NATION

PASSWORD

Regional issues

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Merconitonitopia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1679
Founded: Jul 29, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Regional issues

Postby Merconitonitopia » Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:00 pm

Sedge recently brought up the idea of regional issues.
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!
Last edited by Merconitonitopia on Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fatimida
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Jun 11, 2021
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Fatimida » Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:04 pm

I somewhat like the idea even if I don't personally like issues that much.
Apparently ISIS is still expanding even though they're getting weaker every day
Also going to be inactive until the end of Dhul Hijjah fyi

User avatar
Caedmare
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Apr 12, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Caedmare » Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:09 pm

Honestly I would love to see something like this be implemented. Perhaps a regional vote, the solution with the most votes is picked?

User avatar
Vikanias
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: May 01, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Vikanias » Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:13 pm

I love it! It brings something new to NS without it being a simple addition
The Virgin Human

-can’t even speak until a few years of age
-not cute
-no bouncy bouncy
-being CHONKY is bad for them but they still eat like pigs
-extremely painful birth
-weak
-has to resort to fake anime girls to seek pleasure
-cat girls


The CHAD Seal

-can swim at just a few days old
-cute AF
-bouncy bouncy
-being CHONKY is good for warmth
-baby pops out
-Strong
-just needs to eat fish and egg to seek happiness
-no cat girls

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1989
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:40 pm

Caedmare wrote:Honestly I would love to see something like this be implemented. Perhaps a regional vote, the solution with the most votes is picked?

This is likely to be merged into the original thread anywho, but yeah, that would actually bring about more player engagement within regional communities, and could introduce a new style of gameplay, "issues raiding".

User avatar
Durm
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Jun 16, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Durm » Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:14 am

IMO it should be "normal nations can't join unions, but union nations can leave the union and become normal nations".

At least when they CTE and the union also CTEs before they are restored.
Last edited by Durm on Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Visoraxus Holoratus Starkiller

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 30272
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:31 am

I think this proposal falls at the first hurdle - it overcomplicates the matter with a parallel system of nations and regions, plus the odd WA interactions, that is unintuitive and makes the whole thing a bigger task to code. The core idea is regional issues. The main bits to determine are who gets regional issues, and how they are decided. Look for simple answers to those that don't mix up the rest of the site architecture.

User avatar
Merconitonitopia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1679
Founded: Jul 29, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Merconitonitopia » Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:36 am

Sedgistan wrote:I think this proposal falls at the first hurdle - it overcomplicates the matter with a parallel system of nations and regions, plus the odd WA interactions, that is unintuitive and makes the whole thing a bigger task to code. The core idea is regional issues. The main bits to determine are who gets regional issues, and how they are decided. Look for simple answers to those that don't mix up the rest of the site architecture.

You're probably right there. I did worry that I'm kind of asking for a lot here.
In fairness, I think the basic premise isn't all that complicated, but I imagine implementing it would be a lot of hassle. Would that hassle be worth it? Well, that's not for me to say.
But if on the offchance that anything can be taken from this, it's that there's a lot you can do with the basic idea of issues gameplay on the multi-user level.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9413
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:49 am

Merconitonitopia wrote:(c) Union nations are created specifically for that union and are tied to it.
This isn't how real-life unions work, where nations can join and leave the EU without apocalyptic social upheaval.

Besides that, what you're essentially saying is "make NationStates into two separate games that have little to do with each other". Even if the features you're suggesting would make for an interesting game in its own right, they're so divorced from the existing NationStates gameplay that I question what business they have being on the same site.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads