Influence & feeders

[Frisbeeteria]

You know, I just had a crazy thought.

That crazy thought appears to be "rephrase five words in the previous post into five rambling paragraphs".

Being able to spend influence

[Cerian Quilor]

Here is a crazy idea you will all probably hate. What if influence could be traded for shares? Like the IPO shares on April fools day. The idea would have to be changed to somehow translate to regions.
Anyway a wild idea to give nations a way to spend the influence they bank. Politics and currency go hand in hand.

Remember what happened with the IPO? People just made new nations and got every single one of their puppets, for little itty bitty slices of the pie. You'd see the same sort of thing happen with this idea.

Nations that were made after the IPO opened didn't get shares.

#Factcheck

[Milograd]

If changes were to be made to the way influence works in the GCRs, when would we likely see such changes?

[Ballotonia]

If changes were to be made to the way influence works in the GCRs, when would we likely see such changes?

That's a rather hypothetical question. Impossible to tell without knowing what the change would be. If it's a bugfix, asap. If it's a mechanism change following the debate in the Summit, then after that has ended. If it's due to some other suggestion adopted after discussion, it'll be noted there. etc...

Ballotonia

[Milograd]

If changes were to be made to the way influence works in the GCRs, when would we likely see such changes?

That's a rather hypothetical question. Impossible to tell without knowing what the change would be. If it's a bugfix, asap. If it's a mechanism change following the debate in the Summit, then after that has ended. If it's due to some other suggestion adopted after discussion, it'll be noted there. etc...

Ballotonia

Well, this has been a discussion for several years now, and I know that a lot of us in the GCRs would really appreciate it if one of these suggestions was tried out. I don't think that any major changes to the way influence works specifically in the feeders will be prompted by the summit's discussions insofar as the summit is focused on the future of R/D, rather than anything that is particularly dedicated to addressing the issues in the feeders. I think that Sedge's OP clearly describes the problems we're facing, and it provides a number of reasonable and simple solutions to it.

I'm not really sure what it will take for something to be done, but I don't think that I've seen any major disagreements with the proposals in this thread and we could really use a positive change soon.

Regional controls in the feeder regions no longer have an influence cost. Delegates are free to eject and ban nations as they choose (ie no griefing rules). The maximum size of the ban-list in feeder regions is reduced to (around) 20 nations.

This is an extremely reasonable proposal, albeit I'd prefer to see a somewhat higher ban-list cap.

[Whamabama]

I too liked the original proposal. I wouldn't even mind a slightly higher ban list. Anything is better than what we have now.

[Sedgistan]

My preference has actually moved to a suggestion made by Ballo a while ago, whereby influence gained in feeders is only valid for x period of time (his suggestion was 6 months, but it could be changed).

While removing influence entirely does make it easier for a coup to succeed, the problem is that it too quickly leads to a "game over" scenario - kick out the nations that have a high endorsement count, and you're secure. Coups should have the potential for long-term success, but not at the expense of allowing the ousted regime to fight back. Neither the warzone-style bans or the 20-nation ban list suggestion entirely solved this.

By having influence only count for a set amount of time, you avoid the current situation where nations that haven't done anything in years hold massive amounts of power. Newcomers can actually catch up with existing residents, and if a coup occurs, the ousted regime can't (entirely) be kicked instantly, but the new delegate still has a fair amount of influence to play around with.

Depending on how it's coded, you'd also have the possibility to tweak the number of x to get the right balance.

[Unibot III]

My preference has actually moved to a suggestion made by Ballo a while ago, whereby influence gained in feeders is only valid for x period of time (his suggestion was 6 months, but it could be changed).

I also think that its one of the better proposals and serves to find common ground without causing too many new problems. Currently influence creates a game-over situation, but no-influence+no-puppetmaster also creates essentially a game-over situation.

[Milograd]

I could definitely go for that, and I'd love to see it implemented.

[Kanab (Ancient)]

My preference has actually moved to a suggestion made by Ballo a while ago, whereby influence gained in feeders is only valid for x period of time (his suggestion was 6 months, but it could be changed).

