Urgench wrote:Actually crappy resolutions which need repealing because of some glaringly stupid problem they create aren't that uncommon, Max Barry Day is oft quoted but it's hardly isolated.
Ssshhh, stop giving away GA secrets!
There're two differences, though: a stupid GA proposal doesn't affect my region, or my relationship with my regionmates. It affects my nation and their nations, and all other WA nations, but we can see it coming and even back out so it can't affect us (though that's frowned on). A targeted region can't back out of an SC resolution by resigning from the SC (not saying it should be able to, just pointing out the difference).
Second, if a stupid GA resolution is repealed, things go back the way they were. The stats change back, the RPs get retrofitted, no other proposals are affected (because of the House of Cards rule) and everything in the garden is lovely.
That's true of C&Cs, too. But repealing a Liberation proposal couldn't put things back exactly the way they were, because player action could occur while the proposal repeal was being debated. (If, indeed, repeals are even really possible for this sort of proposal -- you can wipe away the words, but what's the point, when the action has occurred, players are acting on it, and it can't be undone until the repeal passes?)
So there's really
no room for mistakes. And "Open Immigration" looks like another of the same.
Kandarin, I readily agree that those outside the gameplay part of the game don't know what's going on inside it, and also that sometimes not all those inside know either. If you and Eras, among others, hadn't accepted WA players' assurances about WA IC and the question of metagaming, we probably wouldn't have the compromise of two councils, an outcome much better than what originally seemed likely. So I'll accept your assurance about the extreme unlikelihood of a false "Open Immigration" proposal getting through.
Besides, given the Moderation thread I referred to earlier, I guess it's consistent to take the same players'-due-diligence approach with any further categories.
But that still leaves me with this problem: however justified, however necessary, it may be, this category would hit the Founder of a raided nation; the most prominent native member of the region, already punished by being raided, is further punished
by the WA for the crime of being raided?
Why must the Founder's ability to ban be removed?
Perhaps it's not physically possible to separate the banlist into Delegate bans and Founder bans. I dunno, I'm no techie.
But I can't see why, to get at a raider delegate, you'd want to remove one of the ways a (back from hoildays? recovered from sudden illness? instead of just "careless") raided region's Founder could begin cleaning up his region.
For us non-(consciously)-gameplaying regions, Founders are special. A non-gameplay Founder helps protect a region more than a non-gameplaying Delegate can -- not in foreseeing or preventing a raid, but at least in getting rid of the raiders before they do too much damage.
This proposed category takes away one of the powers of the Founder. This, if accepted, would be the first SC category that suggests doing that. I'm opposed to it for that reason. Even accepting that the possibility of it being applied unfairly is vanishingly small, I'm still opposed to it. If the admins were able to create some way to distinguish between Founder bans and Delegate bans, and forbid only Delegate bans, it might be acceptable. (I get the impression, though, that it wouldn't do what Eras wants it to do if only the Delegate's ban-power was removed; is that how it's supposed to work?)
Glen-Rhodes, sorry, but I just don't get your argument. As I understand it, this category would be applied to a region that had been taken over by a raider. So if Atlantic Oasis were taken over by a raider, it could then be made subject to an Open Immigration order. Why wouldn't it be taken over (apart from the obvious -- that its Founder is alarmingly active, and that it would have many non-raid/defend nations who would try, in our bumbling way, to help)? Of my four active nations, three have been in quiet, non-raid/defending regions, and those three have all been raided. When did raiders start leaving obscure or easy targets alone?