Condemnation

[Urgench]

So why don't you object to a simple majority in the WA? Yes, Gameplayers will probably get the vote out quite well on key resolutions, but it could also come out that some are considered too petty to deal with. We'll see.

I've explained this elsewhere, I don't have a problem with simple majorities for GA resolutions because it makes them easier to repeal if there's enough opposition to them and because other than stats effects they don't actually effect how the game works and because they don't pretend to be the will of the entire WA.

SC resolution, in this case Condemnations do pretend to be the opinion of the entire WA, which they're not, they're only the opinion of the a large minority of the WA. For other kinds of resolution which may directly effect how the game is played I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want there to be a substantial majority of the entire membership to achieve them. It seems to me that otherwise the game will just end up being moulded to suit the interests of a large minority of players.

[Erastide]

So why don't you object to a simple majority in the WA? Yes, Gameplayers will probably get the vote out quite well on key resolutions, but it could also come out that some are considered too petty to deal with. We'll see.

I've explained this elsewhere, I don't have a problem with simple majorities for GA resolutions because it makes them easier to repeal if there's enough opposition to them and because other than stats effects they don't actually effect how the game works and because they don't pretend to be the will of the entire WA.

SC resolution, in this case Condemnations do pretend to be the opinion of the entire WA, which they're not, they're only the opinion of the a large minority of the WA. For other kinds of resolution which may directly effect how the game is played I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want there to be a substantial majority of the entire membership to achieve them. It seems to me that otherwise the game will just end up being moulded to suit the interests of a large minority of players.

And why wouldn't they then be repealed just as easily as GA resolutions?

And I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at the "large minority" bit.

[Whamabama]

I've explained this elsewhere, I don't have a problem with simple majorities for GA resolutions because it makes them easier to repeal if there's enough opposition to them and because other than stats effects they don't actually effect how the game works and because they don't pretend to be the will of the entire WA.

SC resolution, in this case Condemnations do pretend to be the opinion of the entire WA, which they're not, they're only the opinion of the a large minority of the WA. For other kinds of resolution which may directly effect how the game is played I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want there to be a substantial majority of the entire membership to achieve them. It seems to me that otherwise the game will just end up being moulded to suit the interests of a large minority of players.

Then perhaps we should need a super majority to pass anything. After all why should a large minority decide torture shall be illegal for the majority? You can't complain that the numbers are any different, after all the same people who vote for one can vote for the other.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Large minority? Umm...

[Qumkent]

So why don't you object to a simple majority in the WA? Yes, Gameplayers will probably get the vote out quite well on key resolutions, but it could also come out that some are considered too petty to deal with. We'll see.

I've explained this elsewhere, I don't have a problem with simple majorities for GA resolutions because it makes them easier to repeal if there's enough opposition to them and because other than stats effects they don't actually effect how the game works and because they don't pretend to be the will of the entire WA.

SC resolution, in this case Condemnations do pretend to be the opinion of the entire WA, which they're not, they're only the opinion of the a large minority of the WA. For other kinds of resolution which may directly effect how the game is played I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want there to be a substantial majority of the entire membership to achieve them. It seems to me that otherwise the game will just end up being moulded to suit the interests of a large minority of players.

And why wouldn't they then be repealed just as easily as GA resolutions?

And I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at the "large minority" bit.

What's funny exactly ?

[Erastide]

What's funny exactly ?

Oxymoron

But anyways, what works for the WA should work for the SC. Unless something goes haywire, in which case, as [violet] has said, we'll work to fix it. It's a work in progress. And sometimes the problems don't crop up until someone else tries it out.

[Qumkent]

What's funny exactly ?

Oxymoron

But anyways, what works for the WA should work for the SC. Unless something goes haywire, in which case, as [violet] has said, we'll work to fix it. It's a work in progress. And sometimes the problems don't crop up until someone else tries it out.

Are you for real ? Your supposed to be a mod and you don't understand that in a community divided in to several groups where no one group has an absolute majority all are referred to as minorities and that they can obviously be of different sizes to one another and that it is therefore perfectly normal usage to say "large minority" ? Indeed any group smaller than a majority but bigger than other minorities might be described as a "large minority" the term is not Oxymoronic because minority does not mean "small" it means "not a majority".


You seriously think that what works for the GA should work for the SC ? Even though they do totally different things ? And in the SC's case what it does can have serious knock on effects for all players ?

[Erastide]

What's funny exactly ?

Oxymoron
But anyways, what works for the WA should work for the SC. Unless something goes haywire, in which case, as [violet] has said, we'll work to fix it. It's a work in progress. And sometimes the problems don't crop up until someone else tries it out.

Are you for real ? Your supposed to be a mod and you don't understand that in a community divided in to several groups where no one group has an absolute majority all are referred to as minorities and that they can obviously be of different sizes to one another and that it is therefore perfectly normal usage to say "large minority" ? Indeed any group smaller than a majority but bigger than other minorities might be described as a "large minority" the term is not Oxymoronic because minority does not mean "small" it means "not a majority".

You seriously think that what works for the GA should work for the SC ? Even though they do totally different things ? And in the SC's case what it does can have serious knock on effects for all players ?

Yes, *shrugs*, Yes, Yes, Yes.

