New SC Categories (+ survey!)

[Unibot III]

Sedge suggested that new SC categories was on his list for consideration, and I think it's an important conversation for the WA Security Council. We haven't seen the introduction of new SC categories since 2009. The current SC categories are very limited and mostly cosmetic. The SC's activity has waxed and waned, with periods of stagnation, in part due to its limited scope.

New SC categories could be whimsy or purposeful (directed towards problems in NSGP), but in general the rule of thumb is they have to respect the primacy of founders over the WA. The other general rule of thumb is that resolutions should be a double-edged sword that can be used for "good" and "bad."

I wanted to open up a new discussion over what kind of new SC categories could be viable.

---

I'll propose a few ideas (they've been proposed before):

Document (Types: Memorandum, Agreement, Convention). The title of the resolution would not be fixed (a la the GA). It would be a blank canvass resolution type that could be used for international laws against stuff like Queue Raiding, or international agreements like the Peacekeeping Agreement in Lazarus.

Embargo. "Embargo ____" resolutions would resign member-states from the WA after a nominal amount of time (10 secs) if they move into an embargoed founderless UCR region. Member-states that resided in the embargoed region before the resolution was proposed would be grandfathered. Effectively this proposal would act as a last-resort mechanism to curb invasion piling but with significant risks and challenges for defenders.



I've written a lot about the Embargo category and we had a good discussion on it last year.

Restriction. "Restrict _____" resolutions would restrict ROs in nominee regions from being given border controls by the WA Delegate. The purpose is to restrict the ability of delegates to 'pool' their influence in crisis situations, by delegating bans and ejections to their ROs.

Mediation. "Mediate ____" resolutions would flip non-executive WA regions to being executive WA regions. Founders could flick the region back to being non-executive with a tick of a box, although repeat legislation could flip it back - and if founders CTE'd, the region would become an executive WA region again. What's the purpose of the resolution? The reality is there are boatloads of regions that have been hawked/griefed (like Macedon's old regions) that collect dust with inactive founders that are logged into automatically by a script. These resolutions would allow the WA to catch those hawkers/griefers off guard.

I've proposed Mediation before as "Democratization."

---

Earlier in March, I commissioned a small poll here in Technical regarding the popularity of each category proposed in this thread discussion.

RESULTS:

Thank you to the 32 respondents that took the survey.

Basically, all the proposed categories received more than majority support (excluding No Opinions), except "Dismissal." Impeachment and Document were significantly more popular than other proposed categories - likely because they do not impact Military Gameplay. The "No Opinion" vote was highest for 'Custodian' and lowest for "Expulsion."



Approval rating (minus No Opinion)
Impeachment: 88.89%
Document: 65.38%
Custodian: 62.50%
Restriction: 56.00%
Mediation: 55.56%
Embargo: 53.57%
Expulsion: 53.33%
Dismissal: 35.71%

[Comfed]

Mediation should be permanent, but I like all of them. Any other shiny badge ideas?

[Unibot III]

Mediation should be permanent, but I like all of them. Any other shiny badge ideas?

I love shiny badge ideas. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I've imagined the document badge before as being near blank.

The "Executive" and "Border Control" symbols could be a source of inspiration. With Mediation having a parthenon, and Restriction having a shield. Incidentially, I've made those symbols before for badge proposals before.

Subtitles, hmm...

Restrict - A resolution to limit executive powers to a delegate or founder
Embargo - A resolution to restrict freedom of movement to a region
Document - A resolution to establish international law
Mediate - A resolution to confer executive powers to a delegate

In a way there's a nice symmetry to it. Embaroes are (kind of) the opposite of Liberations. Restrictions are (kind of) the opposite of Mediations. One opens up movement, one limits it. One gives border control powers to someone, the other takes it away.

