by Enfaru » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:18 am
by Wallenburg » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:20 am
by Enfaru » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:23 am
by Wallenburg » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:25 am
Enfaru wrote:You try stopping the WA Delegate from voting on behalf of your region. It's not possible. Your region can vote as many times as it likes to remove itself from the WA so that it doesn't have a WA delegate...and yet... it remains.
Edit: I'm not talking about national membership, I'm talking about regional membership.
Whether you individually join the WA is indeed optional. Whether your region joins the WA is not.
by Gruenberg » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:25 am
by Enfaru » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:29 am
Gruenberg wrote:There is no such thing as "regional membership" of the WA, nor would there be any rule against a Founder creating a region and then ejecting anyone who joined the WA.
by Gruenberg » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:33 am
Enfaru wrote:Lets assume the Founder is inactive for I dunno.
by Wallenburg » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:34 am
It's populated by 20 members. Two WA nations join. Founder isn't around to ban them. They endorse each other. They vote on a matter and thereby represent all 22 members in one go.
If the founder falls inactive, WA Delegate position is automatically made executive (rightly or wrongly, whether against the founders or regional wishes or not).
There is no way to disable or remove the WA Delegate position.
QED. For regions, it's mandatory that if they have WA members and WA members endorse each other that it is part of the World Assembly.
Edit: Good luck stopping members endorsing each other. This is also not what I'm asking, I'm quite happy with members endorsing each other. I am just curious why a Region absolutely has to be represented at the World Assembly?
by Enfaru » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:38 am
by Gruenberg » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:45 am
by Wallenburg » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:51 am
Enfaru wrote:Wallenburg,
Okay, lets just switch the numbers around then. 20 normal members of which none are WA members, three WA members join, they all endorse one WA member. They vote on a matter and thereby represent all 23 members in one go.
While you may think it is bullshit, in practice if the founder CTEs (falls inactive) the WA Delegate position is automatically made executive (as soon as a WA nation joins I assume).
Unfortunately banning all WA nations does not disable nor remove the WA Delegate position, it just makes it unfilled. If the Founder doesn't get on in time to ban WA members and they endorse each other and vote, there's nothing the founder or any of the other regional members can do to stop them.
by Enfaru » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:58 am
Wallenburg wrote:Enfaru wrote:Wallenburg,
Okay, lets just switch the numbers around then. 20 normal members of which none are WA members, three WA members join, they all endorse one WA member. They vote on a matter and thereby represent all 23 members in one go.
Still not how WA representation works. Are you actually reading my posts?While you may think it is bullshit, in practice if the founder CTEs (falls inactive) the WA Delegate position is automatically made executive (as soon as a WA nation joins I assume).
You set the hypothetical founder's inactivity at a length of a week. Nations do not CTE in a week. Get your word choice straightened out.Unfortunately banning all WA nations does not disable nor remove the WA Delegate position, it just makes it unfilled. If the Founder doesn't get on in time to ban WA members and they endorse each other and vote, there's nothing the founder or any of the other regional members can do to stop them.
Again, that is a personal problem. If a founder is too lazy or otherwise preoccupied to enforce their rules, they probably shouldn't have taken on the responsibility of running a region in the first place. Besides, what exactly is the problem with having a delegate for a couple days? They can do literally nothing but cast a slightly more powerful vote than non-delegates. They won't exactly be hurting the region.
by Wallenburg » Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:05 am
Enfaru wrote:Wallenburg wrote:Still not how WA representation works. Are you actually reading my posts?
You set the hypothetical founder's inactivity at a length of a week. Nations do not CTE in a week. Get your word choice straightened out.
Again, that is a personal problem. If a founder is too lazy or otherwise preoccupied to enforce their rules, they probably shouldn't have taken on the responsibility of running a region in the first place. Besides, what exactly is the problem with having a delegate for a couple days? They can do literally nothing but cast a slightly more powerful vote than non-delegates. They won't exactly be hurting the region.
You said, you needed two endorsements to be a WA delegate. Three WA members. 2 WA Members Endorse 1 WA Member. 1 WA Member becomes delegate. Takes 1 update to get promoted and about three days to have their vote reflected on a resolution.
If a founder is inactive for a week, it takes less than that for three WA nations to come in, endorse each other, get a WA delegate position, vote on a WA resolution and bugger off before the Founder even manages to login again. If a Founder is inactive for 30 days they typically CTE and suddenly the WA Delegate position becomes executive...or executive as soon as a WA nation moves in (not sure which).
Representing the region, even though the region doesn't want to be represented? You don't think that's a problem?
Still none of this answers the query about why regional World Assembly membership is mandatory from day one. Why are regions assumed to have a seat at the table of the World Assembly?
by Bears Armed » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:42 am
I've seen it done.Gruenberg wrote:There is no such thing as "regional membership" of the WA, nor would there be any rule against a Founder creating a region and then ejecting anyone who joined the WA.
Wallenburg wrote:Besides, you need two endorsements to become WA delegate.
by Flanderlion » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:50 am
Bears Armed wrote:I've seen it done.Gruenberg wrote:There is no such thing as "regional membership" of the WA, nor would there be any rule against a Founder creating a region and then ejecting anyone who joined the WA.Wallenburg wrote:Besides, you need two endorsements to become WA delegate.
Ur'rmm, no: although two endorsements are needed to submit proposals, only one is required for Delegate status... Maybeso you're subconsciously confusing this with the fact that giving that one endorsement from one WA member to another requires having at least the two of them in the region?
by Bears Armed » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:57 am
Good point.Flanderlion wrote:Also the voting page shows 1 endorsement delegates as (2) because it is the amount of endorsements have, plus their own vote.
by Tinhampton » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:47 am
by Enfaru » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:22 am
by Bears Armed » Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:09 am
Enfaru wrote:Which is why I'm trying to find out what lead to the decision to auto enrol regions into the WA
by Enfaru » Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:17 am
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:19 pm
Wallenburg wrote:That's not how delegates or WA membership works. Besides, you need two endorsements to become WA delegate.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Arkala, Battadia, Misdainana, Russian Brotherhood, Tungstan
Advertisement