Remove Feeder Region Delegates

[Polyspectra]

I never joined the WA, but I know several people who did, and most of them quit it. The pictures they've showed me are terrifying.

The representation of feeder regions is FAR more than it should be, because WA delegates in those areas are able to farm endorsements. I have a few options for a proposal, then:

1. Make it so that feeder (and graveyard) regions cannot have a delegate at all.
2. OR: make it so that these regions are forced to run direct democracy, where EACH WA member in those regions only gets 1 vote.
3. OR, a compromise between the two: In these types of regions, WA delegates are limited to something like 10 votes.

It's clearly not representative of the majority of WA members, when an individual has something like 800 or 1100 votes to cast all on their own, especially when those endorsements are frequently from inactive players.

Obviously, this cannot be a WA resolution, b/c it will be shot down instantly by the same delegates with hundreds of FARMED votes to cast.

[Phydios]

I never joined the WA, but I know several people who did, and most of them quit it. The pictures they've showed me are terrifying.

The representation of feeder regions is FAR more than it should be, because WA delegates in those areas are able to farm endorsements. I have a few options for a proposal, then:

1. Make it so that feeder (and graveyard) regions cannot have a delegate at all.
2. OR: make it so that these regions are forced to run direct democracy, where EACH WA member in those regions only gets 1 vote.
3. OR, a compromise between the two: In these types of regions, WA delegates are limited to something like 10 votes.

It's clearly not representative of the majority of WA members, when an individual has something like 800 or 1100 votes to cast all on their own, especially when those endorsements are frequently from inactive players.

Obviously, this cannot be a WA resolution, b/c it will be shot down instantly by the same delegates with hundreds of FARMED votes to cast.

This couldn't be a WA resolution anyway, because WA resolutions cannot change the mechanics of any part of the game. Furthermore, this game is designed as a satire of politics, hence the humorous exaggeration you find throughout. The current mechanics of the WA are also part of this satire. Perhaps the admins are willing to make the game a little more fair, but I doubt it. I don't take the WA seriously anyway.

[Mono Empire]

As much as I am a joke nation, WA is an even bigger joke, tho not funny even ironicly.

[New Aradania]

I agree. I don't have a problem with delegates per se but having One Nation One Vote would make things a lot more interesting. Not even concerned about fairness at this point.

It would be nice if every resolution wasn't a landslide based how the four feeder region Delegates party whip themselves. I resigned regardless so it's not my problem anymore.

My vassal state is left wing enough to be unaffected by the types of resolutions that pass.

[Austins Colony]

I never joined the WA, but I know several people who did, and most of them quit it. The pictures they've showed me are terrifying.

The representation of feeder regions is FAR more than it should be, because WA delegates in those areas are able to farm endorsements. I have a few options for a proposal, then:

1. Make it so that feeder (and graveyard) regions cannot have a delegate at all.
2. OR: make it so that these regions are forced to run direct democracy, where EACH WA member in those regions only gets 1 vote.
3. OR, a compromise between the two: In these types of regions, WA delegates are limited to something like 10 votes.

It's clearly not representative of the majority of WA members, when an individual has something like 800 or 1100 votes to cast all on their own, especially when those endorsements are frequently from inactive players.

Obviously, this cannot be a WA resolution, b/c it will be shot down instantly by the same delegates with hundreds of FARMED votes to cast.

if your not part of the WA then you shouldn't concern yourself with it besides if your not in the WA then you can't propose changes to the WA. It's like the US saying the EU or the AU needs to change when the US isn't a part of those organizations. Join the WA then write up a campaign to make voting more fair.

[Polyspectra]

Well, satire or not, there are plenty of people who take the game relatively seriously, and it's a shame that SOME people are able to abuse a mechanic like this. At the very least, the endorsement farming is definitely going too far. There has to be a way to ensure that either no one can HAVE this many endorsements OR that endorsements don't hold so much weight.

