
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.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:57 pmby Sedgistan
The suggestion I made was:
Sedgistan wrote:a 'Sanctions' resolution, which can be applied to either a region or nation, which then sees its economy implode.
If this were to get off the ground, you'd probably need to expand a little on what resolutions you were asking for - what would be the difference between "Humanitarian aide, trade embargo, and other peacefull aids/repracutions" resolutions, and what would be the technical affects of them.
I quite like the idea of resolutions that target the stats of individual nations/regions, as it'd be a way of engaging RPers with the World Assembly.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:02 pmby Cerantia
Sedgistan wrote:The suggestion I made was:
Sedgistan wrote:a 'Sanctions' resolution, which can be applied to either a region or nation, which then sees its economy implode.
If this were to get off the ground, you'd probably need to expand a little on what resolutions you were asking for - what would be the difference between "Humanitarian aide, trade embargo, and other peacefull aids/repracutions" resolutions, and what would be the technical affects of them.
I quite like the idea of resolutions that target the stats of individual nations/regions, as it'd be a way of engaging RPers with the World Assembly.
Exactly - I'll see what I can do on expanding the resolutions. Those were just the couple that came off the top of my head.
What I'm proposing here is, for example, my nation reads that it has a barren landscape that is inhospitable - if the WA were to send supplies to get my people back on the ground (litterally), and the agriculture up, the landscape would change from barren to something a little better.
If you can't do that (which I can fully understand, as sometimes these things can't be factored into the game mechanics), please at least leave that option open for Roleplay reasons only - so that we can say that the WA 'sent' humanitarian aid/'enacted' a trade embargo.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:44 pmby Cerantia
Allright, here's all that I can think of for Sanctions:
Sanction to send Humanitarian Aide (send food, medicine, clothing, ect.)
Sanction to perform a Trade Embargo (don't trade whatsoever with a country)
Sanction to perform an Import/Export Ban (don't import things from their country/don't export things to their country)
Sanction to provide Economic Support (send money - NS $)
[Provided that there is some possibillity of a joint-millitary, such as NATO or something - probobly won't happen, but while we're on the subject of such things, I couldn't help but try]
Sanction to provide Defencive Military Support (help defend a country - only non-terrorist/heavilly offencive countries)
Sanction to provide Offencive Military Support (help attack a country - only against terrorist/heavilly offencive countries)
I've wracked my brain, and can think of no more. Note that all above sanctions should be appllied to regions if necessary. If anyone has any better idea's for sanctions, please, by all means, post it.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:25 pmby Mad Sheep Railgun
You have to think in terms of what we're able to do in-game. A lot of the stuff you've outlined there could only be implemented through roleplay and the WA can't really do that. Think in terms of things like stats changes (raising/lowering civil rights, economy, political freedoms), WA membership (expel from the WA/force to join the WA), or region location (force nation to remain in a certain region, maybe even a game-created "prison" region).
I'm not sure how sanctions could be applied to regions, but there are many ways they could be applied to individual nations.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:40 pmby Cerantia
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:You have to think in terms of what we're able to do in-game. A lot of the stuff you've outlined there could only be implemented through roleplay and the WA can't really do that. Think in terms of things like stats changes (raising/lowering civil rights, economy, political freedoms), WA membership (expel from the WA/force to join the WA), or region location (force nation to remain in a certain region, maybe even a game-created "prison" region).
I'm not sure how sanctions could be applied to regions, but there are
many ways they could be applied to individual nations.
Yea, those sound more like things that the WA can implement - however, I don't think that civil rights or political freedoms should be able to be raised or lowered due to the WA.
And, if you notice, many things that the WA does is in therms of roleplay - have you seen that presentation that some guy is trying to pass that they want to colonize the moon in the name of the WA? Like that can be implemented in the game system.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:48 pmby Mad Sheep Railgun
Cerantia wrote: political freedoms
Free elections where there were none before (raise political freedoms)?
have you seen that presentation that some guy is trying to pass that they want to colonize the moon in the name of the WA?
It's illegal.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:48 pmby Enn
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:WA membership (expel from the WA/force to join the WA)
I'm pretty sure that would never be allowed - especially the second, given potential for forcing someone to multi.
Cerantia wrote:Yea, those sound more like things that the WA can implement - however, I don't think that civil rights or political freedoms should be able to be raised or lowered due to the WA.
We already do that, through the GA. However, it can't be targeted as such.
And, if you notice, many things that the WA does is in therms of roleplay - have you seen that presentation that some guy is trying to pass that they want to colonize the moon in the name of the WA? Like that can be implemented in the game system.
Yeah... that proposal is currently being laughed about by most ambassadors.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:49 pmby Cerantia
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:Cerantia wrote: political freedoms
Free elections where there were none before (raise political freedoms)?
have you seen that presentation that some guy is trying to pass that they want to colonize the moon in the name of the WA?
It's illegal.
Eh, I guese. But seriosly - a base on the moon for the WA? I know it's illegal, but man, haven't most nations already claimed the moon(s) as theirs?
