Advertisement
by Sanctaria » Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:27 pm
by Wallenburg » Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:32 pm
by Comfed » Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:40 pm
by Sedgistan » Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:45 pm
Graintfjall wrote:The funny thing is, you literally cannot conceive of anyone being interested in the WA because they actually like roleplaying international law. It's why you're such a poor fit to be the one overseeing this.
Bananaistan wrote:Worth noting here that the most recent election has already made things more difficult for WA players with how many delegates blocked campaign TGs when it was already the case that it's impossible to get a proposal to vote without campaigning delegates.
Sanctaria wrote:100% concur with QoD. This seems more of a gameplay initiative that might work well with the SC, but whether you like it or not, the culture in the GA is fundamentally different to the SC and always has been since the latter's creation. I'm surprised after the shitstorm [v] had to deal with post-SC creation, she's even contemplating allowing more tinkering in the dynamic of the body.
The GA is already hampered by gameplay because of proposal raiding, the skewed delegate:member state votes, big feeder populations etc. As QoD mentions, no other sub-community is affected by another in the same way. This just adds another tool to the GP community to hammer the GA community with, for RD/GP points. It's not fair on the GA community, at all.
Wallenburg wrote:There is not a single thing that GP contributes to the GA. All it does is take and abuse. I mean, fuck, the only reason I got involved with TEP's executive was because I knew getting into GP was the only way I was going to advance in the GA. I only became genuinely interested and involved in GP when I figured I could use that position to do some harm reduction.
by Sedgistan » Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:48 pm
Comfed wrote:The problem with this is that the current and previous sec-gen were gameplayers - giving them GA veto power could make lots of GA people very unhappy. Also, who is to stop the person who had their resolution vetoed from submitting it again?
by Greater Cesnica » Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:51 pm
Comfed wrote:Though, I wonder if the SG’s new real power might get non-GPers involved in the election.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Greater Cesnica » Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:56 pm
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Wallenburg » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:02 pm
Sedgistan wrote:There's only one community being divisive and drawing battle lines here.
The General Assembly is part of the major democratic feature of NationStates; expecting to use it without having to engage with the wider world of those members is unrealistic, and has never been the case. If you truly want a "GA for the GAers", you can roleplay it in the NationStates forum and scorinate your results. And you'll find there's about 3 of you interested in it. You get your activity because the GA impacts the wider world (reminder: GA resolutions affect the stats of thousands of nations even if they don't participate in the WA), and the result of that is the wider world is interested in the General Assembly.
by Graintfjall » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:03 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Graintfjall wrote:The funny thing is, you literally cannot conceive of anyone being interested in the WA because they actually like roleplaying international law. It's why you're such a poor fit to be the one overseeing this.
Similarly you can't conceive that anything other than the WA pre-2009 could be enjoyable for people. Yet the GA continues to operate, even more people seem to be involved in it these days, and you keep coming back to it.
Sedgistan wrote:"Like roleplaying international law" - I mean, the RL equivalent of what you like doing has veto powers (albeit for certain members, rather than an individual - but the end effect isn't that different), as do many other international bodies that pass legislation. So it's not stopping you roleplaying your international law; it's enhancing it. It's just different to what you're used to.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:04 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:08 pm
by Pluvie » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:11 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:11 pm
Sedgistan wrote:"Like roleplaying international law" - I mean, the RL equivalent of what you like doing has veto powers (albeit for certain members, rather than an individual - but the end effect isn't that different), as do many other international bodies that pass legislation. So it's not stopping you roleplaying your international law; it's enhancing it. It's just different to what you're used to.
by Galiantus III » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:26 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Wallenburg » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:29 pm
Galiantus III wrote:Since it seems that GAers are opposed to having gameplayers in their space, why not have two positions elected: one for the GA, one for the SC, and you can only vote in one. Then gameplayers who care about the SC can elect their own S-G equivalent that won't have any influence over the part of the game they care about.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:29 pm
Galiantus III wrote:Since it seems that GAers are opposed to having gameplayers in their space, why not have two positions elected: one for the GA, one for the SC, and you can only vote in one. Then gameplayers who care about the SC can elect their own S-G equivalent that won't have any influence over the part of the game they care about.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:30 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Comfed wrote:The problem with this is that the current and previous sec-gen were gameplayers - giving them GA veto power could make lots of GA people very unhappy. Also, who is to stop the person who had their resolution vetoed from submitting it again?
Various of the GA players have made their unhappiness clear. The winners of previous elections aren't really a good judge of how things would go in the future. Beforehand the position was just a joke one with no influence at all. It'd be different when it actually matters to the WA.
by Comfed » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:33 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Galiantus III wrote:Since it seems that GAers are opposed to having gameplayers in their space, why not have two positions elected: one for the GA, one for the SC, and you can only vote in one. Then gameplayers who care about the SC can elect their own S-G equivalent that won't have any influence over the part of the game they care about.
Because there's no way to keep Gameplay/SCers from taking over the GA vote.
Wallenburg wrote:Galiantus III wrote:Since it seems that GAers are opposed to having gameplayers in their space, why not have two positions elected: one for the GA, one for the SC, and you can only vote in one. Then gameplayers who care about the SC can elect their own S-G equivalent that won't have any influence over the part of the game they care about.
Except when GP organizes its militaries to vote in both of them.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:38 pm
Comfed wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Because there's no way to keep Gameplay/SCers from taking over the GA vote.Wallenburg wrote:Except when GP organizes its militaries to vote in both of them.
What makes you say they will? I personally do not care about the GA, I would have no interest whatsoever in trying to influence a GA Sec-Gen.
by Unibot III » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:59 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:02 pm
by Galiantus III » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:13 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Comfed wrote:What makes you say they will? I personally do not care about the GA, I would have no interest whatsoever in trying to influence a GA Sec-Gen.
Because Gameplay entities have a long history of trying to affect the GA regardless of their involvement. You saw that with TEP's anti-GA policies, for example. TWP had a history of it for some time. Every major delegate, with the possible exception of Imperium Anglorum, is Gameplay-centric, and yet exert huge control over the GA. Disproportionate with their involvement.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Graintfjall » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:16 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Addy and Arielle, Chacapoya, IDEVK, Ioudaia, Isle Khronion, Tarfas And Ifnom Asadi, The Controlist Ferwerter Union, The Hazar Amisnery
Advertisement