[Qumkent]

Yes, *shrugs*, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Wow I'm actually astonished, I have always been impressed with how intelligent and fairminded the moderation of this game is, I have always laughed when Generalite noobs scream mod bias because their offensive posts got deleted, I've always been confident that even though this little corner of the inter-clunger-verse has its usual share of weirdos and psychotic idiots that the team of people who maintian the rules and the functioning of this game were sensible and even handed and seemed excellently chosen, not only because of their aptitude but because they did all their work out of the goodness of their hearts with as little ill humour and bias as could be summoned by a normal human being.

Those cosy little presumptions of mine are seriously in jeopardy. Really.

[Ardchoille]

Oh, come on, Qumkent: "I disagree with you" doesn't stack up as "mod bias".

What we need to be concentrating on, I think, is whether the faults you see in the present system of voting are inherent in that system, or whether they are the result of a particular (temporary) arrangement of circumstances.

In the GA, the people who are interested vote; the rest ignore it. The ones who are really, really interested do things to sway the ones who are only mildly interested: they run TG campaigns, they woo Delegates, they work out which large region is most likely to be on-side for which particular type of legislation, they decide whether to try to haul them in early for the PR effect so the vote looks as if it's going to be unbeatable. And the group "really, really interested" divides again, into those who are for and those who are against particular proposals.

That could be presented as a very small majority of the "really, really interested" minority -- say, half plus one -- making the GA do what they want. From time to time, people have complained of exactly that, when what they didn't say was, "Those individual players have been willing to put a lot more effort into this part of the game than I am." But the players have changed, the relationships have changed, the politics have changed, and suddenly the dice start falling differently. So the GA's been left as is, and it's still a vote of those who are interested, not of the total number of WA members.

How will it be different in the SC? Sure, SC proposals will hit a different part of the game, but does that really mean they should be harder to get through? Isn't the onus for change on the voters, rather than on the system?

[Qumkent]

Oh, come on, Qumkent: "I disagree with you" doesn't stack up as "mod bias".

What we need to be concentrating on, I think, is whether the faults you see in the present system of voting are inherent in that system, or whether they are the result of a particular (temporary) arrangement of circumstances.

In the GA, the people who are interested vote; the rest ignore it. The ones who are really, really interested do things to sway the ones who are only mildly interested: they run TG campaigns, they woo Delegates, they work out which large region is most likely to be on-side for which particular type of legislation, they decide whether to try to haul them in early for the PR effect so the vote looks as if it's going to be unbeatable. And the group "really, really interested" divides again, into those who are for and those who are against particular proposals.

That could be presented as a very small majority of the "really, really interested" minority -- say, half plus one -- making the GA do what they want. From time to time, people have complained of exactly that, when what they didn't say was, "Those individual players have been willing to put a lot more effort into this part of the game than I am." But the players have changed, the relationships have changed, the politics have changed, and suddenly the dice start falling differently. So the GA's been left as is, and it's still a vote of those who are interested, not of the total number of WA members.

How will it be different in the SC? Sure, SC proposals will hit a different part of the game, but does that really mean they should be harder to get through? Isn't the onus for change on the voters, rather than on the system?

Erastide has expressed a bias towards GPers on a few occasions now, and I suspect is rather unquestioningly in favour of the possibility that the game will become radically skewed in their interests.

But my whole point is that the GA and the SC are really unalike. A large part of the reason why GA votes have most often been polls of the interested is because apart from stats no one is actually required to take any notice of them unless they're interested in doing so. It's also easy enough to rp non-compliance by answering your issues in a contrary fashion. Now mind you I'm not entirely discounting the possibility that GA resolutions should require qualified majorities also, I just think that it's less vital that they do.

The very first resolution type which has become the purview of the SC is one which claims to be the opinion of the entire WA when its not, and then the second type of resolution is one which actually hands Admod powers over to players. We're told that this is just the start of a process.

I fully accept that GPers may have been overlooked somewhat in the structures of the game and have as much right as any group to be represented here, and indeed they should be but the problem for the rest of us arises from the nature of the game they play. It is based fundamentally in the mechanics of the game, so the SC ( which we are told will deal with GP issues, perhaps others also but so far they haven't been discussed ) will be a part of the WA which directly effects game mechanics and how the game is actually played.

The other aspect of this problem is the size of the GP vote in the membership of the WA and the way in which that vote is capable of being marshaled in to bloc ( or at least this is what is indicated by influential GPers like Naivetry in amelioration of the risks of the Liberation Category, and we were told they already control the vote on GA resolutions during the first C&C debacle ) and the fact that the size of this vote will effectively silence the voices of smaller voting groups within the WA.

So what do we have ? An SC capable of pretending that it speaks for the entire WA, more importantly capable of actually changing the ways in which this game is played, indeed already setting about the attempted extinction of a particular player sub-culture ( rightly or wrongly ), in which the voices of the smaller minorities will be ignored by the ability of the largest minority to vote that voice out of existence with a simple majority.

Now part of me greatly sympathises with the attempt to stop Macedon and the like taking over regions and emptying them, but it sets a worrying example of what the SC is intended to do if its first tasks are to allow the largest minority within the WA to control who gets rewarded and who gets chastised and then set about making it impossible for another far smaller minority to play the game in the way they like.

