Don't create the advisory council. Separate WA/SC instead.

[Gruenberg]

I can safely predict that taking away the ability to vote on C&C's and Libs from everyone that wants to vote on them isn't going to happen.

I mean, I suspect that is the case, I just don't know it yet. It's really the same suggestion that even some gameplayers were making when C&Cs were first introduced.

Flip it and pretend we were outsourcing voting on GA proposals directly to some 10 body panel. You, as a GAer would not like that.

It wouldn't bother me, but I'm not pretending to be representative of the WA players as a whole on this or any number of other issues.

Implied in your suggestion is anti-SC bias that has come from old GAers since day 0 of the SC.

I'm very sorry if I implied that. I meant to outright, explicitly state it.

If membership in GA stopped meaning membership in SC, membership in SC only would have to exist for everyone. And if delegates are going to vote in both then there must be seperate delegates for each region from both bodies. That means seperate endorsements.

This is why it would be very hard to implement.

Yes. That is exactly the argument [violet] made last time. And hence why I didn't propose the kind of separation you guys are talking about, because there's no point going down a path the admins have already nailed a giant "no go" sign onto.

[Topid]

The no sign sign you're going to get for taking away my ability to vote on the things I like voting on is likely to get an even bigger no sign.

But, since you're serious I will humbly propose that instead of taking away the right for all of us to vote on SC resolutions, why don't we just make a special General Assembly Panel of players. It can have about:

20 active players, tops

as members. The rest of the 19,000 of us can do SC things. No one cares about all that GA crap anyway, because the GA is ultimately the pointless body, the SC is the one that can impact the game and that's even before you consider admin being open to expanding its powers.

[Gruenberg]

If it means we're finally free of the SC, I'm all for it.

[Excidium Planetis]

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.

Several other players are worried about the exact opposite, GA numbers dropping drastically, and SC numbers remaining the same.

I personally believe that the SC numbers would remain about the same as WA numbers these days. Anyone interested in Gameplay would be in the SC, regions would encourage SC membership for security, and new players would sign up for the SC because they think it's cool.

I have a feeling almost everyone would be an SC member under that scenario, and far fewer GA members. I cannot fathom a reason why I would open up my nation to changes by some massive bureaucracy other than I want to give or receive endorsements. I have a strong suspicion that if the ability to endorse and receive endorsements was separated from membership in the voting part of both bodies even we'd see a huge collapse of people interested in voting.

Well, that is your opinion on the GA. But lots of people like voting on WA resolutions. It's fun. Most are not GA regulars, but dozens of non-regulars comment on resolutions at vote, and they don't have to do that. They want to. I'm sure that hundreds, of not thousands, of players will continue to be in the GA and vote.

Yeah, I don't really see why anyone would voluntarily be in the GA in that scenario, other than the dozen or so players who enjoy playing that side of the game. It would be about as popular as any of the other RP alliances/organizations on the forums, which at best muster 20 active players, tops?

Not at all. You don't honestly think all 26000 players in the WA are there solely for regional gameplay?

I think we would have 20 or so active regulars + the several dozen or so people who show up to comment on at vote resolutions + a good deal of the sheep who just vote and never comment + new players who sign up for the GA because they can. I would say that we would several hundred to several thousand GA members.

Besides, why do you care? Don't tell me you think we really need those thousands of voters who care nothing for the GA?

If it means we're finally free of the SC, I'm all for it.

Exactly. You don't think we need all those voters. So with my proposed system, even if we only had 20 GA members (which I think is totally improbable), you shouldn't care, right, as long as we are separated from the SC?

[Gruenberg]

I think we would have 20 or so active regulars + the several dozen or so people who show up to comment on at vote resolutions + a good deal of the sheep who just vote and never comment + new players who sign up for the GA because they can. I would say that we would several hundred to several thousand GA members.

Besides, why do you care? Don't tell me you think we really need those thousands of voters who care nothing for the GA?

I don't, although unlike some, I'm not going to call them "sheep".

So with my proposed system, even if we only had 20 GA members (which I think is totally improbable), you shouldn't care, right, as long as we are separated from the SC?

Your proposed system is more or less exactly what [violet] drew a line in the sand and said simply would not happen. So, I don't really care, because I don't think your suggestion has any hope of getting off the drawing board. Like I said before, put me down in the support column if you like, won't make a difference.

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't, although unlike some, I'm not going to call them "sheep".

With all evidence pointing to a very significant number of WA nations showing no opinions at vote, and merely voting with the majority, I think the term is fitting. When those voters object to the term, I will stop calling them that, because that shows they at least read the GA discussions.

Your proposed system is more or less exactly what [violet] drew a line in the sand and said simply would not happen.

That was years ago. People can change their minds.

So, I don't really care, because I don't think your suggestion has any hope of getting off the drawing board. Like I said before, put me down in the support column if you like, won't make a difference.

