A More Powerful Security Council

[Helaw]

In light of the recent apparent "selfie" by The Invaders, the time has come again to discuss the prospect of giving the Security Council's resolutions more teeth to bear.

It has become clear recently that condemnations and liberations are being manipulated directly by raider regions to give themselves more attention rather than to actually punish a region, and this is seen by many to be a major inherent problem with the system that the SC currently utilises; it is abused, and it is essentially mocked by the regions and nations that it is meant to punish or praise. We have again come to a point where we should discuss giving the SC power to actually fear being affected by.

The issue is difficult to tackle, however. What can we do? What can we actually change to stop this abuse of the system? There are a few ideas that I have conjured or have been given by other nations, and I hope that this thread can host further discussion:
• Commendations should provide boosts to the stats of nations, whether they are individual nations or nations within a commended region.
• Commendations should provide a clear badge, making them attractive to newcomers. Condemned nations and regions often consider their condemnation a symbol of success and honour; why not change that to commendations?
• Condemnations should lower the statistics of nations, in a fashion similar to what was stated above.
• Condemnations should temporarily prevent access to the affected region, stalling recruitment and preventing the use of the condemnation as a boost to publicity.
• Condemnations should temporarily prevent WA members that have been condemned or are part of a condemned region from voting in the WA or submitting proposals to the WA.
• Condemnations should advise new nations not to join affected regions.

I hope that this is discussed with sincerity, as these self-condemnations have been common as of late, and in the past. The Security Council has lacked any form of real power for years and discussions have been thrown around for a long time; maybe it is time to give it some. Though perhaps we should just make it send especially stern letters of disapproval.

[Louisistan]

• Commendations should provide boosts to the stats of nations, whether they are individual nations or nations within a commended region.
• Condemnations should lower the statistics of nations, in a fashion similar to what was stated above.

Neither raiders or defenders usually care about stats. This does nothing to tackle the problem you've laid out.

• Commendations should provide a clear badge, making them attractive to newcomers. Condemned nations and regions often consider their condemnation a symbol of success and honour; why not change that to commendations?

They already do, e.g. 10000 Islands or Improving Wordiness both have a shiny badge for having been commended. And I'm fairly certain those who have been commended do see it as a symbol of success and honour. I know we in 10000 Islands do.

• Condemnations should temporarily prevent access to the affected region, stalling recruitment and preventing the use of the condemnation as a boost to publicity.

This is an interesting concept. However, it is hard to implement. Especially towards Game Created Regions, seeing as nations (re-)spawn there or are sent there after banjection in the case of TRR. Remember, The Pacific was a condemned region not too long ago, and I don't think you could prevent the game from spawning nations there (it wouldn't be advisable either. The reason we have so many Feeders and Sinkers is to balance the load).

• Condemnations should temporarily prevent WA members that have been condemned or are part of a condemned region from voting in the WA or submitting proposals to the WA.

Interesting. But wouldn't that lead to the Security Council being abused as a weapon even more? For example, to silence the large voting block represented by 10000 Islands one would only have to condemn Boltor. I think that would lead to even more weaponised use of the SC in order to gain a better foothold for votes to come.

• Condemnations should advise new nations not to join affected regions.

Also interesting and I don't see anything imminently impossible about it.

[Bedetopia]

I'm totally against the SC being able to touch a non-member nation's stats, even if it would mostly apply to raiders who mostly don't care about it. Players work hard to get to the top of the census, taking it away like that would be unfair and ragequit-inducing.

[Helaw]

• Commendations should provide boosts to the stats of nations, whether they are individual nations or nations within a commended region.
• Condemnations should lower the statistics of nations, in a fashion similar to what was stated above.

Neither raiders or defenders usually care about stats. This does nothing to tackle the problem you've laid out.

What would likely happen here is that the nations that do care about stats would leave an affected region, leaving a high concentration of raiders behind, rather than a combination of nations minding their own business and raiders. This prevents innocent users from being affected, along with making the targeted nations less notable.

• Condemnations should temporarily prevent access to the affected region, stalling recruitment and preventing the use of the condemnation as a boost to publicity.

This is an interesting concept. However, it is hard to implement. Especially towards Game Created Regions, seeing as nations (re-)spawn there or are sent there after banjection in the case of TRR. Remember, The Pacific was a condemned region not too long ago, and I don't think you could prevent the game from spawning nations there (it wouldn't be advisable either. The reason we have so many Feeders and Sinkers is to balance the load).

One solution is to still spawn / move nations in that region, but inform them directly of the condemnation and advise them to leave. Deliberate entrance from other regions on the part of the user would still be restricted.

• Condemnations should temporarily prevent WA members that have been condemned or are part of a condemned region from voting in the WA or submitting proposals to the WA.

Interesting. But wouldn't that lead to the Security Council being abused as a weapon even more? For example, to silence the large voting block represented by 10000 Islands one would only have to condemn Boltor. I think that would lead to even more weaponised use of the SC in order to gain a better foothold for votes to come.

Boltor has a large voting block to oppose that. With new powers, I doubt that many nations would agree to condemning Boltor without valid reasons to do so. If they had reasons, he would be condemned and would likely lose endorsements at an unprecedented rate. A new delegate would take his place, and things would return to how they were. As for using the SC as a weapon, that is democracy; I doubt that a group with a distaste for a single nation would outnumber the quantity of users that would see no reason to support it. Complain about that if you wish, but that is how democracy works.

I'm totally against the SC being able to touch a non-member nation's stats, even if it would mostly apply to raiders who mostly don't care about it. Players work hard to get to the top of the census, taking it away like that would be unfair and ragequit-inducing.

Leaving the region to reverse this stat change would not be prevented. If a nation that has worked hard to raise their stats is in a region that is seemingly worthy of a condemnation through democratic process (or is worthy of one themselves), then it is only fair that they are affected by the condemnation. Collateral damage should be expected, and if individuals want to leave a region then they can; to some, a resulting mass exodus is another form of punishment. One problem that might create is backup regions; does anyone have thoughts on how to prevent this?

[Helaw]

I feel that the recent absurdly low-quality 'Condemn The Invaders' proposal warrants further discussion of this topic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I feel that the recent absurdly low-quality 'Condemn The Invaders' proposal warrants further discussion of this topic.

It has nothing to do with the manner in which the SC operates. It has everything to do with whom the SC is made out of. This is basically like complaining about the result of an election: the other guy got more votes.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I feel that the recent absurdly low-quality 'Condemn The Invaders' proposal warrants further discussion of this topic.

It has nothing to do with the manner in which the SC operates. It has everything to do with whom the SC is made out of. This is basically like complaining about the result of an election: the other guy got more votes.

However, if a textbook bad resolution can buy that many approvals merely by sending out a TG, perhaps it's time to raise the % for approval a bit again

[Enfaru]

Maybe there should be higher standards for a resolution instead...

[Bears Armed]

• Condemnations should lower the statistics of nations, in a fashion similar to what was stated above.

OOC
No. A number of nations have been actually been condemned because people appreciated the way in which their players role-played "bad" regimes, with the condemnations therefore intended as reward rather than punishment.