The SC is Tired. Let's Wake it Up.

[Todd McCloud]

So in watching and monitoring events in the Security Council more closely over the past year or so, I and some other SC regulars (namely Ramaeus and Tano) felt that maybe, just maybe, it's time to explore some changes in the SC. Some good changes. Some more significant consequences, perhaps. Basically, the SC as it exists today exists for two purposes: to assign a badge to a nation or region, or to liberate a region. All of these can be repealed. The latter is mostly an R&D tool, as we've come to find out. The former is more for recognition of good or bad things a nation or region has done. As it stands now, the latter will probably always be useful so long as R&D is useful and active. But, the commend and condemn badges will probably become less frequent, especially as some prominent SC authors have become less frequent.

It is here that I must add a specific statement regarding Rule 4. Rules 1-3 are important and definitely necessary. I do not quite believe that Rule 4 is as necessary. It is much more nebulous and restrictive than the first three rules, and seems to put restrictions on the most popular user base of the SC, namely, gameplayers. We cannot deny that fact. For instance, the top SC authors are Uni, AMOM, Mahaj, SkyDip, Topid, Aba, Cormac, and Ramaeus. That userbase is either former or current gameplayers. In my opinion, at least some reform is needed on Rule 4, at least to have it cater to the GP base a bit more. In my opinion, this does not hinder or go against what is common in GP; on the contrary, it compliments it. For instance, one could say, "so and so is an administrator of blah blah forums" instead of "so and so oversees and regulates free speech in conversations zones as designated by the region". Much less wordy. It does not disrespect RP by attempting to affix GP to it, in other words.

That all being said, we've not had a SC resolution passed since July 10th. I can't say for certain, but in my opinion that's the longest we've gone without a passed resolution. Folks can correct me on that, but yeah, even if I view the forums and comment in them these days, the place seems... rather flat. I don't like that, because for the first two years the SC was anything but flat. It was spicy, challenging, chaotic, and full of consequence. I for one would like to see it return to that way in some capacity.

Here's our ideas on how to make the SC worthwhile again:

1. We need a major in-game consequence. A new category, if you will. If the SC is truly about WA nations approving or disapproving of a nation, why not give them the power to temporarily remove a nation from the WA? Like, three days or so? This new category, called "Expulsion", would (I personally believe) significantly increase activity in the body, as it delivers some immediate in-game consequences. And, to be frank, there already is an issue that removes a nation from the WA. This does not seem like a tremendous step in my opinion, but a logical one.
   .
2. Make commends mean something. This includes some small ideas like give commended nations free stamps, enhanced customization (like more banners, customized forum titles, longer pre title, larger flag), etc. This gives the commended nation a bit more than a badge, which could make them more attractive to players. But, one idea I like the best is giving commended nations +10% endorsements to their total endorsements. That's an interesting idea. If they are indeed commended by the SC body, why wouldn't they be able to get some more endorsements? It's a bit of a radical thought, but hey, it makes things interesting. Commended regions could also receive some benefits. Perhaps their votes count more in SC resolutions?
   .
3. Make condemns mean something. Pretty much the opposite of what we'd give a commended nation. Heck, even a negative endorsement modifier would be interesting. And, here's something cool: condemned regions lose their ability to send mass or recruiting TG's, or they're restricted in some way. Perhaps there's a cap on how many regions they can have an embassy with? Just some ideas. We figured they were rad enough to share.
   .
4. Add something else, like Annexation two years ago, this was proposed as an in-game change. Perhaps, if this does get initiated, annexation could find haven in the SC? It is worth a thought, though it may be difficult to pass immediately. I can see this being used more as a repeal for annexations instead of just straight-up annexations.

That's some of our ideas to make the SC worthwhile again. We hope it at least gets folks to think about ways to improve this worthwhile and important facet of the World Assembly.

[New Tuva SSR]

I agree, the World Assembly in General (see what I did there, no, ok) is dead and needs to be revived.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Well, those are certainly radical ideas. Effecting endorsments and WA status.... though that would just encourage multiple points in large operations and possibly actually lead to faster refounds.... I do see those as majorly adding to the "SC as a defender tool" idea, which isn't inherently *bad* per se, nor is messing with those scales.....TG block is easy to get around, just create another region for sending them where the welcome TG and WFE just say "move to TBH," so not sure if that's effective so much as it is a mere annoyance....


