NationStates Jolt Archive

To all nations and players who view endorsement swapping as wrong and
To those of you who feel all players – for purposes of informed decision-making –
should be aware that adding an endorsement as support of another nation moves them one step closer to being regional delegate:

When you click "Add Your Endorsement" the game presently immediately does lists your nation's name in the tally of support for the nation endorsed.
Would the game be improved if clicking-to-Add then presented each player with the following message:

"You are about to move @@nation@@ one step closer to being/remaining delegate of @@region@@. Do you approve of their policies?"

[Yes] | [No]

Would you also be in favor of the following graphic being used along with that message:

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/np/choosewisely.gif

P. S. This graphic is offered freely for use by any player/nation and by the NationStates game itself. It is intentionally nation and region non-specific.

Actually I personally would like to see both tools added to the game, but I'll talk about them separately.

Currently the game rewards isolationist and hostile nations ... many of which *behave* like dictatorships. Feeder regions are prone to endorsement swapping and some players (the ones who don't like a challenge) will take advantage of this when they are playing the invasion game.

While I recognize that invaders find skill in organizing bands of followers and griefing other nations, not all of us play NationStates for this reason. The ejection and ban tools weren't originally added to the game to support censorship or to kick out a nation when they are close to overcoming your endorsement total.

Feeder regions, in particular, should be a place that younger players feel safe and yet can explore the basic concepts of the game. But in order to do this, they should also be exposed to elder players whom play for many different reasons: invaders, defenders, community builders, issue writers, UN political simulators, or a combination of the above.

In other words: ignorance is the tool that some players use to take advantage of others ... let's find a way to push the balance of the game back away from these players.


As for the graphics, they are well done, and there is truth to the saying, "A picutre is worth a 1,000 words."

The point of this is to ensure that *all* styles of play have an equally fun time playing the game, and to lessen the amount of griefing and hostile exchanges that take place, in particular over region crashing actions.

Given the events in two of our largest feeder regions, the Pacific and The North Pacific, I believe the reminder for younger nations will help them deal with why they are endorsing a nation rather than the I endorsed you so please endorse me schtick that takes place.

This idea might create more stability in the game.

I still believe nations with swap endorsements even if other measures are put into place to prevent it.

Overall, this game plays politics for dictators, which wasn't it's intent, but there are a lot more wannabe dictators out there that want to rule the entire world than there are diplomatic folks who want the best for every person in the world.

Would you also be in favor of the following graphic being used along with that message:

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/np/choosewisely.gif

P. S. This graphic is offered freely for use by any player/nation and by the NationStates game itself. It is intentionally nation and region non-specific.

This graphic is a bit scary, and also seems insulting to the majority of delegates who would never think about becoming dictators of the region.

I think maybe adding something more to the first option, like a link to what being a delegate means would be better. The less intrusive the better.

Sounds to me like a KneeJerk reaction that will hurt the game even more.

I remember how many Knee Jerks have hurt the game over teh last year or so.

I'm in favor of it Thel. I think it would be especially helpful for those just staring in the game.

I don't think this will improve the game dynamics at all. What it will serve to do is perhaps protect delegates rather than permit a change to occur. I can see no good in this as it serves to only protect the status quo.

I like this, it probably isn't going far enough in fact. There's so much ignorance involved in endorsement-swapping.

Its interesting

This game is meant to work on a political level, if endorsement swapping is more controlled, it will eliminate or cut down the dictatorship side of polictics within the game, and therefor that goal of the game is pointless.

As far as the defenders of the defender/invader war go it is a good idea, as it means less opposition for them, as it tends to be dictators who endorsement swap.

In the end I'll say this, its a good idea to a degree, but as a neutral in the wars and politics, I don't think it should be carried out.

It also should state that if you endorse a nation, you are also kinda responsible, if that person suddenly begins to grief the region. People should learn that endorsements should be given conciously.

Well, for once, I do agree with Thel'dran.

Only, *without* the graphic.

One thing this game does not do well is teach new players how to play the game. The possible consequences of actions are not made clear. Adding helpful messages to players informing them of what they are doing / about to do is IMHO a good thing.

One of my complaints about the endorsement-system is that while it attempts to mimic political influences in order to determine delegacy, in reality it doesn't work like that, especially for large regions. This leads to nations in charge of large regions without any actual political support. They just float on a large body of blindly swapped endorsements and utilize the ban button to keep that as their decisive advantage.

So, in all, I'm in favor of this suggestion.

