NationStates

This one was taken fresh from Jutsa's Recycling Bin, and as such, they're the coauthor. I have to admit, I haven't really done too much to it... I've proofread it, modified the wording, added the effect lines, etc... most of the credit goes to Jutsa for this wonderful issue idea utilizing the influence stat. I'd really like to take it and make it my own. It needs much improvement, yes, but I'm really not sure where yet.

Anyway, it's a working title, and I'd love to hear some suggestions on the title and the draft itself.

Title: @@NATION@@ On the World Stage
The Issue: @@NAME@@ now sits at a seat of power, endorsed by many and among the region's most influential nations. Your cabinet has organized a meeting to discuss the possibility of spreading @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ values and culture throughout the region and the world.

Validity: High influence
Coauthor: Jutsa

Option 1: "All the greatest nations do it," says your Chief Executive Diplomat, handing you a list of all the less prevalent nations in @@REGION@@. "We can begin by starting large-scale projects in impovershed nations. We could use some allies, and it'd also look good on an international stage. As an added bonus, by the time we're done with them, they'll likely be in so much debt they'll have to do us a favor in return. I hear Lilliputia's ripe this time of year."
Effect: less influential nations across the region seem to be quite a bit in debt after all that "helping" from @@NATION@@

Validity: Strong Military
Option 2a: "We should be preparing our defenses now that we're a target," suggests your Minister of Defense, highlighting several nations on the diplomat's list in red marker. "We can't let the world think we're an easy target to invade, now can we? We should set up military bases near our allies as a gesture of our willingness to protect them, as well as a projection of power against our rivals."
Effect: @@NATION@@ has thrust itself down the throats of rivals and allies alike

Validity: Weak Military
Option 2b: "We should be preparing our defenses now that we're a target," suggests your Minister of Defense, highlighting several nations on the diplomat's list in red marker. "We can't let the world think we're an easy target to invade, now can we? We'll need to start from scratch and initiate a massive overhaul to our underwhelming army. A bit more funding should do the trick."
Effect: the military has been completely revamped

Validity: Not autarky
Option 3a: "Would you really want to blow our reputation with dogmatic hard power?" inquires movie director @@RANDOMNAME@@, handing you a list of all the names @@HE@@ wants in front of the government building for a photo op by tomorrow. "Think of the untapped global stage where we could be spreading @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ values, culture, and patriotism to with a small government investment. I'm talking about @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ restaurants, @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ movies, games, artwork, manufacturing, you name it. All the more so others would want to be like us and give us their money doing it."
Effect: @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ culture knows no bounds

Validity: Autarky
Option 3b: "Would you really want to blow our reputation with dogmatic hard power?" inquires movie director @@RANDOMNAME@@, handing you a list of all the names @@HE@@ wants in front of the government building for a photo op by tomorrow. "Think of the untapped global stage where we could be spreading @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ values, culture, and patriotism to if you just let us do business across borders. I'm talking about @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ restaurants, @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ movies, games, artwork, manufacturing, you name it. All the more so others would want to be like us and give us their money doing it."
Effect: @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ culture knows no bounds

Option 4: "Why can't everyone just leave us alone?" mutters your xenophobic uncle. "You should withdraw all of your diplomats. They shouldn't be exposed to all those weird, foreign, non-@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ cultures anyhow."
Effect: @@NATION@@ has taken up the policy of sitting in a corner watching the rest of the world play out

Co-authors go in your validity.

Effect lines do not begin with capital letters and do not end with full stops.

This issue's validity is "High influence." Relative to every nation or just to your region?

Tinhampton wrote:Co-authors go in your validity.

Effect lines do not begin with capital letters and do not end with full stops.

This issue's validity is "High influence." Relative to every nation or just to your region?

Thanks for the feedback! This is my first go at drafting, so your corrections are invaluable.

Regarding the influence, I would probably say every nation. Think top 10% and under.

Top 10% influence in Europe or XKI means you aren't really influential. I think making the validity one of the influence ranks (minnow, truckler, hegemony etc) would be better.

Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands wrote:Top 10% influence in Europe or XKI means you aren't really influential. I think making the validity one of the influence ranks (minnow, truckler, hegemony etc) would be better.

Would that be possible, though? I mean, could the issue editing team do it?

The Orwell Society wrote:

Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands wrote:Top 10% influence in Europe or XKI means you aren't really influential. I think making the validity one of the influence ranks (minnow, truckler, hegemony etc) would be better.

Would that be possible, though? I mean, could the issue editing team do it?

The question is: do you really want to measure that?

Those titles are not limited to nations with endorsements, and most of the nations with the highest titles are found in tiny regions of just a couple nations, where their influence is very low... it's just higher than the one or two other people who also happen to be there. The world #1 on the Influence stat, with an SPDR over 2 million and more than 300 current endorsements, is only ranked in the middle of the title list as an "Envoy" (rank 16 of 31). This nation, Verdant Haven, is in the global top 0.2% for Influence with an SPDR of around 188,000, but is down at rank 18, while one of my non-WA puppets off in my locked private RP region is 9 ranks above VH with an SPDR of just 610.

In this case, identify what you want to measure, and if it makes sense for an issue, we can probably figure out some way to do it.

Verdant Haven wrote:

The Orwell Society wrote:Would that be possible, though? I mean, could the issue editing team do it?

The question is: do you really want to measure that?

Those titles are not limited to nations with endorsements, and most of the nations with the highest titles are found in tiny regions of just a couple nations, where their influence is very low... it's just higher than the one or two other people who also happen to be there. The world #1 on the Influence stat, with an SPDR over 2 million and more than 300 current endorsements, is only ranked in the middle of the title list as an "Envoy" (rank 16 of 31). This nation, Verdant Haven, is in the global top 0.2% for Influence with an SPDR of around 188,000, but is down at rank 18, while one of my non-WA puppets off in my locked private RP region is 9 ranks above VH with an SPDR of just 610.

In this case, identify what you want to measure, and if it makes sense for an issue, we can probably figure out some way to do it.

A nation could be top 100% in influence but be classified as a hermit if they are the sole one in a region.

Verdant Haven wrote:

The Orwell Society wrote:Would that be possible, though? I mean, could the issue editing team do it?

The question is: do you really want to measure that?

Those titles are not limited to nations with endorsements, and most of the nations with the highest titles are found in tiny regions of just a couple nations, where their influence is very low... it's just higher than the one or two other people who also happen to be there. The world #1 on the Influence stat, with an SPDR over 2 million and more than 300 current endorsements, is only ranked in the middle of the title list as an "Envoy" (rank 16 of 31). This nation, Verdant Haven, is in the global top 0.2% for Influence with an SPDR of around 188,000, but is down at rank 18, while one of my non-WA puppets off in my locked private RP region is 9 ranks above VH with an SPDR of just 610.

In this case, identify what you want to measure, and if it makes sense for an issue, we can probably figure out some way to do it.

My rationale was that since the draft focused on relative influence, nations who had a lot of SPDR but little in comparison to others in the region shouldn’t really be considered influential. But you have a good point.

This is a tough one, figuring out specific validity. I think it should be a certain number (stat-wise) but I'm not sure how high that number should be.

Anyways, any feedback on the draft's text? That's what I'm looking for right now.

I certainly don't have anything to add! Looks good to me (But then again, I did originally write it xD)

All I can say is I do approve of what changes have been made. Maybe add "diplomat's" before "list" to 2b. Beyond that though, genuinely approve of all the little changes made to it.

Edit: Oh, effect lines! I'd definitely say for some of them (well, particularly 2b), you absolutely could go with a bit more amusement/creativity. All that being said, at least you came up with some where I couldn't, so that's a step in the right direction xD

Jutsa wrote:I certainly don't have anything to add! Looks good to me (But then again, I did originally write it xD)

All I can say is I do approve of what changes have been made. Maybe add "diplomat's" before "list" to 2b. Beyond that though, genuinely approve of all the little changes made to it.

Edit: Oh, effect lines! I'd definitely say for some of them (well, particularly 2b), you absolutely could go with a bit more amusement/creativity. All that being said, at least you came up with some where I couldn't, so that's a step in the right direction xD

Thanks for the advice! I was a bit worried the changes were too small, but I could not think if anything at the moment but a few minor changes here and there.

I will see to it to implement that one little change you mentioned, and try and give the effect lines a bit more humor. Thank you so much!

Skipping over the question of exactly who the target is, which might alter the first sentence slightly:

- The issue text line "…to discuss the possibility of spreading…" feels a little wishy-washy. If a nation is a regional powerhouse with high influence, by definition they've already spread their values and culture somewhat. Influence is a measure of soft power, after all! I'd look at phrasing this as the cabinet looking at how best to continue spreading influence in new and different ways.

