NationStates

Caracasus wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Raiding large fascist/nazi regions would still be considered impressive in general, it's just that holding the region is ridiculously easy since no one will try to liberate them. Putting it together would still require possible sleepers and harder than normal organization since you're generally setting up more people during update, with many possibly coming from orgs that traditionally fight each other.

Ahh, so easier to accomplish once you've put in a hell of a lot of groundwork building alliances and playing nicely with others. Okay, that seems fair enough to me and certainly worthy of recognition.

Indeed, that would be roughly it. And even if that wasn't considered good, there is a bunch of other good stuff in there as well

Lord Dominator wrote:

Caracasus wrote:
Ahh, so easier to accomplish once you've put in a hell of a lot of groundwork building alliances and playing nicely with others. Okay, that seems fair enough to me and certainly worthy of recognition.

Indeed, that would be roughly it. And even if that wasn't considered good, there is a bunch of other good stuff in there as well

So I can see. Looks like a well deserved commendation to me. Thanks for the info, always good to keep up to date on these things.

Caracasus wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Indeed, that would be roughly it. And even if that wasn't considered good, there is a bunch of other good stuff in there as well

So I can see. Looks like a well deserved commendation to me. Thanks for the info, always good to keep up to date on these things.

You would be most welcome

While we wish that a raiding operation was not mentioned in a commendation, the other impressive accomplishments and hard work by the target cited in the resolution (military and otherwise) more then makes up for it.

we will vote in favor.

Ragnaria wrote:You're being pointlessly dramatic. Remove the huge delegates' votes from the equation, and it's still passing by a wide margin. How's that for putting things into perspective?

I don't think thier point was that this wouldn't pass without the support of the huge delegate alliance, but that the existence of this alliance and their behavior of trying to vote pile as soon as humanly possible makes being active in the WA less fun and less engaging. Whether the side they are taking on any given proposal happens to be the "correct" one or not. I think this is a fair criticism, as I do wonder why I am even bothering to give my two cents in when I know for certain whether the thing will pass or not mere minutes after it is posted.

Power to them, their methods have certainly proven to be very effective but I do think it hurts the state of the game. At the very least it makes things less interesting.

Ru- wrote:I don't think thier point was that this wouldn't pass without the support of the huge delegate alliance, but that the existence of this alliance and their behavior of trying to vote pile as soon as humanly possible makes being active in the WA less fun and less engaging.

At present there only exists one actual WA alliance, WALL (TNP, Balder, Europeia, Europe, and IDU). Only two of those regional delegates have yet voted, and TNP usually votes as soon as the vote has started and the internal TNP vote has been determined to lean one way, and IA makes a point of voting as soon as he humanly can for longer than Europe has been in WALL.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Ru- wrote:I don't think thier point was that this wouldn't pass without the support of the huge delegate alliance, but that the existence of this alliance and their behavior of trying to vote pile as soon as humanly possible makes being active in the WA less fun and less engaging.

At present there only exists one actual WA alliance, WALL (TNP, Balder, Europeia, Europe, and IDU). Only two of those regional delegates have yet voted, and TNP usually votes as soon as the vote has started and the internal TNP vote has been determined to lean one way, and IA makes a point of voting as soon as he humanly can for longer than Europe has been in WALL.

People do tend to think everyone who votes For or Against in overwhelming numbers is in some sort of NS illuminati.

Yeah. As opposed to commendations and condemnations that are reasonably well written and reasonably uncontraversial tending to attract yes votes.

This sounds like a commendation Xoriet deserves, and I see nothing here on the forums (besides personal grudges) to suggest that they are undeserving. We are in support FOR this resolution.

Lilian Ventura
Ambassador to the World Assembly
The Republic of Alvero

Lord Dominator wrote:

Ru- wrote:I don't think thier point was that this wouldn't pass without the support of the huge delegate alliance, but that the existence of this alliance and their behavior of trying to vote pile as soon as humanly possible makes being active in the WA less fun and less engaging.

At present there only exists one actual WA alliance, WALL (TNP, Balder, Europeia, Europe, and IDU). Only two of those regional delegates have yet voted, and TNP usually votes as soon as the vote has started and the internal TNP vote has been determined to lean one way, and IA makes a point of voting as soon as he humanly can for longer than Europe has been in WALL.

Yeah, wasn't the best idea for him to choose this resolution to bring up his point. Since it clearly does not need these alliances to pass, but it's still a fair one. Those regions are mostly all the feeders and sinkers and have about 3,000 votes between them. And while IA is the only one who votes immediately after a resolution hits the floor, the others are very quick as well. Too quick, i might add, to determine how thier region's membership is voting on the resolution. So a huge chunk of the votes of our so called democratic institution are actually determined by agreements made between a handful of people.

Not to take away from the hard work that must've gone into setting up this situation in the first place. It is just easy for me to understand the frustration that this alliance causes. Not that it'd be easy to fix since it is not fair or practical to make people who are friends stop cooperating just because thier regions have too many votes when combined togather. I do think WALL's presence harms the RP in the WA in any event.

