Since When Did Daily Issues Resign WA Membership?!?

[NewTexas]

Last night we got a new Issue - something about NatSov versus IntFed authored by Sanctaria and edited by Frisbeteeria. We decided to declare our NatSov opinion on the issue. We login this morning and we are now not in the WA!!!

WTF?!? Since when did daily issues resign you from the WA? We are PO'd! 8 years 87 days of carefully avoiding the "Resign" button on the WA page and then this crap???

Frankly, we think this is a load and would like our endorsements back immediately!

[Jamie Anumia]

This may explain it.

[NewTexas]

Thank you for the explanation Jamie Anumia, however, we do not think it is fair to make such a substantial change to game mechanics without announcing it.

We would like to file a formal protest.

[Sanctaria]

The issue was brought in four days ago.

The option you chose explicitly said a result of choosing would be World Assembly resignation.

We typically don't announce new issues. As far as I'm aware, when issue opened up new customisable fields it wasn't announced.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Told ya so! Told ya so!

[NewTexas]

The option you chose explicitly said a result of choosing would be World Assembly resignation.

There are a lot of things that come up in Daily Issues that do not affect Game Mechanics! How were we supposed to know that what has always been a RP thing is now a RL thing?

We have been playing this thing since January, 2003 and there has only been one way way to resign from the World Assembly - that button. We appreciate the secrecy behind issues and their affects on your statistics. Howver, these are not statisics that are being changed here! This is a change in game mechanics. And doing that without warning anyone is not fair.

[Sanctaria]

Howver, these are not statisics that are being changed here! This is a change in game mechanics. And doing that without warning anyone is not fair.

All issue options affect nation stats.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We typically don't announce new issues. As far as I'm aware, when issue opened up new customisable fields it wasn't announced.

Yes it was.

[Sanctaria]

We typically don't announce new issues. As far as I'm aware, when issue opened up new customisable fields it wasn't announced.

Yes it was.

Announced on Sirocco's blog != announced on NS.

I could link you to a post on my blog announcing it, but I bet you wouldn't accept that as an announcement, now would you?

[NewTexas]

We don't expect to have to go to third party sites to learn the rules of this game.

And we don't care what statistics changed by Answering "1" to "WA Woes". The issue is that game forced us to resign from the WA when we did not explicitly request to be resigned by pressing a "Submit" button.

[Sedgistan]

The issue was discussed amongst both the Issues Editors, several Moderators and the Administrators, including [violet] - who OKed it and implemented the code for it.

The option that resigns you from the WA clearly states: "We'd be better off without that godforsaken snakepit ... we MUST resign from the World Assembly."

The consequence of that are entirely obvious to anyone that reads the text.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is possibly the biggest trollfest enacted by the admins since the security council. Players have always been enabled to resign from the WA whenever they wanted for whatever reason. They've never needed to wait for a special issue just to do it -- and they certainly don't need to be "tricked" into it. SO WHAT'S THE BLOODY POINT?? (as my Brit friends might say)

[NewTexas]

That is our point Kenny - we feel tricked by the game into doing something we did not know was possible to do! If we had any inkling you could be ejected from the WA by answering an issue, we certainly would have considered our answer more carefully.

[Sedgistan]

They've never needed to wait for a special issue just to do it

And still don't need to.

and they certainly don't need to be "tricked" into it.

There's no trick. The option makes the consequences clear.

SO WHAT'S THE BLOODY POINT?? (as my Brit friends might say)

Same as any other issue - make a decision on shaping your nation.

[San Leggera]

That is our point Kenny - we feel tricked by the game into doing something we did not know was possible to do! If we had any inkling you could be ejected from the WA by answering an issue, we certainly would have considered our answer more carefully.

This is the option you chose.

"Micromanagement, micromanagement, MICROMANAGEMENT!!!" your Minister for Domestic Affairs shouts, banging his fists on your table. "Those buffoons are seriously overreaching their authority! Every resolution that infernal Assembly passes is an attack on our ability to pass our own legislation! We can't, and shouldn't, have nations full of fools ignorant to our way of life make our decisions for us. We'd be better off without that godforsaken snakepit ... we MUST resign from the World Assembly."

