Split SC from GA Completely

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Ard, this is not a numbers game. The volume of SC proposals isn't necessarily the root of the debate. What's at issue here is the unnecessary conflict between players in the two chambers that would not exist if they didn't have to share the same queue, and the difficulty of the SC to grow and develop as an organization while being so cumbersomely joined at the waist to the GA. The two branches are completely different. If they had more of a chance to develop separate identities (which is presumably what the admins wanted, since they disregarded the GA rules as inapplicable to the SC), the SC might attract more players and find new issues worth discussing, and the GA would be less annoyed at its legislative docket being constantly interrupted by votes on 10000 Islands.

The Nazi Europe and 10000 Islands repetition might also be resolved by attracting new participants (with new issues), but that's not going to happen so long as players are not really encouraged to be active in the SC. It has its own forum, but it doesn't have its own sidebar, its own page, or even a mention in the FAQ. You can't get many chicks when you're stuck living in your mom's basement, you know. (Or perhaps a more apt metaphor involving bratty children who refuse to share the same toy? )

[The Republic of Lanos]

Ard, this is not a numbers game. The volume of SC proposals isn't necessarily the root of the debate. What's at issue here is the unnecessary conflict between players in the two chambers that would not exist if they didn't have to share the same queue, and the difficulty of the SC to grow and develop as an organization while being so cumbersomely joined at the waist to the GA. The two branches are completely different. If they had more of a chance to develop separate identities (which is presumably what the admins wanted, since they disregarded the GA rules as inapplicable to the SC), the SC might attract more players and find new issues worth discussing, and the GA would be less annoyed at its legislative docket being constantly interrupted by votes on 10000 Islands.

The Nazi Europe and 10000 Islands repetition might also be resolved by attracting new participants (with new issues), but that's not going to happen so long as players are not really encouraged to be active in the SC. It has its own forum, but it doesn't have its own sidebar, its own page, or even a mention in the FAQ. You can't get many chicks when you're stuck living in your mom's basement, you know. (Or perhaps a more apt metaphor involving bratty children who refuse to share the same toy? )

This should go to Pyth as well.

[Qumkent]

Sorry, Todd, for getting your allegiance wrong. The complaints in the past had usually been launched by the "omg, get the SC away from me"ers, so the third condition tipped the scales prematurely.

This is extremely telling, we'll all expect a fair hearing in future then

But I still see no compelling arguments or evidence here. I see that a few people in both camps want them split. I see no evidence that you guys are representative rather than merely vocal, nor that you're actually right. Topid's point that a small number of delegates who are only interested in one council will fail to endorse proposals from the other has merit, but I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing. At worst, it means authors have to do a better job of writing and campaigning.

Ok so your presuming that there exists a huge representative silent majority of WA members who're just delighted with the current dispensation then are you ? Are you really suggesting that delegates with no interest in endorsing the resolutions of a branch of the WA they don't like should be factored in to resolution writing and campaigning ? Why would that be a good thing exactly ? How could it possibly improve resolution quality ? In any case why should these delegates become the focus of the efforts of members who's game style and interests they have no interest in ? Are you telling me that I should write an anti Gemological Fraud resolution with an antagonistic or apathetic Gameplay oriented delegate in mind, and then to focus my campaigning efforts on such a delegate ?

If I'm going to take time out of my schedule to do this, I need something more compelling. For example, you could address the points that [violet] has made and explain why they're no longer valid in the new reality of the WA. Or why they should be outweighed by the arguments against.

The "new reality of the WA" is that two essentilly unrelated entities which are mutually incompatible, which do things which have no relationship or interaction are now uncomfortably housed under the same roof. Both presumably seek to compete for attention and relevance to play, yet neither can effectively do so with the encumbrance of the other holding them back. One of these entities, the SC has shown no ability to innovate, drive an effective agenda, or to even effectively undertake the purpose it was charged with.

I don't say that because I oppose the SC, I say it because that much is obvious. If [Violet] is serious about making the SC work then surely she should be interested in doing whatever it takes to make it viable, no ? Indeed if the SC can be made to thrive by its seperation from the GA surely it would be axiomatic that that seperation is a good thing.

