TAO for delegate

Eluvatar:
What promises could you make to us?
Click to expand...
TAO would remain for a minimum of three months and a maximum of 6. That should be more than enough time for the two main factions in TNP to create a unified governmental construct agreeable to most.

With everyone endorsing TAO and no one else, (except for one or two Guardians everyone can agree on. I know I can get along with Mum, for example) regional security would be simplified. And once the 3-6 months is done, TAO would leave the region to the selected TNP delegate as decided by your new construct. I would insist on TNP selecting 4 to 6 players who would be approved as Guardians for the region. The Guardians would be allowed to gain endos in TAO's last month and serve as a WatchGuard over the region. You all know who could and should be trusted to preserve your region once it is back on track.

TAO would also agree to promote the forum selected by compromise in the TNP WFE. Either this one, the Crimson one, or a new one for the unified government ... the region would decide.

Once the region is is TAO's control, GV can leave or stay and support TAO, it wouldn't really matter. Either way, all RMB hooey pooey would have to cease but active control of the RMB by active TNP players would need to continue. A region's RMB is the closest thing we have to a "first opinion" in this game and maintaining TNP's image and vitality on the RMB would be of paramount importance in recruiting new players into the Community and also in bringing about friendly relations once more among the older crowd.

If anyone has any specific requests, list them and TAO will let you know if such would be possible. Remember though ... any compromise bringing TAO to the Big Chair would require the two main factions to work cooperatively to create a mutual agreement ... and it would have to be crafted in under 6 months.
 
TAO, what if it is unfeasable to achieve endorsement of only you and a couple others? TNP is a region traditionally full of endo-tarts, and it's exceedingly unlikely that even both factions combined could actually dissuade all from endorsing such.
 
TAO:
IF L&C agreed to this would this faction also agree?
Click to expand...
I am glad to be exploring other options to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict. To me this looks like a pretty big IF. Would the Crimson Order rather have TAO or L&C as the Delegate? Would L&C allow it? Practically speaking, that is the only question that matters.
 
Eluvatar:
TAO, what if it is unfeasable to achieve endorsement of only you and a couple others? TNP is a region traditionally full of endo-tarts, and it's exceedingly unlikely that even both factions combined could actually dissuade all from endorsing such.
Click to expand...
First, for the good of the region, anyone with a significant number of endos who is not selected my mutual consent to be a Guardian would be asked to drop UN status and reapply UN to a puppet or leave the region for a couple of weeks. A reasonable endo cap would have to be set. Currently, 93% of the UN holders in the region have less than 80 endos. IF 80 was made the cap, those with more than 80 endos would be asked to leave, trade UN status to a puppet for the 3-6 months, or face ejection. And to effect ejections, I would ask for permission and assistance to SlingShot the delegate seat to the Guardian with the greatest Influence (atm, GBM would be the one selected). A few others who have significant Influence pointsmay also need to be asked to relocate or puppet exchange.

The reason for what some may call "extremes" is not for TAO to take control and then go rogue himself. The reason is to clear the region of any impediments to stability and unity. In the current Age of Influence, a cap is a necessity. Once the region is stable and 4 or 7 Guardians are in place, the region will be secure from take-over whether the threat is from inside or outside the region.
 
Great Bights Mum:
TAO:
IF L&C agreed to this would this faction also agree?
Click to expand...
I am glad to be exploring other options to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict. To me this looks like a pretty big IF. Would the Crimson Order rather have TAO or L&C as the Delegate? Would L&C allow it? Practically speaking, that is the only question that matters.
Click to expand...
The only way you will get the Delegacy from L&C is to pry it from his fingers with a crowbar and cricket bat.

But that can and is being arranged.
 
Figuratively in the sense of removing L&C as Delegate. He can go off and dictate to kindergarteners when he leaves for all I care. :lol:
 
TAO I'm afraid I disagree with your reasoning there.

The prevalence of high-influence nations in TNP has in fact been good for stability. The reason that L&C's coup d'etat has not made L&C nigh unassailable and in full dictatorial power is that he simply cannot eject the higher-influence nations, many of whom wish to maintain the republic. Getting rid of the high-influence nations would, in my opinion, be counter-productive.
 
