NATION

PASSWORD

Possibilities for the Security Council

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Pope Joan
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19500
Founded: Mar 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Pope Joan » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:34 am

I support this initiative. Let's open things up.
"Life is difficult".

-M. Scott Peck

User avatar
Tripla
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Aug 14, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Tripla » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:44 am

Lenlyvit wrote: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

I LOVE these ideas! We would be able to take strong diplomatic actions against our aggressors on the site.

User avatar
Kuriko
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kuriko » Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:18 am

Tripla wrote:
Lenlyvit wrote: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

I LOVE these ideas! We would be able to take strong diplomatic actions against our aggressors on the site.

Role play wise, yes. But its best to keep OOC out of it as always :)
WA Secretary-General
TITO Tactical Officer of the 10000 Islands
Registrar-General and Chief of Staff of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Arident
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Sep 19, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Arident » Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:47 am

Galiantus III wrote:[*]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.[/list]


Another idea: you don't put a cap on how many nations could enter the region, and just block nations that wave previously been condemned or have been a part of malicious region/group (raiding, racism, etc.). This could be a lesser punishment than the cap. Or a way to protect vulnerable regions. Great ideas!
Economic Left/Right: -1.88; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
he/him

User avatar
Kuriko
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kuriko » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:38 am

If admins would allow document proposals, I feel there would need to be category types. Like for instance, Treaties, War Accords, stuff like that.
WA Secretary-General
TITO Tactical Officer of the 10000 Islands
Registrar-General and Chief of Staff of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Democratic Republic of Eiria
Envoy
 
Posts: 218
Founded: May 07, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Democratic Republic of Eiria » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:40 am

Lenlyvit wrote: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



First of all:
Great Ideas. It will possibly make the SC a little more active, but a quick question: Who would Author them? Not many people would risk the barrage of telegrams(and possibly a condemnation) from the said region, and those who would may not have enough endorsements. Also, a nation could make up a reason to Sanction another for, say, insults, or losing a war. My idea is only allowing Sanctions to be placed on already condemned regions. That way, it will be easier to tell if said region did anything wrong.

Great ideas, good work!

Kind Regards,
Democratic Republic of Eiria
"We unite under one banner, a banner of Justice, a banner of Truth. Long Live Democracy, Long Live Eiria, and, Most of all, Long Live The People!"
- Chancellor William Lancaster's Inauguration Speech

Wu Jiàn Mîn (Democratic Party) In the NS Parliament

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 731
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:05 am

Arident wrote:
Galiantus III wrote:[*]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.[/list]


Another idea: you don't put a cap on how many nations could enter the region, and just block nations that wave previously been condemned or have been a part of malicious region/group (raiding, racism, etc.). This could be a lesser punishment than the cap. Or a way to protect vulnerable regions. Great ideas!


The purpose of adding new features or making changes to existing ones should be to enhance the game, not just to serve the desires of a certain faction within the game. A core principal of the design of NationStates is that everything is a double-edged sword, there are drawbacks associated with every choice: issues are a great example of this. For adding new SC categories this means it is actually a good thing to allow some minor negative consequences to exist (such as the possibility of it backfiring and benefiting raiders, under certain circumstances) as that will breed more varying opinions about the best way to actually handle a given situation, producing a more dynamic political game.
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
Lord Dominator
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6564
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:18 am

Kuriko wrote:If admins would allow document proposals, I feel there would need to be category types. Like for instance, Treaties, War Accords, stuff like that.

Eh, I'm more on the side of leaving it open-ended

User avatar
Kuriko
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kuriko » Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:06 pm

Lord Dominator wrote:
Kuriko wrote:If admins would allow document proposals, I feel there would need to be category types. Like for instance, Treaties, War Accords, stuff like that.

Eh, I'm more on the side of leaving it open-ended

Would that be possible though? I mean, I'm open to that too, though I kind of wish we could get an admin opinion on some things here.
WA Secretary-General
TITO Tactical Officer of the 10000 Islands
Registrar-General and Chief of Staff of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 731
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:23 pm

I thought the point of Unibot's idea was that it was open-ended. In my mind, any categorization of document resolutions would be cosmetic only, except maybe for the purpose of aiding in finding a specific resolution. The only actual problem that needs addressing here is enforcement, and that only minimally, since part of the fun will be in seeing how players enforce these treaties. The only real necessity is some kind of overwatch from the original signatories of the treaty or document to make sure it can't be mass-spammed by trolls (i.e. imagine if a bunch of Nazi regions signed a document called "Alliance Against Nazi Regions").
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
Lord Dominator
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6564
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:38 pm

Galiantus III wrote:I thought the point of Unibot's idea was that it was open-ended. In my mind, any categorization of document resolutions would be cosmetic only, except maybe for the purpose of aiding in finding a specific resolution. The only actual problem that needs addressing here is enforcement, and that only minimally, since part of the fun will be in seeing how players enforce these treaties. The only real necessity is some kind of overwatch from the original signatories of the treaty or document to make sure it can't be mass-spammed by trolls (i.e. imagine if a bunch of Nazi regions signed a document called "Alliance Against Nazi Regions").