However if your position is "We've gone to a lot of effort to force the SC and the GA to coexist, now shut up and put up" then perhaps even discussing ways to make the SC a success by its possible seperation from the GA is pointless.

[Todd McCloud]

Huzzah! This is indeed gaining support!

[Krioval]

Well, I was one of the people involved in asking for this in July, when the SC had around six or seven proposals in the queue - most were deleted (I presume) for technical illegalities since most of them never came to a floor vote. At the time, I (and several others) was (were) upset that GA business was being preempted by the SC. So I suppose that was part of the reason that the alternation between GA and SC business in the proposal queue. A good start, as it doesn't automatically block one chamber from voting on resolutions. But it's woefully inefficient in times of high volume, and I hardly think that it's terribly inappropriate to point out something like that - it seems self-evident to many.

As for a solution, maybe it's a huge drain of resources to separate the chambers; I'm not a programmer, so I can't determine that. At the very least, both chambers need additional visibility, the SC more than the GA. The SC could use some guiding principles for proposal/resolution rules and the establishment of precedent, or at least how precedent could be established. The SC could also benefit from additional categories, maybe a one-shot resolution that clears a delegate-imposed banlist (by "one-shot" I mean that it'd clear the list at the moment of passage, and thus not affect future bans).

[Cobdenia]

The seperation of the two was something that was called for since the introduction of the new categories, and would benefit both enormously. In all honesty the only reason not to do it that I see is purely a coding one

[[violet]]

I think the fact that both sides are now asking for the same thing is good enough reason alone to start demanding again that this pretty reasonable solution to be implemented. .. And good enough reason for [violet] to start considering our thoughts on the subject.

I don't think everybody is asking for the same thing, though. There are plenty of people saying, "The GA and the SC should be split," but they refer to different parts. Currently, the GA and the SC are already separate in some areas (voting queues, forums, legislation books) and shared in others (membership mechanism, sidebar link, resolution voting floor).

So I don't really know how to respond to the broad comment, "They should be split." I'm happy to debate changes to any of the above aspects, but I haven't seen a consensus on which aspects should be changed and how. Some people want separate sidebars, some separate membership mechanisms, some want different quorums, some don't. The greatest overlap I see is people wanting each council to have its own resolution voting floor, so a GA vote doesn't delay the SC, nor vice versa: I have been mildly opposed to this, because I think it adds visual confusion to the WA for not much benefit, but this thread has good counter-arguments.

I should say though that I'd want to hear a good case as to why this change will significantly improve the game experience, because the Councils have already received a lot of developer time over the last few months, delaying other game features. Right now, I'm prepared to put this on the To-Do list, but not at the top.

[Qumkent]

I should say though that I'd want to hear a good case as to why this change will significantly improve the game experience, because the Councils have already received a lot of developer time over the last few months, delaying other game features. Right now, I'm prepared to put this on the To-Do list, but not at the top.

In all fairness [Violet] the developer time was not actually provoked by player request. C&Cs, liberation, the SC were parachuted in to the WA either from out of the blue or as a hurried and seemingly inefficacious fix. The SC simply doesn't function in line with expectations, it's essentially moribund. The GA snd SC have nothing in common and deal with nothing in the same way or in any way alike, why they are forced to coexist as though they had anything in common is a mystery. The upshot is that the WA functions like someone with a non-viable vestigial twin attached to them, inconvenienced by the incumbrances and hampered by the connection. The SC might well thrive were it formally seperated from the GA and the GA would function more smoothly without the SC.

The question I'm surprised your not asking is "Does the current organisation of these Councils actually improve the game experience ?", the obvious answer is no. GA experience is not enhanced by having to pause to deal with the inchoate and faltering nonesense of the SC and the SC resents the influence of the more developed and more focused presence of the GA, and has shown no real ability to improve game experience for the players it was intended to improve things for.

If the current situation does not improve things then why insist that it continue ?

[The Altani Federation]

Count me as another vote for some form of separation between the SC and the GA.

I am sympathetic to the workload this would create for the admins, but ultimately, this is workload created to fix a problem the majority of SC and GA people dislike immensely, caused by game changes few people in either camp asked for in the first place. The only reason I can see for not fixing this boils down to "we don't want to fix it even though it's broken because it's work and we're being stubborn and we'd have to admit we made a mistake".

