Advertisement
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:14 am
by The Republic of Lanos » Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:28 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Ard, this is not a numbers game. The volume of SC proposals isn't necessarily the root of the debate. What's at issue here is the unnecessary conflict between players in the two chambers that would not exist if they didn't have to share the same queue, and the difficulty of the SC to grow and develop as an organization while being so cumbersomely joined at the waist to the GA. The two branches are completely different. If they had more of a chance to develop separate identities (which is presumably what the admins wanted, since they disregarded the GA rules as inapplicable to the SC), the SC might attract more players and find new issues worth discussing, and the GA would be less annoyed at its legislative docket being constantly interrupted by votes on 10000 Islands.
The Nazi Europe and 10000 Islands repetition might also be resolved by attracting new participants (with new issues), but that's not going to happen so long as players are not really encouraged to be active in the SC. It has its own forum, but it doesn't have its own sidebar, its own page, or even a mention in the FAQ. You can't get many chicks when you're stuck living in your mom's basement, you know. (Or perhaps a more apt metaphor involving bratty children who refuse to share the same toy? )
by Qumkent » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:31 am
Pythagosaurus wrote:Sorry, Todd, for getting your allegiance wrong. The complaints in the past had usually been launched by the "omg, get the SC away from me"ers, so the third condition tipped the scales prematurely.
Pythagosaurus wrote:But I still see no compelling arguments or evidence here. I see that a few people in both camps want them split. I see no evidence that you guys are representative rather than merely vocal, nor that you're actually right. Topid's point that a small number of delegates who are only interested in one council will fail to endorse proposals from the other has merit, but I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing. At worst, it means authors have to do a better job of writing and campaigning.
Pythagosaurus wrote:If I'm going to take time out of my schedule to do this, I need something more compelling. For example, you could address the points that [violet] has made and explain why they're no longer valid in the new reality of the WA. Or why they should be outweighed by the arguments against.
by Todd McCloud » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:08 pm
by Krioval » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:01 pm
by Cobdenia » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:46 pm
by [violet] » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:41 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:I think the fact that both sides are now asking for the same thing is good enough reason alone to start demanding again that this pretty reasonable solution to be implemented. .. And good enough reason for [violet] to start considering our thoughts on the subject.
by Qumkent » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:22 pm
[violet] wrote:I should say though that I'd want to hear a good case as to why this change will significantly improve the game experience, because the Councils have already received a lot of developer time over the last few months, delaying other game features. Right now, I'm prepared to put this on the To-Do list, but not at the top.
by The Altani Federation » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:35 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:03 pm
[violet] wrote:I don't think everybody is asking for the same thing, though. There are plenty of people saying, "The GA and the SC should be split," but they refer to different parts. Currently, the GA and the SC are already separate in some areas (voting queues, forums, legislation books) and shared in others (membership mechanism, sidebar link, resolution voting floor).
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:39 pm
edit: read the WFE on the region The Security Council and it will give you a fair idea how the average SCer feels about the current situation.
by Topid » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:43 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:(Topid appears to be a very devoted SC follower)
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:47 pm
At this point, I don't believe anyone is advocating the total separation of the WA, or even separate membership; just separate quarters for the two branches. In fact, if we took a vote, I'm certain Unibot's solution of one main WA sidebar with two smaller sidebars underneath for the GA and the SC would be considered the fairest compromise for all concerned. This would also involve separate queues and voting floors. I don't know if this would create a coding nightmare for you guys, but for players in both branches, the current situation is frustratingly awkward and inefficient and has gone on long enough.
by Krioval » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:03 pm
by Daynor » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:19 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:50 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:I think they should link to seperate minipages for the two branches for identity reasons as you've mentioned , but the links ([List Proposals] [Submit a Proposal]) on those pages could go to the same queue page as we have now -- as it appears separated (with just the option to amalgamate the two). That would save time for coding probably. The main point, is to have seperate proposal at-votes running at the same time, that would prevent a lot of this "SC is wasting time/GA is wasting time" crap that has cropped up in the last few months.
by Unibot » Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:23 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:I think they should link to seperate minipages for the two branches for identity reasons as you've mentioned , but the links ([List Proposals] [Submit a Proposal]) on those pages could go to the same queue page as we have now -- as it appears separated (with just the option to amalgamate the two). That would save time for coding probably. The main point, is to have seperate proposal at-votes running at the same time, that would prevent a lot of this "SC is wasting time/GA is wasting time" crap that has cropped up in the last few months.