Fortunately in all but a few cases, WALL just happens to vote where the majority of the WA was going to go anyway, with or without them. This resolution being a perfect. example of that. However the optics of early pileing is never great. Though it is highly effective in influencing the votes of nations that are not sure how they should be voting.

Ru- wrote:Yeah, wasn't the best idea for him to choose this resolution to bring up his point. Since it's pat's still a fair one. Those regions are qlmodt all the feeders and sinkers and have about 3,000 votes between them. And while IA is the only one who votes immediately after a resolution hits the floor, the others are very quick as well. Too quick, i might add, to determine how thier region's membership. So a huge chunk of the votes of our so called democratic institution are actually determined by agreements made between a handful of people.

Small clarification that doesn't detract from your point, but the larger regions tend to have either a set policy for assorted reasons (NatSov in the GA, alliances with regions involved, etc) and/or have a smaller Ministry/people internally who do vote.[/quote]

Full support for my twin's much-deserved Commendation

Also, I find it really amusing to continue seeing people complaining about individuals playing politics in a political simulator. Why do you think GCR Delegates vote early? It's precisly to steer the direction of the vote, and show the significant population of Lemming WA nations what option's getting mass support. It was never supposed to be all that fair. Much like the USA has more influence and power in the UN than, say, Burkina Faso, a GCR or a well-maintained UCR will have more power than a backwater region.

Ultimately, what also seems to be the case is the lack of understanding from griping folks about how WA programs are set up in larger regions.

Tim-Opolis wrote:Ultimately, what also seems to be the case is the lack of understanding from griping folks about how WA programs are set up in larger regions.

It's almost like we do understand exactly how delegate voting works and why large delegates vote the way they do... it's just that it's a broken mechanic regardless.

ShrewLlamaLand wrote:

Tim-Opolis wrote:Ultimately, what also seems to be the case is the lack of understanding from griping folks about how WA programs are set up in larger regions.

It's almost like we do understand exactly how delegate voting works and why large delegates vote the way they do... it's just that it's a broken mechanic regardless.

Given your region's history of throwing money at campaigns in the hopes that the biggest bank balance wins, I'm gonna take any critique with a pinch of salt. It seems that you're complaining about percieved corruption not because it is wrong, but because said corruption doesn't work in your favour.

Caracasus wrote:

ShrewLlamaLand wrote:It's almost like we do understand exactly how delegate voting works and why large delegates vote the way they do... it's just that it's a broken mechanic regardless.

Given your region's history of throwing money at campaigns in the hopes that the biggest bank balance wins, I'm gonna take any critique with a pinch of salt. It seems that you're complaining about percieved corruption not because it is wrong, but because said corruption doesn't work in your favour.

That's one way to look at it. I am never too concerned about which way a vote would go, mostly because I didn't engage in it often. Even now on the SC, I still don't care, just argue about the specifics on the proposal's merits or demerits.

ShrewLlamaLand wrote:

Tim-Opolis wrote:Ultimately, what also seems to be the case is the lack of understanding from griping folks about how WA programs are set up in larger regions.

It's almost like we do understand exactly how delegate voting works and why large delegates vote the way they do... it's just that it's a broken mechanic regardless.

Complaining about a system that you cannot change in any way, and one that has worked functionally for years, and which adminship doesn't seem like they're ever going to change, doesn't actually accomplish anything.

Caracasus wrote:

ShrewLlamaLand wrote:It's almost like we do understand exactly how delegate voting works and why large delegates vote the way they do... it's just that it's a broken mechanic regardless.

Given your region's history of throwing money at campaigns in the hopes that the biggest bank balance wins, I'm gonna take any critique with a pinch of salt. It seems that you're complaining about percieved corruption not because it is wrong, but because said corruption doesn't work in your favour.

I'm struggling to see how any of this is relevant. I have in no way tried to take any moral high ground over the issue, thus "why" I am complaining is really not important. Only the issue itself matters.

Regardless, as usual, you're wrong - the Confederation has long been against the current delegate voting system: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=446517&p=34336534

ShrewLlamaLand wrote:

Caracasus wrote:
Given your region's history of throwing money at campaigns in the hopes that the biggest bank balance wins, I'm gonna take any critique with a pinch of salt. It seems that you're complaining about percieved corruption not because it is wrong, but because said corruption doesn't work in your favour.

I'm struggling to see how any of this is relevant. I have in no way tried to take any moral high ground over the issue, thus "why" I am complaining is really not important. Only the issue itself matters.

Regardless, as usual, you're wrong - the Confederation has long been against the current delegate voting system: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=446517&p=34336534

Holding a useless opinion when it comes to a discussion for a long time does not make it more useful.

