Advertisement
by Flanderlion » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:19 pm
by Wallenburg » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:23 pm
by Honeydewistania » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:32 pm
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Comfed » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:34 pm
Honeydewistania wrote:Opposed to any idea making Sec Gen elections frequent (or happening again, at all). Too much tag:wa campaign spam will lead to delegates and others blocking WA filters, making it harder to campaign for stuff
by Great Algerstonia » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:35 pm
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Barfleur » Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:43 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 11, 2021 6:56 pm
Galiantus III wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Because Gameplay entities have a long history of trying to affect the GA regardless of their involvement. You saw that with TEP's anti-GA policies, for example. TWP had a history of it for some time. Every major delegate, with the possible exception of Imperium Anglorum, is Gameplay-centric, and yet exert huge control over the GA. Disproportionate with their involvement.
And naturally so: Regional security in feeders and sinkers is directly tied to WA involvement. No feeder or sinker would choose a leader based on WA politics when their primary goal is the protection and prosperity of the local community. Note that Imperium Anglorum has the luxury of being the delegate of a region with an active founder. The region can afford to separate the issues of security and WA politics.
And this isn't to say I like how things are set up. I have suggested on multiple occasions that WA participation be separated from gameplay participation, because they are indeed two different games that should have been developed separately. If they were separate a lot of this would just not be an issue and features could be added more to the liking of GA without gameplayers caring, and vica-versa. Unfortunately, that would be technically difficult to do. So for the time being, the GA is going to have to get along with gameplayers because that is just the way things are.
by Galiantus III » Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:10 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Galiantus III wrote:
And naturally so: Regional security in feeders and sinkers is directly tied to WA involvement. No feeder or sinker would choose a leader based on WA politics when their primary goal is the protection and prosperity of the local community. Note that Imperium Anglorum has the luxury of being the delegate of a region with an active founder. The region can afford to separate the issues of security and WA politics.
And this isn't to say I like how things are set up. I have suggested on multiple occasions that WA participation be separated from gameplay participation, because they are indeed two different games that should have been developed separately. If they were separate a lot of this would just not be an issue and features could be added more to the liking of GA without gameplayers caring, and vica-versa. Unfortunately, that would be technically difficult to do. So for the time being, the GA is going to have to get along with gameplayers because that is just the way things are.
There wouldn't be any need to "get along" if ideas that fundamentally interjected an unwanted influence on the GA community were not implemented over the objections of the GA community. a
Its odd that the GA should get the short end of the stick when improvements to the GA have never come at the expense of another group in the game. Its no more than we've come to expect, though.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:38 pm
Galiantus III wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
There wouldn't be any need to "get along" if ideas that fundamentally interjected an unwanted influence on the GA community were not implemented over the objections of the GA community. a
Its odd that the GA should get the short end of the stick when improvements to the GA have never come at the expense of another group in the game. Its no more than we've come to expect, though.
To be fair, I'm not advocating for either side of this. I'm just pointing out that gameplay and the GA are intertwined by the features of the game, and that's not likely to change in the near future. People are going to suggest features they think will improve the game based on their experience with it, and that is going to differ based on which area they focus on. That said, I don't think becoming tribal about the discussion is useful. This proposal has merit but it definitely needs tweaking.
by Flanderlion » Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Its odd that the GA should get the short end of the stick when improvements to the GA have never come at the expense of another group in the game. Its no more than we've come to expect, though.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:37 pm
Flanderlion wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Its odd that the GA should get the short end of the stick when improvements to the GA have never come at the expense of another group in the game. Its no more than we've come to expect, though.
All improvements come at the expense of other groups, as there is only a finite amount of improvements. Also, I thought the last thing the GA got was the GenSec, which afaik is working fine?
by Flanderlion » Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:54 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Flanderlion wrote:All improvements come at the expense of other groups, as there is only a finite amount of improvements. Also, I thought the last thing the GA got was the GenSec, which afaik is working fine?
No, improvements need not come at the expense of other communities. GenSec didn't take away from GE&T. Trading cards didn't screw over II. This is demonstrably not true as a rule. This proposed change will harm the GA. This Secretary General prank has been little more than frustration and trouble for the GA since it was created. Expanding it makes it worse. Expanding it at the cost of GA functionality and autonomy is a great way to let the GAers know their input is not a priority.
by SherpDaWerp » Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:58 pm
by Wallenburg » Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:38 pm
Flanderlion wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:No, improvements need not come at the expense of other communities. GenSec didn't take away from GE&T. Trading cards didn't screw over II. This is demonstrably not true as a rule. This proposed change will harm the GA. This Secretary General prank has been little more than frustration and trouble for the GA since it was created. Expanding it makes it worse. Expanding it at the cost of GA functionality and autonomy is a great way to let the GAers know their input is not a priority.
GenSec/Trading Cards came with dev time that could've instead been used of the long planned forum upgrade, so yeah, both did take away. I personally agree with the dev choices of pushing back the forum upgrade though.
I actually don't think the GA would get many vetoes, dependent on who won the election/it being implemented exactly as Sedge said, as the SC would receive the bulk of them (and there only being 2 a year). https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... ?start=335 would be something I would expect to be vetoed though, as the WA elite (which I'd expect to win an election like this in some form) was not a fan of Bitely. So personally, implementing it for the GA and SC vs just the SC I don't think would make a massive difference, it's more whether [v] wants to keep the two parts of the WA together, or is more in favour of the GA viewpoint of splitting them apart more.
by Wallenburg » Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:39 pm
SherpDaWerp wrote:As someone who ran a TG campaign in the last Sec-Gen election: the main reason there was so much spam going around was because there was, essentially, 4 elections in 4 days (I don't remember specifically but I remember sending 1 TG per round, and that added up to 4 TGs). Each one needed the player to vote in each round, which meant each round brought a full wave of campaign TGs. If the election was re-tooled to be, say, just 1 vote, then there'd only be 1 round of campaign TGs being sent, and only a quarter as much spam as last time.