If you mean that both branches share the same queue, and draw quorate proposals from it for vote as required, then yes, that would probably work just fine. The main issue is the shared voting mechanism, not necessarily the same queue. Players could click on the SC sidebar to see the SC res at vote, and the GA sidebar for the GA one. And with the shared queue, players like Topid who are primarily focused on one branch can still see what business is upcoming in the other chamber.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:43 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:edit: read the WFE on the region The Security Council and it will give you a fair idea how the average SCer feels about the current situation.
It's a little overemotional, and biased -- but yes. (Topid appears to be a very devoted SC follower)
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:04 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:edit: read the WFE on the region The Security Council and it will give you a fair idea how the average SCer feels about the current situation.
It's a little overemotional, and biased -- but yes. (Topid appears to be a very devoted SC follower)
I thought most would take it as tongue-in-cheek, actually. I didn't mean "the average SCer" hates the GA. ...OK, Topid maybe, but the average SCer...
by [violet] » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:30 pm
Qumkent wrote:The question I'm surprised your not asking is "Does the current organisation of these Councils actually improve the game experience ?", the obvious answer is no.
If the current situation does not improve things then why insist that it continue ?
The Altani Federation wrote:Count me as another vote for some form of separation between the SC and the GA.
I am sympathetic to the workload this would create for the admins, but ultimately, this is workload created to fix a problem the majority of SC and GA people dislike immensely, caused by game changes few people in either camp asked for in the first place. The only reason I can see for not fixing this boils down to "we don't want to fix it even though it's broken because it's work and we're being stubborn and we'd have to admit we made a mistake".
Separating the two groups would end the squabbling caused when you put two incompatible groups together and ask them to use the same limited resource. It would allow the SC and the GA to flourish doing what they prefer and like without having to be distracted by things that are utterly unrelated to their desired style of gameplay. That, by itself, would greatly improve the game experience for both sides, and do a lot to coincidentally fix the rancor that has erupted between the two sides since the forced merging of their worlds.
Separate the SC from the GA, both in voting and membership mechanisms, and let the SC players develop their own ruleset for the SC, in conjunction with the admins/mods, that is free from any connection to the GA. That would ultimately be the best solution.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:[violet] wrote:I don't think everybody is asking for the same thing, though. There are plenty of people saying, "The GA and the SC should be split," but they refer to different parts. Currently, the GA and the SC are already separate in some areas (voting queues, forums, legislation books) and shared in others (membership mechanism, sidebar link, resolution voting floor).
They aren't separate queues; it's the same queue with a sort option.
At this point, I don't believe anyone is advocating the total separation of the WA, or even separate membership; just separate quarters for the two branches. In fact, if we took a vote, I'm certain Unibot's solution of one main WA sidebar with two smaller sidebars underneath for the GA and the SC would be considered the fairest compromise for all concerned. This would also involve separate queues and voting floors. I don't know if this would create a coding nightmare for you guys, but for players in both branches, the current situation is frustratingly awkward and inefficient and has gone on long enough.
by [violet] » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:37 pm
by Gauntleted Fist » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:24 am
by Bears Armed » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:30 am
Gauntleted Fist wrote:Since [violet] wants specifics, this is what I think is a fair solution: (We'll call it The Unibot Model. )
1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"
2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.
3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions separated by Security Council/General Assembly types.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the separation of the Security Council/General Assembly.
4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current General Assembly proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.
5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current Security Council proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.
--
Feel free to modify as you wish, fellow posters. I'm sure there are many a problem with this.
(Also, terribly sorry if I've misunderstood the desires of other posters.)
by Philimbesi » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:55 am
by Qumkent » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:50 am
[violet] wrote:Qumkent wrote:The question I'm surprised your not asking is "Does the current organisation of these Councils actually improve the game experience ?", the obvious answer is no.
Compared to what? Compared to when C&C legislation was mixed in with the rest, it sure is. Compared to the pre-C&Cs situation, you might think it's a step backward (particularly if you are hardcore GA), but the residents of Belgium probably don't think so. Compared to ideal, okay, but please recognize there are a thousand things that could be better in NS, and I don't have time to do all of them. I already have a lot of good stuff backed up because the WA took precedence.
[violet] wrote:If the current situation does not improve things then why insist that it continue ?
I don't need to insist that it continue. It continues all by itself. I know you only want things to be better, but when you equate something that requires me to do lots of work with something that requires no work, you're assuming my time has no value.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement