by Unibot III » Sat May 15, 2021 3:08 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 Davelands » Sat May 15, 2021 3:25 pm
by Unibot III » Sat May 15, 2021 4:32 pm
Davelands wrote:I have a thought, but no plan for this.
Influence has stagnated things, especially in the GCRs and larger UCRs. Whenever there is some R/D action or "other" event, everyone gathers together and ends it quickly.
Some options are: Only allowing nations in an embassy region defend or pile against a raid. Giving a raided region off for one update so both sides could consolidate and negotiate. ROs with BC would not be allowed to ban new nations in their region until the next major update. Eliminate the delay for a new WAD to appoint Border Control officers.
I'm sure there are a lot more (and probably better) ways to shake things up, but that's what I could come up with off the top of my head.
[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 » Sat May 15, 2021 5:11 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 Kylia Quilor » Sat May 15, 2021 5:14 pm
by Davelands » Sun May 16, 2021 5:16 am
Unibot III wrote:So just to be clear, I was opening the discussion here in NSGP because I was putting the question to NSGP whether there would things, without admin involvement, you’d like advanced?
by Unibot III » Sun May 16, 2021 10:24 am
A card based currency would only work insofar as people want cards badly enough to make it valuable, which might work, but would require so many people to buy in all at once and have no bad faith actors as to be impractical. Allowing players to not only transfer cards, but also transfer Bank could be a solution, but that again, is technical.
Kylia Quilor wrote:There's no way we could 'create' a GCR without the mods making it. What makes a GCR (not counting the Warzones) valuable real estate to many is the sheer size and prominence they possess due to being where nations are created, reborn or ejected too, and a lot of non-Gameplay Nations simply stay there, and endorse a delegate. We could make a region, let it go founderless and pretend it's a GCR all we want, it won't make it a GCR, and why would we even pretend?
[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 Bormiar » Sun May 16, 2021 10:56 am
by Kylia Quilor » Sun May 16, 2021 11:21 am
by Unibot III » Sun May 16, 2021 3:39 pm
Bormiar wrote:What's the benefit of an interregional currency? What services can be bought and sold? The services that require skills outside of NS (e.g. programming, graphic design) are either hoarded because it gives you an edge, or they're given away freely.
Kylia Quilor wrote:And I appreciate I missed the whole 'cards' thing being rolled out, but why A) does anyone need a 'card farming region' (as opposedto just doing it wherever) and B) why would a card farming region represent the valuable real estate of a GCR, or even close? I don't see people spending a lot of time raiding TCB's founderless card farming region, though I could be wrong.
[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 Bormiar » Sun May 16, 2021 4:18 pm
Unibot III wrote:Bormiar wrote:What's the benefit of an interregional currency? What services can be bought and sold? The services that require skills outside of NS (e.g. programming, graphic design) are either hoarded because it gives you an edge, or they're given away freely.
I think that's what has always held up the advent of an interregional currency - what is being marketed? You've hit it on the nail. It's been talked about for years.
I think it's an exciting idea, a marketplace region that would act as a hub for NSers to barter for something. But not sure what could be bartered. That's always what has stopped the creation of an economic system in NS in that private goods/labour is hoarded by communities.
I don't want to get hung up on this subject though if it's just unworkable.
by Kylia Quilor » Sun May 16, 2021 4:58 pm
by Unibot III » Tue May 18, 2021 7:30 am
Kylia Quilor wrote:The issue is, I think the last thing Gameplay needs right now is something that blurs the lines between regions even more. That's the very thing I think that's hurting the dynamism of the GP dynamic right now.
[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 Galiantus III » Fri May 21, 2021 1:59 pm
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 Great Algerstonia » Fri May 21, 2021 2:57 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 Frattastan IV » Fri May 21, 2021 3:59 pm
Galiantus III wrote:Political Parties
Political parties fail at a regional level because that's what happens when you can just go off on your own and found a region where you have ultimate power. You disagree with the majority? Then leave. For the most part, everyone in a region has a basic agreement why they're there and what they're doing. Consequently, any conflict tends to be born out of toxicity, instead of anything meaningful.
Galiantus III wrote:Perhaps if we ignored R&D and considered conflicts from a more diplomatic or territorial perspective, we'd get what we want.
Draganisia wrote:Also it seems the next war could be NPO fighting directly against Pacifica.
by Galiantus III » Fri May 21, 2021 5:55 pm
Frattastan IV wrote:imo, parties fail at a regional level because they have no reason to exist. Most NS communities are too small to require intermediation from parties to organise political participation. If people are interested in politics it's easier for them to get directly involved and express their positions with as much nuance they want. A 'membership card' won't help them. Any party will be outclassed by informal and temporary groups that people form over specific issues and enter and exit at will. "everyone in a region has a basic agreement" is somewhat true in the sense that our regions are much much less complex than actual societies.
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 Unibot III » Sat May 22, 2021 10:39 am
Great Algerstonia wrote:Thered have to be quite the "world adjustment" for rock paper scissors to be a group game.
