Unibot III wrote:Superbunny wrote:Strictly speaking from a non-defender/raider standpoint here: Do. Not. Want. Let me play the game without a bunch of powerdelegates telling me where I can and can't move. Liberations are overreaching enough.
What game is there to play when a region is piled sky high? There's no game. There's not an ounce of competition faced after endorsements are piled onto an invader delegate. It ceases to be a game at that point. It's a foregone conclusion.
As for non-Gameplay events, we know from past experience with WA Liberations that if a region is targeted with a WA Liberation, it's probably because of something GP-related. Other delegates don't vote for resolutions that could create a precedent that could see to it their own regions are targeted.
1. If you can't defend your region that's your own fault. If you're even big enough to be somewhat of a target for raiders then just take a couple of minutes and browse the nation list in your region to check for suspicious members. If one guy in a game-created region can defend himself for 15 years then so can you.
2. Yes, that's my point. Liberations are already fine enough for defenders if every other option has been exhausted and the raiders have password-locked the region. This embargo idea is like hitting a dead horse with a nuclear missile. Raider regions can be big but the combined forces of defenders will always be bigger, and it's not like raiders are going to pile on 600 nations into whatever 10-nation backwater region they've decided to raid this week. Not to mention that founders STILL have the executive power to overturn raiders anytime they want (and, once again, if your founder CTEs or only comes on to stop his nation from CTEing and never interacts, that's on you to either refound or find a way to help your WA Delegate deal with it.)
What I mean is that I should not have my freedom of movement restricted by a bunch of powerdelegates who have thousands of endorsements and can swing a vote any which way they like. The only way I would support this is if it were a special type of resolution that required something like a 2/3rds majority, or needed a larger amount of delegates to approve before reaching the voting floor.