Suggestion: split the GA and SC

[And Spaces]

but really the system is mostly fair besides the delegate system

[Drew Durrnil]

but really the system is mostly fair besides the delegate system

It makes sense for it to be in the GA, but not the SC.

[The New California Republic]

Players would not be permitted to possess more than one SC member nation or more than one GA member nation. Players would be allowed to have no GA/SC membership, one or the other, both on the same nation, or both on separate nations.

This seems like it'd make quite a lot of extra legwork for the Mods. At the moment all they need to do (yes I know I'm likely making it sound simpler than it is, but in comparison to what I'm about to say after this, it is simpler) is make sure that each player only has one nation in the WA. This new idea, on the other hand, would involve a hell of a lot more cross-referencing of different nations held by the same player, to make sure they were obeying the rule of both in one or each in one and another.

I feel that the rule as it currently stands, of only one nation per player being allowed WA membership, is easy to understand. Adding this complexity will likely mean that people will unintentionally fall foul of the rules.

[Bingsearching]

This is a good idea but wouldn’t it result in twice the work for game mods in kicking multies?

I agree, whilst there are benefits to this proposal I can see the work needed to create this would be unreasonable.

[The Reformed American Republic]

but really the system is mostly fair besides the delegate system

It makes sense for it to be in the GA, but not the SC.

It doesn't make sense at all, but I digress. Delegates should only have approval power to bring a resolution to vote.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Considering the mod responses, I don't think this is going to happen. Better to just drop this and move on.

[August]

having SC delegates vote on GA proposals definitely defeats the point of separating the two

I said approving, not voting. Big difference.

Terribad idea. As for the WA effects on stats of the mains, its by all means easier to circumvent them by having a dedicated WA puppet if thats a concern.

Have you ever tried to convince thousands of regional residents to join the WA? I have. Telling them to just make more nations is not effective. (Then there are all the other arguments in the OP.)

Don't support this at all, it would mean if you wanted a say in the GA and you were part of the SC you would either have to create a puppet or resign and join the other.

The system at the moment is fair.

You clearly did not read the OP, which states that it would be possible to have a nation in both the SC and GA at the same time.

This seems like it'd make quite a lot of extra legwork for the Mods. At the moment all they need to do (yes I know I'm likely making it sound simpler than it is, but in comparison to what I'm about to say after this, it is simpler) is make sure that each player only has one nation in the WA. This new idea, on the other hand, would involve a hell of a lot more cross-referencing of different nations held by the same player, to make sure they were obeying the rule of both in one or each in one and another.

I feel that the rule as it currently stands, of only one nation per player being allowed WA membership, is easy to understand. Adding this complexity will likely mean that people will unintentionally fall foul of the rules.

I get the sense that a lot of people are misunderstanding the proposed multiing rule in the OP. It is not that complicated. Whether a player has a GA nation would have no effect on whether they could have an SC nation, and vice versa--no cross-referencing required. It is literally the exact same system that is in place at present, times two.

In response to almost every other post in this thread, you are not moderators. Posting on behalf of the moderators is not helpful. Stick to player input, please.

[Goobergunchia]

The delegate approval system and quorum requirement would be unchanged for SC proposals. Perhaps GA proposals would still need to meet a quorum of approvals from SC delegates, just to prevent people from spamming the GA queue with legal but worthless proposals? Open to suggestions on this one.

The GA without even the minimal quality filter provided by the delegate approval mechanism would be ... unpleasant, to say the least. Especially since removing the need to campaign for a proposal would remove existing incentives to ensure that a proposal was quality before submission.

It's also valuable to have some lag time between submission and at-vote for, e.g., Secretariat review for legality, although in practice I suspect this would not be an issue since I doubt there'd be "No Resolution at Vote" periods any more.

[Massive Chungus Land]

I understand the appeal, but even purely from a moderation point of view I think this would be a rather big nightmare...

I love big Chungus

[Tatarica]

It would be nice to have the GA and SC semi-split, with the GA to retain all that it currently has but the SC to only count INDIVIDUAL endorsements rather than (delegate-endos + individual endos). So the SC is a more accurate picture of the will of individuals rather than the masive swing and lobby by/to WA-heavy regions.

And fairly easy to code, I feel.

[Clopeana]

Refuted:

1. “Players would not be permitted to possess more than one SC member nation or more than one GA member nation. Players would be allowed to have no GA/SC membership, one or the other” — Purposing Nations couldn’t be apart of Both the Security Council and General Assembly revokes their right to vote on legislations that will effect them.
2. “The two-endorsement requirement, which is trivial and provides no real barrier to submitting proposals, would be scrapped entirely.” Ludicrous criticism. If anyone could submit legislation then the voting due would be flooded with trolling laws. The endorsements are required to ensure that laws which get voted on are constitutional. Real government systems require multiple senators or other noted legislators to present the bill in order for it to be voted. Checks and balances.

