Regional Issues - Please Wipe Drool Before Entering.

[Unibot]

Okay so this is a re-post on Regional Issues from here > http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p ... stcount=61

The basic idea is that a delegate would receive 'regional issues' in a regional issue box and would answer them for his region.

A region could have three factors (much like civil rights and economy factors for nations) to decide what government category your region would fall in. The factors are based on civil rights, (except now's its nation's rights), economy (except now its called trade), and political freedoms (okay, defence has little to do with it).

The factors would be

Trade, interregional trade relations ( a divided region, one under war, would have terrible trade relations between nations)

National Soverienty , regional conformity, diversity, (prohibting nations from doing something would lower their soverienty)

Defence, intraregional relations (concepts like isolation and iron curtains)

The system could be mostly behind closed doors, there's no need to have a ranking system on our regions' factbooks for good, bad, or whatever, just a simple tag that says your region's political category. Also the effect tags of these regional issues would appear in your regional happenings.

Here's a rough Ideocube of some possible regional categories...




_________________________________________________

I needed something to do with my regional categories to "justify" all of that hard work (nudge. nudge.) I put into that graph. So here's a fun
NationStates-esque quiz which determines your region's regional category.

(By the way, my region, the Eastern Islands of Dharma is classified as "Moralistic Alliance", just so yeh know!)

[Sirocco]

Moving to Technical so more people can tear it down. And then build it back up again. Don't think I don't know you people.

EDIT: just to make things clear, I'm leaving this for you guys to play about with. I've got my own ideas for regional issues which are very different. I'll share them later.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I'm not too sure that I see the point of this idea. What would it accomplish?

[Erastide]

As a Gameplayer, I'm not that enthused about having someone trying to categorize regional styles of government through a set of issues. Especially given that regions can change delegates pretty easily, and sometimes even style of governing.

[Marcuslandia]

I'm not too sure that I see the point of this idea. What would it accomplish?

I'm with him. I see more "exceptions" than I see "the rule".

[Unibot]

EDIT: just to make things clear, I'm leaving this for you guys to play about with. I've got my own ideas for regional issues which are very different. I'll share them later.

Oooh Mod Secrets....

[Unibot]

As a Gameplayer, I'm not that enthused about having someone trying to categorize regional styles of government through a set of issues. Especially given that regions can change delegates pretty easily, and sometimes even style of governing.

We categorize nations through a set of issues?

And yes, the person you have as delegate would make a big difference. Some delegates would be nice and consult the others in regions before answering (Giving some more use to RMBs) and others would be dictatorial (and probably risk having their region pissed at them).

I'm not too sure that I see the point of this idea. What would it accomplish?

A new dimension of play for regions, something to develop and shape a community more than was previous done.

[Erastide]

I think the problem with it though is that regions already do that through offsite forums. Whole governments and communities are formed there that have a lot more complexity than a regional issue could capture. Also I would worry the issues would be satirical with random outcomes similar to normal issues.

There's a whole other game possibility here, in regards to regional issues choosing options for the region similar to what the SC is discussing, but I'm not entirely sure we're heading in that direction for NS.

[Marcuslandia]

When the SPHere had 73 members we also had an off-site forum. Try as we might to get, we just could NOT get some serious activity going there. We had a Constitutional Convention going. We had "Politics in Real Life" discussion threads. We had "Issues of the day" threads. We tried opinion polling....We tried a LOT of things to get people interested. But it started with just the same six people talking with one another. Then it was five. Then four. Then three.... When it got to the sound of one hand clapping, I stopped visiting the forum.

If there was something inside the game that nudged players to at least glance at the region around him, perhaps that could get people to interact with one another more.

Couldn't hurt....could it?

[Tanaara]

I don't drool, thank you very much, but I will strop my claws...

I am going to presume to speak for my region yet again, but I think I have some idea of how we float.

We have no reional WA Delegate, we have - out of our 15 nations - 1( yes only 1) WA member nation. The rest of us aren't and as I have mentioned elsewhere don't want to be. We also don't necessarily want the nation that is a WA member speaking for the rest of us.

1) So, having no WA Delegate, how does this effect us? Would our Founder answer the questions instead?

2) You spoke of being at war. War with whom, and how? Region against region, individual nations versus individual nation(s) - As in an on-going RP'ed war, part of the raider/ defender section?

3) Trade relations? How would this be judged? Again by the Founder/ Delegate saying that the nations do or don't?

