Possibilities for the Security Council

[Fauxia]

At the same time, this could be used against TNP. Unibot’s right

Also, it’s spelled “Possibilities”

[Galiantus III]

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.

It seems like a whole lot of extra work for essentially nothing, not to mention that the idea of targeting a player rather than a nation lends itself to abuse. I would much rather discuss other category ideas.

[Unibot III]

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.

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!

Sorry if it wasn't, I just assumed it was because that's the region most people have a problem with voting. And Gatesville back in the day. (We'd have toyed with them mercilessly, I can assure you!!)

EDIT: I never thought I'd come to miss Gatesville. Jesus, I've gone soft.

[Lenlyvit]

At the same time, this could be used against TNP. Unibot’s right

Also, it’s spelled “Possibilities”

My bad, phone didn't auto-correct for once . Unibot may be right, but you and him are both forgetting that TNP would be voting on such a thing itself, not to mention that using it on a GCR would set a horrible precedent that I doubt any GCR delegate would be for it.

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.

It seems like a whole lot of extra work for essentially nothing, not to mention that the idea of targeting a player rather than a nation lends itself to abuse. I would much rather discuss other category ideas.

Alright, lets discuss other things then. I've put up more than one idea in the opening post, so what's your opinions on those?

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!

Sorry if it wasn't, I just assumed it was because that's the region most people have a problem with voting. And Gatesville back in the day. (We'd have toyed with them mercilessly, I can assure you!!)

EDIT: I never thought I'd come to miss Gatesville. Jesus, I've gone soft.

Its okay Unibot, I forgive you . Is it ok if I link your proposals in the opening post?

Edit: What is your take on the other proposals though?

[Galiantus III]

It seems like a whole lot of extra work for essentially nothing, not to mention that the idea of targeting a player rather than a nation lends itself to abuse. I would much rather discuss other category ideas.

Alright, lets discuss other things then. I've put up more than one idea in the opening post, so what's your opinions on those?

1. I like the "Reverse Liberation" proposal. It is a natural direction to take things, and I think it would see good use if added. Lots of people are going to want to get their region a password in a short time without having to wait for influence.
   
2. I like the current version of Sanction. 2/3 feels like a good limiting amount.
   
3. Not a fan of being able to sanction an individual nation. As I said before, it seems like a lot of effort for virtually nothing.
   
4. Allowing the SC to ban people from the WA would be a travesty. This is the kind of thing that should be left to moderators, not players.

--

In terms of ideas for new stuff, I once suggested adding functionality to condemnations by having them also strip away the census badges of the target region/nation. Rankings would still apply, it's just that no badges would appear on the nation page. That was obviously a bad idea for what is supposed to be an RP mechanic, but it might be worth looking at as its own thing.

[Unibot III]

Unibot may be right, but you and him are both forgetting that TNP would be voting on such a thing itself, not to mention that using it on a GCR would set a horrible precedent that I doubt any GCR delegate would be for it.

Yes, but there's really only been three regions in NS history where players have wondered if their unilateral power over the WA is "game-breaking" : TNP, Europe, and 10000 Islands. 10000 Islands doesn't have the influence it used to have. Europe (religiously) doesn't vote on SC resolutions. Such a vote would be WALL vs. everyone tired of WALL's influence.

I'm not sure if it's fair for other regions to use the WA to gang up on TNP. But I do think it's possible you could pass an anti-WALL proposal against WALL in the SC where it doesn't have Europe to help block it. Three feeders can outnumber TNP by itself. It's entirely possible that other GCRs could gang up on TNP. Once TNP was out of the picture, no GCR would be significantly more powerful than the other to warrant similar treatment. TNP's endorsement counts are more than double most other feeders.

The way to get around this would be to say: WA votes from sanctioned regions would 'appear' lodged but not contribute to the final tally. It's a bit more complicated but it would essentially eliminate the point of using sanctions against big regions. Because the reason people hate TNP's vote count is they vote early and its influence is multiplied tenfold by the lemming effect - that would still happen if their vote appeared lodged.

Is it ok if I link your proposals in the opening post?

Go for it!

Edit: What is your take on the other proposals though?

I'm not sure there would be any use to a proposal that could lock regions. I mean, passwords aren't a very good security tool (they often work against the security of regions) and if natives want to implement them, there's no reason they can't - unless the region is non-executive.

