Condemnation

[Erastide]

Question for the regular WA forumites that have made their way here. If [violet]'s plan for an expanded WA is put into place, how would you react to having the "traditional" WA be a part of it? Sorta like a legislative branch? I am assuming here the C&C stuff would end up somewhere else in terms of rulesets. Because I do like the idea of bringing gameplayers (specifically those that govern regions and thereby have to be in the WA) more into WA matters, but I as you've said, I don't exactly see them jumping into writing proposals. If it hasn't happened by now, there's not going to be a grand revelation in thought.

Urgench has already resigned from the WA. I might put one of my puppets in it in the future, just to give me a reason to post on things I do find interesting, but essentially this "expanded" WA doesn't make sense to me and I wouldn't be able to play it in anything like the manner I enjoy. There isn't any actual relationship between Gameplayers and Regulars, except for one soliciting the approvals and votes of the other, and their play cannot be reconciled, in my opinion. Gameplay has nothing to offer the old WA in terms of an actual improvement to the way it works, and the gameplay functions of this new "expanded" WA would dwarf the older aspects of it. Gameplayers are in no way likely to be seduced by what will be an insignificant committee of legislators which deals with issues they don't recognise now and will have less reason to recognise in the future.

Hence the question.

The WA is made up of a wide variety of players. I believe [violet]'s goal is to get more of the WA players that are not part of the legislative process involved with the WA in some way. So if the "WA" had branches to it, and the traditional WA (ie writing/passing resolutions) could be a piece of that and keep all the current regs/rules, would that be more acceptable? Because I think some interesting things could be done with the WA, but I also think the legislation part has functioned quite well by itself.

[Urgench]

Hence the question.

The WA is made up of a wide variety of players. I believe [violet]'s goal is to get more of the WA players that are not part of the legislative process involved with the WA in some way. So if the "WA" had branches to it, and the traditional WA (ie writing/passing resolutions) could be a piece of that and keep all the current regs/rules, would that be more acceptable? Because I think some interesting things could be done with the WA, but I also think the legislation part has functioned quite well by itself.

But these branches will be unintelligible to one another. They might both be called the WA but they wont really have any relationship, because Gameplay and Legislative WA play don't speak in the same idiom and are completely contrasting in their uses of the game.

I'm not in any position to offer anyone advice, and don't particularly expect my view to carry any weight. But if what your describing was the intention then it wasn't and indeed still hasn't been articulated as such to anyone who plays the WA forum. In fact what has happened is that a new function has been introduced which totally undermines what WA regulars currently do, and an ominous sounding list of similar or even more drastic upsets seem to be looming on the horizon.

To be clear, what your describing may well have been articulated to Gameplayers, which might explain their surprise at our shock and dismay, but no one thought to tell us.

Leaving the old legislative functions of the WA intact and not requiring that branch to deal with the newer aspects might work in some ways, but it wont encourage the improvement of the older aspects and it wont encourage greater involvement in them. Like I said elsewhere it will just shove that aspect off in to some drafty old attic so no one is offended by its perceived antiquity and irrelevance.

There are lists of changes to the legislative functions of the WA, proposed by players, but they have been dismissed as "incremental" and shelved for the bizarre reason that they would make it better at doing what it already does. If the proposed changes ( arrived at through consultation with players, mind you ) don't make Gameplay better at what it does then why are they being introduced ? Doesn't the legislative game deserve the same treatment ?

[Erastide]

To be clear, what your describing may well have been articulated to Gameplayers, which might explain their surprise at our shock and dismay, but no one thought to tell us.

You guys keep saying this. Let me make something clear. No gameplayer had foreknowledge of this. This isn't some conspiracy against the WA. I'm *trying* to find a way to get you guys back what you want, and which I think the WA should have.

The WA is made up of a wide variety of players. I believe [violet]'s goal is to get more of the WA players that are not part of the legislative process involved with the WA in some way. So if the "WA" had branches to it, and the traditional WA (ie writing/passing resolutions) could be a piece of that and keep all the current regs/rules, would that be more acceptable? Because I think some interesting things could be done with the WA, but I also think the legislation part has functioned quite well by itself.

But these branches will be unintelligible to one another. They might both be called the WA but they wont really have any relationship, because Gameplay and Legislative WA play don't speak in the same idiom and are completely contrasting in their uses of the game.
I'm not in any position to offer anyone advice, and don't particularly expect my view to carry any weight. But if what your describing was the intention then it wasn't and indeed still hasn't been articulated as such to anyone who plays the WA forum. In fact what has happened is that a new function has been introduced which totally undermines what WA regulars currently do, and an ominous sounding list of similar or even more drastic upsets seem to be looming on the horizon.