This is a trend, one which is not contradicted by any other trends, which suggests that the NS WA is now a tool in the hands of GPers who will now organise the game to suit themselves, even to the point of casually destroying other players communities whom they regard as being illegitimate in one way or another and all this without the possibility that any other community of players will really be able to challenge GPer's will at vote.

In terms of C&Cs it was telling that Naivetry actually opposed Kenny's condemnation of Gatesville not on the basis of its joviality, not even on the basis they she disagreed that Gatesville were one of the WA's oldest and once most vehement enemies, she voted against it because her region had long standing Gameplay-diplomatic links to Gatesville and that the ties that bound her region of gameplayers to the gamelayers of Gatesville precluded her from actually even considering Gatesville's relationship with the WA in it true light.

So GPers have made it clear that they're not going to be condemned or commended by any but their own, and only on their own terms. where is the voice of any other group in this ?

Smaller player groups will be forced to make everything they do at the SC adapt to the prevailing GP agenda or will simply not have any stake in the SC at all, and if they have no stake in the SC it will quickly become a matter of having little or no stake in the game.

There are enough voices already advocating the line that any majority is a good majority and that the size of the GP community and its lack of representation heretofore means that their time has come and that they are the future and anyone not jumping on board with this enthusiastically is anachronistic and irrelevant. I'm advocating that all communities of this game be given the opportunity to have a full and fair stake in the SC and that no one group be given the right to dominate how the game is played. The decisions the SC makes are important enough that they shouldn't be decided by a simple majority, essentially a majority of GPers, they should be decided by a majority of as many kinds of WA players as possible since the SC's decisions will directly effect all kinds of players not just GPers.

[Erastide]

Erastide has expressed a bias towards GPers on a few occasions now, and I suspect is rather unquestioningly in favour of the possibility that the game will become radically skewed in their interests.

Given the portion of the game I play is gameplay, a bias in the sense that I consider that position is inescapable. The second point, no. I thought you'd been reading the discussions as the SC involved. You should have seen otherwise.

But my whole point is that the GA and the SC are really unalike. A large part of the reason why GA votes have most often been polls of the interested is because apart from stats no one is actually required to take any notice of them unless they're interested in doing so. It's also easy enough to rp non-compliance by answering your issues in a contrary fashion. Now mind you I'm not entirely discounting the possibility that GA resolutions should require qualified majorities also, I just think that it's less vital that they do.

You've hit the nail on the head from a typical GPers point of view in regards to GA resolutions, congrats.

The very first resolution type which has become the purview of the SC is one which claims to be the opinion of the entire WA when its not, and then the second type of resolution is one which actually hands Admod powers over to players. We're told that this is just the start of a process.

So in your point about the WA you say people RP non-compliance. In regards to C&C's, why is such a thing not possible also? GA resolutions claim to be the laws of the GA (and actually have a nation effect), C&C are shiny badges from them (that do nothing).

In regards to further changes, well it's a bit hard to comment in that only 1 type of resolution has been proposed really (Liberation). For that one, given that players can already set passwords to regions, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine no password as a condition. I also don't see these resolutions (as has been pointed out in that topic) being used indiscriminately. Timewise they're a hassle for gameplayers, but in cases where regions are being held by a 1 group of people (against the "natives" agreement), it could allow the region to be made open again. I do also trust in the WA's judgment on this.

The other aspect of this problem is the size of the GP vote in the membership of the WA and the way in which that vote is capable of being marshaled in to bloc ( or at least this is what is indicated by influential GPers like Naivetry in amelioration of the risks of the Liberation Category, and we were told they already control the vote on GA resolutions during the first C&C debacle ) and the fact that the size of this vote will effectively silence the voices of smaller voting groups within the WA.

I personally think it's really cool to have GPers thinking that participation in the WA is more than just a way to gain the delegacy. In regards to the voting bloc part and the size of the gameplay crowd, I don't think people will always vote exactly the same way on these unless someone (person proposing it?) convinces them it's important to do so.

So what do we have ? An SC capable of pretending that it speaks for the entire WA, more importantly capable of actually changing the ways in which this game is played, indeed already setting about the attempted extinction of a particular player sub-culture ( rightly or wrongly ), in which the voices of the smaller minorities will be ignored by the ability of the largest minority to vote that voice out of existence with a simple majority.

I'm curious what subculture you think is going to go extinct because of the SC.

So the largest minority will win because the other minorities can't be bothered to participate? Because as a minority they don't automatically have the majority.

Now part of me greatly sympathises with the attempt to stop Macedon and the like taking over regions and emptying them, but it sets a worrying example of what the SC is intended to do if its first tasks are to allow the largest minority within the WA to control who gets rewarded and who gets chastised and then set about making it impossible for another far smaller minority to play the game in the way they like.

Ah, the region crashers. Regardless of the SC, I think that form of play should be outlawed. But as it stands, it's legal. One minority (region crashers) make it impossible for another minority (residents of regions they invade), to continue to play the game the way they like (remaining peacefully in their region). So I'll support the SC giving people a way to fight the destruction of their region.

