by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:28 am
by The Blaatschapen » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:34 am
Gruenberg wrote:OK.
When what later became known as the Security Council was first introduced, a lot of players - both GA players and SC players, roleplayers and gameplayers - wanted to "separate" the two completely. [violet] kept telling us this was mechanically impossible. But given so many of the problems with the WA stem from that decision, it's worth returning to.
At the time commendations were first introduced, some of us suggested they shouldn't be part of the normal WA voting procedure. Just set up a council of experienced gameplayers to decide who is worthy of being commended or condemned. (This was pre-liberations, but they could be folded into the same thing.) Again, we were told this wasn't going to happen.
But now, you are setting up a council of experienced players. So, instead of a GA rules council, which is a wholly unnecessary creation anyway, use this new council to replace the SC. Appoint six, or however many, experienced gameplayers, ensuring an R/D, GCR/UCR, whatever/whatever balance, if they wanna have elections feel free or if not just mod-appointed, and have them decide the outcome of SC discussions.
That way, the mechanical separation would finally be achieved. The WA would return to what worked best, an in-character legislative assembly, the gameplayers would still be able to commend and condemn each other, and the whole thing would work much more smoothly because there'd be no confusion between the WA and the SC!
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:42 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:... That's a suggestion for the SC, not the GA :p
by The Blaatschapen » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:46 am
Gruenberg wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:... That's a suggestion for the SC, not the GA
I'm suggesting doing this instead of doing the Advisory Council thing. Sedgistan has mentioned before that the admins aren't going to make two big changes at once (hence my Resolution Editors idea is dust) so it's either one or the other.
by Kryozerkia » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:52 am
Gruenberg wrote:OK.
When what later became known as the Security Council was first introduced, a lot of players - both GA players and SC players, roleplayers and gameplayers - wanted to "separate" the two completely. [violet] kept telling us this was mechanically impossible. But given so many of the problems with the WA stem from that decision, it's worth returning to.
At the time commendations were first introduced, some of us suggested they shouldn't be part of the normal WA voting procedure. Just set up a council of experienced gameplayers to decide who is worthy of being commended or condemned. (This was pre-liberations, but they could be folded into the same thing.) Again, we were told this wasn't going to happen.
But now, you are setting up a council of experienced players. So, instead of a GA rules council, which is a wholly unnecessary creation anyway, use this new council to replace the SC. Appoint six, or however many, experienced gameplayers, ensuring an R/D, GCR/UCR, whatever/whatever balance, if they wanna have elections feel free or if not just mod-appointed, and have them decide the outcome of SC discussions.
That way, the mechanical separation would finally be achieved. The WA would return to what worked best, an in-character legislative assembly, the gameplayers would still be able to commend and condemn each other, and the whole thing would work much more smoothly because there'd be no confusion between the WA and the SC!
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:59 am
Kryozerkia wrote:While I can't speak on the mechanical feasibility, I have previously suggested to [violet] that we create separate pages for proposal submission, so we can have a greater level of information right that new authors can readily see. I'm not sure if this what you are aiming for but it may be along the same lines. I imagine you're referring to 100% separation in that there is no evidence of the other's existence when you vote on a proposal?
What would setting up a SC council to decide who should be commended or condemned and direct SC discussion achieve?
by Kryozerkia » Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:05 am
Gruenberg wrote:Kryozerkia wrote:While I can't speak on the mechanical feasibility, I have previously suggested to [violet] that we create separate pages for proposal submission, so we can have a greater level of information right that new authors can readily see. I'm not sure if this what you are aiming for but it may be along the same lines. I imagine you're referring to 100% separation in that there is no evidence of the other's existence when you vote on a proposal?
What would setting up a SC council to decide who should be commended or condemned and direct SC discussion achieve?
It seems like you're interpreting this as proposals would still be submitted and voted on by the SC, which wouldn't be part of my suggestion - so in answer to what it would achieve, nothing, because if you keep the SC as a voting arm of the arm, it's pointless. And if that's the red line, then as I said before, fair enough, I didn't expect the idea to get anywhere anyway.
by Sedgistan » Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:15 am
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:18 am
Sedgistan wrote:This does nothing to solve the issues with GA moderation
Sedgistan wrote:I'm relatively certain that you are alone in thinking that divorcing the SC is going to solve all the GA's problems.
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:54 am
Gruenberg wrote:OK.
When what later became known as the Security Council was first introduced, a lot of players - both GA players and SC players, roleplayers and gameplayers - wanted to "separate" the two completely. [violet] kept telling us this was mechanically impossible. But given so many of the problems with the WA stem from that decision, it's worth returning to.
At the time commendations were first introduced, some of us suggested they shouldn't be part of the normal WA voting procedure. Just set up a council of experienced gameplayers to decide who is worthy of being commended or condemned. (This was pre-liberations, but they could be folded into the same thing.) Again, we were told this wasn't going to happen.
But now, you are setting up a council of experienced players. So, instead of a GA rules council, which is a wholly unnecessary creation anyway, use this new council to replace the SC. Appoint six, or however many, experienced gameplayers, ensuring an R/D, GCR/UCR, whatever/whatever balance, if they wanna have elections feel free or if not just mod-appointed, and have them decide the outcome of SC discussions.
That way, the mechanical separation would finally be achieved. The WA would return to what worked best, an in-character legislative assembly, the gameplayers would still be able to commend and condemn each other, and the whole thing would work much more smoothly because there'd be no confusion between the WA and the SC!
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:01 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:There is already a big enough problem that roleplayers rarely get Condemned or Commended
Excidium Planetis wrote:And they would likely never pass any C&C of roleplayers. That would be terrible.
Excidium Planetis wrote:The problem is that the Delegate system remains in place.
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:06 am
Gruenberg wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:There is already a big enough problem that roleplayers rarely get Condemned or Commended
I agree it's a problem that sometimes people propose commendations of roleplayers, but for now all we can do is take a firm line against them and hope that in most cases gameplayers will vote them down. Over time, people might learn to just give up.Excidium Planetis wrote:And they would likely never pass any C&C of roleplayers. That would be terrible.
Actually, that would be my dream scenario.
Excidium Planetis wrote:The problem is that the Delegate system remains in place.
That, I agree with you on. And the suggestion you offer has merit. But I have never ever seen any indication the admins are even remotely open to reworking the voting system, so I just don't see much point going down that road. By all means, make the suggestion, and I will support it wholeheartedly, but I don't see there being an audience for it among the admins.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:15 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:Why are you opposed to roleplayers being commended? Separatist Peoples definitely deserved his Commendation, and he was Commended for his involvement in the GA, no less. And from what I remember, the whole GA at the time was behind it.
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:32 am
Gruenberg wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:Why are you opposed to roleplayers being commended? Separatist Peoples definitely deserved his Commendation, and he was Commended for his involvement in the GA, no less. And from what I remember, the whole GA at the time was behind it.
Because the SC should be for gameplay only. That's what it was created for - to address (a) a specific problem, of Macedon invading some region (Belgium, I think?) and then sitting on, making use of the Influence system and refounding and whatever other gameplay stuff was involved and
(b) when presented with commendations, the refusal of the gameplayers to abide by existing WA rules.
And restoring that hard separation makes it much easier for us to argue for complete separation. I can see how gameplayers could easily take umbrage at separating the two yet having roleplayers continue to be commended.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:40 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:That may be true, but the first player ever Condemned was Kenny, and that was entirely for roleplay "accomplishments". Condemnations are not expressly for GP.
Excidium Planetis wrote:(b) when presented with commendations, the refusal of the gameplayers to abide by existing WA rules.
What? Please explain.
Excidium Planetis wrote:I don't advocate the two becoming mutually exclusive bastions of RP and GP respectively
by Kryozerkia » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:58 am
Gruenberg wrote:Because the SC should be for gameplay only. That's what it was created for - to address (a) a specific problem, of Macedon invading some region (Belgium, I think?) and then sitting on, making use of the Influence system and refounding and whatever other gameplay stuff was involved and (b) when presented with commendations, the refusal of the gameplayers to abide by existing WA rules.
And restoring that hard separation makes it much easier for us to argue for complete separation. I can see how gameplayers could easily take umbrage at separating the two yet having roleplayers continue to be commended.
For what it's worth it's nothing personal on the individuals involved.
by Topid » Wed Oct 19, 2016 12:32 pm
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Wed Oct 19, 2016 12:42 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:What I have proposed before, and still do, is to separate WA membership into GA and SC membership, and make SC membership required for voting in the SC and endorsing Delegates (the GP portions), and GA membership for endorsing a GA Regional Officer (basically just an officer with the WA power that the delegate currently has) and voting in the GA. This would evenly divide the power, GPers could drop out of the GA entirely, and Delegates would not control GA voting... the GA ROs would take their place, and would have nothing to do with GP.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Oct 19, 2016 12:55 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:What I have proposed before, and still do, is to separate WA membership into GA and SC membership, and make SC membership required for voting in the SC and endorsing Delegates (the GP portions), and GA membership for endorsing a GA Regional Officer (basically just an officer with the WA power that the delegate currently has) and voting in the GA. This would evenly divide the power, GPers could drop out of the GA entirely, and Delegates would not control GA voting... the GA ROs would take their place, and would have nothing to do with GP.
Depending on implementation, that'd likely make native regions far more open to raids. If the native delegate is elected on GA endorsements, raiders would 100% just sleep using GA membership to gain some native endos, and hit it with those. If a region's members are split between which body they join, I.e. Some choose SC and some close GA, the endorsement count of the delegate/GA officer will drop, making the region more apt to be raided. If you're suggesting a region can have both types of elected office at once, well, if you can join both bodies nothing changes and we just get two delegates, if you can only join one, see last point - you're lowering the endorsements on either one (if we don't mind things getting messy and only taking one) and not effecting the total endorsement count in the region. Perhaps an interesting effect of the "one body only" scenario would be raiders splitting bodies to try and get both seats while defenders focus on getting just one office, resulting in drawn out, messy, delegate v. Delegate battles...which'd be interesting for us, sure, but I can't imagine very helpful to the natives. Or, again depending on implementation of powers, it works too well, and raiders lose almost every single operation.
Tl;dr as long as that form of membership is tied to regional powers, GP'ers would not stop using GA membership. If membership is one body at a time, native regions probably suffer. If both power positions can exist at once, that opens up a massive change to the root landscape of R/D. These are all implications whose effects would need to be explored.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:24 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:30 pm
by Topid » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:31 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:So turn in that proposal, the relevant fact is that you'd see some people being GA members only, SC endorsement numbers drop, and regions more likely to get raided.
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:34 pm
by Topid » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:36 pm
Gruenberg wrote:Honestly, most of you now seem to be proposing something vastly more complex than I was (and exactly the kind of mechanical separation that [violet] ruled as out of the question at the time). That the mods gave my thread this misleading title when splitting it is unhelpful, but, whatever.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aserlandia, Bagong Timog Mindanao, Bali Kingdom, Danternoust, Decacon, Hulldom, Maximum Imperium Rex, Nepleslia, Opiachus, Pupper Utopia, Torkeland
Advertisement