I agree, as it stands the 2 parts are integrated. But as QoD suggested somewhere (I think the locked thread), the current C&C could be declared null and void. But [violet] suggested earlier (maybe in the Mechanics thread) creating subsections to the WA. One would be the pure legislation, the other could pass things related to actual nations, essentially discarding the metagaming part of the WA rules. There would then also be room for a "liberation" category in that PART of the WA.

Leaving the old legislative functions of the WA intact and not requiring that branch to deal with the newer aspects might work in some ways, but it wont encourage the improvement of the older aspects and it wont encourage greater involvement in them. Like I said elsewhere it will just shove that aspect off in to some drafty old attic so no one is offended by its perceived antiquity and irrelevance.

I don't think the current WA would suffer from this. As most of the current active WA crowd does not participate in a Gameplay sense, you won't lose good proposal writers to a Security Council branch. On the other hand, you might get a few gameplayers that want to participate in all aspects of the WA that take at least more than a passing interest in the resolutions.

[Kelssek]

If it is an objective of the game administration that by doing this, gameplayers and RPers can all get together in love, peace and harmony, in reality, I don't think it'll happen. You'll just see those segregations transferred into the WA as the gameplayers who do enter the halls make a beeline for the gameplay functions and the RPers with those kinds of interests being drawn to the regular WA. After all, the door for participation in the WA has always been wide open, and we haven't exactly been seeing a flood of gameplay types eager to discuss extradition, banning genocide, sovereignty over territorial waters, etc.

I'll have to admit my dislike of the two-branch WA is mainly simply that. And I also do not wish to be seen as unreasonably obstructing something just because I don't like it. The thing is, though, they would have to be completely segregated. They'd need to operate on entirely different rules and have entirely different proposal queues, lists of passed resolutions, etc., and they'd need their own subforums. Neither should be able to have any power over the other. What it amounts to, in the end, is creating another aspect of the game for the region-oriented/raider type of player. Great for them. But at the very least, keep them seperate and don't compromise our type of gameplay, because it literally is like oil and water. We're seeing the imminent prospect of an attempt to mix the two, with a declaration of the legal right of a person to emigrate from their current country, regulations on maritime sovereignty and claims over ocean, a law intended to ensure children are taught science, and then "I think Kandarin is cool and should be given this pretty sticker".

In any case, it would not accomplish the purpose of getting gameplayers involved in the WA, because what they'll actually be doing is getting involved in something grafted onto the WA for them. The fact of the matter is that in the end, this is simply a diversion on the internet, and people will tend to go for what gives them the most enjoyment for the effort they put in. Some will be drawn into the "real" WA, for sure, but they'll be the ones already predisposed to do so from their own interests in politics or debating.

[Erastide]

There is an argument that the Gameplay branch (those in the WA) are one of the largest populations of groups in the WA. And yet they tend to have no real participation in it aside from accepting the resolutions because they don't care about their nations stats. Now that's definitely not true for all people, I know I care about my nation's stats, but a lot of gameplayers don't.

I don't think C&C badges should be a part of the normal WA process. But I don't think they should be permanently discarded either. So my question is, if the legislative branch existed and functioned under normal rules, would that be okay? And then a second branch could discard significant portions of the metagaming rule. This would then allow for condemnation in a roleplay sense and in a gameplay sense. Further modifications in areas that have been mentioned in the Gameplay Mechanics thread could be put in the second branch of the WA.

[Urgench]

To be clear, what your describing may well have been articulated to Gameplayers, which might explain their surprise at our shock and dismay, but no one thought to tell us.

You guys keep saying this. Let me make something clear. No gameplayer had foreknowledge of this. This isn't some conspiracy against the WA. I'm *trying* to find a way to get you guys back what you want, and which I think the WA should have.

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just a failure to factor us in. I know there were discussion of this kind of thing going on, indeed in this very forum a debate is taking place in which w.a. uses for Gameplay are directly in discussion. It may be that even Mods were left out of these discussions or at least did not have their attention drawn to them.

The WA is made up of a wide variety of players. I believe [violet]'s goal is to get more of the WA players that are not part of the legislative process involved with the WA in some way. So if the "WA" had branches to it, and the traditional WA (ie writing/passing resolutions) could be a piece of that and keep all the current regs/rules, would that be more acceptable? Because I think some interesting things could be done with the WA, but I also think the legislation part has functioned quite well by itself.

But these branches will be unintelligible to one another. They might both be called the WA but they wont really have any relationship, because Gameplay and Legislative WA play don't speak in the same idiom and are completely contrasting in their uses of the game.
I'm not in any position to offer anyone advice, and don't particularly expect my view to carry any weight. But if what your describing was the intention then it wasn't and indeed still hasn't been articulated as such to anyone who plays the WA forum. In fact what has happened is that a new function has been introduced which totally undermines what WA regulars currently do, and an ominous sounding list of similar or even more drastic upsets seem to be looming on the horizon.

