NationStates Jolt Archive

Being 100% honest I'd have to say that some of your ( Unibot ) attitudes towards contrary positions to your own are what has dissuaded me from involving myself any further in the endless debates you seem to be compere of around here.


What QUOD is suggesting is eminently sensible and is based on a a familiarity with this aspect of the game which I think you should do him the honor of respecting, since I imagine it far exceeds your own.

If a category is not used then it is clearly useless, if it produces laws which quickly fall foul of illegality issues then it is faulty, if it only produces completely substandard laws then it is an encouragement, not of excellence, but of mediocrity or worse.

All of these are perfectly good reasons to remove these categories on their own, in combination they are convincing.

Except, you're not. You're open to possibilities you agree with. If you were genuinely open to possibilities, then regardless of the regard you hold for me, you'd include my ideas in what is after all called a 'Collaborative' list. Right?

I don't tend to put anything on the list for a bit, I wait to see if someone brings up a second opinion or a post worthy to archive with the actual suggestion. But I'm going to link it right now.

Being 100% honest I'd have to say that some of your ( Unibot ) attitudes towards contrary positions to your own are what has dissuaded me from involving myself any further in the endless debates you seem to be compere of around here.


The only reason why these debates are endless is because I don't fold and bow to ideas that make little sense to me.

Getting rid of the apparently under used categories would be like getting rid of the 'Gameplay' thread on the forums or the 'Issues' thread - though they go
frequently unused - they are there because everything else would get muddled otherwise.

We have already seen what greater customisation has wrought in NS2

Greater Customization wasn't the downfall of NS2, it was the Multi-World System that killed it. People like regions and community discussion, greater features and customization for regions would be catering to that.

The only reason why these debates are endless is because I don't fold and bow to ideas that make little sense to me.So try responding to them. Point to something valuable in either the Gambling or Gun Control category, or make an argument for either of those areas of social policy being more deserving of special recognition than, say, government corruption or Cheese Manufacturing.Getting rid of the apparently under used categories would be like getting rid of the 'Gameplay' thread on the forums or the 'Issues' thread - though they go frequently unused - they are there because everything else would get muddled otherwise.No, it wouldn't. There are valuable threads in Gameplay and Got Issues?. Nothing of value has ever been produced in either category. It is not the difference between 'many' and 'few', but between 'many' and 'none'.Greater Customization wasn't the downfall of NS2, it was the Multi-World System that killed it. People like regions and community discussion, greater features and customization for regions would be catering to that.Which was not at all my point. Compare the RPing forums of NS and NS2 - which are more active? I know NS2 had many other problems.

So try responding to them. Point to something valuable in either the Gambling or Gun Control category, or make an argument for either of those areas of social policy being more deserving of special recognition than, say, government corruption or Cheese Manufacturing.

Though all of the industries can merely fit in an "Advancement of Industry" proposal if we are talking about improving them- an enivronmental proposal wouldn't effect the gambling industry or tourism industry, therefore they deserve their own proposal categories to ban or hinder them. Unless of course, gambling is a moral decency issue?

That still leaves tourism a lame duck category - because it sort of is counterindustry?

Yes/No ?

Though all of the industries can merely fit in an "Advancement of Industry" proposal if we are talking about improving them- an enivronmental proposal wouldn't effect the gambling industry or tourism industry, therefore they deserve their own proposal categories to ban or hinder them. Unless of course, gambling is a moral decency issue?Well, first, I think Gambling can be considered a Moral Decency issue. (In fact, when Jey was trying to write the Gambling blocker, I advised him to file it in that category, and I think Ausserland agreed on that.)

But second, your argument doesn't make sense. Environmental > All Businesses clearly does affect all industries - even Gambling and Tourism. But on that basis, we would need a new proposal category for all 15 or so industries. We'd need one to affect Retail, one to affect Insurance, one to affect IT, one to affect Furniture Restoration or Basket Weaving or whatever it's called...and so on. So instead of eliminating two useless categories, we'd be adding 15 extra ones! Do you honestly think a "Promotion of Cheese Manufacturing" category is going to produce a lot of useful legislation? (Especially given the Cheese Distribution Act was filed in the Free Trade category...)That still leaves tourism a lame duck category - because it sort of is counterindustry?...what? What Tourism category? And how can it be 'counterindustry' when one of the game-coded industries is Tourism?

But second, your argument doesn't make sense. Environmental > All Businesses clearly does affect all industries - even Gambling and Tourism. But on that basis, we would need a new proposal category for all 15 or so industries. We'd need one to affect Retail, one to affect Insurance, one to affect IT, one to affect Furniture Restoration or Basket Weaving or whatever it's called...and so on. So instead of eliminating two useless categories, we'd be adding 15 extra ones! Do you honestly think a "Promotion of Cheese Manufacturing" category is going to produce a lot of useful legislation? (Especially given the Cheese Distribution Act was filed in the Free Trade category...)

What I was saying was that "All Business" doesn't make any sense - how would going more environmentally friendly effect the gambling industry negatively. The Tourism Industry could go either way, though environmental regulation could make it harder to travel and therefore discourage tourism - it could also make areas more popular for tourists who wouldn't like to go to venomous snakepits.

I fail to see what bearing your conceptual problems with the Environmental category, which has produced some excellent resolutions, have on the existence of the superfluous categories, which have produced none. Whether or not "All Businesses" makes sense, the change I was suggesting to Environmental was a minor tweak, and the deletion of categories a simple delisting of two options from a drop-down menu. If you're proposing some more substantive re-coding, then I can only demur, especially as we already have a WA Environmental -> All Businesses resolution.

I'm inclined to take Quintessence of Dust at his word regarding the WA categories - if it would decrease the level of annoyance and aggravation experienced by those who dedicate their time to that aspect of the game, without (as far as I can see) making it more difficult to do anything that is already being done, then why not remove them? Improvements can involve streamlining as well as adding.

I'd like to bring up the point about further regional/national customization, if I may.

I think freeform RP has benefitted from the simplicity of the game. I think greater customisation will reduce forum activity.
I think everything has benefited from the simplicity of the game. The worlds we have created are far more complex and satisfying than any that could have been created for us.

Not all customization aims at the same thing, however. I for one am not interested in any changes to individual nations, since those of us in political gameplay see nation stats (with the annoying exception of Influence) as entirely irrelevant to what we do... I may not go so far as to register a vote against more national customization, but I do think that the more self-contained a nation seems to a new player, the less likely they will be to seek out solutions for warfare, diplomacy, etc. in RP or gameplay on the forums. That, in my very biased opinion as a forum-based player, would be bad. And after all, players who are looking for more in the way of national customization have all of NS2 to play with.

Some of the changes that could be lumped under Regional Customization are interesting and valuable without (I believe) endangering anyone's forum community in the slightest - specifically, the idea of regional issues (which would be like NS issues in description, but with no coded effects, since regions don't have stats). On the other hand, I'm not excited about changing anything about Founders or the way Delegates are elected, and I think most gameplay/political players would agree with me. We have a system of politics that utilizes those mechanics while going as far beyond them as RP wars go beyond the 'diplomatic status' indicators of NS2. We are not looking for changes that merely simplify and codify the things we already do - that would stifle our game in the same way that the detailed military and economic descriptions in NS2 stifle RP. There is such a thing as having too many tools.

At this point it might help to explain that while I greatly appreciate Unibot's openmindedness in affirming the importance of the military/political game, he is not to my knowledge a participant in military/political gameplay himself. Those with experience in the military/political gameplay community with which I am familiar include Kandarin, Erastide, and Ballotonia, as well as a number of less frequent posters. Unibot's suggestions and his point of view are sympathetic to, but not necessarily representative of, military/political gameplay concerns - hence our disagreement on issues of regional customization.

