Influence for the GA

[Fhaengshia]

Influence as a mechanic is accrued by nations based on World Assembly endorsements. Currently its use is limited to banning and ejecting nations, and frontier/stronghold changes. These are only typically used for rare and notable events in regions and are much more linked with the Security Council.

Somewhere influence could find an ongoing use is the degree of regional attitudes towards the General Assembly. This could be in the form of a choice a delegate can make when voting on a GA resolution, or could be a standing policy on the region’s administration page.

Three simple options are proposed:
-the default option where the delegate manages the region’s uptake of new legislation at a standard level - no change from current situation,
-an option that is more permissive and reduces the impacts of GA legislation on resident WA nations, and
-an option that enforces new legislation to a stricter degree slightly increasing the impacts of GA legislation on WA resident nations.

The same options could be available on a national level which would give meaning to influence for the masses.

Nations would be expending the political capital they hold with the World Assembly for varying levels of compliance. A cost is now given to nations that don’t comply as intended, where it becomes an international negotiation based on attitudes to the institution.

Regional stances would be an opt-in mechanic and give greater meaning to pro and anti general assembly tags and policies. Governance decisions would allow for more nuance on regional votes in the GA where slow-walking or fast-tracking implementation of legislation gives a greater variety in outcomes based on regional policies.

[Haymarket Riot]

If you don't like a resolution's effect don't join the GA or R&R. This is a solution in pursuit of a problem.

[The Ice States]

If you don't like a resolution's effect don't join the GA or R&R. This is a solution in pursuit of a problem.

I think an issue here is that often it is difficult not to join the GA because WA membership is necessary for things entirely unrelated to it (notably including regional security / endorsements and the Security Council).

I would not be opposed to this in principle -- if there is less interest in the GA among some regions then while there will not entirely be no effect, it could still lead to a reduced effect, as nations might avoid opt-in initiatives which in turn reduces things like economic impact on other nations in that region. On further thought I don't think a quid pro quo here is necessary; if someone really likes the stat effects (eg they improve stats that they like) that is already an incentive to increase them.

I would alternatively support something similar to what was proposed here, where a nation can opt into the GA, SC or both. Players who are only interested in the regional security aspects, and not the GA legislative part, could join only the SC, and thus not be affected by GA stat effects. Regional weight in a chamber could then be determined by how many nations endorsing the Delegate are also members of that chamber. This achieves the same benefit that players uninterested in some chamber but still in the WA at large are not affected by it, though in exchange for a quid pro quo (reducing their weight in that chamber).

[Mad Jack Is Rejected]

This idea would be a big step towards codifying non-compliance into the gamecode itself, and for that reason I don't think it's a good idea.