While removing influence entirely does make it easier for a coup to succeed, the problem is that it too quickly leads to a "game over" scenario - kick out the nations that have a high endorsement count, and you're secure. Coups should have the potential for long-term success, but not at the expense of allowing the ousted regime to fight back. Neither the warzone-style bans or the 20-nation ban list suggestion entirely solved this.

By having influence only count for a set amount of time, you avoid the current situation where nations that haven't done anything in years hold massive amounts of power. Newcomers can actually catch up with existing residents, and if a coup occurs, the ousted regime can't (entirely) be kicked instantly, but the new delegate still has a fair amount of influence to play around with.

Depending on how it's coded, you'd also have the possibility to tweak the number of x to get the right balance.

Prior to the establishment of influence, forum oligarchies successfully fought back Great Bight and others; indeed, Franco's coup was the only one of this era that lasted. Regardless, I like Ballo's suggestion inasmuch as I vastly prefer it to what exists now.

[Milograd]

Just about *anything* would be better than what we have now. We just need change and we need to stop pushing it back.

[Feux]

I am all for something different to our current system. Anything. Anything at all. Don't touch my ban list though. Wouldn't like that to much.

[Castanaria]

Change must happen, it has become too easy for so few to gain so much and hold it so tightly. Allow the masses to have a chance, perhaps that will not succeed but perhaps they will be able to grow into a force for change, and take the political scene another direction, where every voice matters!

[Proletariat Revolution]

As a player of the post-influence era, this is something that needs to be change. GCRs have long been stagnant for so long. The newer GCRs such as Balder and Osiris only had short period of excitement. Once things settle thing, it will thus become another victim of influence.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

6 months would actually be a great idea.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

GCRs have long been stagnant for so long.

The brouhaha in The South Pacific belies this claim.

[Cerian Quilor]

Change must happen, it has become too easy for so few to gain so much and hold it so tightly. Allow the masses to have a chance, perhaps that will not succeed but perhaps they will be able to grow into a force for change, and take the political scene another direction, where every voice matters!

Except that Influence does not have an impact, at all, on your ability to have a voice in the region.

[Cerian Quilor]

Just about *anything* would be better than what we have now. We just need change and we need to stop pushing it back.

There isn't anything wrong with what we have, Milo. Influence didn't give Brutland and Norden or Fudgetopia or whoever some sort of super-executive veto.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Just about *anything* would be better than what we have now. We just need change and we need to stop pushing it back.

There isn't anything wrong with what we have, Milo. Influence didn't give Brutland and Norden or Fudgetopia or whoever some sort of super-executive veto.

Tell that to Milograd with a straight face after looking at the situation in TSP. Influence is a rather ingenious idea that simply does not work well in the feeders.

[Milograd]

GCRs have long been stagnant for so long.

The brouhaha in The South Pacific belies this claim.

It took extreme action to bring life back to that place and it is inclined to fall because of the lack of balance in influence.

Change must happen, it has become too easy for so few to gain so much and hold it so tightly. Allow the masses to have a chance, perhaps that will not succeed but perhaps they will be able to grow into a force for change, and take the political scene another direction, where every voice matters!

Except that Influence does not have an impact, at all, on your ability to have a voice in the region.

Except it does. If you want a different government or need to get rid of your opposition, you don't even have a fair fight if they've been around longer than you and have more influence. You have to adhere to a lingering status quo in the feeders if you have lower influence than someone else, because in the back of your mind everyone knows that they can get rid of you with ease.

Just about *anything* would be better than what we have now. We just need change and we need to stop pushing it back.

There isn't anything wrong with what we have, Milo. Influence didn't give Brutland and Norden or Fudgetopia or whoever some sort of super-executive veto.

Fudgie and B&N could do whatever the hell they wanted to the regions if they really felt like it. Let's not kid ourselves.

It certainly gave Eli a super-executive veto.

There isn't anything wrong with what we have, Milo. Influence didn't give Brutland and Norden or Fudgetopia or whoever some sort of super-executive veto.

Tell that to Milograd with a straight face after looking at the situation in TSP. Influence is a rather ingenious idea that simply does not work well in the feeders.

Precisely.

