Gilgamesh - Gatesville's End

[Galiantus III]

Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh is a relatively new military region that seeks to exploit the structure of the WA along with gameplay operations to influence the passage of resolutions within the WA. Our goal is to prevent as many proposals within the WA from passing. Join us if you want to help curtail the power of the WA!

Why Join Us?

If you like having fun, being powerful, or gaining glory, then why not join? We forcibly prevent the passage of proposals in the largest, most powerful organization in the game! That's fun, power and glory all rolled into one!

So You're a Defender..

As a defender, you likely place a high value on regional sovereignty for natives. Raiders like to come in and violate that sovereignty, so you interfere with raider actions in order to protect the regions they would otherwise harm. Our army acts in much the same way, except in protection of national sovereignty. The existence and structure of the WA means that some players must join for the safety of their region, whether or not they want to be subject to WA legislation. By interfering with the operations of the WA, we protect these nations from ceding their sovereignty to the whims of the few elite delegates who control the WA.

We should clarify that none of our military actions pose any reasonable threat to the regions our armies enter. Indeed, in 99% of all possible scenarios, our goals will most easily be met by selecting native points. Furthermore, we see Liberation proposals as a necessary tool for Defenders, and we would prefer not to hinder, but rather to help defenders.

So How Does This Work?

The idea is pretty simple. In order to keep proposals from making it to quorum, or from passing, we swap selected delegates out of office. Since our goal is not to capture these regions (many having active founders, too) this can most easily be achieved by selecting natives with endorsements near the delegate. Few delegates are safe from this tactic, and a small group of updaters may be deployed in order to prevent significant numbers of delegates from enabling the WA to project its power.

But Why Fight the WA at All?

Well it's kind of like raiding, and that's fun. However, there are also practical and arguably moral reasons to WA opposition.

The first reason for opposition to the WA is the typical argument for national sovereignty. As stated above, WA membership is a necessity for some people, and not entirely a choice they get to make. Even in a perfect world, WA membership makes no sense from an RP perspective, only from a gameplay perspective. Why would a nation voluntarily subject itself to the will of other nations? Any time a resolution is passed in the GA, all nations that voted "against" said resolution have their sovereignty violated.

Indeed, the whole system of the WA is broken. It is a farce. The WA is presented as the world's governing body, and is supposedly an analogue to the UN - except that the UN is not the world's governing body, and the UN's decisions affect non-member states. Then there's the issue that any player may simply create a puppet nation to participate in the WA, yet avoid the affects of the WA entirely. So anyone taking the WA seriously is likely being taken advantage

However, this is also not just about fighting the WA, or even just about Gilgamesh as an organization. Gameplay needs something new to spice it up. We think you should fight against the WA, of course, but there is no reason you can't go off and have your region go fight for a certain political ideology within the WA. In fact, this is a far more interesting rationale for military gameplay than raiding or defending, the logic of which boils down to "because we can" or "because we must". If some communist region wants to go out of their way to force the passage of communist resolutions while actively blocking and repealing stuff they see as capitalist, I see it as a good expansion of gameplay.

---

This project has been a long time coming for me. Ever since I started playing NationStates (back in 2012) I have wanted to do something like this, but until I created Gilgamesh I was either not doing it right or I was floundering with other unrelated projects. I really want to contribute to the world of military gameplay here on NationStates because by itself it is such a fun little emergent niche of a game. My hope is that through Gilgamesh I will stir up something new we haven't seen before in gameplay, and hopefully add some depth to this game so many of us waste countless hours on.

~ Galiantus ~

---

News and Updates:

The End of Gatesville 3/18/18

[Pergamon]

I am eager to see how this is supposed to work.

[Glacikaldr]

This is a pretty decent idea if you oppose world governance.

[Kurnugia]

My sumerian Nation skiped a beat when it saw that name <3

It's an interesting idea.

[Malphe]

Not sure if it'll work, but it's an interesting idea.

[Lenlyvit]

Same as every other post here. I definitely may look into this Galiantus.... Really interesting.

[Xoriet]

Gilgamesh is a relatively new military region that seeks to exploit the structure of the WA along with gameplay operations to influence the passage of resolutions within the WA. Our goal is to prevent as many proposals within the WA from passing. Join us if you want to help curtail the power of the WA!

