NATION

PASSWORD

Possibilities for the Security Council

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Possibilities for the Security Council

Postby Lenlyvit » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:48 pm

This thread is to accompany my other thread, the one about a new branch to the WA. I had two ideas for new resolution types, both possibly controversial, that would fill the gap in the SC if that new branch was created. I say that both are controversial because both may have the possibility of being used the wrong way, but that already exists in current resolutions anyways.

New Resolution Types in the SC

My first idea, and possibly the most controversial, has to do with founderless regions. Right now we have the possibility to remove passwords on founderless regions through the use of liberations, but nothing to place a password on a founderless region. My idea is that we could create a resolution type, that if passed by the SC, will place a hidden password on a founderless region that is only visible to the delegate. This password would not cost the natives any influence to enact, therefore keeping their spdr intact. It will also only serve as an initial passwording, and if the delegate or ROs wish to change it after its placement it'll cost them the normal amount of spdr to do so. This has the possibility of making founderless regions more safe two-fold, with the placement of a hidden password and by keeping the natives spdr intact.

Now, I know that that sounds crazy, but hear me out. The SC is pretty good at discerning native from non-native, so its more than likely that it won't get abused. I also don't know if there's any way the techies can make it so a resolution can only be submitted by a delegate, so if they can that would be helpful. It would ultimately be the decision of the world as a whole to place such a thing, something opposite of a liberation although I don't know what to call it yet.

My second idea is the possibility of Sanction resolutions. This resolution can be submitted by a member of the WA, to be levied against regions the world thinks should be kept separate. The resolution would place a permanent, invisible password on the sanctioned region that no one can see or remove, including founding nations. These would only be levied against the most distasteful regions, ones the international community believes committed a wrong doing and needs to be punished for it.

Replacement of idea #2: Maybe, and this is hypothetical as I have no idea if it can be done, it could only eliminate the extra votes of the delegate? There's two ways it can be done I think, and that's either blocking all WA votes from a sanctioned region or eliminating the extra votes a delegate from a sanctioned region has. Its also plausible that instead of eliminating the totality it could eliminate a fraction, as Fauxia suggested.

I know that this one too may be controversial, so ill lay out a little reasoning. I'm fairly certain in the SC as a whole to pass or fail a resolution like this fairly, without prejudice. It is my belief that regions committing wrongs in the world as a whole should be held accountable for those wrongs, held accountable by something stronger than a condemnation. I don't know how much activity these ideas will bring to the SC without commendations/condemnations being handled by the SC, but they may bring enough to keep it active.


Resolution types already covered by the SC:

  • Commendations
  • Condemnations
  • Liberations

Proposed new resolution types:

  • A resolution to do the opposite of a liberation and lock a founderless region at little or no cost of SPDR to the native delegate.
  • A Sanction Resolution to eliminate extra WA Delegate votes either by totality or by a fraction. (Decided that totality is unfair, so possibly reducing extra votes by 2/3)
  • A Sanction Resolution to block all WA votes in the WA, either just GA or both GA and SC, in a region.
  • A Sanction Resolution to block an individual nations vote in the WA, but not remove WA status.
  • A resolution to ban a nation from the WA, very controversial.

Unibot's Ideas

Link - Stabilization Resolution
Link - Monitering Resolution
Link - Document

Clean Lands Ideas

Preserve - A resolution preventing a region from ceasing to exist. Incompatible with Liberation and Appoint Supervisor.

Appoint Supervisor - A resolution to appoint a nation the Supervisor of a region. The supervisor, upon passage, is removed from the regional banlist, cannot be banned or ejected by anyone except the executive Founder, and their posts can only be supressed by the executive Founder. Incompatible with Liberation and Preserve.




Ideas for effects on C&C's

Sierra Lyricalia's Idea - Change rate of influence gain
Last edited by Lenlyvit on Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:50 pm, edited 14 times in total.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 733
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:54 pm

I'm making some assumptions about what your ideas are, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Isolation - Your first idea. Basically just allows the SC to do the reverse of what a Liberation does. Instead of removing a password, it adds one. I'm guessing your intent is that after its passage the native delegate could place a password for zero influence, and the password could not be removed once added.

Sanctions - From what I understand, you're basically saying that the SC could target a region and bar all entry into that region.

--

I think your first idea makes a lot of sense. If the SC has the power to remove barriers to entry placed by a delegate, why not allow it to go the other direction and assist a delegate in placing a password? The purpose of the "Security Council" is to provide security, after all. If the rest of NS really thinks a region should be able to safely go into isolation, it works. I see this as a sensible expansion of SC powers.

I have a few issues with your second idea. I'm not sure I like the idea of giving the SC the ability to "salt the fields", as it were, of foundered regions. Any region subject to those effects is guaranteed to die off in a few months. However, I'd be willing to accept this if it is significantly nerfed, because I like the idea of adding consequence to action. I just don't think it's a good idea to give the WA superweapons.
Last objected by The World Assembly on Sun, January 21, 2018, at 9:05 pm, objected 16,999 times in total.
Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:17 pm

Galiantus III wrote:I'm making some assumptions about what your ideas are, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Isolation - Your first idea. Basically just allows the SC to do the reverse of what a Liberation does. Instead of removing a password, it adds one. I'm guessing your intent is that after its passage the native delegate could place a password for zero influence, and the password could not be removed once added.


Basically, yes. My initial thought process was this exact thing, but the natives should be able to remove it in my opinion if they wanted too without having to go back through the SC to do so. I think there should be a discussion on whether or not the resolution would make that password permanent, or allow the native delegate to remove it at their discretion.

Galiantus III wrote:Sanctions - From what I understand, you're basically saying that the SC could target a region and bar all entry into that region.

--

I have a few issues with your second idea. I'm not sure I like the idea of giving the SC the ability to "salt the fields", as it were, of foundered regions. Any region subject to those effects is guaranteed to die off in a few months. However, I'd be willing to accept this if it is significantly nerfed, because I like the idea of adding consequence to action. I just don't think it's a good idea to give the WA superweapons.


How would we nerf it, out of curiosity? You're right in your assumption on what the resolution would do, but also remember that these would be subject to repeal by the SC at any point in time. How would you like to see it work? You have my curious :p
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 733
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:06 pm

I was originally thinking of limiting sanctions in time - the resolution would pass, last for a week or two, then be done. However that doesn't work well in the context of the politics of the WA, where the effects of things should remain in force while the legislation is in place. Here are a few ideas off the top of my head:

  • Limit by size of nation - New nations couldn't move to the region. They could still receive telegrams, but they'd have to wait a week or two before they could actually join. The idea is to mess with the effectiveness of recruitment (while still maintaining its viability) rather than just completely reducing the region to an empty shell.
  • Only Limit WA Nations - No WA nations could enter the region. WA members already in the region could stay, but they could not return.
    Nations attempting to join the WA would be told to "move elsewhere to comply with the sanctions on [region]" in order for the WA to accept their application.
  • Place a cap on the size of the region - The targeted region could only hold so many nations. I'm not sure what should determine this number, since something feels wrong about simply making that number however many were in the region at the time the proposal was submitted,
    and making it the time of passage for the proposal would just encourage puppet spam from members of the targeted region.
Last edited by Galiantus III on Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Last objected by The World Assembly on Sun, January 21, 2018, at 9:05 pm, objected 16,999 times in total.
Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Raionitu
Diplomat
 
Posts: 552
Founded: Jun 06, 2015
Father Knows Best State

Postby Raionitu » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:47 pm

I think the first idea could have merit, possibly less of a forced password, more of a let delegate put up password for little/no influence.

I am firmly against the second one in any form. Even the proposed "nerfs" would still be blocking new players from joining, which kills the majority of regional recruitment. It is basically giving the SC the power to decide that certain types of regions shouldn't be allowed to exist, indirectly choosing the way other regions are allowed to govern. If you don't think that will happen, look to the massive amount of "fash bash" awhile back, that was the most updaters I've seen for anything. I can guarantee that this would end up getting used to make regions of unpopular government styles from being any real size or powerhouse. It would basically be saying no one can have a fash/nazi/etc. region because the majority of players don't like that play style and want to destroy those regions. Part of what makes NS good is that people can run government pretty much however they like. You want a region run a certain way? You can make one like it or look for one that already fits that government style. Don't like current region government? You can go somewhere else. No matter what you think of them, you shouldn't deny an entire section of the NS community because their regional government is bad.

I'm also sure that this would get used on groups like raiders, and even if they didn't pass, there are enough small delegates who would get behind it that the voting queue would be constantly backlogged with proposals to lock raider regions for tagging no-name-region #9
Last edited by Raionitu on Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Koth wrote:you guys are cool, like lately ive been watching the overal state of the raider world and been like,"ew", but you guys are very not ew
Reppy wrote:Swearing is just fucking fine on this goddamn fucking forum.
Aguaria Major wrote:The Black Hawks is essentially a regional equivalent of Heath Ledger's Joker: they just want to watch the world burn
Frisbeeteria wrote:Please stop.Please.
Souls wrote:Hi, I'm Souls. Have you embraced our lord and savior , Piling yet?
Souls wrote:Note to self: Watch out for Rai in my bedroom
Altinsane wrote:Me, about every suspiciously helpful newb I meet: "It's probably Rai."
Lord Dominator wrote:Koth is a drunken alternate personality of yours

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:36 pm

Raionitu wrote:I think the first idea could have merit, possibly less of a forced password, more of a let delegate put up password for little/no influence.