I agree, as it stands the 2 parts are integrated. But as QoD suggested somewhere (I think the locked thread), the current C&C could be declared null and void. But [violet] suggested earlier (maybe in the Mechanics thread) creating subsections to the WA. One would be the pure legislation, the other could pass things related to actual nations, essentially discarding the metagaming part of the WA rules. There would then also be room for a "liberation" category in that PART of the WA.

Leaving the old legislative functions of the WA intact and not requiring that branch to deal with the newer aspects might work in some ways, but it wont encourage the improvement of the older aspects and it wont encourage greater involvement in them. Like I said elsewhere it will just shove that aspect off in to some drafty old attic so no one is offended by its perceived antiquity and irrelevance.

I don't think the current WA would suffer from this. As most of the current active WA crowd does not participate in a Gameplay sense, you won't lose good proposal writers to a Security Council branch. On the other hand, you might get a few gameplayers that want to participate in all aspects of the WA that take at least more than a passing interest in the resolutions.

Again we are in to this vague notion of a few extra previously uninspired Gameplay types possibly having their interest peaked by resolutions.

Great, as far as it goes, but what about improving what the w.a. already does and making it more interesting in what it already does ? We're not opposed to improvements, we're opposed to improvements which actually mean de facto eradication of our game.

[Urgench]

There is an argument that the Gameplay branch (those in the WA) are one of the largest populations of groups in the WA. And yet they tend to have no real participation in it aside from accepting the resolutions because they don't care about their nations stats. Now that's definitely not true for all people, I know I care about my nation's stats, but a lot of gameplayers don't.

I don't think C&C badges should be a part of the normal WA process. But I don't think they should be permanently discarded either. So my question is, if the legislative branch existed and functioned under normal rules, would that be okay? And then a second branch could discard significant portions of the metagaming rule. This would then allow for condemnation in a roleplay sense and in a gameplay sense. Further modifications in areas that have been mentioned in the Gameplay Mechanics thread could be put in the second branch of the WA.

Who knows ? It would work to keep the old WA in aspic I suppose, and it would prevent complete distruction of it, but I'd not sure it would be an improvement.

If you want a yes or no, then I'd probably say yes, but only because its better than what [Violet] seemed to be suggesting originally.

[Ruzan]

As I see it, we already have a divided WA. Many people join it for regional politics and don't care about international legislation. And vice-versa. Speaking as a Gameplayer who lurks and sometimes participates on the WA forum, I like the changes, but perhaps there should be a "wall" to keep them from disrupting the international legislators.

[Yelda]

Question for the regular WA forumites that have made their way here. If [violet]'s plan for an expanded WA is put into place, how would you react to having the "traditional" WA be a part of it? Sorta like a legislative branch? I am assuming here the C&C stuff would end up somewhere else in terms of rulesets. Because I do like the idea of bringing gameplayers (specifically those that govern regions and thereby have to be in the WA) more into WA matters, but I as you've said, I don't exactly see them jumping into writing proposals. If it hasn't happened by now, there's not going to be a grand revelation in thought.

If the two separate proposal types (traditional legislative vs. gameplay affecting) were kept completely separate, in other words two separate proposal lists, two separate rulesets, two separate forums to discuss them in, then I could probably learn to live with it. I (and my IC characters) could safely ignore the gameplay-related stuff and just pretend that the WA was as it had always been. It don't expect that to happen and I think it would be silly to have two "separate but equal" WA's that basically ignored each other.

The problem is I can't have my IC characters, ambassadors and whatnot, trying to acknowledge things like delegates, regions, regional passwords, and invading/defending. There's just no way for me to do that, no way to reconcile the IC and OOC and have my characters try to discuss in an IC manner things which plainly do not exist in their worldview. In order for me to have fun playing this game it has to make some sort of sense from a roleplay perspective. If the fourth wall is torn down it becomes impossible for me to make sense of it. It will no longer seem "real".

From reading this thread and the (now locked) thread over in the WA forum it seems that this is a done deal and the new direction, the new purpose, of the WA has been decided. Legislating on things such as poverty, trade and human rights is now passé and we're to take up the important matters of regional passwords, invading/defending and commending or condemning people. Sadly, none of the WA regulars were consulted on this and it appears that none of the moderators were consulted either.

Needless to say, I don't see this having a happy ending for the WA regulars. Realistically speaking there are only about 20 or so of us and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of gameplayers who will view these new "improvements" to the WA as being the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's obvious that our contributions to the game over the last four years are viewed as having minimal worth and it's just as obvious that a gameplay-oriented WA is viewed as "the future of the game".

It's been fun, and I have no regrets about the resolutions I've written or the time I put into writing them. All things must pass etc etc.

[Erastide]

To be clear, what your describing may well have been articulated to Gameplayers, which might explain their surprise at our shock and dismay, but no one thought to tell us.

You guys keep saying this. Let me make something clear. No gameplayer had foreknowledge of this. This isn't some conspiracy against the WA. I'm *trying* to find a way to get you guys back what you want, and which I think the WA should have.

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just a failure to factor us in. I know there were discussion of this kind of thing going on, indeed in this very forum a debate is taking place in which w.a. uses for Gameplay are directly in discussion. It may be that even Mods were left out of these discussions or at least did not have their attention drawn to them.

There have previously been discussions of changing gameplay mechanics. But now, with the introduction of the idea of C&C and suggestions of WA features, gameplayers are seeing all sorts of intersections between how the WA does business with proposals and how gameplayers could have some aspects of their game work. That kind of thinking is really cool, but I'd rather gameplay and WA did a lot of together in mutual harmony or at least studied indifference.

[Erastide]

Needless to say, I don't see this having a happy ending for the WA regulars. Realistically speaking there are only about 20 or so of us and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of gameplayers who will view these new "improvements" to the WA as being the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's obvious that our contributions to the game over the last four years are viewed as having minimal worth and it's just as obvious that a gameplay-oriented WA is viewed as "the future of the game".

It's been fun, and I have no regrets about the resolutions I've written or the time I put into writing them. All things must pass etc etc.

I don't agree with any of the negatives there about the WA. ALL communities of NS are equally valid, and there ARE people sticking up for you guys. This isn't a done deal. So please, be patient, and without putting gameplay down, try to put up ideas that could reconcile the sides or at least allow them to exist within the same game?

[Kelssek]

The problem is I can't have my IC characters, ambassadors and whatnot, trying to acknowledge things like delegates, regions, regional passwords, and invading/defending. There's just no way for me to do that, no way to reconcile the IC and OOC and have my characters try to discuss in an IC manner things which plainly do not exist in their worldview. In order for me to have fun playing this game it has to make some sort of sense from a roleplay perspective. If the fourth wall is torn down it becomes impossible for me to make sense of it. It will no longer seem "real".

True, I hadn't thought of that. The solution then would be to specifically prohibit those sorts of things being discussed in the "normal WA". Not all OOC, of course, because OOC is often necessary in debate, but specifically people talking on the basis of these gameplay things. That's not so wonderful but it could work. Maybe.

In the absence of a better idea, this sort of absolute segregation is what I think should be the basis. I think most of us would really rather just go back to how it was before C&C was introduced, though.

[Yelda]

I don't agree with any of the negatives there about the WA. ALL communities of NS are equally valid, and there ARE people sticking up for you guys.

Oh I know there are some people who are sticking up for us. I wasn't implying that the moderators viewed our contributions as having minimal worth. I probably should have been clearer on that.

This isn't a done deal. So please, be patient, and without putting gameplay down, try to put up ideas that could reconcile the sides or at least allow them to exist within the same game?

I don't have anything against gameplay and I understand that they enjoy their version of the game just as much as we enjoy ours. In the past though, it's been possible for both sides to exist largely because they were able to basically ignore each other. I'm afraid that will now no longer be the case.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't agree with any of the negatives there about the WA. ALL communities of NS are equally valid, and there ARE people sticking up for you guys. This isn't a done deal. So please, be patient, and without putting gameplay down, try to put up ideas that could reconcile the sides or at least allow them to exist within the same game?

In just a single day, the community of WA regulars has lost some of its most valued members. This is because there's a general feeling amongst WA regulars that everyone else, and I quote one of the regulars, "[sees] the W.A. regulars as having no role in the game's future". There's a feeling amongst the group that [violet] sees the World Assembly as an intrinsic part of Gameplay, and does not value our community or the views we have on the issue. To put it clearly, a lot of the WA regulars don't think there's any will of the other side to listen to us, and it's just a matter of time before the WA is transformed in to a Gameplay Council. That leaves us in the dust, after years upon years of establishing a part of the game that we feel we belong to.

Ardchoille closing the thread in the WA forum helps to fuel this doomsday thinking ([violet] saying he/she wants our input, but the thread being closed anyways), and, to me at least, your last sentence does, too. Not to mention that [violet]'s introduction of C&Cs didn't look to anyone like an attempt to get our ideas on the 'improvement', but just as a "hey, I made this, isn't it cool?". Aside from one or two people, WA regulars have been suggesting numerous ways to ensure that both sides get something neat, while neither has to sacrifice what they like about the game as it already is. The most logical one would be the split Gameplay and game mechanics additions from the pure legislative processes. Now, that isn't to say that WA regulars don't want C&Cs. I think that we do, but they have to be regulated the way we see fit, which happens to be something Gameplay doesn't agree with. Separating the two aspects would mean that the World Assembly wouldn't be passing resolutions to remove regional passwords, or to remove regional delegates, or the other multitude of additions that are talked about. Now, I participate in my region, and I do think it would be fun to have these things. I also participate in the World Assembly, and I like how we do things over there.

