NationStates

Bears Armed wrote:

Unibot III wrote:
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.

Kuriko wrote:Well, i think we're all pretty set on the documents idea. Now if we could get an admins perspective we could start to figure it out. Is there anything else anyone can see using that isn't controversial? Also, Uni your idea pictures are gone so you might want to fix that.

Grenartia wrote:I really do like the Document idea, and if only one idea from this thread gets implemented, I hope its that.

Kuriko wrote:

Grenartia wrote:I really do like the Document idea, and if only one idea from this thread gets implemented, I hope its that.

Yes, me as well. Unfortunately though, it seems all the techies have disapeared in the last few months

Grenartia wrote:

Kuriko wrote:Yes, me as well. Unfortunately though, it seems all the techies have disapeared in the last few months

They probably hibernated for the summer.

Lenlyvit wrote:

• 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.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Lenlyvit wrote:

• 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.

The last three proposals in this list will ultimately lead to the WA banishing nations, or denying votes to nations that are simply unpopular or have an unpopular opinion, and that is outrageous.

Unibot III wrote:

Kuriko wrote:Well, i think we're all pretty set on the documents idea. Now if we could get an admins perspective we could start to figure it out. Is there anything else anyone can see using that isn't controversial? Also, Uni your idea pictures are gone so you might want to fix that.

Thank you, the images remain for Stabilization and Monitoring. I think I intended to use the image I made for the Reformation category for Documents - which is basically just a blank slate.



Really no image (as happens in the GA) is actually necessary for Documents, because the titles will likely be longer for SC documents. But I've mocked one here anyways.

I've included the "Democratize" category.

Whole India wrote:

Unibot III wrote:
Thank you, the images remain for Stabilization and Monitoring. I think I intended to use the image I made for the Reformation category for Documents - which is basically just a blank slate.



Really no image (as happens in the GA) is actually necessary for Documents, because the titles will likely be longer for SC documents. But I've mocked one here anyways.

I've included the "Democratize" category.

Based. I also, have one more idea which is really controversial. It is this:



It shall be called International Intervention. It shall be only applicable to the condemned regions. By it, the SC can remove the executive powers of the region's founder.

Comfed wrote:

Whole India wrote:
Based. I also, have one more idea which is really controversial. It is this:

(Image)

It shall be called International Intervention. It shall be only applicable to the condemned regions. By it, the SC can remove the executive powers of the region's founder.

That would utterly defeat the purpose of a regional founder. And why only condemned regions?