Separating the two groups would end the squabbling caused when you put two incompatible groups together and ask them to use the same limited resource. It would allow the SC and the GA to flourish doing what they prefer and like without having to be distracted by things that are utterly unrelated to their desired style of gameplay. That, by itself, would greatly improve the game experience for both sides, and do a lot to coincidentally fix the rancor that has erupted between the two sides since the forced merging of their worlds.

Separate the SC from the GA, both in voting and membership mechanisms, and let the SC players develop their own ruleset for the SC, in conjunction with the admins/mods, that is free from any connection to the GA. That would ultimately be the best solution.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I don't think everybody is asking for the same thing, though. There are plenty of people saying, "The GA and the SC should be split," but they refer to different parts. Currently, the GA and the SC are already separate in some areas (voting queues, forums, legislation books) and shared in others (membership mechanism, sidebar link, resolution voting floor).

They aren't separate queues; it's the same queue with a sort option. All the GA wants is separate queues and concurrent voting to make the voting process more efficient, and to ease the conflict between the two branches that stems from having to share the same queue. You've heard this argument before, and since then the problem has only grown worse, as members of both branches resent having their business delayed while the other branch votes on its ninth Nazi Europe repeal, or another flawed fair-trial replacement.

The SCers seem to be forming a consensus around the idea of separate sidebars and pages for the two branches, to give the SC more visibility and accessibility, so they can grow and develop as an organization without having to be completely associated with the GA, which has goals and a purpose entirely different from their own. And it makes sense, seeing as most players have no idea that the two branches are completely different, and some might want to become more involved with either branch if they knew more about the WA's organization. Separate sidebars would obviously make this more clear to the public at large -- just as they can click on the WA sidebar now and quickly learn that the WA is the world's governing body and that it gives them the opportunity to vote on resolutions. This would be good for the SC, because right now the organization has been struggling to form an identity, having been dominated by the same invader/defender cliques since its formation and thus suffering difficulty attracting new followers (new followers who might want to vote on something besides 10000 Islands).

At this point, I don't believe anyone is advocating the total separation of the WA, or even separate membership; just separate quarters for the two branches. In fact, if we took a vote, I'm certain Unibot's solution of one main WA sidebar with two smaller sidebars underneath for the GA and the SC would be considered the fairest compromise for all concerned. This would also involve separate queues and voting floors. I don't know if this would create a coding nightmare for you guys, but for players in both branches, the current situation is frustratingly awkward and inefficient and has gone on long enough.

edit: read the WFE on the region The Security Council and it will give you a fair idea how the average SCer feels about the current situation.

edit2: see Uni's comments below re: shared queue/divided voting.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

edit: read the WFE on the region The Security Council and it will give you a fair idea how the average SCer feels about the current situation.

It's a little overemotional, and biased -- but yes. (Topid appears to be a very devoted SC follower)

Maybe my meta-joke proposal could offer a less partisan view.

[Topid]

(Topid appears to be a very devoted SC follower)

If feeling the game will be improved when the GA has been removed of all power and reduced to a few socialists in a room talking about the good ol' days, makes me devoted, then I am guilty as charged.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

At this point, I don't believe anyone is advocating the total separation of the WA, or even separate membership; just separate quarters for the two branches. In fact, if we took a vote, I'm certain Unibot's solution of one main WA sidebar with two smaller sidebars underneath for the GA and the SC would be considered the fairest compromise for all concerned. This would also involve separate queues and voting floors. I don't know if this would create a coding nightmare for you guys, but for players in both branches, the current situation is frustratingly awkward and inefficient and has gone on long enough.

I think they should link to seperate minipages for the two branches for identity reasons as you've mentioned , but the links ([List Proposals] [Submit a Proposal]) on those pages could go to the same queue page as we have now -- as it appears separated (with just the option to amalgamate the two). That would save time for coding probably. The main point, is to have seperate proposal at-votes running at the same time, that would prevent a lot of this "SC is wasting time/GA is wasting time" crap that has cropped up in the last few months.

