Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I will provide my comments after I get a good night's sleep. (I've noted the differences that concern me but I think I can explain my concens with some sleep first.)
Security Council
- Thread starter Gracius Maximus
- Start date
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
There's a couple of issues at hand here that seem to stick in my mind. The one that concerns me most is the ability to defend the region from invasion or rogue-ism.
We need a clear line of succession in which a delegate can be temporarily replaced if inactive in a crisis.
We need a solid core of high-influence nations that are impossible to eject were a rogue delegate to arise.
What we most need is a highly coordinated system that can act rapidly and accordingly if our main goal is to become the preeminent region.
Here's an interesting idea - what if we have an arrangement whereby we have a 'Peace Delegate' that can be anyone elected to the position and a high-influence 'War Delegate' that can be temporarily installed as a tool for ejecting invaders?
We need a clear line of succession in which a delegate can be temporarily replaced if inactive in a crisis.
We need a solid core of high-influence nations that are impossible to eject were a rogue delegate to arise.
What we most need is a highly coordinated system that can act rapidly and accordingly if our main goal is to become the preeminent region.
Here's an interesting idea - what if we have an arrangement whereby we have a 'Peace Delegate' that can be anyone elected to the position and a high-influence 'War Delegate' that can be temporarily installed as a tool for ejecting invaders?
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I’ve had a chance now to go through the most recent draft GM has posted and compare it against the proposal several of us developed through extension discussions a few months ago.
The current proposal, in my view, has some deficientcies that need to be addressed.
1. The Security Council is intended to replace the CLO; however, certain powers that are a necessary part of the CLO’s role as a check and balance are not preserved. One example is the bolded statement from the original proposal:
2. The original proposal included a plan to permit participation for long-standing residents of TNP in the Security Council mechanism as an Auxillary force. A lot of discussion went into finding a way to make this concept practical and respect the requirement of the Bill Rights that each Nation has the right to voluntarily choose to participate in the governmental authorities of the region.
I have been unable to figure out what the objection is to this element of the proposal, which help provide an inclusive approach to the security mechanism that would be set up under the Security Council proposal.
3. The following sentence is trying too hard to be one sentence when two sentences would state the conccept much more clearly:
4. The endo requirement as described in the current draft Law included in the proposal:
The sentence in item 2 of Section One is hard to understand. And it includes a statement of a percentage level, which as a practical matter isn’t really necessary. I believe that the a required range of an endorsement count for Council members (and Auxillary, if that is retained) can just be adopted in the first place, and updated as appropriate on a regular basis. At the time the original proposal was fionalized, it wasn’t clear how long it would be before the proposal would be brought to the RA for discussion, and it was intended to finalize a endo range when the proposal was being finalized in the RA. Now that we are actually at that point, I think the better approach now would be to set an initial range that can be modified as necessary under the mechaism envisioned by the Constitutional amendment and the accompianying Law. Sentence 2 of Section 2 needs to be clearer on the ability of the Council to submit proposed changes or updating for a prompt vote by the RA
5. I also have a concern about sentence 2 of Ssection Three of the proposed Law:
It would be easier to just say:
Since Impeachment is tried and voted on in the Regional Assembly to begin with, it really does need to be expressed in a different manner in this sentence.
The current proposal, in my view, has some deficientcies that need to be addressed.
1. The Security Council is intended to replace the CLO; however, certain powers that are a necessary part of the CLO’s role as a check and balance are not preserved. One example is the bolded statement from the original proposal:
The power to bring an emergency halt to an action of the Executive Branch, and the power of the CLO to bring emergency legislation for a vote in the Assembly on an emergency basis, are two distinct powers. There have been times when it has been necessary for the CLO to initiate a emergency vote in the RA on some matter. It is the combination of both powers that provide the necessary check-and-balance to Executive power, not just one of them. Having the power to temporarily freeze executive action without more is essentially meaningless as a balancing mechanism. I believe therefore that the power to bring legislation before the Regional Assembly for vote on an emergency basis is a power that should be retgained in the SC proposal.Eluvatar’s original proposal:
2. The original proposal included a plan to permit participation for long-standing residents of TNP in the Security Council mechanism as an Auxillary force. A lot of discussion went into finding a way to make this concept practical and respect the requirement of the Bill Rights that each Nation has the right to voluntarily choose to participate in the governmental authorities of the region.
Eluvatar’s original proposal:
I have been unable to figure out what the objection is to this element of the proposal, which help provide an inclusive approach to the security mechanism that would be set up under the Security Council proposal.
3. The following sentence is trying too hard to be one sentence when two sentences would state the conccept much more clearly:
I’m also not sure why this would be added, and worded the way it is worded. Assuming theirs is a sound reason, then the following might express the ideas more clearly:Gracuis Maximus’ proposal:
4. The endo requirement as described in the current draft Law included in the proposal:
Gracius Maxiumus’ proposal:
The sentence in item 2 of Section One is hard to understand. And it includes a statement of a percentage level, which as a practical matter isn’t really necessary. I believe that the a required range of an endorsement count for Council members (and Auxillary, if that is retained) can just be adopted in the first place, and updated as appropriate on a regular basis. At the time the original proposal was fionalized, it wasn’t clear how long it would be before the proposal would be brought to the RA for discussion, and it was intended to finalize a endo range when the proposal was being finalized in the RA. Now that we are actually at that point, I think the better approach now would be to set an initial range that can be modified as necessary under the mechaism envisioned by the Constitutional amendment and the accompianying Law. Sentence 2 of Section 2 needs to be clearer on the ability of the Council to submit proposed changes or updating for a prompt vote by the RA
5. I also have a concern about sentence 2 of Ssection Three of the proposed Law:
Gracius Maximus’ proposal:
It would be easier to just say:
Since Impeachment is tried and voted on in the Regional Assembly to begin with, it really does need to be expressed in a different manner in this sentence.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Most of what you are pointing out has been accommodated for in other avenues within the legislation.
