Advertisement
by Emperor Matthuis » Sun May 31, 2009 3:34 pm
by Erastide » Sun May 31, 2009 3:42 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun May 31, 2009 3:55 pm
Kandarin wrote: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.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sun May 31, 2009 3:56 pm
Erastide wrote: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.
by Kandarin » Sun May 31, 2009 3:58 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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 wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Unibot » Sun May 31, 2009 4:00 pm
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.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Urgench » Sun May 31, 2009 4:06 pm
Erastide wrote: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?
by Erastide » Sun May 31, 2009 4:16 pm
by Kandarin » Sun May 31, 2009 4:26 pm
Erastide wrote:Assuming C&C and other gameplay ideas become part of the Security Council
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Unibot » Sun May 31, 2009 4:35 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Allech-Atreus » Sun May 31, 2009 4:45 pm
by Whamabama » Sun May 31, 2009 5:51 pm
by Kelssek » Sun May 31, 2009 6:27 pm
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.
by Kelssek » Sun May 31, 2009 6:38 pm
by Naivetry » Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Urgench wrote: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.
Allech-Atreus wrote: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.
Allech-Atreus wrote: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?
by Ruzan » Sun May 31, 2009 6:48 pm
Kelssek wrote: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.
by Unibot » Sun May 31, 2009 7:00 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Allech-Atreus » Sun May 31, 2009 7:14 pm
Naivetry wrote: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?[/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.
by Unibot » Sun May 31, 2009 7:23 pm
Also, I'm jumping on the separation bandwagon.
That's why it's influence as well as a supermajority vote.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Naivetry » Sun May 31, 2009 8:01 pm
Allech-Atreus wrote: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.
by Unibot » Sun May 31, 2009 8:06 pm
How is it open to abuse?
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Yelda » Sun May 31, 2009 8:15 pm
by Erastide » Sun May 31, 2009 8:26 pm
Kelssek wrote: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.
by Unibot » Sun May 31, 2009 8:32 pm
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.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Yelda » Sun May 31, 2009 8:40 pm
Unibot wrote:There is nothing in 'non-WA regions' to control.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Angeloid Astraea, Angevin-Romanov Crimea, Bormiar, Hidrandia, Over watch, Rosartemis, The Ambis, The Kharkivan Cossacks, The Micro Union, The Socialist State of Brazil
Advertisement