This is a trend, one which is not contradicted by any other trends, which suggests that the NS WA is now a tool in the hands of GPers who will now organise the game to suit themselves, even to the point of casually destroying other players communities whom they regard as being illegitimate in one way or another and all this without the possibility that any other community of players will really be able to challenge GPer's will at vote.

1) You assume the entire gameplay community will vote the same. They won't. There's such a wide variety of communities and people out there they won't all agree. 2) You assume the numbers that gameplay has in the WA can't be rivaled by others. I'd disagree with that since there has to be a majority of non-gameplay people in the WA that could respond with a "No" vote.

In terms of C&Cs it was telling that Naivetry actually opposed Kenny's condemnation of Gatesville not on the basis of its joviality, not even on the basis they she disagreed that Gatesville were one of the WA's oldest and once most vehement enemies, she voted against it because her region had long standing Gameplay-diplomatic links to Gatesville and that the ties that bound her region of gameplayers to the gamelayers of Gatesville precluded her from actually even considering Gatesville's relationship with the WA in it true light.

How is that a bad thing? Those relationships and political ties are quite rich, and no less valid than the Gatesville history with GA resolutions.

So GPers have made it clear that they're not going to be condemned or commended by any but their own, and only on their own terms. where is the voice of any other group in this ?

Propose a C&C, campaign among delegates, and if they agree, they'll vote for it.

Smaller player groups will be forced to make everything they do at the SC adapt to the prevailing GP agenda or will simply not have any stake in the SC at all, and if they have no stake in the SC it will quickly become a matter of having little or no stake in the game.

The SC isn't going to run the game. There is no prevailing GP agenda.

There are enough voices already advocating the line that any majority is a good majority and that the size of the GP community and its lack of representation heretofore means that their time has come and that they are the future and anyone not jumping on board with this enthusiastically is anachronistic and irrelevant. I'm advocating that all communities of this game be given the opportunity to have a full and fair stake in the SC and that no one group be given the right to dominate how the game is played. The decisions the SC makes are important enough that they shouldn't be decided by a simple majority, essentially a majority of GPers, they should be decided by a majority of as many kinds of WA players as possible since the SC's decisions will directly effect all kinds of players not just GPers.

The big problem here is turnout/apathy. Up to now the GPers have been pretty apathetic in regards to GA resolutions. Now they won't be quite so apathetic in regards to SC resolutions. And you're worried that that'll lead to major problems. I think it's good that people get more involved, but I also think the resolutions that pass will not be idly voted on, so I will trust the judgment of those that can be bothered to vote.

[Qumkent]

Given the portion of the game I play is gameplay, a bias in the sense that I consider that position is inescapable. The second point, no. I thought you'd been reading the discussions as the SC involved. You should have seen otherwise.

The SC was created because WA old guard players put up a fight for the case for their form of play, so absolute and widespread was the ignorance that their game even existed, and in many cases so cavalier was the disregard of it that many Old Guard players just gave up. Our Prize for defending ourselves was to be shoved off in to a corner and bypassed. We weren't even listened to when we said over and over again that we were in favour of change, just as long as we weren't completely subsumed and wiped out by it. When we said lets meet in the middle and share competences but on a compromise rules basis we were resoundingly told to get lost.

You've hit the nail on the head from a typical GPers point of view in regards to GA resolutions, congrats.

As I said I have paid very close attention to all of the recent debates on these issues and your attitude towards Old Guard play is exactly the attitude most GPers seem to have towards a lot of other sub groups. Hence my contention about your bias.

So in your point about the WA you say people RP non-compliance. In regards to C&C's, why is such a thing not possible also? GA resolutions claim to be the laws of the GA (and actually have a nation effect), C&C are shiny badges from them (that do nothing).

RPed non-compliance wont scratch the badge off your page, answering issues in defiance of GA resolutions will change your stats.

In regards to further changes, well it's a bit hard to comment in that only 1 type of resolution has been proposed really (Liberation). For that one, given that players can already set passwords to regions, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine no password as a condition. I also don't see these resolutions (as has been pointed out in that topic) being used indiscriminately. Timewise they're a hassle for gameplayers, but in cases where regions are being held by a 1 group of people (against the "natives" agreement), it could allow the region to be made open again. I do also trust in the WA's judgment on this.

Having spent two years observing WA voting patterns I'm less confident in its judgement than you but that's beside the point. I actually don't have a problem with Liberation, I have a problem with how Liberation resolutions will not be held to a proper standard of democracy.

I personally think it's really cool to have GPers thinking that participation in the WA is more than just a way to gain the delegacy. In regards to the voting bloc part and the size of the gameplay crowd, I don't think people will always vote exactly the same way on these unless someone (person proposing it?) convinces them it's important to do so.

When did I say that I didn't welcome greater involvement of GPers ? My problem is that all votes will likely be decided by how GPers vote, not that they will always have their way ( though that will also be a major problem ). What your saying is that unless a player can cajole enough gameplayers in to voting for their resolution they can kiss goodbye to getting things passed at all. This was OK when they weren't being asked to support stuff that did anything more than ask them whether they wanted to ban slavery or not, it will be a big problem when they're being asked to support the use of SC powers to effect in game matters which benefit other player groups.