3) Having my Founder ( who I do think, very personally, is a swell guy ) decide issues that would affect my nation? Ah no way in the not so proverbial Hell! I don't want the WA to do it, and I would resent mightily my Founder trying to do it though some sort of regional issues.( because by golly if I want to use coal, I don't want the next nation over deciding for me )

So my vote is a flat out unchanging NO!

Now I am going to address another presumption that seems endemic to the people proposing these things.

Not every region has some sort of regional government.

Fatal Terrain does not - Our region has always played that while the Founder has the right to go into regional controls, he has NO control over our nations. There is no regional government, so over arcing regional politics. Some of our nations barely acknowledge the others existance.

[Valipac]

The complexities of a good offsite regional forum can not be adequately translated into regional issues.

[Unibot]

1) So, having no WA Delegate, how does this effect us? Would our Founder answer the questions instead?

2) You spoke of being at war. War with whom, and how? Region against region, individual nations versus individual nation(s) - As in an on-going RP'ed war, part of the raider/ defender section?

3) Trade relations? How would this be judged? Again by the Founder/ Delegate saying that the nations do or don't?

3) Having my Founder ( who I do think, very personally, is a swell guy ) decide issues that would affect my nation? Ah no way in the not so proverbial Hell! I don't want the WA to do it, and I would resent mightily my Founder trying to do it though some sort of regional issues.( because by golly if I want to use coal, I don't want the next nation over deciding for me )

1) I suppose it might work like that. I also just had an idea, that regional issues could circulate to different members of the region - using their regional influence as the indicator at how often they would receive an issue.

2) No war. I might be a regional issue - like if an issue brings up international strife.

3) Trade would be a rating, so if the delegate/founder opted in regional issues to increase the border security or tariffs in the region - the trade rating would lower for example.

4) First of all, it would be something any decent founder/delegate would consult first on the RMB. However I think this highlights an issue though that was brought up earlier, the nation's stats probably shouldn't be effected - its just wrong for members of feeders especially. So I retracted my earlier statement about nation's stats being effected, only these mythical regional stats would be effected by the Regional Issues.

The complexities of a good offsite regional forum can not be adequately translated into regional issues.

Its not a replacement, its an accelerant.

[Marcuslandia]

I'm feeling a little drift going on.

"Regional issues" could have a couple of distinctly different meaning. One may be an issue that is something that requires everyone in the region to deal with. I can't see how that would work. The simple process -- and therefore the one most likely to be employed -- would be for a regional representative to field the issue. One speaks for many. In which case, you're only really getting one player's reaction.

The other way is to present any number of nations in the region an issue to field how _their_ region deals with the issue at hand. Like, we're a Tibet-like nation in a region that has everybody agitating for war. What do our citizens think about that? What should we do? How does our chosen course of action affect our nation? Or the heavily-industrialized nation next door is fouling up _our_ environment? What are we going to do about it? Or, we are a heavily-industrialized nation that needs that industry to keep the Economy ticking. And now the eco-freaks next door demand that we reduce our pollution dumping! Do we oblige them, or tell them to take a flying leap?

I see lots of potential in that second category.

[Unibot]

The other way is to present any number of nations in the region an issue to field how _their_ region deals with the issue at hand. Like, we're a Tibet-like nation in a region that has everybody agitating for war. What do our citizens think about that? What should we do? How does our chosen course of action affect our nation? Or the heavily-industrialized nation next door is fouling up _our_ environment? What are we going to do about it? Or, we are a heavily-industrialized nation that needs that industry to keep the Economy ticking. And now the eco-freaks next door demand that we reduce our pollution dumping! Do we oblige them, or tell them to take a flying leap?

I hadn't thought of that. Possibly the average of the issues results would be used to determine its effects to the hypothetical regional category?

So let's say in an issue that deals with National Soveigntry

35% of the region goes with the option to increase National Sovereignty minorly.
60% of the region goes with the option to decrease National Sovereignty significantly.
5 % of the region goes with the option to increase National Sovereignty heavily.

That would average out as to decrease National Sovereignty quite a bit.

Of course, because some people are slackers when it comes to issues. There would have to be a time limit on answering the regional issue. Maybe the time limit could be set by the founder/delegate.

[Marcuslandia]

As you say at the end, players play at different speeds. Some are doing issues twice a day. (Me, for instance.) Others do only one every few days. How do you get them all on the same page? Then consider how many would simply dismiss the issue. How can you affect the entire region on something if only 20% give actual feedback?

