Disable Ban Nations in the Feeders
Northern Sushi
27-01-2006, 04:03
Has this been brought up before? Well, I believe that the Ban nations option in the feeders should be removed. This will allow anyone to get as many endorsements as they wish in regions like The Pacific, without the risk of beeing banned.
Frisbeeteria
27-01-2006, 06:19
We like regional politics and massive dictatorial states. Nope.
Ballotonia
27-01-2006, 12:28
We like regional politics and massive dictatorial states. Nope.
Without a ban button the method of maintaining power would have to be politics instead of just mechanically clicking away. As such, I do not comprehend your reference to regional politics.
Your reference to dictatorial states is right on the money though, so that leaves me wondering 'why?'
Ballotonia
Northern Sushi
28-01-2006, 07:50
We like regional politics and massive dictatorial states. Nope.
I understand your point about dictatorships, but just out of curiosity can you explain how this benefits the feeders politics in other ways.
Puppet nr 784512
28-01-2006, 12:36
The Rejected Realms manages fine without ban-button, as does Lazarus (at least I believe they don't have a ban-button either)... Why shouldn't it work in the Pacific?
The Rejected Realms manages fine without ban-button, as does Lazarus (at least I believe they don't have a ban-button either)... Why shouldn't it work in the Pacific?
The existence of banning is part of the culture of the Pacifics. I don't see any reason to change it, as there are already feeder-like regions (Lazarus and The Rejected Realms) without banning if you'd prefer that kind of region.
Flibbleites
28-01-2006, 17:51
The Rejected Realms manages fine without ban-button, as does Lazarus (at least I believe they don't have a ban-button either)... Why shouldn't it work in the Pacific?
The Rejected Realms and Lazarus don't have a ban button for technical reasons, it has nothing to do with politics.
Emperor Matthuis
28-01-2006, 17:55
The Rejected Realms manages fine without ban-button, as does Lazarus (at least I believe they don't have a ban-button either)... Why shouldn't it work in the Pacific?
I think the reason that the RR is stable without the eject button is the fact that it would be too difficult to control if you forcefully took it over. Invaders could never hold it because it's a numbers game and everyone knows that defenders have the massive advantage; especially since Kandarin is an established and greatly respected player.
Kandarin is still Delegate because U.N nations who are there endorse him and other nations find it hard to rival his support. Lazarus is effectively the same and the Delegate has no ejection powers either, although it has recently imposed endorsement limits.
This was discussed in the 'GameZones' thread a few months ago but I can't find it.
The Most Glorious Hack
28-01-2006, 21:14
The Rejected Realms manages fine without ban-buttonAnd just where would The Rejected Realms eject people to? While it would be exceptionally amusing for the RR to send them back to the Pacifics, I don't think that's particularly practical.
as does LazarusLazarus has this for technical reasons. Rather hard to restore a nation into Lazarus if its banned, after all. Causes serious problems. Much like why the Feeders don't have password control.
(at least I believe they don't have a ban-button either)The two are one and the same. It's both or neither.
Moorington
28-01-2006, 21:38
So what is Lazuras or whatever? Just wondering in a off topic sort a way....
The Most Glorious Hack
28-01-2006, 21:53
It's where restored nations are restored to. Hence the name.