Advertisement
by Cobdenia » Sat May 30, 2009 5:54 am
by Kelssek » Sat May 30, 2009 5:55 am
by Naivetry » Sat May 30, 2009 6:11 am
Urgench wrote:Apparently these changes were being planned by Gameplayers in other forums, in a way which suggested that w.a. regular involvement was distinctly unnecessary and under the presumption that the way that regulars played the game was at best irrelevant, at worst not even worth considering.
I have asked this repeatedly, and got no substantial answer, if we are to accept our aspect of the game being used to improve other aspects of the game what do we get in return ?
They've also offered us influence in the politics of their aspect of the game. I would be more inclined to believe this if Gameplay already tended to take any notice of w.a. resolutions, or if Gameplayers were suggesting that our aspect of the game be expanded in a way which actually brought in game politics in to a formal relationship with w.a. law.
So far the only level of influence I can see the future w.a. regulars having is if they wholesale become Gameplayers interested in the detail of in game politics and become referees for an aspect of the game they currently have little or no interest in and there is absolutely no suggestion that Gameplayers should feel even remotely bound by resolutions which in any case deal with IC issues which Gameplayers have no interest in because nothing they do is role played.
by Urgench » Sat May 30, 2009 6:56 am
Naivetry wrote:Urgench wrote:Apparently these changes were being planned by Gameplayers in other forums, in a way which suggested that w.a. regular involvement was distinctly unnecessary and under the presumption that the way that regulars played the game was at best irrelevant, at worst not even worth considering.
This change was certainly not being proposed or even planned by us; we were just as surprised as all of you.
Naivetry wrote:I have asked this repeatedly, and got no substantial answer, if we are to accept our aspect of the game being used to improve other aspects of the game what do we get in return ?
The World Assembly itself does not belong to any group of players - we all use it for different purposes. The legislative aspect of the WA is just one of several valid uses. A unique and dedicated community has grown up around writing and debating WA legislation, true - but that has never interfered with Gameplay; and neither would Gameplay's use of the WA in a new way (say, in a totally separate queue, with totally separate rules) interfere with the passage of the sort of legislation you enjoy. Other people have made suggestions for improvements to the WA regulars' side, too (burning proposals, etc.); it's not that your community is being overlooked in terms of requested changes, but that the admin team can only handle so many changes at once.
Naivetry wrote:They've also offered us influence in the politics of their aspect of the game. I would be more inclined to believe this if Gameplay already tended to take any notice of w.a. resolutions, or if Gameplayers were suggesting that our aspect of the game be expanded in a way which actually brought in game politics in to a formal relationship with w.a. law.
That's exactly what we're suggesting. We do take notice of WA Resolutions - we debate and vote on them. But in-game politics (and thus the largest part of the attentions of the players) do not revolve around the issues about which the World Assembly currently legislates, because Gameplay politics are tied up in the manipulation of game code and regional communities, about which the WA can say nothing under its current rules. And that is what could change. The WA could be granted power within the Gameplay political world by creating new proposal categories - or even an entirely new branch or body within the WA - which operated under a different set of proposal rules without removing or negating the old ones. Again, addition - and if you like, continued segregation (because if you're not interested, we're not about to force you to participate in our brand of politics) - not alteration.
Naivetry wrote:But you would lose nothing of the influence you have now.
You also need not feel obliged to participate in any new branch of the WA that should appear simply because it has the WA label on it. The groups can remain entirely separate to protect the preexisting communities and their rules.
by Bears Armed » Sat May 30, 2009 7:21 am
by Absolvability » Sat May 30, 2009 7:22 am
Kelssek wrote:That and the fact that you do not seem to understand what the metagaming rules mean and are for, and the fact that you have clearly confused raiding/invadergaming and RPing, is reason that you should seriously revise both your argument and the tone that you have been taking.
Kelssek wrote:The point is that raiding/invading/gameplaying takes place entirely OOC, for entirely OOC reasons and motivations.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat May 30, 2009 7:25 am
Naivetry wrote:But you could. That's what's at issue.
[violet] wrote:Let's not over-react here. Nobody is talking about dismantling the WA as it exists today. I've said multiple times that I'm here to get feedback on what you want, and I have no intention of ruining the game as it's played today. I simply want to be able to throw around a few ideas without people going off the deep end.
[violet] wrote:We need to be able to discuss ideas for going forward without people screaming that they're leaving the game, it will destroy the site, etc. Please contribute positively.
by Flibbleites » Sat May 30, 2009 7:32 am
This is the lowest I've ever seen it.Plutoni wrote:With all due respect, I'm really not sure that's true. I don't need to berate the point that the numbers of nations aren't as high as they've been in the past. Currently 51 approvals are needed for quorum; other WA members know better than me how this fits into the long-term cycle, but that's lower than it's been for a while.Kandarin wrote:Most such proposals will fail because the subject matter isn't sufficiently well-known or the case hasn't been made. Stirring an international organization to take a stand on goings-on in some region should be hard, and if the present state of things is anything to go by, it will be. This is just fine; by requiring a lot of convincing and effort to use the WA for this sort of thing, it should cause those who would to choose their battles carefully.
by Absolvability » Sat May 30, 2009 7:37 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:lets say that you make it possible for the World Assembly to end wars, which is something that shouldn't ever happen, because the WA shouldn't be affecting non-member nations -- then no doubt II would be giving the same turf arguments we are.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat May 30, 2009 7:42 am
Absolvability wrote:If the WA ends wars it will be within the WA. Compliance is mandatory for those that recieve the telegram. This is game-coding. Compliance is ALSO RPed... which is to say you may still do whatever the heck you want. And no anti-war legislation should/would ever be construed to affect non-member nations.
Presuming rules particular to C&Cs are never drafted... we still have our own rules. And they take care of these concerns just fine. All of these examples I'm seeing are making the awkward assumption that somebody will do something illegal. It may happen. It already happens. It isn't a good point to make.
by Absolvability » Sat May 30, 2009 7:49 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Okay. Then take it as only affecting WA member. II would still throw around the same turf arguments.
by Plutoni » Sat May 30, 2009 7:51 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat May 30, 2009 7:53 am
Absolvability wrote:Perhaps. But their point would be as moot as yours was moments ago... for the same reasons. They aren't affected, so who cares? Like I've said before... all that is required is mutual flexibility and a practical application of group logic. If we can use both of those tools, we won't even need to touch the presently existing rules.
by Absolvability » Sat May 30, 2009 8:05 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:How are they 'not affected'?
Glen-Rhodes wrote:The WA would have the power to end wars.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:You've only been here for two months, and for those two months, you've been in heated fights with numerous delegations.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:To me, that wouldn't be very fun, so I'm going to assume that you haven't been having very much fun with the way things are.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Forgive me if I stick you in with non-WA regulars that don't really know what it is that makes WA traditions, rules, and regulations so special to those of us that have been here for a long period of time.
by Urgench » Sat May 30, 2009 8:16 am
Absolvability wrote:
My arguements thus far have been supporting the idea that the present rules and regulations need not be altered. Though it might be wise to realize though flexibility and logic what obviously CAN'T apply. For example... creating committees. These rules need not apply to C&Cs. And I've explained why Meta-gaming and the fourth wall are easily reconcilable with C&Cs.
As far as 'tradition' goes... well, haha, that's too subjective to be a valid point. You, like many others, want to be considered somehow special due to your participation. And you don't want to permit others a level of participation that would, in the future, make them equally special.
by Absolvability » Sat May 30, 2009 8:30 am
Urgench wrote:Who are you to decide what's a valid point and what isn't ?
Urgench wrote:GR is simply expressing his opinion that certain aspects of the game are not compatible with the rules as they stand, that's a fact, and the rules were developed to make that the case.
Urgench wrote:What is at issue is whether or not that participation should constitute a complete destruction of the current system and its replacement with a new system which suits other kinds of participants and ignores those currently participating.
Urgench wrote:Oh and stop trying to get rises out of GR and others, your not helping by borderline flaming people who are already quite exercised by what's going on.
by Urgench » Sat May 30, 2009 8:33 am
Absolvability wrote:Urgench wrote:Oh and stop trying to get rises out of GR and others, your not helping by borderline flaming people who are already quite exercised by what's going on.