[Merni]

Mediation. "Mediate ____" resolutions would flip non-executive WA regions to being executive WA regions. Founders could flick the region back to being non-executive with a tick of a box, although repeat legislation could flip it back - and if founders CTE'd, the region would become an executive WA region again. What's the purpose of the resolution? The reality is there are boatloads of regions that have been hawked/griefed (like Macedon's old regions) that collect dust with inactive founders that are logged into automatically by a script. These resolutions would allow the WA to catch those hawkers/griefers off guard.

Can an SC resolution, with a 4-7 day period from submission to passing, plus presumably drafting time, catch anyone off guard?

[Lorrana]

Mediation. "Mediate ____" resolutions would flip non-executive WA regions to being executive WA regions. Founders could flick the region back to being non-executive with a tick of a box, although repeat legislation could flip it back - and if founders CTE'd, the region would become an executive WA region again. What's the purpose of the resolution? The reality is there are boatloads of regions that have been hawked/griefed (like Macedon's old regions) that collect dust with inactive founders that are logged into automatically by a script. These resolutions would allow the WA to catch those hawkers/griefers off guard.

Can an SC resolution, with a 4-7 day period from submission to passing, plus presumably drafting time, catch anyone off guard?

Yeah, by the time the resolution is passed, the hawkers/griefers are already finished.

[Unibot III]

Mediation. "Mediate ____" resolutions would flip non-executive WA regions to being executive WA regions. Founders could flick the region back to being non-executive with a tick of a box, although repeat legislation could flip it back - and if founders CTE'd, the region would become an executive WA region again. What's the purpose of the resolution? The reality is there are boatloads of regions that have been hawked/griefed (like Macedon's old regions) that collect dust with inactive founders that are logged into automatically by a script. These resolutions would allow the WA to catch those hawkers/griefers off guard.

Can an SC resolution, with a 4-7 day period from submission to passing, plus presumably drafting time, catch anyone off guard?

Short answer is yes. There are a lot of hawked regions being occupied by people who don’t even play the game anymore. All they need is a script to keep going.

Active invaders, obviously would not be impacted by a resolution category like this, but it’s a very different story for ‘ancestral’ occupations & hawked regions.

The WASC has some history with these kinds of situations. With “Liberate ‘Greece’” for instance, we openly liberated Greece, in broad daylight, knowing it was only a matter of time before Yanua returned. The region was freed because the international community was able to catch Yanua off guard eventually in one of their slumbers.

[Sedgistan]

Document - no issue with these, I think players could be quite creative with a blank slate.

Embargo - haven't formulated a view on it. I don't think the original thread got enough experienced current R/D input on it for the idea to have been fully explored yet.

Restriction - same as Embargo, it needs a lot more current R/D input.

Mediation - strikes me as going against your "respect the primacy of founders" standard. It's looking for a way to undermine founders in situations you dislike.

The one I've mentioned a bit lately is "Expulsion" whereby the WA bans a nation from the WA. It just feels appropriate for the WA to have that power, and there are lots of interesting ways it could be used. However, my primary concern is that it would stifle those that play NS in different ways to the mainstream. NS has enough stability/stagnation already.

"Impeach" is something brought up in the Secretary-General thread that might be worth implementing, depending on the term lengths and powers of the S-G position.

Some people may remember "Custodian" from the R/D Summit many years ago - the WA appointing a "Custodian" in a region that has full Executive authority (when the Founder isn't present) but has to spend influence. I'm not as keen on this as I once was, as there's a more comprehensive set of changes I'd like to see that would render this mostly unnecessary (related to the Democracy/Oligarchy/Autocracy idea first raised by Violet a few years back).

[The Python]

Another idea would be "overthrow". This would ban a certain nation from having any authority over a region - for example, it would force them to not be WA delegate, resign them as RO, make the region founderless if it's a founder etc.

[Comfed]

Another idea would be "overthrow". This would ban a certain nation from having any authority over a region - for example, it would force them to not be WA delegate, resign them as RO, make the region founderless if it's a founder etc.