So...if you don't like the WA...how would you feel if one day the SC decided to Condemn you should you manage to survive that long? Would you protest or would you be pleased?

[Galiantus III]

Gilgamesh is a relatively new military region that seeks to exploit the structure of the WA along with gameplay operations to influence the passage of resolutions within the WA. Our goal is to prevent as many proposals within the WA from passing. Join us if you want to help curtail the power of the WA!

So...if you don't like the WA...how would you feel if one day the SC decided to Condemn you should you manage to survive that long? Would you protest or would you be pleased?

We are indifferent. We would prefer to block the passage of any and all commendations or condemnations, but it would be nice if the WA legitimizes us. From our perspective it all evens out in the end.

[Pergamon]

So...if you don't like the WA...how would you feel if one day the SC decided to Condemn you should you manage to survive that long? Would you protest or would you be pleased?

We are indifferent. We would prefer to block the passage of any and all commendations or condemnations, but it would be nice if the WA legitimizes us. From our perspective it all evens out in the end.

Ooooh. I could like that.

[Conservative Values]

This tickles an old interest of mine.. Slightly different implementation, but same vein of thought. I'll send a nation over later.

What better way to celebrate the ten year anniversary of the World Assembly in three weeks than to bring it to its knees?

[Raionitu]

the whims of the few elite delegates who control the WA.
In order to keep proposals from making it to quorum, or from passing, we swap selected delegates out of office.

so, tl;dr, your plan is to keep a few people from making all the WA decisions, by becoming the few people that make all WA decisions. That's pretty much what I'm getting out of this, an attempt at becoming the new elites of the WA.

[Portice]

So... you say your powerful but what actual changes have you made to the WA and or helpfulness torwards the games cause. besides coming up with an idea have u done anything that actual lay changed or helped anything signiffiagnt

[Galiantus III]

the whims of the few elite delegates who control the WA.
In order to keep proposals from making it to quorum, or from passing, we swap selected delegates out of office.

so, tl;dr, your plan is to keep a few people from making all the WA decisions, by becoming the few people that make all WA decisions. That's pretty much what I'm getting out of this, an attempt at becoming the new elites of the WA.

More like, make it impossible to make decisions at all. Zero proposals being passed. A WA freeze.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

so, tl;dr, your plan is to keep a few people from making all the WA decisions, by becoming the few people that make all WA decisions. That's pretty much what I'm getting out of this, an attempt at becoming the new elites of the WA.

More like, make it impossible to make decisions at all. Zero proposals being passed. A WA freeze.

Except liberations. Becuase...becuase yay defenders? Becuase raiders don’t get their own “national sovereignty?”

Would like this a lot more if, like GV or Mike’s NS, you actually were solidly against *all.* That, I could respect. The moment you pick and choose, though, you’re no better than what you claim to be fighting.

[Galiantus III]

More like, make it impossible to make decisions at all. Zero proposals being passed. A WA freeze.

Except liberations. Becuase...becuase yay defenders? Becuase raiders don’t get their own “national sovereignty?”

Would like this a lot more if, like GV or Mike’s NS, you actually were solidly against *all.* That, I could respect. The moment you pick and choose, though, you’re no better than what you claim to be fighting.

It sounds like you don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Liberations are the only case I can see where the WA can be used to protect sovereignty, and since sovereignty is the central principal, I must make an exception for Liberations. Unless you want to make an argument like "raiders don't violate regional sovereignty" - an argument I would personally love to see any raider try and make.

[Lord Dominator]

Except liberations. Becuase...becuase yay defenders? Becuase raiders don’t get their own “national sovereignty?”

Would like this a lot more if, like GV or Mike’s NS, you actually were solidly against *all.* That, I could respect. The moment you pick and choose, though, you’re no better than what you claim to be fighting.

It sounds like you don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Liberations are the only case I can see where the WA can be used to protect sovereignty, and since sovereignty is the central principal, I must make an exception for Liberations. Unless you want to make an argument like "raiders don't violate regional sovereignty" - an argument I would personally love to see any raider try and make.

Right, so I take it you'll be working against the Liberation of Kaiserreich (or however that's spelled) since it's a violation of native sovereignty?