The idea of splitting the World Assembly in to two branches is essentially what I'm asking for, but I don't want (and I apparently don't stand alone in this) is a single World Assembly split in to two; I want two separate bodies. Maybe it is just a naming thing. But, if it's possible to have two branches, then it's possible to have two separate bodies. Like I said before, WA regulars aren't against change and improvement. I personally think electing a Secretary-General would be fun, for example.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not suggesting with the first paragraph that there these feeling are accurate. I'm just saying that yesterday, everybody did feel like that, and some probably still do. There hasn't been a clear response from [violet] on any of the suggestions we have made, and there's no clear quote to read that suggests that [violet] values our traditions; while one sentence may say that [violet] does, the very next sentence says that we're being unreasonable. I don't think that these feelings will stop until there is a substantial response, that takes our suggestions and feeling in to the matter. A little sympathy might actually go a long way, in this case.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

In response to Erastide's query, I'm going to post this once, and not bother commenting again, as the arrogance of certain players and admins has already discouraged me from being involved with the WA at all.

These commend/condemn, liberate, and whatever else have you, proposals belong in a Security Council, which the WA does not have. If you want to create one, either as a separate branch of the existing WA, or as an independent entity altogether, I would not mind. At the very least we could keep actual legislation segregated from metagamed GP nonsense, and the GPers would have their own body to meddle with. Despite my participation mostly in RPed UN/WA matters, I do at times dabble in Gameplay, and would find some aspects of a GP body interesting -- only keep it completely separate from the regular legislative process, since the latter is supposed to be primarily an IC operation, with complicated rules and conventions that do not reconcile with WA Gameplay functions at all. At the very least an extant Security Council would discourage "Create WA Security Council," "Create WA Military," and other such proposals, which are illegal under the rules.

If it makes more sense for the WA Security Council (if you want to make it that) to be a smaller part of the entire WA, only allow the elected delegates to be members, while WA members can continue to lobby delegates (in either the WA or the SC), and vote on regular WA proposals as usual. This would obviously make attaining the delegacy more attractive to players, and encourage more involvement. A separate GP body may also be given its own forum (and this is what I would prefer). It would also need rules to prevent overkill and excess, and I'd be willing to help out with that any way I can.

But if the original suggestion to mix legislation with these new proposal categories holds, and the WA thus becomes a confusing mass of both IC and OOC, the lines between the two continue to be blurred, and the RP community is eventually completely marginalized in the process -- then my present determination to stay out the WA altogether will be permanent.

[Todd McCloud]

There is an argument that the Gameplay branch (those in the WA) are one of the largest populations of groups in the WA. And yet they tend to have no real participation in it aside from accepting the resolutions because they don't care about their nations stats. Now that's definitely not true for all people, I know I care about my nation's stats, but a lot of gameplayers don't.

I actually fall into the above category on this one. My nation has all three of the categories in good standing (though economy has slipped... due to WA resolutions). My *only* involvement in the WA before this was submitting one proposal and voting the way my region told me to vote. I'll be honest, in my 4.5 years of playing this game, I never really cared about resolutions. Just being honest here.

My focus was on gameplay, of course. But now there's a chance for me to get involved in this, with a twist. I like the twist, I really do.

I understand that the WA peeps probably feel like their role in NS is diminished, but you have forgotten - you can still post WA resolutions. You can still get things done here and work things out. Heck, the *REAL* UN (gasp, I mentioned them!) has commendations and condemnations all the time - I won't even pretend they're frivolous; Battlestar galactica was recently commended by the UN. (Why we get a C&D letter from them, but no commendation I'll never know. But, the TV series got one...) Nevertheless, were they undermined for commending a TV show of all things? I don't think so. They're the UN, they pretty much know what they're doing. And that's what us gameplayers, for the most part, think of WA people. They just know what they're doing. We don't know you guys, what you do, etc. Most don't even know your discussions are very involved and formal. Well, you're getting publicity now, because guys like me are finally getting to know you and work with you. But we're disheartened and confused. Apparently I'm responsible for "ruining" your aspect of the game. I take stuff like that to heart because I love this game and pretty much love it when others are having fun.

I *don't* believe I'm ruining it for you, but complimenting your style of play. Who knows? I might even get involved in some WA discussions and be a compliment towards a debate. Maybe others will follow me. Even so, do you really expect the proposal list to be inundated with C&C's in one month? Nah. I think things will cool down. See, you're not losing your jobs, you're actually gaining a new one. This is where I don't understand all the friction. If anything, you have a new dimension to your style of gameplay. You can actually commend or condemn someone. And while some things are being worked out in terms of how and what things can get passed, I see this becoming eventually a compliment to your work and style of play. A new and exciting aspect.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ardchoille]

Yelda, it's not a done deal. There appears to be considerable support for the two-bodies solution. It seems to me that there's less so for two forums, but that may be a temporary "sub-forum fatigue" on the part of the admins. We do seem to have a plethora of them now.