[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 Kylia Quilor » Sat May 22, 2021 11:23 am
Galiantus III wrote:
If I had to guess, I'd say the energy that would be spent on factions is being consumed by military gameplay. Obviously we can consider "raiders" and "defenders" factions of their own, but they don't really match what we want from factions. When we talk about factions, we are referring to our desire for compelling conflict that originated organically an led to use of force. I think we assign higher quality to that type of conflict than the conflict in pursuit of conflict that is R&D. Perhaps if we ignored R&D and considered conflicts from a more diplomatic or territorial perspective, we'd get what we want.
by Galiantus III » Sat May 22, 2021 1:07 pm
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 Unibot III » Sat May 22, 2021 5:08 pm
Kylia Quilor wrote:NSGP as a whole needs to decide what it is. Because it's not really political anymore.
[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 Kylia Quilor » Sun May 23, 2021 4:24 am
by Unibot III » Sun May 23, 2021 9:47 am
Kylia Quilor wrote:Well of course you'd support internationalism as a cure to all ills, Unibot. I think we should be going the other direction.
[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 Sailiopia » Sun May 23, 2021 10:18 am
Unibot III wrote:Kylia Quilor wrote:NSGP as a whole needs to decide what it is. Because it's not really political anymore.
I think it goes back to the rights culture/framework - if you acknowledge the presence of rights, claims, sovereignty, and/or freedoms, you have a political dynamic of sorts. Without it, you're not really acknowledging any sort of natural law.
It feels today like the game is kind of drained of its normative content - the should, if you will. But it's the should's and the ought's, the can's and cannot's, the mine's and yours' - that plays a driving role in the political sub-game.
Today's game feels like regional governments operate on a smaller scale as kind of cultural adminstrators -- facilitating small mini-games, events, and help guides -- like they're campus orientation coordinators or something. Players don't seem to often think in bigger terms of the state and its obligations or the right of claim to power and sovereignty. This transition began when it became more popular for people to talk about "community" rather than "government" as a reaction to the big geopolitics of the Cold War. The pendulum swung back so hard from the Cold War that it's due for a course correction.
However, I am unsure whether such a reversal would be popular - there are a lot of advocates for the status quo who positively regard today's apolitical (laid back, self-aware etc.) game as free of interpersonal conflict and toxicity. I think a more palatable start might be more organized international conferences and an international organization.
by Kylia Quilor » Sun May 23, 2021 10:29 am
Unibot III wrote:Kylia Quilor wrote:Well of course you'd support internationalism as a cure to all ills, Unibot. I think we should be going the other direction.
What NS has now is neither internationalism nor isolationism nor regionalism. There is profuse intercommunication, interconnectivity, and cultural and military cooperation between established circles — more so than any other time in the history of NSGP in my opinion.
In a way, we are all cosmopolitans, but we are not cosmopolitan: liberalism is dead, imperialism is dead, rationalism is dead, idealism is dead. What remains is a postliberalist ideology that remains nameless by contemporaries.
I think I and others have been assuming that NSGP has drifted away from ideology, but I’m starting to think that the past ways of thinking have just been replaced with a new ideology that has not been named. A lot of people are very passionate about the status quo, to a point that it suggests ideological conviction.
We’re essentially operating in an antidrama. The new ideology is clear:
- The reduction of the game into “bad” players (e.g., fascists, right wing Trumpists, racists, creeps, Nazis, and sexual and verbal abusers) and “good” players (e.g., everyone else) which is turns means the rejection of traditional roleplaying, protagonism and antagonism.
- Strict non-aggression and non-intervention towards “good” states and parties.
- Pariahism and active ostracization of “bad” states and parties.
- A redefinition of the state as chiefly a facilitator of cultural activity possessing no real international agency.
- The absence of regional self-identification stifles the development of an ethnic regionalism or patriotic sentiment. But the inherent rightlessness and exclusive citizenship of these communities also stifles the development of a civic regionalism or constitutional patriotism.
- A learned passiveness — deference to social gatekeepers and entrepreneurs.
For a lack of a better term, I’ll just call it Oocism. Oocists are everyone! And I think they genuinely believe that the game they’ve helped to reconstruct is a better game specifically in that it does not have a lot of drama. If you don’t believe in rights or citizenship or empire or identify with your region in a meaningful way, what you have left is an antidrama that resists the traditional elements of NSGP that were a source of interpersonal conflict and disagreement.
NS cannot successfully turn to tech-based solutions to what is fundamentally a people problem. I used to dislike dualism — I saw it as a social strategy to deny responsibility for unlawfulness. But today’s NS is much more thoroughly oocist than even five years ago — players fear that inviting in-game identity and values back into NSGP is a road to toxic behaviour, they don’t even want to be seen agreeing with the notion because they might be associated in doing so with the wrong people. You may be right, CQ, that I lean to heavily in seeing conferences and internationalism and liberal democracy too much as an antidote, but I don’t agree that big D-defenders are the problem — big D-defenders are non existent.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bisofeyr
Advertisement