I suppose, if we just want to fix the endorsement system, we could either have ALL endorsements with a time limit, OR even just remove endorsements given by people who ceased to exist or left the region.

The biggest issue, though, is that this abuse occurs in regions with a lot of people who either haven't played for a very long time or who are new to the game and don't even know how it really works, yet. I remember, when I started, I got telegrams explaining the game (in a very simplistic way) and how it's VERY important I join the WA and endorse the region delegate. This is clearly taking advantage of newer players.

[Pacific Rim]

Well, satire or not, there are plenty of people who take the game relatively seriously, and it's a shame that SOME people are able to abuse a mechanic like this. At the very least, the endorsement farming is definitely going too far. There has to be a way to ensure that either no one can HAVE this many endorsements OR that endorsements don't hold so much weight.

I suppose, if we just want to fix the endorsement system, we could either have ALL endorsements with a time limit, OR even just remove endorsements given by people who ceased to exist or left the region.

The biggest issue, though, is that this abuse occurs in regions with a lot of people who either haven't played for a very long time or who are new to the game and don't even know how it really works, yet. I remember, when I started, I got telegrams explaining the game (in a very simplistic way) and how it's VERY important I join the WA and endorse the region delegate. This is clearly taking advantage of newer players.

actually it's not taking advantage of new players look if you don't like the WA then don't join: the mods let alone the GA Secretariat are not going to make things fair just because one nation who isn't in the WA doesn't like it. Raiding isn't fair but it's a part of the game. Real life politics isn't fair either and that's what Nation States is based around IRL politics so all I can really say I say tough luck.

[Polyspectra]

if your not part of the WA then you shouldn't concern yourself with it besides if your not in the WA then you can't propose changes to the WA. It's like the US saying the EU or the AU needs to change when the US isn't a part of those organizations. Join the WA then write up a campaign to make voting more fair.

But this is precisely why I didn't join the WA, because it's so broken, and any member nation is forced to comply with the resolutions.
It's actually more like if the US was never a member of the UN, but they said, "Hey, if you fix these problems, maybe we'll join."

The problem is that anyone who comes in with a sense of seriousness is likely going to be turned off. And anyone who's already in it is more likely to want out.

If it didn't work like this, I'd have seriously considered joining. It'd be one thing if the majority of people voted, and it slightly altered my nation, because, you know, everyone got a say. But that's not how it is; there's only a few nations with any real power at all, and it's because of illegitimate power gained from manipulating nations that didn't originally have a choice in the matter (b/c feeder regions) and didn't yet know any better.

[Etats confederes d Amerique]

if your not part of the WA then you shouldn't concern yourself with it besides if your not in the WA then you can't propose changes to the WA. It's like the US saying the EU or the AU needs to change when the US isn't a part of those organizations. Join the WA then write up a campaign to make voting more fair.

But this is precisely why I didn't join the WA, because it's so broken, and any member nation is forced to comply with the resolutions.
It's actually more like if the US was never a member of the UN, but they said, "Hey, if you fix these problems, maybe we'll join."

The problem is that anyone who comes in with a sense of seriousness is likely going to be turned off. And anyone who's already in it is more likely to want out.

If it didn't work like this, I'd have seriously considered joining. It'd be one thing if the majority of people voted, and it slightly altered my nation, because, you know, everyone got a say. But that's not how it is; there's only a few nations with any real power at all, and it's because of illegitimate power gained from manipulating nations that didn't originally have a choice in the matter (b/c feeder regions) and didn't yet know any better.

Well then you sir have a problem no one I say going to fix feeder regions are here to stay and one nation isn't going to change several aspects of gameplay mechanics.

[Tinhampton]

"Endorsement farming" is how WA Delegacy is supposed to work (and is a practice that also occurs in UCRs with absolutely stonking populations like XKI and Europe/ia). Have a think: Would you call for Donald Trump to abolish the Presidency of the United States of America for "power farming?" Would you ever, for that matter, consider becoming the WA Delegate of a feeder region in the future and see how much you like endofarming then?