I've reopened the "new proposal rules" thread here but I think having a general one helps people deal with ideas as they come up.

I don't see any need to repopen the original thread, since this one seems to be operating at a lower temperature. The original wasn't closed for any doomsday reason, BTW, but just to give folk a chance to cool down.

QoD, I've been told that the branding rule will not apply to this sort of proposal. I think it's pretty solid that the metagaming one simply can't, because of its nature.

Contributions like yours are what I was referring to when I said the rules for this "are being worked on". It's not happening where players can't see it.

The questions you're asking are extremely helpful, especially the ones that link to new-category proposals that are already in the queue. I'd appreciate it if you'd re-post them in the Rules thread.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I *don't* believe I'm ruining it for you, but complimenting your style of play. Who knows? I might even get involved in some WA discussions and be a compliment towards a debate. Maybe others will follow me. Even so, do you really expect the proposal list to be inundated with C&C's in one month? Nah. I think things will cool down. See, you're not losing your jobs, you're actually gaining a new one. This is where I don't understand all the friction. If anything, you have a new dimension to your style of gameplay. You can actually commend or condemn someone. And while some things are being worked out in terms of how and what things can get passed, I see this becoming eventually a compliment to your work and style of play. A new and exciting aspect.

With generalizations, there are always those that won't fit in the category they've been pushed in to. Nobody is saying Todd McCloud is ruining our fun. We're saying that Todd McCloud's neighbors are threatening to ruin our fun, which is completely true. While the possibility exists that droves of Gamplayers will become WA regulars, the probability is low. That's what we're afraid of. We aren't snobby people that don't want anybody from GP/II/RP to come over and try and get in with our crowd. We actually want that very much. But, your neighbors don't want to become part of our crowed. Based on what I've read, they want to absorb the WA and use it the they want to. This is all speculation, but the plausibility of that happening is something to worry about, and is why we are so angry.

As I said earlier, I don't mind C&Cs. I just want them to conform to the rules we have, to the way we do things. What happened yesterday was somebody walked in to our house, told us the drapes are ugly, and rearranged our furniture, without us calling them and asking them to come over. We don't mind if you have some good ideas, but we want to be the ones that ultimately accept them, and that might mean changing them to fit our style. Is that understandable?

[Allech-Atreus]

I would like to emphasize, as a WA regular, that we're really just afraid of the way these things are taking their turn. If we analyzed the imrovements of the game based on who has been suggesting them, we'd see that the majority of the gameplay advancements- like the changes to the WFE, the new tags, and all the other fun stuff- has been suggested by players focusing largely on their regions and their ability to link up with other regions. Which is great, because it works for everyone- regions that are focused largely on the WA benefit from those advancements, because they're largely neutral in their appeal across the board.

The means in which these changes were implemented, and the perception of who benefits most by them, is what is the problem here. This change is strongly partisan for those focusing on gameplay, with little real benefit (possibly hostility) for those of us focusing in the World Assembly and the legislative game. This is the crux of the objection and the object of our wild fearmongering.

In regards to moving forward, I'd like to reiterate that NONE of the WA crowd are opposed to progressive changes to make the game better- but, like changes made in the past to the ruleset, the categories, and even more concrete aspects of the coding (influence specifically), these changes should be vetted in public before their implementation- to use Glen-Rhodes terms, this seems to be a case of "hey look at this cool thing I did."

I'd also like to bring our focus around to some of the more incremental changes to the game that Quod suggested in the other thread- things like mass TGs, or a "burn" function, or some other procedural changes to the way the WA interacts with the rest of the game mechanics. The legislative capacity has always been hampered by the limitations of the TG campaign- our ability to reach large numbers of delegates or nations would be increased, and in this way we could increase involvement in the Assembly.

The question of gameplay involvement might be as simple as increasing the area of effect of the resolutions passed, that might be enough to get some stat-concious delegates to weigh in on the proceedings.

The bottom line is that we're not opposed to change, there are changes we'd like to see and would love to have some fun new fiddly things for the Assembly- but embodied as it is by the C&C in its current form is not going to win any friends.

[Kandarin]

I understand a lot of raider and region-oriented people were very upset with the introduction of influence. If it helps, maybe you could think of it in those terms, because that's what it feels like over here - another group of players with no concept of how you play your game decided that you're of less worth than they are and lobbied for your game to be shunted aside in favour of theirs. And then ridiculed you for being angry when that happens. So instead of writing insulting "jokes" that just drive deeper wedges between the groups of players, try to understand that other players are potentially being asked to give up their primary reason for participation in NationStates.