That said, it seems to me that there's been a fair bit of demand for something to shake-up GP, and absolutely no demand for something to shake-up the WA, so you might find that you (Sedge/Admin) get more mileage out of proposing an improvement like this to a community that actually wants it.
by Flanderlion » Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:07 pm
Wallenburg wrote:That's not even remotely comparable to a change that actively harms the community, and no amount of mental gymnastics on your part will change that.
Wallenburg wrote:Yet another person who says "WA elite" and doesn't even know what they mean by that. That's not how the power dynamics of NationStates work. All the powers possessed by a mechanically relevant Sec-Gen would be used to most effectively benefit whichever GP faction controlled it, not to satisfy the stylistic and procedural standards of some shadowy cabal of WA regulars.
by Lord Dominator » Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:52 pm
Flanderlion wrote:As you would know more about the power dynamics of NS over the years (having spent half your time in a sub 100 nation UCR that now has literally one nation in it), I'll cede to your expert knowledge.
by Sanctaria » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:51 am
Sedgistan wrote:There's only one community being divisive and drawing battle lines here. The General Assembly is part of the major democratic feature of NationStates; expecting to use it without having to engage with the wider world of those members is unrealistic, and has never been the case. If you truly want a "GA for the GAers", you can roleplay it in the NationStates forum and scorinate your results. And you'll find there's about 3 of you interested in it. You get your activity because the GA impacts the wider world (reminder: GA resolutions affect the stats of thousands of nations even if they don't participate in the WA), and the result of that is the wider world is interested in the General Assembly.
by Sedgistan » Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:41 am
Sanctaria wrote:A lot of the GA community who've turned up in this thread have mentioned limiting its veto powers to the SC, or having it just for the SC. We're making suggestions to make the idea work, but still insulate the GA from further GP erosion. I don't think asking for compromise is the community being divisive or drawing battle lines.
Wallenburg wrote:I will add this: I think it says a lot that the mods never bothered to implement an easy, objectively good idea to improve the WA, but that this gets suggested as a worthy change to the WA instead.
SherpDaWerp wrote:As someone who ran a TG campaign in the last Sec-Gen election: the main reason there was so much spam going around was because there was, essentially, 4 elections in 4 days (I don't remember specifically but I remember sending 1 TG per round, and that added up to 4 TGs). Each one needed the player to vote in each round, which meant each round brought a full wave of campaign TGs. If the election was re-tooled to be, say, just 1 vote, then there'd only be 1 round of campaign TGs being sent, and only a quarter as much spam as last time.
by Flanderlion » Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:59 am
Sedgistan wrote:Flanderlion's point on re-ordering the proposal queue - I feel that could become too significant as by endlessly submitting half-decent proposals you could permanently block something ever coming to vote. Potentially avoidable if the S-G could only delay a proposal once for X days, but that constant control over the queue is still more power than I think would be ideal for the role.
by The Free Joy State » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:04 am
"Commend So-and-So" was abstained on by the World Assembly Secretary General.
by Sedgistan » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:08 am
Flanderlion wrote:Sedgistan wrote:Flanderlion's point on re-ordering the proposal queue - I feel that could become too significant as by endlessly submitting half-decent proposals you could permanently block something ever coming to vote. Potentially avoidable if the S-G could only delay a proposal once for X days, but that constant control over the queue is still more power than I think would be ideal for the role.
It's gone from too weak in OP to too strong now. But I still think being able to rush a liberation proposal of the Moon ahead of a commendation for Fratt without forcing authors to remove their proposals from the queue. Plus gives the role relevance outside of the one veto they use a term, plus the election. It won't stop a proposal from going to vote, but it will allow people to skip the queue. Most of the time there isn't even multiple proposals in the queue, but WA activity seems to come in floods and droughts.
by Bananaistan » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:15 am
Sedgistan wrote:Sanctaria wrote:A lot of the GA community who've turned up in this thread have mentioned limiting its veto powers to the SC, or having it just for the SC. We're making suggestions to make the idea work, but still insulate the GA from further GP erosion. I don't think asking for compromise is the community being divisive or drawing battle lines.
If you read back over the tone of posts from members of the GA community, you'll see the majority of them say little other than "we don't want GP shitting over the GA", which is drawing battle lines and being divisive from the start. It's somewhat disappointing that the most level-headed and well-reasoned counter argument to the GA being part of this comes from a player who hasn't been involved there for years - Unibot's. That post is persuasive.
by Flanderlion » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:20 am
Sedgistan wrote:Flanderlion wrote:It's gone from too weak in OP to too strong now. But I still think being able to rush a liberation proposal of the Moon ahead of a commendation for Fratt without forcing authors to remove their proposals from the queue. Plus gives the role relevance outside of the one veto they use a term, plus the election. It won't stop a proposal from going to vote, but it will allow people to skip the queue. Most of the time there isn't even multiple proposals in the queue, but WA activity seems to come in floods and droughts.
You're right I think I had a specific vision of the proposal queue ordering from reading one of the old discussion threads when I wrote the OP. It depends on how exactly it worked. It's also a bit obscure - the proposal queue is looked at by some WA buffs and Delegates, but not so much regular players. I'd like the S-G's influence to be visible to regular WA players.
by Sedgistan » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:39 am
Bananaistan wrote:Question. What's the point of the discussion? If it is to finetune an idea that's going to be implemented over the unanimous opposition of GAers, there's little point in continuing to engage.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: HeckinBorkus, Klaus Devestatorie, Riemstagrad
Advertisement