Abolish the Security Council and Remove 'Regional Influence'

[Bazlantis]

Interesting thoughts indeed.

[Quoziced]

As I have posted before on a similar issue that came up, Founders in particular and Regional Influence as well are not the be all and end all to defence of a Region. Vigilance is the most important weapon certainly for protecting neutral Regions. I agree that it is less effective for 'top target' Regions such as Raider/Defender bases and Feeders and such like because these are going to be fought over much more. However in small and medium Regions you can normaly spot the trouble and eject them before anything happens. It has also helped that the quality of newbie 'raiders' tends to be poor because they lack the knowledge and experience that should have been gained from older hands, but they ignore this and have a go themselves. It is not always the case that inactive Regions get raided while active ones don't, but being active certainly helps because you get to see the problem far sooner and can take action.

Regional Influence is staying with us, but perhaps the levels need looking at so that things are more balanced, maybe the speed which you aquire it needs to increase or the gap between top and bottom reduced. Also it could be limited to the eject/ban functions only. This would free things up while still stopping griefing so as not to take any of the MODs time.

In my view the Security Council should be viewed as another tool that could help rather than hinder gameplay. I do think though that the simple majority rule of the voting system could be fine tuned. The Commend/Condemn side is totally different from the Liberation element and could continue as 50%, but why not 66% for Liberations; because we need to be totally convinced by a big majority that it is needed? If that's too radical how about 66% for Repeals only? Another option is to link the number of votes needed to the number of WA nations in existence similarto the way Delegates get proposals to quorum? There are many RL voting systems where you need a higher than 50% majority in order for things to pass, mostly on matters on national importance, is not a Liberation a matter of wide NS importance? Could it not therefore be treated the same?

[Southern Bellz]

I want to throw my 2cents in as a Feeder delegate. I think the influence rules at the least need to change.

In its current form where influence goes only up, it is near impossible to change a well established feeder delegate. Their influence is unrivaled considering some them have been at the top of the charts for years. Influence in its current form only limits gameplay.

I feel the best solution is to look at influence and how it can change.

The biggest argument to keep influence is the fact that it self moderates. The biggest argument against it, is that it restricts gameplay because it is near impossible to boot a troublesome political threat that has been around awhile. (this is included in invasions). The result of this is often time the people who get ejected from regions are not the people who should be ejected, but the people who happen to be endorsing them. This is a problem.

I think the solution to this is to make it so an active delegates influence goes up quicker than others in the region AND have that effect be reversed to the old delegate. That way the new delegate, if they can stay in power a reasonable about of time will surpass the ex delegate faster.

[Oh my Days]

I want to throw my 2cents in as a Feeder delegate. I think the influence rules at the least need to change.

In its current form where influence goes only up, it is near impossible to change a well established feeder delegate. Their influence is unrivaled considering some them have been at the top of the charts for years. Influence in its current form only limits gameplay.

I feel the best solution is to look at influence and how it can change.

The biggest argument to keep influence is the fact that it self moderates. The biggest argument against it, is that it restricts gameplay because it is near impossible to boot a troublesome political threat that has been around awhile. (this is included in invasions). The result of this is often time the people who get ejected from regions are not the people who should be ejected, but the people who happen to be endorsing them. This is a problem.

I think the solution to this is to make it so an active delegates influence goes up quicker than others in the region AND have that effect be reversed to the old delegate. That way the new delegate, if they can stay in power a reasonable about of time will surpass the ex delegate faster.

I'd support that, but only as a start. Influence has massively slowed down politics all over NS, we need massive improvements.

[Palaam]

I can say two things right off the bat:

1. Mods have heard all this before.

2. There are no detailed suggestions for changing Influence coming out of this, or any of the other debates.


Perhaps Influence can be made a function (as inscrutable as it is now) of how often nations answer issues? I know the gamecode is basically a giant thicket of programming that the admins hate to wade into, but it seems fair to reward those players who diligently answer their issues every day with a little extra influence.

Or, another, more radical thought occurs:

A combined system of what I'm calling Regional Seniority and Political Influence. RS is basically what Influence is now- a measure of the amount of time a nation has been in a region, in the WA, and/or a delegate.

PI is what I described above; a function of how often you answer issues, vote on WA proposals, etc. etc.

The two facets combine and play off each other to produce a secret, magical number that's slightly more fair. We might think of RS and PI as what PoliScientists call Soft and Hard Power; one is the general sort of reputation you have and the other a more direct representation of your regional agency. How to make influence decrease is another question. Perhaps certain issues that revolve around how you relate to your neighbours (like selling trash, weapons, or just going to war with the Bigtopians) could do that.

Maybe this topic is better in Technical?

[Southern Bellz]

I offered a solution, give influence an eb and flow, where it goes up and down based on conditions. That way a former delegate, that could be an agitator, that lost all (or some) of their endorsements can't stay in the region for months or even years in some cases.

[Quoziced]

2. There are no detailed suggestions for changing Influence coming out of this, or any of the other debates.

Doh. I and there was I thinking I'd made some.