There's something I brought up in technical the other day that I think is pertinent here as well, not as much for the proposed resolutions as the votes - From talking to ordinary people in NS, a lot just vote to get the red number on the sidebar to go away, which contributes to the bandwagon following of initial delegate votes. Having something that allows that number to go away without a vote (whether just noting it's been seen, like a TG, or the oft-shot-down abstain option) has the potential to mix things up a bit by lowing the dogpile and perhaps creating a more easily swayed (ergo, more interesting) vote.

The other side of that is that it gives even more power to the megavotes - the knowledgeable players in GCR's which almost always set the tone for the vote. I think it would also be interesting to see some proposals to lower massively disproportionate amount of sway such a small handful of individuals have over the vote (even compared to the delegates of the world at large). A few ideas come to mind for that -

- Separate the delegate's individual vote from the region vote in GCR's and give the region vote to whichever side more people have voted for in the region (could lead to people flooding the region with WA's to swing a vote, but encourages delegates and region members informing the region at large on the vote. Timing would also be an issue - is the vote tallied every update? It is running constantly?)

- Limit delegate votes over a certain number, i.e. cap at 100, or some sort of scaled system (1-100 count for one extra, 100-200 count x 1/2, 200+ count x 1/4)

While those votes do provide an opportunity for interesting politicking among a small group, I feel as those those megavotes, on the grand scale of things, render much of the rest of the votes obsolete, considering they tend to just fall onto the bandwagon.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

To add- an effect of those more aggressive resolutions would also be to create many more condemns and the like for raided regions and disposable point nations, which might be seen as clutter - a dozen or two resolutions condemning nations that probably won't exist in a few months, and such.


Add more- going into this, it think there also rises a discussion as to the purpose of the SC. Is it meant to just give useless badges? Or is it meant to drive real action by the masses in defense of those targeted? The existing badges currently fall into the first, though your proposal adds an embargo-like effect and vice versa to them, and adds another real offensive measure to the existing liberation (offensive against an "undesirable" group usually, granted). If I wanted to sum up the proposal as a whole, the way I read it you're basically pushing for the SC to almost fully become a Gameplay tool -which isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least in my view, but warrants the the discussion of it that's really what's wanted, both with the voters and with the staff/owner. It makes sense to me - the GA is for Roleplay, the Security Council is for Gameplay. In UN terms, the SC "has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, "takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression," "calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement," and "can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security." With the rule of "no WA army creation" in place, and the GA already handling resolutions regarding weapons and such, it seems fit for the SC to be a body devoted to involving the greater masses of NS in the *other* military struggles of the world, attempting to stop the tinpot dictators of this universe from taking over helpless regions.

My only real concern with that is, in terms of what staff has said a number of times regarding R/D balance being desirable, this would have the potential to tip the scales from "favoring the raiders a bit" to "massively favoring the defenders" - condemnations and an expulsion or two could assist in liberation with smaller groups while allowing the continued maintenance of GCR power (though, as stated, with a three-day effect, dual or triple points could reduce the impact of the later - but still, having to get the count back up would be a pain in the ass, and on the other side, a dozen passed resolutions for every invasion would be a mess). Without either a more equal share of the vote (the vote in this case being the determining GCR vote), or some of the above-mentioned limits on GCR power, this might run the risk of swinging things too far out of balance the other way.

[Sedgistan]

Thanks for bringing this up, Todd. You're right that the SC has been dying off in terms of activity, and it needs some changes to sort that out.

To address your suggestions:

Rule 4 - I'd disagree with you here. Most the authors you name actually made their names post-Rule 4, and have apparently managed fine with that. As for the example you gave, "Examplestan is an administrator of the Exampleregionia forums" is not illegal. The problem with the rule is people's perceptions are sometimes that it's more restrictive than it actually is.

There is one part of Rule 4 that I strongly disagree with, which is the feeder/sinker ruling. We had an internal debate about that quite some time ago, but I dropped the ball on it and it was never resolved. I really need to get that going again. From my point of view, it made sense that people within the NS world would come up with their own terminology to describe the unique aspects of the NS world, and would be allowed to use that while remaining "in character".

Expulsion - I suggested this to the mods ages ago, and got shot down. To me, it made sense that an international organisation would have some control over its membership, allowing it to expel members in extreme circumstances.

The objections were twofold - first that it would utterly ruin some people's play - the concern was mainly over have it would impact on a player's freedom to RP their nation, for example if a GA author found themselves expelled. My bigger concern on that aspect would be that it could be used in a vindictive manner for example to hound unpopular players out of the game. It's not hard to imagine the SC going after an unpopular Nazi player, banning every new WA puppet to the extent that they can't hold a delegacy. The same could easily be done to a region, to prevent it ever having a delegate with any influence.

The other concern was how it'd interfere with moderating of WA membership - specifically the message to cheaters that WA bans were permanent. I view that as less of an issue, as it can be clarified to "WA bans for cheating are permanent". That, plus I'd prefer to see mod-imposed WA bans not be permanent in all cases, though that's another debate.

Anyhow, your suggestion that an Expulsion only be temporary would lessen those concerns - disruption to RPing would be temporary, and truly vindicitive targeting would be much trickier. When I'd originally suggested it, I'd suggested they be permanent until repealed.

Make Commends/Condemns mean something - much suggested, and I've never been persuaded. I think the beauty of them is that they have absolutely no in-game effect, allowing players to attach whatever meaning they feel appropriate to them - whether that be a "badge of honour" for Condemnations, or "backhanded Commendations" like the ones I tried years ago against Mahaj or Anti World Assembly. If you want additional effects from SC resolutions, you're best off doing so with new categories.

Annexation - it is going to happen (I know I keep saying that), but we're down to one admin who has the time to regularly code new features, and Violet has to balance a life as well, plus all the other summit changes I proposed, and all the other various bits of site administration that need doing. Regional Officers and Delegate Elect are more likely to come before this.

Custodian - not mentioned above, but this is on the Summit to-do list. I consider it a fairly neat and simple solution for long-term founderless regions of worth (plus some other fun shenanigans), but it's probably going to have to wait until Regional Officers are done, unfortunately.

Statements - one Unibot has brought up before, this would allow the SC to issue a non-binding statement or policy, a bit like GA resolutions (i.e. write what you want) albeit with no effect. To some extent Commendations and Condemnations can do this already, but if you wanted to enshrine something like support for COPS in an SC agreement, you'd need a Statements category. No in-game effect, but it'd appeal to those that enjoy their propaganda.

E-WS's suggestions:

Voting - I like the in-your-face reminder to vote. Before this existed, turnouts (particularly in the SC) were dire. This small amount of pressure to make a decision helps get people involved, which I think outweighs any annoyance with it.

Delegates - I like the extra level of politicking that having to handle delegate votes adds. Besides, votes can and do go right down to the wire - we've had a proposal decided by a single vote in the past. Also, the new TG system makes mass campaigning of WA members much easier, and that can make a real difference. I'm not sold on any of the arguments to change this part of the system.

SC taking a more active role in gameplay - I'm all for it.

(On a personal note, I may struggle to keep up with this discussion, depending on how long it goes for, as I'm going to be extremely busy in RL over the next 3 weeks.)

[Consular]

I don't think we need to drop rule 4. As you demonstrated yourself through careful wording it's not a problem to talk about essentially OOC things anyway. I also don't think it would increase activity in any way to be honest.

I really like your idea for expulsion. Though being able to even temporarily remove a player from the WA is actually a huge gameplay mechanic. It would have very real consequences for r/d related and piling, and for holding the delegacies of GCRs. With its temporary nature (and the delay in passing resolutions) I think using this repeatedly and vindictively would not be easy, and I'd like to think the player base would be relatively self moderating in terms of usage of this power anyway. Aside from the obviously huge boost in SC importance this could throw some life into r/d and GCR politics, and both of those latter areas could arguably use some innovation these days too.

I also kind of like the statements category, though I fear equally that it will either be unused or full of garbage.

I disagree with Souls on the Delegate vote capping. Gathering endorsements for votes is very important to a lot of regions and its the key reason they work hard to gain endorsements. Vote stacking isn't always the deciding factor anyway, look at the current vote for example, TEP and Euro stacked against immediately but this did not achieve the lemming effect they probably wanted. Huge votes are important in campaigning but are far from decisive with the communications available these days. I also feel like the huge votes are often heavily divided so them ganging up on a stack is quite rare.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

WA expulsions means the end of unpopular GCR coups. No point in putting in 6, 12, 24 months effort if one guy only has to write a few sentences, start a few topics, send a few telegrams and the few high influence nations behind the coup (which are a requirement to keep one going) can be banned in less than a fortnight.

[Consular]

It would make it very difficult for basically chaos seeking players (i.e. Durk) to have their way for long periods yes, though they could still do considerable damage before a resolution passed. It wouldn't necessarily be a total defeat but it would definitely give other forces a chance to seize control. Coups are often complicated and I'm not sure we can say for certain this would kill anything.

Coups based on political machinations wouldn't be immediately stomped, it would just add another dimension for them to prepare for. They'd need to consider foreign support and their image and engage in a little politicking to win the SC battle.

[King Nephmir II]

Wow, I actually read through all of that. *pats self on back*

I think Gameplay needs to be revived first before the SC sees any new additions. What use is a ton of new SC features when there's no competition or activity in raiding and defending? ROs and Delegate Elect should definitely come first- this would allow for a revival of Gameplay between updates- generating more activity and increasing the number of Gameplayers significantly. New SC features would then complement this, leading to a new age for Gameplay and the WA militarily and politically.

[Sedgistan]

WA expulsions means the end of unpopular GCR coups. No point in putting in 6, 12, 24 months effort if one guy only has to write a few sentences, start a few topics, send a few telegrams and the few high influence nations behind the coup (which are a requirement to keep one going) can be banned in less than a fortnight.

Yeah, working out how gameplay changes affect GCR dynamics is a permanent problem, as the trend seems to be towards making UCRs better able to manage their security, while keeping GCRs as dynamic as possible. It's why, for example, the "Custodians" proposal will be excluded from affecting GCRs. Conceivably something similar could happen for Expulsions, though that wouldn't be so simple.

[Todd McCloud]

Rule 4 - I'd disagree with you here. Most the authors you name actually made their names post-Rule 4, and have apparently managed fine with that. As for the example you gave, "Examplestan is an administrator of the Exampleregionia forums" is not illegal. The problem with the rule is people's perceptions are sometimes that it's more restrictive than it actually is.

There is one part of Rule 4 that I strongly disagree with, which is the feeder/sinker ruling. We had an internal debate about that quite some time ago, but I dropped the ball on it and it was never resolved. I really need to get that going again. From my point of view, it made sense that people within the NS world would come up with their own terminology to describe the unique aspects of the NS world, and would be allowed to use that while remaining "in character".

I think I'd be more okay with Rule 4 from a gameplayer's perspective if we were allowed to use terms that are universally known in gameplay. I get that "the player behind Examplestan" is clunky and poorly-worded, but, as you said, not being able to write "feeder" or "sinker" in a resolution seems too much.

Expulsion - I suggested this to the mods ages ago, and got shot down. To me, it made sense that an international organisation would have some control over its membership, allowing it to expel members in extreme circumstances.

The objections were twofold - first that it would utterly ruin some people's play - the concern was mainly over have it would impact on a player's freedom to RP their nation, for example if a GA author found themselves expelled. My bigger concern on that aspect would be that it could be used in a vindictive manner for example to hound unpopular players out of the game. It's not hard to imagine the SC going after an unpopular Nazi player, banning every new WA puppet to the extent that they can't hold a delegacy. The same could easily be done to a region, to prevent it ever having a delegate with any influence.

The other concern was how it'd interfere with moderating of WA membership - specifically the message to cheaters that WA bans were permanent. I view that as less of an issue, as it can be clarified to "WA bans for cheating are permanent". That, plus I'd prefer to see mod-imposed WA bans not be permanent in all cases, though that's another debate.

Anyhow, your suggestion that an Expulsion only be temporary would lessen those concerns - disruption to RPing would be temporary, and truly vindicitive targeting would be much trickier. When I'd originally suggested it, I'd suggested they be permanent until repealed.

Yeah, I think temporary expulsions would be much better than something more long-lasting. The WA should at least have a means to universally remove someone from the WA, temporarily. As far as it being used in a vindictive fashion, I would caution that the same argument could be said about condemnations. Has it? I'd argue that it's been much less of a problem than what we thought it could be at the start of the SC. The WA, at least in the SC theater, has been fairly good at policing itself over the years. If the WA felt snookered into something, there'd usually be a repeal, if it even passed to begin with.

Also, if you're getting shot down by mods for good gameplay changes, perhaps it's time to look for some new mods from gameplay

Make Commends/Condemns mean something - much suggested, and I've never been persuaded. I think the beauty of them is that they have absolutely no in-game effect, allowing players to attach whatever meaning they feel appropriate to them - whether that be a "badge of honour" for Condemnations, or "backhanded Commendations" like the ones I tried years ago against Mahaj or Anti World Assembly. If you want additional effects from SC resolutions, you're best off doing so with new categories.

I still find the addition of a WA modifier to be rather entertaining. Like, commends give someone +10% of their total endos, while condemns would have a -10% modifier. It makes sense - the WA self-imposing a blanket restriction or surplus on a nation is something I could see happening. The whole custom user title business was thrown in, if I remember correctly, for nations that don't care about the WA or would rather RP, for instance, on the forums. Same with nation titles and the likes. In my opinion, it incentivizes commends and condemns and could jump-start that whole process, especially as folks are finding less and less nations to vote on for those things.

Statements - one Unibot has brought up before, this would allow the SC to issue a non-binding statement or policy, a bit like GA resolutions (i.e. write what you want) albeit with no effect. To some extent Commendations and Condemnations can do this already, but if you wanted to enshrine something like support for COPS in an SC agreement, you'd need a Statements category. No in-game effect, but it'd appeal to those that enjoy their propaganda.

I'm okay with their being a "statement" category, to be frank.

[Todd McCloud]

WA expulsions means the end of unpopular GCR coups. No point in putting in 6, 12, 24 months effort if one guy only has to write a few sentences, start a few topics, send a few telegrams and the few high influence nations behind the coup (which are a requirement to keep one going) can be banned in less than a fortnight.

It usually takes over a week to write up a draft, get it in queue, and have it pass voting. How many GCR coups have lasted longer than one week during the past... five years?

[Luna Amore]

WA expulsions means the end of unpopular GCR coups. No point in putting in 6, 12, 24 months effort if one guy only has to write a few sentences, start a few topics, send a few telegrams and the few high influence nations behind the coup (which are a requirement to keep one going) can be banned in less than a fortnight.

It usually takes over a week to write up a draft, get it in queue, and have it pass voting. How many GCR coups have lasted longer than one week during the past... five years?

Depends if you consider Osiris' current gov't a coup.

[Mousebumples]

I still find the addition of a WA modifier to be rather entertaining. Like, commends give someone +10% of their total endos, while condemns would have a -10% modifier.

Would this also add 10% to a WAD's vote count in this case? I mean, not that I know any big-vote Delegates that have been commended, but .... just curious ...

On a more "serious" note (and bearing in mind that I am totally not a techie, so I have no clue how possible this would be to code), could it be that "benefits" (or detriments) are given for C&C's if the margin of passage is, say, greater than 75/25 ? So a Commend that barely passes doesn't get any extra "features" added to it, but those that are overwhelmingly supported, could get something extra.
-Added questions: How would this impact C&C's for regions? What about nations/regions that are both commended and condemned simultaneously?

[The Blaatschapen]

It usually takes over a week to write up a draft, get it in queue, and have it pass voting. How many GCR coups have lasted longer than one week during the past... five years?

Depends if you consider Osiris' current gov't a coup.

Some might consider the current Pacific government a coup of more than a decade

[Luna Amore]

Depends if you consider Osiris' current gov't a coup.

Some might consider the current Pacific government a coup of more than a decade

Successful long term coups tend to be forgotten as coups. If this feature were around back then, would these coups have been successful?

[Todd McCloud]

Some might consider the current Pacific government a coup of more than a decade

Successful long term coups tend to be forgotten as coups. If this feature were around back then, would these coups have been successful?

