by NewTexas » Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:43 am
by Jamie Anumia » Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:46 am
by NewTexas » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:12 am
by Sanctaria » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:13 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:29 am
by NewTexas » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:30 am
Sanctaria wrote:The option you chose explicitly said a result of choosing would be World Assembly resignation.
by Sanctaria » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:34 am
NewTexas wrote:Howver, these are not statisics that are being changed here! This is a change in game mechanics. And doing that without warning anyone is not fair.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:35 am
Sanctaria wrote:We typically don't announce new issues. As far as I'm aware, when issue opened up new customisable fields it wasn't announced.
by Sanctaria » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:36 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Sanctaria wrote:We typically don't announce new issues. As far as I'm aware, when issue opened up new customisable fields it wasn't announced.
Yes it was.
by NewTexas » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:42 am
by Sedgistan » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:47 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:48 am
by NewTexas » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:53 am
by Sedgistan » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:54 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:They've never needed to wait for a special issue just to do it
There's no trick. The option makes the consequences clear.Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:and they certainly don't need to be "tricked" into it.
Same as any other issue - make a decision on shaping your nation.Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:SO WHAT'S THE BLOODY POINT?? (as my Brit friends might say)
by San Leggera » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:57 am
NewTexas wrote:That is our point Kenny - we feel tricked by the game into doing something we did not know was possible to do! If we had any inkling you could be ejected from the WA by answering an issue, we certainly would have considered our answer more carefully.
"Micromanagement, micromanagement, MICROMANAGEMENT!!!" your Minister for Domestic Affairs shouts, banging his fists on your table. "Those buffoons are seriously overreaching their authority! Every resolution that infernal Assembly passes is an attack on our ability to pass our own legislation! We can't, and shouldn't, have nations full of fools ignorant to our way of life make our decisions for us. We'd be better off without that godforsaken snakepit ... we MUST resign from the World Assembly."
by NewTexas » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:03 am
by The Republic of Lanos » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:12 am
by Jamie Anumia » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:15 am
The Republic of Lanos wrote:I got an idea. Make an issue forcing nations to join/rejoin the WA.
Otherwise, the interest of fairness goes out the window as people fall victim to this unwarned issue.
by The Republic of Lanos » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:17 am
Jamie Anumia wrote:The Republic of Lanos wrote:I got an idea. Make an issue forcing nations to join/rejoin the WA.
Otherwise, the interest of fairness goes out the window as people fall victim to this unwarned issue.
I can't imagine forcing nations to join would bring a good effect. Since..if they have a WA already, the issue would force them to multi.
by Sedgistan » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:17 am
The Republic of Lanos wrote:I got an idea. Make an issue forcing nations to join/rejoin the WA.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Otherwise, the interest of fairness goes out the window as people fall victim to this unwarned issue.
by Jamie Anumia » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:28 am
NewTexas wrote:Well, if an issue can force you to resign against your will, why is it so far fetched to force you to join against your will?
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:26 am
by Luna Amore » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:30 am
Luna Amore wrote:I'd just like to add that this wasn't a quick decision by any means. We've been working on that issue since March. From it's inception we tried to make it as clear as possible what the major consequence of that choice would be. We set aside the long standing rule of issues that aims for ambiguity for this issue because of the effect. It was deemed clear enough by everyone on the issue editing team and two admins.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:34 am
Luna Amore wrote:I'll just repeat what I said in the Got Issues? thread:Luna Amore wrote:I'd just like to add that this wasn't a quick decision by any means. We've been working on that issue since March. From it's inception we tried to make it as clear as possible what the major consequence of that choice would be. We set aside the long standing rule of issues that aims for ambiguity for this issue because of the effect. It was deemed clear enough by everyone on the issue editing team and two admins.
Advertisement
Advertisement