NationStates Web Game

Pyrhos said:
I removed both in case you tried to start ravaging with Wafflan, both can come back in after the event ends.
Click to expand...
Wafflan had a fully researched cure and was using it. Once again, why did you remove Wafflan? I didn't even have an option to ravage with it.
 
Due to the recent events, I would like to have a vote about whether or not Patchouli and the regional delegate should have power over the region.

Being for a democratic region, I would like that the delegate have full power and have founder's power revoked.

In addition, I would like to bring up the possibility of including those who are not in the WA to vote as it would allow for a more democratic process. If someone not in the WA was chosen to be delegate, they would choose a nation in the WA to make decisions for them. So long as the chosen WA nation accepts, they would carry out decisions chosen by the elected delegate.

To vote, you may simply say who you wish to endorse. Both WA and non-WA nations may endorse and you may only endorse one nation at a time.

This is just a theory, please feel free to suggest any changes you would like.

My personal vote for a delegate would be for New Dryko.
 
ienjoywaffles said:
Due to the recent events, I would like to have a vote about whether or not Patchouli and the regional delegate should have power over the region.

Being for a democratic region, I would like that the delegate have full power and have founder's power revoked.

In addition, I would like to bring up the possibility of including those who are not in the WA to vote as it would allow for a more democratic process. If someone not in the WA was chosen to be delegate, they would choose a nation in the WA to make decisions for them. So long as the chosen WA nation accepts, they would carry out decisions chosen by the elected delegate.

To vote, you may simply say who you wish to endorse. Both WA and non-WA nations may endorse and you may only endorse one nation at a time.

This is just a theory, please feel free to suggest any changes you would like.

My personal vote for a delegate would be for New Dryko.
Click to expand...
I refuse to make the delegate have full power. I've been over this. Most of the region is not part of the WA, so having the leadership go to someone voted by WA members only is not democratic.

While I see you have some ideas on how to rectify that, I think that's just overly complex, and just be awkward in practice.

I have already said previously that I have no problem with an out-of-game regional government being set up, and would respect its decisions.

There is also actually no possible way to have the founder not have power. It's just how the game works. I know there are regions without founders, but for this one to not have a founder I would have to leave it myself. And I'm not leaving it.

Also, I don't really understand why you have such a huge problem with what I did. Do you honestly think people who didn't want to be subjected to zombie infections should have been because you wanted to have fun at their expense?
 
Patchouli said:
I refuse to make the delegate have full power. I've been over this. Most of the region is not part of the WA, so having the leadership go to someone voted by WA members only is not democratic.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point. Also, democracy is not an integral part of Nationstates. In fact, there are several dictatorships in the Team9000 region. In any case, my vote/endorsment would be for patchouli to remain in power.
 
Patchouli said:
I refuse to make the delegate have full power. I've been over this. Most of the region is not part of the WA, so having the leadership go to someone voted by WA members only is not democratic.

While I see you have some ideas on how to rectify that, I think that's just overly complex, and just be awkward in practice

I have already said previously that I have no problem with an out-of-game regional government being set up, and would respect its decisions.

There is also actually no possible way to have the founder not have power. It's just how the game works. I know there are regions without founders, but for this one to not have a founder I would have to leave it myself. And I'm not leaving it.

Also, I don't really understand why you have such a huge problem with what I did. Do you honestly think people who didn't want to be subjected to zombie infections should have been because you wanted to have fun at their expense?
Click to expand...
I have a problem with it because there was no input from everyone before it was decided. If it was democratically decided that embracer nations should be banned, I would support it.

I understand that the majority of the region is not in the WA which is why the process would solve that. The system relies on trust and if someone were to violate the decisions made by the majority, then you would have the ability to kick them from the region.

I was unaware of that and upon further reconsideration, I would decide that you should keep your power so long as you were to enforce democracy.

If you don't wish to maintain the votes and who would be in power, I would volunteer to assist in keeping track.
 
I am in agreement with Kimbal.

Also, I do not like zombies, and I approve of Patch's decision to have any nations removed from the region that had embraced Zombiefication.
 
ienjoywaffles said:
I have a problem with it because there was no input from everyone before it was decided. If it was democratically decided that embracer nations should be banned, I would support it.

I understand that the majority of the region is not in the WA which is why the process would solve that. The system relies on trust and if someone were to violate the decisions made by the majority, then you would have the ability to kick them from the region.

I was unaware of that and upon further reconsideration, I would decide that you should keep your power so long as you were to enforce democracy.

If you don't wish to maintain the votes and who would be in power, I would volunteer to assist in keeping track.
Click to expand...
So, we should have had a long drawn out vote over an emergency situation? I don't think that's exactly ideal.

And I already said I think the method you came up with is overly complex and, honestly, if there were to be a regional government I would prefer one fully out of in-game mechanics instead of partially. I just think everyone voting on someone/something makes a lot more sense than several people voting on how a WA member should vote. Unless I'm not fully understanding what you're trying to say.
 
Also, the majority of the region had chosen to search for a cure, whereas there were maybe 2-5 nations that chose zombiefication. I think that that pretty much shows that the majority of the region wanted a cure and that there was no need to actually have a vote on it.
 
mountainboy965 said:
Also, the majority of the region had chosen to search for a cure, whereas there were maybe 2-5 nations that chose zombiefication. I think that that pretty much shows that the majority of the region wanted a cure and that there was no need to actually have a vote on it.
Click to expand...
Many nations chose a cure because they knew they would be banned if they chose to embrace. I know of at least 2 who did that.
 
ienjoywaffles said:
Many nations chose a cure because they knew they would be banned if they chose to embrace. I know of at least 2 who did that.
Click to expand...
Temporarily. There was nothing stopping people from going elsewhere to be zombies.

And sure, I guess I could have made it so you could have embraced zombies as long as you didn't infect anyone, but would that exactly be fun? Probably not. (Which, neither would it be fun for people to be infected when they do not want to be)
 
Patchouli said:
Temporarily. There was nothing stopping people from going elsewhere to be zombies.

And sure, I guess I could have made it so you could have embraced zombies as long as you didn't infect anyone, but would that exactly be fun? Probably not. (Which, neither would it be fun for people to be infected when they do not want to be)
Click to expand...
It being an option would have helped in deciding if it was a good choice to ban them or not.

Also this isn't only about the zombie issue, it is about the future of Team9000's region.

Patchouli said:
So, we should have had a long drawn out vote over an emergency situation? I don't think that's exactly ideal.

And I already said I think the method you came up with is overly complex and, honestly, if there were to be a regional government I would prefer one fully out of in-game mechanics instead of partially. I just think everyone voting on someone/something makes a lot more sense than several people voting on how a WA member should vote. Unless I'm not fully understanding what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...
People would vote for a delegate on here. Once someone was chosen, WA members would endorse that person to become new delegate. There can be a timed vote, perhaps weekly/monthly, where everyone would decide on delegate to keep it from happening too often.

If the chosen person was in the WA, they would act as a normal delegate. If they aren't, they would choose a WA nation to be elected that would do as the non-WA delegate told them to do.

Alternatively, I'm not sure if this is against the NationStates rules or not, we could have an official Team9000 WA delegate nation that would be maintained by a non-WA trustworthy member who would maintain activity on it and would give access to it to a non-WA elected delegate. Each time the delegate changes, the password would be changed to prevent anyone who was a previous delegate to make changes.
 
ienjoywaffles said:
Alternatively, I'm not sure if this is against the NationStates rules or not, we could have an official Team9000 WA delegate nation that would be maintained by a non-WA trustworthy member who would maintain activity on it and would give access to it to a non-WA elected delegate. Each time the delegate changes, the password would be changed to prevent anyone who was a previous delegate to make changes.
Click to expand...
Well, if it's not against the rules, that's actually a pretty good idea. However, if anyone ever changed their mind and joined the WA at a later time, they'd probably get banned from it for cheating. So, it's sort of risky.
 
Patchouli said:
Well, if it's not against the rules, that's actually a pretty good idea. However, if anyone ever changed their mind and joined the WA at a later time, they'd probably get banned from it for cheating. So, it's sort of risky.
Click to expand...
I'm going to make a thread on the NationStates forums asking about how specific it is about that. If they approve it, it would resolve the complications with getting a non-WA delegate. I looked it up and they say they use 4 factors to decide if it is a puppet or not. I believe that both nations would have to be logged in from the same computer around the same time for them to see it as a possible 2nd WA nation.

If the person who maintains the WA nation joined the WA, they could just make the puppet nation leave the WA and we could select a new representative.

EDIT: Made a thread asking the mods about it, I'll update when they respond.
EDIT2: And as soon as I make an edit, I get a response

"Unread postby Frisbeeteria » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:50 pm

It's long been moderation policy that sharing nations is inherently risky. What happens is that it gets difficult to tell exactly who owns the nation, so ALL players who access the nation can get tarred with a bad brush if just one of them breaks rules.

That said, it's not specifically against the rules to share nations. If you and your regionmates want to take the risk, that's your choice. However, I'll tell you in advance that "I wasn't running it when <nasty thing> happened" is not an acceptable excuse. It's a risk, and you simply have to choose to accept it.

As to the specific WA question, the rule is "each player may operate only one WA nation at a time. If one of your shared nation players logs off that nation and starts his own WA a week or a month later, that's not likely to be a problem. If he swaps back and forth between his own WA and the shared WA, that WILL be a problem."

So we can, but we can't be dumb about it and the person maintaining it has to be trustworthy enough not to abuse it.
 
ienjoywaffles said:
I'm going to make a thread on the NationStates forums asking about how specific it is about that. If they approve it, it would resolve the complications with getting a non-WA delegate. I looked it up and they say they use 4 factors to decide if it is a puppet or not. I believe that both nations would have to be logged in from the same computer around the same time for them to see it as a possible 2nd WA nation.

If the person who maintains the WA nation joined the WA, they could just make the puppet nation leave the WA and we could select a new representative.

EDIT: Made a thread asking the mods about it, I'll update when they respond.
Click to expand...
There really should be an actual regional delegate feature. Could be optional if they have power just like the WA delegate having power is an option.
 
Pixiel said:
I thought we weren't killing off land in case people wanted to come back... how about asking Chris and Gurw if they ever plan on returning before your divvy up their land?
Click to expand...

Patchouli said:
Why do you feel the need to immediately take people's land when their nation ceases to exist? Some people are busy, like Gurw who is for the most part working non-stop and does not have the time to visit here.
Click to expand...

I still don't see a clear consensus or a "right way" as to what to do with the land of nations that Nationstates claims to have "ceased to exist."

Should I give the benefit of the doubt to active forum members? What criteria establishes an active forum member?

Maybe I should I restore New Int, Nordic and Nephele, and we just avoid this whole remove inactive nations idea all together.

I need input, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top