Advertisement
by Lenlyvit » Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:23 pm
by Unibot III » Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:54 am
Lenlyvit wrote:I've always liked the documents idea, as it would be used by not only GP but the RP and sports community as well. It could be used to recognize legitimate regional governments, interregional organizations, interregional treaties, among other things in GP. In RP it can be used for a lot of things, such as recognizing ceasefires, trade rights, and a host of things I can't think of. In sports it can be used to recognize nations hosting a certain event, such as the World Cup and others. There's so many possibilities.
[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 The Unified Missourtama States » Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:15 pm
Unibot III wrote:Yes, I think there's probably a lot of uses for it that can't be predicted. Conventions on things like card farming for instance, might become a thing if they continue to grow in importance & they're percieved as a distruption that needs to be managed.
by Unibot III » Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:45 am
[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 Unibot III » Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:28 pm
To be blunt, most of these nideas seem pretty atrocious. If they were elaborated on more, maybe they'd make sense, but as it is there are several resolution types here that seem to serve no purpose except to make the game worse - in particular, Mediation sticks out as one of these, since the only possible function I can see for it is to make a region griefable for one update when the founder is asleep.
Nope
The GP community really shouldn't have the power to expel/bar a nation from the WA, from becoming a WA delegate, or from founding a region. Custodian seems like a good idea.
Good Ideas
What are you trying to achieve?
Only thing is with the dismissal, I’m wondering whether it would be best to only ban the nation from becoming Delegate
owo this is uwu
Ideally we would also kill influence :^)
[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 The Unified Missourtama States » Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:54 pm
by Unibot III » Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:51 pm
The Unified Missourtama States wrote:That's nice, but please keep polls out of Technical, this is not a democratic area, as has been stated before by the important people, and I do happen to quite heavily agree with them on that.
[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 The Unified Missourtama States » Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:50 am
Unibot III wrote:Why? Because often I find with these discussions that a side conversation between two players can give the impression that an idea is more unpopular than it is, or that something is more disputed than it is.
~something about change~
by Great Algerstonia » Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:34 am
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Great Algerstonia » Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:41 am
The Python wrote:Zandilund wrote:
True. Some deeper thought and you'll realize that the SC will never overthrow a raider region.
Still, why take a founder's region away from them? A region should be owned by its founder while it still exists, to allow the WA to take away their authority is wrong.
Because fash bad.
And, as Eshialand said, sometimes it's needed if raiders refounded a region.
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Weed » Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:59 am
by Unibot III » Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:10 am
The Unified Missourtama States wrote:Unibot III wrote:Why? Because often I find with these discussions that a side conversation between two players can give the impression that an idea is more unpopular than it is, or that something is more disputed than it is.
Sure, I'm not disputing that representation may be more equal than the general population, but admins don't make decisions based on votes; they make them based on compelling arguments.
Personally the only one I'm absolutely against is "Documents" which will achieve nothing at all by any means and is really just a bad idea.~something about change~
Shove that delicious change down my throat then.
Weed wrote:Years ago I would be so excited to sit back and watch some of these play out, but now I think it would take some heavy handed guard rails for this to go anywhere but in a boring and toxic direction. Which mods are not going to do.
I personally think embargo, restriction, and custodian would be great ideas if used for GamePlay purposes, but are instead going to be used against any region right of AOC for feel good internet warrior points.
If any of these potential offensive resolutions are added I suggest we allow them to stack in proposals, so that we do not have to wait through the appointment of LeftyMcLeftFace as the custodian of XXX, then a restriction of XXX, then a pre-emptive liberation of XXX, and then finally the embargo. Let’s let them combined in one four day vote to save our sanity.
[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 Weed » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:30 am
Unibot III wrote:Weed wrote:Years ago I would be so excited to sit back and watch some of these play out, but now I think it would take some heavy handed guard rails for this to go anywhere but in a boring and toxic direction. Which mods are not going to do.
I personally think embargo, restriction, and custodian would be great ideas if used for GamePlay purposes, but are instead going to be used against any region right of AOC for feel good internet warrior points.
If any of these potential offensive resolutions are added I suggest we allow them to stack in proposals, so that we do not have to wait through the appointment of LeftyMcLeftFace as the custodian of XXX, then a restriction of XXX, then a pre-emptive liberation of XXX, and then finally the embargo. Let’s let them combined in one four day vote to save our sanity.