Ballotonia

One thing this game does not do well is teach new players how to play the game. The possible consequences of actions are not made clear. Adding helpful messages to players informing them of what they are doing / about to do is IMHO a good thing.
I agree, but do you think the message could be a little less intrusive? It seems very anti-endorsement swapping, also, rather annoying if you're trying to endorse several people (eg, if you ARE endorsement swapping, or if you've recently moved back to your region after an invasion/defence mission and want to re-endorse all your friends)

How about a link next to "add your endorsement" that says "what does this do?", and a simple message like "By clicking this link, you'll move @@nation@@ one step closer to being/remaining delegate of @@region@@. Whoever has the most endorsements will be the delegate, so do think about who you want in charge"

This'd support & inform newbies without being invasive or propagandory. Thoughts?

One of my complaints about the endorsement-system is that while it attempts to mimic political influences in order to determine delegacy, in reality it doesn't work like that, especially for large regions. This leads to nations in charge of large regions without any actual political support. They just float on a large body of blindly swapped endorsements and utilize the ban button to keep that as their decisive advantage.
Isn't that fairly similar to real life, with 85% of voters having no clue whats going on?

Isn't that fairly similar to real life, with 85% of voters having no clue whats going on?

No. In NS it is possible that one votes for a traitor in office without realizing there's actually a non-stop election going on.

While it's ok to try and mimic real-life processes, it is impossible to truly mimic real life itself. It'd suck as a game too, as the status quo would be in charge forever. To see NS doesn't even try to mimic real life, see this example:
How often does it happen that someone gets voted in to lead a nation who then proceeds to announce really being a treacherous inhabitant of a different nation and remains in charge after that? Imagine George W. Bush declaring tomorrow he's really a member of Al Quaida, and that no more elections will be held, and all protestors are to be kicked out of the country. That's basically what has happened to The Pacific, and has happened recently to The North Pacific. NS-rulewise it's perfectly legal. RL-wise it's total nonsense.

The comments made so far do not complain that it is not sufficiently running in concert with Real Life, but that the endorsement system isn't sufficiently clear to be a process mimicking political affiliations and approvals.

Ballotonia

An idea I had, a while ago, was to make voting a vertical hierarchichy and 'inheritable'. Except that isn't a clear description, so let's try an example.

A and B trust C, so endorse C. C cannot return an endorsement for anyone who has endorsed them, by design.

C does, however, trust D, and endorses D with their own contribution plus any accumulated endorsements that have 'trickled up' to themselves. D therefore now has the power of A, B and C behind them (three endorsements). D is not allowed to endorse any of the nations in his own 'tree'. Only nations who do not entrust their vote to someone else are 'running for office'. One 'apex' nation will have a number of endorsements greater than all the other 'apex' nations (or tie, but win out by whatever criteria, e.g. seniority, is currently used to resolve such issues) and be delegate.

Nation A can change their endorsement directly to D if they wish, not changing anything much (except the contribution of power from C), or similarly give B their endorsement. They may also withdraw their endorsement or ally themseves with any other nation in another 'pyramid' thus possibly alter the shift of power at the top end as well as the influence of various intermediary 'endorsement middlemen'.

If C (still trusted and endorsed by A and B, as in the original setup) decides they like E instead of D, C takes his 'followers' with him. Or C could decide he has enough for office in his own right. A and B are free to reconnect to a D-endorsing tree in some way, but that's the whole point about trust. If nation D expires, C could perhaps now be auto-elected into power if that branch is powerful enough.

If apex-person D wasn't in power (or didn't want to be any more) and knew that their accumulated votes were enough to promote F into the top slot past E (or reinforce them against wannabe E's gains on their position), they could pass on their influence. Remember that F cannot be (or become) a sub-endorser of D, under the standard scheme. (A, B, C and D's flags would exist in F's endorsement list. An attempt by F to endorse D or the others would be thwarted/pre-emptively disallowed by a simple check for that fact.)

The above assumes a limit of one 'I trust this person' per nation.Perhaps you could allow multiple endorsements in one of a variety of ways:
o Cumulative - A endorses B and D, as well as C, and thus contributes a total of three votes to the top end (may also contribute a number of votes to other 'tree-tops' by linking in with them at whatever level).
o Non-duplicative - You do, or do not, endorse any particular node or apex of any particular trust-tree. A endorseing B, C and D will ensure that one 'A' vote is given to D. If C revokes endorsement of D, the now-apex C has an 'A' vote, but 'D' still has one.*
o Fractional - A suitable fraction of a vote is given to each nation you endorse, and passed up as normal. A would give a third to B, C and D, but D would effectively have a whole A to rule with. If A gave endorsements to B, C, D and E, then nation D would have 75% of A's effective vote under the original setup (assuming that the intermediaries do not split each fractional or whole vote contributions by endorsing outside of the tree themselves).
In all these cases, a 'branch transferal', divorcement or donation, takes across the appropriate quantity, flag-of-intent or fraction, accordingly.

