Gilgamesh - Gatesville's End

[Queen Yuno]

There's one thing I recommend your region doing besides attempting to raid regions in order to prevent proposals from reaching quorum (although the idea has merit, I recall you told me this idea during 2017. I've seen TBH do so too.)

Write Repeals for every WA resolution.

My region's WA ministry is surprisingly anti-WA too xD

[Galiantus III]

There was a time I would have considered going for all repeals, but there are some problems I see with that as a long-term strategy. First, this would provide the WA with activity. If I want a near freeze, this is not the way to achieve that. In fact, the more annoying thing for proposal writers would be a significant rise in difficulty if they intend to do a repeal-then-rewrite deal, which is becoming increasingly a more common practice as there are ever more resolutions.

The other problem is that repeals affect nations just as much as regular proposals, and that is a problem for national sovereignty. Unless the legislation being repealed is very recent stuff, it would be best to not approach the proposal at all.

The only case I can see where repeals will always be favorable is in the SC, specifically with Condemnations and Commendations.

-snip-

Souls, it seems to me that you dislike I have chosen to align with the defender sphere. It is plain to see that the object of your comments thus far has been simply to dissect my position on liberations with the intent of changing my mind, likely in order to benefit raiders. I have adequately explained how sovereignty is the guiding principal for my position, yet you continue to cry inconsistency. This is especially hypocritical on your part, considering that you routinely violate the principals of sovereignty. If someone who actually supports sovereignty points out a flaw in my thinking, I will take them seriously. As for this conversation with you, I am done.

[Tim-Opolis]

I'll put the viability of this somewhere between Nephmir's projects and The Invaders having ever being respected again.

[Wallenburg]

So, essentially, you don't like the WA RP. In fact, you hate it so much that you can't stand other people enjoying it, and want to ruin the game for everyone who actually likes participating in the WA. If you don't want to participate, don't join, or at least don't bother paying attention to the RP side of things. Membership and participation is entirely your choice, don't get pissy at other people for wanting that membership to mean something other than GP.

[Lord Dominator]

So, essentially, you don't like the WA RP. In fact, you hate it so much that you can't stand other people enjoying it, and want to ruin the game for everyone who actually likes participating in the WA. If you don't want to participate, don't join, or at least don't bother paying attention to the RP side of things. Membership and participation is entirely your choice, don't get pissy at other people for wanting that membership to mean something other than GP.

Nice, less for me to post myself now, thanks Wally!

[Galiantus III]

So, essentially, you don't like the WA RP. In fact, you hate it so much that you can't stand other people enjoying it, and want to ruin the game for everyone who actually likes participating in the WA. If you don't want to participate, don't join, or at least don't bother paying attention to the RP side of things. Membership and participation is entirely your choice, don't get pissy at other people for wanting that membership to mean something other than GP.

As long as the WA is the sole arbiter of gameplay power, one cannot treat it like it is just RP. It's not that I "can't stand that other people enjoy it", it's that there is not even a competing power to it, and I seek to remedy that problem through gameplay.

[Tinfect]

So, if if I've got this straight, your plan is to try and raid the largest regions in the game, to try and steal their vote, all for some petty WA agenda?

What, in all the nine hells, makes you think that would work?

As long as the WA is the sole arbiter of gameplay power, one cannot treat it like it is just RP. It's not that I "can't stand that other people enjoy it", it's that there is not even a competing power to it, and I seek to remedy that problem through gameplay.

You plan to shove GP in where it's not wanted; you people have the Security Council, the GA doesn't want anything to do with you.

[Wallenburg]

So, essentially, you don't like the WA RP. In fact, you hate it so much that you can't stand other people enjoying it, and want to ruin the game for everyone who actually likes participating in the WA. If you don't want to participate, don't join, or at least don't bother paying attention to the RP side of things. Membership and participation is entirely your choice, don't get pissy at other people for wanting that membership to mean something other than GP.

As long as the WA is the sole arbiter of gameplay power, one cannot treat it like it is just RP. It's not that I "can't stand that other people enjoy it", it's that there is not even a competing power to it, and I seek to remedy that problem through gameplay.

Or we could separate the houses...