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:52 pmby Mad Sheep Railgun
I can actually see sanctions type resolutions that affect stats being written IC too. They'd be no different really than normal GA resolutions except they'd target the stats of a specific nation rather than affecting the stats of all WA nations. We could turn OMGTKK into a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise.
Just kidding Kenny, I wouldn't do that.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:56 pmby Unibotian WASC Mission
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:You have to think in terms of what we're able to do in-game. A lot of the stuff you've outlined there could only be implemented through roleplay and the WA can't really do that. Think in terms of things like stats changes (raising/lowering civil rights, economy, political freedoms), WA membership (expel from the WA/force to join the WA), or region location (force nation to remain in a certain region, maybe even a game-created "prison" region).
I'm not sure how sanctions could be applied to regions, but there are
many ways they could be applied to individual nations.
Sanctions to regions would effect all of the nations in the region (which are in the WA?), additionally this would indirectly effect the region's standing in the World Census Reports -- which just so happen to be a product of the World Assembly.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:59 pmby Mad Sheep Railgun
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:You have to think in terms of what we're able to do in-game. A lot of the stuff you've outlined there could only be implemented through roleplay and the WA can't really do that. Think in terms of things like stats changes (raising/lowering civil rights, economy, political freedoms), WA membership (expel from the WA/force to join the WA), or region location (force nation to remain in a certain region, maybe even a game-created "prison" region).
I'm not sure how sanctions could be applied to regions, but there are
many ways they could be applied to individual nations.
Sanctions to regions would effect all of the nations in the region (which are in the WA?), additionally this would indirectly effect the region's standing in the World Census Reports -- which just so happen to be a product of the World Assembly.
Yeah I can see that. Economic sanctions against everyone in the region. Couldn't they all just pack up and move to another region though?
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:01 pmby Unibotian WASC Mission
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:You have to think in terms of what we're able to do in-game. A lot of the stuff you've outlined there could only be implemented through roleplay and the WA can't really do that. Think in terms of things like stats changes (raising/lowering civil rights, economy, political freedoms), WA membership (expel from the WA/force to join the WA), or region location (force nation to remain in a certain region, maybe even a game-created "prison" region).
I'm not sure how sanctions could be applied to regions, but there are
many ways they could be applied to individual nations.
Sanctions to regions would effect all of the nations in the region (which are in the WA?), additionally this would indirectly effect the region's standing in the World Census Reports -- which just so happen to be a product of the World Assembly.
Yeah I can see that. Economic sanctions against everyone in the region. Couldn't they all just pack up and move to another region though?
Yes, yes they could.
Perfect. There's the reason why you wouldn't want a sanction against your region.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:05 pmby Cerantia
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:You have to think in terms of what we're able to do in-game. A lot of the stuff you've outlined there could only be implemented through roleplay and the WA can't really do that. Think in terms of things like stats changes (raising/lowering civil rights, economy, political freedoms), WA membership (expel from the WA/force to join the WA), or region location (force nation to remain in a certain region, maybe even a game-created "prison" region).
I'm not sure how sanctions could be applied to regions, but there are
many ways they could be applied to individual nations.
Sanctions to regions would effect all of the nations in the region (which are in the WA?), additionally this would indirectly effect the region's standing in the World Census Reports -- which just so happen to be a product of the World Assembly.
Yeah I can see that. Economic sanctions against everyone in the region. Couldn't they all just pack up and move to another region though?
Yes, yes they could.
Perfect. There's the reason why you wouldn't want a sanction against your region.
Yea, that would kinda be a good way of snuffing out people trying to win over a region (I think they tried to do that with the Land of the Liberals), because if they are just there fore their own benifit, they'd leave as soon as that benifit diminished. However, that would negatively efffect the remaining populace there - would we be able to cancel sanctions when the WA wishes?
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:08 pmby Mad Sheep Railgun
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:You have to think in terms of what we're able to do in-game. A lot of the stuff you've outlined there could only be implemented through roleplay and the WA can't really do that. Think in terms of things like stats changes (raising/lowering civil rights, economy, political freedoms), WA membership (expel from the WA/force to join the WA), or region location (force nation to remain in a certain region, maybe even a game-created "prison" region).
I'm not sure how sanctions could be applied to regions, but there are
many ways they could be applied to individual nations.
Sanctions to regions would effect all of the nations in the region (which are in the WA?), additionally this would indirectly effect the region's standing in the World Census Reports -- which just so happen to be a product of the World Assembly.
Yeah I can see that. Economic sanctions against everyone in the region. Couldn't they all just pack up and move to another region though?
Yes, yes they could.
Perfect. There's the reason why you wouldn't want a sanction against your region.
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:29 pmby Unibotian WASC Mission
Cerantia wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:You have to think in terms of what we're able to do in-game. A lot of the stuff you've outlined there could only be implemented through roleplay and the WA can't really do that. Think in terms of things like stats changes (raising/lowering civil rights, economy, political freedoms), WA membership (expel from the WA/force to join the WA), or region location (force nation to remain in a certain region, maybe even a game-created "prison" region).