That sounds nice except for the overthrow the founder bit.

[The Python]

Another idea would be "overthrow". This would ban a certain nation from having any authority over a region - for example, it would force them to not be WA delegate, resign them as RO, make the region founderless if it's a founder etc.

That sounds nice except for the overthrow the founder bit.

it would be so that like fascist regions can be raided.

[Toerana]

That sounds nice except for the overthrow the founder bit.

it would be so that like fascist regions can be raided.

The WA taking the founder's region away from them is inherently flawed.

[Unibot III]

@Sedge: I agree with the input thing, I’d like to hear more input from active R/Ders on those categories. For mediation, I think the primacy of founders is respected in that they can flip executive status back — it’s up to founders whether they want to invest the time & energy to undermine long term mediation campaigns. The SC has successfully taken on founders like Yanua before, but they should be given the upper hand over the SC.

Out of your ideas...

- Impeach seems like a no brainer!
- I’m not too keen on expulsion because I think it could have too widespread of impacts on NSGP. You could expel leads, coupers etc. I also think it could be used to essentially harass players that a large community decides they have issues with it.
- I’ve never really cared for the “Custodian” idea because I think it just feels redundant in a world with delegates, ROs, and a defender community ready to assist where needed. I dunno.

[Zandilund]

it would be so that like fascist regions can be raided.

The WA taking the founder's region away from them is inherently flawed.

Exactly. The WA can basically destroy invader regions, then we have no more R/D game.

[Eshialand]

it would be so that like fascist regions can be raided.

The WA taking the founder's region away from them is inherently flawed.

In cases where an innocent region was refounded by a raider, it may indeed be necessary. Of course, it would have to be used sparingly and with discretion. It would probably find itself in a similar position to liberations, which don't come up often, but are occasionally necessary.

The WA taking the founder's region away from them is inherently flawed.

Exactly. The WA can basically destroy invader regions, then we have no more R/D game.

The Security Council would never pass an overthrow in an actual raider region.

[GruffyRichard and HillbillyBob]

The WA taking the founder's region away from them is inherently flawed.

Exactly. The WA can basically destroy invader regions, then we have no more R/D game.

Agreed.

[Zandilund]

The WA taking the founder's region away from them is inherently flawed.

In cases where an innocent region was refounded by a raider, it may indeed be necessary. Of course, it would have to be used sparingly and with discretion. It would probably find itself in a similar position to liberations, which don't come up often, but are occasionally necessary.

Exactly. The WA can basically destroy invader regions, then we have no more R/D game.

The Security Council would never pass an overthrow in an actual raider region.

True. Some deeper thought and you'll realize that the SC will never overthrow a raider region.

Still, why take a founder's region away from them? A region should be owned by its founder while it still exists, to allow the WA to take away their authority is wrong.

[The Python]

In cases where an innocent region was refounded by a raider, it may indeed be necessary. Of course, it would have to be used sparingly and with discretion. It would probably find itself in a similar position to liberations, which don't come up often, but are occasionally necessary.The Security Council would never pass an overthrow in an actual raider region.

True. Some deeper thought and you'll realize that the SC will never overthrow a raider region.

Still, why take a founder's region away from them? A region should be owned by its founder while it still exists, to allow the WA to take away their authority is wrong.

Because fash bad.
And, as Eshialand said, sometimes it's needed if raiders refounded a region.

[Thermodolia]

I love the document and embargo types

[Zandilund]

True. Some deeper thought and you'll realize that the SC will never overthrow a raider region.

Still, why take a founder's region away from them? A region should be owned by its founder while it still exists, to allow the WA to take away their authority is wrong.

Because fash bad.

The founder deserves control of their region, even if it becomes an enemy to basically all NS regions.

I dislike the mediate idea since it also takes power away from the founder, but the others seem fine.

[Southern Xenick]

True. Some deeper thought and you'll realize that the SC will never overthrow a raider region.