Presented across the region, you would end up have the nature of any given nation being tweaked by the nations around it. I think it safe to say the large majority of players wouldn't stand for that. Their nations are _their_ nations, and damned if they will let someone else shape _their_ nation!

So that brings it back to addressing the individual player in the form of, "This is what is going on around you. What are you going to do about it?"

[Nolishiwan]

How about letting the regional issues aside as a whole and just display what the average is in a given region?

If we have a region with 3 countries,
one with
--few civil rights
--fragile economy
--outlawed political rights,
one with
--average civil rigths
--basket case economy
--world benchmark political rights
and one with
--below average civil rigths
--thriving economy
--superb political rights
the region would then have the average, meaning
--below average civil rigths
--not really good economy
--acceptable good political rights.

Maybe give regional influence a role there too..

[Naivetry]

I don't have any problem with regional issues, provided the following:

1) They work just like national issues (read: completely irrelevant for military/political Gameplay), except they post and display on the region page. Maybe just under the WFE.
2) They don't affect national stats.
3) As far as the code is concerned, only one player answers them. (Makes it more feasible.)

Potential drawbacks:
1) Difficulty coding, writing a whole new set of issues.
2) No others. If you don't like it, you can ignore it. If you don't have a WA Delegate (or Founder), you won't have any more control over it than you do your WFE, but you'll just have to live with that.

Potential niftiness:
1) Something else for the Founder/WA Delegate to play with.

a) Possibly it could be used by Founders, but if not...
b) It could be a WA Delegate-only thing, which the Founder could not use or prevent the WA Delegate from using (which would give non-griefer raiders something more to play with than the WFE).

2) Provide an in-game outlet for regional decision-making, apart from the WA. This is the biggest potential benefit, from my point of view. If the region gets to decide "international" policy amongst its own members, then they will immediate see the region as a group entity involved in group decision-making (or not, as the case may be), which may make it easier to get them involved in any off-site government or community that does exist.

[Erastide]

As you say at the end, players play at different speeds. Some are doing issues twice a day. (Me, for instance.) Others do only one every few days. How do you get them all on the same page? Then consider how many would simply dismiss the issue. How can you affect the entire region on something if only 20% give actual feedback?

I would say a week, just like the WA vote length would be appropriate.

[Unibot]

1) They work just like national issues (read: completely irrelevant for military/political Gameplay), except they post and display on the region page. Maybe just under the WFE.
2) They don't affect national stats.
3) As far as the code is concerned, only one player answers them. (Makes it more feasible.)

Potential drawbacks:
1) Difficulty coding, writing a whole new set of issues.
2) No others. If you don't like it, you can ignore it. If you don't have a WA Delegate (or Founder), you won't have any more control over it than you do your WFE, but you'll just have to live with that.

This is sort of how I had planned it to work earlier.

Oh, and I suggested that the issue's result would pop up in the Regional Happennings.

Provide an in-game outlet for regional decision-making, apart from the WA. This is the biggest potential benefit, from my point of view. If the region gets to decide "international" policy amongst its own members, then they will immediate see the region as a group entity involved in group decision-making (or not, as the case may be), which may make it easier to get them involved in any off-site government or community that does exist.

Again, this was what was always intended.

[Marcuslandia]

Oooo! Oooo! Oooo!

Just had an interesting thought about format.

1) Sorry Naivetry, but any time a nation states, "This is what we are going to do about that," you'll most likely get a tweak in the national stats.
2) Presentation: A region triggers a regional issue. It can't go on the RMB because the usual issue would just use up way too much space. Perhaps maybe a post that says the issue is available to region members that request it.
3) This would be like a freebie issue, but one that deals with a nation and its relationship with (some of) its neighbors. As with any other issue, it can be Dismissed for a No Change result.
4) So, everyone in the region gets a blip about what the issue concerns. (That much could be what posts to the RMB.) Interested region members go to a locked forum. Use the one-time only password that will take them to the specific issue post. Read, and post your choice (which doesn't show anywhere). The choice updates national stats just like any other issue choice. Player exits and is done.
5) Any region member that does NOT go answer the issue becomes an automatic Dismiss The Issue.
6) When the issue expires, a message gets posted to the RMB to state that fact.

Not sure how the mechanics would be done. The toughest part would probably be working out the one-time password. (I envision something like those letter jumble authentication boxes that have become so popular the last couple years.)

[Naivetry]

1) Sorry Naivetry, but any time a nation states, "This is what we are going to do about that," you'll most likely get a tweak in the national stats.