* - Note that this second option, or a variation, could allow circular endorsement chains, without too much intensive calculation (it's just a case of ensuring the "nation X endorses us" flag is set for each "nation X that endorses <the nations that directly endorse us>", just needing to discount the nation concerned from its own tally), but ignores the fact that this allows the trading of endorsements that the other systems stops. It would also mean more reliance on tie-breaking methods, as each member of a loop shares exactly the same endorsements as every other member (and of every other suitably connected loop, and inheriting all true 'branch' contributions).

The complexity in the above description arises from the many alternative sub-methods being described. I don't see any operational problems in implementing any one system (from scratch, though I wouldn't want to bet the current system could be reprogrammed easily..!) but I suspect the problem is that it could make for a potentially more volotile situation, or reduce every to individually voting directly for their desired 'apex' candidate, with few (if any) levels to the trust. And/or nobody would ever trust anyone enough to give them their votes. And/or endorsement-capable puppets would be even more valued (though maybe easier to track down).

To be honest, I'm not even particularly keen on the system changing, it's a mental excercise only that I thought was worth giving an airing.

(Minor edit where I got B and C nations mixed up. If anyone spots any more, see if you can work out what I mean and ignore the errors...)

How about a link next to "add your endorsement" that says "what does this do?", and a simple message like "By clicking this link, you'll move @@nation@@ one step closer to being/remaining delegate of @@region@@. Whoever has the most endorsements will be the delegate, so do think about who you want in charge"

This'd support & inform newbies without being invasive or propagandory. Thoughts?

Spoffin, this is the best idea out of this thread.

1. It helps teach new players some of the nuances of the game. I've been playing since March 2003 and have gotten numerous telegrams asking what endorsements do. With this link, it will really help those noobs.

2. The graphic is terrible. I am sorry, not every delegate is a dictator and to paint them all with a broad brush is just wrong. I know that recent events in the North Pacific have given people a bad taste in their mouths **kaff kaff** ummmm, another piece of UPS Rail, yukk** including me, but it really insults those delegates who do take the time to listen and look at thw wishes of their regions.

3. The notice proposed by Thel itself is not bad.

Will this proposal end endorsements swapping? No. Frankly, I see little innovations that would, unless you only allow people to endorse one nation.

I agree with Spoffin, but I wouldn't mind Thel D'Ran's first suggestion. Although I like the picture, it's not universally true - in a democratic, Founded region such as Democratic Underground, any dictatorial Delegates will quickly feel the Founder's ejection power.

How about a link next to "add your endorsement" that says "what does this do?", and a simple message like "By clicking this link, you'll move @@nation@@ one step closer to being/remaining delegate of @@region@@. Whoever has the most endorsements will be the delegate, so do think about who you want in charge"

This'd support & inform newbies without being invasive or propagandory. Thoughts?

Loop, this may be a knee jerk reaction, but the game is balanced unfairly away from consensus building (a democratic tool).

All and all, the message by Spoffin, and perhaps a note in the FAQ as well, are things I'd be in favour of. The wording above is pretty neutral and fair.

No. In NS it is possible that one votes for a traitor in office without realizing there's actually a non-stop election going on.

While it's ok to try and mimic real-life processes, it is impossible to truly mimic real life itself. It'd suck as a game too, as the status quo would be in charge forever. To see NS doesn't even try to mimic real life, see this example:
How often does it happen that someone gets voted in to lead a nation who then proceeds to announce really being a treacherous inhabitant of a different nation and remains in charge after that?.Israel, where a large number of people moved to a land and took over control of the government and whatnot, almost precisely mimics NS invasions. And wasn't Manual Noriga president of Panama while being a CIA operative?

Imagine George W. Bush declaring tomorrow he's really a member of Al Quaida, and that no more elections will be held, and all protestors are to be kicked out of the country. That's basically what has happened to The Pacific, and has happened recently to The North Pacific. NS-rulewise it's perfectly legal. RL-wise it's total nonsense.NS-rulewise its perfectly legal, RL-wise it has happened. Nazi Germany is an example I'm sure you (and everyone else) are overly familiar with.

The comments made so far do not complain that it is not sufficiently running in concert with Real Life, but that the endorsement system isn't sufficiently clear to be a process mimicking political affiliations and approvals.