#LeaveSC

[Galiantus III]

As long as the WA is the sole arbiter of gameplay power, one cannot treat it like it is just RP. It's not that I "can't stand that other people enjoy it", it's that there is not even a competing power to it, and I seek to remedy that problem through gameplay.

Or we could separate the houses...

#LeaveSC

This is an excellent suggestion. Regional control and politics should be a separate thing from power in the GA, but unfortunately that is not the reality we live in, nor does Admin seem intent on doing that. If you want to make this kind of suggestion over in Technical I would gladly support it.

[Tinfect]

Or we could separate the houses...

#LeaveSC

SCExit? GAExit?

[Republic of Huffelpuff]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You plan to blindly vote against every proposal passed by the WA so that it stops functioning properly, while also raiding nations to convert them to follow this ideology? I noticed the bit about changing delegates. However, what if those delegates were elected by choice and the region is pro-WA? You are then violating regional and national sovereignty by becoming a nation's political overlords. I'm sorry, but political Robin Hood doesn't work. I'm all for more debate on policies and maybe WA political parties, but a pure anti-WA movement will lead to a game word war that will ultimately ruin the game for those of us who just want to make a nation.
Also, I'd advise against calling your organization Gilgamesh. In case you are unaware, Gilgamesh is an anime character who is a greedy tyrant that is generally hated, and tries to end humanity simply because there are too many people. That name will gain you opposition from people who know what I'm talking about despite your seemingly pro-nation ideals. Especially if you start calling pro-WA people "mongrels."

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

-snip-

Souls, it seems to me that you dislike I have chosen to align with the defender sphere. It is plain to see that the object of your comments thus far has been simply to dissect my position on liberations with the intent of changing my mind, likely in order to benefit raiders. I have adequately explained how sovereignty is the guiding principal for my position, yet you continue to cry inconsistency. This is especially hypocritical on your part, considering that you routinely violate the principals of sovereignty. If someone who actually supports sovereignty points out a flaw in my thinking, I will take them seriously. As for this conversation with you, I am done.

Ad hominem attacks are not an adequate reply to factual criticism. Why do I need to be a proponent of soveignry to point out that you plan to violate it? It’s utter nonsense to state you’ll only hold a serious discussion with someone who shares your views, and will dismiss the same points from another just becuase they’re not in lockstep with you. You indeed do continue to state that the principal of sovereignty guides you. You’ve yet to explain how, then, you justify repeatedly violating it in many ways in pursuit of your goals. Over in NSG, they say “attack the post, not the player.” Perhaps consider trying that? Or are you avoiding doing so becuase you have no reply to my criticism?

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

I'm not necessarily optimistic about the ability of this Gatesville-with-Defenderism-thrown-in to grow and thrive, even if I do think it's an interesting idea; that being, I won't necessarily support it because of my own radically Defenderist and International Federalist inclinations.

As long as the WA is the sole arbiter of gameplay power, one cannot treat it like it is just RP. It's not that I "can't stand that other people enjoy it", it's that there is not even a competing power to it, and I seek to remedy that problem through gameplay.

Or we could separate the houses...

#LeaveSC

We send 350 endorsements to the World Assembly per week. Let's send those endorsements to our Army instead.

[Galiantus III]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You plan to blindly vote against every proposal passed by the WA so that it stops functioning properly, while also raiding nations to convert them to follow this ideology? I noticed the bit about changing delegates. However, what if those delegates were elected by choice and the region is pro-WA? You are then violating regional and national sovereignty by becoming a nation's political overlords. I'm sorry, but political Robin Hood doesn't work. I'm all for more debate on policies and maybe WA political parties, but a pure anti-WA movement will lead to a game word war that will ultimately ruin the game for those of us who just want to make a nation.
Also, I'd advise against calling your organization Gilgamesh. In case you are unaware, Gilgamesh is an anime character who is a greedy tyrant that is generally hated, and tries to end humanity simply because there are too many people. That name will gain you opposition from people who know what I'm talking about despite your seemingly pro-nation ideals. Especially if you start calling pro-WA people "mongrels."

Gilgamesh is the name of the hero in one of the oldest discovered writings of humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

You are correct in what my intentions are, and how I intend to carry them out. I do support national and regional sovereignty, and I view the WA as a vehicle used to violate that sovereignty. It is justifiable to inconvenience the nations and regions which use the WA to violate sovereignty, because in the end we do not subjugate the region to anything more than a delegate swap for 12 hours. The amount of damage to the delegate and the region is minuscule when compared to the damage caused by the WA.

[Lord Dominator]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You plan to blindly vote against every proposal passed by the WA so that it stops functioning properly, while also raiding nations to convert them to follow this ideology? I noticed the bit about changing delegates. However, what if those delegates were elected by choice and the region is pro-WA? You are then violating regional and national sovereignty by becoming a nation's political overlords. I'm sorry, but political Robin Hood doesn't work. I'm all for more debate on policies and maybe WA political parties, but a pure anti-WA movement will lead to a game word war that will ultimately ruin the game for those of us who just want to make a nation.
Also, I'd advise against calling your organization Gilgamesh. In case you are unaware, Gilgamesh is an anime character who is a greedy tyrant that is generally hated, and tries to end humanity simply because there are too many people. That name will gain you opposition from people who know what I'm talking about despite your seemingly pro-nation ideals. Especially if you start calling pro-WA people "mongrels."

Gilgamesh is a prominent historical figure, and if I remember correctly is usually called the first hero and the first character to go through a hero's journey.

Edit: and nijaed

[Wallenburg]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You plan to blindly vote against every proposal passed by the WA so that it stops functioning properly, while also raiding nations to convert them to follow this ideology? I noticed the bit about changing delegates. However, what if those delegates were elected by choice and the region is pro-WA? You are then violating regional and national sovereignty by becoming a nation's political overlords. I'm sorry, but political Robin Hood doesn't work. I'm all for more debate on policies and maybe WA political parties, but a pure anti-WA movement will lead to a game word war that will ultimately ruin the game for those of us who just want to make a nation.
Also, I'd advise against calling your organization Gilgamesh. In case you are unaware, Gilgamesh is an anime character who is a greedy tyrant that is generally hated, and tries to end humanity simply because there are too many people. That name will gain you opposition from people who know what I'm talking about despite your seemingly pro-nation ideals. Especially if you start calling pro-WA people "mongrels."

Gilgamesh is the name of the hero in one of the oldest discovered writings of humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

You are correct in what my intentions are, and how I intend to carry them out. I do support national and regional sovereignty, and I view the WA as a vehicle used to violate that sovereignty. It is justifiable to inconvenience the nations and regions which use the WA to violate sovereignty, because in the end we do not subjugate the region to anything more than a delegate swap for 12 hours. The amount of damage to the delegate and the region is minuscule when compared to the damage caused by the WA.

More accurately, you value national and regional sovereignty, but only for the nations and regions you agree with.

[Galiantus III]

Gilgamesh is the name of the hero in one of the oldest discovered writings of humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

You are correct in what my intentions are, and how I intend to carry them out. I do support national and regional sovereignty, and I view the WA as a vehicle used to violate that sovereignty. It is justifiable to inconvenience the nations and regions which use the WA to violate sovereignty, because in the end we do not subjugate the region to anything more than a delegate swap for 12 hours. The amount of damage to the delegate and the region is minuscule when compared to the damage caused by the WA.

More accurately, you value national and regional sovereignty, but only for the nations and regions you agree with.

I'd argue that's not actually true. Earlier Lord Dominator made it clear to me that if I were to be consistent I would have to consider protecting regions such as Kaiserriech from being targeted by liberation proposals. I really don't like Kiserriech, and politically it is a bad thing for me to admit, but I concede Lord Dominator is correct.

[Wallenburg]

to the whims of the few elite delegates who control the WA.

Bitely, is that you?!

Bitely would be naming it something conservative, and offering a couple hundred bucks to buy the GP forum.

[Vespertania]

Consider my curiosity peaked. Where do I sign up?

[Galiantus III]

Consider my curiosity peaked. Where do I sign up?

You're free to move over to Gilgamesh. Or if you simply want to help with the military side of things, you can join the discord channel. We'd love to have you with us, whatever way.