Changing influence in the feeders is an idea that has, with the OP's timestamp of this thread in mind, been around for a while; most people agree that it is necessary and/or desirable but for some reason it's been pushed back for quite a long time. I don't see why we need to keep pushing it back any longer and I strongly encourage the site's administration to, at the very least, consider a temporary band-aid for it. We've seen more life in the feeders in the last week than we have in ages (seriously, there were more posts on TSP's RMB in the past 7 days than there were in the last 3 months), but that's only because of this recent and incredibly demanding fight that uses tactics that rely less on influence than what is common. The only way I can possibly maintain my delegacy in TSP right nowentails staying up for every update every day, which is precisely what I have been doing, thanks to the fact that influence prevents any real or meaningful change in the GCRs, even if there are people willing to make it happen.

A feeder delegacy is something that must be maintained with effort and dedication but influence promotes laziness and apathy for the position. It's ironic and terribly unfortunate that the regions where new nations spawn are (in most cases) strangled by semi-inactive old nations. I think that we all have our ideal worlds regarding how influence could work in the GCRs — my personal preference entails its complete removal — but, truth be told, just about any kind of change would be preferable to what we currently have, and I truly hope that we can see some kind of visible change sooner rather than later. It's been too long.

[Lint Roller]

The brouhaha in The South Pacific belies this claim.

It took extreme action to bring life back to that place and it is inclined to fall because of the lack of balance in influence.

Except that Influence does not have an impact, at all, on your ability to have a voice in the region.

Except it does. If you want a different government or need to get rid of your opposition, you don't even have a fair fight if they've been around longer than you and have more influence. You have to adhere to a lingering status quo in the feeders if you have lower influence than someone else, because in the back of your mind everyone knows that they can get rid of you with ease.

There isn't anything wrong with what we have, Milo. Influence didn't give Brutland and Norden or Fudgetopia or whoever some sort of super-executive veto.

Fudgie and B&N could do whatever the hell they wanted to the regions if they really felt like it. Let's not kid ourselves.

It certainly gave Eli a super-executive veto.

Tell that to Milograd with a straight face after looking at the situation in TSP. Influence is a rather ingenious idea that simply does not work well in the feeders.

Precisely.

Changing influence in the feeders is an idea that has, with the OP's timestamp of this thread in mind, been around for a while; most people agree that it is necessary and/or desirable but for some reason it's been pushed back for quite a long time. I don't see why we need to keep pushing it back any longer and I strongly encourage the site's administration to, at the very least, consider a temporary band-aid for it. We've seen more life in the feeders in the last week than we have in ages (seriously, there were more posts on TSP's RMB in the past 7 days than there were in the last 3 months), but that's only because of this recent and incredibly demanding fight that uses tactics that rely less on influence than what is common. The only way I can possibly maintain my delegacy in TSP right nowentails staying up for every update every day, which is precisely what I have been doing, thanks to the fact that influence prevents any real or meaningful change in the GCRs, even if there are people willing to make it happen.

[quote=Milograd] A feeder delegacy is something that must be maintained with effort and dedication but influence promotes laziness and apathy for the position. It's ironic and terribly unfortunate that the regions where new nations spawn are (in most cases) strangled by semi-inactive old nations. I think that we all have our ideal worlds regarding how influence could work in the GCRs — my personal preference entails its complete removal — but, truth be told, just about any kind of change would be preferable to what we currently have, and I truly hope that we can see some kind of visible change sooner rather than later. It's been too long. [/quote]


This. As a side-effect of keeping a nation in a region, gathering influence, nations are above any constitution or overwrought legal system imagined by those who have nothing better to do. Influence has given this uneven balance to nations who don't have to answer to anyone. Look at Fudgetopia, the opposition would love to have her on their side, but she is neutral. She is above the law, above the delegacy of Milograd, and above any law the opposition has, because she has simply maintained her WA in TSP. The old-forum cabal has a stranglehold on TSP simply because they have nations who have sat around for a very long time. Like it or not, Milograd has brought a very contentious issue to the forefront of NS GP, that is influence in feeders. By some miraculous dedication and skill, with some luck as well, he has managed to hold the region with comparatively no influence. Because of this change of power in TSP the region has seen more influence than it could have hoped for. Sadly, however, we were not able to come together as brothers to lead the region in to the future like our cousins in The West have. They are able to work together on the same forum and IRC channels, and the region progresses because they are able to put aside their personal beliefs and focus their energies towards the greater good of the region. Embarrassingly enough, we're wasting our time fighting each other when we should be working with one another. Side by side. It's pitiful that we get spectators who have to support but one-line zingers and outright dismissal of our dedication to TSP. Just as you believe that we cannot discard your dedication to the region, we believe the same. Who are you to tell us about our dedication to the region? Influence does give an unfair "above the law" status to nations who just sit around collecting endorsements, and furthermore enforcing endorsement caps to build the influence on a rotation of nations who do nothing but perpetuate the same stagnant system. Think of the heights TSP could reach if we worked together.