The 50% measure is marked as a recommendation, not a requirement. Also, membership is voluntary and open to all through a regular vote from either the RA or Council directly.
As far as having access to the RA for the passage of "emergency" legislation, from everyone that I have spoken with that seems to be a pointless addition. There is no need to have emergency legislation in the RA when any two members can 1. submit and 2. immediately move for a vote. The vote will still require the Speaker or Deputy setting up the poll and taking the necessary steps to assure the integrity of the voting process.
In short, no piece of legislation is going to be perfect and satisfy all parties. I do believe that the current version appeals to more of the voting population than the original and incorporates most, if not all, of the original intentions.
The 50% measure is marked as a recommendation, not a requirement. Also, membership is voluntary and open to all through a regular vote from either the RA or Council directly.
As far as having access to the RA for the passage of "emergency" legislation, from everyone that I have spoken with that seems to be a pointless addition. There is no need to have emergency legislation in the RA when any two members can 1. submit and 2. immediately move for a vote. The vote will still require the Speaker or Deputy setting up the poll and taking the necessary steps to assure the integrity of the voting process.
In short, no piece of legislation is going to be perfect and satisfy all parties. I do believe that the current version appeals to more of the voting population than the original and incorporates most, if not all, of the original intentions.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I have no idea who you have talked to, so that sort of argument is hard to respond to.
You assume that all legislation can move forward if someone calls for a vote. Nothing in the powers given to the Speaker on RA procedures obligates the Speaker to bring any particular proposal to a vote. That alone is sufficient reason to make specific mention of such authority for the Security Council. If in such circumstances, the membership of the RA disagree, they'll simply vote it down.
You haven't commented on whether you would accept the suggested re-wording of a couple of the passages in your proposal. I do think they can be worded better than the way you have them now.
Finally it dfoesn't matter to be if yyou use "shall" or "should" in the sentences of the proposed Law as to endo levels, I oppose any attempt to use percentage statements or a fixed number. As I pointed out before, since the time for voting on this proposal is far closer than the final product of the workgroup a few months ago, it should be possible to include a stated initial range, which can then be adjusted under the mechanism the Law sort of sets up.
You assume that all legislation can move forward if someone calls for a vote. Nothing in the powers given to the Speaker on RA procedures obligates the Speaker to bring any particular proposal to a vote. That alone is sufficient reason to make specific mention of such authority for the Security Council. If in such circumstances, the membership of the RA disagree, they'll simply vote it down.
You haven't commented on whether you would accept the suggested re-wording of a couple of the passages in your proposal. I do think they can be worded better than the way you have them now.
Finally it dfoesn't matter to be if yyou use "shall" or "should" in the sentences of the proposed Law as to endo levels, I oppose any attempt to use percentage statements or a fixed number. As I pointed out before, since the time for voting on this proposal is far closer than the final product of the workgroup a few months ago, it should be possible to include a stated initial range, which can then be adjusted under the mechanism the Law sort of sets up.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
The endorsement level is a suggested percentage, not a required one and any member of the region can be part of the Security Council with either a RA vote or Council vote superceding the Influence requirements.
As far as rewording, it has now been reworded three separate times throughout this thread so my willingness to incorporate other ideas on such is evident. I simply disagree with your rewording because I believe mine to be clearer. There is no need to reference the Legal Code or Bill of Rights separately because they are referenced within the framework of the Constitution, which is referenced.
As far as rewording, it has now been reworded three separate times throughout this thread so my willingness to incorporate other ideas on such is evident. I simply disagree with your rewording because I believe mine to be clearer. There is no need to reference the Legal Code or Bill of Rights separately because they are referenced within the framework of the Constitution, which is referenced.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Then I may be forced to vote against or bring forth a proposal to promptly fix the extremely poor wording of those sentences if this passes. The way of referring to impeachment in your current proposal is just unwieldy and bizarre.
And the strict constructionsists will argue that unless a clear reference is made to violations of the Bill of Rights or the Legal COde, and not just the Constitution, then removal could not take place under this proposal if a violation of the Billl of Rights or the Legal COde takes place.
And the strict constructionsists will argue that unless a clear reference is made to violations of the Bill of Rights or the Legal COde, and not just the Constitution, then removal could not take place under this proposal if a violation of the Billl of Rights or the Legal COde takes place.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Such people would simply be incorrect.
Stating very clearly that someone can be impeached via the method specifically named in the Constitution is hardly unwieldy or bizarre.
Stating very clearly that someone can be impeached via the method specifically named in the Constitution is hardly unwieldy or bizarre.
Forensatha
TNPer
I have kept quiet since yesterday, in part due to trying to catch up on various things, and was waiting to see the result of Grosseschnauzer's challenge. Not to mention my own.
After some searching, what I've discovered is that while my innitial concern was simply tossed aside as unlikely, which I'll accept for now, and a note that past attempts by those native to a region of high-influence have been insufficient to prevent a rogue delegate from keeping power, a challenge which was not sufficiently addressed.
As such, I am stuck in the same issue of failing to see how this is actually effective. And, more so, I'm getting the idea that this may be even less effective than I had thought.