Eluvatar:
TAO I'm afraid I disagree with your reasoning there.

The prevalence of high-influence nations in TNP has in fact been good for stability. The reason that L&C's coup d'etat has not made L&C nigh unassailable and in full dictatorial power is that he simply cannot eject the higher-influence nations, many of whom wish to maintain the republic. Getting rid of the high-influence nations would, in my opinion, be counter-productive.
Click to expand...
And not to mention getting rid of the high influence nations will severely dent the region's power, especially in the UN voting department. And you also end up with a region devoid of the talent necessary to effectively run the region.
 
Romanoffia:
And not to mention getting rid of the high influence nations will severely dent the region's power, especially in the UN voting department. And you also end up with a region devoid of the talent necessary to effectively run the region.
Click to expand...
TAO never said remove UNs totally from the region. TAO said high influence nations should switch UN to a puppet or, barring that, move. The implication is to keep your UN in this region but not allow it to become a threat to a Compromise building time period (the 3-6 months). A few residents would be allowed to keep status and Influence (as Guardians).

By switching UN status to a puppet for a while, your once UN nation which is still in the region will still acquire Influence, albeit, v e r y s l o w l y. By switching UN status to a puppet which is still in the region, the region still carries a big voting stick. And by switching UN status you signal your intention to be a part of the solution and not a continuance of the problem. In essence, this is what many of you are doing now ... at least the ones who have been ejected ... but you don't have to be ejected to do it.

I hope this diminishes everyone's paranoia about what TAO is asking. Or did TAO misunderstand you and you are saying that players who are asked to switch UN status to a puppet will choose to leave the region rather than switch thus making TNP "devoid of the talent necessary to effectively run the region"?
 
TAO seems to offer a reasonable alternative, and a path to reconciliation within TNP. Having a neutral delegate without a real stake in TNP other than seeing the rift repaired and reunifying TNP would potentially provide the right environment for reconciliation between both factions.
 
TAO:
Romanoffia:
And not to mention getting rid of the high influence nations will severely dent the region's power, especially in the UN voting department. And you also end up with a region devoid of the talent necessary to effectively run the region.
Click to expand...
TAO never said remove UNs totally from the region. TAO said high influence nations should switch UN to a puppet or, barring that, move. The implication is to keep your UN in this region but not allow it to become a threat to a Compromise building time period (the 3-6 months). A few residents would be allowed to keep status and Influence (as Guardians).

By switching UN status to a puppet for a while, your once UN nation which is still in the region will still acquire Influence, albeit, v e r y s l o w l y. By switching UN status to a puppet which is still in the region, the region still carries a big voting stick. And by switching UN status you signal your intention to be a part of the solution and not a continuance of the problem. In essence, this is what many of you are doing now ... at least the ones who have been ejected ... but you don't have to be ejected to do it.

I hope this diminishes everyone's paranoia about what TAO is asking. Or did TAO misunderstand you and you are saying that players who are asked to switch UN status to a puppet will choose to leave the region rather than switch thus making TNP "devoid of the talent necessary to effectively run the region"?
Click to expand...
High influence nations will not move. No offense, but it seems kind of fishy for our "reconciliation" delegate to want all the possible impediments towards taking a more permanent position in the region removed. Could you please address that?
 
First ... nothing is fishy ... except the shirt you have been wearing all this week.
Second ... the high Influence nations could STILL BE IN TNP ... just not as UN holders.
Third ... the real question you or anyone else has to answer for yourself is this one, Khark: Can TAO really be trusted to do what he says he will do? Once you have answered that question for yourself, go forward from there.

[size0]BTW Khark ... if you decide you ~don't~ trust TAO, tell everyone by PM instead of by posting here since I have a very fragile ego and it would break my heart to think you don't trust me.[/size]
 
Why do the high influence nations have to even listen to you? They'd probably just say "no" and stay in the region, unless you really want to build up the influence necessary to expel all of them.
 
Indeed! Why should anyone give a dammmmmn about anything in TNP?