I think it’s notable that we don’t take advice on how to change a system from government from an anarchist, who by nature seeks to undermine government.
A separated body of government such as the one suggested would only cause opposing legislation to be passed, with members of the GA seeking to undermine the SC and vise versa. This purposed system would undermine itself; both sides competing for dominance. “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.” This path would surely lead to a World War, as members of the GA and SC sought to take land from nations on the other committee.

The WA has many opposing ideologies in it, and it often has to make compromises which dull laws to satisfy members. However, this is a strength not a weakness.

The important role of the WA is to unite nations, not divide them. Dividing the WA would obviously have the opposite effect. The WA, containing both the SC and GA, is not authoritarian, Clopeana’s own Unified Currency proposition was deemed illegal, and thus posses no threat to the independence of Nations while still guaranteeing their safety from one another. Divided the WA would destroy this security.

So who loses with this proposition? Every democracy on the planet loses. Once we turn on each internationally, we will turn on each other nationally as well, tearing our own countries apart. If the WA constitution is irrelevant, is the Ordained Clopeanic Constitution also irrelevant? Who wins? You guessed it. Anarchists, the very same people suggesting the action.

Furthermore, we all lose a sense of unitedness.
We all lose better trade relations and lower tariffs. We lose our allies.

When governments are divided as this, Anarchists takes control. The people of August seek only to take control of our governments, our people. Not uniting us under a singular banner nor common goal, but under the cruel master of chaos.

[The Seeker of Power]

The whole thing is based of the United Nations model (letter or no letter... We remember >_>)

The Security Council of the UN is as part of the UN as the SC here is a body of the WA. I see no point on this.

No.

[Keswickholt]

having SC delegates vote on GA proposals definitely defeats the point of separating the two

I said approving, not voting. Big difference.

Terribad idea. As for the WA effects on stats of the mains, its by all means easier to circumvent them by having a dedicated WA puppet if thats a concern.

Have you ever tried to convince thousands of regional residents to join the WA? I have. Telling them to just make more nations is not effective. (Then there are all the other arguments in the OP.)

Don't support this at all, it would mean if you wanted a say in the GA and you were part of the SC you would either have to create a puppet or resign and join the other.

The system at the moment is fair.

You clearly did not read the OP, which states that it would be possible to have a nation in both the SC and GA at the same time.

This seems like it'd make quite a lot of extra legwork for the Mods. At the moment all they need to do (yes I know I'm likely making it sound simpler than it is, but in comparison to what I'm about to say after this, it is simpler) is make sure that each player only has one nation in the WA. This new idea, on the other hand, would involve a hell of a lot more cross-referencing of different nations held by the same player, to make sure they were obeying the rule of both in one or each in one and another.

I feel that the rule as it currently stands, of only one nation per player being allowed WA membership, is easy to understand. Adding this complexity will likely mean that people will unintentionally fall foul of the rules.

I get the sense that a lot of people are misunderstanding the proposed multiing rule in the OP. It is not that complicated. Whether a player has a GA nation would have no effect on whether they could have an SC nation, and vice versa--no cross-referencing required. It is literally the exact same system that is in place at present, times two.

In response to almost every other post in this thread, you are not moderators. Posting on behalf of the moderators is not helpful. Stick to player input, please.

I have read it 3 times.

So what's the point of this proposal if "literally the exact same system that is in place at present, times two"?

Other than Bureaucracy I don't actually see any positives to it.

[Budimia]

Sounds quite interesting.

[Separatist Peoples]

Sounds good. Doesn't work. Sedge is right.

[The New California Republic]

This seems like it'd make quite a lot of extra legwork for the Mods. At the moment all they need to do (yes I know I'm likely making it sound simpler than it is, but in comparison to what I'm about to say after this, it is simpler) is make sure that each player only has one nation in the WA. This new idea, on the other hand, would involve a hell of a lot more cross-referencing of different nations held by the same player, to make sure they were obeying the rule of both in one or each in one and another.

I feel that the rule as it currently stands, of only one nation per player being allowed WA membership, is easy to understand. Adding this complexity will likely mean that people will unintentionally fall foul of the rules.

I get the sense that a lot of people are misunderstanding the proposed multiing rule in the OP. It is not that complicated. Whether a player has a GA nation would have no effect on whether they could have an SC nation, and vice versa--no cross-referencing required.

No, you misunderstand what I am saying. There very much would be added cross-referencing required, in the sense that it adds an additional element that needs to be checked. At the moment, all the Mods need to do is look at a player's nations to see if there is only one in the WA, so if A=1, then B, C, D, E etc should all just = 0. Simple. This, on the other hand, adds another layer whereby they need to make sure that the player either only has one nation with GA (denoted by 1 in the following) and SC (denoted by 2 in the following) or just GA or SC, or GA and SC between two nations, so if A=1/2/1+2, then B=2/1/0, or C=2/1/0, or D=2/1/0, or E=2/1/0 etc.

In response to almost every other post in this thread, you are not moderators. Posting on behalf of the moderators is not helpful. Stick to player input, please.

Is anyone here doing that?