BallotoniaIn essence I agree with you, but if we're going to lose endorsement swapping as a legit tactic, there should be something to replace it. Endorsement swapping is causing a stir now because it has become the only serious way to take control of any region, tactics like Blitzkreig and such being made largely obsolete (and impossible in Pacifics)

Spoffin, this is the best idea out of this thread.

1. It helps teach new players some of the nuances of the game. I've been playing since March 2003 and have gotten numerous telegrams asking what endorsements do. With this link, it will really help those noobs.

2. The graphic is terrible. I am sorry, not every delegate is a dictator and to paint them all with a broad brush is just wrong. I know that recent events in the North Pacific have given people a bad taste in their mouths **kaff kaff** ummmm, another piece of UPS Rail, yukk** including me, but it really insults those delegates who do take the time to listen and look at thw wishes of their regions.

3. The notice proposed by Thel itself is not bad.

Will this proposal end endorsements swapping? No. Frankly, I see little innovations that would, unless you only allow people to endorse one nation.

I agree with Spoffin, but I wouldn't mind Thel D'Ran's first suggestion. Although I like the picture, it's not universally true - in a democratic, Founded region such as Democratic Underground, any dictatorial Delegates will quickly feel the Founder's ejection power.

Loop, this may be a knee jerk reaction, but the game is balanced unfairly away from consensus building (a democratic tool).

All and all, the message by Spoffin, and perhaps a note in the FAQ as well, are things I'd be in favour of. The wording above is pretty neutral and fair.
Thank you, all of you. I think that this probably is the best option (although the graphic was kinda cool, its not really fair) and a pop-up message or an extra screen would be intrusive and damn annoying if the server gets up to its old tricks. If you want to add a "confirm" screen, the resign from UN button would be the best place to do that.

I'm pretty sure that the mechanics of endorsements are in the FAQ, the problem is that theres quite a lot of stuff there, and if you read it (which not everyone does), you're liable to do it only when you start playing for the first time, and applying to the UN and endorsing people doesn't come for another couple of days, by when you'll have forgotten it. But if it isn't there, it should be anyway.

Spoffin, this is the best idea out of this thread.

1. It helps teach new players some of the nuances of the game. I've been playing since March 2003 and have gotten numerous telegrams asking what endorsements do. With this link, it will really help those noobs.

2. The graphic is terrible. I am sorry, not every delegate is a dictator and to paint them all with a broad brush is just wrong. I know that recent events in the North Pacific have given people a bad taste in their mouths **kaff kaff** ummmm, another piece of UPS Rail, yukk** including me, but it really insults those delegates who do take the time to listen and look at thw wishes of their regions.

3. The notice proposed by Thel itself is not bad.

Will this proposal end endorsements swapping? No. Frankly, I see little innovations that would, unless you only allow people to endorse one nation.

I agree with Spoffin, but I wouldn't mind Thel D'Ran's first suggestion. Although I like the picture, it's not universally true - in a democratic, Founded region such as Democratic Underground, any dictatorial Delegates will quickly feel the Founder's ejection power.

Loop, this may be a knee jerk reaction, but the game is balanced unfairly away from consensus building (a democratic tool).

All and all, the message by Spoffin, and perhaps a note in the FAQ as well, are things I'd be in favour of. The wording above is pretty neutral and fair.
Thank you, all of you. I think that this probably is the best option (although the graphic was kinda cool, its not really fair) and a pop-up message or an extra screen would be intrusive and damn annoying if the server gets up to its old tricks. If you want to add a "confirm" screen, the resign from UN button would be the best place to do that.

I'm pretty sure that the mechanics of endorsements are in the FAQ, the problem is that theres quite a lot of stuff there, and if you read it (which not everyone does), you're liable to do it only when you start playing for the first time, and applying to the UN and endorsing people doesn't come for another couple of days, by when you'll have forgotten it. But if it isn't there, it should be anyway.

Also, endorsements aren't only for voting for someone to be the delegate. Its also a sign of respect or friendship for someone.

Goob makes another point, most regions actually do have founders, so electing even the most evil and unpleasant of dictators won't make much difference in those regions

How about a link next to "add your endorsement" that says "what does this do?", and a simple message like "By clicking this link, you'll move @@nation@@ one step closer to being/remaining delegate of @@region@@. Whoever has the most endorsements will be the delegate, so do think about who you want in charge"

This better and less intrusive. It also allows experienced players to avoid another page when they're really into the game. I'd be just as happy to see this implemented as Option 1 at the top of the thread. It says what I wanted it to and suggests a more appropriate location.

Thanks!

I'm working on at least two other graphics. No offense is meant by the first example of what might be included to any sitting or hopeful delegate.

And, for those who like it –*use it!

I think that the pre-endorsement message is a good idea.

Whoever suggested the link is simply trying to please Thel D'Ran and shove him off to the side. Nobody will click a link like that there, and you know it. Shame on you for trying to prevent making the game better. I personally love the graphic...and the point that "it insults all delegates, and all delegates aren't tyrants" is a complete oversimplification, all the graphic does is caution against endorsing people who's views on how to run a region you do not know. There are plenty of endorsement-swappers out there who would Iron-Fist a region if they got ahold of it, and plenty who would probably do a good job as well. Those "good guys" should get out and state their platforms, send a form telegram, and get known. If we make the general NS community more demanding of being informed, that simply gives the endorsement-swappers an opportunity to inform the NS community of why they are legitimate.

I do think the graphic is still a touch propaganda-ish. But I love it, it's just not right for the situation. I'm in favor of the extra screen.

I think that the pre-endorsement message is a good idea.

Whoever suggested the link is simply trying to please Thel D'Ran and shove him off to the side. Nobody will click a link like that there, and you know it. Shame on you for trying to prevent making the game better.
Dammit, he's onto us! Quick, get out the tin foil hats!

Come now, honestly. Its nothing personal, I'm not trying to block him for the hell of it and I'm sure that you know that. Its just that most of the players in NS do know how to endorse people, and they do know what it does. So, wouldn't it make more sense for the game not to have a mandatory tutorial for players who already know what they're doing? I think it would. Also:
This better and less intrusive. It also allows experienced players to avoid another page when they're really into the game. I'd be just as happy to see this implemented as Option 1 at the top of the thread. It says what I wanted it to and suggests a more appropriate location.He agrees with me! Obviously Thel DRan doesn't see my suggestion in the same way you do.

I'd go with the link option too. Mainly because I think it's good to offer people information ... it's better than shoving it in their face, whether they need it or not. The FAQ is stronger on the role of the delegate in approving or passing UN resolutions, than what it actually means to run a region.

As for the graphic - I can understand the North Pacific people being upset, after their region gets taken over by a petulant clown - but most people in player-created regions do have at least a vague idea what they're doing with their endorsement!

Am I the only one that is insulted by the constant Are you sure you want to's when using a computer. Adding a javascript question or a new screen for that matter is the equivilent of saying "Are you sure you used your brain and properly used your computer.

Am I the only one that is insulted by the constant Are you sure you want to's when using a computer. Adding a javascript question or a new screen for that matter is the equivilent of saying "Are you sure you used your brain and properly used your computer.

It doesn't bug me, but I also have to sometimes hold engineers hands and lead them step-by-bloody-step through things they should know.

It is universally excepted that human beings forget things and make mistakes. What you call an insult, many people call a failsafe or check.

The point is to *slow* a persons fingers to the point that they operate as fast as their brain. Some people will be hindered by this, others might stop and think about their actions a bit more.

WTF is this about... I'll tell you my opinion... its People trying to exert their power over the game to change it in their favor.

The game is fair as it is!!!! If it ain't broke don't fix it. The real question is if its broken or not...

Well you ask defenders.. yes it is... you ask anyone else... no its not. Sure there are probably some things that can make the game better, more fun, more sercure, or easier. Is this really one of them?

I say all you people who want crap like this... go tell max about it for NS 2. You guys are trying to beurocratize this whole thing, and make fools of everyone. Mods on the side of defenders will agree with this no doubt. Nothing against them, but its obvious that because of stupid invaders they get a bad rap against all of them.

This goes beyond Invaders Vs. Defenders... This is about People trying to change the game, to make it easier for them to stay in power! Whats wrong with the way we've always done it... PLAYING THE GAME MORE!

This suggestion is stupid in my opinion. Take note I said opinion. I'm not telling you how to vote. I'm telling you I think its stupid.

Stop wasting time on stupid things that favor yourselves, and work for the common good. Games are fun, and thel, your trying to suck it right out.... Especially that graphic... rediculous!!!!

Theres one word that can summarize all I've said.... BLASPHEMY!

This solution wouldn't actually change anything... You guys would still be there day in and day out, begging for everyone to unendorse francos!

IMHO(In my Humble Opinion) Thats the problem.

Besides trying to figure out exactly where you were going with that post, PickleMaster, I want to point out an error in your logic.

The game is fair as it is!!!! If it ain't broke don't fix it. The real question is if its broken or not...

Sure there are probably some things that can make the game better, more fun, more sercure, or easier. Is this really one of them?