I shall not attempt to prevent this from being voted on if people want, for that is not my right or privilage, but at the same time I do not believe this will actually help.
After some searching, what I've discovered is that while my innitial concern was simply tossed aside as unlikely, which I'll accept for now, and a note that past attempts by those native to a region of high-influence have been insufficient to prevent a rogue delegate from keeping power, a challenge which was not sufficiently addressed.
As such, I am stuck in the same issue of failing to see how this is actually effective. And, more so, I'm getting the idea that this may be even less effective than I had thought.
I shall not attempt to prevent this from being voted on if people want, for that is not my right or privilage, but at the same time I do not believe this will actually help.
Outer Kharkistania
TNPer
The first rule of adopting new ideas is whether they will do more good than harm.
As has been expressed by others, I do not think this will effectively guard against rouge delegates, and it would create a new political elite. I do not think that the argument that since this elite already effectively exists in a defacto sense justifies making it an official governmental body, not to mention giving it the responsibilities of an ELECTED body.
In addition, giving these nations a semi-official status would create a sort of safe haven for people to build up endorsements, and would create the someone on the council went rogue and seized the delegacy.
This does more harm than good and I will not vote in favor of it in any form and I urge all the folks in TNP who value ALL nations, not just high influence ones, to do the same.
(edited for typo)
As has been expressed by others, I do not think this will effectively guard against rouge delegates, and it would create a new political elite. I do not think that the argument that since this elite already effectively exists in a defacto sense justifies making it an official governmental body, not to mention giving it the responsibilities of an ELECTED body.
In addition, giving these nations a semi-official status would create a sort of safe haven for people to build up endorsements, and would create the someone on the council went rogue and seized the delegacy.
This does more harm than good and I will not vote in favor of it in any form and I urge all the folks in TNP who value ALL nations, not just high influence ones, to do the same.
(edited for typo)
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Then you are welcome to vote against it.
If it fails then it fails, that is just how it goes. Regardless the arguements put forth that this would "create" an elite or would be ineffective are based on conjecture and not on any fact or past experience. My past experience and the fact of the technical aspects of the game support the idea that this would be effective in detering and countering rogue Delegates.
If I didn't think it would be so then I would oppose it as well.
If it fails then it fails, that is just how it goes. Regardless the arguements put forth that this would "create" an elite or would be ineffective are based on conjecture and not on any fact or past experience. My past experience and the fact of the technical aspects of the game support the idea that this would be effective in detering and countering rogue Delegates.
If I didn't think it would be so then I would oppose it as well.
Forensatha
TNPer
I note that my objection is based in part upon the past experience of Al Homa, which was helpfully added to this thread at the bottom of page 3 (utilizing standard forum posts per page).
So, yes, my objection does rely upon past experience. No rule of debate says that the past experience I rely on must be my own.
So, yes, my objection does rely upon past experience. No rule of debate says that the past experience I rely on must be my own.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
In his example the Crimson Order was not countered directly by a coordinated effort from those that are the current high Influence nations, which would be allowed for and supported via this motion, plus, the levels of Influence held by those nations at the time was lower and some were removed.
Todays situation would not allow that to happen via game mechanics.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Once final language has been provided, I'm expecting this to be put up to a vote...
Forensatha
TNPer
You'll have to excuse me if I do not find this to be particularly true.
One of the things I stopped and did before posting here was investigate a bit more into the mechanics behind how influence works. One of the interesting things I note is that influence is on a declining scale for an invading nation. Realistically, there's no reason for them not to go ahead and pull what I said earlier, with switching delegates and the like. There's nothing within game mechanics that prevents it and, due to how influence works, it's actually a lot easier for them to build up high influence before invading simply through spreading the invaders through small regions, ones they create specifically for getting the influence to begin with.
They may not get all of the Security Council, but they can get enough to make it ineffective. And by the time the rogue delegate would be removed, most of those people will have likely lost enough influence to no longer meet the requirements for reentry to the Security Council.
However, this is just my estimation. I would need to run a few test runs of it before I could say further. And, yes, it is conjecture... but, it's as much conjecture as saying the Security Council, under the current form, would actually work.
This is my last bit on this topic. We're getting nowhere, both sides have made their trenches and armed their guns... so, let's get this to vote. All I need is to see the final drafts. They'll get up to vote as soon as I know what they are.
Outer Kharkistania
TNPer
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Instead of wasting our time on this, we should be creating alliances and working through existing institutions, debating military and intelligence information, and maybe coming up with a framework for a volunteer region-watching group to make sure that noone attacks us or seizes control. In the case of a rogue delegate, there really isn't much one can do to prevent that except have good internal intelligence- most rogues attempt to gain the support of some segment of the region, and so could be stopped before they had a chance to go rogue.
Instead of wasting our time on this, we should be creating alliances and working through existing institutions, debating military and intelligence information, and maybe coming up with a framework for a volunteer region-watching group to make sure that noone attacks us or seizes control. In the case of a rogue delegate, there really isn't much one can do to prevent that except have good internal intelligence- most rogues attempt to gain the support of some segment of the region, and so could be stopped before they had a chance to go rogue.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Except that I am correct and you are wrong.
Let me see if I can say this again:
What you are suggesting can not happen. Period. You don't carry Influence with you from region to region. You can spread 100 invader nations in a dozen different regions and accumulate top Influence status in each one but the minute to move to a new region you lose that Influence. Influence is region specific.
I have the largest working knowledge of Influence in the game. I have pushed it to all of its conceivable limits and have done so on multiple occasions. I have had the programmers ask me my opinions on it because they haven't tested it as extensively as I have and they created the damn system. If I tell you it can not be done, then it can not be done.