That really depends on the coordination of the coupers and how well their message is received by the international community, specifically the bigwig delegates.

[Pierconium]

It seems to me that 'Expulsion' would be used by some outside groups to force change upon 'some' regions that do not seek it.

Also, the removal of a Delegate nation that had only served for a few weeks and didn't establish much of a government 12 years ago really shouldn't be a topic of conversation here. The NPO is the legitimate government of The Pacific.

And I am sure that the removal of it had absolutely nothing to do with these ideas....

[The Blaatschapen]

It seems to me that 'Expulsion' would be used by some outside groups to force change upon 'some' regions that do not seek it.

I am quite certain that this will be used for such purposes as well. Same as say, the Liberation functionality gets proposed on Haven, so could this be used on such regions.

[Pierconium]

It seems to me that 'Expulsion' would be used by some outside groups to force change upon 'some' regions that do not seek it.

I am quite certain that this will be used for such purposes as well. Same as say, the Liberation functionality gets proposed on Haven, so could this be used on such regions.

Yes, except this is worse, in my opinion.

At least when a password is removed the standing government has a fighting chance. The wholesale removal of a delegate in some regions would result in the systematic collapse of the government, as is well known. With a regional password the defenders and the invaders, or whatever the groups like to call themselves these days, will all pile on and fight it out.

This would basically be game sponsored lynching. But hey, if we can't force them out with puppet master attacks, limit their authority with Influence, or out-propaganda them, why not just install a system within the game itself that basically states 'we don't like you so we are taking our ball and going home'?

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Consular]

It seems to me that 'Expulsion' would be used by some outside groups to force change upon 'some' regions that do not seek it

As opposed to the entire already existing and admin supported r/d game, which already allows certain groups to force change upon regions who do not seek it? This is not really unprecedented.

[Pierconium]

It seems to me that 'Expulsion' would be used by some outside groups to force change upon 'some' regions that do not seek it

As opposed to the entire already existing and admin supported r/d game, which already allows certain groups to force change upon regions who do not seek it? This is not really unprecedented.

The R/D aspects of the game are not generally governed solely by mob rule and players can choose which way In which to align themselves. They require coordination between multiple players and regions. This is taking the Security Council and molding it into a weapon aimed at one player, which runs counter to the OP's signature by coincidence.

[Todd McCloud]

But hey, if we can't force them out with puppet master attacks, limit their authority with Influence, or out-propaganda them, why not just install a system within the game itself that basically states 'we don't like you so we are taking our ball and going home'?

If this game was about complacency, status quo, not rocking the boat, and expanding influence, it would have died a long time ago. This has been directly reflected in some regions. But we're not here to talk about that.

Instead, the game needs more dynamics. It needs more competition, more politiking, and more planning. The SC is just one of the facets that makes this game great, but it's currently struggling, so much so that most of the posters in this thread began with saying they agreed that the SC is struggling. This is merely to breathe life into this body, and some suggestions we had that would accomplish that. I believe these suggestions are indeed viable and are worth a shot, provided the community but also the mods and coders also share those sentiments.

[Gest]

As opposed to the entire already existing and admin supported r/d game, which already allows certain groups to force change upon regions who do not seek it? This is not really unprecedented.

The R/D aspects of the game are not generally governed solely by mob rule and players can choose which way In which to align themselves. They require coordination between multiple players and regions. This is taking the Security Council and molding it into a weapon aimed at one player, which runs counter to the OP's signature by coincidence.

A weapon that will be mostly used against raiders. Must raiding get shafted because the Security Council's scriveners have run out of friends to commend.

[Consular]

As opposed to the entire already existing and admin supported r/d game, which already allows certain groups to force change upon regions who do not seek it? This is not really unprecedented.

The R/D aspects of the game are not generally governed solely by mob rule and players can choose which way In which to align themselves. They require coordination between multiple players and regions. This is taking the Security Council and molding it into a weapon aimed at one player, which runs counter to the OP's signature by coincidence.

Your entire objection, if I'm reading between these lines correctly, seems to be that this thread is somehow all about you (which it is not...). Does the idea of being forced to actually care about diplomacy in a political simulator worry you, Emperor?