The game is fair as it is .. . . sure, there are probably things that could make the game better? Well, if that is the case, then it isn't fair as it is. One problem many here are trying to point out is that the feeder regions, having no founder, have no protection against a delegate who will use the delete button to stay in power. Anyone who knows me knows that I believe in the free exchange of ideas. By deleting potential rivals, a delegate makes a mockery of a free exchange, ultimately leading his/her region to stagnation. From what I have read, this proposal, minus that graphic, hopes to make people think before endorsing individuals who might just get a little 'eject' happy.

It doesn't bug me, but I also have to sometimes hold engineers hands and lead them step-by-bloody-step through things they should know.

It is universally excepted that human beings forget things and make mistakes. What you call an insult, many people call a failsafe or check.

The point is to *slow* a persons fingers to the point that they operate as fast as their brain. Some people will be hindered by this, others might stop and think about their actions a bit more.

It also will add a minor bottle neck to doing so and will get annoying after a while.

If you make a mistake in endorsing them you can fix it later so a failsafe is not needed.

Besides trying to figure out exactly where you were going with that post, PickleMaster, I want to point out an error in your logic.



The game is fair as it is .. . . sure, there are probably things that could make the game better? Well, if that is the case, then it isn't fair as it is. One problem many here are trying to point out is that the feeder regions, having no founder, have no protection against a delegate who will use the delete button to stay in power. Anyone who knows me knows that I believe in the free exchange of ideas. By deleting potential rivals, a delegate makes a mockery of a free exchange, ultimately leading his/her region to stagnation. From what I have read, this proposal, minus that graphic, hopes to make people think before endorsing individuals who might just get a little 'eject' happy.



all regions without a founder have the check of their endorsment if you don't like somone withdraw if you get banned so what once 200 others have been you are unbanned. If the delegate is really that bad others will do as you do and the delegate will lose all endorsments but if you are one of the few that is ejected it may be time to move on with life.

Fair and better are not synonyms.

Yay for bumping topics almost a day old.

Seeing as I'm extremely new to this game(a week or two at the most; I forget, doesn't matter anyway). I was immediately placed into the North Pacific, moved to other regions for GameFAQs(where I'm a regular user) but those regions were inactive and I decided to go back to NP.

While this entire post probably seems off topic, I'm getting to my point(I hope). I came in the middle of the entire Francos/ThelDran controversy, and quite frankly had no idea what was going on. I asked in the region forum and got two Telegrams, explaining that FrancosSpain was invading the North Pacific.

"How the hell do you invade in NationStates? Get a bunch of people to move into the region at the same time and endorse one common person?

Exactly."

Since I still had no idea what was really going on, I endorsed ThelDran, because he and his supporters actually seemed to be defending. Say that I had decided to move back to the NP right as the current delegate(Great Blight? which people also seem to dislike) was overthrown. Chances are I'd endorse him. Because I had no idea what the hell was going on.

There's no way to solve this; NationStates is a growing community, and it's constantly going to have newbies that dictators will take advantage of. I don't see any way to stop regions from having dictators. But on top of what has already been suggested in this topic, why don't you set time limits? For example, you must be in a certain region for x amount of days before you can be endorsed or endorse anyone.

While this cuts off newbies(and banned players that come back) from getting a huge say in the government, people that wish to become delegate can use the telegram system. I'm sure that as a delegate you would answer loads of questions, so making a form telegram and sending it to new players that show up in the region would allow you to 1) Help newbies with questions they may have about the game, 2) Gain the trust of these newbies, so that in upcoming elections they would remember your help and hopefully vote for you, and 3) ...I got sidetracked and lost my train of thought.

God, I hate it when this happens. Er...consider what I've said, but remember, I'm new to this, and really have no idea how complex this thing is run.

Oh...I had no idea there was a different time zone. Good, bumping a topic only two hours old doesn't make me feel so bad ^_^

It also will add a minor bottle neck to doing so and will get annoying after a while.

If you make a mistake in endorsing them you can fix it later so a failsafe is not needed.

That in mind, there is a more radical suggestion.

The people least likely to consider the impacts of endorsement swapping are newbies. They end up in feeder regions. Why not follow the suggestions to remove the UN Delegates from feeder regions. Or modify them such that they can endorse proposals, but can't vote on them.

The point is, look at the past three UN resolutions: two of which passed. They all came from the North Pacific. A feeder region.

The feeders are important to many aspects of the game. They also are where new players get a taste of life. I've spent time in the East and North Pacifics, and both are running smoothly. But the Pacific forum which I lurked came across as a tank rush styled game. While tank rushers have a place in the other regions, nations new that end up in the Pacific are going to only experience one side of the game (unless they are bold enough to venture on their own).

