Limit delegate influence in the GA

[Lycurgian Constitution]

I may be an old veteran, but I know enough to know the dilemma present and the significant challenges it poses to overcome. It's a twelve headed beast that you have to be prepared to tame and it doesn't capitulate easily. Effectively, you're at the mercy of the current geopolitical context in gameplay.

Even if WALL is associated with independentism, why does a competitor have to be defender-aligned? WALL's GA agenda (which, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist outside of "don't write proposals that screw things up") isn't linked to any GP agenda. Any competitor organization in the GA can be formed of defenders, raiders, imperialists, independents, whatever, as long as they have a common GA political aim.

And I do believe that GP rivals can set aside GP animosity to work together in the GA. Maybe not everyone can, but the current GA veteran community largely cooperates (there are ideological differences, of course) despite being a mixture of independents, raiders, defenders, and non-GP players. The greatest struggle in establishing a block against WALL is not GP issues, but in finding any kind of common platform, which is pretty difficult and the reason there are no GA political parties, no IntFeds, and no NatSovs.

Sorry from posting from my puppet account. This is United Massachusetts.

WALL is certainly a unique creation, to say the least, immediately commanding thousands of votes (and more if you count the citizens swayed by the votes of their delegates). Consider it's sheer power here for a minute. The following are Delegates of WALL regions:

• Pallaith (TNP--1100 Endos)
• Aexnidaral (Europeia--317 Endos)
• Solorni (Balder--217 Endos)
• Laeral (IDU--75 Endos)

That's 1709 votes. Add to that the 300 or so nations who will vote with their Delegate, or with TNP's recommendation. Boom! 2000. Now consider that these four nations can organize an effective stacking act, giving also to their side 500 or so nations who don't even bother reading and vote with the majority.

2500 votes. Simply put, WALL typically gets their way in the WA because the other side is automatically put at a 2500 vote disadvantage. Our current resolution, Freedom to Seek Care, I am proud to say (I played a tiny part in making it), was driven by mostly small delegates and an overwhelming majority of individual votes.

But let's be clear here--there's a reason why these are all "independent" regions. It's much more fun to be in a region where your side wins in the WA. For the casual nation, this matters. Further, the ambitious nation may seek to join a region to influence that. "Independent" regions dominate this Assembly, while both defenders and raiders end up splintering themselves. And these "independent" regions can make a great case for joining the region by pointing out how successful and influential they are in the World Assembly.

If I was secretly Benevolent UniRoavin III (clearly all defenders are Unibot's puppets ), I'd really consider forming a defender WA alliance. It doesn't matter their mission, as much as banding together for their own good.

[United Massachusetts]

That's also why I think WALL is a bad thing for this Assembly--it's yet another attempt by GP to insert itself into the GA.

[Drasnia]

That's also why I think WALL is a bad thing for this Assembly--it's yet another attempt by GP to insert itself into the GA.

If you continue to be a gatekeeper and not let GP interact with the GA, then you're just going to continue to have these problems where you moan about, saying things like "Maaan, GP just doesn't get us. I wish they'd butt out." They (GPers) don't understand because many GA players don't let them.

WALL has gained power because these players realized the potential melding GP (regional politics) with the GA (interregional politics). It's this attitude amongst many in the GA that keeps WALL powerful and makes it nigh impossible for a competitor to emerge.

[Kylia Quilor]

Even if WALL is associated with independentism, why does a competitor have to be defender-aligned? WALL's GA agenda (which, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist outside of "don't write proposals that screw things up") isn't linked to any GP agenda. Any competitor organization in the GA can be formed of defenders, raiders, imperialists, independents, whatever, as long as they have a common GA political aim.

And I do believe that GP rivals can set aside GP animosity to work together in the GA. Maybe not everyone can, but the current GA veteran community largely cooperates (there are ideological differences, of course) despite being a mixture of independents, raiders, defenders, and non-GP players. The greatest struggle in establishing a block against WALL is not GP issues, but in finding any kind of common platform, which is pretty difficult and the reason there are no GA political parties, no IntFeds, and no NatSovs.

Sorry from posting from my puppet account. This is United Massachusetts.

WALL is certainly a unique creation, to say the least, immediately commanding thousands of votes (and more if you count the citizens swayed by the votes of their delegates). Consider it's sheer power here for a minute. The following are Delegates of WALL regions:

• Pallaith (TNP--1100 Endos)
• Aexnidaral (Europeia--317 Endos)
• Solorni (Balder--217 Endos)
• Laeral (IDU--75 Endos)

That's 1709 votes. Add to that the 300 or so nations who will vote with their Delegate, or with TNP's recommendation. Boom! 2000. Now consider that these four nations can organize an effective stacking act, giving also to their side 500 or so nations who don't even bother reading and vote with the majority.

2500 votes. Simply put, WALL typically gets their way in the WA because the other side is automatically put at a 2500 vote disadvantage. Our current resolution, Freedom to Seek Care, I am proud to say (I played a tiny part in making it), was driven by mostly small delegates and an overwhelming majority of individual votes.

But let's be clear here--there's a reason why these are all "independent" regions. It's much more fun to be in a region where your side wins in the WA. For the casual nation, this matters. Further, the ambitious nation may seek to join a region to influence that. "Independent" regions dominate this Assembly, while both defenders and raiders end up splintering themselves. And these "independent" regions can make a great case for joining the region by pointing out how successful and influential they are in the World Assembly.

If I was secretly Benevolent UniRoavin III (clearly all defenders are Unibot's puppets ), I'd really consider forming a defender WA alliance. It doesn't matter their mission, as much as banding together for their own good.

I may not know how the GA works...

But you don't really know how GP works.

[United Massachusetts]

That's also why I think WALL is a bad thing for this Assembly--it's yet another attempt by GP to insert itself into the GA.

If you continue to be a gatekeeper and not let GP interact with the GA, then you're just going to continue to have these problems where you moan about, saying things like "Maaan, GP just doesn't get us. I wish they'd butt out." They (GPers) don't understand because many GA players don't let them.

WALL has gained power because these players realized the potential melding GP (regional politics) with the GA (interregional politics). It's this attitude amongst many in the GA that keeps WALL powerful and makes it nigh impossible for a competitor to emerge.

And I get this point of view. The melding of GP and WA doesn't go both ways though. GPers are awarded with the most powerful spots in the WA, while the only WA resolution that interferes with GP is liberation--and that's in the SC.

I'm not opposed to anyone interacting in the WA--I have many good author friends who are very active in the R/D game. But whole regions skewing the WA towards their GP ideology and hijacking votes to be more powerful is kind of annoying. That's politics, though, I guess.

[United Massachusetts]

Sorry from posting from my puppet account. This is United Massachusetts.

WALL is certainly a unique creation, to say the least, immediately commanding thousands of votes (and more if you count the citizens swayed by the votes of their delegates). Consider it's sheer power here for a minute. The following are Delegates of WALL regions:

• Pallaith (TNP--1100 Endos)
• Aexnidaral (Europeia--317 Endos)
• Solorni (Balder--217 Endos)
• Laeral (IDU--75 Endos)

That's 1709 votes. Add to that the 300 or so nations who will vote with their Delegate, or with TNP's recommendation. Boom! 2000. Now consider that these four nations can organize an effective stacking act, giving also to their side 500 or so nations who don't even bother reading and vote with the majority.

2500 votes. Simply put, WALL typically gets their way in the WA because the other side is automatically put at a 2500 vote disadvantage. Our current resolution, Freedom to Seek Care, I am proud to say (I played a tiny part in making it), was driven by mostly small delegates and an overwhelming majority of individual votes.

But let's be clear here--there's a reason why these are all "independent" regions. It's much more fun to be in a region where your side wins in the WA. For the casual nation, this matters. Further, the ambitious nation may seek to join a region to influence that. "Independent" regions dominate this Assembly, while both defenders and raiders end up splintering themselves. And these "independent" regions can make a great case for joining the region by pointing out how successful and influential they are in the World Assembly.

If I was secretly Benevolent UniRoavin III (clearly all defenders are Unibot's puppets ), I'd really consider forming a defender WA alliance. It doesn't matter their mission, as much as banding together for their own good.

I may not know how the GA works...

But you don't really know how GP works.

I might not. These are just my thoughts based on my limited knowledge.

[Drasnia]

If you continue to be a gatekeeper and not let GP interact with the GA, then you're just going to continue to have these problems where you moan about, saying things like "Maaan, GP just doesn't get us. I wish they'd butt out." They (GPers) don't understand because many GA players don't let them.

WALL has gained power because these players realized the potential melding GP (regional politics) with the GA (interregional politics). It's this attitude amongst many in the GA that keeps WALL powerful and makes it nigh impossible for a competitor to emerge.

And I get this point of view. The melding of GP and WA doesn't go both ways though. GPers are awarded with the most powerful spots in the WA, while the only WA resolution that interferes with GP is liberation--and that's in the SC.

I'm not opposed to anyone interacting in the WA--I have many good author friends who are very active in the R/D game. But whole regions skewing the WA towards their GP ideology and hijacking votes to be more powerful is kind of annoying. That's politics, though, I guess.

It does go both ways. GAers can get involved and help make sure their own bills get approved and voted for when they make it to the floor.

[United Massachusetts]

And I get this point of view. The melding of GP and WA doesn't go both ways though. GPers are awarded with the most powerful spots in the WA, while the only WA resolution that interferes with GP is liberation--and that's in the SC.

I'm not opposed to anyone interacting in the WA--I have many good author friends who are very active in the R/D game. But whole regions skewing the WA towards their GP ideology and hijacking votes to be more powerful is kind of annoying. That's politics, though, I guess.

It does go both ways. GAers can get involved and help make sure their own bills get approved and voted for when they make it to the floor.

Point taken.

[Unibot III]

The greatest struggle in establishing a block against WALL is not GP issues, but in finding any kind of common platform, which is pretty difficult and the reason there are no GA political parties, no IntFeds, and no NatSovs.

The greatest struggle in establishing a bloc against WALL is most certainly GP issues.

Look at who you would need to form a competitor with WALL. You're not going to get TEP or TWP to stymie TNP/Euro/Balder. You're going to need to find regions that aren't particularly friendly with the independent sphere. That's where the politics come in: a lot of those regions have been pulling away from alliances, not building them. That's just simply put, the political context facing you.

You don't really need a common platform, you need VOTES. And to get VOTES, you need 'ASSOCIATION'. The common link between all the regions that are cold to WALL's signatories is they're anti-independentist. By in large, they're either defender-sympathetic regions, politically liberal, or they're feederites hesitant of the influence of independentism. That's the ball game you've gotta play.

[Auralia]

How would you respond to an argument that the unfair game mechanic (as you describe it) is an analog to the political power that money can grant in the real world? I can't speak to the technical ease of this change, but something about making politics "fair" in what is at its heart a simulation designed to go to extremes doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

A little unfairness in the interests of simulating political corruption is fine, which is why I don't necessarily advocate for removing delegate votes altogether. However, the primary purpose of the GA game is not to simulate political corruption, but to collaborate to draft legislation and to convince people to vote on it.

It does go both ways. GAers can get involved and help make sure their own bills get approved and voted for when they make it to the floor.

What you describe is up to the delegates and they don't have to behave that way. It really does not go both ways -- GA authors don't get any special GP privileges by virtue of game mechanics.

[Excidium Planetis]

Look at who you would need to form a competitor with WALL.

A voting bloc of 2000 nations. That's it. You get 2000 votes, from anywhere, and get them all cast within the first few hours of a resolution, and you have a competitor to WALL.

You're not going to get TEP or TWP to stymie TNP/Euro/Balder. You're going to need to find regions that aren't particularly friendly with the independent sphere.

Nah. You just need regions, friendly to TNP/Euro/Balder or not. They could be few dozen UCRs, they could be four GCRs, they could be 1 GCR and two dozen UCRs. Any voting bloc you assemble around a common platform, of it has the votes to stand up to a WALL stack, you have your opposition. It doesn't have to have anything to do with GP.

[Kylia Quilor]

The greatest struggle in establishing a block against WALL is not GP issues, but in finding any kind of common platform, which is pretty difficult and the reason there are no GA political parties, no IntFeds, and no NatSovs.

The greatest struggle in establishing a bloc against WALL is most certainly GP issues.

Look at who you would need to form a competitor with WALL. You're not going to get TEP or TWP to stymie TNP/Euro/Balder. You're going to need to find regions that aren't particularly friendly with the independent sphere. That's where the politics come in: a lot of those regions have been pulling away from alliances, not building them. That's just simply put, the political context facing you.

You don't really need a common platform, you need VOTES. And to get VOTES, you need 'ASSOCIATION'. The common link between all the regions that are cold to WALL's signatories is they're anti-independentist. By in large, they're either defender-sympathetic regions, politically liberal, or they're feederites hesitant of the influence of independentism. That's the ball game you've gotta play.

Pretty sure the members of WALL scale pretty liberal too.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Look at who you would need to form a competitor with WALL.

A voting bloc of 2000 nations. That's it. You get 2000 votes, from anywhere, and get them all cast within the first few hours of a resolution, and you have a competitor to WALL.

Oh, just 2000 people? I didn't realize it was so simple!

Anyways, I'm not sure what WALL has to do with this thread. If your game mechanic requires the ever-growing power of alliances to reach any semblance of voting parity (not even fairness, just parity), that's a failed game mechanic. Emergent gameplay is fun, but this isn't emergent behavior among the small game population in the General Assembly. The simple fact is that one sphere of NationStates can't fully play their part of the game without asking another sphere for permission.

The GA has no power whatsoever to shape, limit, or permit behavior in the rest of the game. At the smallest level, resolutions don't even restrict contradicting issues. Yet the ability to succeed in the final step of the GA game depends entirely on how much the rest of the game feels like allowing that success.

[Kylia Quilor]

And if you just take the time to actually appeal to voters, it wouldn't matter. Step out of the bubble and lobby.

[Wrapper]

And if you just take the time to actually appeal to voters, it wouldn't matter. Step out of the bubble and lobby.

This is what happens when you "appeal to the voters".

[Excidium Planetis]

A voting bloc of 2000 nations. That's it. You get 2000 votes, from anywhere, and get them all cast within the first few hours of a resolution, and you have a competitor to WALL.

Oh, just 2000 people? I didn't realize it was so simple!

Seems simple enough. WA campaigns regularly reach out to more than that. Besides, you only need 2000 votes, not 2000 people.

Anyways, I'm not sure what WALL has to do with this thread. If your game mechanic requires the ever-growing power of alliances to reach any semblance of voting parity (not even fairness, just parity), that's a failed game mechanic. Emergent gameplay is fun, but this isn't emergent behavior among the small game population in the General Assembly. The simple fact is that one sphere of NationStates can't fully play their part of the game without asking another sphere for permission.

As Wallenburg once said, and I probably heavily paraphrase, "I don't pay attention to Gameplay". You don't need to go campaign in WALL to participate in the GA. Lots of players do so, and even succeed in spite of WALL. See At Vote resolution.

The GA has no power whatsoever to shape, limit, or permit behavior in the rest of the game. At the smallest level, resolutions don't even restrict contradicting issues. Yet the ability to succeed in the final step of the GA game depends entirely on how much the rest of the game feels like allowing that success.

That's inherent to the structure of the game though. There is no proposed system that I am aware of that does not leave voting primarily in the hands of non-GA players, even if you got rid of delegate votes entirely. You are complaining about something that can't even be fixed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

When WALL decides to stomp a resolution, GA players don’t have a say in that. When big regional Delegates band together to enforce an anti-campaigning agreement under the guise of spam prevention, GA players don’t have a say in that. If you can’t imagine the ease with which alliances like WALL can exercise a veto on your game, then you lack imagination. The answer isn’t to counter WALL by even further increasing the power of Delegate votes by creating a competing 2000-vote bloc. Just like the answer to your kitchen being on fire isn’t to light your living room on fire, hoping that it’ll be a bigger fire that takes up all the oxygen.

I don’t care what Max designed 15 years ago. NS wasn’t fragmented into separate mini-games when this mechanic was first created. It deserves to be judged based on its own merit and how the game exists today. Just because we don’t want to disallow non-regulars from voting altogether, doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile to minimize the disparity that exists when you make the outcome of the GA mini-game dependent on the decisions of people not playing it.

[Unibot III]

When WALL decides to stomp a resolution, GA players don’t have a say in that. When big regional Delegates band together to enforce an anti-campaigning agreement under the guise of spam prevention, GA players don’t have a say in that. If you can’t imagine the ease with which alliances like WALL can exercise a veto on your game, then you lack imagination. The answer isn’t to counter WALL by even further increasing the power of Delegate votes by creating a competing 2000-vote bloc. Just like the answer to your kitchen being on fire isn’t to light your living room on fire, hoping that it’ll be a bigger fire that takes up all the oxygen.