I am firmly against the second one in any form. Even the proposed "nerfs" would still be blocking new players from joining, which kills the majority of regional recruitment. It is basically giving the SC the power to decide that certain types of regions shouldn't be allowed to exist, indirectly choosing the way other regions are allowed to govern. If you don't think that will happen, look to the massive amount of "fash bash" awhile back, that was the most updaters I've seen for anything. I can guarantee that this would end up getting used to make regions of unpopular government styles from being any real size or powerhouse. It would basically be saying no one can have a fash/nazi/etc. region because the majority of players don't like that play style and want to destroy those regions. Part of what makes NS good is that people can run government pretty much however they like. You want a region run a certain way? You can make one like it or look for one that already fits that government style. Don't like current region government? You can go somewhere else. No matter what you think of them, you shouldn't deny an entire section of the NS community because their regional government is bad.

I'm also sure that this would get used on groups like raiders, and even if they didn't pass, there are enough small delegates who would get behind it that the voting queue would be constantly backlogged with proposals to lock raider regions for tagging no-name-region #9

I had more hope that the SC would be more normal, but I'm betting you're right. I knew it was a bad idea :p. Since that's out of the way, lets set thoughts on what new resolution types the SC can pass. We already have a slightly good idea with my first option, as stated, but what else can be done? Is there another kind of sanction that can be levied against regions? I propose a possibility of not locking a region, but blocking their WA votes in the WA. If a region is targeted by this resolution, I don't know what to call it, their WA votes both as nations and the added WA votes on the delegate will become null and void. They will no longer have a say in any WA affairs until said resolution is repealed by the SC. Just a thought *shrugs*
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 733
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:32 pm

I once made a suggestion in another topic to split the regional control powers from the WA voting powers. This suggestion to allow the SC to bar a specified region from casting votes in the WA reminds me of that, and I like it.

However, I have a question: if WA members can't vote because they are in a region where this is in affect, do GA proposals still affect them?

I think it is also worth discussing where a proposal like this could go. In this case, it is possible you could get a few feeder delegates together in a coalition and pass this on the other feeders/sinkers and a few of the larger UCRs. Apply this a few more times when the coalition falls apart, and you end up with one or two feeders and all the really small UCRs as the only participants in the WA. I'm saying this would cut the number of people voting in the WA in half. Of course, the other thing you'd have to consider is that whoever ends up in control of the WA is likely to be heavily influenced by raiders or defenders. In the case that defenders take over the WA, not much would change other than the outcome of pretty much every raid would be 100% predictable. If raiders take over the WA, however, the world would become very interesting, as week by week we'd see every large founderless region with a password be "liberated" to open the doors for raider forces.

I should clarify that I don't have much of an opinion whether this is good or bad - I'm just exploring the possibilities. However, I do think this kind of political environment could stir up tons of activity in the WA outside of military gameplay, because it compels people to act. I also think it is unlikely you'd see anything as extreme as what I suggested, and even if it did I think there would be enough people interested in changing that state of affairs that it wouldn't last long. I imagine it is possible, if this were implemented, we'd have a world war over the WA in about a year or two, then a stabilizing set of agreements to preventing it from happening again - only to have it happen again and again every few years.

But if it turns out we don't want that to happen, there's an easy fix: don't limit voting in the SC. People will make their own attempts to control the GA using this kind of proposal, but if they can't prevent people from voting in the SC then they can't get too far.
Last objected by The World Assembly on Sun, January 21, 2018, at 9:05 pm, objected 16,999 times in total.
Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Clean Land
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 190
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Clean Land » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:28 am

My second idea is the possibility of Sanction resolutions. This resolution can be submitted by a member of the WA, to be levied against regions the world thinks should be kept separate. The resolution would place a permanent, invisible password on the sanctioned region that no one can see or remove, including founding nations. These would only be levied against the most distasteful regions, ones the international community believes committed a wrong doing and needs to be punished for it.

This idea(yes idea) would paralyze the Security Council.
Let me tell you what will happen:
Violet:"There is a new category:Sanction. Use it to barrier off distasteful regions"
Next day: There are 50 Sanction proposals against Nazi regions, all in queue. Total time needed for all proposals:250 days.