I see no harm in limiting the power of the feeders over the rest of the game.

Spoffin's suggestion for the message is better than the original one. "Do you approve of their policies?" implies that voting is based on one's policies in answering issues, when in fact few endorsements are decided by such factors.

The best way to limit the power of these regions and eliminate their natural bent toward a)tyranny or b)a well-meaning government that has to implement extreme measures to prevent tyranny, would be to remove the ejection option from these regions. This would certainly cause some trouble initially, but it would render it impossible to rule a feeder region by force and thus seriously twist new players' view of the game. It would require feeder Delegates to be open and friendly with their constituents, while attackers lacking extreme amounts of patience would be unable to seize power.

Fair and better are not synonyms.

**smiles** Is it not better if a game were more fair?

And I am sorry, Chessalavakia, I cannot accept your run-on argument. Why should I have to leave or be ejected from a feeder region becasue a delegate is too insecure in his/her ability to hold a region without ejecting any potential rivals.

I see delegates who hold onto power in this way as people too obsessed with winning. How exactly does one win in NS? Please tell me

Another good idea, TDR.

However, the image is a little much. If it were a little tuned down, maybe, but I voted no on it. The general idea is still good, however!

The fact is they exist and the game is supposed to be like RL to a degree so technically it is realistic since even in real life people gain an advantage by running as a dictatorship many outsiders don't like them as we see like in the north pacific. Sometimes those inside like there leader and help them sometimes they hate them and overthrow them this is realistic in fact.

**smiles** Is it not better if a game were more fair?

And I am sorry, Chessalavakia, I cannot accept your run-on argument. Why should I have to leave or be ejected from a feeder region becasue a delegate is too insecure in his/her ability to hold a region without ejecting any potential rivals.

I see delegates who hold onto power in this way as people too obsessed with winning. How exactly does one win in NS? Please tell me


1. The point of communication is so others can understand you If others can understand you without perfect grammer then you don't need perfect grammer (periods ommited on purpose) In our world today we have had we and we will most likely have dictators that are insecure look at Hitler and others they were very insecure and they killed people because of it did they ever have a message that came up in front of their face saying "Warning killing people is bad you may not go any farther" I really doubt it. (puncutaion will now be correct) Suppose everyone stopped fighting Bight then his regime woud probly end up like the NPO. NEw players don't join NS terrorized if they start in his region. If you think about it your struggle maybe making it WORSE for new players not better. Just Think about that

One thing this game does not do well is teach new players how to play the game. The possible consequences of actions are not made clear. Adding helpful messages to players informing them of what they are doing / about to do is IMHO a good thing.

This may be opening a new kettle of fish, but... since the feeder regions are unique in that they don't have a founder (other than Max and [violet]), why not make them, in essence, tutorial regions? Disable the ability to elect a founder for those regions (I can hear the howls of protest already). Have the authority there be a mod or trusted longtime player who agree to tutor new players until they are ready for the big, bad world of Nationstates politics.

Depending on who leads each feeder, you could have armies of trained invaders sweeping across Nationstates - bwahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!! ;)


--Kat

Finding somone that all sides would agree with having them teach would be hard.

Well, where to begin? First off, I really don't accept your argument that "If others can understand you without perfect grammer then you don't need perfect grammer (periods ommited on purpose)". First, of all, it requires the reader to take time to go through your post just to understand what in the world you are sayign, rather than what exactly you mean. Secondly, in a matter of debate, if you do not use proper conventions, you will be disregarded by your audience. Third, we should all set examples to others, rather than simply trip through our keyboards.

Now that that is out of my system, Chessalavakia, I'll go after the substance of your argument. I never said that in the real world we do not have dictators and tyrants nor that these individuals have a different view over right and wrong than you and I. However, in the real world there are means to deal with them rather than simply packing your bags and going elsewhere, as you suggest we do in the game.

"Suppose everyone stopped fighting Bight then his regime woud probly end up like the NPO. NEw (sic) players don't join NS terrorized if they start in his region."

New players ARE terrorized in the other feeder regions? That is a shock to me, one who has only lived within one feeder region in my career on NS. Do you accept the NPO dictum that stability through naked force is the best way to run a region? What lesson does that teach new players? You do not have to listen to those you disagree with. In fact, run a region terrorizing those who do not mouth the empty, insipid platitudes we give you. AND LIKE IT! Yes, that is the lesson that all new players should learn. I mean, if they learn that way, we will have more wars suchas that fought in Minnesota, Ireland, etc. etc. etc.