The feeling is the same but the effect is different. Influence altered all mechanical aspects of Gameplay activity; this does not alter your ability to do what you have always done. You do not have to give up anything, and this could actually help your activities. I know the idea of this getting more people involved in your aspect of the game has been suggested, disparaged, re-suggested, re-disparaged and so forth, but I wouldn't discredit it if I were you.

There's the assumption in the air - ever present and seemingly impossible to dispel - that players can be put into neat little categories in which they belong: RPers, WAers, General, Invaders, Region-builders and so forth. I've heard this from every other NS group; RPers shunning Gameplayers because they had a bad experience with an invasion once, Gameplayers sequestering themselves from RPers because they feel mistreated by the forum grows, General regulars ignoring pretty much everyone else, and so forth. I'd sat that assumption doesn't do anyone any favors, but it's true so long as the people involved believe in it.

I don't believe in the necessity of those boundaries, nor that these groups mix badly. In fact, they mix just fine, but are always very reluctant to do so. Misconceptions and cold first contact with each other prevent the groups from seeing just how much they have in common. My experience has shown me that other groups look intimidating but it is generally a false appearance. I know that if I'd followed first impressions of RP I'd never have become a RPer and NS wouldn't be half as fun for me.

At this stage I have to ask myself, since writing resolutions was always a relatively less common interest and C&Cs are intrinsically more accessable and significantly easier to write, how long will it be before actual resolution writing becomes a thing of the past ?

Probably never. The people who this is bringing in all have some interest in the WA process, or at least have constituents who do. The number of nations who are interested in writing policy resolutions may be very small, but the number who like voting on them and debating how their delegate should vote is very large. The demand's not going away.

Contrary to the assertions of some, then, these new C&C proposals would actually prove more alienating! Edit: especially because, of course, this function is necessarily off-limits to new players, who as Kandarin et al. have argued, won't have the prestige or renown to get enough approvals. Only older players will be well-known enough to be Commended or Condemned. In the old WA, a new player could get their proposal passed because, back then, we considered legislation on the merits of its text alone.

Not all older players are well-known. Not all newer players are unknown. The categories essentially require that the nation/region being nominated do something visible and notable, or at least something that can be easily conveyed as such, in order to have a chance at the floor. There are a lot of ways to do this and a lot of different rates at which it can be done. Todd may have nominated some extremes, but there are plenty of newer nations and regions with lots of visibility.

I like this idea a lot except for the fact that it seems as if there was a massive surge of WA Delegates with extremely low standards. Totally horrendous proposals are getting in queue! The good ones still make it but I hate going through the repeal process!

Which proposals are the horrendous ones? If they're very badly written or pertain to things outside of the game, let the mods know.

In fact C&Cs will function purely as a tool of the in game politics of established powerful groups who want to congratulate one another and keep others in their place. What is especially unifying about this I can't tell. Until now one of the very appealing aspects of NS has been its openness and the way it encourages free form self expression in a non-competitive and non-judgemental environment. Players were free to explore whatever aspects of the game they wished and within certain rules, how they wished. Now we have an honours system which explicitly places higher value on what certain players do over and above what others do. And in time statistical biases within the player base will skew this honours system entirely. The net effect of all this will be to prioritise one way of playing the game over all others. Not only is the 4th wall shattered, but so is this game's innate ability to encourage free expression and unique forms of play.

All aspects of the game are equally valid, and it is entirely possible for a nation involved in any aspect to get enough support for quorum. Gameplay, RP, General, WA-writing and so forth all give nations access to a large pool of nations and Delegates who could be interested in recognizing them. The fact that voting resolutions through (as opposed to creating them) is largely a Gameplay-related action does not give the Gameplay folks a monopoly. I look forward to seeing well-written RPer-nation C&Cs, and your own group has plenty of pull of its own as evidenced by the success of Commend Jey.

The WA is made up of a wide variety of players. I believe [violet]'s goal is to get more of the WA players that are not part of the legislative process involved with the WA in some way. So if the "WA" had branches to it, and the traditional WA (ie writing/passing resolutions) could be a piece of that and keep all the current regs/rules, would that be more acceptable? Because I think some interesting things could be done with the WA, but I also think the legislation part has functioned quite well by itself.

It would end the current disagreement in a reasonably tolerable stalemate to have separate branches, but NS has enough dividing walls as it is. Telling people where they ought to go would limit the capacity for exploration and increase the already-dramatic and unnecessary isolation of communities in NS. As Kelssek said, the segregation would have to be complete. More segregation is not a good thing.

One thing that does need to be dealt with is the length of the proposal queue. Right now there are seven quorum'ed proposals on the proposal list. It's going to take a long time to work through that, and at the current rate it's just going to pile up more. Adding more Gameplay-oriented functions to the WA would just add a lot more. Perhaps resolutions could go to the floor two at a time instead of one at a time?