I would however be very interested in a proposal category that 'executived' non-executive delegates against the will of founders. That would be highly controversial here. But I think there would be a lot of opportunities in NS to put that category to good use: you could use it to undermine puppet dumps, annexations, and occupied Macedonian regions. Such a proposal category would also be a double-edged sword, just like WA Liberations, because you could 'misuse' the power to make an innocent region more vulnerable. This has been suggested before actually and was blown off by the mods at the time, but I actually think it would be a great development. It really annoys me when I still get telegrams from, say, NS Brazilians asking me to help them free Brazil - and it's like, "I can't, I'm sorry, the game doesn't allow us to fight Macedon. I'd really like to help you if I could." I would probably spend years on NS hawking Macedon's colonies if I got the chance. It was frustrating when we blew our shot liberating Concosia, because the moment that TNI realized it had let the ball slip, they revived their founder and the delegate lost its executive status again. We ran into the same problem with Greece and Yauna. Being patient just isn't enough to help the Brazillians or Concosians. The game literally gives Macedon, TNI and others, a free pass to hold their colonies provided they have a log-in script.

I think such a proposal would be a very admirable and useful direction for the SC. There's probably thousands of cases in NS of regions being hawked against the will of natives - and then locked up and entombed forever with a puppet, a log-in script and a non-executive delegate. My original region, for instance, Eastern Islands - had a history of being griefed. We were a very interesting case because there were two generations of natives that had resided in Eastern Islands and we were both griefed by different invaders (Brotherhood of Blood / The Black Hawks) and the regions had been hawked - so when the old natives returned to our Eastern Islands, we became good friends and kind of bonded over that. It's a very strange set of circumstances because our region has always been griefed or hawked: when my generation of Eastern Islanders refounded the region, we didn't know we were founding something that had had a very bloodied up history and it set invader's sights on us immediately.

But the region is buggered now! A mysterious "Commander Collins"* hawked it eight years ago, passworded it, made it non-executive, and clearly uses a log-in script to maintain his/her occupation. There's nothing Eastern Islanders could or can do about that occupation. Gatesville is another case of this happened - the region gets hawked, a strange figure, "Gate Fences Make Gates" becomes the new founder, de-executivizes the region, and clearly uses a log-in script to maintain the region as a useless tombstone despite the fact that there's a whole Gatesvillian disapora out there that can't return its old region.

(It would be very, very ironic if the Security Council were to help Gatesville get its region back, but I digress...)

EDIT: * A simple update sweep confirmed my suspicions: Eastern Islands was re-hawked by Brotherhood of Blood and is being maintained by Unknown with a puppet script. Probably Gerzam or Sav. All of the nations that have logged in around Commander Collins were "Cruror!" nations.

[Fauxia]

I very much like the idea of the executive Delegate, Unibot.

[Galiantus III]

As just a new mechanic opened up to the SC, an enforced executive delegate could be interesting.

However...

While I'd love if we could eliminate region-hawking, I don't think this SC category is the way to do it. As you said, there are easily THOUSANDS of hawked regions. If you want to put even 100 of those regions through the SC that's a year straight of resolutions on the floor, not to mention there's no guarantee of success. Unless you could target, say, 10-20 regions at a time with proposals like this one, I would prefer to tackle region-hawking with new game-mechanics.

If that were the goal of this proposal the result would be thousands of people trying to get their old regions back all at once, it would be an absolute nightmare, and half the regions "saved" by the proposal would return to their locked-down state within a matter of months. And how many of those regions would also be passworded? That's more time on the floor of the SC trying to pass Liberation proposals, and the whole process is out in public for the hawks and trolls to drool over.

So I agree with the sentiment, but the hawking issue needs a different approach.

[Raionitu]

I'm against the idea of enforced executive WAD. For a long time, it's always been, the best way out of R/D is a founder and non-exec WAD. Now you want to make it so someone with the right speaking skills, stamps, and dirt on a region can make a non-exec WAD impossible. Mike said that liberations can take away a founderless regions best defense against raids, this type of proposal can be used to take away the single best defense against raids, a non-exec WAD.

[Unibot III]

I'm against the idea of enforced executive WAD. For a long time, it's always been, the best way out of R/D is a founder and non-exec WAD. Now you want to make it so someone with the right speaking skills, stamps, and dirt on a region can make a non-exec WAD impossible. Mike said that liberations can take away a founderless regions best defense against raids, this type of proposal can be used to take away the single best defense against raids, a non-exec WAD.