[Polyspectra]

Well then you sir have a problem no one I say going to fix feeder regions are here to stay and one nation isn't going to change several aspects of gameplay mechanics.

I didn't say to remove the feeder regions; I said to remove their delegates. Feeder regions already abide by different gameplay mechanics than other regions. The same goes for the graveyard/sinker regions, and also that realm when you're booted out of a region.

The change would very likely not be difficult to implement, because these regions are functionally different, anyhow.

[Neonistan]

"Endorsement farming" is how WA Delegacy is supposed to work (and is a practice that also occurs in UCRs with absolutely stonking populations like XKI and Europe/ia). Have a think: Would you call for Donald Trump to abolish the Presidency of the United States of America for "power farming?"

Some probably would like that.

[Neonistan]

Well then you sir have a problem no one I say going to fix feeder regions are here to stay and one nation isn't going to change several aspects of gameplay mechanics.

I didn't say to remove the feeder regions; I said to remove their delegates. Feeder regions already abide by different gameplay mechanics than other regions. The same goes for the graveyard/sinker regions, and also that realm when you're booted out of a region.

The change would very likely not be difficult to implement, because these regions are functionally different, anyhow.

What do you not understand the moderation and admins are not going to remove delegates from feeder/sinker regions just because a non-WA nation says so.

[Polyspectra]

"Endorsement farming" is how WA Delegacy is supposed to work (and is a practice that also occurs in UCRs with absolutely stonking populations like XKI and Europe/ia). Have a think: Would you call for Donald Trump to abolish the Presidency of the United States of America for "power farming?" Would you ever, for that matter, consider becoming the WA Delegate of a feeder region in the future and see how much you like endofarming then?

The Presidency is functionally different than these delegates; the President can only make major decisions approved by Congress and the Supreme Court. Moreover, the office of POTUS ONLY affects the US directly; if capital punishment were suddenly banned in the entire US, that doesn't affect, say, China or Japan. That's not the case with the WA. Not to mention that UN nations are not ALL forced to adopt ALL resolutions, IRL.

Obviously, I'm simplifying this, because it's not supposed to be a Civics lesson. But, what is the point is that you're comparing something that has an innate balance of power (as well as generally limited to its internal affairs) with something that has NO balance of power and can affect things GLOBALLY.

[Phydios]

Not to mention that UN nations are not ALL forced to adopt ALL resolutions, IRL.

Neither are all WA nations forced to follow all WA resolutions. Yeah, yeah, I know what the telegram says. (I'm a WA member, remember?) That refers only to a one-time stat effect, not to any lingering obligation that you have. Example: If UM's current efforts to pass a ban on capital punishment succeed (as I expect they will), some stats of your nation will be tweaked a bit. That's all. By answering issues as usual, you can undo whatever effects that resolution had on your nation, and you will still be able to allow or ban capital punishment in your nation as you wish. The WA is a toothless, laughable body that is largely used to recreate the liberal fantasy utopia where all facts are relative and everyone is happy without having to do anything to support themselves. Just ignore it.

[Flanderlion]

Like, if you aren't WA, and you are in some random UCR you made, why does this even matter to you? I'm obviously against our region losing our delegate. Apart from the obvious screwing over of our region as no executive powers to appoint people to kick spammers/TG people/edit our WFE etc. it'll disenfranchise the largest regions of the game.

The strength of their votes aren't from the number, but from how early they vote. To fix that, you'd need to hide world votes pre voting.

I disagree that the representation is more than it should be. If anything representation is too low. More people choose to make each GCR home (bar warzones) than any other non GCR. They are significant contributors to all sectors of NS, from issue editors to RP mentors who choose to make GCRs home. Yet their delegates only have one approval for a proposal, rather than a number more fitting of their worth. Some region have to have the largest numbers of endorsements, 10KI had it for ages, and so did Europe, both UCRs.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

YES but if u look at the feeder delegates some vote based on a WA council or democratic way. The power is distortion but a regional power can use its influence to sway a vote responsible.

[Bears Armed]

OR even just remove endorsements given by people who ceased to exist or left the region.

That already happens.
Now, taking away endorsements when the nations that gave them have been inactive for longer than 28 days might be a worthwhile change...

the mods let alone the GA Secretariat are not going to make things fair just because one nation who isn't in the WA doesn't like it.

GenSec has no ability to change this sort of thing.

[Mallorea and Riva]

the mods let alone the GA Secretariat are not going to make things fair just because one nation who isn't in the WA doesn't like it.

GenSec has no ability to change this sort of thing.

Nor do the mods, technically speaking

I think the better argument to make is that perhaps the largest regions are so large that what is otherwise an interesting representation of concentrated power blocks (large endo delegates) has gone too far in some cases (feeders). I don't think "scrap the whole system" is the appropriate response, since maybe the answer is more fundamental and based around the size of the feeders.

[Jar Wattinree]

Now, taking away endorsements when the nations that gave them have been inactive for longer than 28 days might be a worthwhile change...

That's an interesting idea.

[United Massachusetts]

Not to mention that UN nations are not ALL forced to adopt ALL resolutions, IRL.

Neither are all WA nations forced to follow all WA resolutions. Yeah, yeah, I know what the telegram says. (I'm a WA member, remember?) That refers only to a one-time stat effect, not to any lingering obligation that you have. Example: If UM's current efforts to pass a ban on capital punishment succeed (as I expect they will), some stats of your nation will be tweaked a bit. That's all. By answering issues as usual, you can undo whatever effects that resolution had on your nation, and you will still be able to allow or ban capital punishment in your nation as you wish. The WA is a toothless, laughable body that is largely used to recreate the liberal fantasy utopia where all facts are relative and everyone is happy without having to do anything to support themselves. Just ignore it.

From a RP perspective, compliance is mandatory. Doesn't stop some, though.

[Aclion]

I think the better argument to make is that perhaps the largest regions are so large that what is otherwise an interesting representation of concentrated power blocks (large endo delegates) has gone too far in some cases (feeders). I don't think "scrap the whole system" is the appropriate response, since maybe the answer is more fundamental and based around the size of the feeders.

Atlantic feeders when?

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think the better argument to make is that perhaps the largest regions are so large that what is otherwise an interesting representation of concentrated power blocks (large endo delegates) has gone too far in some cases (feeders). I don't think "scrap the whole system" is the appropriate response, since maybe the answer is more fundamental and based around the size of the feeders.

Atlantic feeders when?

That's one possible way to change it.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

GenSec has no ability to change this sort of thing.

Nor do the mods, technically speaking

I think the better argument to make is that perhaps the largest regions are so large that what is otherwise an interesting representation of concentrated power blocks (large endo delegates) has gone too far in some cases (feeders). I don't think "scrap the whole system" is the appropriate response, since maybe the answer is more fundamental and based around the size of the feeders.

Oh my god I've been on this point so many times. The target number of nations for GCRs should be about 1,000 to 1,500. Right now, I don't think even the smallest sinker could be militarily attacked, even if every single other feeder and sinker ganged up on them and brought all their friends. If that means we need to create 4 times as many regions, we need to create 4 times as many regions.

[Altmoras]

When Lazarus got too big in 2011 admin created Osiris and Balder and essentially made three large regions out of the refoundings one gigantic one used to receive. Funny enough the population of Lazarus that year peaked at around 6800, an amount all the feeders are around currently and have vastly surpassed earlier this year outside of summer lull.

Fuck, in late 2016 TNP had nearly 15k nations, with the other 4 feeders at 13k each and there still wasn't the echo of a whisper about doing anything about it. Let's get some new feeders, bring a little spice back into the game before the stagnant ascendancy of the 5 we have bores us all to death.