So the largest minority will win because the other minorities can't be bothered to participate? Because as a minority they don't automatically have the majority.

They will be participating they just wont have enough votes enough of the time to out vote GPers. The fact that there are more active GPers will be a function of the fact that there are a hell of a lot of GPers not that other groups are less active.

Ah, the region crashers. Regardless of the SC, I think that form of play should be outlawed. But as it stands, it's legal. One minority (region crashers) make it impossible for another minority (residents of regions they invade), to continue to play the game the way they like (remaining peacefully in their region). So I'll support the SC giving people a way to fight the destruction of their region.

I don't like region crashers any more than you do, but I do have a problem with the attitude that decisions about who should be able to play the game they way want should be in the hands of a group that you admit already holds other groups in contempt.

1) You assume the entire gameplay community will vote the same. They won't. There's such a wide variety of communities and people out there they won't all agree. 2) You assume the numbers that gameplay has in the WA can't be rivaled by others. I'd disagree with that since there has to be a majority of non-gameplay people in the WA that could respond with a "No" vote.

1)Right but your admitting then that whether or not an SC resolution passes will be entirely dependent on how GPers vote. 2) We've been told by GPers that they have a radical numerical superiority, they use that to claim that they already dominate the WA and as a sop to comfort the foolish that they wont use SC powers against other player groups, though in fact that assurance is even more worrying. Oh and there's always Unibot's "survey" which makes worrying reading for non-GPers.

How is that a bad thing? Those relationships and political ties are quite rich, and no less valid than the Gatesville history with GA resolutions.

It means that GPers aren't addressing resolutions on the basis of whether or not they are in the interests of the entire WA but are more concerned with turning the WA to the purposes of of their pre-existing politics regardless of the effects on the rest of the WA.

Propose a C&C, campaign among delegates, and if they agree, they'll vote for it.

Again you admit that the only way business is going to get done around here is if all WA players make everything they do acceptable to GP delegates, otherwise they can forget having any stake in this organisation.

The SC isn't going to run the game. There is no prevailing GP agenda.

That's not what I said but don't let that stop you. What I'm calling the prevailing GP agenda is whatever agenda suits enough GPers to get anything passed by them at vote in the SC, I'm not saying that all GPers have the same agenda. But we can't escape the fact that which ever agenda has the support of the most GPers will be the only agenda the SC will be working for in future.

The big problem here is turnout/apathy. Up to now the GPers have been pretty apathetic in regards to GA resolutions. Now they won't be quite so apathetic in regards to SC resolutions. And you're worried that that'll lead to major problems. I think it's good that people get more involved, but I also think the resolutions that pass will not be idly voted on, so I will trust the judgment of those that can be bothered to vote.

Are you saying that in order to increase involvement in the WA we should silence its smaller minorities ? Unless we build in certain protections now I think we cannot avoid a future in which GP concerns of varying degrees of popularity within the GP vote will be the only concerns the SC can hope to deal with and that non-GPers will have no significant voice even in these issues let alone having their own issues dealt with.

[Erastide]

I'm going to split part of this off since otherwise the post will be insanely long.

Given the portion of the game I play is gameplay, a bias in the sense that I consider that position is inescapable. The second point, no. I thought you'd been reading the discussions as the SC involved. You should have seen otherwise.

The SC was created because WA old guard players put up a fight for the case for their form of play, so absolute and widespread was the ignorance that their game even existed, and in many cases so cavalier was the disregard of it that many Old Guard players just gave up. Our Prize for defending ourselves was to be shoved off in to a corner and bypassed. We weren't even listened to when we said over and over again that we were in favour of change, just as long as we weren't completely subsumed and wiped out by it. When we said lets meet in the middle and share competences but on a compromise rules basis we were resoundingly told to get lost.

The GA still exists, it still runs the same way as before. The only thing that the creation of the SC has done that affects the GA play is the queue. Delegates will have more proposals to sift through and a GA proposal may have to wait a week before going to vote if a SC one is already up. I disagree on the ignorance and disregard of GA play, part of the reason the SC was created was to keep GA play without causing problems with the new changes.

You've hit the nail on the head from a typical GPers point of view in regards to GA resolutions, congrats.

As I said I have paid very close attention to all of the recent debates on these issues and your attitude towards Old Guard play is exactly the attitude most GPers seem to have towards a lot of other sub groups. Hence my contention about your bias.

What exactly do you think my attitude is?

[Erastide]

So in your point about the WA you say people RP non-compliance. In regards to C&C's, why is such a thing not possible also? GA resolutions claim to be the laws of the GA (and actually have a nation effect), C&C are shiny badges from them (that do nothing).

RPed non-compliance wont scratch the badge off your page, answering issues in defiance of GA resolutions will change your stats.

So both of those show up on your nation page, I'm still missing what's wrong with that?

I personally think it's really cool to have GPers thinking that participation in the WA is more than just a way to gain the delegacy. In regards to the voting bloc part and the size of the gameplay crowd, I don't think people will always vote exactly the same way on these unless someone (person proposing it?) convinces them it's important to do so.