So, test all you want (although you will never be able to test your "theories" unless you become a rogue Delegate) your conclusions will inevitably support my position.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
The final language is in the OP.
Forensatha
TNPer
Prove it. You've made some pretty fantastical claims in that post and I don't believe you. I could always claim to be one of the developers or someone who's been around a long time and fully tested the system but has been pretending ignorance to avoid the past, but that doesn't make my claims true. And, if you do prove it, I will openly admit I am wrong and withdraw my challenges.
I also honestly doubt those people would rely upon a single person for testing this, especially when they can just set the influence for a test nation and test it themselves. And even if they did rely upon players, it certainly wouldn't make sense to rely upon one.
I'm going to go ahead and put the amendment up for vote.
However, you may want to look over the law itself again, particularly paying attention to the conflict between it and the amendment over endorsement rating and the wording of #2 of Section 3 of Article One of the Constitution.
I tried to hint at it, but it was apparent that you were more concerned with the rest of my challenges. My fault for not pursuing it with more zeal than I did.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
Uh, that's the way it works. Influence is regional- you can't transfer it around.
Forensatha
TNPer
Haor, whether or not it's regional is not in dispute. In fact, in my own argument about it, I noted it dissipating when invaders enter a new region.
What is in dispute is whether or not this idea will actually work, whether or not the influence dissipates instantly, and whether or not the Security Council will be easily countered by an invader. Plus a few other items.
On the one hand, I have people I know I can rely on for accurate information telling me that influence doesn't dissipate instantly if you have very high amounts when you switch regions, but that it does dissipate quite rapidly. On the other, I have a person saying it doesn't who's also made claims that, logically, I should automatically discount as being factual and discount their argument as being credible without evidence being provided to the contrary, yet which leaves a questioning that will only cause even more trouble if it is proven accurate.
I may end up going ahead and withdrawing the challenge without waiting for a reply. There may be too much trouble for the region if it is pursued.
What is in dispute is whether or not this idea will actually work, whether or not the influence dissipates instantly, and whether or not the Security Council will be easily countered by an invader. Plus a few other items.
On the one hand, I have people I know I can rely on for accurate information telling me that influence doesn't dissipate instantly if you have very high amounts when you switch regions, but that it does dissipate quite rapidly. On the other, I have a person saying it doesn't who's also made claims that, logically, I should automatically discount as being factual and discount their argument as being credible without evidence being provided to the contrary, yet which leaves a questioning that will only cause even more trouble if it is proven accurate.
I may end up going ahead and withdrawing the challenge without waiting for a reply. There may be too much trouble for the region if it is pursued.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
Influence simply doesn't carry over from one region to another. It doesn't dissipate slowly, it just doesn't count. Your influence in the region you left will slowly dissipate whilst you are gone (which is what you may be thinking of) but that isn't really relevant.
Chowda Head
TNPer
Forensatha, a simple way to test the theories (if you don't believe what the others are saying) is to create a puppet nation yourself. Move it to a small region (or make your own). Let it build up it's influence in that region. Once you have a bit of influence, move it to TNP. The influence in TNP for that nation is going to be minnow.
I used to run a few raids in my old region (before we died out). Influence was always the factor. You had to get your target nation in the region and let them sit for a few days so they could build up influence. Then you would move your army in.
And Haor is right. The influence trickle loss only applies to the region that the influence was gained in. If we use the example from the top, you would see that when you moved your nation back (if it was in TNP for a while) it's influence in the initial region would be lower.
I used to run a few raids in my old region (before we died out). Influence was always the factor. You had to get your target nation in the region and let them sit for a few days so they could build up influence. Then you would move your army in.
And Haor is right. The influence trickle loss only applies to the region that the influence was gained in. If we use the example from the top, you would see that when you moved your nation back (if it was in TNP for a while) it's influence in the initial region would be lower.
Forensatha
TNPer
Actually, I was busy "discussing" the lack of reliable information with a certain source. I do not like to be made a fool of by someone who is just guessing when it comes time to rely upon them for expertise.
I admit I was wrong and withdraw the challenge. Now, I need to wait on a certain someone to post a reply before our... "talk" about their reliability can continue.
I admit I was wrong and withdraw the challenge. Now, I need to wait on a certain someone to post a reply before our... "talk" about their reliability can continue.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
Your argument is that instead of doing this, we should do that, which kind of ignores the option of "do both." It also ignores that this would provide a sizable deterrence to anyone considering going rogue, because there would be an organizated entity within the region that would prevent them from being successful for any meaningful length of time (they could screw around until they got caught, and create some trouble, but they would inevitably be brought down, and it wouldn't take incredibly long).
We can do prevention and cure, and this helps both.
Seems that the much more important concern should be about how involved this body should be in governmental functions, not whether it would work (since it almost certainly would, at least better than any practical alternative).
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Now I am being called a liar. Ask around, I don't lie.
And I sure as Hell don't have to "prove" anything to you, any of the thousands and thousands of nations that I ejected can attest to my extensive use of the Influence system and extrapolating that a game admin, whom I have had to discuss OOC issues with in the past might ask my opinion isn't much of a stretch.
EDIT: I was overly harsh. Regardless, if certain parties wish me to be their enemy I am always up to the challenge.
And I sure as Hell don't have to "prove" anything to you, any of the thousands and thousands of nations that I ejected can attest to my extensive use of the Influence system and extrapolating that a game admin, whom I have had to discuss OOC issues with in the past might ask my opinion isn't much of a stretch.