ShrewLlamaLand wrote:Regardless, as usual, you're wrong - the Confederation has long been against the current delegate voting system: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=446517&p=34336534

You just tried to disprove the notion that your region is upset at the system because it's not working in your favor, by linking to the founder of your region saying your region is upset at the system for not working in their favor.

The Imperial Empire is calling for the Secretariats to explain themselves, and for there to be consequences.

If our proposal is defeated, we intend to resubmit it, with new evidence having come to light.

We truly believe the World Assembly's days are numbered, if issues within its dimly-lit corridors are not addressed.

Why do you keep proving our points for us, Shrew? Is it some 4D chess move that I just can't comprehend?

Tim-Opolis wrote:Full support for my twin's much-deserved Commendation

Also, I find it really amusing to continue seeing people complaining about individuals playing politics in a political simulator. Why do you think GCR Delegates vote early? It's precisly to steer the direction of the vote, and show the significant population of Lemming WA nations what option's getting mass support. It was never supposed to be all that fair. Much like the USA has more influence and power in the UN than, say, Burkina Faso, a GCR or a well-maintained UCR will have more power than a backwater region.

Ultimately, what also seems to be the case is the lack of understanding from griping folks about how WA programs are set up in larger regions.

No, I understand it. I just don't like it. The problem with the presence, size, and effectivenes, of a group like WALL and thier decision to try and carefully curate GA voting with strategies like you have described means that gameplay and regional R/D now dominates the GA. For people who don't care for gameplay this is very annoying, regardless of how they vote. It casts a dark cloud on RP arguments about the merits of individual proposals, knowing that the decision has already been made for us before it even comes to vote thanks to people taking advantage of the gameside mechanics. WALL getting thier gameplay peanut butter into my GA chocolate is the only complaint I have with them, honestly. And it has only been a couple resolutions in which they have blatantly demonstrated thier influence, but when it does happen I do wonder why I am even bothering to take the time to interact with GA threads. In the SC it isn't as much of a problem since the SC is entirely gameplay concerns though.

I don't think there really is a solution to it, aside from the admins stepping in and changing how regional delegate votes work, which they have no interest in. But no that doesn't mean I will stop complaining, because I don't like it when people bring it up and it is dismissed out of hand as if there isn't anything to have an objection to.

I can't speak for these confederation types though, (who knows what thier real motivations ever are?) This has just been my own feelings on it. I will also say that this thread may not be the most appropriate place to debate this, and is not particularly fair to Xoriet, since WALL was clearly not needed to pass this commendation.

ShrewLlamaLand wrote:

Caracasus wrote:I'd rather hear more about why/why not these deserve commendation than arguing over semantics of a warning.

If you have to ask about why they deserve the commendation, they probably don't deserve the commendation.

The big problem is that nations and people in general have to learn how to READ. Xoriet is a former (?!) raider destroying non fascist regions as well with The Black Hawks. READ!

This did happen many years ago.

Synopsis: The Security Council wants to Commend a philosopher raider with a heart, hoping the defender actions and other miscellaneous contributions to the community will outweigh the invader actions. Up to you. One Star. NewTexas will go on record as AGAINST on this Resolution. This is only the opinion of NewTexas

Let's open Texas NS History and do some additional research.

Is Xoriet a puppet nation?

WikiPlay wrote:Is Xoriet a puppet nation?

Of Sultur Aurora, probably.

Answer: ?

It's just a puppet, what is the WA nation of Xoriet?
Raiders have switchers so please convince us that their WA nation is a really friendly WA nation.

WikiPlay wrote:Answer: ?

It's just a puppet, what is the WA nation of Xoriet?
Raiders have switchers so please convince us that their WA nation is a really friendly WA nation.

One's main does not have to be in the WA, and besides, the nation Xoriet is totally a puppet.

Mans. Gotta love it when people have no idea what they're talking about and look like fools to those who do.

Xor is secretly Max Barry! That's about as reasonable as whatever drivel you just spat on our screens. What's funniest is you want other people to learn how to read. XD

Her WA is on deployment for the Pacific's military interest. I know where it is.

RiderSyl wrote:

ShrewLlamaLand wrote:Regardless, as usual, you're wrong - the Confederation has long been against the current delegate voting system: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=446517&p=34336534

You just tried to disprove the notion that your region is upset at the system because it's not working in your favor, by linking to the founder of your region saying your region is upset at the system for not working in their favor.

Absolutely not, I've never denied that notion in the slightest. Something something Confederation of Corrupt Dictators.

RiderSyl wrote:

The Imperial Empire is calling for the Secretariats to explain themselves, and for there to be consequences.

If our proposal is defeated, we intend to resubmit it, with new evidence having come to light.

We truly believe the World Assembly's days are numbered, if issues within its dimly-lit corridors are not addressed.

Why do you keep proving our points for us, Shrew? Is it some 4D chess move that I just can't comprehend?

I'd say it's closer to 5D Chess, really.

In truth, I'm just trying to swing things in our favour before the next "Commend Confederation of Corrupt Dictators" proposal reaches quorum.