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:20 am

Clean Land wrote:
My second idea is the possibility of Sanction resolutions. This resolution can be submitted by a member of the WA, to be levied against regions the world thinks should be kept separate. The resolution would place a permanent, invisible password on the sanctioned region that no one can see or remove, including founding nations. These would only be levied against the most distasteful regions, ones the international community believes committed a wrong doing and needs to be punished for it.

This idea(yes idea) would paralyze the Security Council.
Let me tell you what will happen:
Violet:"There is a new category:Sanction. Use it to barrier off distasteful regions"
Next day: There are 50 Sanction proposals against Nazi regions, all in queue. Total time needed for all proposals:250 days.

If you had read any of the other posts, you'd realize that we established that as a bad idea. That's why I made an alternate idea, and if your willing, I'd love to hear your opinion on it.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:23 am

Galiantus III wrote:I once made a suggestion in another topic to split the regional control powers from the WA voting powers. This suggestion to allow the SC to bar a specified region from casting votes in the WA reminds me of that, and I like it.

However, I have a question: if WA members can't vote because they are in a region where this is in affect, do GA proposals still affect them?

I think it is also worth discussing where a proposal like this could go. In this case, it is possible you could get a few feeder delegates together in a coalition and pass this on the other feeders/sinkers and a few of the larger UCRs. Apply this a few more times when the coalition falls apart, and you end up with one or two feeders and all the really small UCRs as the only participants in the WA. I'm saying this would cut the number of people voting in the WA in half. Of course, the other thing you'd have to consider is that whoever ends up in control of the WA is likely to be heavily influenced by raiders or defenders. In the case that defenders take over the WA, not much would change other than the outcome of pretty much every raid would be 100% predictable. If raiders take over the WA, however, the world would become very interesting, as week by week we'd see every large founderless region with a password be "liberated" to open the doors for raider forces.

I should clarify that I don't have much of an opinion whether this is good or bad - I'm just exploring the possibilities. However, I do think this kind of political environment could stir up tons of activity in the WA outside of military gameplay, because it compels people to act. I also think it is unlikely you'd see anything as extreme as what I suggested, and even if it did I think there would be enough people interested in changing that state of affairs that it wouldn't last long. I imagine it is possible, if this were implemented, we'd have a world war over the WA in about a year or two, then a stabilizing set of agreements to preventing it from happening again - only to have it happen again and again every few years.

But if it turns out we don't want that to happen, there's an easy fix: don't limit voting in the SC. People will make their own attempts to control the GA using this kind of proposal, but if they can't prevent people from voting in the SC then they can't get too far.

Maybe, and this is hypothetical as I have no idea if it can be done, it could only eliminate the extra votes of the delegate? There's two ways it can be done I think, and that's either blocking all WA votes from a sanctioned region or eliminating the extra votes a delegate from a sanctioned region has.

Edit: I think that the GA bills should still affect them, as they are still WA nations. The only thing it would do is strip them of the ability to vote on resolutions.
Last edited by Lenlyvit on Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Clean Land
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 190
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Clean Land » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:49 am

The WA proposal is interesting but dangerous. It should definitely not apply to the SC, for reasons mentioned.
I don't think that there will be a large coalition forming as any proposal of this sort will obviously and rightly be seen as an act of aggression. With all these treaties between the big feeders and sinkers, an act of aggression like that would be extremely dangerous(and very risky. If it FAILS then you are in extremely big trouble. If it doesn't you are still in big trouble, because any competent Feeder and Sinker has some sort of military.). In fact, multiple GCR's have strong ties to defenders or raiders. Contrary to the normal assertion, these raiders care a great deal about their own regions.
So do the defenders. And with a negative intervention in regional sovereignity on this level even the most radical defenders would start attacking and infiltrating enemy regions to coup them.
Now, as a decision maker in any GCR, I would not want to open that box. Yes, there would be lots of influence to gain. But the extreme risk and the repercussions even if you win... no thanks. In fact, as soon as this would be implemented, there would be probably talks about a multilateral GCR treaty against that.
Nazi regions would probably the only regions that would be a valid target, internationally, and those probably don't care much. They could just make a new region. Or ignore it by placing their WA's elsewhere. And founderless Nazi regions don't exist. At least, not for long.