"If you think about it your struggle maybe making it WORSE for new players not better. Just Think about that"

First, I always think before my actions, unlike some. Secondly, let me dispel your belief that this is my struggle. I have only lived within the South Pacific, which, to me, is a model for all feeder regions and founded regions to follow. Finally, how does it make matters worse, to push for more involvement within a region, to think for oneself, rather than accept the naked tyranny of Great Bight.

I apologize if my statements to Chessalavakia detract from the discussion of Thel's proposal

Finding somone that all sides would agree with having them teach would be hard.

Actually it wouldn't have to work in a mentor type of fashion at all.

The Delegate-less feeder regions would simply be where you drop nations. The FAQ would explain that the point behind the feeders was to give nations a place to "observe" and test the NationStates waters before venturing out to join an existing political region or founding their own.

There were about 6,000 nations in the North Pacific when the griefing started. There are currently around 6,000 in the East Pacific. How many are in the other Pacifics? And how many nations are in the game?

The real point behind having no Delegates in the feeders is less about teaching, but rather making sure that one type of UN Delegate can't dominate newbies without other UN Delegates having equal access to them.

Feeder regions would then literally be "feeders" for the rest of us.

At this point if I hadn't of had invested 5 months of game time in the North Pacific, I'd join the ACA in a cold second. The players are actually very committed to community building / roleplaying / cooperation / interesting to talk to about non NS things.

Spoffin's suggestion for the message is better than the original one. "Do you approve of their policies?" implies that voting is based on one's policies in answering issues, when in fact few endorsements are decided by such factors.
I hadn't thought of that actually, but thats a good point. Francos Spain is a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Actually it wouldn't have to work in a mentor type of fashion at all.

The Delegate-less feeder regions would simply be where you drop nations. The FAQ would explain that the point behind the feeders was to give nations a place to "observe" and test the NationStates waters before venturing out to join an existing political region or founding their own.

There were about 6,000 nations in the North Pacific when the griefing started. There are currently around 6,000 in the East Pacific. How many are in the other Pacifics? And how many nations are in the game?

The real point behind having no Delegates in the feeders is less about teaching, but rather making sure that one type of UN Delegate can't dominate newbies without other UN Delegates having equal access to them.

Feeder regions would then literally be "feeders" for the rest of us.


I like this idea, that way all the nations that just wanted to experiment with their own little nation and not participate in the larger arena of regions and politics could be free of having to worry about endorsements and their delegate.

One concern I have though is how nations would know where to go if they did want to become involved. There's a bewildering number of regions out there, which is probably why I'm still part of the NP.

I think I queued up in the East or West Pacific, but my friend who encouraged me to play the game said that her husband was playing in the North Pacific. So we both moved to follow him. They both lost interest and I dragged in two of my own friends ... er four actually. And dragged the four of them into the North Pacific (one of which hated the UN, and naturally never had UN membership).

I've looked around and thought carefully about where my nation belongs, and it took me about two months to really appreciate the off-site forums.

But to answer your question: each player will make their own decision and I can't imagine that there would really be a consistent pattern.

The irony is that the Tank Rushers get a rise out of looking for threats ... if NP loyalists weren't so interested in taking the North Pacific back, like any respectable cat or dog, Bight would get bored in a second. <-- a hunch

I hadn't thought of that actually, but thats a good point. Francos Spain is a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Most elder UN members tend to be leftist.

We are going to save the trees this weekend.

I'm hoping we'll prevent druggies from getting HIV/AIDS next week. Pretty soon we'll be giving women the rights of men. Then it will be time for another save the forests resolution again.

The issues and how you navigate them is a poor measure of political attitude.

Francos UN voting record has been outright counter friendly to most all UN resolutions. As a frequent UN resolution author, I pay close attention to how Loop, Francos, the North Pacific Delegate of the month, and LadyRebels have been voting.

LadyRebels is the most liberal of the batch. Loop is fairly liberal, but will sometimes swing on sovereignty based issues. The North Pacific is very much sovereignty based voting, however, since that region cranks out more resolutions than the others, it actually votes in favour of them as well. Split personality perhaps ...?

But Francos is one of the major no voters.

Or at least has been in the resolutions I've watched.

That is why Hersfold's idea to have the UN Delegate's vote displayed next to the region's collective will is actually the best thing to come up.

Hard yes?
Thus the mods won't touch it ... they ain't paid enough (as in zippo, right).

But trust me, as a UN junkie, Francos is no friend of any UN resolution. He is not a liberal by any means, and while looking on his regional forum, it is *not* an issue that the Pacific is conservative. They aren't. He is voting independent of the region *at times*.