[Palaam]

2. There are no detailed suggestions for changing Influence coming out of this, or any of the other debates.

Doh. I and there was I thinking I'd made some.

You didn't really suggest a change to Influence itself; you suggested changing the way the Security Council works and had an entire one sentence about Influence.

The best way to make suggestions heard is to make them detailed and logical. The mods don't want to hear "hey guys I have a great idea."

[Naivetry]

Perhaps Influence can be made a function (as inscrutable as it is now) of how often nations answer issues? I know the gamecode is basically a giant thicket of programming that the admins hate to wade into, but it seems fair to reward those players who diligently answer their issues every day with a little extra influence.

Urgh, no, please. Issues have nothing to do with political gameplay or power of any sort.

[Palaam]

Perhaps Influence can be made a function (as inscrutable as it is now) of how often nations answer issues? I know the gamecode is basically a giant thicket of programming that the admins hate to wade into, but it seems fair to reward those players who diligently answer their issues every day with a little extra influence.

Urgh, no, please. Issues have nothing to do with political gameplay or power of any sort.

Why not?

[Kalibarr]

Perhaps Influence can be made a function (as inscrutable as it is now) of how often nations answer issues? I know the gamecode is basically a giant thicket of programming that the admins hate to wade into, but it seems fair to reward those players who diligently answer their issues every day with a little extra influence.

Urgh, no, please. Issues have nothing to do with political gameplay or power of any sort.

Why not?

Maybe because we don't play the game that way.

[Palaam]

Yeah, that's not really an answer. "I don't want to" isn't a very compelling response.

[Unibot]

Yeah, that's not really an answer. "I don't want to" isn't a very compelling response.

Here is an answer,

Gameplayers are enthralled with a game environment that treats players/nations as soldiers, fighting over regions and delegatations, for glory and morality, to prove to themselves who is the most vigilant, the brightest, the most strategic, the most prepared, the most coordinated -- ultimately, the Gameplay arena is about being the best solider. Answering multiple answer quizzes about your political philosophies and what you think about cheese throwing as a legal method of dissidence is nothing that a solider would give a shit about. ¿ Comprende

EDIT: Gameplayers as in, Raider/Defender/Invader Gameplayers.

[Kalibarr]

Yeah, that's not really an answer. "I don't want to" isn't a very compelling response.

Haven't you been paying attention to our complaints about rule four?

Do you think we really want to have role playing affect gameplay?

gameplay would cease to exist. Though I don't suppose that would bother you any.

[Naivetry]

Yeah, that's not really an answer. "I don't want to" isn't a very compelling response.

Here is an answer,

Gameplayers are enthralled with a game environment that treats players/nations as soldiers, fighting over regions and delegatations, for glory and morality, to prove to themselves who is the most vigilant, the brightest, the most strategic, the most prepared, the most coordinated -- ultimately, the Gameplay arena is about being the best solider. Answering multiple answer quizzes about your political philosophies and what you think about cheese throwing as a legal method of dissidence is nothing that a solider would give a shit about. ¿ Comprende

Er. Well, the raiding/defending side of Gameplay, yes.

There are also a lot of us who don't really do the raid/defend thing, and care more about regional and interregional politics.

[Unibot]

Yeah, that's not really an answer. "I don't want to" isn't a very compelling response.

Here is an answer,

Gameplayers are enthralled with a game environment that treats players/nations as soldiers, fighting over regions and delegatations, for glory and morality, to prove to themselves who is the most vigilant, the brightest, the most strategic, the most prepared, the most coordinated -- ultimately, the Gameplay arena is about being the best solider. Answering multiple answer quizzes about your political philosophies and what you think about cheese throwing as a legal method of dissidence is nothing that a solider would give a shit about. ¿ Comprende

Er. Well, the raiding/defending side of Gameplay, yes.

There are also a lot of us who don't really do the raid/defend thing, and care more about regional and interregional politics.

Err.. that too. *points to Nai, who knows better than I do.*

[Naivetry]

Perhaps Influence can be made a function (as inscrutable as it is now) of how often nations answer issues? I know the gamecode is basically a giant thicket of programming that the admins hate to wade into, but it seems fair to reward those players who diligently answer their issues every day with a little extra influence.

Urgh, no, please. Issues have nothing to do with political gameplay or power of any sort.

Why not?

Issues affect nothing about the way your nation actually interacts with other nations.

Therefore, they are completely and utterly irrelevant to military/political Gameplay of the sort being discussed in this thread, which deals with real political and military interaction within and between regions. Nations are considered citizens of regions governed on offsite forums, and their interactions in that environment are what matters. Social/political interaction between players is what creates real, in-game power and influence - where power is measured by the ability of players to coordinate to achieve their goals.

Sorry, I keep editing this, and it keeps sounding more and more arcane. I'll try to simplify.

The point is, issues aren't real political constructs, because they do not impact real people. Gameplay power is just like RL power - it's all about influencing the people on the other side of the screen. Judging Influence in Gameplay based on how often people answered issues would be like judging someone's political influence in RL based on how many levels they played of Tetris per day.

