Condemnation

[Emperor Matthuis]

I think anything that shakes up the WA is a good thing.

I would also think that it would not be too hard to link regional coups, dictators into the RP side of the UNl, it would take a little imagination but it seems perfectly possible to me.

[Erastide]

I'm not sure having delegates only would be the best idea or not. If there's a separate queue and then open voting, then having delegates approve proposals gives them a say. Or if it's just delegates and their vote counts with their endos, that gets non-delegates representation in the voting. But otherwise it's all delegates, blocking the average person from having a say.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

Before C&Cs, the World Assembly as an in-character legislative body was always segregated from the Gameplay aspect. The want to coalesce all the aspects of NationStates is laudable, but impractical by now. Perhaps years ago, when NationStates was still in its infancy, combining communities would have worked, because the communities themselves didn't exist in the hardened form that they do now. The separation of these communities hasn't been a negative thing: International Incidents has sprung some of the longest and largest roleplays I've seen anyone on the internet; the World Assembly has emulated international politics to an extraordinary level; regions have created their own governments, and even have their own inter-regional communities with their own governments. All of these aspects are unique, and combining them is not a rational way to introduce more activity and cooperation. Everybody needs to move away from the notion that segregating the communities is the equivalent of building a Berlin Wall. All of the communities will always be a mouse-click away, to anybody who has the interest in clicking.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I'm not sure having delegates only would be the best idea or not. If there's a separate queue and then open voting, then having delegates approve proposals gives them a say. Or if it's just delegates and their vote counts with their endos, that gets non-delegates representation in the voting. But otherwise it's all delegates, blocking the average person from having a say.

Then we best not implement [violet]'s idea of electing WA officers or impaneling in-game committees, either. Those also diminish the power of the "average person." Of course, weighting delegate votes and giving them exclusive say over which proposals reach vote also diminishes the influence of the average person, so why don't we just junk it all it replace it with one person, one vote? Also consider Kandarin's fear that regions will subdivide in order to stack vote outcomes. Well, they could just as easily subdivide for purposes of getting favored proposals to quorum, couldn't they, so why don't we weight approvals as well?

I don't understand why the workings of a game must be perfectly "democratic" in order to function properly. There are plenty of regions in this game that aren't democracies, and they function just fine.

[Kandarin]

Then we best not implement [violet]'s idea of electing WA officers or impaneling in-game committees, either. Those also diminish the power of the "average person." Of course, weighting delegate votes and giving them exclusive say over which proposals reach vote also diminishes the influence of the average person, so why don't we just junk it all it replace it with one person, one vote? Also consider Kandarin's fear that regions will subdivide in order to stack vote outcomes. Well, they could just as easily subdivide for purposes of getting favored proposals to quorum, couldn't they, so why don't we weight approvals as well?

Sure, they could. And it's never taken off much in the present climate. But we are discussing a massive raising of the stakes that could mean salvation or destruction for many regions. Folks would be jockeying for all the advantage they can get.

[Unibot]

I'm not sure having delegates only would be the best idea or not. If there's a separate queue and then open voting, then having delegates approve proposals gives them a say. Or if it's just delegates and their vote counts with their endos, that gets non-delegates representation in the voting. But otherwise it's all delegates, blocking the average person from having a say.

My other idea, was that the queue could start out offering a fair equal, representation of nations for voting,

(For the sake of this debate I'll call the ratio between delegate's power and laypeople's power, 'Delegate Influence')

However, there would be two proposal categories for the security councils, one for the Advancement of Influence which would increase the Delegate Influence for the sake of political stability, and the Diplomatic Sanction proposal category which would lower the Delegate Influence for the sake of national sovereignty.

There would be other aims of the proposal category than just that, hence why people might actually use those proposal categories. But the increasing/decreasing of the voting ratio would be a side effect of those proposals.

[Urgench]

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?

There are negatives ?

But I think the culture clash is evident in what your saying Erastide. I'm truly sorry if any of my posts have been derogatory about GP. If they were overtly so at any point it was because it seemed that WA regulars were under attack. Actually though most of my posts have addressed GP only tangentially because I know only enough to know that I'm not interested in it, which is presumably how most GPers feel about what regulars get up to at the w.a.