The Person Playing as Lint Roller says: I'm not sure why I can't get the quote to work below the spoiler, can anyone assist me?

[Erusea]

Milograd has it all spot on. There's not much of any other way to say it: The mechanisms of influence have basically strangled life out of the feeders.

I've been around NS long enough to know what Sedge introduced in his OP here, I used to be a part of the government of a large region back in the day called Dun Eideann (or Dun Eideann 2 at one point), and we used to actively work in the R&D game to support the governments we were allied with and participate in wars against those which weren't for our interests.Influence had great intentions when it was introduced - mostly to protect nations in a region from griefers; but as it is even most natives of regions weren't protected by influence since usually only the largest nations with the most endorsements accumulated any meaningful amounts of it.

The problem is even more endemic in the feeders: Old nations have established their governments and sat around for years, the feeder regions themselves often falling to stagnation and inactivity. The most you'd see might be a select group of people lounging around on their offsite forums, maybe a group ~10 or so in number from a region with thousands of nations. The older members, which were established in their communities, basically had total control of all regional affairs. And if anything ever happened, they didn't have to worry, their massive amounts of influence served to protect them, while the natives of their regions often were not.

Its much like economic sanctions on a country in real life, they tend to hit hardest on the commoner rather than the elite.

We need a change in the game for the feeder regions. Perhaps even a return to the old system, anything at this point, but it is certain that something has to be done.

[Cerian Quilor]

Fudgie and B&N could do whatever the hell they wanted to the regions if they really felt like it. Let's not kid ourselve

How? Influence, if you're not Delegate, is a passive, blocking measure, which was the whole point of its creation.

Except it does. If you want a different government or need to get rid of your opposition, you don't even have a fair fight if they've been around longer than you and have more influence. You have to adhere to a lingering status quo in the feeders if you have lower influence than someone else, because in the back of your mind everyone knows that they can get rid of you with ease.

Not when you base a government on a forum. That's kind of the whole point of forum governance (beside the fact that organizing things on forums is about a zillion times easier than on an RMB, plus more secure)

RMBs are not the only real indicator of regional activity, and Fudge can have all the Influence s/he wants, but influence alone is not a policy-making power.

[Lint Roller]

Fudgie and B&N could do whatever the hell they wanted to the regions if they really felt like it. Let's not kid ourselve

How? Influence, if you're not Delegate, is a passive, blocking measure, which was the whole point of its creation.

Except it does. If you want a different government or need to get rid of your opposition, you don't even have a fair fight if they've been around longer than you and have more influence. You have to adhere to a lingering status quo in the feeders if you have lower influence than someone else, because in the back of your mind everyone knows that they can get rid of you with ease.

Not when you base a government on a forum. That's kind of the whole point of forum governance (beside the fact that organizing things on forums is about a zillion times easier than on an RMB, plus more secure)

RMBs are not the only real indicator of regional activity, and Fudge can have all the Influence s/he wants, but influence alone is not a policy-making power.

Bold mine. The point is that a nation like Fudge doesn't have to follow, agree with, or comply with any policy set forth by anyone. They are above the law.

[Cerian Quilor]

And? They can sit in the region all they want. That doesn't make them part of the regional community. They can be banned from the forum and shunned from the community. The region is a physical plant and representation of the community, but it isn't the only part. I can be as immune to ejection as I want, were I some high influence nation but that doesn't mean I can actually do anything else.

Moreover, changing the influence rules like you propose would make it even harder for the people and legitimate government of TSP to take their region back from a largely foreign force at this point, because B&N could have been ejected some time ago, likely. Which, yes, benefits coupers, but I'm not sure we need to benefit coupers (and, technically speaking, Raiders) to such a degree. The balance is more than fine.