I Agree Mr Barry, Non-WA Shouldn't Mean Exclusion

[Conservative Values]

One line from Max's news post on the card trading game poked me to try raising this issue again. Per the news post:

But many people have good reasons for not wanting to join the WA, which shouldn't exclude them from other parts of NationStates.

So why exactly is executive controls in a region completely dependent (outside founding your own region) on compliance with GA laws (stat changes)? I get United Nations Delegates predated regional controls, and when there was a need in ancient times to add regional controls they were the obvious person to give them to since there was already an election system in place for the WA Delegate position. But to me the mental link stops there, and I have a hard time explaining (beyond it was the easiest way to do it 15 years ago) why you have to be part of a global government to determine how your region runs.

Regional politics / community participation are a big part of NationStates. I'd argue much bigger than the card trading game. So what gives?

(Full disclosure, I've suggested previously an "observer" status that would allow WA members to endorse each other without being voting members that are impacted by global law. You should also check out this thread on basically the same topic from a few months ago.)

[Frisbeeteria]

Founded regions belong to the Founder (unless he gives away the rights), and founderless regions, including the GCRs, hold elective executive positions. The only voting mechanism in the game is WA endos, so it's the only way to hold elections. Once elected (or founded), the Executive can appoint others to all the other roles, with the exception of Executive power.

Are you suggesting that the current possible executives (Founder and Delegate) have the ability to pass Executive rights to Regional Officers? Because that's essentially a transfer of the Founder position. That's a HUGE change to region mechanics and operation, all to avoid having one nation being hit with minor stat changes every four days. I'm not seeing the value of your suggestion.

[Conservative Values]

Founded regions belong to the Founder (unless he gives away the rights), and founderless regions, including the GCRs, hold elective executive positions. The only voting mechanism in the game is WA endos, so it's the only way to hold elections. Once elected (or founded), the Executive can appoint others to all the other roles, with the exception of Executive power.

Are you suggesting that the current possible executives (Founder and Delegate) have the ability to pass Executive rights to Regional Officers? Because that's essentially a transfer of the Founder position. That's a HUGE change to region mechanics and operation, all to avoid having one nation being hit with minor stat changes every four days. I'm not seeing the value of your suggestion.

No, though I'm not sure what I'm asking for is a smaller change. It'd still probably be "HUGE".

I'm simply saying it seems unfair to exclude nations who do not want to participate in a global government (Now known as the General Assembly part of the WA) from voting / mattering in terms of their region.

I suggested a way to participate in the "Endorsement" part of the World Assembly without having to participate in the voting on / following international legislation. Some of the other suggestions I've seen have been a totally new election / endorsement system to exist side by side with the WA. Or a complete separation between the GA/SC with SC membership determining who endorse for regional controls (though this option also was pushed more back in the day when GA players wanted totally rid of the SC).

There's a lot of ways it could be done differently, and these threads always get lost in a million super-specific suggestions, and we lose sight of the two main points which are:
1) It stinks you have to participate in the General Assembly to decide things about your region.
2) The only reason you currently have to participate in the General Assembly to decide things about your region, is in 2003 when it was decided that regions should be able to control themselves, coincidentally there was already this election system set up to decide who got extra votes in the global government. So regional management was just thrown on top of that system which was already in place. I'm seeing no logical connection between the two player groups / communities other than it was the easiest way to do it 15 years ago.

[Trotterdam]

Founder succession and WA observer status, two approaches to what the original poster here is asking for, have both been discussed at length before and received some support from the game staff (and could coexist), but have serious technical barriers to being implemented anytime soon.

One hopefully easier thing that I would like to have, is founders having the ability to pass their "ability to do stuff without spending Influence" power to regional officers if they choose. Non-WA nations do accumulate Influence, but at a very slow rate that poses a serious handicap, and even WA nations still have a finite amount. This power, even if assigned, would automatically cease to be operative if the founder ceases to exist (just like removing executive power from the delegate).

[Frisbeeteria]

So, without a change to the current voting system, you essentially want two different types of WA nations - WA voting, and WA non-voting. The non-voters would be spared the stat changes (and would not be allowed to submit proposals) but would still participate in regional affairs.

From a practical standpoint, if you don't include a defense against rampant puppetry, your idea is DOA. We'd have to insist that all players apply for WA status the same way, and be managed via the WA multi check system. It would be the only way to prevent puppets from taking over everywhere. We'd have to consider what that would do to endorsements and influence as well, as I don't believe a non-participant should be awarded the same international benefits as a full WA member. More than a non-member, perhaps, but less than a voting member of the GA/SC. We'd also have to consider how switching between the two roles would mess things up. Would you need to resign and rejoin? Do we allow it at all? Is that fair to Full members? There are a lot of unanswered questions with this.

There are some changes on the admin wishlist that might make some variant of this possible, but I don't know if they're likely to show up this year or in the next five years. It's entirely up to our volunteer coders. Given that the WA/UN has been part of the game since Max tossed it out in 2002, I'd be surprised if he seriously entertained doing this.

[Conservative Values]

So, without a change to the current voting system, you essentially want two different types of WA nations - WA voting, and WA non-voting. The non-voters would be spared the stat changes (and would not be allowed to submit proposals) but would still participate in regional affairs.

From a practical standpoint, if you don't include a defense against rampant puppetry, your idea is DOA. We'd have to insist that all players apply for WA status the same way, and be managed via the WA multi check system. It would be the only way to prevent puppets from taking over everywhere. We'd have to consider what that would do to endorsements and influence as well, as I don't believe a non-participant should be awarded the same international benefits as a full WA member. More than a non-member, perhaps, but less than a voting member of the GA/SC. We'd also have to consider how switching between the two roles would mess things up. Would you need to resign and rejoin? Do we allow it at all? Is that fair to Full members? There are a lot of unanswered questions with this.

Correct, it would absolutely have to have the multi-check system. That's the key to Gameplay. We don't want the same player voting ten times in a regional election. But we also don't want to have to join some massive RPed global government to vote in regional elections - which right now is the only way to prove that we aren't a puppet.

It would be essential to this that endorsements / influence and all gameplay aspects of the World Assembly work the exact same way between non-voting members and regular members. Otherwise, you're still telling Gameplayers they have to participate in the World Assembly Legislative part of the game in order to participate in Gameplay. Influence after all has no value or meaning in the World Assembly side of the game. That's an example of a Gameplay feature that was thrown on top of the World Assembly because we mistakenly married these two very separate communities and play styles in the early days.

As for joining/resigning/switching between the two, I don't really care. Because I'm a gameplayer. I'd rather not be in the WA at all, but I have to be. So I am. To me it would make most sense for joining the WA to work the way it does now, and then switching to 'non-voting' being an additional step. All I'm looking for is a way to keep being a gameplayer, without having to be a member of massive globalist government that none of my nations would ever logically participate in.

There are some changes on the admin wishlist that might make some variant of this possible, but I don't know if they're likely to show up this year or in the next five years. It's entirely up to our volunteer coders. Given that the WA/UN has been part of the game since Max tossed it out in 2002, I'd be surprised if he seriously entertained doing this.

*hopes you're not talking about master accounts, because that (like founder succession) is actually completely unrelated*

[edit: accidentally said non-member when I meant non-voting member]