It is precisely that kind of attitude, SW A, that will prolong the current conflict and minimize the importance of TNP in the game until such time has passed that the Crimsons are either powerful enough to expel all their competition or known well enough that this faction will be a distant memory ... much like the ADN and Pacific Army opposed to FS in TP. If this region becomes serious about wanting to reunite and move forward with a compromise government mutually agreeable to most, then those nations you think would refuse are not true TNPers. And believe me ... if this region were really committed to finding a middle way for all, removing such dead-weights would be a very simple matter even for a Minnow like TAO.

Well kiddies ... TAO is headed off to The Ozarks for a little R&R. If anyone needs to find me, a simple TG in-game will suffice. And, if anyone else is tired of ... well ... of all this, feel free to come to The Ozarks for a long visit.
 
TAO, you assume that it is necessary for TNP to have a small number of high-influence nations. You assume that somehow this will bring stability. You seem to assume that it is impossible for "our side," for the resistance to win. Strangely no one has demonstrated any of these.

Maybe it would be good to have a civil, theoretical discussion about these things somewhere?
 
TAO:
Indeed!  Why should anyone give a dammmmmn about anything in TNP? 

It is precisely that kind of attitude, SW A, that will prolong the current conflict and minimize the importance of TNP in the game until such time has passed that the Crimsons are either powerful enough to expel all their competition or known well enough that this faction will be a distant memory ... much like the ADN and Pacific Army opposed to FS in TP.  If this region becomes serious about wanting to reunite and move forward with a compromise government mutually agreeable to most, then those nations you think would refuse are not true TNPers.  And believe me ... if this region were really committed to finding a middle way for all, removing such dead-weights would be a very simple matter even for a Minnow like TAO.

Well kiddies ... TAO is headed off to The Ozarks for a little R&R.  If anyone needs to find me, a simple TG in-game will suffice.  And, if anyone else is tired of ... well ... of all this, feel free to come to The Ozarks for a long visit.
Click to expand...
Um, you misunderstand and purposely lie about what I said.

I didn't say they wouldn't care, I said that there's no way for you to force them out. They're high influence and thus you wouldn't be able to expend the energy to expel 7% of TNP, all of whom are high influence and have over 80 endo's. That's still a lot of nations and you wouldn't be able to expend the influence to remove them.

I'm also not sure that it's a good idea to get rid of the high influence nations for the same reasons others have pointed out. High influence nations are very useful in the event of a rogue delegate.
 
Sorry, I can't stand misinterpretation.

No, SWA, it was not purposefully lying. It was only a logical conclusion. Watch:

SWA: "But you can't make people do it!"
SWA's underlying assumption: People would have to be forced.

TAO's premise 1: This would be for the good of the region.
TAO's premise 2: If people truly care for the good of the region, they will subordinate their individual goals to help the region.
TAO's extrapolation: If people have to be forced to do it, they do not really care about the good of the region.
TAO's observation: SWA believes that people would have to be forced.
TAO's conclusion: SWA believes that no one "give a dammmmmn" about the good of the region.

See?

TAO's plan presupposes consensus. Move out of crisis mode for a moment and consider whether political change in TNP might be possible without political violence.
SWA:
I'm also not sure that it's a good idea to get rid of the high influence nations for the same reasons others have pointed out. High influence nations are very useful in the event of a rogue delegate.
Click to expand...
TAO agrees, and wants high influence nations in the region too. It's the same plan used by TWP.
TAO:
Once the region is stable and 4 or 7 Guardians are in place, the region will be secure from take-over whether the threat is from inside or outside the region.
Click to expand...

Eluvatar:
Getting rid of the high-influence nations would, in my opinion, be counter-productive.
Click to expand...
The advantage to TAO's plan is that all high-influence nations would be those in whom the trust of TNP's forum government resides. That makes it easier, not harder, for TNP to oppose a rogue delegate, because all high-influence nations would be more likely to oppose him unanimously.
 
Yes, I do, thanks ZS. (Edited above.) I had started to say something about making it harder for delegates to go rogue (but that's not what it would do, precisely) - please pardon the confusion. (OOC: It's 3:30 am here and I need to sleep. :P )
 
Naivetry, how exactly would unanimity of fewer high-influence nations be better than majority of more high-influence nations?