[Conservative Values]

Except liberations. Becuase...becuase yay defenders? Becuase raiders don’t get their own “national sovereignty?”

Would like this a lot more if, like GV or Mike’s NS, you actually were solidly against *all.* That, I could respect. The moment you pick and choose, though, you’re no better than what you claim to be fighting.

It sounds like you don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Liberations are the only case I can see where the WA can be used to protect sovereignty, and since sovereignty is the central principal, I must make an exception for Liberations. Unless you want to make an argument like "raiders don't violate regional sovereignty" - an argument I would personally love to see any raider try and make.

Liberations are a violation of sovereignty most often used to achieve a "good" outcome. They remove the power of a region to decide something that the WA doesn't think the region should choose to do. Most often the WA uses that power to prevent a non-"native" group from making a choice but there are some notable exceptions. We are most likely going to be voting on an aggressive liberation of Kaiserreich soon for instance, because the nations of the World Assembly would rather that region not be able to defend itself should it ever go founderless.

I'm much more of the old school definition of sovereignty that Souls is advancing. Despite what he says though, it doesn't have to be a contradiction to support a Liberation proposal if you are a fierce proponent of NATIONAL sovereignty.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Except liberations. Becuase...becuase yay defenders? Becuase raiders don’t get their own “national sovereignty?”

Would like this a lot more if, like GV or Mike’s NS, you actually were solidly against *all.* That, I could respect. The moment you pick and choose, though, you’re no better than what you claim to be fighting.

It sounds like you don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Liberations are the only case I can see where the WA can be used to protect sovereignty, and since sovereignty is the central principal, I must make an exception for Liberations. Unless you want to make an argument like "raiders don't violate regional sovereignty" - an argument I would personally love to see any raider try and make.

Let's break down your OP here.

First, you state that you act to protect national sovereignty. Much like raiders violate regional sovereignty, all proposals, including commends and condemns, violate national sovereignty of choice. Why? In your own words, every time a proposal passes, the sovereignty of all those who voted against is violated.

So, ignoring the root flaw to this logic (that is, by *fighting* these you're instead violating the sovereignty of all those voting for), puzzle me this - what about all of the non-raiders who vote against a liberation? They can just go fuck themselves too?

Honestly, the most *sensical* outcome would be to always push opposite the net vote of the big dels, or for the net individual vote ignoring all dels, given that your complaints regarding "the few elite delegates who control the WA." Always pushing one direction, again, makes you just as bad as, if not worse than, what you claim to be fighting. At least those "few elite delegates" generally democratically poll their regional constituents in order to decide their vote. You're just impressing your own defender views on the nations of the world, and violating the voting sovereignty of a large chunk of people either way.

And finally, whether or not raiders violate *regional* sovereignty should not be relevant here. You specifically make your case around the concept of individual national sovereignty.

[Galiantus III]

It sounds like you don't understand the concept of sovereignty. Liberations are the only case I can see where the WA can be used to protect sovereignty, and since sovereignty is the central principal, I must make an exception for Liberations. Unless you want to make an argument like "raiders don't violate regional sovereignty" - an argument I would personally love to see any raider try and make.

Right, so I take it you'll be working against the Liberation of Kaiserreich (or however that's spelled) since it's a violation of the native's sovereignty?

Back when the liberation of Nazi Europe was passed, I personally went and tried to defend the natives. I do not like Nazi regions, but NE was not an imperialistic region, and I felt that for the sake of regional sovereignty they deserved to be protected. Kaiserreich is a different story: If they were not an imperialist region, then yes, we would try and prevent such a breech of sovereignty. As it stands, however, they actively threaten the soveregnty of other regions, so there is no compelling argument that trying to protect their sovereignty would do anything to further sovereignty worldwide.

[Sakura Kyouko]

to the whims of the few elite delegates who control the WA.

Bitely, is that you?!
On a more serious note, it's an intriguing idea. As others have already chimed in, more eloquently than I could, there's some odd bits with this implementation, but it's interesting nonetheless.

~4

[Lord Dominator]

Right, so I take it you'll be working against the Liberation of Kaiserreich (or however that's spelled) since it's a violation of the native's sovereignty?