EDIT: I was overly harsh. Regardless, if certain parties wish me to be their enemy I am always up to the challenge.
Forensatha
TNPer
But, here's the thing: You've not provided a single bit of evidence to support your claim. Those nations you ejected are no evidence of any great knowledge of the influence system; merely evidence you know how to eject nations. We both know the influence system was introduced a couple of years ago. Your nation was actually introduced a number of months before it was, and I note your WA nation is different. Considering the amount of time we're talking and whether or not you may have had nations prior to the one who's name you use for posting on here, your claim about ejecting thousands upon thousands of nations could easily be true while being absolutely no indication of your knowledge of the influence system. And it certainly is no logical base for extrapolating any special relationship you may or may not have with any NS admins.
Edit: I admit I am also being harsh in this, but I will not edit my words in this manner. If I am going to be judged a fool by others, then who am I to try to fight opinions people will gain anyway? Better they judge now and not have it delayed until a future date, since I have neither the lifespan nor the patience to waste time in trying to convince them otherwise.
GM, in the end, I wasn't attempting to be harsh. In fact, I seriously considered going back and deleting it. But, now, I'm seriously glad I hadn't. This has revealed to me a lot and given me some to think about.
In the end, it is not I seeking to make of you an enemy. You'll find I make some pretty fantastical claims myself; some of which, I am sure, will prove to have no support and be a result of a misremembered events. Human memory has a tendency to distort events. And, to be honest, it is logical to challenge that which is fantastical in claim; if you have actually done all of that, then you are someone who's word I never want to challenge on this topic again. If you haven't, then it actually doesn't matter at this point anyway, as the challenge behind it I have already admitted my fault on. I have nothing to gain from pursuing this, save to continue to puff up the pride I delude myself into believing I feel.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
You really should do some research.
First, you post examples of what you believe can happen and are summarily dismissed by several people.
Then you continue to post from a supposed position of knowledge about the Influence system when it is obvious to anyone that has actually used it that you have no idea what you are talking about.
And to top it off you call me a liar, and saying that I am posting "fantastical" ideas is tatamount to the same thing so don't play wordgames with me.
Anyone, especially in this region, that has played the game for a few years can support that I have done the things I "claim" to have done. N00bs showing up and spouting ignorant crap about things which they have no knowledge of is one thing, having those n00bs turn to those that have actually been here (I remember when The Pacific was the only region in the game) and call them a liar simply because they disagree with them and have a working knowledge instead of conjecture is just moronic.
I never claimed that I told anyone how to code the game. I did state that I was asked my opinion on the Influence system because I did test it beyond what the programmers intended. Ejecting over 3000 nations within a 72 hour period was beyond their expectations. Any nation, much less one that has spoken with an admin OOC, would have been contacted for their opinion in such a circumstance. Especially when you couple that with having ejected nearly 2000 nations in another instance under the Influence system. That doesn't even consider nations ejected before the Influence system because they aren't relevant.
So perhaps you should ask your supposed "source" if they have ever heard of Pierconium of The Pacific, of Pixiedance of The North Pacific, before continuing to stick your head up your ass.
First, you post examples of what you believe can happen and are summarily dismissed by several people.
Then you continue to post from a supposed position of knowledge about the Influence system when it is obvious to anyone that has actually used it that you have no idea what you are talking about.
And to top it off you call me a liar, and saying that I am posting "fantastical" ideas is tatamount to the same thing so don't play wordgames with me.
Anyone, especially in this region, that has played the game for a few years can support that I have done the things I "claim" to have done. N00bs showing up and spouting ignorant crap about things which they have no knowledge of is one thing, having those n00bs turn to those that have actually been here (I remember when The Pacific was the only region in the game) and call them a liar simply because they disagree with them and have a working knowledge instead of conjecture is just moronic.
I never claimed that I told anyone how to code the game. I did state that I was asked my opinion on the Influence system because I did test it beyond what the programmers intended. Ejecting over 3000 nations within a 72 hour period was beyond their expectations. Any nation, much less one that has spoken with an admin OOC, would have been contacted for their opinion in such a circumstance. Especially when you couple that with having ejected nearly 2000 nations in another instance under the Influence system. That doesn't even consider nations ejected before the Influence system because they aren't relevant.
So perhaps you should ask your supposed "source" if they have ever heard of Pierconium of The Pacific, of Pixiedance of The North Pacific, before continuing to stick your head up your ass.
Forensatha
TNPer
... It appears that my editting the previous post to account for tone was a mistake. Note the time of your edit and the time of my post; there is no time for me to have accounted for your editting and write all of that in two minutes, especially since my internet is not that fast.
GM, has it ever occured to you that the reason you have so many enemies is because you actively pursue making them? I know why I have so many; I give the appearance of arrogance and pretending to be more knowledgeable and self-assured than I am. While they are helpful delusions at times, the habit of relying upon them produces... issues.
I should note that, incidentally, some of those examples were not actually dismissed with any real argument for quite awhile. People simply dismissed them out of hand. There's still relatively nothing that prevents a rogue delegate who plays it smart from taking power and ejecting most of the Security Councel except through sheer numbers; Vassal isn't that high on the influence list, yet high enough to eliminate Tresville, and most of the nations we'd need to help don't meet the RA requirements. If you go by the Minnow requirement of the Amendment itself, that still limits the Security Council to around 45 members, plus maybe a few alts. If they're high enough in influence to take power, they still are not facing a massive army of people for ejecting. Even if they can't eject some members, they can still eject more than enough to remove its power and quite possibly manage to erode the power base of those that are left. And that's assuming those 45 people will actually be a challenge to begin with.
Secondly, my knowledge of the influence system I admitted being wrong on. I tend to admit I'm wrong. It's one of those character qualities I have. And yet, I continue to research it, even finding the month and year it was put in place (December of 2006).
Thirdly, if I was going to intend to call you a liar, I wouldn't play word games with it. I'm someone who prefers to state it directly. Go here if you doubt that. If I was going to accuse you of lying, there would be no possible doubt in the world that I was doing it.
Fourth, I'll note that the only thing people bothered to support you on in this thread up to this point has been the way influence works. I've seen no one step up to say you've done any of those things, no one step up to say I'm wrong, and I've seen no proof from you that any of it is actually true. I don't want claims of ejecting a total of 5k nations. I want evidence I can easily verify without relying entirely upon you.
Oh, and for fun: Those 3k nations you say you ejected (and, given the lack of challenge, it's not unbelievable)? You're only providing more evidence for my side of the argument. If it's so easy (and, yes, you did claim it to be easy) to eject that many nations for you, then how easy is it for someone else? A single rogue delegate could, under that, pretty much erase the power of the entire Security Council just by ejecting all of the Minnows who support them, thus erasing their effectiveness. So, you have a problem: You can't support your own argument that the Security Council will be effective because you're living proof of how easy it would be to remove the nations who support them and, through it, erase their power entirely. In short, in order to prove the Security Council will be effective, you have to prove yourself wrong.
Fifth, ejecting that many nations is not necessarily something that will draw their question on your opinion of it. Maybe their questions on if you're cheating or abusing a game flaw. Ejecting that many nations still remains no evidence that your opinion was actually sought on the issue.
As for the person I was relying on: When I'm made a fool of in the manner they did, I tend to stop relying on the person who was the source of information.
Oh, and thank you for proving that my challenge about talking in a more civil manner was far from baseless. GM, you might prefer to stop, take a deep breath, and reconsider how you're approaching this.
GM, has it ever occured to you that the reason you have so many enemies is because you actively pursue making them? I know why I have so many; I give the appearance of arrogance and pretending to be more knowledgeable and self-assured than I am. While they are helpful delusions at times, the habit of relying upon them produces... issues.
I should note that, incidentally, some of those examples were not actually dismissed with any real argument for quite awhile. People simply dismissed them out of hand. There's still relatively nothing that prevents a rogue delegate who plays it smart from taking power and ejecting most of the Security Councel except through sheer numbers; Vassal isn't that high on the influence list, yet high enough to eliminate Tresville, and most of the nations we'd need to help don't meet the RA requirements. If you go by the Minnow requirement of the Amendment itself, that still limits the Security Council to around 45 members, plus maybe a few alts. If they're high enough in influence to take power, they still are not facing a massive army of people for ejecting. Even if they can't eject some members, they can still eject more than enough to remove its power and quite possibly manage to erode the power base of those that are left. And that's assuming those 45 people will actually be a challenge to begin with.
Secondly, my knowledge of the influence system I admitted being wrong on. I tend to admit I'm wrong. It's one of those character qualities I have. And yet, I continue to research it, even finding the month and year it was put in place (December of 2006).
Thirdly, if I was going to intend to call you a liar, I wouldn't play word games with it. I'm someone who prefers to state it directly. Go here if you doubt that. If I was going to accuse you of lying, there would be no possible doubt in the world that I was doing it.
Fourth, I'll note that the only thing people bothered to support you on in this thread up to this point has been the way influence works. I've seen no one step up to say you've done any of those things, no one step up to say I'm wrong, and I've seen no proof from you that any of it is actually true. I don't want claims of ejecting a total of 5k nations. I want evidence I can easily verify without relying entirely upon you.
Oh, and for fun: Those 3k nations you say you ejected (and, given the lack of challenge, it's not unbelievable)? You're only providing more evidence for my side of the argument. If it's so easy (and, yes, you did claim it to be easy) to eject that many nations for you, then how easy is it for someone else? A single rogue delegate could, under that, pretty much erase the power of the entire Security Council just by ejecting all of the Minnows who support them, thus erasing their effectiveness. So, you have a problem: You can't support your own argument that the Security Council will be effective because you're living proof of how easy it would be to remove the nations who support them and, through it, erase their power entirely. In short, in order to prove the Security Council will be effective, you have to prove yourself wrong.
Fifth, ejecting that many nations is not necessarily something that will draw their question on your opinion of it. Maybe their questions on if you're cheating or abusing a game flaw. Ejecting that many nations still remains no evidence that your opinion was actually sought on the issue.
As for the person I was relying on: When I'm made a fool of in the manner they did, I tend to stop relying on the person who was the source of information.
Oh, and thank you for proving that my challenge about talking in a more civil manner was far from baseless. GM, you might prefer to stop, take a deep breath, and reconsider how you're approaching this.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
*shakes head*
Notice you are the only one arguing over the feasability vis-a-vis influence. Those of us who were here for the various rogue dels since influence was instated (Matty, Dali, Westi) have a reasonable knowledge of influence.
We were also around for Pierconiums Purges, which is why no-one but you has contested that. Yes, he did do it. *shrugs* Big deal, perhaps, but it did happen.
Ejecting Minnows is easy - particularly non-UN/WA's - but ejecting higher influence nations when only a Minnow or even a Vassal is almost impossible and is limited to 1, possibly 2, depending on their influence level. The "guardian" style system works, we know it works as it is a codification of what happened during the last few rogue delegates.
If you don't want to accept that, fine. But, seriously, you evidently have a clue what you are talking about.
Notice you are the only one arguing over the feasability vis-a-vis influence. Those of us who were here for the various rogue dels since influence was instated (Matty, Dali, Westi) have a reasonable knowledge of influence.
We were also around for Pierconiums Purges, which is why no-one but you has contested that. Yes, he did do it. *shrugs* Big deal, perhaps, but it did happen.
Ejecting Minnows is easy - particularly non-UN/WA's - but ejecting higher influence nations when only a Minnow or even a Vassal is almost impossible and is limited to 1, possibly 2, depending on their influence level. The "guardian" style system works, we know it works as it is a codification of what happened during the last few rogue delegates.
If you don't want to accept that, fine. But, seriously, you evidently have a clue what you are talking about.
Forensatha
TNPer
Haor, Kor and a couple others made the same argument I did, only in a shorter form, in previous pages. In fact, if you stop and look, my argument about ejecting people to maintain power is actually a lengthened form of what Kor posted on page 3.
Secondly, note that I never contested the ejections that were made. Stop and find a place where I actually openly said they were wrong. You won't. In fact, even in those cases where I suggest doubt on my end, I never actually challenge it. The last part about wanting evidence is merely a continuation of my challenge that he actually bothers to provide some and not more statements.
Thirdly, I never bothered to state the rogue nation in question would be at those levels. In fact, if you stop and read my posts, you'll note that I'm stating those are the required levels for the Security Council. If you are going to accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about, then please make sure you actually are responding to what I said and not what you think I intended to say. My words are not chosen with the intention of having multiple meanings, due in part to experience with discussions in the Jolt NSWA forum.
Fourthly, I never stated that they would be ejecting those high-influence nations immediately. In fact, I stated they would work to erode the support for them, which would necessitate the ejection of nations that endorse those nations. The idea is that they get rid of the low-influence members of the Security Coouncil and then work to erode the support of the rest until those rest lack endorsements. This isn't to get rid of their regional influence, but it does slow their gain of it and further erode the tendency of those who wish to stay in the region to support them. Staying in power would be easy enough, and in time they can try to quickly build enough influence to be rid of the nations they couldn't up until that point.
I do not claim it to be a perfect method for staying in power. Yet, I do note that it's a method that GM eroded the primary challenges for by stating how easy it is to eject 3k nations in three days. So, in this matter, I am merely extrapolating from statements of those who are far more experienced than myself in the matter and using their knowledge of the influence system to my advantage. Thus, it's not my knowledge of the system that I'm working on.
As for accepting it: We're voting on a system where it'll have a maximum of around 45 people, yet considering raising the requirements just enough to drop the membership to down around 7. And that includes at least two Vassals, making the amount of the group that would stay within the region if a rogue delegate targetted the group to be 5 or less.
That's not exactly a lot of people. You're certainly not talking 3000 ejections to be rid of their base of power. Probably less than 500. And that's not including the message that's sent across by the fact they've already lost group members by the end of the first day.
So, yes, I am challenging the feasibility of this based on how the influence system works. And I'm building my stance based upon GM's own statements about how easy it was to eject 3k nations and what he's said about ejecting nations with high influence. So, are you seriously going to continue to argue that my stance is based on a lack of knowledge about the influence system? Because if so, you're arguing that GM doesn't know the system.
I do admit that my argument has a flaw: The reliance upon GM. In fact, my argument is dependent upon the 3k nation ejection being true and that GM's claim that ejecting those nations was easy to do. All you have to do is prove that GM's claim it is easy is wrong to disprove my position. And, if my position is disproved, I'll openly admit it and withdraw from the argument.
Luckily, you do not have to deal with this level of argument from me on many topics.
Secondly, note that I never contested the ejections that were made. Stop and find a place where I actually openly said they were wrong. You won't. In fact, even in those cases where I suggest doubt on my end, I never actually challenge it. The last part about wanting evidence is merely a continuation of my challenge that he actually bothers to provide some and not more statements.
Thirdly, I never bothered to state the rogue nation in question would be at those levels. In fact, if you stop and read my posts, you'll note that I'm stating those are the required levels for the Security Council. If you are going to accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about, then please make sure you actually are responding to what I said and not what you think I intended to say. My words are not chosen with the intention of having multiple meanings, due in part to experience with discussions in the Jolt NSWA forum.
Fourthly, I never stated that they would be ejecting those high-influence nations immediately. In fact, I stated they would work to erode the support for them, which would necessitate the ejection of nations that endorse those nations. The idea is that they get rid of the low-influence members of the Security Coouncil and then work to erode the support of the rest until those rest lack endorsements. This isn't to get rid of their regional influence, but it does slow their gain of it and further erode the tendency of those who wish to stay in the region to support them. Staying in power would be easy enough, and in time they can try to quickly build enough influence to be rid of the nations they couldn't up until that point.
I do not claim it to be a perfect method for staying in power. Yet, I do note that it's a method that GM eroded the primary challenges for by stating how easy it is to eject 3k nations in three days. So, in this matter, I am merely extrapolating from statements of those who are far more experienced than myself in the matter and using their knowledge of the influence system to my advantage. Thus, it's not my knowledge of the system that I'm working on.
As for accepting it: We're voting on a system where it'll have a maximum of around 45 people, yet considering raising the requirements just enough to drop the membership to down around 7. And that includes at least two Vassals, making the amount of the group that would stay within the region if a rogue delegate targetted the group to be 5 or less.