[Krioval]

I think the best way to sum up my experience, is that the merged list and queue inspire resentment due to the wildly different natures of the two chambers: the GA tends to be an RP forum, wherein national ambassadors discuss legislation that alters national statistics; the SC tends to be an OOC forum in which players discuss legislation that affects gameplay issues. It becomes increasingly difficult to discern what governs which chamber when they're sometimes the same (same queues, lists, and part of the WA) and sometimes different (different rulesets, IC/OOC distinctions, aspect of NS play), and participating in both chambers almost always requires one to "admit preference" for one chamber or another. If you're a dedicated GA poster, criticism of the SC looks entirely self-serving - you're out to destroy the SC to revert the sole focus to the GA. If you're a dedicated SC poster, criticism of the GA also looks entirely self-serving - you're denigrating a historical and noble institution to pass innumerable proposals on Nazi Europe and 10000 Islands. The fact that both chambers are tearing at the same piece of meat, so to speak, encourages these divisions.

Thus, I prefer a solution in which the two organizations are still part of the WA, such as it is, but have separate proposal lists, queues, and guiding principles. I don't feel that moving SC proposals to a separate queue is going to diminish its legislative potential, as just about any proposal needs a coherent telegram campaign to reach quorum, and I don't see that changing in any case.

[Daynor]

I'm going to use an example from my resolution campaigning to support this topic, I do not want to get this topic off-topic, so please, don't comment about my proposal in this thread unless it is in the context of the example. There is another thread for that.

I recieved a telegram attacking me, and the mods, for letting my proposal reach quorum when it recognizes that NS is a game, breaks the fourth wall, has OOC arguements, recognizes "regions", and all this other list of things that would be horrible to do in the GA but are totally fine, and in fact expected, in the SC. (Though I'm not sure if I really break the fourth wall, I tried hard not to, I think I just dented it.)

I explained to him the difference between SC and GA rules but he just couldn't understand.

It confuses people to see resolutions so different in nature and the different rules which apply to them together. Not all of us are active on the forums.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I think they should link to seperate minipages for the two branches for identity reasons as you've mentioned , but the links ([List Proposals] [Submit a Proposal]) on those pages could go to the same queue page as we have now -- as it appears separated (with just the option to amalgamate the two). That would save time for coding probably. The main point, is to have seperate proposal at-votes running at the same time, that would prevent a lot of this "SC is wasting time/GA is wasting time" crap that has cropped up in the last few months.

If you mean that both branches share the same queue, and draw quorate proposals from it for vote as required, then yes, that would probably work just fine. The main issue is the shared voting mechanism, not necessarily the same queue. Players could click on the SC sidebar to see the SC res at vote, and the GA sidebar for the GA one. And with the shared queue, players like Topid who are primarily focused on one branch can still see what business is upcoming in the other chamber.

[Unibot]

I think they should link to seperate minipages for the two branches for identity reasons as you've mentioned , but the links ([List Proposals] [Submit a Proposal]) on those pages could go to the same queue page as we have now -- as it appears separated (with just the option to amalgamate the two). That would save time for coding probably. The main point, is to have seperate proposal at-votes running at the same time, that would prevent a lot of this "SC is wasting time/GA is wasting time" crap that has cropped up in the last few months.

If you mean that both branches share the same queue, and draw quorate proposals from it for vote as required, then yes, that would probably work just fine. The main issue is the shared voting mechanism, not necessarily the same queue. Players could click on the SC sidebar to see the SC res at vote, and the GA sidebar for the GA one. And with the shared queue, players like Topid who are primarily focused on one branch can still see what business is upcoming in the other chamber.

Yep. That just about sums it up.

[List Proposals] on the GA page would go .. hmm... to where that link takes you, and [List Proposals] on the SC page would go... well, where that link takes you.

The semi-divided queue works fine as it is.

It's the At-Vote process that needs to be divided, that's all.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

edit: read the WFE on the region The Security Council and it will give you a fair idea how the average SCer feels about the current situation.

It's a little overemotional, and biased -- but yes. (Topid appears to be a very devoted SC follower)

I thought most would take it as tongue-in-cheek, actually. I didn't mean "the average SCer" hates the GA. ...OK, Topid maybe, but the average SCer...

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

edit: read the WFE on the region The Security Council and it will give you a fair idea how the average SCer feels about the current situation.

It's a little overemotional, and biased -- but yes. (Topid appears to be a very devoted SC follower)

I thought most would take it as tongue-in-cheek, actually. I didn't mean "the average SCer" hates the GA. ...OK, Topid maybe, but the average SCer...

Er... the MODE.
And if I stand beside him, and someone else sandwiches him that makes a MEDIAN.

[[violet]]

The question I'm surprised your not asking is "Does the current organisation of these Councils actually improve the game experience ?", the obvious answer is no.

Compared to what? Compared to when C&C legislation was mixed in with the rest, it sure is. Compared to the pre-C&Cs situation, you might think it's a step backward (particularly if you are hardcore GA), but the residents of Belgium probably don't think so. Compared to ideal, okay, but please recognize there are a thousand things that could be better in NS, and I don't have time to do all of them. I already have a lot of good stuff backed up because the WA took precedence.

If the current situation does not improve things then why insist that it continue ?

I don't need to insist that it continue. It continues all by itself. I know you only want things to be better, but when you equate something that requires me to do lots of work with something that requires no work, you're assuming my time has no value.

Count me as another vote for some form of separation between the SC and the GA.

I am sympathetic to the workload this would create for the admins, but ultimately, this is workload created to fix a problem the majority of SC and GA people dislike immensely, caused by game changes few people in either camp asked for in the first place. The only reason I can see for not fixing this boils down to "we don't want to fix it even though it's broken because it's work and we're being stubborn and we'd have to admit we made a mistake".

Separating the two groups would end the squabbling caused when you put two incompatible groups together and ask them to use the same limited resource. It would allow the SC and the GA to flourish doing what they prefer and like without having to be distracted by things that are utterly unrelated to their desired style of gameplay. That, by itself, would greatly improve the game experience for both sides, and do a lot to coincidentally fix the rancor that has erupted between the two sides since the forced merging of their worlds.

Separate the SC from the GA, both in voting and membership mechanisms, and let the SC players develop their own ruleset for the SC, in conjunction with the admins/mods, that is free from any connection to the GA. That would ultimately be the best solution.

I'm quoting this entire post because it's yet another one I read all the way through hunting in vain for specifics. It's a passionate argument in favor of I don't know what. "Separate the SC from the GA, both in voting and membership mechanisms": so, what, regions should have both a GA Delegate and an SC Delegates? The "Endorse" button becomes two: "Endorse for GA" and "Endorse for SC"? There are two sets of Regional Influence, one based on GA endorsements and one on SC endorsements? Are you in favor of separate sidebar links, don't care, opposed? A single WA page, or you think they must have separate pages?

If you're posting in this thread, please, step one, tell me exactly what you want to change. I'm not privy to the IRC discussions or background forum threads where you came to this opinion: I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't think everybody is asking for the same thing, though. There are plenty of people saying, "The GA and the SC should be split," but they refer to different parts. Currently, the GA and the SC are already separate in some areas (voting queues, forums, legislation books) and shared in others (membership mechanism, sidebar link, resolution voting floor).

They aren't separate queues; it's the same queue with a sort option.

Why do you think that? Is it because they can be viewed as a merged queue? I.e. if I removed the "All Proposals" option and people could only view either GA or SC, is that what you want? I mean, it's just data. It can be represented any which way. I feel like you want me to walk you over to the server and point to one disk, "This is where we keep the GA proposals," and another disk, "This is for the SC proposals." What constitutes separation?

At this point, I don't believe anyone is advocating the total separation of the WA, or even separate membership; just separate quarters for the two branches. In fact, if we took a vote, I'm certain Unibot's solution of one main WA sidebar with two smaller sidebars underneath for the GA and the SC would be considered the fairest compromise for all concerned. This would also involve separate queues and voting floors. I don't know if this would create a coding nightmare for you guys, but for players in both branches, the current situation is frustratingly awkward and inefficient and has gone on long enough.

It would really help me if you would mock up a very specific proposal along these lines. Call it the Unibot Model and say exactly what it would entail (e.g. two more sidebar links, what would be on the main WA page, what would be on the SC and GA pages, and so on). Because right now I don't have confidence that people in this thread who sound like they're agreeing really are. (For example, the Altani Federation at least is in favor of separate membership.)

Get some numbers behind a specific model and I'm a lot happier.

