REGIONAL ISSUES

[Windsor dc]

Ok.it came to me that every 'active' region should have it's own issues.Maybe like: unfair government,nations controversy,criminality,Homosexuality,Human Rights,illegal immigration..etcPlease state your opinion below.

[Tim-Opolis]

Not sure what you're saying here....

But what is your definition of active?

[Windsor dc]

you know like doing they are online and ready then.Normally what you do with your nation everyday receive two issues a day.Basically the founder or the delegate can see the issues and discuss them with their government or all the nations.

[Scoochi2]

Basically a WA for each region, where only the delegate/founder can vote?
And if you're in the region, you're automatically a member?

What if the delegate wants to accept one response but the founder wants to accept a different one?
Does one nation have more say than the other? Which? Why?

[Windsor dc]

they will have to discuss it

[Tim-Opolis]

you know like doing they are online and ready then.Normally what you do with your nation everyday receive two issues a day.Basically the founder or the delegate can see the issues and discuss them with their government or all the nations.

That's a terrible definition of active. Many regions don't keep delegates and don't use the founder much anyway. I can name you quite a bit of regions who's community's are focused around the forums

And what if the region does not wish to be bothered with them?

Honestly. This is way to complex of an idea to put in; especially with your limited explanation of it. It also seems extremely unnecessary since it would generally only be useful for more RP style regions.

[[violet]]

The idea of regional issues has come up before. The best version (according to me) is where everyone in the region gets the same issue: e.g. a looming environmental disaster due to too many heavy polluter in the region. Each nation individually decides how to respond, as normal: do nothing, clean up industry, whatever.

Then, after a set period of time (say 5 days), consequences are imposed on everyone in the region based on the overall response. E.g. if enough nations elected to clean up industry, then the environmental disaster is averted, but if too many of them chose to keep polluting, then everyone's environment suffers.

[The Blaatschapen]

The idea of regional issues has come up before. The best version (according to me) is where everyone in the region gets the same issue: e.g. a looming environmental disaster due to too many heavy polluter in the region. Each nation individually decides how to respond, as normal: do nothing, clean up industry, whatever.

Then, after a set period of time (say 5 days), consequences are imposed on everyone in the region based on the overall response. E.g. if enough nations elected to clean up industry, then the environmental disaster is averted, but if too many of them chose to keep polluting, then everyone's environment suffers.

Ooh, nice. Could we give it some prisoners dilemma touch as well?

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Oh god, please don't make my nation's mechanics dependent on the decisions of other nations.

NationStates is a free nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

Bold is mine. I view regional issues, as discussed, are in the same vein as trade and war. This is a national politics game, not an international politics game, and I'd really like to see it kept that way.

[Sanctaria]

Oh god, please don't make my nation's mechanics dependent on the decisions of other nations.

NationStates is a free nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

Bold is mine. I view regional issues, as discussed, are in the same vein as trade and war. This is a national politics game, not an international politics game, and I'd really like to see it kept that way.

Could be an opt-in thing?

Like you check a box in settings or something.

[Neo Arcad]

I think we need to work on space bar awareness first.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Oh god, please don't make my nation's mechanics dependent on the decisions of other nations.

Bold is mine. I view regional issues, as discussed, are in the same vein as trade and war. This is a national politics game, not an international politics game, and I'd really like to see it kept that way.

Could be an opt-in thing?

Like you check a box in settings or something.

I think that if this were implemented, it would have to be. Furthermore, some measures would have to be taken to prevent people filling a region with their own puppets so as to influence the outcome of such issues. Particularly mean-spirited raiders could even try and sabotage people's nations by doing so. All in all, I think this is a bad business to be getting into.

[The Blaatschapen]

Oh god, please don't make my nation's mechanics dependent on the decisions of other nations.

NationStates is a free nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

Bold is mine. I view regional issues, as discussed, are in the same vein as trade and war. This is a national politics game, not an international politics game, and I'd really like to see it kept that way.

So I assume that you do not have a WA then

But that actually brings me to a point, this would indeed make regions a bit like mini-WAs in that the decision of the majority will influence your own country.

[Windsor dc]

The idea of regional issues has come up before. The best version (according to me) is where everyone in the region gets the same issue: e.g. a looming environmental disaster due to too many heavy polluter in the region. Each nation individually decides how to respond, as normal: do nothing, clean up industry, whatever.

Then, after a set period of time (say 5 days), consequences are imposed on everyone in the region based on the overall response. E.g. if enough nations elected to clean up industry, then the environmental disaster is averted, but if too many of them chose to keep polluting, then everyone's environment suffers.

yes i meant exactly that thought i was alone.it spices up the fun in the regions

[PurDunamis]

Oh god, please don't make my nation's mechanics dependent on the decisions of other nations.

NationStates is a free nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

Bold is mine. I view regional issues, as discussed, are in the same vein as trade and war. This is a national politics game, not an international politics game, and I'd really like to see it kept that way.

I've got to agree with this.

I've never joined the WA, since I have no interest in having my nation altered by the questionable decision making powers of the rest of humanity. Regional issues without some sort of opt-out, would leave nations not interested with the sole option of creating a region for themselves, pass-wording it and living in splendid isolation.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Even with an opt-out, to prevent people abusing it with puppets, you would need a way to ensure that a player only controlled one opted-in nation per region, which seems like WAY more trouble than it's worth. Even then, it could still be abused by raiders, who would then be able to manipulate the mechanics of other nations against their will. I'll let that sink in a moment.

[Unibot II]

The idea of regional issues has come up before. The best version (according to me) is where everyone in the region gets the same issue: e.g. a looming environmental disaster due to too many heavy polluter in the region. Each nation individually decides how to respond, as normal: do nothing, clean up industry, whatever.

Then, after a set period of time (say 5 days), consequences are imposed on everyone in the region based on the overall response. E.g. if enough nations elected to clean up industry, then the environmental disaster is averted, but if too many of them chose to keep polluting, then everyone's environment suffers.

So like... cooperation and defection... there would of course be free-riders in such a system and if the region was rational.. it would probably be a shithole.... innnnteresting. I like the sound of it, It would probably be very good for regions like DSA and SLU that mandate certain types of governments and strongly pursue the left ideology, since their members there would be more apt to cooperate.

[Swkoll]

Even with an opt-out, to prevent people abusing it with puppets, you would need a way to ensure that a player only controlled one opted-in nation per region, which seems like WAY more trouble than it's worth. Even then, it could still be abused by raiders, who would then be able to manipulate the mechanics of other nations against their will. I'll let that sink in a moment.

The easy way is that only WA nations get to partake in these decisions.

[Campinia]

Even with an opt-out, to prevent people abusing it with puppets, you would need a way to ensure that a player only controlled one opted-in nation per region, which seems like WAY more trouble than it's worth. Even then, it could still be abused by raiders, who would then be able to manipulate the mechanics of other nations against their will. I'll let that sink in a moment.

The easy way is that only WA nations get to partake in these decisions.

And what do you think raiders are? They don't do much raiding on non-WA puppets

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The easy way is that only WA nations get to partake in these decisions.

And what do you think raiders are? They don't do much raiding on non-WA puppets

Precisely my point. Unlike the WA, where the odd dozen votes one way or another doesn't matter a bit, in a regional system, invaders could have a massive effect on the vote.