One of the greatest pushes in this thread is for a greater promotion of regional and forum communities.
Which is unsurprising, given it's dominated by gameplayers and largely devoid of contribution from roleplayers.
I believe Unibot was considering roleplayers as a forum community like any other - as you noted, your concerns about customization as an RPer also have to do with maintaining forum activity.

I have heard little from the RP side, and I am curious to know what you would change, apart from the WA categories (which I hope we can take as settled - I'm quite convinced). It seems to me that the reason political gameplayers and their point of view have been so prominent in this thread is that it is the political gameplayers who are most dissatisfied with the turn the game has taken in the last several years. Is there any such dissatisfaction within the RP community? If so, certainly it should be addressed. If there is no dissatisfaction, but there are ideas for improvement, then surely they belong here as well - I at least am interested in hearing what they might be.

given it's dominated by gameplayers and largely devoid of contribution from roleplayers. Guess what: if you started this thread at the DEN forum, the correlation would be even higher!

Many of the 'regional and forum communities' being discussed are RPers, at least in part. I am primarily a RPer, as are several other people who have posted here with an apparently 'gameplayer' stance. The official forums aren't the only venue around and a lot of us have gone looking for settings elsewhere.

That said, I've found that one of the things that makes NSRP good is the fact that it is more or less thoroughly separated from game mechanics. NSRP communities (at least, the ones that have lasted) are independent of stats, endorsements, influence, rankings and so forth, and are often loosely if at all tied to regions. I don't know if anything could be done in terms of game changes to improve RP; it runs on personal creativity and community, things that are not codified and cannot be codified.

With that in mind, I am not sure quite why discussion of game mechanics changes has included so many disputes between RPers and gameplayers. NSRP is by its very nature insulated from game mechanics, and as such even the most radical mechanics changes imaginable could not have any meaningful effect on RPers. The only real exception to this is the system of WA proposals and resolutions, which are heavily influenced by both worlds. But the lion's share of people who are interested in RPing their nations, cultures, wars, leaders, sports and so forth cannot be affected by the goings-on in the gameplay-verse and will not no matter what changes could ever be enacted to it.

Alright, having finally reviewed the list of suggested changes, the only one I am really enthusiastic about is junking the Regional Influence system. I really don't care if the mods regard it as a gift from God to do away with the unhappy chore of moderating griefings. It's a needlessly complicated addition to the game, and besides, the influence rankings oftentimes make no sense whatsoever. Besides, when we give invaders more incentive to break the rules it becomes so much more satisfying to see them deleted for it.

I would be absolutely, unalterably opposed to abolishing founders, or limiting their access to Regional Control options. I see no reason just to give the raiders a great big Christmas present allowing them to potentially overrun the game.

Among the other "we NEED moer BUTTONZ!!!11" changes proposed chiefly by gameplayers, the only ones I can offer mild support for are the Military/Stability rankings for nations -- although I prefer they be implemented in a way that would not turn the delicate tripartite government categorization system (www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Government_type) on its head. That, and regional endorsements, although I imagine I'd only endorse a few regions run by friends of mine, and a lot of other regions would do the same. That, and it would really annoy some people when regions they don't like endorse them, and thus get the free publicity on their WFEs.

I would wholeheartedly endorse giving delegates the option to "burn" proposals they don't like, but my slightly tongue-in-cheek proviso (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14654785&postcount=36) on the subject still stands. As far as adding an effect line for resolutions goes, I proposed the same thing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533121) a couple years ago, and was told it would be impractical.

I proposed the same thing a couple years ago, and was told it would be impractical.

Yeah, I figured that when I suggested it.

I mean, how is it be enforced? You wouldn't be able to see the effect line to the proposal until it is passed, so a mod who have to go through every proposal's effect line to make sure it doesn't have something inappropiate before its passed.

the influence rankings oftentimes make no sense whatsoever

I think this is the problem, and brings up the timely ol' debate between seniority v.s endorsements. I'm all for increasing the effect of seniority into regional influence, making a senior region resident equal to a well endorsed resident.