Liberation: bug fixes and feedback

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Just throwing it out there - what if Liberation proposals expired after a set amount of time? - say....two weeks? That should give enough time to accomplish the goals, but short enough to enable the natives to have the ability to set their password back again.

Just a thought

That's not a bad idea and it would save everybody the trouble of going through the repeal process. I'm not sure about the coding implications of having resolutions that expire though.

Another possibility would be to have something like the strength settings (mild, significant, strong) of GA resolutions. In this case it could be "expire" or "don't expire". Or the proposer could even have some options for specifying when it would expire. Again though, that might present coding problems and admin might be unwilling to do it.

[Martyrdoom]

Just throwing it out there - what if Liberation proposals expired after a set amount of time? - say....two weeks? That should give enough time to accomplish the goals, but short enough to enable the natives to have the ability to set their password back again.

Just a thought

What happened to the actual Liberation?!

The password is currently removed under, 'A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region'; with your scenario a password subsequently goes up and bang, there's no 'free-entry' - Liberation would be a contradition in terms. It undermines the philosophy upon which its own plausbility relies.

As I've said, this is not about re-empowering 'natives' or preferred groups of residents, or going back to a pre-invasion scenario. Anything like that and for me, its a WA-police action.

[West-Flanders]

Also, the little password icon remains on the regional page, as does the notification of what the password is.

Nations are able to move in and out freely, so it worked - it just doesn't look like it did.

I suppose if it were repealed the password would simply become valid again.

I did a little test, and I could change the password, though nations could still enter without any problem. I've taken the password off, as it has no use anymore anyway.

[[violet]]

Liberation resolutions are inherently urgent. It's like the kitchen is on fire, the longer we wait, the less of the house we are able to save.

Personally I don't think Liberation Resolutions should be so quick and easy that they become a weapon of first choice for defenders & natives. They should be there only if all else fails, and having to wait for a proposal to reach the voting floor is part of the price you pay.

[[violet]]

I suppose if it were repealed the password would simply become valid again.

Correct.

[Northern Chittowa]

Liberation resolutions are inherently urgent. It's like the kitchen is on fire, the longer we wait, the less of the house we are able to save.

Personally I don't think Liberation Resolutions should be so quick and easy that they become a weapon of first choice for defenders & natives. They should be there only if all else fails, and having to wait for a proposal to reach the voting floor is part of the price you pay.

I think it also comes down to the age of the region and the influence level of the remaining natives there. For instance, with Belgium defenders had a much longer time to deal with the situation once the PW was put in place due to the age of the region and the natives there. Without that age factor it would have been very tight, time wise. Im not too sure what im getting at here, i just think that it is worth considering really when talking about length of voting time etc.

[Naivetry]

Personally, I think it's much better that this be permanent, so long as the natives are amenable.

A liberated region is in less danger of being destroyed, because defenders and/or natives with multiple puppets will always be able to reenter the region to fight back. If Equilism were to lose its Founder tomorrow (mods forbid), I would immediately start thinking about drafting a pre-emptive liberation proposal for our protection - to make sure it couldn't be passworded to begin with in case of invasion.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't catch this 3rd page. The age and size of a region is going to make a difference... it'll limit the practicality of this category of resolution to large and/or well-established communities, and I think that's only fair.

[Martyrdoom]

So liberations are intended only for an elite? And elite 'communities' rather than actually coded regions at that? Which is it regions or communities?!

What about a similar hypothetical scenario - a region loses its founder and submits a pre-emptive liberation proposal to prevent a password being implemented by potential invaders as Naivetry outlines. So it'd be ok for Equilism because its a 'community'/long-standing region with the actual ability to get this thing passed and not other regions of a lesser stature because they can't get it passed nor have the right to?

Where will we end up with this?

[New Galcia]

If Equilism lost its founder I would vote against any preemptive liberation proposal. The WA answers actual grievances (remember this is category is used as a last resort) where the Security Council finds them to be legitimate, not against acts not yet committed and especially not going out in search of monsters. Any region of any age or size must have the right to appeal for liberation, it is up to the Sercurity Council as a body to judge the merits of the case. As for repeals, it’s only fair that they be part of the slow legislative process like all other proposals. And by the way I would have been happy with a Macedon controlled open Belgium but I'm pleased it was worked out without WA action.

[Topid]

This was said here:

It looks as if that needs to be a general rule for all SC proposals: Proposals MAY NOT deal with matters that may be solved without WA intervention.

This would still require vigilance and judgment by players. Mods won't be going through the queue finding out whether each and every Liberation is a last desperate act. But since players have the chance to show their choice by not approving the proposal to quorum, that works. Thanks, Goobergunchia and Vinoslavia.

Now, since the last few posts in this thread have been centered on the concept of a pre-emptive liberation proposal, I thought I'd ask here.

Does the above quote apply to pre-emptive liberation proposals? Preventing a "game-over scenario" is possible "without WA intervention" by the delegate being on at every update and banning raiders. So, by this new "general rule" are pre-emptive liberations out?

(I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be, merely asking for clarification.)

[Ardchoille]

Okay: that post was made about a rather different situation. Players were wanting to lift a password imposed by a dead delegate, but they didn't have any WA nations in their region. That could be solved easily by the nations involved having a bit of gumption. That's why I said that then. I don't see why the time of the WA should be wasted by players asking it to do something they could easily do themselves. It's a change they could make using existing game mechanics, they don't need a proposal for it.

It's lucky I didn't get around to putting that into the sticky. If I had, I'd have to reword it. It still seems valid to me to have a rule that basically says, "If you can do it yourself, don't ask the SC to," but I'll have to make sure that's all it says.

This is different, though: it's a tactic in a political campaign. In a recent conversations, Max Himself said he doesn't mind if a certain amount of what he calls "corruption" creeps in. So I guess, once again, it's up to the WA delegates. We already know that mods aren't going to check SC proposals for truth or falsity. So if someone submitted a pre-emptive Liberation proposal, and nobody squealed to the Feds, and somebody did a TG campaign to get it to vote, and the SC voted in favour, then ... yeah. We'd have to assume that the majority of the WA wants things to be that way, in that particular case.

The likelihood would be that somebody would squ ... would put in a Getting Help request. But, based on recent conversations, I don't think mods'd be supposed to act, even then. That would be us making a moral judgment that a particular political tactic was wrong (or, if we dismissed the appeal, right). We're not supposed to make the moral judgments, you are.

My most recent impression is that if the SC wants to be Tammany Hall, or base its wheeling and dealing on the fine examples of endemic corruption that many city and state governments provide today, you can do whatever you can get away with[EDIT}whatever you can get enough votes to do[/EDIT]. "Moral" will equal "staying bought".

Whether the players collectively want to live with such a regime is up to you to establish by your votes. If you want reform, you'll have to organise for it. The Bat-signal won't work.

[Naivetry]

So liberations are intended only for an elite? And elite 'communities' rather than actually coded regions at that? Which is it regions or communities?!

Elitism is the consequence of Influence. It's simply the rules we have to live with - a smaller region with less accumulated Influence (both coded and personal) is likely not to last long enough for a Liberation resolution to be effective.

And by "only fair," I meant that if the entire world is going to be asked to spend four days voting on a Liberation resolution, we should hope that there would be a group of people somewhere who cared about the result because the region concerned was their home - not just because they were raiders or defenders.