When did I say that I didn't welcome greater involvement of GPers ? My problem is that all votes will likely be decided by how GPers vote, not that they will always have their way ( though that will also be a major problem ). What your saying is that unless a player can cajole enough gameplayers in to voting for their resolution they can kiss goodbye to getting things passed at all. This was OK when they weren't being asked to support stuff that did anything more than ask them whether they wanted to ban slavery or not, it will be a big problem when they're being asked to support the use of SC powers to effect in game matters which benefit other player groups.

Majority vote is majority of people who vote on a resolution. If the gameplayers ignore them (which I doubt will happen) then they won't affect the vote. I don't think anyone will have to cajole other regions into participating, regions that are gameplay in nature will vote on these resolutions because they're important to them. Even if it's proposed by a non-gameplayer person, if the argument is considered worthy I think it would pass.

Ah, the region crashers. Regardless of the SC, I think that form of play should be outlawed. But as it stands, it's legal. One minority (region crashers) make it impossible for another minority (residents of regions they invade), to continue to play the game the way they like (remaining peacefully in their region). So I'll support the SC giving people a way to fight the destruction of their region.

I don't like region crashers any more than you do, but I do have a problem with the attitude that decisions about who should be able to play the game they way want should be in the hands of a group that you admit already holds other groups in contempt.

I'm curious what groups you think are held in contempt by gameplayers as a whole.

How is that a bad thing? Those relationships and political ties are quite rich, and no less valid than the Gatesville history with GA resolutions.

It means that GPers aren't addressing resolutions on the basis of whether or not they are in the interests of the entire WA but are more concerned with turning the WA to the purposes of of their pre-existing politics regardless of the effects on the rest of the WA.

The interests of the WA to me is the interests of the people involved in the WA. The gameplayers are a part of the WA.

So the largest minority will win because the other minorities can't be bothered to participate? Because as a minority they don't automatically have the majority.

They will be participating they just wont have enough votes enough of the time to out vote GPers. The fact that there are more active GPers will be a function of the fact that there are a hell of a lot of GPers not that other groups are less active.

Okay. And I'm sure there's always a minority that disagrees with GA resolutions that have passed. They lost the vote. Some gameplayers will feel they lost the vote in a SC resolution, some will feel they won. Other groups in the WA will also win or lose.

1) You assume the entire gameplay community will vote the same. They won't. There's such a wide variety of communities and people out there they won't all agree. 2) You assume the numbers that gameplay has in the WA can't be rivaled by others. I'd disagree with that since there has to be a majority of non-gameplay people in the WA that could respond with a "No" vote.

1)Right but your admitting then that whether or not an SC resolution passes will be entirely dependent on how GPers vote. 2) We've been told by GPers that they have a radical numerical superiority, they use that to claim that they already dominate the WA and as a sop to comfort the foolish that they wont use SC powers against other player groups, though in fact that assurance is even more worrying. Oh and there's always Unibot's "survey" which makes worrying reading for non-GPers.

1) Uh, no. I'm disagreeing that GP will vote the same way. 2) You've stated GP is a minority. There must be a majority of non-GP players then. Not sure what the survey reference is to, linky?

The SC isn't going to run the game. There is no prevailing GP agenda.

That's not what I said but don't let that stop you. What I'm calling the prevailing GP agenda is whatever agenda suits enough GPers to get anything passed by them at vote in the SC, I'm not saying that all GPers have the same agenda. But we can't escape the fact that which ever agenda has the support of the most GPers will be the only agenda the SC will be working for in future.

I'd disagree. Gameplayers will debate whatever comes before them. And if people telegram delegates asking for approvals, resolutions could get to vote that weren't proposed by major GP figures.

The big problem here is turnout/apathy. Up to now the GPers have been pretty apathetic in regards to GA resolutions. Now they won't be quite so apathetic in regards to SC resolutions. And you're worried that that'll lead to major problems. I think it's good that people get more involved, but I also think the resolutions that pass will not be idly voted on, so I will trust the judgment of those that can be bothered to vote.

Are you saying that in order to increase involvement in the WA we should silence its smaller minorities ? Unless we build in certain protections now I think we cannot avoid a future in which GP concerns of varying degrees of popularity within the GP vote will be the only concerns the SC can hope to deal with and that non-GPers will have no significant voice even in these issues let alone having their own issues dealt with.

First, the minorities won't be silenced. They will state their opinions and argue their points to others. Other people will either agree or disagree with their points, and we'll have a debate. Then everyone will vote, and the resolution will pass or fail. The fact that more gameplayers will be involved doesn't mean the vote will turn out wrong somehow. Second, I don't really understand the popularity statement. Third, what issues will non-GPers have that can be addressed by the SC which will deal with GP matters?

Propose a C&C, campaign among delegates, and if they agree, they'll vote for it.

Again you admit that the only way business is going to get done around here is if all WA players make everything they do acceptable to GP delegates, otherwise they can forget having any stake in this organisation.

No, I'm saying you campaign among ALL delegates to get a resolution passed. Similar to TGs I got when I was delegate asking me to vote for or against a resolution. Delegates may be ignorant of the issues of a resolution, but that doesn't mean you can't telegram them to encourage them one way or another to help or hurt a resolution.

[Qumkent]

I'm going to split part of this off since otherwise the post will be insanely long.

The GA still exists, it still runs the same way as before. The only thing that the creation of the SC has done that affects the GA play is the queue. Delegates will have more proposals to sift through and a GA proposal may have to wait a week before going to vote if a SC one is already up. I disagree on the ignorance and disregard of GA play, part of the reason the SC was created was to keep GA play without causing problems with the new changes.

As I said the GA only exists because Old Guard players vociferously stuck up for themselves, and we're now completely ignored for our trouble despite the fact that we offered compromise. GPers get the SC they wanted, Generalites get their subforums expanded, so to Roleplayers, what do GA players get ? Gloating from [Violet] that there are no GA resolutions in the queue at the moment which might make quorum even though hiatus was always a factor of WA play while we developed laws, and that's been compounded by the fact that the most committed players have walked because of (yes) the ignorance and disregard shown by GPers.

What exactly do you think my attitude is?

Well lets save all the back and forth, why don't you get to trounce my presumptions and get to say "so you think your so smart, well actually you were wrong about my attitude" and tell me ? I'll know definitively and we wont have to debate it any more.

[Erastide]

The GA still exists, it still runs the same way as before. The only thing that the creation of the SC has done that affects the GA play is the queue. Delegates will have more proposals to sift through and a GA proposal may have to wait a week before going to vote if a SC one is already up. I disagree on the ignorance and disregard of GA play, part of the reason the SC was created was to keep GA play without causing problems with the new changes.

As I said the GA only exists because Old Guard players vociferously stuck up for themselves, and we're now completely ignored for our trouble despite the fact that we offered compromise. GPers get the SC they wanted, Generalites get their subforums expanded, so to Roleplayers, what do GA players get ? Gloating from [Violet] that there are no GA resolutions in the queue at the moment which might make quorum even though hiatus was always a factor of WA play while we developed laws, and that's been compounded by the fact that the most committed players have walked because of (yes) the ignorance and disregard shown by GPers.

a) quite a few mods advocated for another forum too.
b) I haven't seen any requests in technical (unless I missed it completely) for a new forum for the GA side. What would you want?
c) [violet] didn't gloat, she stated a fact. And if that fact changes to the detriment of the GA, I believe she also stated the decision could be reevaluated.

What exactly do you think my attitude is?

Well lets save all the back and forth, why don't you get to trounce my presumptions and get to say "so you think your so smart, well actually you were wrong about my attitude" and tell me ? I'll know definitively and we wont have to debate it any more.

Okay... I was genuinely curious. I don't like it when people think I believe in something and I can't tell how they got to that point. Excuse me for asking however.

[Qumkent]

a) quite a few mods advocated for another forum too.
b) I haven't seen any requests in technical (unless I missed it completely) for a new forum for the GA side. What would you want?
c) [violet] didn't gloat, she stated a fact. And if that fact changes to the detriment of the GA, I believe she also stated the decision could be reevaluated.

a) Which ones ? Did you ? At what point ? Immediately these changes were suggested or after it became clear that Old Guard players were really exercised ?
b) Check the ideas in the section marked WA here - viewtopic.php?f=15&t=93 many of the idea there were suggested improvements to GA play, they were dismissed out of hand by [Violet].
c) Well it read like gloating ( and not just to me ) and [Violet} wasn't the only gloater. I suspect the problem will be obviated anyway at some point by game trends.

What exactly do you think my attitude is?

Well lets save all the back and forth, why don't you get to trounce my presumptions and get to say "so you think your so smart, well actually you were wrong about my attitude" and tell me ? I'll know definitively and we wont have to debate it any more.

Okay... I was genuinely curious. I don't like it when people think I believe in something and I can't tell how they got to that point. Excuse me for asking however. [/quote]


I was serious about not having to have the back and forth but if you'd rather we did it this way instead then OK.

I think as a gamplayer you find it hard to see why other player might not be delighted about things which might negatively effect their game but which benefit GP. I think being used to playing in a large group you find it hard to see things from through the eyes of the smaller groups, you see "delegates" ( and in your mind's eye your envisioning GP delegates ) and you can't understand how ( for instance ) I now see seperate corps of delegate blocks of which one of the largest is made up of GPers and that this corp is in fact an intitmidating force within the game which radically rebalances certain aspects of the game because it will be able exercise direct powers through the SC.

You find it difficult to see how other players might find some of the powers being suggested for the SC a bit worrying because they seem to be great for GPers so you think that must be great for the Game ( I'm not saying I dissagree with that mind you ).

I could go on. But like I said your just going to say " Oh well you really are off beam because actually this is what I think...."

[Erastide]

I think as a gamplayer you find it hard to see why other player might not be delighted about things which might negatively effect their game but which benefit GP. I think being used to playing in a large group you find it hard to see things from through the eyes of the smaller groups, you see "delegates" ( and in your mind's eye your envisioning GP delegates ) and you can't understand how ( for instance ) I now see seperate corps of delegate blocks of which one of the largest is made up of GPers and that this corp is in fact an intitmidating force within the game which radically rebalances certain aspects of the game because it will be able exercise direct powers through the SC.
You find it difficult to see how other players might find some of the powers being suggested for the SC a bit worrying because they seem to be great for GPers so you think that must be great for the Game ( I'm not saying I dissagree with that mind you )

I don't always envision GP delegates, that's true I'll disagree with you there.

