NationStates

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

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.

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]

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

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!

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.

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

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").

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unibot III wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:I'm not.

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

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.