Suggestion: Embargo SC resolution

[Old Hope]

Embargo
A resolution to disrupt a region by preventing entry for a limited time(3 months)

Possible issues:

1. The time period might be too long; it was called effectively region destruction

Embargo
A resolution to disrupt a region by preventing entry for a limited time(1 month/3 weeks)

Possible issues: The WA delegates get tired by SC resolutions like that appearing often if the WA wants to Embargo-chain a particularly badly behaving region(That is also a bonus because it prevents needless embargoes from being enacted too often or for too long).

This resolution would simply stop entry by everyone(by regular means, foundings, refoundings and ejections cannot be prevented by an Embargo) to the targeted region.
It could be repealed, regardless of status, but the Embargo would be only active for 3 months. After 3 months the effects of the resolution would cease to exist.
The region can still be passworded.
To prevent abuse, the Embargo is limited for 3 months/1 month, you cannot go and apply it to every region in existance.
The description is intentionally negative to prevent people from mindlessly approving these measures.

Region Size Cap resolutions:

I think a better way to do this would be to simply place a cap on the size of the target region, rather than simply preventing all immigration into the region for a limited time. All entry into the region would simply be barred if the cap is reached or exceeded. This is something the target region could still counter somewhat by ejecting less active nations to make way for new members of the community. It would be annoying but not completely debilitating.

Of course, this sounds simple on paper, but in practice there are all kinds of ways to implement it. The resolution should affect target regions in a predictable, consistent way, but there are a few basic choices I can immediately think of.

• Uniform Cap - Our first (and simplest) option is to place the same numerical cap on every region regardless of size. We could pick any number we like (say 50, for example), but regardless of the exact number chosen the general result is these resolutions would be like nukes for larger regions, while being simply a minor annoyance for smaller regions. This could be either good or bad, depending on your personal views, but I think it is fair to suggest that Embargo resolutions should have a lower boundary they cannot cross, simply to protect smaller regions.
• Cap Determined by Region Size - The natural progression of thought here is that we scale the effect of an Embargo with the size of the target region. The general goal would be to stop the region from getting any larger. This could be determined by the size of the region at one of three times: at submission, upon reaching the floor of the WA, or upon passage. I think the best option is to have this determined at the time of submission, as the other two times could easily encourage puppet-flooding as a defense. I think puppet-flooding should be a valid defense, but only if information reaches supporters of the target region before submission. Once someone has submitted, the cat is out of the bag, so the information game is over and the political game has begun.
• Cap Submitted With Proposal - But why have a fixed method for selecting the cap at all, when you can pick whatever cap you want? This is the political option. As mentioned before, it is worth having a minimum allowable cap for the protection of small regions, but otherwise there are good reasons to leave the ultimate decision up to politics.
• Cap Calculated by Final Vote - The final option I can immediately think of is to scale the cap by the size of the region at the time of submission, then modify the cap in response to the vote tally at passage, with previously mentioned protections in place for small regions. With 0-50% support, the proposal would obviously fail. From 50% to 75% support, the cap would linearly progress from a cap of twice the size of the target region to a cap equal to the current size of the target region (at the time of proposal). From 75% to 100% support, the cap would progress linearly from being equal to the size of the target region to half the size of the target region.

--

Here's an important question with respect to the larger discussion: How will this all relate to GCRs?

Initially I would be inclined to think of course they shouldn't be possible targets of such proposals, since they are where new nations start, but GCRs also have such a strong influence on the WA and I don't think it would be fair to allow them to take part in attacking other regions in this way if they themselves can't in turn be targeted. In that same vein, I also question the legitimacy of allowing GCRs to participate in the passage of liberation proposals, since liberation proposals cannot affect them.

If GCRs are made susceptible to embargo resolutions (and thus be allowed to vote, according to me), it is correct that the proposed concept in the OP will not work. However, some form of what I suggested above could be put into practice and work just fine, since nations would still be free to enter the region, albeit within a determined cap. A GCR at the cap would just not receive any more new nations until there was space available again. The only way this could become an issue is if all the GCRs get embargoed and they are all at or above their embargo caps. This is all of course extremely unlikely, especially considering the amount of power the GCRs have in the WA, along with the fact that a region nearing its cap stands to benefit a lot by ejecting a few inactive and/or low-influence nations to make space for potential new members of its community.

[The dark Panther]

Now personally i fell this is really unneeded. because it would practically kill regions

[Bears Armed]

You'd have to make the Feeders and Sinks immune...

[Mallorea and Riva]

You'd have to make the Feeders and Sinks immune...

Seems to be accounted for in the OP. Foundings/refoundings aren't included.

These types of suggestions crop up every so often, the details never really get hammered out in the OP so the threads tend to devolve. Try to keep the OP organized with the ideas/issues and this might have a chance of getting to a comprehensive, implementable feature.

[Indo-Malaysia]

I am interested in this, but the timescale should be far shorter. Maybe 1-2 weeks?

[Old Hope]

I have introduced a 1 months resolution.
I think 1-2 weeks are far too short to have any notable effect. It is also not fair for other types of resolutions to be constantly disapproved nor fair to the delegates to have to approve this every other week.

[Arkhall]

Oh hey, a new tool for La Navigation to utilize against anyone remotely fascist whenever they come back from "quitting".

