Sedgistan wrote:I'm going to raise "Regional Issues" as an idea here. It's something that gets occasionally mentioned, and that I've had thoughts on for years, but it's not an idea that's ever been developed much. Is it desirable? How would it work?
I had a couple of visions for it, both based around opting-in in some way - i.e. I do not think a system that obligated all regions to decide on issues would be a good idea. The first was a simple situation whereby a region could opt in to receive regional issues; the results then applied to all member nations. The second was to have a regional body - e.g. an "EU" type organisation, nations in that region can choose to join this - if they do then they are affected by the regional issues; kind of a localised WA. In either case, there's the potential for a few ways of making decisions, whether imposed by the regional leadership or through some sort of voting (member nations? WA member nations?).
Regional issues would provide some scope for addressing topics that don't work so well at the national level.
Seeing as there's a possiblility that this might happen, I figure this is worth discussing. Thus I present to you some ideas on how this might work.
The basic model: a new type of region?
First, this system would be separate from the existing regions. Instead, we’d have a special type of region;(1) we’ll call them ‘unions’ (ala the EU).(2)
A union would differ from a typical region in a few ways:
(a) The union doesn’t have an executive founder.
(b) The union has no business with the WA. No Delegate, no WA nations.
(c) Union nations are created specifically for that union and are tied to it.
(d) They have regional issues. Duh.
(1) You could have a system that exists adjacent to regions; however, it’d be easier to just use the existing infrastructure.
(2) I’m also partial to ‘federations.’
Union nations?
My thinking is that, rather than having existing nations opt into unions, you would make a brand-new nation for that union.
A union nation is just a normal nation aside from being tied to a union and being affected by union politics.
Why this system?
(a) Who would want an already existing nation to join a union? An established nation already has its own vision and identity. The union would just get in the way of that! Having a nation in the union would only be engaging if that was the point of the nation.
(b) Union nations being chained together means that there is potential for genuine conflict and politicking and as stakes are real. Dissatisfied nations can’t just walk away and a bigger faction can’t just kick out a smaller faction that's grinding their gears.(1)
(c) The fact that being in a union would influence your stats might mean that union nations get different treatment from other nations; e.g. aren’t included in the normal census rankings.
(d) Making new nations is fun! And this gives new players (EDIT: I meant to say old players, but come to think of it, new ones too) an engaging reason to do it, and to stick with their new puppets. It would also be fun seeing new unions start up with new nations and then grow and mature over time.
Players could be given access to a union by invitation or request.
Union nations would be tied to a WA nation so that a player can’t have multiple nations in one union.(2)
(1) If you wanted to really make things interesting, you would invite a bunch of people with different ideologies.
(2) Or, at least, multiple nations with voting privileges.
Regional issues?
Right. The thing we’re here for.
It seems there are a few ways to handle this (and we needn’t commit only to one).
(a) An issues system like the national issues system. Everyone now and again, the region is given issues from a random assortment, and everyone is given a period to vote for the decision they want.
(b) A GA-type resolution system. I’m thinking this would probably be the main way things happen. Nations can propose various policies, e.g: appropriating funds for things like education or health spending; policies like regional policy, which would favour the growth of poorer members at the expense of the wealthier; resolutions to e.g. raise environmental standards at the expense of industry (like GA resolutions, but with more impact); imposing national policies on member states, e.g. gun control (the policies available would be limited of course); etc.--I'm sure there's no shortage of possibilities here.
(d) Union officers? Union members could vote on officers or ministers who would be responsible for different things, which would give them special decision-making powers over their field.
Handling union finances could be a real can of worms, and there are other issues I can imagine, but I've said enough for now.
The above are just my musings of course; feel free to tell me why they're all terrible ideas!