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:22 pm

Clean Land wrote:The WA proposal is interesting but dangerous. It should definitely not apply to the SC, for reasons mentioned.
I don't think that there will be a large coalition forming as any proposal of this sort will obviously and rightly be seen as an act of aggression. With all these treaties between the big feeders and sinkers, an act of aggression like that would be extremely dangerous(and very risky. If it FAILS then you are in extremely big trouble. If it doesn't you are still in big trouble, because any competent Feeder and Sinker has some sort of military.). In fact, multiple GCR's have strong ties to defenders or raiders. Contrary to the normal assertion, these raiders care a great deal about their own regions.
So do the defenders. And with a negative intervention in regional sovereignity on this level even the most radical defenders would start attacking and infiltrating enemy regions to coup them.
Now, as a decision maker in any GCR, I would not want to open that box. Yes, there would be lots of influence to gain. But the extreme risk and the repercussions even if you win... no thanks. In fact, as soon as this would be implemented, there would be probably talks about a multilateral GCR treaty against that.
Nazi regions would probably the only regions that would be a valid target, internationally, and those probably don't care much. They could just make a new region. Or ignore it by placing their WA's elsewhere. And founderless Nazi regions don't exist. At least, not for long.

This isn't only about raiding and defending, why does everyone think that? If these resolutions existed R/D wouldn't matter towards it. Sure, they have political ties almost everywhere, but these wouldn't be R/D based but rather politically (Edit: and possibly RP) based. R/D is only a threat to founderless regions of NS, so basically almost every region that votes on resolutions are safe with founders. Another thing people tend to forget: no one region controls the WA. Such resolutions like these would encourage activity between regions by them creating alliances, and it gives the WA as a whole more substance. They would also levy real sanctions against regions and nations, because I believe that such a thing should be able to target both, the world as a whole thinks deserves them. It'll bring massive international alliances into play, create tighter bonds between regions, and encourage more WA activity.
Last edited by Lenlyvit on Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Clean Land
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 190
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Clean Land » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:37 pm

Lenlyvit wrote:
Clean Land wrote:The WA proposal is interesting but dangerous. It should definitely not apply to the SC, for reasons mentioned.
I don't think that there will be a large coalition forming as any proposal of this sort will obviously and rightly be seen as an act of aggression. With all these treaties between the big feeders and sinkers, an act of aggression like that would be extremely dangerous(and very risky. If it FAILS then you are in extremely big trouble. If it doesn't you are still in big trouble, because any competent Feeder and Sinker has some sort of military.). In fact, multiple GCR's have strong ties to defenders or raiders. Contrary to the normal assertion, these raiders care a great deal about their own regions.
So do the defenders. And with a negative intervention in regional sovereignity on this level even the most radical defenders would start attacking and infiltrating enemy regions to coup them.
Now, as a decision maker in any GCR, I would not want to open that box. Yes, there would be lots of influence to gain. But the extreme risk and the repercussions even if you win... no thanks. In fact, as soon as this would be implemented, there would be probably talks about a multilateral GCR treaty against that.
Nazi regions would probably the only regions that would be a valid target, internationally, and those probably don't care much. They could just make a new region. Or ignore it by placing their WA's elsewhere. And founderless Nazi regions don't exist. At least, not for long.

This isn't only about raiding and defending, why does everyone think that? If these resolutions existed R/D wouldn't matter towards it. Sure, they have political ties almost everywhere, but these wouldn't be R/D based but rather politically (Edit: and possibly RP) based. R/D is only a threat to founderless regions of NS, so basically almost every region that votes on resolutions are safe with founders. Another thing people tend to forget: no one region controls the WA. Such resolutions like these would encourage activity between regions by them creating alliances, and it gives the WA as a whole more substance. They would also levy real sanctions against regions and nations, because I believe that such a thing should be able to target both, the world as a whole thinks deserves them. It'll bring massive international alliances into play, create tighter bonds between regions, and encourage more WA activity.

You really think that if all feeders and sinkers sign a treaty to not use that feature on anyone except a Nazi region that anyone will be strong enough to fight the pile of roughly 4000 votes?

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:44 pm

Clean Land wrote:
Lenlyvit wrote:This isn't only about raiding and defending, why does everyone think that? If these resolutions existed R/D wouldn't matter towards it. Sure, they have political ties almost everywhere, but these wouldn't be R/D based but rather politically (Edit: and possibly RP) based. R/D is only a threat to founderless regions of NS, so basically almost every region that votes on resolutions are safe with founders. Another thing people tend to forget: no one region controls the WA. Such resolutions like these would encourage activity between regions by them creating alliances, and it gives the WA as a whole more substance. They would also levy real sanctions against regions and nations, because I believe that such a thing should be able to target both, the world as a whole thinks deserves them. It'll bring massive international alliances into play, create tighter bonds between regions, and encourage more WA activity.

You really think that if all feeders and sinkers sign a treaty to not use that feature on anyone except a Nazi region that anyone will be strong enough to fight the pile of roughly 4000 votes?

Yeah, I actually do. As seen in the recently passed resolution of Commend MT Army there was a massive amount of votes on the nations side that offset every single GCR that voted against the resolution, which included The East Pacific, The West Pacific, Osiris, Balder, The Pacific, The South Pacific, and The Rejected Realms. Without the individual nations that voted for the resolution it would've failed, and hard. And what's this fixation on Nazi regions? Sure, some will probably be target by these but all it'll do is take away their ability to vote on WA resolutions, which hardly any of them do anyways.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I'm curious if you're still talking about locking a region that's sanctioned. If so, we're talking about two different things. If you look up, you'll see that I'm talking about:
Lenlyvit wrote:
Galiantus III wrote:I once made a suggestion in another topic to split the regional control powers from the WA voting powers. This suggestion to allow the SC to bar a specified region from casting votes in the WA reminds me of that, and I like it.

However, I have a question: if WA members can't vote because they are in a region where this is in affect, do GA proposals still affect them?

I think it is also worth discussing where a proposal like this could go. In this case, it is possible you could get a few feeder delegates together in a coalition and pass this on the other feeders/sinkers and a few of the larger UCRs. Apply this a few more times when the coalition falls apart, and you end up with one or two feeders and all the really small UCRs as the only participants in the WA. I'm saying this would cut the number of people voting in the WA in half. Of course, the other thing you'd have to consider is that whoever ends up in control of the WA is likely to be heavily influenced by raiders or defenders. In the case that defenders take over the WA, not much would change other than the outcome of pretty much every raid would be 100% predictable. If raiders take over the WA, however, the world would become very interesting, as week by week we'd see every large founderless region with a password be "liberated" to open the doors for raider forces.

I should clarify that I don't have much of an opinion whether this is good or bad - I'm just exploring the possibilities. However, I do think this kind of political environment could stir up tons of activity in the WA outside of military gameplay, because it compels people to act. I also think it is unlikely you'd see anything as extreme as what I suggested, and even if it did I think there would be enough people interested in changing that state of affairs that it wouldn't last long. I imagine it is possible, if this were implemented, we'd have a world war over the WA in about a year or two, then a stabilizing set of agreements to preventing it from happening again - only to have it happen again and again every few years.

But if it turns out we don't want that to happen, there's an easy fix: don't limit voting in the SC. People will make their own attempts to control the GA using this kind of proposal, but if they can't prevent people from voting in the SC then they can't get too far.

Maybe, and this is hypothetical as I have no idea if it can be done, it could only eliminate the extra votes of the delegate? There's two ways it can be done I think, and that's either blocking all WA votes from a sanctioned region or eliminating the extra votes a delegate from a sanctioned region has.

Edit: I think that the GA bills should still affect them, as they are still WA nations. The only thing it would do is strip them of the ability to vote on resolutions.
Last edited by Lenlyvit on Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Clean Land
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 190
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Clean Land » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:10 pm

I am talking about GA vote removal.
Yes of course you can overcome a stack of roughly 2000 votes. But it is certainly difficult, and especially difficult on a resolution that has not a nice name(and Sanction X is not nice).
A stack of 4000 can be overcome but it is even more difficult.
And that is without the WALL allies of TNP, who are active in the WA, and will most likely join any treaty against the use of sanctions.
Sanctions are nothing less than diplomatic nuclear attacks. It is incredibly horrible for any stable region that partipiciates in WA play. Every GCR, and most UCRs will treat the attempted usage or votes for it as a declaration of war.
That is why I brought up gameplay.
That's why I brought up the Nazi regions, because they are the only kind of regions that I could forsee usage of this on. No one else is this despised that it is not an extremely high risk to use it.

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4678
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fauxia » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:19 pm

I don’t like either of these, to be perfectly honest. First of all, they’re basically the same. I could possibly stomach the first one if it’s only on founderless regions, but that creates a bit of a problem- what about regions where the founder is about to CTE? It also could create a lot of insta-repeals, which is obviously bad, because we don’t want to be the GA. Think about it- vote is ending on update. Raiders come in at the very beginning. Defenders rarely match raiders in force size unless they know there is something they need to do. With this, they can’t get in. Raiders now have a free region. Yay!

The second one is even worse, partially for the same reasons, but also, it’s completely unfair. A region gets damned to oblivion because most people don’t like them. Look, I don’t like fascists and nazis anymore than the next guy over, but I don’t think it’s fair for the SC to do that. It’s too much power. That’s part of my problem with the first; it’s basically the second. If they have a right to be on the game, they should be able to recruit.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.
Sandaoguo wrote:GP is a den of cynics and nihilists

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:30 pm

Fauxia wrote:I don’t like either of these, to be perfectly honest. First of all, they’re basically the same. I could possibly stomach the first one if it’s only on founderless regions, but that creates a bit of a problem- what about regions where the founder is about to CTE? It also could create a lot of insta-repeals, which is obviously bad, because we don’t want to be the GA. Think about it- vote is ending on update. Raiders come in at the very beginning. Defenders rarely match raiders in force size unless they know there is something they need to do. With this, they can’t get in. Raiders now have a free region. Yay!

The second one is even worse, partially for the same reasons, but also, it’s completely unfair. A region gets damned to oblivion because most people don’t like them. Look, I don’t like fascists and nazis anymore than the next guy over, but I don’t think it’s fair for the SC to do that. It’s too much power. That’s part of my problem with the first; it’s basically the second. If they have a right to be on the game, they should be able to recruit.

Is no one reading the actual thread, and just looking at the first post? The first idea is to secure founderless regions that wish to put up a password, and if one goes up to vote you can bet your butt defenders would pile it to keep raiders from taking it like that. Furthermore, it wouldn't be taken seriously unless proposed by a native delegate. The second idea in the first post was scrapped if you had taken time to read the thread, replaced with my idea that's spoilered.

Maybe, and this is hypothetical as I have no idea if it can be done, it could only eliminate the extra votes of the delegate? There's two ways it can be done I think, and that's either blocking all WA votes from a sanctioned region or eliminating the extra votes a delegate from a sanctioned region has.

Edit: I think that the GA bills should still affect them, as they are still WA nations. The only thing it would do is strip them of the ability to vote on resolutions.
Last edited by Lenlyvit on Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4678
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fauxia » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:43 pm

Lenlyvit wrote:
Fauxia wrote:I don’t like either of these, to be perfectly honest. First of all, they’re basically the same. I could possibly stomach the first one if it’s only on founderless regions, but that creates a bit of a problem- what about regions where the founder is about to CTE? It also could create a lot of insta-repeals, which is obviously bad, because we don’t want to be the GA. Think about it- vote is ending on update. Raiders come in at the very beginning. Defenders rarely match raiders in force size unless they know there is something they need to do. With this, they can’t get in. Raiders now have a free region. Yay!

The second one is even worse, partially for the same reasons, but also, it’s completely unfair. A region gets damned to oblivion because most people don’t like them. Look, I don’t like fascists and nazis anymore than the next guy over, but I don’t think it’s fair for the SC to do that. It’s too much power. That’s part of my problem with the first; it’s basically the second. If they have a right to be on the game, they should be able to recruit.

Is no one reading the actual thread, and just looking at the first post? The first idea is to secure founderless regions that wish to put up a password, and if one goes up to vote you can bet your butt defenders would pile it to keep raiders from taking it like that. Furthermore, it wouldn't be taken seriously unless proposed by a native delegate. The second idea in the first post was scrapped if you had taken time to read the thread, replaced with my idea that's spoilered.

Maybe, and this is hypothetical as I have no idea if it can be done, it could only eliminate the extra votes of the delegate? There's two ways it can be done I think, and that's either blocking all WA votes from a sanctioned region or eliminating the extra votes a delegate from a sanctioned region has.

Edit: I think that the GA bills should still affect them, as they are still WA nations. The only thing it would do is strip them of the ability to vote on resolutions.
People usually read the op. If there is a development, edit it in.

Anyway, I could possibly support an elimination of delegate excess votes. Alternatively, it could eliminate some of them only- either a hard number or a fraction, more likely.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.
Sandaoguo wrote:GP is a den of cynics and nihilists

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:49 pm

Fauxia wrote:
Lenlyvit wrote:Is no one reading the actual thread, and just looking at the first post? The first idea is to secure founderless regions that wish to put up a password, and if one goes up to vote you can bet your butt defenders would pile it to keep raiders from taking it like that. Furthermore, it wouldn't be taken seriously unless proposed by a native delegate. The second idea in the first post was scrapped if you had taken time to read the thread, replaced with my idea that's spoilered.

Maybe, and this is hypothetical as I have no idea if it can be done, it could only eliminate the extra votes of the delegate? There's two ways it can be done I think, and that's either blocking all WA votes from a sanctioned region or eliminating the extra votes a delegate from a sanctioned region has.

Edit: I think that the GA bills should still affect them, as they are still WA nations. The only thing it would do is strip them of the ability to vote on resolutions.
People usually read the op. If there is a development, edit it in.

Anyway, I could possibly support an elimination of delegate excess votes. Alternatively, it could eliminate some of them only- either a hard number or a fraction, more likely.

Thanks! Yeah, I edited it in to make it more clear this time :p. If we go with a fraction, what fraction of votes would be the best? Or, alternatively, it could eliminate all votes or like you suggested a hard number. I think hard numbers wouldn't be the way to go, as all regions have different endo counts on the delegates. So either a fraction or the totality.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4678
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fauxia » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:10 am

Lenlyvit wrote:
Fauxia wrote:People usually read the op. If there is a development, edit it in.

Anyway, I could possibly support an elimination of delegate excess votes. Alternatively, it could eliminate some of them only- either a hard number or a fraction, more likely.

Thanks! Yeah, I edited it in to make it more clear this time :p. If we go with a fraction, what fraction of votes would be the best? Or, alternatively, it could eliminate all votes or like you suggested a hard number. I think hard numbers wouldn't be the way to go, as all regions have different endo counts on the delegates. So either a fraction or the totality.
I don’t think totality is really fair. I would think 2/3 of the delegate excess, maybe. I would be thinking you want to eliminate roughly half of the WA standing, so eliminate most of the delegate.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.
Sandaoguo wrote:GP is a den of cynics and nihilists

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:06 am

Fauxia wrote:
Lenlyvit wrote:Thanks! Yeah, I edited it in to make it more clear this time :p. If we go with a fraction, what fraction of votes would be the best? Or, alternatively, it could eliminate all votes or like you suggested a hard number. I think hard numbers wouldn't be the way to go, as all regions have different endo counts on the delegates. So either a fraction or the totality.
I don’t think totality is really fair. I would think 2/3 of the delegate excess, maybe. I would be thinking you want to eliminate roughly half of the WA standing, so eliminate most of the delegate.

2/3 seems like a fair amount to me, I guess. I've updated the opening post to reflect that. What about the other proposed ideas? I'm thinking along the terms of an individual nation sanction that'll block their WA vote.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 733
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:21 pm

I don't see much of a point to having the option to block a single WA member from voting. They can just switch nations.
Last objected by The World Assembly on Sun, January 21, 2018, at 9:05 pm, objected 16,999 times in total.
Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:02 pm

Galiantus III wrote:I don't see much of a point to having the option to block a single WA member from voting. They can just switch nations.

They have a way, from the technical standpoint, to block people from joining the WA If banned. I'm guessing that if this new type of resolution is created, and it is possible to block a nation from voting in the WA, they can techy it so that it applies to people's puppets too.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6096
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:59 pm

I assume that these proposal categories would be used against the North Pacific? I mean, I think there's wide support to see the massive 'bloc' of votes broken up, but allowing the WA to gang up and bar their votes altogether seems very unfair. We would have trolled Gatesville back in the day with a Sanction proposal. :P

I do however believe that the Security Council needs some new categories. It feels like a very incomplete project at the moment. Which is understandable given its existence was not really even intended. The SC was split from the GA on the fly to respond to backlash. And the Liberation category was made (again, on the fly) to respond to rising frustration with Macedon.

I just think the new proposal categories should help address something missing in the game or some problem. They should seem fair. And they should hopefully give authors a lot more to work with in the future.

If you're interested, I've suggested a number of proposal categories over the years, but these are the latest:

Image
Image
Image
[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.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Diplomat
 
Posts: 955
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:13 pm

Unibot III wrote:I assume that these proposal categories would be used against the North Pacific? I mean, I think there's wide support to see the massive 'bloc' of votes broken up, but allowing the WA to gang up and bar their votes altogether seems very unfair. We would have trolled Gatesville back in the day with a Sanction proposal. :P

I do however believe that the Security Council needs some new categories. It feels like a very incomplete project at the moment. Which is understandable given its existence was not really even intended. The SC was split from the GA on the fly to respond to backlash. And the Liberation category was made (again, on the fly) to respond to rising frustration with Macedon.

I just think the new proposal categories should help address something missing in the game or some problem. They should seem fair. And they should hopefully give authors a lot more to work with in the future.

If you're interested, I've suggested a number of proposal categories over the years, but these are the latest:

([url=https://s27.postimg.org/4fh4ogssj/stablization.png]Image)[/url]
([url=https://s27.postimg.org/41fsov8oz/monitor.png]Image)[/url]
([url=https://s23.postimg.org/pzafdghq3/document.png]Image)[/url]

I seriously don't get how you automatically assumed this was about TNP Uni, because it most certainly is not. I came up with these ideas to foster activity in the SC and WA as a whole, and possibly add more resolution types that can be passed. This was not, is not, and will not be about TNP or any major delegate.

Edit: ill have to look at the ideas you had, thanks for linking them!
Last edited by Lenlyvit on Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Former Defender, now role play Imperialist. Join Archmont for a cool role play experience!


It's okay, I've been commended by the Security Council so you can trust me. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Luziyca, Wizlandia

Advertisement

Remove ads