[Mallorea and Riva]

Oh hey, a new tool for La Navigation to utilize against anyone remotely fascist whenever they come back from "quitting".

Not constructive in any way, shape or form. Keep SC/GP snark in the SC/GP area, leave it out of Technical.

[USS Monitor]

I have introduced a 1 months resolution.
I think 1-2 weeks are far too short to have any notable effect. It is also not fair for other types of resolutions to be constantly disapproved nor fair to the delegates to have to approve this every other week.

Making it difficult to keep a region permanently embargoed is one of the goals of making the effect shorter. It gets into tyranny by majority and infringing on the rights of the target region if it's set up so that permanent embargos are practical. So the idea is NOT to have the SC re-approve it every two weeks. The idea is to have the embargo expire and let people enter the region again.

[Old Hope]

I have introduced a 1 months resolution.
I think 1-2 weeks are far too short to have any notable effect. It is also not fair for other types of resolutions to be constantly disapproved nor fair to the delegates to have to approve this every other week.

Making it difficult to keep a region permanently embargoed is one of the goals of making the effect shorter. It gets into tyranny by majority and infringing on the rights of the target region if it's set up so that permanent embargos are practical. So the idea is NOT to have the SC re-approve it every two weeks. The idea is to have the embargo expire and let people enter the region again.

I get your point however...
An embargo of just one week has little effect. To generate any sort of really effective measure the SC would be FORCED to constantly re-approve embargoes for some weeks, rendering this proposal effectively a nuisance and hindrance.
3 weeks would still annoy the WA, but it would not lead to the total lockdown of the SC to enforce a longer embargo on a particularly abhorred region.

I acknowledge that this is a thing that must be carefully examined; and I'd like to hear more opinions about the best length, one that discourages chaining embargoes without making it necessary for any noticable effect to chain embargoes.

[Galiantus III]

I think a better way to do this would be to simply place a cap on the size of the target region, rather than simply preventing all immigration into the region for a limited time. All entry into the region would simply be barred if the cap is reached or exceeded. This is something the target region could still counter somewhat by ejecting less active nations to make way for new members of the community. It would be annoying but not completely debilitating.

Of course, this sounds simple on paper, but in practice there are all kinds of ways to implement it. The resolution should affect target regions in a predictable, consistent way, but there are a few basic choices I can immediately think of.

• Uniform Cap - Our first (and simplest) option is to place the same numerical cap on every region regardless of size. We could pick any number we like (say 50, for example), but regardless of the exact number chosen the general result is these resolutions would be like nukes for larger regions, while being simply a minor annoyance for smaller regions. This could be either good or bad, depending on your personal views, but I think it is fair to suggest that Embargo resolutions should have a lower boundary they cannot cross, simply to protect smaller regions.
• Cap Determined by Region Size - The natural progression of thought here is that we scale the effect of an Embargo with the size of the target region. The general goal would be to stop the region from getting any larger. This could be determined by the size of the region at one of three times: at submission, upon reaching the floor of the WA, or upon passage. I think the best option is to have this determined at the time of submission, as the other two times could easily encourage puppet-flooding as a defense. I think puppet-flooding should be a valid defense, but only if information reaches supporters of the target region before submission. Once someone has submitted, the cat is out of the bag, so the information game is over and the political game has begun.
• Cap Submitted With Proposal - But why have a fixed method for selecting the cap at all, when you can pick whatever cap you want? This is the political option. As mentioned before, it is worth having a minimum allowable cap for the protection of small regions, but otherwise there are good reasons to leave the ultimate decision up to politics.
• Cap Calculated by Final Vote - The final option I can immediately think of is to scale the cap by the size of the region at the time of submission, then modify the cap in response to the vote tally at passage, with previously mentioned protections in place for small regions. With 0-50% support, the proposal would obviously fail. From 50% to 75% support, the cap would linearly progress from a cap of twice the size of the target region to a cap equal to the current size of the target region (at the time of proposal). From 75% to 100% support, the cap would progress linearly from being equal to the size of the target region to half the size of the target region.

--

Here's an important question with respect to the larger discussion: How will this all relate to GCRs?

Initially I would be inclined to think of course they shouldn't be possible targets of such proposals, since they are where new nations start, but GCRs also have such a strong influence on the WA and I don't think it would be fair to allow them to take part in attacking other regions in this way if they themselves can't in turn be targeted. In that same vein, I also question the legitimacy of allowing GCRs to participate in the passage of liberation proposals, since liberation proposals cannot affect them.

If GCRs are made susceptible to embargo resolutions (and thus be allowed to vote, according to me), it is correct that the proposed concept in the OP will not work. However, some form of what I suggested above could be put into practice and work just fine, since nations would still be free to enter the region, albeit within a determined cap. A GCR at the cap would just not receive any more new nations until there was space available again. The only way this could become an issue is if all the GCRs get embargoed and they are all at or above their embargo caps. This is all of course extremely unlikely, especially considering the amount of power the GCRs have in the WA, along with the fact that a region nearing its cap stands to benefit a lot by ejecting a few inactive and/or low-influence nations to make space for potential new members of its community.

[Old Hope]

Updated the OP with the region size cap resolutions.