[Fioletovyyrus]

I'm ignoring the SC for the most part, it seems like it has long-since devolved into a "Commend and Condemn Club". Giving it the authority over endorsements for the GA sounds like a *very* bad idea to me. Separate them, if you like, but then make them truly separate entities, so I can continue to ignore the SC

[August]

The GA without even the minimal quality filter provided by the delegate approval mechanism would be ... unpleasant, to say the least. Especially since removing the need to campaign for a proposal would remove existing incentives to ensure that a proposal was quality before submission.

It's also valuable to have some lag time between submission and at-vote for, e.g., Secretariat review for legality...

I completely agree.

It would be nice to have the GA and SC semi-split, with the GA to retain all that it currently has but the SC to only count INDIVIDUAL endorsements rather than (delegate-endos + individual endos). So the SC is a more accurate picture of the will of individuals rather than the masive swing and lobby by/to WA-heavy regions.

And fairly easy to code, I feel.

This is pretty much the exact opposite of what I have proposed.

-snip-

This is Technical, not a roleplay subforum. In-character responses do not belong here.

The whole thing is based of the United Nations model (letter or no letter... We remember >_>)

The Security Council of the UN is as part of the UN as the SC here is a body of the WA. I see no point on this.

No.

I explained what the point is. Do you disagree with something specific I said? I do not see "we need to closely mimic the real-life UN" as a worthwhile argument.

So what's the point of this proposal if "literally the exact same system that is in place at present, times two"?

Other than Bureaucracy I don't actually see any positives to it.

I explained in the OP what the point is. When I said "literally the exact same system," that was in regard to multi prevention. I thought that was obvious from context.

Is anyone here doing that?

Yes.

At the moment, all the Mods need to do is look at a player's nations to see if there is only one in the WA, so if A=1, then B, C, D, E etc should all just = 0. Simple. This, on the other hand, adds another layer whereby they need to make sure that the player either only has one nation with GA (denoted by 1 in the following) and SC (denoted by 2 in the following) or just GA or SC, or GA and SC between two nations, so if A=1/2/1+2, then B=2/1/0, or C=2/1/0, or D=2/1/0, or E=2/1/0 etc.

This has to be the most complicated way you could look at it.

Current situation, in your words: all the Mods need to do is look at a player's nations to see if there is only one in the WA, so if A=1, then B, C, D, E etc should all just = 0.
Proposed situation, in your words: all the Mods need to do is look at a player's nations to see if there is only one in the GA, so if A=1, then B, C, D, E etc should all just = 0; and look at a player's nations to see if there is only one in the SC, so if A=1, then B, C, D, E etc should all just = 0.

I'm ignoring the SC for the most part, it seems like it has long-since devolved into a "Commend and Condemn Club". Giving it the authority over endorsements for the GA sounds like a *very* bad idea to me. Separate them, if you like, but then make them truly separate entities, so I can continue to ignore the SC

Allowing delegates to continue to approve GA proposals would not give the "C&C Club" any actual influence over the GA. That would just be a way to protect the GA from spam proposals.

[The Indian Royalty]

From the moderators point of view, damm it would be hard but I would support this

Potatoe

[Independence Hill]

What if we turned the GA and the SC into houses that must agree with each other in order to pass any legislation?

[Planes]

Players would not be permitted to possess more than one SC member nation or more than one GA member nation. Players would be allowed to have no GA/SC membership, one or the other, both on the same nation, or both on separate nations.

This seems like it'd make quite a lot of extra legwork for the Mods. At the moment all they need to do (yes I know I'm likely making it sound simpler than it is, but in comparison to what I'm about to say after this, it is simpler) is make sure that each player only has one nation in the WA. This new idea, on the other hand, would involve a hell of a lot more cross-referencing of different nations held by the same player, to make sure they were obeying the rule of both in one or each in one and another.

I feel that the rule as it currently stands, of only one nation per player being allowed WA membership, is easy to understand. Adding this complexity will likely mean that people will unintentionally fall foul of the rules.

What they could do is assign it to a email with two values(?) One for GA and one for SC. We could also keep checking IP for diffent SC and WA nations with different email but on the same device. If both memberships are "used" by the email, prevent them from having a new SC or WA nation on that email.

[The New California Republic]

Is anyone here doing that?

Yes.

Well if there is then I've not seen it. The Mods who have chimed in so far seem to have done their own talking for themselves.

This has to be the most complicated way you could look at it.

Not really. Via a formula it's compactly looking at exactly the kinds of things the Mods would need to examine.

[LollerLand]

The whole thing is based of the United Nations model (letter or no letter... We remember >_>)

The Security Council of the UN is as part of the UN as the SC here is a body of the WA. I see no point on this.

No.

This sums up my opinion. Sorry August.

[The Indian Royalty]

What if we turned the GA and the SC into houses that must agree with each other in order to pass any legislation?

That is even more complicated, it would be like merging the GA and the SC

[Planes]

What they could do is assign it to a email with two values(?) One for GA and one for SC. We could also keep checking IP for diffent SC and WA nations with different email but on the same device. If both memberships are "used" by the email, prevent them from having a new SC or WA nation on that email.

Adding on, if a nation gets banned from the WA or SC, have the email membership "used" for the duration of the ban