With all do respect, I saw this argument a lot when WA Liberations were first implemented. And I think what we’ve seen is, by and large, the SC is well suited for these kinds of tasks. The Security Council sorts through cases on an individual basis, determining whether intervention is appropriate and necessary. It (largely) tries to honour regional sovereignty. Authors research their cases assiduously. They’re expected to make a truthful and compelling case. The public has demonstrated as good of judgment as you could hope for.

And in the few cases where this hasn’t been the case, the repeal system has always remained an option.

I don’t think this proposal category would result in a wave of regions having their delegates ‘executive-ized’ unfairly. I think it would do a lot of good. There’s a lot of regions out there that have been hawked and entombed - and this would be the first and only recourse for them.

[Fauxia]

Now that I think about it, I oppose the executive delegate idea. It has loopholes. The founder can always go on a banjection spree, and then make a new region. I don’t like the idea of chasing successor regions with SC resolutions.

To consider, perhaps one could make the founder be governed by influence rules? Or that could be included with the executive delegate thing?

[Unibot III]

The founder can always go on a banjection spree, and then make a new region. I don’t like the idea of chasing successor regions with SC resolutions.

We already do chase successor regions with SC resolutions. We do it with Liberations, Condemnations, and Commendations.

Honestly, I doubt Macedon would even notice if we passed a WA resolution about one of their colonies anymore. They probably wouldn't notice if we freed their colonies. They're like one dude with a log-in script who may not even being playing NationStates anymore. It's an absurd waste of regions.

[Fauxia]

The founder can always go on a banjection spree, and then make a new region. I don’t like the idea of chasing successor regions with SC resolutions.

We already do chase successor regions with SC resolutions. We do it with Liberations, Condemnations, and Commendations.

Do we? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any. Feel free to prove me wrong

[Unibot III]

We already do chase successor regions with SC resolutions. We do it with Liberations, Condemnations, and Commendations.

Do we? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any. Feel free to prove me wrong

Greece is the most recent example. Any of the liberated regions that are refounded get their WA Liberation reinstated manually.

Refounding is not a way to circumvent condemnations either: viewtopic.php?p=4547235&sid=f53541fe8b60e20bcab7096ea03b284b#p4547235

[Fauxia]

Do we? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any. Feel free to prove me wrong

Greece is the most recent example. Any of the liberated regions that are refounded get their WA Liberation reinstated manually.

Refounding is not a way to circumvent condemnations either: viewtopic.php?p=4547235&sid=f53541fe8b60e20bcab7096ea03b284b#p4547235

I thought that last time I asked, the mods said it has to be manually re-instated. Anyway, the region can always have a different name. See how Nazi Europe was condemned but Nazi Europa isn’t.

[Unibot III]

Greece is the most recent example. Any of the liberated regions that are refounded get their WA Liberation reinstated manually.

Refounding is not a way to circumvent condemnations either: viewtopic.php?p=4547235&sid=f53541fe8b60e20bcab7096ea03b284b#p4547235

Anyway, the region can always have a different name. See how Nazi Europe was condemned but Nazi Europa isn’t.

If Macedon wants to bugger off and leave their colonies for similar sounding names, that's fine by me.

Greece is the most recent example. Any of the liberated regions that are refounded get their WA Liberation reinstated manually.

Refounding is not a way to circumvent condemnations either: viewtopic.php?p=4547235&sid=f53541fe8b60e20bcab7096ea03b284b#p4547235

I thought that last time I asked, the mods said it has to be manually re-instated.

Yes, it's done manually. But it's done. It's routine, really.

[Lenlyvit]

Anyway, the region can always have a different name. See how Nazi Europe was condemned but Nazi Europa isn’t.

If Macedon wants to bugger off and leave their colonies for similar sounding names, that's fine by me.

I thought that last time I asked, the mods said it has to be manually re-instated.

Yes, it's done manually. But it's done. It's routine, really.

Alright, lets not go too far off topic here. This is about new resolution types, not about existing ones or how those work. There are, so far, a couple of good ideas we've gone through. The best idea in my mind so far is a sanction resolution to reduce a delegates vote by 2/3. It was also agreed that a resolution to do the opposite of a liberation, by making it easier for a native WA delegate to password with minimal or no influence cost, would be a good addition. Lets think about more possibilities for the SC shall we?

[Fauxia]

If Macedon wants to bugger off and leave their colonies for similar sounding names, that's fine by me.



Yes, it's done manually. But it's done. It's routine, really.