I'm not sure how sanctions could be applied to regions, but there are
many ways they could be applied to individual nations.
Sanctions to regions would effect all of the nations in the region (which are in the WA?), additionally this would indirectly effect the region's standing in the World Census Reports -- which just so happen to be a product of the World Assembly.
Yeah I can see that. Economic sanctions against everyone in the region. Couldn't they all just pack up and move to another region though?
Yes, yes they could.
Perfect. There's the reason why you wouldn't want a sanction against your region.
Yea, that would kinda be a good way of snuffing out people trying to win over a region (I think they tried to do that with the Land of the Liberals), because if they are just there fore their own benifit, they'd leave as soon as that benifit diminished. However, that would negatively efffect the remaining populace there - would we be able to cancel sanctions when the WA wishes?
I don't honestly know what you're talking about, except to say that the World Assembly can repeal resolutions, and a repeal of a sanction resolution would most likely reverse the stats that were implemented by the original resolution (like any GA resolution).
Posted:
Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:32 pmby Topid
Where are all the people complaining that the WA is trying to affect non-members stats?
Did someone eliminate the AWA...
Posted:
Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:11 amby Unibotian WASC Mission
If you selected this category to submit a proposal, the title would automatically be "Sanction @@NOMINEE@".
Sanction @@NOMINEE@@ A resolution to _______________________ a nominee.Area of Effect: _______ |
Nominee(___): _______ |
Proposed by: Unibot
- Diplomatic Sanction (Lowers Political Freedoms & Regional Influence)
A resolution to reduce or remove diplomatic ties with a nominee.
- Economic Sanction (Lowers Economic Strength < may need further detail into what industry is effected)
A resolution to reduce trade, or economic support for a nominee.
- Military Sanction (Lowers Military Budget)
A resolution to revoke international military support for a nominee.
Nominee > Region or Nation
Posted:
Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:23 amby Topid
As a non-RPer, I don't really no if this is a good tool for them, in fact so many of them ignore the WA, including the SC, I'm not sure this would be used very often... And when it is used I doubt the nominee will be happy, especially if he's the kind of person who doesn't want to acknowledge the WA... And I also think there are going to be a lot of people who think that the WA shouldn't effect the Stats of non-WAs. I think at least the economic one sounds fine, seeing as if all the WAs sign an embargo against a nation it will hurt it's economy. The largest problem with that for me is the WA is telling my nation who I can trade with. I don't like the WA telling me what to do
.
How would a diplomatic sanction lower political freedoms in a nation? That one seems like beyond WA powers to me... And deciding a countries military budget for them?
Posted:
Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:03 pmby Glen-Rhodes
Topid wrote:As a non-RPer, I don't really no if this is a good tool for them, in fact so many of them ignore the WA, including the SC, I'm not sure this would be used very often... And when it is used I doubt the nominee will be happy, especially if he's the kind of person who doesn't want to acknowledge the WA...
It's up to the nations to decide if they want to accept the stat changes of sanctions, I suppose. But they would just be a technical representation of roleplayed sanctions. Plus, if the nation uses economic calculators for their roleplay stats, it would end up affecting the roleplay. Of course the nation getting the sanctions wouldn't be happy, but... and I hate to use the analogy so often... it's like the filibuster: it sucks when it's used against you, but it can also be your greatest ally.
Posted:
Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:15 pmby Sedgistan
Actually, I guess there's another slight problem here - WA resolutions are only supposed to affect members - we kind of ignore that with C&C resolutions, because they don't actually have any affect on a nation other than a large badge, but for these types of resolutions to work, they'd have to affect non-WA nations - or a nation could just quit the WA to avoid the affect. It could be justified easily enough - as its the WA nations who are in theory doing the act (not trading with the nation which has sanctions imposed against it), but the actual affect would still be on a non-WA nation.
Posted:
Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:30 pmby Unibotian WASC Mission
Sedgistan wrote:Actually, I guess there's another slight problem here - WA resolutions are only supposed to affect members - we kind of ignore that with C&C resolutions, because they don't actually have any affect on a nation other than a large badge, but for these types of resolutions to work, they'd have to affect non-WA nations - or a nation could just quit the WA to avoid the affect. It could be justified easily enough - as its the WA nations who are in theory doing the act (not trading with the nation which has sanctions imposed against it), but the actual affect would still be on a non-WA nation.
If 1/5 of all nations in the world sanction against you or your region (and the WA should have the right to make their own decisions), your economic strength is going to go down, thats a given. I find this atleast as clear cut and ethical as C&C badges being the opinion of the WA not an intrusion of national sovereignty.
Now, another question, should these proposals have a strength, like most GA proposals -- in other words, do sanctions vary in severity?
Posted:
Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:35 pmby Cerantia
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Now, another question, should these proposals have a strength, like most GA proposals -- in other words, do sanctions vary in severity?
Yes, they should - but again, I don't think it would be propper for civil rights or political freedoms to be effected - just economy, imho.
Posted:
Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:51 pmby 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"?
Posted:
Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:29 pmby Unibot
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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.