[Republic of Huffelpuff]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You plan to blindly vote against every proposal passed by the WA so that it stops functioning properly, while also raiding nations to convert them to follow this ideology? I noticed the bit about changing delegates. However, what if those delegates were elected by choice and the region is pro-WA? You are then violating regional and national sovereignty by becoming a nation's political overlords. I'm sorry, but political Robin Hood doesn't work. I'm all for more debate on policies and maybe WA political parties, but a pure anti-WA movement will lead to a game word war that will ultimately ruin the game for those of us who just want to make a nation.
Also, I'd advise against calling your organization Gilgamesh. In case you are unaware, Gilgamesh is an anime character who is a greedy tyrant that is generally hated, and tries to end humanity simply because there are too many people. That name will gain you opposition from people who know what I'm talking about despite your seemingly pro-nation ideals. Especially if you start calling pro-WA people "mongrels."

Gilgamesh is the name of the hero in one of the oldest discovered writings of humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

You are correct in what my intentions are, and how I intend to carry them out. I do support national and regional sovereignty, and I view the WA as a vehicle used to violate that sovereignty. It is justifiable to inconvenience the nations and regions which use the WA to violate sovereignty, because in the end we do not subjugate the region to anything more than a delegate swap for 12 hours. The amount of damage to the delegate and the region is minuscule when compared to the damage caused by the WA.

First, I am aware that Gilgamesh is the first literary hero. I own a copy of the epic and plan on reading it some time in the future. The anime character is based on the literary figure. My point here is that there is the potential to interpret the name to refer to the anime character rather than the literary figure, thus making this look even more like a dictatorial raider region than it already seems to be. It's not a bad name or anything, just a bit dissuasive for Fate/Zero fans. Also, since WA membership is voluntary, wouldn't you be rejecting their regional and national sovereignty by forcing them to vote against what they wish. I'd support this idea if it was designed to liberate regions from raider regions, but not replacing one dictatorship with another. I don't quite get the 12-hour delegate swap you mention either. Once your delegate is put out, then it the region inevitably reverts back to its old system, and there has been no political gain on your part. And is the WA really all that damaging? I mean, at least one can vote on whether one wants a resolution or not. Also, again, membership is voluntary, meaning that the nations joining willingly submit to the laws of the WA, if sometimes grudgingly. Thus, by opposing the WA and causing it to freeze, you inadvertently restrict the sovereignty of those who willingly accept the WA. I can understand the idea of trying to stop major regions from indirectly governing the other WA members because of their massive amounts of voters and puppet nations, but a blanket ban on the WA won't work. If anything, it would lead to the larger nations trying to gain more control of the WA so they can maintain power, leading to them having even more power over us independent WA nations. Lastly, just out of curiosity, would you vote for repeals, or is your anti-WA blanket meant only to stagnate the WA rather than reverse it?

[Galiantus III]

It's not a bad name or anything, just a bit dissuasive for Fate/Zero fans. Also, since WA membership is voluntary, wouldn't you be rejecting their regional and national sovereignty by forcing them to vote against what they wish. I'd support this idea if it was designed to liberate regions from raider regions, but not replacing one dictatorship with another. I don't quite get the 12-hour delegate swap you mention either. Once your delegate is put out, then it the region inevitably reverts back to its old system, and there has been no political gain on your part. And is the WA really all that damaging? I mean, at least one can vote on whether one wants a resolution or not. Also, again, membership is voluntary, meaning that the nations joining willingly submit to the laws of the WA, if sometimes grudgingly. Thus, by opposing the WA and causing it to freeze, you inadvertently restrict the sovereignty of those who willingly accept the WA. I can understand the idea of trying to stop major regions from indirectly governing the other WA members because of their massive amounts of voters and puppet nations, but a blanket ban on the WA won't work. If anything, it would lead to the larger nations trying to gain more control of the WA so they can maintain power, leading to them having even more power over us independent WA nations. Lastly, just out of curiosity, would you vote for repeals, or is your anti-WA blanket meant only to stagnate the WA rather than reverse it?

