by Unibot III » Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:42 am
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Unibot III » Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:06 am
Comfed wrote:Mediation should be permanent, but I like all of them. Any other shiny badge ideas?
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Merni » Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:25 am
Unibot III wrote: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.
by Lorrana » Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:29 am
Merni wrote:Unibot III wrote: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?
News Headlines: Year of civil unrest in Lorrana is officially over; Worldvision Song Contest takes place in Valletta
by Unibot III » Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:31 am
Merni wrote:Unibot III wrote: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?
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Sedgistan » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:09 pm
by The Python » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:17 pm
by Comfed » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:20 pm
The Python wrote: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.
by The Python » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:22 pm
Comfed wrote:The Python wrote: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.
by Toerana » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:24 pm
by Unibot III » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:28 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Zandilund » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:29 pm
by Eshialand » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:33 pm
The Security Council would never pass an overthrow in an actual raider region.
by GruffyRichard and HillbillyBob » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:34 pm
by Zandilund » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:39 pm
Eshialand wrote:Toerana wrote: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 Security Council would never pass an overthrow in an actual raider region.Zandilund wrote:
Exactly. The WA can basically destroy invader regions, then we have no more R/D game.
by The Python » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:44 pm
Zandilund wrote:Eshialand wrote: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.
by Thermodolia » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:47 pm
by Zandilund » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:50 pm
The Python wrote:Zandilund wrote:
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.
by Southern Xenick » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:50 pm
Thats the best you can do?The Python wrote:Zandilund wrote:
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.
Relations cease with UDAF | International trade ramped up, GDP expected to 13% increase in 10 years | Nation ar war with Meretica and South olpen
by United Calanworie » Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:11 pm
The Python wrote:Zandilund wrote:
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.
by A Bloodred Moon » Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:02 am
Unibot III wrote: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.
(Image)
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."
by The Unified Missourtama States » Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:09 am
by Honeydewistania » Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:20 am
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Crowheim » Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:12 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bali Kingdom, Bureatania, Chaotic Sparkles, Ecclestia, Germany of Chalegre, James R Kennedy, Loveable Dogs, New Doggerlund, Osmauri, Ostrovskiy, Quebecshire, The Koryoan Union, United Orange Valley States, Watermelon Cat
Advertisement