I do agree, in general terms, that it would be good for the high-influence nations to be regulated, I just don't see what benefit there would be from limiting their numbers, especially right now.
 
*shrugs* So you don't have non-majority high-influence nations either 1) going rogue (a la EM) or 2) supporting a rogue delegate?

I don't know if the influence of the nations you have endorsing you is a factor in influence calculations or not, but it does cloud the issue of legitimacy.
 
Naivetry:
*shrugs* So you don't have non-majority high-influence nations either 1) going rogue (a la EM) or 2) supporting a rogue delegate?

I don't know if the influence of the nations you have endorsing you is a factor in influence calculations or not, but it does cloud the issue of legitimacy.
Click to expand...
So far, the study reveals that there are these factors involved with influence are:

Total time in the region
Number of endorsements in numerical terms
Your influence level
Your population.
There are also some arcane items that you can pipe from the NS servers to figure out what they are.
And a couple of other things. ;D
 
Thanks for the support Naivetry. But I am convinced that SW A ~chooses~ to be disagreeable. Not sure why.

The problem with ANYONE in TNP being able to manage the region (game side) is the current number of WA nations with high Influence. Unless one of those nations is allowed to become delegate (which I doubt), then the region will have to continue in stagnation. And really, stagnation can be a good thing ... for the Crimsons. The longer things are stagnant, the more Influence the Crimsons will gather. But that isn't the real danger. Control of the WFE (and also the RMB) now play a bigger role than usual. As long as the Crimsons garner active support on the RMB showing the newbs (and the world) that they are the true region power and that their forum is the "appropriate" one, then this faction will slowly ... but surely ... be eclipsed and fade.
 
Sorry Tao. That is not how I read it. It is the Crimsons who are stagnating, pretty much. Their forum is moribund, their chat channel is silent 90% of the time. Although some members of the government are active (and i tip my hat to them), others hardly ever post.

For example Adyndril was last seen on the forum on 30th March, and last posted a month ago (according to his profile). He has only accumilated 23 posts in toto.

Poltsamaa of the Judiciary has not visited the Crimson Order forum since 19th March and not posted since 28th February (according to his profile)

Is their House of Lords a model of vigour? Just take a look and decide for yourself. There have been more applications for the Regional Assembly of late, and more activity in the Regional Assembly.

The allies of the Crimson Order are stuck here, and have been for weeks. They say they are willing to stay here as long as it takes. Perhaps they are. But the reality of the situation is that this is now a trench war, as I predicted weeks ago. Impasse.

As far as influence growing, Lewis and Clark is forced to spend his influence as fast as it accumulates. He cannot *ever* ban GBM or FEC etc.

The Crimson Order are impotent to do much more than bluster, threaten and ban minnows. The community on z13 cares about TNP and will not be ecliped or fade. I have been here since 2003 and expect (Max permitting) to be here in 2013. Will Gatesville support Lewis and Clark THAT long?
 
Thank you flemingovia, you pre-empted what I was going to say about activity levels.

I will note that it would certainly be good for the region for this to end quickly-- it's just that the pre-influence based conception that any feeder resistance movement is by definition doomed except by collapse of the ruling regime is false. We have a chance, and in some ways we have the upper hand.

If there were to be some compromise arrangement, both sides would necessarily have to be equals. I unfortunately doubt the willingness of the other side to come to terms.
 
Romanoffia:
Naivetry:
*shrugs*  So you don't have non-majority high-influence nations either 1) going rogue (a la EM) or 2) supporting a rogue delegate?

I don't know if the influence of the nations you have endorsing you is a factor in influence calculations or not, but it does cloud the issue of legitimacy.
Click to expand...
So far, the study reveals that there are these factors involved with influence are:

Total time in the region
Number of endorsements in numerical terms
Your influence level
Your population.
There are also some arcane items that you can pipe from the NS servers to figure out what they are.
And a couple of other things. ;D
Click to expand...
Nah.

violet:
Q. Shouldn't Influence take into account a nation's population?
A. If it did, the game would be dominated by its oldest nations. These nations would make extremely powerful invaders, and have a permanent advantage over newer players. We don't think this would be fair.