When I say that current WA play and GP are irreconcilable that isn't a value judgement, neither is better or worse, they're just very very different. Wherein lies the problem.

I like the idea of a separate "Security Council" which deals with GP and leaves the WA I play intact. It's a more accurate simulacrum of what the organisation which shall not be named does anyway.

In this context though I personally would prefer that these two organisations were separate not just in function but in outward appearance too. A confusion of the two would be most bewildering to new players, and would lead to a lot of hassle with accidental conflation of the two entities in a lot of less well versed players of all kinds.

In what relationship the two should be to one another I can't say yet, because GP is as complicatedly constructed as what regulars do, and so far what I've been reading tells me that the points of overlap between the two are in fact points of conflict. The current discussion over what should and should not be in a C&C going on at the w.a. is a case in point, to regulars it is impossible to recognise a nation as a persona in the way GPers do, to us it's a state, it functions like a state, and therefore C&Cs which address a nation as a persona are Taboo. On the other hand GPers seem to object to the idea that C&Cs should be able to address rp'd characters and their actions, which of course is almost exactly how regulars would need to do it. In our case it would only make sense to commend the President of a nation for his actions in fighting poverty in his region by the policies he had introduced, commending this president and not some Nation incarnate.

I'm not saying this problem is insurmountable, but it is an example of the kind of bumps and lumps we face if GP and WA regulars are to coexist.

For the record I don't think elections to the Security Council are necessary, unless GP players would prefer it that way. Direct democracy works for the w.a. because the most interested put themselves forward, I expect that would hold true for the Security Council also.

[Erastide]

Not saying we need pure democracy, just offering up possibilities. Assuming C&C and other gameplay ideas become part of the Security Council, I'm not sure having 1 delegate, 1 vote and only delegates voting is the greatest idea though. Then, to get something passed, your best bet would be to get a ton of founder protected 2 WA nation regions and overwhelm the voting. Having it based on the number of endos a delegate has instead would remove that being a good idea I would think.

[Kandarin]

Assuming C&C and other gameplay ideas become part of the Security Council

Should it be put in with Gameplay things (if, indeed, the categories are sequestered, something I still think is a bad idea)? Gameplay-based proposals are the ones in queue so far, but there's no reason why Gameplay people are the only ones who have a use for C&Cs. RPers, General posters, WA regulars, and so forth all have nations, regions or players they'd like to see commended or condemned. There's even a rather well-written proposal for and by a WA regular that's well on its way to quorum right now. It shouldn't be segregated away.

[Unibot]

I was kind of thinking the C&Cs could become a cross-council thing.

[Allech-Atreus]

There's a big element we're forgetting to take into consideration, and that's influence. If we're using the Security Council to influence more gameplay aspects, why not use Influence as a means of ensuring unscrupulous things don't happen?

Let's take a hypothetical Security Council, composed of all delegates with more than four endorsements. Each vote from a Delegate in the Council costs a certain amount of Influence; if they vote they spend it, if they don't vote they don't spend it. The Council might have the following possible functions, two of which aren't really important:

1. Remove Password
2. Remove Delegate
3. Random Act of Violence
4. Random Act of Kindness

Now, 1 and 2 are very powerful abilities to possess, as has been noted. If delegates are given that power, we'll need to temper it with something like an expenditure in Influence, rather like a ban or ejection, to prevent abuse- meaning only in the most severe cases could it be used. Remove Delegate, for example, would take the biggest hit in Influence.,while Remove Password less, and the other actions even less. Accordingly, they would need a supermajority in the first two instances.

This would mean the effective power of the Council would be limited by the danger incurred by using it too much; much like IRL politicians with soft capital can't just spend it willy-nilly, they need to be careful about how they're going to act. Regions with loads of influence aren't going to worry too much about expending it to get their goal- but the real effort is in convincing Joe Smallregion to spend some of his precious Influence in order to get a supermajority.

I don't see a big difference in how this works with the WA right now- authors regularly go to the big regions and ask for votes, because have 200/300 extra votes helps a whole hell of a lot, but even with Feeder, Gatesville, Texas, or Wysteria support, resolutions can still fail because of the rank and file.

[Whamabama]

The only thing this will do is punish a delegate for doing what he might feel is the right thing. Either that or preventing him from doing a good thing because he is unwilling to waste influence.