There is an argument that the Gameplay branch (those in the WA) are one of the largest populations of groups in the WA. And yet they tend to have no real participation in it aside from accepting the resolutions because they don't care about their nations stats. Now that's definitely not true for all people, I know I care about my nation's stats, but a lot of gameplayers don't.

It varies. Among feeder delegates at least (though I cannot always speak for the other six members of our group) there is a strong emphasis on proper resolution operation, but this is more a matter of seeing to it that their constituents are properly represented than advancing any one political agenda. I know a lot of user-created regions are the same way. Gameplay people rarely write traditional resolutions as it is but a lot of them do care whether or not they pass.

The problem is I can't have my IC characters, ambassadors and whatnot, trying to acknowledge things like delegates, regions, regional passwords, and invading/defending. There's just no way for me to do that, no way to reconcile the IC and OOC and have my characters try to discuss in an IC manner things which plainly do not exist in their worldview. In order for me to have fun playing this game it has to make some sort of sense from a roleplay perspective. If the fourth wall is torn down it becomes impossible for me to make sense of it. It will no longer seem "real".

You don't have to interact with those proposals, and if you do there are a number of ways to rationalize them.

[Erastide]

If it makes more sense for the WA Security Council (if you want to make it that) to be a smaller part of the entire WA, only allow the elected delegates to be members, while WA members can continue to lobby delegates (in either the WA or the SC), and vote on regular WA proposals as usual. This would obviously make attaining the delegacy more attractive to players, and encourage more involvement. A separate GP body may also be given its own forum (and this is what I would prefer). It would also need rules to prevent overkill and excess, and I'd be willing to help out with that any way I can.

That's an interesting idea to have only delegates have a say in the Security Council. Would they all get equal votes then as opposed to how votes turn out now? Because the feeder delegates with a 100+ endos could do some awesome things, would it be like the US having veto power on the Security Council? Or would a bunch of regions form with delegates with just 1 endo to gain more say in it?

[Kandarin]

That's an interesting idea to have only delegates have a say in the Security Council. Would they all get equal votes then as opposed to how votes turn out now? Because the feeder delegates with a 100+ endos could do some awesome things, would it be like the US having veto power on the Security Council? Or would a bunch of regions form with delegates with just 1 endo to gain more say in it?

Gameplay groups that want to influence the WA (sually Gatesville) have tried dividing into 1-endo regions before, but due to the low perceived effect it didn't take off much. If this Delegate council existed and features to remove passwords, eject WA members, and so forth were added, you can bet that any group that is remotely in-the-know will be furiously subdividing into microregions to get the most lopsided influence on the Council.

[Unibot]

A part me says asks why the Security Council should have Representative Democracy when the Legislative Council has Direct Democracy? Or why, the Security Council should be a 'smaller part' of the entire WA then the legislation council?

But, I kind of like the idea, because it gives it a bit of a separation from the way the General Assembly does things.

The Security Council could instead of having one slow processing que flow, could have a series of pages like Quorum that requires 1-6% (?) of the WA represented to approve a resolution, repeal or C&C.

When I said 1-6% (?) of the WA represented, that means if I am a delegate with 100 WA nations in my region (dreaming...), then I represent (100/10,647) 0.00939% of the WA.

Delegates and Nations could both vote on proposals then, however delegates would have a lot more power than nations.

For example, I would represented by myself, 0.00000939%, but my delegate would represent at least ten times more power.

[Allech-Atreus]

Erastide- I think you've hit on something. I like the idea of a Security Council composed of delegates, but I don't like the idea of those councillors having power based on endo number- a simple vote should do the trick. If the opposite were the case, I'd see the Feeders and the largest regions having a huge amount of influence- raiding empires that take control of powerful regions or have unscrupulous intentions could muscle through motions to remove passwords to defender regions and send in waves of invaders, or vice versa.

I also foresee that translating into a contraction in the number of viable regions, as players looking to avoid the wrath of the Security Council would be forced to play ball and either ally with powerful regions or vacate. It's a situation where a few very powerful individuals could control the entire game.

Kandarin- I think that problem could be easily solved with a minimum endorsement requirement, like for submitting proposals: you have to have two/three endorsements to be a part of the Council? Keeping it low ensures all the smaller regions can participate.

Unibot- Supermajority?

[Kandarin]

Kandarin- I think that problem could be easily solved with a minimum endorsement requirement, like for submitting proposals: you have to have two/three endorsements to be a part of the Council? Keeping it low ensures all the smaller regions can participate.

Powerful and organized regions will still subdivide to whatever the minimum is. It's not right for a group with thirty WAs to get ten times as many votes as a feeder, but that's exactly what would happen.