Okay. I don't think your suggestion has any hope, not because it is technically difficult, because it will never be accepted by the SC players.

[Flanderlion]

I'm against the idea. I like them together in voting etc. I do get that it was kind of thrust upon the GA which is why it was split down the line, (but obviously not enough judging by thread)

But what about suggesting a nation had a setting to choose whether it was in the GA (default) or SC, and voting in the other was disabled. Everything else would remain the same. Or Delegate's vote in the SC while players (including Delegate's) each vote in the GA with 1 vote each.

I like voting in the WA when my WA is still for a few days. Campaigning I also like, meet all these new random nations while doing so. Proposal writing (GA or SC) isn't my thing. GA wise my nation would repeal everything and let Dale decide. SC wise, was against it since post Laz which the SC rudely dragged me from my issues.

Regarding the sheep comment etc. That is an example of what I meant culture wise and part of the reason I wanted an outsider in the GA council.

[Excidium Planetis]

I'm against the idea. I like them together in voting etc.

Why? Please, explain how having them together is better than two separate organizations that players can opt into together or separately.

But what about suggesting a nation had a setting to choose whether it was in the GA (default) or SC, and voting in the other was disabled. Everything else would remain the same. Or Delegate's vote in the SC while players (including Delegate's) each vote in the GA with 1 vote each.

Because that is awful. Why should I not be allowed to vote in the SC if I want to be in the GA? I am a GA player and would obviously want to vote in the GA. But I am the current delegate of my region and a long time native of it. What if my region is raided and a Liberation of my region is up for vote? Should I not be allowed to vote on a resolution directly affecting me, just because I am in the GA?

Regarding the sheep comment etc. That is an example of what I meant culture wise and part of the reason I wanted an outsider in the GA council.

Please explain what you mean by "outsider".

Keep in mind, I advocated at least one if not 2/5ths of the Council seats should be elected.

[Gruenberg]

That was years ago. People can change their minds.

Can I please be there when you decide to taken on [violet]'s stubbornness? Can I bring popcorn?

Okay. I don't think your suggestion has any hope, not because it is technically difficult, because it will never be accepted by the SC players.

They're not the ones I need to convince. The SC wasn't popular among WA players at the time but it was forced on us anyway, because it was what the admins wanted.

[Excidium Planetis]

They're not the ones I need to convince. The SC wasn't popular among WA players at the time but it was forced on us anyway, because it was what the admins wanted.

So you are attempting to force this system on the SC even if they all hate it?

You are just as bad as the mods.

[Gruenberg]

They're not the ones I need to convince. The SC wasn't popular among WA players at the time but it was forced on us anyway, because it was what the admins wanted.

So you are attempting to force this system on the SC even if they all hate it?

Which seems slightly backwards. The SC was forced on us, and I'm just trying to ease it back off. Had the SC players not taken advantage of [violet]'s lack of consultation with WA players or deigned to play by the same rules as everyone else, none of this would even be necessary anyway, so squawking about it now is a little late.

You are just as bad as the mods.

So long as WA players can finally start recognizing that moderation is the problem, sure, I'm fine with you calling me that.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

That aside, I haven't heard any demand in the SC to have this sort of change foisted upon them. Most people seem content with the current method of voting.

As I think I can be considered a regular in the SC I would have to agree with Sedge on this.

[Gruenberg]

That aside, I haven't heard any demand in the SC to have this sort of change foisted upon them. Most people seem content with the current method of voting.

As I think I can be considered a regular in the SC I would have to agree with Sedge on this.

Can you point to any demand in the WA for the sort of change that the SC constituted to be foisted on them, prior to its introduction? Did not most WA players seem content with their then-current method of not voting on the colour of World Factbook Entries?

[Excidium Planetis]

As I think I can be considered a regular in the SC I would have to agree with Sedge on this.

Can you point to any demand in the WA for the sort of change that the SC constituted to be foisted on them, prior to its introduction? Did not most WA players seem content with their then-current method of not voting on the colour of World Factbook Entries?

"I didn't like it when totally unwanted changes were forced on me, so I'm going to do the exact same thing to you!"

Tell me, what problem are we fixing?

[Gruenberg]

Tell me, what problem are we fixing?

Bear in mind I'm by no means an expert on gameplay, but as I understand it, the problem is:

The Influence system allows some invaders to consolidate power in a region to a point where it's impossible for self-styled "defenders" to invade the region and "liberate" it. This led, in a notable case, to an invader group called "Macedon" invading a bunch of regions and holding them down until all the natives left or CTEd, then refounding it, and in NS gameplay, refounding is a game-killer.

Now, that's my interpretation of the problem, I wasn't involved at all in the original discussion (obviously, because it took place in the gameplay forum and there was no hint it would involve crushing the WA), so there may be more nuance to it than that.

The solution is to introduce "liberations", and along with them "commendations" and "condemnations".

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

As I think I can be considered a regular in the SC I would have to agree with Sedge on this.

Can you point to any demand in the WA for the sort of change that the SC constituted to be foisted on them, prior to its introduction? Did not most WA players seem content with their then-current method of not voting on the colour of World Factbook Entries?

I get it, you don't like the SC. But really why are you trying to fight a battle now that was decided seven years ago?

[Excidium Planetis]

Tell me, what problem are we fixing?

Bear in mind I'm by no means an expert on gameplay, but as I understand it, the problem is:

The Influence system allows some invaders to consolidate power in a region to a point where it's impossible for self-styled "defenders" to invade the region and "liberate" it. This led, in a notable case, to an invader group called "Macedon" invading a bunch of regions and holding them down until all the natives left or CTEd, then refounding it, and in NS gameplay, refounding is a game-killer.

Now, that's my interpretation of the problem, I wasn't involved at all in the original discussion (obviously, because it took place in the gameplay forum and there was no hint it would involve crushing the WA), so there may be more nuance to it than that.

The solution is to introduce "liberations", and along with them "commendations" and "condemnations".

That's not a huge problem anymore (from what I can tell, just standard R/D), and was already "fixed" by the SC.

Also, your proposal here does nothing to fix it. So, tell me, what problem are you trying to solve with this?

[Gruenberg]

Can you point to any demand in the WA for the sort of change that the SC constituted to be foisted on them, prior to its introduction? Did not most WA players seem content with their then-current method of not voting on the colour of World Factbook Entries?

I get it, you don't like the SC. But really why are you trying to fight a battle now that was decided seven years ago?

Because what was proposed then was that a group of players be appointed as a "recognition committee" to rule on who received commendations. This was proposed and supported by prominent gameplayers, no less. The stumbling block was [violet]'s refusal to consider such a council.

However, what is being proposed in the WA now - a council of players appointed to rule on certain matters* - seems to be just such an entity that was rejected at the time. So I think it's worth going back and reconsidering whether the "recognition committee" really is a possibility after all.

* I am not saying that I actually believe they will be allowed to rule on those matters, but let's consider that they are for the sake of argument.

That's not a huge problem anymore

Interesting. In that case, perhaps the SC has solved the problem it was set up to tackle, and is no longer needed?

[Excidium Planetis]

That's not a huge problem anymore

Interesting. In that case, perhaps the SC has solved the problem it was set up to tackle, and is no longer needed?

No. The SC is a persistent solution. Getting rid of it would be like eliminating the police force because the police eliminated crime... the problem would reemerge as soon as the solution was removed.

[Gruenberg]

Sure, we could give it a try, and then if the problem really did recur, bring back liberations - maybe this time, using a "recognition committee" instead.

[Excidium Planetis]

Sure, we could give it a try, and then if the problem really did recur, bring back liberations - maybe this time, using a "recognition committee" instead.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Gruenberg]

It's been broke for seven years.

Anyway, we don't seem to be getting anywhere so I'll see if anyone else is interested.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

It's been broke for seven years.

Anyway, we don't seem to be getting anywhere so I'll see if anyone else is interested.

I mean, I like the idea... but general and open SC voting is at this late date basically a genie that was in a bottle that was in Pandora's box that was in a saddlebag on a horse which left the barn, which then burned to the ground and was paved over; meanwhile the horse lost its footing on a treacherous path and fell several hundred feet into a raging torrent; even if the bottle miraculously floated down to the port city, it was taken up by an illiterate but cutlass-handy mariner with quick fists and a mean streak, whose ship, to mix one last metaphor in here, has sailed.

I mean, Zeus or [violet] could set everything back, but the timeline change would give everyone severe whiplash and a touch of psychosis, you know what I mean?

Also wrangling over the composition of such a council makes the old, serious version of the ideological NatSov/IntFed question on the GA equivalent look like Thursday afternoon tea and knitting.

All that said, I believe it would restore balance to the Force and I'm in favor.

[Gruenberg]

I mean, Zeus or [violet] could set everything back, but the timeline change would give everyone severe whiplash and a touch of psychosis, you know what I mean?

That's never been considered a valid objection when trying to impose wrenching change on the WA game. Don't see why it should be for the SC. That applies more generally, too: every single objection they are lining up is just a rehash of the arguments we made - so, why should they carry any more weight?

Also wrangling over the composition of such a council makes the old, serious version of the ideological NatSov/IntFed question on the GA equivalent look like Thursday afternoon tea and knitting.

Yes, very true. But then again, the fact that it would lead to "politics" would seem, looking at some of the other ideas they're trying to force onto the entire WA, be a good thing?

[Excidium Planetis]

It's been broke for seven years.

Anyway, we don't seem to be getting anywhere so I'll see if anyone else is interested.

It is fulfilling its purpose and should be eliminated, now it is broken? Which is it? Make up your mind, you can't have both.

The SC Liberations give defenders a valuable tool in preventing refounds. That's what they were designed to do, and they have been doing their job as far as I know. What about the system is broken?