These, however, are regional, not national issues. To make each region's issues affect all of its nations individually you would need to create not only a set of issues and coded effects for the regional statistics that Unibot suggested, but you would need to translate them into national stats as well. It'd basically mean repeating the WA resolution effects coding for every region in the game. There's no reason to introduce national effects for regional issues unless you're a fan of greater realism. I find greater realism in the code to be a damper on the fun of the game and a distraction from the interpersonal bits which I value far more. If these had downsides for national stats, I'd probably lobby for my region to ignore them, the way I mostly ignore my issues once I've tweaked a nation to look the way I want it to, so that we wouldn't drive away new nations from the region.

You're talking about a different concept for regional issues entirely - that is, issues each nation answers that just so happen to deal with international relations in its immediate surroundings. But there is no good reason why any of that should be posted in a separate in-game forum (what a nightmare to code!), or posted to the RMB, because it's not a collective action or collective decision. It would also mean people with a lot of puppets could just manipulate the vote. If it's just individual nations answering these issues, moreover, there is no reason why the region should be taken as a significant unit.

[Naivetry]

Again, this was what was always intended.

Yep, I know. I'm registering my support for that and hopefully a little clarification for the people who posted against it.

[Marcuslandia]

You're talking about a different concept for regional issues entirely - that is, issues each nation answers that just so happen to deal with international relations in its immediate surroundings. But there is no good reason why any of that should be posted in a separate in-game forum (what a nightmare to code!), or posted to the RMB, because it's not a collective action or collective decision. It would also mean people with a lot of puppets could just manipulate the vote. If it's just individual nations answering these issues, moreover, there is no reason why the region should be taken as a significant unit.

Quite so. Apples and oranges. You seem to be focused on the impact on the region, whilst I am focused on the impact on the nation.

The nature of the region is more or less the behavior and policies of all the inhabitants, averaged out. It is what it is. Having an issue that affects everyone in the region would be incredibly difficult to administer -- especially if you're dealing with a LARGE region. And if you can't administer the regional issue equitably to ALL regions regardless of size......

ALL issues at this time deal with the internal workings of a single nation. (As far as I know.) The stimuli is from inside the nation, and the response will be entirely within the nation. Yet, there is a relationship between a nation and the region where it resides. Aspects about that relationship can and often do trigger stimuli that _should_ cause a response in that nation. And as with all issue choices, the choice selected would further define for that nation, "Who are we, really?"

[Naivetry]

Quite so. Apples and oranges. You seem to be focused on the impact on the region, whilst I am focused on the impact on the nation.

Yes; and I really don't care to have another set of national issues that just so happen to address my nation's supposed interactions with its in-game neighbors. That does nothing for me or for my side of the game.

The nature of the region is more or less the behavior and policies of all the inhabitants, averaged out. It is what it is. Having an issue that affects everyone in the region would be incredibly difficult to administer -- especially if you're dealing with a LARGE region. And if you can't administer the regional issue equitably to ALL regions regardless of size......

The nature of the region is what the region makes out of itself as a community - in my case, on an offsite forum. A region has its own communal identity - it is not simply an average. It is a cooperative effort between the players who reside within it to create a group that is appealing to them (and, unless they're isolationists, to others).

ALL issues at this time deal with the internal workings of a single nation. (As far as I know.)

Quite, which is why truly regional issues would be such a novel and interesting idea.

The stimuli is from inside the nation, and the response will be entirely within the nation. Yet, there is a relationship between a nation and the region where it resides. Aspects about that relationship can and often do trigger stimuli that _should_ cause a response in that nation. And as with all issue choices, the choice selected would further define for that nation, "Who are we, really?"

But that's not what the OP was discussing - that's more on the lines of Kandarin's idea: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3287

[Marcuslandia]

So let me work up an image of intra-regional dynamics.

You have a region with, say 500 nations. 100 of those nations are quite active. Lots of RMB posts. Off-site forum posts with LOTS of discussions. High profile at the WA. Pretty much neck-deep into everything NS.

Meanwhile, the other 400 nations are pretty much just doing their issues and that's it. _Occasional_ RMB posts. Maybe swap a couple TGs to other players in the region. But despite their low profile, most of those 400 have been with the region for about as long as region has been around.

Now, what is the nature of that region? Is it what the 100 are doing, or what the 400 are doing? Or is it something of a blend of the two groups? Or is it a blend that favors the section that DOES A LOT over the section that DOES LITTLE?