Oh get off it, man. I'm being fairly civil here. If I step one toe out of line I'm a flamer but everybody else who is flipping shit is merely 'exercised,' eh?
by Absolvability » Sat May 30, 2009 8:38 am
Urgench wrote:Oh so you think yours and Sionis's responses to some of QoD's posts earlier in this thread were really helpful and mature do you ?
by Naivetry » Sat May 30, 2009 8:44 am
Urgench wrote:Naivetry wrote:This change was certainly not being proposed or even planned by us; we were just as surprised as all of you.
So what was all this about then ? viewtopic.php?f=12&t=375&start=100
So you admit then that what regulars do with regard to legislation is of no substantial interest to Gameplayers because what you do has nothing to do with the issues we legislate ?
Fine, but your answer to that is to simply pollute what we do with new categories relating to issues which regulars have no interest in, that would be fine if this took place elsewhere than in the w.a. but either way ( new categories or new organisation ) does not actually reduce the segregation which supporters of the current changes seem to be pretending they want to end, if anything they increase that segregation.
If Gameplayers were posting here that they were genuinely interested in role playing how these new resolution categories effected their play and seemed willing to incorporate aspects of the old w.a.'s world view in to their own, I'm sure a hell of a lot more of us might have been more positive about this process.
As it is we were simply being asked to accept the death of w.a. roleplay, and the imposition of Gameplay concerns on an organisation with rules which make it (currently) impossible to address Gameplay. Now I can get on board with changes to the rules to make it possible for the w.a. to finally admit the existence of Gameplay, but only if Gameplayers can accept that they will have to develop a new attitude towards how the w.a. interacts with how they play, including abiding by resolutions not directly related to gameplay per se.
Naivetry wrote:But you would lose nothing of the influence you have now.
You also need not feel obliged to participate in any new branch of the WA that should appear simply because it has the WA label on it. The groups can remain entirely separate to protect the preexisting communities and their rules.
Exactly finally your being honest, at least your admitting that what regulars do is of absolutely no interest or account to Gameplayers. I've been honest about how much interest I have in raiding/defending/regional politics e.t.c.
But surely what your suggesting isn't that these two new branches of the W.A. be separate but equal are you ? I mean your position wouldn't be that a recalcitrant "old" w.a. should have the same ability to effect stats or that delegates should be remotely interested in looking through the proposals list if those proposals weren't about gameplay issues are you ?
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat May 30, 2009 8:57 am
Absolvability wrote:Just expressing my opinion. I think this should be dealt with an objective eye towards fair.
Absolvability wrote:Yes, certain aspects of the game are not compatible with the rules as they stand. Agreed. My point this whole time has been that in order to make use of these new options people will need to be members of the WA. In which case the rules now apply to them, and they'll be enforced with equal fervor.
by Absolvability » Sat May 30, 2009 9:05 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:I'm not going to be objective, period. Nobody here is being objective, and to assert that subjectivity has no place in asking that my corner of the game not be violated is plain stupid. Deciding what is 'fair' is inherently subjective.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:To you, all that's needed to be considered a member of this community is that little badge on your nation's page. To actual members of this community, the requirements are bit a higher.
by Unibot » Sat May 30, 2009 9:08 am
What people need to realize is that they are not legitimate members of the World Assembly community simply because they vote on resolutions, read resolutions, or debate resolutions within their own RMBs. Because I have to go and telegram you to get my resolution to vote does not mean that you are legitimate member of the World Assembly community. Because you use endorsements to invade regions does not mean that you are legitimate member of the World Assembly community. There is but a single way that you can become a legitimate member of this community, and that is actively posting on these forums, debating and drafting proposals. The community as it stand is a relatively small, close-knit one. That does not mean we are xenophobic, like a lot of proponents of C&Cs are implying.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Sat May 30, 2009 9:08 am
by Unibot » Sat May 30, 2009 9:11 am
With commend and condemn we now have a possibility of a quorum queue that has never been so long since I first joined NationStates. I suggest that more than one resolution, one repeal and one commend/condemn resolution be put on the voting floor simultaneously so more resolutions can be debated and passed compared to a singular queue.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat May 30, 2009 9:17 am
Unibot wrote:Bullshit, they're just not 'legitimate' members of this particular forum-based community surrounding the legislative process in the WA. The World Assembly extends well past proposal writing.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement