Since When Did Daily Issues Resign WA Membership?!?

by **Galiantus** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:57 am

I LOVE this issue! Who wrote it? This was the BEST idea ever!!!! :hug:

by **Unibot III** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:51 pm

Luna Amore wrote:I'll just repeat what I said in the Got Issues? thread:
Luna Amore wrote:I'd just like to add that this wasn't a quick decision by any means. We've been working on that issue since March. From it's inception we tried to make it as clear as possible what the major consequence of that choice would be. We set aside the long standing rule of issues that aims for ambiguity for this issue because of the effect. It was deemed clear enough by everyone on the issue editing team and two admins.

The time you have spent on this issue is not comforting. Perhaps it should have occurred to the staff through March till now, that the idea was a bad one.

Players aren't going to know that the issue is going to do something unprecedented in issue history and commit a game action -- it doesn't matter how clear you make it, it's something that's never been done before. This was a stupid move by everyone on the staff who approved the idea; it's just fortunate that a feeder or sinker hasn't been affected by this yet.

EDIT: At the very least, a news post should have been made to warn players that issue policy had changed and it would now commit game actions (e.g., resigning a WA Delegate from the WA).

by **Ananke II** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:08 pm

I do think some kind of warning would be nice. Especially for delegates or highly endorsed people, who risk losing a lot of hard work if they end up clicking the wrong button, because they didn't know that it was possible for issues to make them leave the WA. If any of the admins/moderators remember the bug, which made delegates lose either their delegacy or a big chunk of their endorsements some years back it shouldn't come as a surprise that an issue like this is likely to piss people off. Endorsements/number of years they've been delegate matters a lot to people. Just the thought of me losing the 900+ endos I had as delegate by mistake, if this issue had been around some months ago make me wince. :meh:

by **Christian Democrats** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:16 pm

Galiantus wrote::rofl:

I LOVE this issue! Who wrote it? This was the BEST idea ever!!!!

This.

by **Crushing Our Enemies** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:17 pm

All this does is make me less likely to answer issues, for fear that some extra-statistical effect of the issue choice will screw me over.

Not sure what the intent of implementing this kind of issue was. I don't see anything good coming of it.

by **Jamie Anumia** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:21 pm

I personally like this new issue. It's a change. And definitely (at least in my opinion) makes things more interesting. I personally like this direction issues are taking. While I don't think an auto-join WA issue should be brought in (for obvious reasons) - I wouldn't personally mind seeing similar issues.

by **The Dourian Embassy** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:26 pm

It is clear what this issue does. However, it's also unprecedented in its effect. That's the primary objection. 10 years of nation states and nothing at all like this comes up. I don't even have a problem with the issue doing what it does(although I find the reduction of my NatSov position to "I don't want to play anymore" somewhat insulting).

The problem is that while I look at this issue and think "I better dismiss this, I don't want to take the chance", I still wouldn't know for sure what the effect is without coming and looking for it. Others might think differently... "I've been answering issues for 9 years, I wonder how this will affect my economic ratings". The idea that an issue could remove you from the WA is an alien concept, an unknown unknown.

Of course it is going to make people angry when they select the issue and find themselves out of the WA. They had no prior experience that would indicate that was even a possibility. It should be much clearer... there should be an OOC note on it(perhaps in big red letters). This is not like all other issues, and it should not get treated like it is.

by **Christian Democrats** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:51 pm

Jamie Anumia wrote:I personally like this new issue. It's a change. And definitely (at least in my opinion) makes things more interesting. I personally like this direction issues are taking. While I don't think an auto-join WA issue should be brought in (for obvious reasons) - I wouldn't personally mind seeing similar issues.

I finally agree with Jamie on something.

Here's another idea: major war in region, people want to flee, your nation finds itself in a random region after the update. :lol:

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:01 pm

Actually I think Big Tex's "comeuppance" (if you want to call it that, and I don't, since I happen to like the guy) would be enough of a kick in the teeth to remind issue-answerers to exercise great care when considering their government's response. I was initially disappointed with the game staff's smug response to the complaints, but ultimately it's the nature of answering daily issues: risking unexpected changes to your nation that may or may not be beneficial to either the nation or the player. It's not like this issue or its effects were some big secret, anyway: the Got Issues? thread was already up for all to see at the time that this happened.

by **Sichuan Pepper** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:07 pm

I believe a button needs to be added when choosing that issue { ARE YOU SURE YOU WISH TO RESIGN? } ...something like that.
It certainly needs a safety of some kind as has been demonstrated.

by **Christian Democrats** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:01 pm

Sichuan Pepper wrote:I believe a button needs to be added when choosing that issue { ARE YOU SURE YOU WISH TO RESIGN? } ...something like that.
It certainly needs a safety of some kind as has been demonstrated.

Why? The issue does exactly what it says it will do. Unintended consequences are an element of daily issues. The consequence here should not have been unexpected because the issue option is clear regarding its effect. If you are daring enough to assume that an issue will do something besides what it says it will do, that is not the problem of the issue authors and editors. There is already a safety: it is called reading comprehension. Issue buttons don't punch themselves.

by **Winter Vacationers** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:36 pm

The only problem I have is that it IS both unexpected and gameplay dangerous. I could see looking at the issue and clicking the "resign" option, not thinking it would REALLY resign me. For me, it wouldn't be a big problem, but for a regional Delegate, and perhaps his region, it could be a big problem.

by **Sichuan Pepper** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:46 pm

When you go to resign WA a little box pops us asking you to confirm that action. This issue does not give that......it circumvents a warning that was put in place for a good reason. Now I assume that reason remains the same so that safety should be extended to the issue.

by **Mousebumples** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:56 pm

I haven't answered any issues with my main for well over a year - and given the introduction of this issue, I'm likely to maintain that.