The voting should be in my opinion the same as all WA issues. Either a good thing to vote for, or a bad thing.

We should not punish the nation for being able to vote.

[Kelssek]

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.

No, Todd. You have failed to understand what all the WA players have been banging on about, that gameplay cannot be mixed with the WA, not without completely overturning it, because raiding and gamplay, OOC things done OOCly with OOC motivations, will be forced into what has been entirely a nation RP arena. It would be much like making the II people recognise invasions of their regions in RP. In fact, gameplay considerations have been excluded from the WA by fiat as long as I can remember, and the result is that the WA has become a place in which injecting gameplay considerations will fundamentally change it in ways the WA players really, really, really, really, do not want and will not enjoy.

The real UN commending/condeming is besides the point, because the real UN is in no danger of losing its dignity or what influence it does have. There are only 220+ "players" in the real UN, none of whom have to worry about members of the AU invading ASEAN, ejecting the members, password-locking the region, and digging up the headquarters and airlifiting it from Jakarta to Addis Ababa. And that's besides the point; as we tell everyone who comes in complaining that resolution compliance is not mandatory in real life, wanting to set up a peacekeeping force, etc., This UN (or now, the WA), is not the real UN.

With all respect, Todd and Kandarin, you clearly don't understand why we find all this so objectionable. Given that this new gameplay in the WA thing is for the benefit of gameplayers like yourself, maybe those of us who have a lot more stake in how the WA functions should get to dictate how we want it to be done if it has to be done at all, and not you guys. That is the exceedingly polite version of what I would really like to say. And to clarify, Kandarin, I want that segregation. There are walls around the various "cliques", yes, but they're ones that can be crossed by those with the willingness to. There's nothing to gain by forcing the groups together thinking they'll get along, because what will really happen is the larger group will take over the smaller one.

[Kelssek]

And just so we can be clear what the general idea is:

Supposing C&Cs are here to stay, and additional gameplay things are going to be inflicted onto the WA, what will happen is this. The existing pre-C&Cs WA will become the General Assembly or some other less cease-and-desistable terminology and life goes on for us. The gameplay actions go into the "Security Council". Each has its own subforum, rules for proposals, proposal queue, etc., it's like two WAs for different purposes.

However, they'll both be under the single WA umbrella, and WA membership allows you to propose, vote, etc. on things being done in both areas. Under the World Assembly page, you could then have the opportunity to vote on both a normal resolution and a gameplay-oriented one, for instance. If something in the normal WA interests a gameplayer they can come over to debate it, and we WA players could use the Security Council to lobby for a C&C to be applied to someone we like/don't like, or if someone we know becomes the subject of such a thing. We can defenestrate and have the bodies land in the Security Council chamber.

I think that would be the most practicable solution if these changes, unfortunately, must go forward.

[Naivetry]

In what relationship the two should be to one another I can't say yet, because GP is as complicatedly constructed as what regulars do, and so far what I've been reading tells me that the points of overlap between the two are in fact points of conflict. The current discussion over what should and should not be in a C&C going on at the w.a. is a case in point, to regulars it is impossible to recognise a nation as a persona in the way GPers do, to us it's a state, it functions like a state, and therefore C&Cs which address a nation as a persona are Taboo. On the other hand GPers seem to object to the idea that C&Cs should be able to address rp'd characters and their actions, which of course is almost exactly how regulars would need to do it. In our case it would only make sense to commend the President of a nation for his actions in fighting poverty in his region by the policies he had introduced, commending this president and not some Nation incarnate.

It occurs to me that the conflict is because we understand nations in exactly opposite ways.

For WA regulars and RP folks, the actions of a nation are really just the actions of an RP character or suite of characters. No player actually exists. So why not refer to the character, rather than the nation?

For Gameplay folks, the actions of a nation are really just the actions of a player. No RP'd characters or government actually exist. So why not refer to the player, rather than the nation?

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.

That's the whole point - Feeders and the largest regions absolutely should have the greatest amount of Influence, because they represent the greatest number of players. You can't fake an endo count - the rules against multis ensure that, to the greatest extent anything in this game can be ensured. Endos = people. The Security Council voting should, therefore, work exactly as the WA does now. Anything besides straight endo-counts can (and in gameplay terms "can" = "will") be manipulated.

There's a big element we're forgetting to take into consideration, and that's influence. If we're using the Security Council to influence more gameplay aspects, why not use Influence as a means of ensuring unscrupulous things don't happen?

Influence can be manipulated with incredible ease. Tiny little regions will have an enormous store of Influence spread around very few nations within a very short period of time. We already have 'junk' or throwaway nations... this would lead to junk regions just so their Influence could be spent at will.

Making sure unscrupulous things don't happen is the responsibility of the voters. What's the point of voting otherwise?

---

With no disrespect to Todd, Kandarin, or their desire for a unified playerbase, I think total separation would be the best option for two reasons. 1) It would preserve the rules and respect the interests of the players at the heart of this WA community. 2) It would help us keep track of the different rules for each group, and the nature of the proposals that belonged in each.

And by total separation I mean this:

• WA membership would be required as normal - here is where we save the umbrella, the unifying aspect of the WA. This means that a seamless cross-over is still possible for those players who are interested in both aspects, as is the case today.
• Separate queues for proposals and separate records for resolutions.
• A distinguishing name (like WA Security Council - let's call it the WASC for now) for the new branch.
• A new, separate sidebar link (right under "World Assembly")
• A new subforum here for proposals and debate.
• WA legislation would deal with the things it always has - impacting national stats, etc. WASC resolutions would not affect nation statistics in anyway, but would instead deal with regions and other Gameplay-specific structures.
• WA legislation would operate under the same rules it always has. New rules would be created by the Gameplay folks to apply to the WASC.

...or basically, what Kelssek said.

[Ruzan]

And just so we can be clear what the general idea is:

Supposing C&Cs are here to stay, and additional gameplay things are going to be inflicted onto the WA, what will happen is this. The existing pre-C&Cs WA will become the General Assembly or some other less cease-and-desistable terminology and life goes on for us. The gameplay actions go into the "Security Council". Each has its own subforum, rules for proposals, proposal queue, etc., it's like two WAs for different purposes.

However, they'll both be under the single WA umbrella, and WA membership allows you to propose, vote, etc. on things being done in both areas. Under the World Assembly page, you could then have the opportunity to vote on both a normal resolution and a gameplay-oriented one, for instance. If something in the normal WA interests a gameplayer they can come over to debate it, and we WA players could use the Security Council to lobby for a C&C to be applied to someone we like/don't like, or if someone we know becomes the subject of such a thing. We can defenestrate and have the bodies land in the Security Council chamber.

I think that would be the most practicable solution if these changes, unfortunately, must go forward.

I agree with this approach. We already have a two-tiered WA. The "Security Council" is basically an expansion on the Gameplay side, and doesn't need to interfere with the "General Assembly".

[Unibot]

I agree with the Kelssek-Naivetry Pact.

I think it's important to retain the umbrella of the WA to ensure our fresh, new players don't have to worry about two email verifications for two different institutions - which I'm sure would be confusing and annoying (we might even loose new blood to it).

Though I'm not sure about adding the Security Council to the sidebar, instead how about the World Assembly link acts as a home page/verification page where the links to the two assemblies lie? With a notice appearing on the World Assembly Home Page on the latest resolutions to vote on in the GR and the SC (and a listing of the current voting results).

In simpleton's terms, the General Assembly deals with Nations, the Security Council deals with Regions and International Problems. I think that's actually very organized.

So yeah, I think this is all fine, and dandy. It's what I was leaning toward for the last day or two.

[Allech-Atreus]

It occurs to me that the conflict is because we understand nations in exactly opposite ways.

For WA regulars and RP folks, the actions of a nation are really just the actions of an RP character or suite of characters. No player actually exists. So why not refer to the character, rather than the nation?

Kandarin and I have been discussing this in the ruleset thread, so I won't go into it- but there are absolutely ways in which the wording can be blurred to make the distinction between Urgench-the-player and Urgench-the-nation and Urgench-the-government a non-issued. It's just a question of wording.

For Gameplay folks, the actions of a nation are really just the actions of a player. No RP'd characters or government actually exist. So why not refer to the player, rather than the nation?[/quote[

Because this is a nation simulation game and it's not asking too much of you to play a long a little, that's why.

That's the whole point - Feeders and the largest regions absolutely should have the greatest amount of Influence, because they represent the greatest number of players. You can't fake an endo count - the rules against multis ensure that, to the greatest extent anything in this game can be ensured. Endos = people. The Security Council voting should, therefore, work exactly as the WA does now. Anything besides straight endo-counts can (and in gameplay terms "can" = "will") be manipulated.

I really disagree- the power structure is too open abuse to follow this tack.

Influence can be manipulated with incredible ease. Tiny little regions will have an enormous store of Influence spread around very few nations within a very short period of time. We already have 'junk' or throwaway nations... this would lead to junk regions just so their Influence could be spent at will.

That's why it's influence as well as a supermajority vote.


Also, I'm jumping on the separation bandwagon.

[Unibot]

Also, I'm jumping on the separation bandwagon.

Dahm, and I was hoping the 'Kelssek-Naivetry Pact' would catch on
I think it sounds nicer than, 'lets separate'.

That's why it's influence as well as a supermajority vote.

I think it was just me that suggested that. Everyone seemed to have laughed that off...

[Naivetry]

That's the whole point - Feeders and the largest regions absolutely should have the greatest amount of Influence, because they represent the greatest number of players. You can't fake an endo count - the rules against multis ensure that, to the greatest extent anything in this game can be ensured. Endos = people. The Security Council voting should, therefore, work exactly as the WA does now. Anything besides straight endo-counts can (and in gameplay terms "can" = "will") be manipulated.

I really disagree- the power structure is too open abuse to follow this tack.

How is it open to abuse?

Influence can be manipulated with incredible ease. Tiny little regions will have an enormous store of Influence spread around very few nations within a very short period of time. We already have 'junk' or throwaway nations... this would lead to junk regions just so their Influence could be spent at will.

That's why it's influence as well as a supermajority vote.

And the super-majority vote is just as easily manipulated, because large regions will split their WA nations into whatever the required threshold is in order to increase their say. In fact, that only aggravates the problem of using Influence, because it gives regions even more incentive to subdivide.

[Unibot]

How is it open to abuse?

Sorry Nai, I'm slow

When you say a straight endo vote, you mean - no one gets a higher 'value' of vote and anyone in the WA can vote. Correct?

[Yelda]

Just a thought here. Since this security council (assuming it is ever established as a separate entity) would have authority over non-WA nations and non-WA regions wouldn't it make sense to call it the NationStates Security Council? I mean, that would define its role a little better since its authority would extend over the entire game, not just the WA.

[Erastide]

And just so we can be clear what the general idea is:
Supposing C&Cs are here to stay, and additional gameplay things are going to be inflicted onto the WA, what will happen is this. The existing pre-C&Cs WA will become the General Assembly or some other less cease-and-desistable terminology and life goes on for us. The gameplay actions go into the "Security Council". Each has its own subforum, rules for proposals, proposal queue, etc., it's like two WAs for different purposes.

However, they'll both be under the single WA umbrella, and WA membership allows you to propose, vote, etc. on things being done in both areas. Under the World Assembly page, you could then have the opportunity to vote on both a normal resolution and a gameplay-oriented one, for instance. If something in the normal WA interests a gameplayer they can come over to debate it, and we WA players could use the Security Council to lobby for a C&C to be applied to someone we like/don't like, or if someone we know becomes the subject of such a thing. We can defenestrate and have the bodies land in the Security Council chamber.

I think the way you laid that out was a good way of saying it. I think the WA is a good way of instituting some changes and bringing different aspects of the game to people as it's been our governing body, even if most don't participate actively in writing legislation.

[Unibot]

Just a thought here. Since this security council (assuming it is ever established as a separate entity) would have authority over non-WA nations and non-WA regions wouldn't it make sense to call it the NationStates Security Council? I mean, that would define its role a little better since its authority would extend over the entire game, not just the WA.

There is nothing in 'non-WA regions' to control.

The delegacy & regional influence are what the WASC would be concerned about. Which are both WA concepts.

[Yelda]

There is nothing in 'non-WA regions' to control.

I thought we were going to eventually have resolutions to remove regional passwords? Wouldn't those also apply to regions in which no WA members resided?