Given the population that would dislike my region's name enough to affect their region choice is relatively small compared to my recruitment pool, it is my own judgement that I am better off retaining the name in spite of it, rather than having my whole region move elsewhere and change everything.

Honestly, my rational for this region is one part "I actually care about regional sovereignty and one part "this is fun". However, I honestly don't see the point of the GA, where essentially you just have a bunch of nations voting to enforce rules on each other they don't really want. Run your nation the way you want, and don't cede any control to the whims of others.

The reason I say there is a 12-hour period and everything goes back to normal is because both the delegate and the nation my forces push to the delegacy will retain their endorsements. Thus, on the next update, the old delegate will return to power, and the nation we pushed will fall out of power. I don't think this is a breech of regional sovereignty, but perhaps it is a breech of the Delegate's sovereignty. However, considering that we only target delegates which, according to us, are already violating others' sovereignty, a utilitarian or justice-based view means we have no problem removing such delegates.

Your assessment of things is correct. I don't want to start banning people from the WA, because that doesn't fall within the scope of the game, but moderation. And yes, my intent is to stagnate the WA more than reverse it.

[Feux]

This seems gatesvilley. Your main nation is there. Did this idea come out of old regional dudes there or have any connect to that region?

[Act Tas Lam]

(Image)

Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh is a relatively new military region that seeks to exploit the structure of the WA along with gameplay operations to influence the passage of resolutions within the WA. Our goal is to prevent as many proposals within the WA from passing. Join us if you want to help curtail the power of the WA!

Why Join Us?

If you like having fun, being powerful, or gaining glory, then why not join? We forcibly prevent the passage of proposals in the largest, most powerful organization in the game! That's fun, power and glory all rolled into one!

So You're a Defender..

As a defender, you likely place a high value on regional sovereignty for natives. Raiders like to come in and violate that sovereignty, so you interfere with raider actions in order to protect the regions they would otherwise harm. Our army acts in much the same way, except in protection of national sovereignty. The existence and structure of the WA means that some players must join for the safety of their region, whether or not they want to be subject to WA legislation. By interfering with the operations of the WA, we protect these nations from ceding their sovereignty to the whims of the few elite delegates who control the WA.

We should clarify that none of our military actions pose any reasonable threat to the regions our armies enter. Indeed, in 99% of all possible scenarios, our goals will most easily be met by selecting native points. Furthermore, we see Liberation proposals as a necessary tool for Defenders, and we would prefer not to hinder, but rather to help defenders.

So How Does This Work?

The idea is pretty simple. In order to keep proposals from making it to quorum, or from passing, we swap selected delegates out of office. Since our goal is not to capture these regions (many having active founders, too) this can most easily be achieved by selecting natives with endorsements near the delegate. Few delegates are safe from this tactic, and a small group of updaters may be deployed in order to prevent significant numbers of delegates from enabling the WA to project its power.

But Why Fight the WA at All?

Well it's kind of like raiding, and that's fun. However, there are also practical and arguably moral reasons to WA opposition.

The first reason for opposition to the WA is the typical argument for national sovereignty. As stated above, WA membership is a necessity for some people, and not entirely a choice they get to make. Even in a perfect world, WA membership makes no sense from an RP perspective, only from a gameplay perspective. Why would a nation voluntarily subject itself to the will of other nations? Any time a resolution is passed in the GA, all nations that voted "against" said resolution have their sovereignty violated.

Indeed, the whole system of the WA is broken. It is a farce. The WA is presented as the world's governing body, and is supposedly an analogue to the UN - except that the UN is not the world's governing body, and the UN's decisions affect non-member states. Then there's the issue that any player may simply create a puppet nation to participate in the WA, yet avoid the affects of the WA entirely. So anyone taking the WA seriously is likely being taken advantage

However, this is also not just about fighting the WA, or even just about Gilgamesh as an organization. Gameplay needs something new to spice it up. We think you should fight against the WA, of course, but there is no reason you can't go off and have your region go fight for a certain political ideology within the WA. In fact, this is a far more interesting rationale for military gameplay than raiding or defending, the logic of which boils down to "because we can" or "because we must". If some communist region wants to go out of their way to force the passage of communist resolutions while actively blocking and repealing stuff they see as capitalist, I see it as a good expansion of gameplay.