I personally assumed that a document resolution would be voted on similarly to regular proposals, and thus their only real limitations would be on what you can reasonably bring before an international body to justify the world voting on them.

User avatar
Norse Brasilistan
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Jan 26, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Norse Brasilistan » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:28 pm

My thoughts on the Security Council are that it should be dissolved, as its resolutions accomplish no real action, To commend or comdemn a region or nation has no tangible bearing on their day to day affairs. The purpose of the WA is to pass legislation upon its members, not to show them superficial favor or disfavor.

User avatar
Jar Wattinree
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1203
Founded: Dec 14, 2016
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Jar Wattinree » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:32 pm

Norse Brasilistan wrote:My thoughts on the Security Council are that it should be dissolved, as its resolutions accomplish no real action, To commend or comdemn a region or nation has no tangible bearing on their day to day affairs. The purpose of the WA is to pass legislation upon its members, not to show them superficial favor or disfavor.

Yes, the Condemns and Commends do nothing, from a gameplay standpoint, but otherwise? Symbolically, it means exactly what it means. The real UN passes sanctions against nations that are noncompliant with its laws which does little unless the nation is tiny and can't support itself, and Condemns are like that except cosmetically only. Commends are the opposite, they give recognition to those regions and nations that serve as an example for the rest of the world.
Tribune of the New Pacific Order
November 28, 2018
Senator of Admissions and Personnel
February 28, 2021

  • Governor of Province Ardere
  • Praetorian of the New Pacific Order
  • Council Elder of St Abbaddon
  • Game Warden of Forest
A 14.4 - 3.7 civilization, according to this index.


User avatar
Arlo
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Dec 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Arlo » Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:37 pm

Norse Brasilistan wrote:My thoughts on the Security Council are that it should be dissolved, as its resolutions accomplish no real action, To commend or comdemn a region or nation has no tangible bearing on their day to day affairs. The purpose of the WA is to pass legislation upon its members, not to show them superficial favor or disfavor.

That is the purpose of the General Assembly, not the purpose of the World Assembly as a whole.

User avatar
Luziland
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Jun 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Luziland » Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:56 pm

sounds good, certainly could result in some interesting changes.

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9436
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:51 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:To make commendations and condemnations mean more than "Here's a nice popularity contest that means very little," change the game code slightly so that commended nations gain Influence at (say) 1.15 or so times the normal rate, and condemned nations gain it at 0.85 times normal.

For regions, maybe this manifests as if your nation was in a condemned region recently, you keep a reduced influence gain rate for a number of updates proportional to your length of time spent there, then reverts to normal some time after you move to a normal or commended region.

The issue that is usually cited for recommendations like this is the following: there are nations out there which are condemned not because they are a gameplay menace, but because they have done an excellent job RP'ing an "evil" nation. So condemning them would suddenly go from a badge of honor to a punishment, which is not what was intended. Maybe that's not really a problem, but then there's also the fact that condemning me, for example, wouldn't really matter under that system. My influence growth on my main nation is irrelevant. If I was actively raiding I would use puppets which were not condemned.

EDIT: I will edit to note that for nations in feeders/sinkers the situation would be different with the influence.
Last edited by Mallorea and Riva on Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Major benefit of securing the delegacy of Asia ASAP: this debate ends and I don't have to read any more of what Mall says.

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4676
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fauxia » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:10 am

Also it doesn’t seem super fair considering condemnations are pretty much backhanded commendations at this point. C & C should stay only symbolic. It’s more bureaucratic that way
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
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6084
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:47 am

Lord Dominator wrote:
Galiantus III wrote:I thought the point of Unibot's idea was that it was open-ended. In my mind, any categorization of document resolutions would be cosmetic only, except maybe for the purpose of aiding in finding a specific resolution. The only actual problem that needs addressing here is enforcement, and that only minimally, since part of the fun will be in seeing how players enforce these treaties. The only real necessity is some kind of overwatch from the original signatories of the treaty or document to make sure it can't be mass-spammed by trolls (i.e. imagine if a bunch of Nazi regions signed a document called "Alliance Against Nazi Regions").

I personally assumed that a document resolution would be voted on similarly to regular proposals, and thus their only real limitations would be on what you can reasonably bring before an international body to justify the world voting on them.


Yes, "Document" would be open-ended, allowing players to come up with creative uses for it. International treaties, memorandum, conventions etc.

As time went on, moderators would no doubt expand the ruleset to address issues that arose. But in some ways with these things, it's best to just throw NS in the deep end and figure out issues with it after the fact.

Along with "Stabilize", "Monitor", and "Document", I'm also a fan of a "Democratize" category which turns on executive powers for a WA Delegate even over a Founder's preference. I think these four tools would give a lot of fuel to empower the SC and advance Gameplay. They address issues with Gameplay: end-game scenarios with piling, griefing, and colonies (albeit with risks and unintended consequences.) And they encourage players to be creative.
Last edited by Unibot III on Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
[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
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 19243
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:57 am

Unibot III wrote:I'm also a fan of a "Democratize" category which turns on executive powers for a WA Delegate even over a Founder's preference.

I'm not.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6084
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:10 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Unibot III wrote:I'm also a fan of a "Democratize" category which turns on executive powers for a WA Delegate even over a Founder's preference.

I'm not.


A founder can still eject and ban a WA Delegate, you know that right?

Not any old region would be targeted for democratization. And any WA Resolution should be a double-edged sword with "good" and "bad" uses. We're not diminishing the power of the Founder, except to protect the power of the WA Delegate. It's a limited effect within the jurisdiction and purview of the World Assembly.

It would be a new pathway to freeing griefed colonies, among them include Macedonian colonies etc. At the moment, players grief regions, then they attach their founders to a log-in script - and the colonies are permanent forever with no possible recourse and no energy required for players.

Macedon's players may have even have left the game years ago. Do we know if they're still around? There's no reason why they need to be. That's a failure of the game to provide some avenue for conscious, regional renewal.
Last edited by Unibot III on Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
[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
Aclion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6247
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Aclion » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:12 pm

Unibot III wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:I'm not.


A founder can still eject and ban a WA Delegate, you know that right?

Not any old region would be targeted for democratization. And any WA Resolution should be a double-edged sword with "good" and "bad" uses. We're not diminishing the power of the Founder, except to protect the power of the WA Delegate. It's a limited effect within the jurisdiction and purview of the World Assembly.

It would be a new pathway to freeing griefed colonies, among them include Macedonian colonies etc. At the moment, players grief regions, then they attach their founders to a log-in script - and the colonies are permanent forever with no possible recourse and no energy required for players.

Macedon's players may have even have left the game years ago. Do we know if they're still around? There's no reason why they need to be. That's a failure of the game to provide some avenue for conscious, regional renewal.

It sound like the issue there is the use of login scripts.
A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. - James Madison.

User avatar
Kuriko
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Oct 31, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kuriko » Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:47 pm

Login scripts are used by tons of people, but this thread isn't about that. Its about the SC, and possibilities for new proposals.
WA Secretary-General
TITO Tactical Officer of the 10000 Islands
Registrar-General and Chief of Staff of the 10000 Islands
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

Former TITO Tactical Officer
Former Commander of TGW, UDSAF, and FORGE
Proud founder of The Hole To Hide In
Person behind the Regional Officer resignation button
Person behind the Offsite Chat tag and the Jump Point tag
WA Character limit increase to 5,000 characters

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 19243
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:37 am

Unibot III wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:I'm not.


A founder can still eject and ban a WA Delegate, you know that right?

Founder has to go away for a few weeks, maybe into hospital for a major operation (or after a major accident) or on active service in the military, and won't be able to access NS during that time.
Somebody mentions the fact in NS.
Founder returns from that absence to find the region devastated, maybe even refounded.
:(

I do agree that the Macedon situation could do with fixing, but in that particular case I'd actually favour targeted Admin action rather than the introduction of a potentially-misusuable tool like this.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Galiantus III
Diplomat
 
Posts: 731
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:30 am

Bears Armed wrote:I do agree that the Macedon situation could do with fixing, but in that particular case I'd actually favour targeted Admin action rather than the introduction of a potentially-misusuable tool like this.


How do you feel about discussing ideas that expand the conditions for region CTE? I know this isn't the topic, but I would like to know if you think it would be useful to have a discussion about Macedon and similar situations. I made a topic about region hawking a while back, and I am thinking of adding some new ideas to it.
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
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 4676
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fauxia » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:08 pm

Generally, the SC doesn’t use things in unjustifiable ways. There’s usually no reason for the SC to suddenly take someone’s region and if it does, it’s probably justified.
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

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Praeceps

Advertisement

Remove ads