Surely its effect was obvious?

[NewTexas]

There are issues that say crap like "Surely we must invade so-and-so" and no such thing happens. We thought it was the typical hyperbole that runs rampant in issues. We do not know what we expcted, bu maybe something like "NewTexas is escorted from the halls of WA after rants about National Sovereignty". It NEVER crossed our mind even slightly that we would be ejected from the WA!

Issues have only changed statistics in that past. Now issues are changing game mechanics.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I got an idea. Make an issue forcing nations to join/rejoin the WA.

Otherwise, the interest of fairness goes out the window as people fall victim to this unwarned issue.

Also, it grossly misrepresents NatSovs in the WA itself. They tend to loophole the shit out of resolutions they don't like. Why not add an option that lets people stay in the WA only to loophole their way through resolutions at the cost of a stat drop?

[Jamie Anumia]

I got an idea. Make an issue forcing nations to join/rejoin the WA.

Otherwise, the interest of fairness goes out the window as people fall victim to this unwarned issue.

I can't imagine forcing nations to join would bring a good effect. Since..if they have a WA already, the issue would force them to multi.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I got an idea. Make an issue forcing nations to join/rejoin the WA.

Otherwise, the interest of fairness goes out the window as people fall victim to this unwarned issue.

I can't imagine forcing nations to join would bring a good effect. Since..if they have a WA already, the issue would force them to multi.

Simple, keep them and those ejected from the WA for rules violations from getting the issue. Such a issue would provide the same effect as this one if there was one intended at all.

[Sedgistan]

I got an idea. Make an issue forcing nations to join/rejoin the WA.

Except that runs the risk of falling foul of the multying rules.

Otherwise, the interest of fairness goes out the window as people fall victim to this unwarned issue.

"Unwarned" only if you choose not to read and/or think.

[NewTexas]

Well, if an issue can force you to resign against your will, why is it so far fetched to force you to join against your will?

[Jamie Anumia]

Well, if an issue can force you to resign against your will, why is it so far fetched to force you to join against your will?

It could, as Sedge said - force people to inadvertently break the rules regarding multiying.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I agree with the bulk of posters in this thread. Issues have never really done this kind of thing, before. At the very least, provide some red warning text or something. Issues have never had truly substantive effects like this.

[Luna Amore]

I'll just repeat what I said in the Got Issues? thread:

I'd just like to add that this wasn't a quick decision by any means. We've been working on that issue since March. From it's inception we tried to make it as clear as possible what the major consequence of that choice would be. We set aside the long standing rule of issues that aims for ambiguity for this issue because of the effect. It was deemed clear enough by everyone on the issue editing team and two admins.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'll just repeat what I said in the Got Issues? thread:

I'd just like to add that this wasn't a quick decision by any means. We've been working on that issue since March. From it's inception we tried to make it as clear as possible what the major consequence of that choice would be. We set aside the long standing rule of issues that aims for ambiguity for this issue because of the effect. It was deemed clear enough by everyone on the issue editing team and two admins.

You guys wrote the issue. Obviously you'd think it's clear enough. Seeing as how this is the first issue of its kind, it is probably a good idea to make it explicit, even if that requires breaking the fourth wall. There's no need to make a controversy out of this, by sticking to your guns even though some prominent, long-term players have made serious complaints. Just add some warning text:

"Micromanagement, micromanagement, MICROMANAGEMENT!!!" your Minister for Domestic Affairs shouts, banging his fists on your table. "Those buffoons are seriously overreaching their authority! Every resolution that infernal Assembly passes is an attack on our ability to pass our own legislation! We can't, and shouldn't, have nations full of fools ignorant to our way of life make our decisions for us. We'd be better off without that godforsaken snakepit ... we MUST resign from the World Assembly." (This will resign your nation from the World Assembly.)