Q. Shouldn't Influence take into account military or economic strength?
A. One of the quirks of NationStates is that it does not reward you for subscribing to a particular ideology. You can certainly argue that highly militaristic nations would, in real life, be harder to handle than others. But if we built this into the game, all players would have a strong incentive to make their nations militaristic, at the expense of those who didn't. We still want to allow players to make all kinds of nations, not just capitalist ones with strong militaries.
Click to expand...

Right now, I'm pretty sure that only two factors affect your influence level, and that is the time spent in the region and the number of endorsements.

I have the hypothesis (unfounded by experimental data) that both factors have a linear effect. If that is true, then every day at update you get a constant bonus (A) for being in the region, and a constant bonus (B) for each endorsement you currently have, while you lose a constant penalty © in all the regions where you are not. To find out whether that is true, we'd have to run a bucketload of experiments.

For example (arbitrary assumptions of A = 30, B = 1), at update I might get 156 "points" = 126 + 30, whereas a non-UN nation gets 30, and Lewis and Clark gets 309. It would be interesting to find out the actual relation of A and B.
 
Even without any endorsements, a UN nation would accumalate more influence at each update than a non-UN nation. Influence is accumalated at both updates as well remember.
 
Ermarian:
Even without any endorsements, a UN nation would accumalate more influence at each update than a non-UN nation.
Click to expand...

This is a fact?

...

There is more than one update per day?
Click to expand...
Oh yes.

Why do you think some nations CTE and you get your second daily issue at a completely different time than the main update?
 
Eluvatar:
Ermarian:
Even without any endorsements, a UN nation would accumalate more influence at each update than a non-UN nation.
Click to expand...

This is a fact?

...

There is more than one update per day?
Click to expand...
Oh yes.

Why do you think some nations CTE and you get your second daily issue at a completely different time than the main update?
Click to expand...
Not true. There is a relativity factor in calculating influence - more nations in a region reduce the influence of existing nations.

Ergo, if you flooded in heaps of puppets (un status irrelevant) you can diminish the influence levels proportionately. That is, the more minnows in a region, the more damage to the influence growth of minnows.
 
To the contrary, it appears from what the mods said in the thread on Jolt that the actual influence levels are absolute, but the labels reflect the fraction of total influence in the region (relative).

What difference does that make?

Take LAC and GBM. LAC has more endorsements and rises faster, but GBM has more influence saved up. Other things remaining equal, LAC would at some remote point catch up to GBM in influence.

In your stated case, we could slow the growth of both nations by creating a thousand non-UN puppets. With both nations growing more slowly, LAC would catch up with GBM much later.

If the endorsements levels themselves are absolute, then the additional influx of puppets will degrade GBM's and LAC's labels (if LAC weren't a minnow already) but not affect the pace at which they gather influence.
 
Eh - L&C can never catch up to GBM in influence, ever. And that matter is made worse because L&C has to eject so many nations to stay in power.

L&C has a dilemma:

1. If he keeps ejecting nations to deprive GBM of endorsements to stay in power his influence will never increase. We say this happen when he couldn't eject any nations for two days.

2. If he stops ejecting nations, he would be gone in 72 hours, tops.

3. The only way he can stay in power is to con people into supporting him and keep Gatesville here to support him, but that only slows down his removal minimally over point #1.

I know exactly how to manipulate game mechanics to remove L&C in one fell swoop if anyone would listen to me. We have the numbers and we have the means to do it. It can also be cone in one update and there's nothing he can do to stop it.

Gatesville cannot invest much more in TNP than they already have and if they do, they still can't prop up L&C under any circumstances.

We can take out L&C in one update if we do what I have laid out. It's very simple and all we have to do is to do it.

R
 
Romanoffia:
I know exactly how to manipulate game mechanics to remove L&C in one fell swoop if anyone would listen to me. We have the numbers and we have the means to do it. It can also be cone in one update and there's nothing he can do to stop it.
Click to expand...
more boasting again? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top