Advertisement
by Kylia Quilor » Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:33 pm
by Syberis » Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:02 pm
Kylia Quilor wrote:Yeah, pretty much all of this. One of the reasons I bowed out of that thread is how much it was clear the mods weren't listening.
The Founder has long been the best solution for preventing region destruction, and this notion not only massively penalizes this easy and simple solution to regional security but do nothing to solve the problem of nation distribution across the game and the problems of recruitment.
A sound statement by Europeia.
Zaolat wrote:WHO THE F*** IS SYBERIS
by Xoriet » Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:21 pm
by Kylia Quilor » Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:41 pm
by Tinhampton » Sat Aug 14, 2021 6:38 pm
Europeian Embassy wrote:(image reads "REPUBLIC OF EUROPEIA | OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT")
Recently, a proposal, tentatively called "Democracy / Autocracy", has sparked discussion in the technical forums of Nation States. The premise of the idea is that players in user created regions would be able to choose between having an executive founder, and thus regional security, or to receive a boost to recruitment by allowing newly created nations to spawn in their regions. While there has been some scattered pushback to this idea, as yet, the major concerns surrounding the changes have not been adequately addressed. Europeia acknowledges that there is a serious imbalance in the game right now that does need fixing, but this change does not come close to addressing those issues and instead appears to shoehorn R/D into the game, and to penalize anyone who doesn't wish to participate.
Europeian Embassy wrote:In contrast, those who prefer to keep their governmental systems in place in this political game, will, to their detriment, be required to do even more work manually recruiting nations, with the end result being keeping up will likely be impossible.
Europeian Embassy wrote:Many UCRs have noted recently that manual recruitment has been less effective than normal, and to propose a change that does nothing to address this issue, but forces regions to choose either this broken method of recruitment or to forego the security of their founder, seems like a move in the wrong direction.
Europeian Embassy wrote:Thus far, concerns have been waved aside, with no thought towards or even acknowledgement of the discrepancies laid out above. With Sedge acknowledging that one of the goals of the new system is the ability to permanently destroy communities, cultures, and decades worth of history, it is further alarming that this drastic change, is being advertised as a "relatively simple concept that doesn't make fundamental changes to the game's principles".
Europeian Embassy wrote:We feel that this is not only false, but incredibly misleading. Despite protests that this change is radical and doesn't address, but instead relies on, a broken system to create balance in the game, the only questions being pushed are about the system itself. No attempt is being made to reach a middle ground with these concerns. Indeed, concerns about recruitment, even though it is an important part of the successful implementation of this new system, are being shunted off to other threads with no visible support from NationStates moderators.
Europeian Embassy wrote:Refuge Isle states in the technical thread that "directly assessing the problem of recruitment is a far more useful strategy for admin to make changes in to improve UCR health and break up power accumulation in feeders." In this, Europeia agrees and supports Refuge Isle, alongside other comments they have made in that thread. Despite their thought-provoking rejoinders, the lead is consistently buried, the point missed, and...
Europeian Embassy wrote:...ultimately the way we enjoy NationStates currently, as sovereign political regions, roleplayers, card farmers, World Assembly loyalists, and issues-focused communities, among others, is being endangered.
Europeian Embassy wrote:Europeia is taking a stance against the changes proposed, and encourages other, like-minded nations and regions to join us in expressing our opposition to these changes, as we've been told that these options only remain on the table so long as they do remain well-received.
by Refuge Isle » Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:40 pm
by Sandaoguo » Sun Aug 15, 2021 6:36 am
Europeian Embassy wrote:Thus far, concerns have been waved aside, with no thought towards or even acknowledgement of the discrepancies laid out above. With Sedge acknowledging that one of the goals of the new system is the ability to permanently destroy communities, cultures, and decades worth of history...
by The Python » Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:46 pm
by Indusse » Sun Aug 15, 2021 7:49 pm
The Python wrote:Seconding this.
It's a much better solution just to add 3 - 5 more feeders and leave it at that.
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
------------------
by Andusre » Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:07 pm
HumanSanity — Today at 18:15
Yes you are a petty asshole lol
[RRA] Minskiev — Today at 03:57
I mean I'm sure Onder is a good enough actor to pull off gay zoomer scotsman
by The Stalker » Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:48 pm
by Xernon » Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:16 am
by Pajonia » Sat Aug 21, 2021 9:12 am
by Galiantus III » Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:47 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 » Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:53 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 Tinhampton » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:52 pm
by Comfed » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:55 pm
Tinhampton wrote:The EBC's recent article about the Presidential Election asserts that newly-elected President Lime's "main goal is to tackle the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold update."
Can we expect a significant change of tack from the Calvin Coolidge administration's hardline opposition to F/S - which ran so deep that it even convinced itself that the proposed reforms would "only remain on the table so long as they do remain well-received" - or is the Europeian political establishment overwhelmingly against the change in any event?
by Sincluda » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:51 pm
Tinhampton wrote:The EBC's recent article about the Presidential Election asserts that newly-elected President Lime's "main goal is to tackle the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold update."
Can we expect a significant change of tack from the Calvin Coolidge administration's hardline opposition to F/S - which ran so deep that it even convinced itself that the proposed reforms would "only remain on the table so long as they do remain well-received" - or is the Europeian political establishment overwhelmingly against the change in any event?
by Europeian Embassy » Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:25 pm
by The Python » Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:54 pm
by Wentshire » Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:23 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Avanastra
Advertisement