Still, why take a founder's region away from them? A region should be owned by its founder while it still exists, to allow the WA to take away their authority is wrong.

Because fash bad.
And, as Eshialand said, sometimes it's needed if raiders refounded a region.

Thats the best you can do?

[United Calanworie]

True. Some deeper thought and you'll realize that the SC will never overthrow a raider region.

Still, why take a founder's region away from them? A region should be owned by its founder while it still exists, to allow the WA to take away their authority is wrong.

Because fash bad.
And, as Eshialand said, sometimes it's needed if raiders refounded a region.

It will not just get used against fascists. Sure, that might be your original hope for it, but that's not going to be how it works out in the end. It will be used to target anybody the controlling bloc of the SC has an issue with. And with the Partnership for Sovereignty and other Defender-led WA blocs, that would likely mean raider regions as well.

I'm not saying it would definitely happen, but it's certainly something to consider before you say "well we need a tool to target fascists."

Also, all the tools you need to handle fascists are already present in the SC. Liberate the region, wait for the founder to get DEAT/puppetswept as they usually do, because fash are terrible at playing by the rules.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Document (Types: Memorandum, Agreement, Convention). The title of the resolution would not be fixed (a la the GA). It would be a blank canvass resolution type that could be used for international laws against stuff like Queue Raiding, or international agreements like the Peacekeeping Agreement in Lazarus.

By laws, what do you mean here? Something like a condemnation of a practice or support for an agreement, perhaps?

Embargo. "Embargo ____" resolutions would resign member-states from the WA after a nominal amount of time (10 secs) if they move into an embargoed founderless UCR region. Member-states that resided in the embargoed region before the resolution was proposed would be grandfathered. Effectively this proposal would act as a last-resort mechanism to curb invasion piling but with significant risks and challenges for defenders.

(Image)

I've written a lot about the Embargo category and we had a good discussion on it last year.

Opposed, completely. This is essentially making it easy for defenders, and the whole “significant risks” is bullshit. Like they do with liberations, they’ll simply write up a basic template and submit it as soon as a region is raided. In your proposal, raiders would only have their initial updaters, which due to security risks will almost always be smaller, combined with the fact that even if you had 30, 40 or even 50 updaters, defenders can easily siege you out due to the way influence works. The vast majority of defenders can easily get in in 10 seconds and their triggers on several liberations I’ve faced were less than 10 seconds in recent times.

There is one other thing. The way to counter this from our side would be more update bending. If we update bend we don’t even need to ban anyone and it’d just be a game of “who can dump more puppets right before update”. Which still isn’t ideal. There is no need for this, and I don’t see this bringing any positive change.

Restriction. "Restrict _____" resolutions would restrict ROs in nominee regions from being given border controls by the WA Delegate. The purpose is to restrict the ability of delegates to 'pool' their influence in crisis situations, by delegating bans and ejections to their ROs.

What? How would this even work, would every nation in a region be barred from being given BC? Would an individual nation be barred from doing so? Again, why is this a good idea except making things even easier for defenders?

Mediation. "Mediate ____" resolutions would flip non-executive WA regions to being executive WA regions. Founders could flick the region back to being non-executive with a tick of a box, although repeat legislation could flip it back - and if founders CTE'd, the region would become an executive WA region again. What's the purpose of the resolution? The reality is there are boatloads of regions that have been hawked/griefed (like Macedon's old regions) that collect dust with inactive founders that are logged into automatically by a script. These resolutions would allow the WA to catch those hawkers/griefers off guard.

I've proposed Mediation before as "Democratization."

As long as the founder is able to undo it, this one I like.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

How about:
Liberations, but for nations.

[Honeydewistania]

Documents seem completely superfluous. There isn't even the ego boosting that comes with condemns or commends. It'll make more sense to just put everything into dispatches, like how things are now.

[Crowheim]

No to the documents, and no to the mediation which seems very complex.

I like embargo and restriction, though, so support for those two.