---

This project has been a long time coming for me. Ever since I started playing NationStates (back in 2012) I have wanted to do something like this, but until I created Gilgamesh I was either not doing it right or I was floundering with other unrelated projects. I really want to contribute to the world of military gameplay here on NationStates because by itself it is such a fun little emergent niche of a game. My hope is that through Gilgamesh I will stir up something new we haven't seen before in gameplay, and hopefully add some depth to this game so many of us waste countless hours on.

~ Galiantus ~

How about sub-divisions of the WA? Like NATO and the CSTO.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

(Image)

Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh is a relatively new military region that seeks to exploit the structure of the WA along with gameplay operations to influence the passage of resolutions within the WA. Our goal is to prevent as many proposals within the WA from passing. Join us if you want to help curtail the power of the WA!

Why Join Us?

If you like having fun, being powerful, or gaining glory, then why not join? We forcibly prevent the passage of proposals in the largest, most powerful organization in the game! That's fun, power and glory all rolled into one!

So You're a Defender..

As a defender, you likely place a high value on regional sovereignty for natives. Raiders like to come in and violate that sovereignty, so you interfere with raider actions in order to protect the regions they would otherwise harm. Our army acts in much the same way, except in protection of national sovereignty. The existence and structure of the WA means that some players must join for the safety of their region, whether or not they want to be subject to WA legislation. By interfering with the operations of the WA, we protect these nations from ceding their sovereignty to the whims of the few elite delegates who control the WA.

We should clarify that none of our military actions pose any reasonable threat to the regions our armies enter. Indeed, in 99% of all possible scenarios, our goals will most easily be met by selecting native points. Furthermore, we see Liberation proposals as a necessary tool for Defenders, and we would prefer not to hinder, but rather to help defenders.

So How Does This Work?

The idea is pretty simple. In order to keep proposals from making it to quorum, or from passing, we swap selected delegates out of office. Since our goal is not to capture these regions (many having active founders, too) this can most easily be achieved by selecting natives with endorsements near the delegate. Few delegates are safe from this tactic, and a small group of updaters may be deployed in order to prevent significant numbers of delegates from enabling the WA to project its power.

But Why Fight the WA at All?

Well it's kind of like raiding, and that's fun. However, there are also practical and arguably moral reasons to WA opposition.

The first reason for opposition to the WA is the typical argument for national sovereignty. As stated above, WA membership is a necessity for some people, and not entirely a choice they get to make. Even in a perfect world, WA membership makes no sense from an RP perspective, only from a gameplay perspective. Why would a nation voluntarily subject itself to the will of other nations? Any time a resolution is passed in the GA, all nations that voted "against" said resolution have their sovereignty violated.

Indeed, the whole system of the WA is broken. It is a farce. The WA is presented as the world's governing body, and is supposedly an analogue to the UN - except that the UN is not the world's governing body, and the UN's decisions affect non-member states. Then there's the issue that any player may simply create a puppet nation to participate in the WA, yet avoid the affects of the WA entirely. So anyone taking the WA seriously is likely being taken advantage

However, this is also not just about fighting the WA, or even just about Gilgamesh as an organization. Gameplay needs something new to spice it up. We think you should fight against the WA, of course, but there is no reason you can't go off and have your region go fight for a certain political ideology within the WA. In fact, this is a far more interesting rationale for military gameplay than raiding or defending, the logic of which boils down to "because we can" or "because we must". If some communist region wants to go out of their way to force the passage of communist resolutions while actively blocking and repealing stuff they see as capitalist, I see it as a good expansion of gameplay.

---

This project has been a long time coming for me. Ever since I started playing NationStates (back in 2012) I have wanted to do something like this, but until I created Gilgamesh I was either not doing it right or I was floundering with other unrelated projects. I really want to contribute to the world of military gameplay here on NationStates because by itself it is such a fun little emergent niche of a game. My hope is that through Gilgamesh I will stir up something new we haven't seen before in gameplay, and hopefully add some depth to this game so many of us waste countless hours on.

~ Galiantus ~

How about sub-divisions of the WA? Like NATO and the CSTO.