by Unibot III » Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:30 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by USS Monitor » Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:46 pm
by Unibot III » Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:53 pm
Adytus wrote:I feel like stabilization and region trolling would go hand in hand.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Unibot III » Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:03 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Drasnia » Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:26 pm
by Unibot III » Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:48 pm
Drasnia wrote:Certainly there needs to be something done since liberations are dominating the SC's voting time. Whether these proposals help fix that, I'm not sure. The Document resolution seems pointless for most members of the SC involved. Stabilization and Monitoring both carry with them pretty heavy political implications, which is definitely intriguing, to say the least.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by The United Royal Islands of Euramathania » Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:20 am
by Flanderlion » Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:55 am
by Unibot III » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:39 am
Flanderlion wrote:I don't think I like the idea of stabilisation. Seems we'll have it used on us to overcome the 500+ natives backing Ale to put some userite in the seat. Not sure if I even remotely like the possibility that the delegate could be someone who no one backs at all. Apart from GCRs I'm not expecting it to be used a lot, and GCRs aren't exactly going to let it pass enough to make it worth coding.
Document, so how exactly would that work? Can anyone make an agreement? If not, would it be quorum and world vote? Or if anyone, how would you be able to delve through the list of passed documents, because I'm expecting it to get to an enormous number.
The United Royal Islands of Euramathania wrote:I am a bit concerned and confused by the document category, don't we already have that in the form of the GA? Unless there is something different about the type of documents you want the SC to pass, related to how they would affect the game. Are you suggesting something like I order for a interegional treaty to be binding that the regions invoked have to pass it through the SC? Like I said this category seems confusing to me regardless of how I parse it.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Roavin » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:10 am
by Chameliya » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:20 am
by Unibot III » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:23 pm
Roavin wrote:Very wary of the Stabilization proposals, for the reasons stated by others. I could totally imagine it would have been used offensively against The Pacific during the whole NLO thing; and in general, it appears intuitively to be much more of an offensive rather than defensive tool.
I really like the idea of Document and Monitor categories.
However, you forgot your best idea for a SC category here...
Chameliya wrote:Don't like the stabilisation idea and I also feel that the document idea doesn't really belong - it is the World Assembly after all. Wouldn't those kind of region-specific items belong better in the RP forums?
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Cormactopia II » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:10 pm
Roavin wrote:Very wary of the Stabilization proposals, for the reasons stated by others. I could totally imagine it would have been used offensively against The Pacific during the whole NLO thing; and in general, it appears intuitively to be much more of an offensive rather than defensive tool.
by Unibot III » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:00 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by USS Monitor » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:17 am
Unibot III wrote:I was reluctant to discuss founders in regards to stabilization because I know when the original discussions on the Liberation category arose there was a pretty large consensus among the administration and players at that time that while limiting the powers of the WA Delegate was within the powers of the WA (since they're the WA Delegate), founders aren't under the purview of the WA. Perhaps players and the site admins feel differently now.
by LollerLand » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:48 am
by Flanderlion » Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:22 am
Cormactopia II wrote:Had this proposal category existed back then, there's a very good chance the NPO would not have risked the NLO coup (and even a chance Feux wouldn't have risked the pre-PRL purge of imperialists, or that he would have been overthrown by the Security Council). I can tell you for certain, had this category existed, I wouldn't have bothered with the April 2016 coup in Osiris knowing full well that the Security Council would have immediately "stabilized" Osiris.
...
breathe some new life into the Security Council, and into interregional gameplay politics in general.
by The Marsupial Illuminati » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:00 am
Unibot III wrote:I was reluctant to discuss founders in regards to stabilization because I know when the original discussions on the Liberation category arose there was a pretty large consensus among the administration and players at that time that while limiting the powers of the WA Delegate was within the powers of the WA (since they're the WA Delegate), founders aren't under the purview of the WA. Perhaps players and the site admins feel differently now.
Unibot III wrote:Over the years, each change - whether it be Regional Influence, Dossiers, Activity Pages, Regional Officers, Founders - has made the game more and more 'defensive' - as a consequence, a piled griefing is a forgone conclusion while high influence coups are permanent without human error. There is no response to piling and when there is no response, there is no game. I was always lying to people when I told them they had hope with the attrition runs but the truth is attrition is palliative care for invaded regions and there's no nice way to tell someone their region is a goner.
Admittedly I keep coming up with proposals to address piling and other defenders and others players seem so shocked by them; if the SC is going to be the last resort against piling, it will have to be a relatively powerful tool with potentially very large consequences for unpopular GCR governments (the NPO) and it will have to have unintended consequences (because a liberation is an offensive procedure.) There will never be an opportunity to respond to piled invasions that isn't also an opportunity to respond to invade well established regions - they're materially indistinct - and I for one would prefer to raise the risk of invasion rather than see regions be destroyed with relative ease.
In short: because the game cannot tell the difference between piling and a normal mass of endorsements, logically any response to piling will be a double-edged sword that you can either accept or not accept. But there's no perfect solution for defenders to endorse.
by Cormactopia II » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:46 am
USS Monitor wrote:Just speaking for myself, not all of the staff, but I will never support undermining founders' power. Yes, it means some regions are off-limits for R/D. That's intentional. Not everyone wants to participate in that game.
by Unibot III » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:16 am
USS Monitor wrote:Unibot III wrote:I was reluctant to discuss founders in regards to stabilization because I know when the original discussions on the Liberation category arose there was a pretty large consensus among the administration and players at that time that while limiting the powers of the WA Delegate was within the powers of the WA (since they're the WA Delegate), founders aren't under the purview of the WA. Perhaps players and the site admins feel differently now.
Just speaking for myself, not all of the staff, but I will never support undermining founders' power. Yes, it means some regions are off-limits for R/D. That's intentional. Not everyone wants to participate in that game.
LollerLand wrote:I like all of these categories. I am quite not sure about making Founders non executive yet though..
Flanderlion wrote:Won't it do the opposite? You're saying that Laz/Osiris wouldn't have happened, and instead everyone would sit making tea and crumpets while not upsetting the status quo.
I kind of hoped that the document would be more of a repository for interregional treaties rather than requiring it to work like normal resolutions. Johnny and his class can't sign an agreement with a raider region if it requires to get passed. So it would be moving agreements etc. back onsite.
Monitoring I like. Does it have to be only recent though? Just have it log everything from passing until repeal.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Unibot III » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:33 am
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by USS Monitor » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:53 pm
Cormactopia II wrote:USS Monitor wrote:Just speaking for myself, not all of the staff, but I will never support undermining founders' power. Yes, it means some regions are off-limits for R/D. That's intentional. Not everyone wants to participate in that game.
That's the positive effect of Founders. The flipside, negative effect is that most regions that do participate in R/D protect themselves behind Founders and are not themselves vulnerable to the R/D game that they inflict on unwilling founderless regions. This is a problem that has never been solved, and I think some mechanism for the Security Council to make Founders non-executive while the resolution is in effect would go a long way toward solving it.
by Unibot III » Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:38 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Cormactopia II wrote:That's the positive effect of Founders. The flipside, negative effect is that most regions that do participate in R/D protect themselves behind Founders and are not themselves vulnerable to the R/D game that they inflict on unwilling founderless regions. This is a problem that has never been solved, and I think some mechanism for the Security Council to make Founders non-executive while the resolution is in effect would go a long way toward solving it.
I don't see any of that as a problem.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Indo-Malaysia » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:23 pm
Unibot III wrote:I've added three mock-up images for the SC badges in the OP for fun...
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cheddar Lands
Advertisement