Back when the liberation of Nazi Europe was passed, I personally went and tried to defend the natives. I do not like Nazi regions, but NE was not an imperialistic region, and I felt that for the sake of regional sovereignty they deserved to be protected. Kaiserreich is a different story: If they were not an imperialist region, then yes, we would try and prevent such a breech of sovereignty. As it stands, however, they actively threaten the soveregnty of other regions, so there is no compelling argument that trying to protect their sovereignty would do anything to further sovereignty worldwide.

Last I heard a majority of what you call their imperialism is refounding dead region with some historical name and calling it a victory. I fail to see that as somehow threatening much of anything.

[Galiantus III]

I'm much more of the old school definition of sovereignty that Souls is advancing. Despite what he says though, it doesn't have to be a contradiction to support a Liberation proposal if you are a fierce proponent of NATIONAL sovereignty.

You are absolutely correct that national sovereignty in the GA is definitely the priority. My opinions of the SC are more fuzzy, and subject to the exact situation at hand.

-snip-

I am under no obligation to defend my positions from your nit-picking. I gave my answer to your questions and I am being entirely consistent. If you would like to bargain with me, PM me. Otherwise, nothing is keeping you from trying to block liberation proposals. Remember Liberate Illuminati? I was there. I have opposed liberations in the past, but as of now I support them. If you want to persuade me otherwise, you are going to need to do more than use fallacious logic to attack my position.

[Galiantus III]

Back when the liberation of Nazi Europe was passed, I personally went and tried to defend the natives. I do not like Nazi regions, but NE was not an imperialistic region, and I felt that for the sake of regional sovereignty they deserved to be protected. Kaiserreich is a different story: If they were not an imperialist region, then yes, we would try and prevent such a breech of sovereignty. As it stands, however, they actively threaten the soveregnty of other regions, so there is no compelling argument that trying to protect their sovereignty would do anything to further sovereignty worldwide.

Last I heard a majority of what you call their imperialism is refounding dead region with some historical name and calling it a victory. I fail to see that as somehow threatening much of anything.

I must admit I don't know the details of their raiding practices. If they are as you say they are, then I would consider trying to block the liberation if I had more than just two green soldiers. But supposing I did have enough of an army, I should do the necessary research in order to make the proper call.

[Lord Dominator]

Last I heard a majority of what you call their imperialism is refounding dead region with some historical name and calling it a victory. I fail to see that as somehow threatening much of anything.

I must admit I don't know the details of their raiding practices. If they are as you say they are, then I would consider trying to block the liberation if I had more than just two green soldiers. But supposing I did have enough of an army, I should do the necessary research in order to make the proper call.

Fair enough.
I still don't like this though, and have some thoughts on your GA comments should I ever be proactive enough to type them up when I'm on my computer (after I do other more fun things of course).

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

-snip-

I am under no obligation to defend my positions from your nit-picking. I gave my answer to your questions and I am being entirely consistent. If you would like to bargain with me, PM me. Otherwise, nothing is keeping you from trying to block liberation proposals. Remember Liberate Illuminati? I was there. I have opposed liberations in the past, but as of now I support them. If you want to persuade me otherwise, you are going to need to do more than use fallacious logic to attack my position.

If you’re going to make your OP, and heck your whole regional ideology, a political manifesto, you ought to be willing to defend it from some pretty basic criticism of the concepts. There’s no reason I’d want to take this debate (“bargain??”) to private channels so you can cop out of such.

The fact is, as currently described your quest to protect sovereignty is basically flawed in many ways. You’re enforcing your view of what is right in all votes. In most proposals, you’re suppressing the for vote in favor of an arbitrary “no” vote, and in the case of libs you’re suppressing votes native against votes in favor of your own defender ideology. Even if you adopted a more fitting tactic, like voting against the Net large del vote or in favor of the net individual vote as I suggested, you are still ultimately individually suppressing and violating the sovereignty of many small regions in the name of the “Greater Good” - a good which you’re defining and forcing on them. It’s silly to violate sovereignty repeatedly in the name of protecting it.

You should have a response to this, even if it’s just a proper dismissal. Though an actual logical reply backing your position would probably win you at least a bit more respect than “agree to disagree.”