[Palaam]

Right, but the system of gameplay that currently exists developed around the original issues game. Considering that back in the old days people on the raiding/defending side of things got very good at figuring out update times and endorsements and the like, I would think that they would be interested in a new way to game, as it were, the system to give themselves the greatest advantage.

I would imagine that a system of issue answering could be adapted to by players in such a way that it supplements the system you describe. I suppose I don't see either as mutually exclusive facets of the same overarching NationStates game. Adaptability is the word.

But what you're saying is, I suppose, that such a development would be so completely at odds with the way Gameplay is now it's totally moot to even suggest it?

[Naivetry]

Right, but the system of gameplay that currently exists developed around the original issues game. Considering that back in the old days people on the raiding/defending side of things got very good at figuring out update times and endorsements and the like, I would think that they would be interested in a new way to game, as it were, the system to give themselves the greatest advantage.

I would imagine that a system of issue answering could be adapted to by players in such a way that it supplements the system you describe. I suppose I don't see either as mutually exclusive facets of the same overarching NationStates game. Adaptability is the word.

But what you're saying is, I suppose, that such a development would be so completely at odds with the way Gameplay is now it's totally moot to even suggest it?

Ah, but it didn't develop around the issues - it developed around endorsements. Endorsements do have to do with power - they control who becomes delegate, and being delegate allows you to mess with other players (for better or for worse).

Forcing players to spend time answering Issues in order to gain "Influence" would be asking us to pursue a dead end - mindless clicking for no other reason than to click, because how often I answer my issues has absolutely nothing to do with how active I am in real interregional politics. It'd be like... I don't know, telling the folks in International Incidents that their military strength was going to be based on how many posts they made in Forum 7: a pointless hoop to jump through, because it's completely unrelated to any real measure of power.

[Palaam]

I see your point, but I disagree that it's comparable to your II analogy. If we pursue the endorsement comparison, however, it makes more sense to have such a thing. If Influence is the amount of power a nation has in a given region, it would make logical sense for that power to be a function of how often, and in what means, that nation answers it daily issues.

Certainly if answering issues had the benefit of adding or subtracting Influence, it wouldn't be a pointless exercise- there would be intrinsic benefit to it. How you answer your issues influencing your... Influence, I guess, would also eliminate the contention that it would be pointless.

[Kalibarr]

I see your point, but I disagree that it's comparable to your II analogy. If we pursue the endorsement comparison, however, it makes more sense to have such a thing. If Influence is the amount of power a nation has in a given region, it would make logical sense for that power to be a function of how often, and in what means, that nation answers it daily issues.

Certainly if answering issues had the benefit of adding or subtracting Influence, it wouldn't be a pointless exercise- there would be intrinsic benefit to it. How you answer your issues influencing your... Influence, I guess, would also eliminate the contention that it would be pointless.

Personally I'm against it because it would force us to RP.

[Naivetry]

I see your point, but I disagree that it's comparable to your II analogy. If we pursue the endorsement comparison, however, it makes more sense to have such a thing. If Influence is the amount of power a nation has in a given region, it would make logical sense for that power to be a function of how often, and in what means, that nation answers it daily issues.

How does that make logical sense? What is the correlation even in RP between dealing with random legislation in your nation and having power in a region?

Certainly if answering issues had the benefit of adding or subtracting Influence, it wouldn't be a pointless exercise- there would be intrinsic benefit to it. How you answer your issues influencing your... Influence, I guess, would also eliminate the contention that it would be pointless.

Why introduce something just to make the game more complex and annoying?

[Palaam]

In the context of NationStates as a nation simulation game, it can be construed that the business of government (how you answer you issues) translates into influence among the community of nations in which yours resides (your region). How you resolve the problems of government can negatively or positively affect your standing in the region.

Gameplayers, RPers, or Statplayers don't have to use those terms, naturally, but it's logical in the syntactic context of the game.

[Naivetry]

In the context of NationStates as a nation simulation game, it can be construed that the business of government (how you answer you issues) translates into influence among the community of nations in which yours resides (your region).

...how?

Does Germany's influence within Europe suddenly go up if they pass twice as many laws for Germany in a year?

[Kandarin]

The change that would result from tying Influence to Issue answers isn't the fact that it would change the tools needed to game the system. The real change is that it'd elevate the importance of gaming the system far beyond what the existing community considers a desirable level.

Yes, Gameplay actions (including raiding and defending) are currently more effective if done with knowledge of how the game mechanics work. It's a good idea to know how to find the new nations to recruit, when the update time is, how to manage a dossier, etc. However, beyond that the 'mechanics' are all social interaction. If you can organize, motivate, and communicate well with people, you have all that it takes to contend in your Gameplay activity of choice, be it building a region, forging alliances, discrediting your rivals, or invading a region. There are mechanics that you'd use to accomplish these things, but ultimately the sort of activities that players need to perform to succeed in Gameplay mirror the activities that they would need to perform to succeed in a real-world political, business or military context. Making that success a factor of how folks reply on their Issues would take the focus from interacting with other players and groups to interacting with the game code - a jarring change to folks who are used to the outcome of their actions being a factor of how well they've persuaded and organized other people.