- Option 1 "do it" seems somewhat vague. Given the above about adjusting the issue description, I'd like to see this person be a little more specific. If the recipient is already widely endorsed and influential, again, that suggests they already have a number of allies. I'd spend some of those words providing an example of two of the kinds of projects the diplomat is suggesting.

- Option 2 (both) is reasonable. I would suggest expanding it slightly with maybe one additional "pro" in each version, as they're otherwise slightly anemic relative to the other cases being put forward.

- Option 4 might make more sense as suggesting you leave others alone, instead of the reverse, given the topic, and what the others' proposals are.

- Jutsa already mentioned updating effect lines – I'll echo that suggestion.

Verdant Haven wrote:Skipping over the question of exactly who the target is, which might alter the first sentence slightly:

- The issue text line "…to discuss the possibility of spreading…" feels a little wishy-washy. If a nation is a regional powerhouse with high influence, by definition they've already spread their values and culture somewhat. Influence is a measure of soft power, after all! I'd look at phrasing this as the cabinet looking at how best to continue spreading influence in new and different ways.

- Option 1 "do it" seems somewhat vague. Given the above about adjusting the issue description, I'd like to see this person be a little more specific. If the recipient is already widely endorsed and influential, again, that suggests they already have a number of allies. I'd spend some of those words providing an example of two of the kinds of projects the diplomat is suggesting.

- Option 2 (both) is reasonable. I would suggest expanding it slightly with maybe one additional "pro" in each version, as they're otherwise slightly anemic relative to the other cases being put forward.

- Option 4 might make more sense as suggesting you leave others alone, instead of the reverse, given the topic, and what the others' proposals are.

- Jutsa already mentioned updating effect lines – I'll echo that suggestion.

Thank you so much for the valuable feedback! I will try to implement all of your suggestions in the next draft, as well as a set number for the validity.

The Orwell Society wrote:Thank you so much for the valuable feedback! I will try to implement all of your suggestions in the next draft, as well as a set number for the validity.

You bet :-)

Doesn't necessarily need to be a set number - just a consistent description. If you think it should be for the most influential nations within a particular region, suggest that. If you want it based on world-wide influence without regard for region, suggest that. If you want only nations with an outsized influence score relative to others in their region, that's likely doable on a technical level, but I don't know if it would make a good choice simply because of how limiting it would be in terms of who gets it. Just that sort of thing, and it'll get sorted out back stage if the issue gets selected.

Any more feedback that I can incorporate into the next draft?

I feel like the core premise of being influential is not tackled as much as it should be in the draft. The options feel a little too generic. At the moment it's just 'more diplomacy, big military, boost culture stats and do nothing'.

Also, there should be more conflict in the issue. Maybe @@NAME@@ being influential means rival nation (e.g. Blackacre) is angry?

I think it should be high influence relative to region to get this- an imperfect metric, sure, but one that's already measured. And besides, even nations that are solo in their region are already assumed to share it with the NPCs, so where's the problem?

West Barack and East Obama wrote:I feel like the core premise of being influential is not tackled as much as it should be in the draft. The options feel a little too generic. At the moment it's just 'more diplomacy, big military, boost culture stats and do nothing'.

Also, there should be more conflict in the issue. Maybe @@NAME@@ being influential means rival nation (e.g. Blackacre) is angry?

^This. High influence doesn't just mean that you get to do what you want... I mean, it does, but it will be a better issue if there are consequences to that. Rivals and coalitions tend to be the biggest problems with very influential nations in history- everyone else bands together to work on bringing them down a peg. Look at the War of the League of Cambrai for example (everyone teams up to knock down Venice... and then when France was getting too powerful everyone rallied to smash them too), or how China and Russia work together to counter western influence despite often being enemies in their own right.

Of course, the other approach you could take with high influence is the opposite- that you end up with dependent allies who beg you for help as soon as they get into the slightest trouble. Think the Romans and their interactions with the Greek city states until King Mithridates, or the Germans bailing out Austria in WW1, or the US acting when European leaders dawdled (for example, in the Yugoslav Wars or during the 2008 financial crash). Taking an influential leadership role inevitably means that to some extent smaller countries look to you for leadership when the going gets tough- a ripe subject for an issue in its own right.

Thank you two for your feedback! I'm busy with other things, but expect a new draft sometime next week.

If nation was already influential, then how did they become more influential for this to be an issue?

This will be a idea for me