Since I've been around for (almost) 10 years now, I tend to just click randomly when answering issues. Obviously, with an issue like this one in place, that could be very dangerous.

If this issue is going to be in place, I would strongly encourage a News item with a general announcement of the topic to notify other players that such an issue exists. No need to name the issue or detail exactly what it does. However, this is a MAJOR CHANGE compared to what issues used to be able to do. I'm sure that many of the other nations (outside of BT) that were ejected from the WA on these grounds would have appreciated a notice that such a change is now possible through issue answering.

by **Glen-Rhodes** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:39 pm

I don't understand why this blew up to the point of the Got Issues? thread being closed. It's a simple fix, nothing to be all up in arms about. If we're just waiting for a Game Admin to edit the issue, mentioning so would cool things down. :\

by **Sichuan Pepper** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:25 pm

I did not even see that discussion going on. I feel bad for the writer and the mods over that blow up. I believe it just needs an edit by administration to give a warning to nations prior to WA removal but the issue itself is fun and well written.

by **Independent Planets** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:35 pm

Sichuan Pepper wrote:When you go to resign WA a little box pops us asking you to confirm that action. This issue does not give that......it circumvents a warning that was put in place for a good reason. Now I assume that reason remains the same so that safety should be extended to the issue.

This is probably the best reason I've seen for a change to be made. If there's a chance to reconsider for people who intentionally go to the WA page to resign, there should be a chance to reconsider for people who are clicking through their national issues.

No need to remove the issue (even though it's not very good), no need to change the wording. Just stick in a little confirmation pop-up, problem sol- well, problem addressed.

by **Sichuan Pepper** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:55 pm

The only other tech issue I can see with it is if you were about to become delegate and had approved that issue...I imagine during process at update you would resign WA (issues being processed) and would no longer take delegate seat.
This might have already been addressed during the issue production though.

by **Reploid Productions** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:39 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I don't understand why this blew up to the point of the Got Issues? thread being closed. It's a simple fix, nothing to be all up in arms about. If we're just waiting for a Game Admin to edit the issue, mentioning so would cool things down. :\

Considering that the head Game Admin is the one that wrote the specific bit of issues code to make it work, and approved it being used in the issue, I find it unlikely that the issue will be changed in any significant manner.

~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

by **Ballotonia** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:48 am

Sichuan Pepper wrote:The only other tech issue I can see with it is if you were about to become delegate and had approved that issue...I imagine during process at update you would resign WA (issues being processed) and would no longer take delegate seat.
This might have already been addressed during the issue production though.

Current implementation is that the issue is handled after the nation's endorsements are counted towards delegacy. So in the situation you describe the nation would resign from the WA, and then become Delegate anyway, leaving 12 hours for the player (and others) to react to the event.

Why do people insist on referring to this issue effect as being 'ejected' from the WA? The nation resigned from the WA. It's a player action. If a moderator ejects a nation from the WA, that nation won't be getting its WA membership back.

Ballotonia

by **Ananke II** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:54 am

It's a fair point about people getting a pop up warning before resigning on the WA page though. This issue make the risk of people resigning by mistake a lot higher, so why not add a confirmation here too? Unless having people resign by mistake (and possibly losing delegacies or years of work building up endorsements) is seen as a legitimate side effect of this particular issue?

by **Telnaior** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:55 am

Isn't there a confirmation in that issues don't resolve immediately, but you have until the next update to change your mind?
I have no idea how this is issue is a problem, the effects seemed obvious enough to me, the whole "oh hey I haven't seen this issue before" caused me to read it properly before answering, and I went ahead and checked the Got Issues? forum to see if it actually did to make extra sure.

by **The Most Glorious Hack** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:38 am

Mousebumples wrote:However, this is a MAJOR CHANGE compared to what issues used to be able to do.

Well, there's that one that can pretty much tank all of your stats. Had a bit of a shitstorm over that one too.

by **New Kriegizstan** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:42 am

NewTexas wrote:Last night we got a new Issue - something about NatSov versus IntFed authored by Sanctaria and edited by Frisbeteeria. We decided to declare our NatSov opinion on the issue. We login this morning and we are now not in the WA!!!

WTF?!? Since when did daily issues resign you from the WA? We are PO'd! 8 years 87 days of carefully avoiding the "Resign" button on the WA page and then this crap???

Frankly, we think this is a load and would like our endorsements back immediately!

What's with the 'we' stuff?

This is Technical, it's not IC.

by **The Dourian Embassy** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:45 am

Look, I'd like to make a basic point here. This isn't about the issue itself, but rather how the issue was handled(and frankly is still being handled). Say you do not want to change the issue, say it's fine as is.

But this is a new method of resigning from the WA. It comes with no pop-up warning, like the actual resign button does. Resigning can have a huge impact on your game, it's why there's a warning pop-up. So if you want to introduce a new method of resigning from the WA without an OOC warning, that's fine. But you should probably announce it, as that's not exactly a minor game change is it?

Since When Did Daily Issues Resign WA Membership?!?

Who is online