I think that it is absolutely true that many of these proposed categories will be used to target regions that the NS GP community believes should be targeted or ostracized, for a variety of reasons - and I do think that this practice is more popular now than in years past.
However, there are a couple of factors that will weigh against hostile proposals:Is today like the "good old days"? No, it's definitely different. But I can't shake the feeling that the focus on pariah regions is a symptom of a bored, stagnant international community looking for something to do and someone insignificant to antagonize, rather than a permanent socio-cultural change in NS GP. We've had these kinds of moral panics in the past. What I say is, give players something that they can dig their teeth into, something that can renew political and military gameplay and add some more dynamism to it, and I would expect that they'd be far interested in that. The WA Security Council, and a series of new SC categories, is an excellent vehicle for that renewal because it's open to all and its reach and impact is broad.
- The more you target one region, the more fatigued the electorate becomes & the more attention you're giving the region. "Stacking" the resolutions into one proposal, as you suggest, would remove this countervailing force.
- With power comes responsibility. The more power given to the NS GP community that could be potentially used in a hostile manner, the more discussion that will be required over whether the use of these powers are appropriate or necessary. Part of the reason why sometimes I think NS GP can be uncritical about which regions it targets (and which one it doesn't) is because the stakes are low - a puppet tag raid is not a permanant disruption, a hostile WA Liberation is performative - when a community has real power to interfere in the sovereignty of other regions, I would expect a heated discussion to arise over what basis is being used to target these regions and what the terms of rehabilitation are, if any.
by Unibot III » Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:47 pm
Weed wrote:Ever the optimist Uni, that's why you're a better person than me.
And how long did it take everyone other than me to get bored of our new toy and just start using it to draw attention to the alt-right? Is that how long we expect it to take us to get bored of these new toys too? I guess I am a scrooge for thinking throw out the good debates with the bath water. Probably should ignore old grumps like me, and listen to the young at heart like Uni.
[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 Lenlyvit » Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:01 am
by Unibot III » Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:23 pm
Lenlyvit wrote:It would be nice to see new SC categories, but the likelihood of them implementing such things seems slimmer and slimmer each year.
[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 Fauxia » Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:01 pm
by Unibot III » Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:55 am
Fauxia wrote:I don't understand the purpose of a SC "document" resolution. People can document things as it stands.
Ultimately, I don't see much of a purpose for these. It's not that I'm trying to shoot anything down, if there are any ideas I think work for the SC I'd argue in favor, but these just seem like weaker liberations to me. Additionally, when a liberation actually is needed, these could delay its writing.
I don't think mediation would work, and the case in point is Lenly's Liberate TNI proposed a while ago. As soon as there was any threat whatsoever, Onder managed to haul the founder back from oblivion and refound.
People always say "oh, you aren't paying attention, you're just using a login script" but the reality is if you're using a login script you still have some investment in the game for some reason, and you're likely to notice within a short period of time (certainly by the point anyone has enough influence to banject the founder nation and evacuate, and that's if no one else tries to spoil that simply by jumping into the region and making its expiration impossible. I'm rambling, but the point is that there is no way this could ever actually be used, except if the founder only paid attention every week, the proposal wasn't drafted, and someone was stealthing in the region to build up a little bit of influence in the first place.
Interesting idea, but really not possible. It would have to reserve executive power to the WA and forbid the Founder from changing it. But even then, that isn't likely to work, since the Founder can always banject the Delegate repeatedly.
[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 Kapka » Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:24 am
by Fauxia » Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:37 am
Unibot III wrote:TNI happened, sure. But Greece also happened. Founders do go inactive and there are quite a few regional hawkers who make use of scripts to the extent that I’m not sure they even play the game anymore. Mediation is applicable on a case by case basis and it requires a patient community of people — essentially you need a group of people motivated enough to outlive their region hawkers. The strange thing about NationStates is.. this does happen. The game is almost two decades old.
Unibot III wrote:The value of Documents is the (1) facilitation of an official, neutral, multilateral space for international lawmaking, (2) permanent, centralized record-keeping, (3) the proclamation of international laws and conventions across the game to encourage adoption.
Unibot III wrote:You can say “players can do it without a WA category!” but the reality is they do not. International law and conventions are not common and they are rarely long-lasting — they’re introduced every few years in NS GP and they disappear a little while later. Why? Because the host of the treaty can never really establish itself as a neutral host, and when the host loses interest, record-keeping for signatories falls into a coma. It also hurts the late adoption of international conventions that the text only ever reflects those that initially wrote it and signed onto it, it doesn’t face scrutiny from an international community during its drafting and adoption. And try amending an ancestral international treaty! There’s literally no process to do so, when all the players and regions that signed it haven’t been playing the game in fifteen years.