That's not exactly a lot of people. You're certainly not talking 3000 ejections to be rid of their base of power. Probably less than 500. And that's not including the message that's sent across by the fact they've already lost group members by the end of the first day.
So, yes, I am challenging the feasibility of this based on how the influence system works. And I'm building my stance based upon GM's own statements about how easy it was to eject 3k nations and what he's said about ejecting nations with high influence. So, are you seriously going to continue to argue that my stance is based on a lack of knowledge about the influence system? Because if so, you're arguing that GM doesn't know the system.
I do admit that my argument has a flaw: The reliance upon GM. In fact, my argument is dependent upon the 3k nation ejection being true and that GM's claim that ejecting those nations was easy to do. All you have to do is prove that GM's claim it is easy is wrong to disprove my position. And, if my position is disproved, I'll openly admit it and withdraw from the argument.
Luckily, you do not have to deal with this level of argument from me on many topics.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
Forensatha
TNPer
Oh, yay, we play the part where we simply copy and paste what we've already said.
My reply:
Keep in mind the main issue with this is preventative; the idea is to build a group that helps deter invasions. Your comment about it being used against rogue delegates in the past is something I don't need to refute, since it actually proves that, as intended, this is actually a failure of an idea. I haven't argued this stance before because I thought Elu's second post on the original topic spelled out exactly why the challenge of how it worked when past delegates were already in power is irrelevant.
My reply:
Keep in mind the main issue with this is preventative; the idea is to build a group that helps deter invasions. Your comment about it being used against rogue delegates in the past is something I don't need to refute, since it actually proves that, as intended, this is actually a failure of an idea. I haven't argued this stance before because I thought Elu's second post on the original topic spelled out exactly why the challenge of how it worked when past delegates were already in power is irrelevant.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
Evidently we didn't read the same second post. We aren't primarily talking about invasions here but about rogue Delegates. There are very few cases where the Delegacy of a feeder has been taken by wholely outside forces.
In the case of an invader moving into the region they will be a minnow and as such can be ejected by the sitting Delegate easily. The main deterrence (and defense) against outside aggression is, and will remain, an active Delegate online at update.
This proposal is about providing an effective mechanism to deal with rogue Delegates -whether invaders who have secured the Delegacy or someone else going "rogue". It may act as a preventative measure and you can consider that the purpose of this but that isn't mechanically how this works. For it to be an effective deterrant it has to be an effective method of removing a rogue Delegate -if I can stress this enough, someone in the Delegate seat, anyone else can be ejected simply enough- so that is what this is about.
And the past experience, as Elu pointed out from how I read that post, is relevant because it wasn't a failure. Hence why we're still here in this forum.
In the case of an invader moving into the region they will be a minnow and as such can be ejected by the sitting Delegate easily. The main deterrence (and defense) against outside aggression is, and will remain, an active Delegate online at update.
This proposal is about providing an effective mechanism to deal with rogue Delegates -whether invaders who have secured the Delegacy or someone else going "rogue". It may act as a preventative measure and you can consider that the purpose of this but that isn't mechanically how this works. For it to be an effective deterrant it has to be an effective method of removing a rogue Delegate -if I can stress this enough, someone in the Delegate seat, anyone else can be ejected simply enough- so that is what this is about.
And the past experience, as Elu pointed out from how I read that post, is relevant because it wasn't a failure. Hence why we're still here in this forum.
Forensatha
TNPer
First, to deal with said second post.
I have both bolded and color-coded the portions that deal also with invasions. Note that it is outright stated as being for that purpose, as well as for adding additional checks against the delegate.
I'll also note that I highlighted the part about popular support. Thus, the issue behind the challenge I posted: The idea of that strategy is to remove popular support for the members of the Security Council you just can't be rid of. And, seriously, what invader actually worth their salt is going to waste time taking on a big region by making a run for the delegacy immediately? From what I understand by talking about the subject in #tnp, they pretty much have to lie low for awhile to even make a worthwhile bid for it anyway.
Elu:
I have both bolded and color-coded the portions that deal also with invasions. Note that it is outright stated as being for that purpose, as well as for adding additional checks against the delegate.
I'll also note that I highlighted the part about popular support. Thus, the issue behind the challenge I posted: The idea of that strategy is to remove popular support for the members of the Security Council you just can't be rid of. And, seriously, what invader actually worth their salt is going to waste time taking on a big region by making a run for the delegacy immediately? From what I understand by talking about the subject in #tnp, they pretty much have to lie low for awhile to even make a worthwhile bid for it anyway.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue anymore. There is a substantial difference between ejecting WA and non-WA minnows. This system works. All you are doing at this point is distracting the topic from legitimate discussion. Most everyone except you seems to understand and accept that this system would work in terms of deterring rogue delegates and removing rogue delegates. What we should be discussing is how involved such a body should be in governmental processes, and this is just a distraction.
Forensatha
TNPer
I'd try to argue that I'm not attempting to hold it up, but if others are finding it this muddled, then I see no reason for me to continue it when it can only cause further problems. I'm not arguing anything really new anyway, and this has begun to pull an oroboros.
Unless GM or Haor wish to continue this, I'm willing to drop this part of the discussion. I'm not saying you're right about how you characterize the argument or that it will work simply because people claim it will work, but that I am willing to accept that this is proving too much of a disruption to other lines of discussion on the topic.
Unless GM or Haor wish to continue this, I'm willing to drop this part of the discussion. I'm not saying you're right about how you characterize the argument or that it will work simply because people claim it will work, but that I am willing to accept that this is proving too much of a disruption to other lines of discussion on the topic.