[[violet]]

Sorry, more rant, because I just remembered Todd McCloud started this thread, and it's called "Split SC from GA Completely." Well, (1) "Completely" doesn't actually seem to mean completely, at least to most people in this thread, and (2) one of the things this would delay is the TG/communications revamp, which Todd has been hounding me to implement.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Since [violet] wants specifics, this is what I think is a fair solution: (We'll call it The Unibot Model. )

1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"

2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.

3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions separated by Security Council/General Assembly types.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the separation of the Security Council/General Assembly.

4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current General Assembly proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.

5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current Security Council proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.

--
Feel free to modify as you wish, fellow posters. I'm sure there are many a problem with this.

(Also, terribly sorry if I've misunderstood the desires of other posters.)

[Bears Armed]

Since [violet] wants specifics, this is what I think is a fair solution: (We'll call it The Unibot Model. )

1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"

2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.

3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions separated by Security Council/General Assembly types.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the separation of the Security Council/General Assembly.

4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current General Assembly proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.

5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current Security Council proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.

--
Feel free to modify as you wish, fellow posters. I'm sure there are many a problem with this.

(Also, terribly sorry if I've misunderstood the desires of other posters.)

That looks fine to me.

[Philimbesi]

Same here.

[Qumkent]

The question I'm surprised your not asking is "Does the current organisation of these Councils actually improve the game experience ?", the obvious answer is no.

Compared to what? Compared to when C&C legislation was mixed in with the rest, it sure is. Compared to the pre-C&Cs situation, you might think it's a step backward (particularly if you are hardcore GA), but the residents of Belgium probably don't think so. Compared to ideal, okay, but please recognize there are a thousand things that could be better in NS, and I don't have time to do all of them. I already have a lot of good stuff backed up because the WA took precedence.

If you have a backlog it's no fault of WA players. If you had to do a lot of work to satisfy the concerns of WA players its because you didn't really consult them before you introduced certain innovations. If you feel like you've already wasted enough time on this part of the game and its fractious players then I'm sorry, but the forced co-existence of the SC and the GA is like chronic pain leftover from a rushed surgery from a car crash which wasn't the victim's fault. In this case a surgery carried out by the author of the accident.

I'm quite sure that there are a host of improvements which need your attention, but how many of them are the result of a disimprovement created by you ?

Certainly Belgium may be delighted with their liberation, but how many other regions need liberation but have faced delay in that due to the queue being backed up with quorate GA proposals ? A delay which has discouraged delegates from approving their liberation, instead opting to suppport more traditional methods of region liberation ? How many liberations have not even been proposed because of this disinsentive ? A liberation postponed is a liberation denied in some cases I suspect.

If the current situation does not improve things then why insist that it continue ?

I don't need to insist that it continue. It continues all by itself. I know you only want things to be better, but when you equate something that requires me to do lots of work with something that requires no work, you're assuming my time has no value.

OK, lets be clear here, I in no way equated what you may have to do to change the current situation with something which requires no work. I was making the point that you had offered no good reason why the current situation should continue and seemed to be in favour of leaving things the way they are as a default position, insisting that it continue for the sake of insisting.

It doesn't really continue all by itself though, it continues because you want it to. A situation you precipitated continues because you see no good reason to go to the doubtless very great effort of changing it.

The problem with that is that the very viability of the innovations you in good faith introduced is at stake. The effort to bring GP in to the fabric of the game via the WA has not been successful. What has happened is that a lot of rancour and mutual distrust has arrisen between two player groups who now compete for the same oxigen in order to play the game in totally different ways which have no reason to be in such friction with one another.

The major improvement which might end a large part of the friction if not the glarring incongruity is allowing both SC and GA to vote on resolutions at the same time and defining the two councils seperately in the form of sidebar buttons.

I'll be even more clear here, I accept and that you have spent a lot of time and effort on this aspect of the game, and I thank you for your continued attention to it and for having committed to so much time and effort in trying to solve some of the issues these innovations have thrown up. But there are players of the WA who have devoted incalculable hours of their lives ( granted of their own volition ) to building this incredibly rich and complicated aspect of the game, and to dismiss their concerns and suggestions is as much of an insult as the one you percieved me offering your work on the WA.