Alright, lets not go too far off topic here. This is about new resolution types, not about existing ones or how those work. There are, so far, a couple of good ideas we've gone through. The best idea in my mind so far is a sanction resolution to reduce a delegates vote by 2/3. It was also agreed that a resolution to do the opposite of a liberation, by making it easier for a native WA delegate to password with minimal or no influence cost, would be a good addition. Lets think about more possibilities for the SC shall we?

That’s what we were doing.

[Lenlyvit]

Anyways, I'm kind of intrigued by Unibot's document suggestion. Its kind of like formal recognition of GCR or UCR governments and alliances. I'm not seeing too much talk about the opposite of a liberation resolution, so how do you think that will go over or work?

[Unibot III]

Anyways, I'm kind of intrigued by Unibot's document suggestion. Its kind of like formal recognition of GCR or UCR governments and alliances.

Yes, it would be a way of observing international multilateral law at a WA-wide level. I think there would be a lot of geopolitical intrigue over what kinds of initiatives, the WA supported.

[Galiantus III]

That was actually a really good suggestion. So many RPers would use it. So many regional governments would use it. Let me suggest some categories:

• Treaty - an agreement between signing parties.
• Declaration - an official document stating the WA's opinion or stance on an issue or principal.
• Convention - can be used to start world-wide events of either political or celebratory nature.

Unibot, it sounded like, when you proposed this, the idea was that these kinds of proposals would pass, then nations and/or regions would sign on afterward. I suggest that these categories be limited to different levels, either "National", "Regional", or both, as the author sees fit. It might also be appropriate to have a more formal process for parties to become signatories, as otherwise there would be no enforcement, and you could see some regions or nations just sign on to a document for the heck of it, or to be a troll.

I think it would make sense to have documents target a number of nations and delegates to act as a committee over the document in question, if deemed necessary by the author. That way you don't have "The Treaty Against Nazi Regions" signed by a bunch of Nazi-trolls. If a document is open, then it would have no committee, and anyone could sign it. If it is closed, then signatories would submit their signature for review by the committee, and only accepted signatures would appear on the public document.

[Unibot III]

Unibot, it sounded like, when you proposed this, the idea was that these kinds of proposals would pass, then nations and/or regions would sign on afterward.

Yeah I thought it would give it a different dimension to the category than the GA's Compliance Commission, if regions had to choose to observe it.

[Aglrinia]

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.

It seems like a whole lot of extra work for essentially nothing, not to mention that the idea of targeting a player rather than a nation lends itself to abuse. I would much rather discuss other category ideas.

As someone that's been banned from the world assembly before it was temporary and has a condemnation on their main nation, both can be quite irritating. A condemnation effectively makes everything appear black and white to onlookers immediately, people either like you or don't. At least with a condemnation you can use alternate accounts and hide under a veil. But, when I was banned from the world assembly it was frustrating because it was my main nation and I wanted that nation to have that label. To think of every nation not being able to access it, and having to convince someone else to go through the trouble of repealing the ban. Because, I myself can't attempt to do it, under an unknown alias because every single account is banned. Just strikes me as incredibly extreme, stronger than a condemnation in my personal opinion. If you know how to have fun with it the WA can be a big part of the game whether it be resolution writing or R/D, and being completely kicked out of it can and probably will make a person quit.

[Lenlyvit]

It seems like a whole lot of extra work for essentially nothing, not to mention that the idea of targeting a player rather than a nation lends itself to abuse. I would much rather discuss other category ideas.

As someone that's been banned from the world assembly before it was temporary and has a condemnation on their main nation, both can be quite irritating. A condemnation effectively makes everything appear black and white to onlookers immediately, people either like you or don't. At least with a condemnation you can use alternate accounts and hide under a veil. But, when I was banned from the world assembly it was frustrating because it was my main nation and I wanted that nation to have that label. To think of every nation not being able to access it, and having to convince someone else to go through the trouble of repealing the ban. Because, I myself can't attempt to do it, under an unknown alias because every single account is banned. Just strikes me as incredibly extreme, stronger than a condemnation in my personal opinion. If you know how to have fun with it the WA can be a big part of the game whether it be resolution writing or R/D, and being completely kicked out of it can and probably will make a person quit.

In that particular post we weren't talking about banning a nation from the WA. We were discussing the possibility of blocking someone from voting in the WA. It wouldn't block them from writing a proposal, or submitting one, it would only block them from voting on things that are at vote.

[Lenlyvit]

*bump*

Can we possibly discuss the possibility of Unibot's idea to give regions feeder status through an SC vote? I think it might have merit, especially after I saw the other thread >_>