For the rest of it, I took it here.

[Erastide]

a) quite a few mods advocated for another forum too.
b) I haven't seen any requests in technical (unless I missed it completely) for a new forum for the GA side. What would you want?
c) [violet] didn't gloat, she stated a fact. And if that fact changes to the detriment of the GA, I believe she also stated the decision could be reevaluated.

a) Which ones ? Did you ? At what point ? Immediately these changes were suggested or after it became clear that Old Guard players were really exercised ?
b) Check the ideas in the section marked WA here - viewtopic.php?f=15&t=93 many of the idea there were suggested improvements to GA play, they were dismissed out of hand by [Violet].
c) Well it read like gloating ( and not just to me ) and [Violet} wasn't the only gloater. I suspect the problem will be obviated anyway at some point by game trends.

No mod knew about this before it got implemented. And I'm sorry to have missed the first few days of debate since I was giving my finals and my mom was visiting, so I can't say that I reacted before GA players did. *shrugs* I know both Ard and I were advocating for another forum or a way to deal with it that didn't trample on the GA. Noone wants the GA to disappear. I may not participate in the GA and the writing of resolutions, but I like and appreciate that such a community exists.

In regards to the improvements, which ones would you most like to see? Create a thread in technical and lay out the arguments on them.

[Qumkent]

I think as a gamplayer you find it hard to see why other player might not be delighted about things which might negatively effect their game but which benefit GP. I think being used to playing in a large group you find it hard to see things from through the eyes of the smaller groups, you see "delegates" ( and in your mind's eye your envisioning GP delegates ) and you can't understand how ( for instance ) I now see seperate corps of delegate blocks of which one of the largest is made up of GPers and that this corp is in fact an intitmidating force within the game which radically rebalances certain aspects of the game because it will be able exercise direct powers through the SC.
You find it difficult to see how other players might find some of the powers being suggested for the SC a bit worrying because they seem to be great for GPers so you think that must be great for the Game ( I'm not saying I dissagree with that mind you )

I don't always envision GP delegates, that's true I'll disagree with you there.

For the rest of it, I took it here.

OK I apologise for impugning you, genuinely I'm not attacking you either really I'm just trying to point out certain things to you as a respected GPer and Mod.

I am worried that most of your answers to the problems you've recognised are "I think GPers are a nice bunch so I don't think they'd do anything to ruin other players fun" (naturally I'm paraphrasing ).

I'm not even concerned that GPers will deliberately do that, I'm concerned that shear numbers will mean an inadvertant drift which will end in the game becoming if not hostile to other play certainly far less comfortable ( that's happened for a number of Old Guard WA players already ).

All it takes is a change similar in effect to influence's effect on defending/raiding to be introduced by the SC ( voted for with a simple majority composed mostly of GPers ) and all of a sudden things get pretty crappy for everyone else.

[Kandarin]

Oh and there's always Unibot's "survey" which makes worrying reading for non-GPers.

1) Uh, no. I'm disagreeing that GP will vote the same way. 2) You've stated GP is a minority. There must be a majority of non-GP players then. Not sure what the survey reference is to, linky?

Uni initially promoted the survey in question, but it wasn't actually written or distributed by him. I don't actually know who wrote the survey questions as the author made a point of not identifying her/himself (I think it was New South Hell, but can't confirm). Distribution was done by me, with a lot of help from Katganistan and Naivetry.

Here is a link to the results, as well as our methods and a complete record of who got the survey, who didn't, and why. As much as I dislike linking to Jolt, my attempt to repost it here ran afoul of the maximum image width and would require an annoying amount of image editing and re-uploading to fix. I should warn you that the software we used incorrectly processed the percentages for Question 7 (as Question 7 allowed users to pick more than one option); for the correct percentage, compare the respondents for a given item with the total number.

[Unibot]

Uni initially promoted the survey in question, but it wasn't actually written or distributed by him. I don't actually know who wrote the survey questions as the author made a point of not identifying her/himself (I think it was New South Hell, but can't confirm). Distribution was done by me, with a lot of help from Katganistan and Naivetry.

Yeah to clarify about the Survey. It was a community decision at the time that a breakdown of the minorities or subdivisions in NationStates would be useful - a colleague of mine suggested a survey, and wrote several editions of one, I found out how to implement it, and designed the interface, and Kandy awesomely distributed it and ran its interface (Plus a ton of help from Kat and Nai!).

I think the stats aren't that 'worrying of a read' when you consider that most people thought WA participation made a good second option in the following question, just 'WA participation' isn't the highlight of one's existence on NS - statisticially speaking.

[Unibot]

RPed non-compliance wont scratch the badge off your page, answering issues in defiance of GA resolutions will change your stats.

Obvious not for nations, but I wonder if Macedon could just refound and lose the badge that way.

Someone should suggest that to them - and then sweep in to steal their region while they refound.

[Far-Tortuga]

OOC: Actually, the few comments I've seen regarding it on the Macedon regional message board are expressing a positive attitude towards the badge. I think it was an error to make it so cool looking. I know I'd want one on Skeelzania.