Unibot III wrote:I don’t like the Liberation comment you made because, while WA Liberations are useful, they’re not helpful in the cases that the other WA categories are anticipating. Passwords are one challenge, but so are scripted-logins, piling, and influence-sharing. I also think that WA Liberations are a blunt instrument to use against pile raids — yes, a preventative WA Liberation will help inoculate the region against complete griefing — but what kind of game experience is that? Invaders inoculate their occupations from being challengeable by mass piling, and defenders prevent the destruction of the region by writing a letter, and they both sit and watch the region deteriorate until they reach a stalemate. If an Embargo category is available, in lieu of a preventative WA Liberation, I think players will be encouraged to use it over a WA Liberation because they’ll be able to substantiate piling and intent to grief, but not intent to password. This is preferable in that we want tools to be used that are appropriate, measured, and contribute to a competitive environment.
by Unibot III » Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:25 pm
Fauxia wrote:Unibot III wrote:TNI happened, sure. But Greece also happened. Founders do go inactive and there are quite a few regional hawkers who make use of scripts to the extent that I’m not sure they even play the game anymore. Mediation is applicable on a case by case basis and it requires a patient community of people — essentially you need a group of people motivated enough to outlive their region hawkers. The strange thing about NationStates is.. this does happen. The game is almost two decades old.
In Greece the founder never existed in the first place, if I'm not mistaken (having been on the disastrous NSIDC mission myself, I remember some details, but I have done myself the favor of purging most of them), so this resolution has little to do with it. In cases where the founder ceases to exist, the Delegate is executive anyway, and mediation doesn't work. I don't think a specific type of resolution just to target Macedon (without actually having any assurance that it won't be undone very easily) is fair, and in the future it will only make hawkers more careful. Additionally, it just seems weird to me to have a resolution that can be undone with the simple click of a button from a founder.
If influence did not exist, there would be a use here, but it just seems like asking for a lot of wasted legislation.
Yes, but why waste the SC's space passing things that only pretend to have effect? That's the GA's job. C&C's don't have any effect, but the shiny badge is nice, and C&C's don't really purport to have any purpose in the first place. As for record-keeping, it doesn't fit with the theme of the WA, which is a legislative body, at all, and the actual end result of this would be not writing accounts of important events because "oh, the Security Council is going to do it!" As for the encouragement of adopting international laws... no. You have been far too long in GP (and the GA, for that matter) if you think the vast majority of regions are going to care. "Oh, this international law passed". It doesn't effect them at all. Instead, they just stop caring about the Security Council at all.
I think this ultimately is because nobody except a few GCR politicians actually cares about international law. Those are best handled by individual regions making agreements with each other. If you enjoy the RP of it, there's a General Assembly for you. Most of this stuff is not going to apply to most regions.
I think you are fundamentally ignoring the fact that it takes four days to pass a SC resolution, plus time to draft, plus time waiting for other things in the queue to get to vote.
Let's say raiders invade a region. Most of the pilers are going to be there within two or three updates (or else the defenders will liberate the region and it won't be needed in the first place). Defenders continue to not be able to liberate the region, so the embargo passes. Now, the raiders are accruing influence almost as quickly as before - faster, even because defenders can't make any attrition runs. So guess what has to be passed to actually get the job done? A liberation. I challenge you to come up with a circumstance where an embargo actually helps the natives.
Restriction isn't so bad, I suppose, but ultimately I think you will still need a liberation. Very often, what happens anyway in raids is that they switch Delegates all the time anyway.
[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 Pekares » Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:39 am
by Unibot III » Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:37 am
Pekares wrote:Whereas adding these new kinds of SC legislation could certainly be interesting, I fare that they can end up being used in the wrong way in certain cases (exploited).
Documents: I do not see how this would affect something in game play. What happens if you break such a legislation?
When it comes to what Mediations are supposed to solve, it could just as well be an automatic game feature, that if the Founder has been inactive for a certain amount of time, the WAD could automatically receive Executive powers.
[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 Whole India » Sun May 02, 2021 11:31 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ammmericaaaa, Bali Kingdom, Briantini, Countriopia, Dont live here, Doughworld, Giovanniland, Greater Cuba, New New Zum, PhDre, Rusolveq, Torkeland
Advertisement