I don’t care what Max designed 15 years ago. NS wasn’t fragmented into separate mini-games when this mechanic was first created. It deserves to be judged based on its own merit and how the game exists today. Just because we don’t want to disallow non-regulars from voting altogether, doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile to minimize the disparity that exists when you make the outcome of the GA mini-game dependent on the decisions of people not playing it.

A 2000-vote bloc competitor would be able to nullify WALL. It's just that said alliance would mean new entanglements with major regions for TSP, in strict opposition to the foreign policy you and others have hoped TSP would advance post-Lazarus. Which is basically what I've been saying this whole damn thread.

A WALL competitor is fine in theory; in practice, its creators will have to convince regions that have been retreating from cosmopolitanism to give an alliance a shot.

Nah. You just need regions, friendly to TNP/Euro/Balder or not. They could be few dozen UCRs, they could be four GCRs, they could be 1 GCR and two dozen UCRs. Any voting bloc you assemble around a common platform, of it has the votes to stand up to a WALL stack, you have your opposition. It doesn't have to have anything to do with GP.

The moment you start up an alternative to WALL, WALL will make its membership exclusive to those who don't join the alternative - forcing these regions to choose a side. They're gonna play hardball. Ultimately, regions will choose WALL, the established option, over a new alternative unless these regions don't have a choice (because they don't like independents and/or WALL.)

[Tananat]

When WALL decides to stomp a resolution, GA players don’t have a say in that. When big regional Delegates band together to enforce an anti-campaigning agreement under the guise of spam prevention, GA players don’t have a say in that. If you can’t imagine the ease with which alliances like WALL can exercise a veto on your game, then you lack imagination. The answer isn’t to counter WALL by even further increasing the power of Delegate votes by creating a competing 2000-vote bloc. Just like the answer to your kitchen being on fire isn’t to light your living room on fire, hoping that it’ll be a bigger fire that takes up all the oxygen.

I don’t care what Max designed 15 years ago. NS wasn’t fragmented into separate mini-games when this mechanic was first created. It deserves to be judged based on its own merit and how the game exists today. Just because we don’t want to disallow non-regulars from voting altogether, doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile to minimize the disparity that exists when you make the outcome of the GA mini-game dependent on the decisions of people not playing it.

GA Authors can go to the regional forums of WALL members and lobby them there, it's not difficult and the likes of IA manage it very well.

[Kylia Quilor]

And if you just take the time to actually appeal to voters, it wouldn't matter. Step out of the bubble and lobby.

This is what happens when you "appeal to the voters".

Appealing to the voters as in going to the forums of regions the big delegates and defending your resolution to the voters to decide how the region's WAD will vote since this whole debate is about WADelegates

[Excidium Planetis]

When WALL decides to stomp a resolution, GA players don’t have a say in that. When big regional Delegates band together to enforce an anti-campaigning agreement under the guise of spam prevention, GA players don’t have a say in that. If you can’t imagine the ease with which alliances like WALL can exercise a veto on your game, then you lack imagination.

GA players never get a say in the vote. Every damn resolution was passed with around 20,000 votes cast by non-GA players. GA players never got a say in that.

The answer isn’t to counter WALL by even further increasing the power of Delegate votes by creating a competing 2000-vote bloc. Just like the answer to your kitchen being on fire isn’t to light your living room on fire, hoping that it’ll be a bigger fire that takes up all the oxygen.

The answer isn't to make voting power smaller either. What does it matter if the house that is on fire is a bug one or a small one? Either way, it's still on fire. And it isn't to eliminate delegate voting power, then you exchange a large but controlled fire for thousands of uncontrolled ones.

Just because we don’t want to disallow non-regulars from voting altogether, doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile to minimize the disparity that exists when you make the outcome of the GA mini-game dependent on the decisions of people not playing it.

The GA mini game is always dependent on the decisions of people not playing it. Unless you want to remove the votes of everyone except the "real" GA players, there will always be votes cast by non-GA players. Literally tens of thousands of them. You aren't proposing a change that delivers power into the hands of GA players, only one that takes it from regional delegates and gives it to the unorganized player base.

[Mousebumples]

Except that Mouse didn't join Europeia to cozy up to your enemies in GP. She came to Europeia because she was used to dropping by to argue for her proposals as a means to get the block of votes Euro's delegate had, liked what she saw and stuck around.

This is what happens when you "appeal to the voters".

Appealing to the voters as in going to the forums of regions the big delegates and defending your resolution to the voters to decide how the region's WAD will vote since this whole debate is about WADelegates

I'm obviously must less involved in the GA game than I once was, but Kylia is (mostly) right. I came to Europeia (and 10KI, and TNP, and TSP, and Osiris, and Balder, etc.) to campaign for my proposals and to posts drafts prior to submission so edits could be made if large vote Delegates and their constituents had issues with the content that I could plausibly resolve.

There's a reason most of my passed resolutions had such high rates of passage. I don't know if something similar to the old NSwiki is up and running anymore - tracking percentages by which a proposal passed - but I had a number of resolutions with very high rates of passage. They've probably been topped by now, but it was something that made my days of waiting while voting was on-going much more relaxed, when you have a 1000-50 (ish) voting margin.

And I'll agree with all of those that there isn't (or shouldn't be) a Gameplay divide over raider/defender/independent/whatever slant when it comes to voting. Ananke (10KI) and Vinage (Europeia) were two of my most reliable high-vote Delegates when it came to Stacking in favor of my proposals. It's a political game, and I enjoyed building those relationships with players in different regions as I moved my legislative agenda forward.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't know if something similar to the old NSwiki is up and running anymore - tracking percentages by which a proposal passed - but I had a number of resolutions with very high rates of passage. They've probably been topped by now, but it was something that made my days of waiting while voting was on-going much more relaxed, when you have a 1000-50 (ish) voting margin.

I've got a spreadsheet with the relevant percentage information.

[Auralia]

I'm obviously must less involved in the GA game than I once was, but Kylia is (mostly) right. I came to Europeia (and 10KI, and TNP, and TSP, and Osiris, and Balder, etc.) to campaign for my proposals and to posts drafts prior to submission so edits could be made if large vote Delegates and their constituents had issues with the content that I could plausibly resolve.

I do that too -- I'm arguing that it's often unpleasant and shouldn't be necessary because it's unfair and doesn't add anything to the game.

[Imperium Anglorum]

When WALL decides to stomp a resolution, GA players don’t have a say in that. When big regional Delegates band together to enforce an anti-campaigning agreement under the guise of spam prevention, GA players don’t have a say in that. If you can’t imagine the ease with which alliances like WALL can exercise a veto on your game, then you lack imagination. The answer isn’t to counter WALL by even further increasing the power of Delegate votes by creating a competing 2000-vote bloc. Just like the answer to your kitchen being on fire isn’t to light your living room on fire, hoping that it’ll be a bigger fire that takes up all the oxygen.

Either it is the case that certain GA players have politicked up the GA into a rubber stamp. Or it is the case that the GA players don't have a say in anything. Which one is it?

Emergent gameplay is fun, but this isn't emergent behavior among the small game population in the General Assembly. The simple fact is that one sphere of NationStates can't fully play their part of the game without asking another sphere for permission.

If you really want to have free reign, go start a legislative RP and then throw your legislation past your rubber stamps. The reason why the GA feels important in the game is because all resolutions go before the player body at large. The reason why the GA is important in the eyes of something like public image or name recognition is also because those resolutions go before the player body at large.

If you want a place without that, you have to give up the importance and name recognition. Those arguments about 'fairness' still don't engage with the facts of political engagement, the nature of politics, and the organisational disadvantages that everyone has noted in the past.

---

This is what happens when you "appeal to the voters".

No, that's what happens when you spam member nations who don't want your spam. All of the signatory regions have elected (or, in the case of Europe, a direct) legislatures. The provisions of the WAACS were not imposed from upon high - they were given force by the will of the people.

---

If you continue to be a gatekeeper and not let GP interact with the GA, then you're just going to continue to have these problems where you moan about, saying things like "Maaan, GP just doesn't get us. I wish they'd butt out." They (GPers) don't understand because many GA players don't let them.

WALL has gained power because these players realized the potential melding GP (regional politics) with the GA (interregional politics). It's this attitude amongst many in the GA that keeps WALL powerful and makes it nigh impossible for a competitor to emerge.

Also, really this. I've increasingly seen this not as a question of WA fairness (as I did back when I was starting out), but rather, as a question of people whinging about the fact that other people are more successful at making allies than they are.