NationStates Jolt Archive

I really don't know why I thought of this, I rarely play NationStates anymore anyways.. But I was just thinking: why is the WA worse than the UN? I would have thought that after Max got the copyright e-mail, he would have tried to improve the WA.

What do I mean? Well, the UN at least has some blue helmeted men who can act as an army and enforce UN laws. The WA? Where's the threat? I could go against some nuclear weapon embargo and get away with it without fear of the WA getting in the way.

My suggestion is to make the WA a little more.. interactive. Actually hold elections for office, have a WA army that gives bonuses, etc. Why should our WA be lamer than the UN?

I really don't know why I thought of this, I rarely play NationStates anymore anyways.. But I was just thinking: why is the WA worse than the UN? I would have thought that after Max got the copyright e-mail, he would have tried to improve the WA.

What do I mean? Well, the UN at least has some blue helmeted men who can act as an army and enforce UN laws. The WA? Where's the threat? I could go against some nuclear weapon embargo and get away with it without fear of the WA getting in the way.

My suggestion is to make the WA a little more.. interactive. Actually hold elections for office, have a WA army that gives bonuses, etc. Why should our WA be lamer than the UN?

The Nationstates UN was as much a fictional construct as the WA. Its impact on member nations was solely limited to the Resolutions that players passed, making it identical to the present WA except that the exact Resolutions in force are different. Anything else associated with the real-world UN - the Security Council, the Secretary General, the blue-helmeted soldiers with confusing mandates - never existed in the Nationstates UN.

With that in mind, if you have any ideas to improve the WA and make it different from its current state as a clone of the NS UN, you're in the right place and time to suggest them.

I did make a suggestion: make the WA more interactive than just voting. Obviously there is no one stopping me from going against the WA as a WA member, therefore the only reason you should be in the WA is to hold regional control.

I did make a suggestion: make the WA more interactive than just voting. Obviously there is no one stopping me from going against the WA as a WA member, therefore the only reason you should be in the WA is to hold regional control.

Actually, you cannot in fact go against the will of the WA. Resolutions affect your nation's attributes - this cannot be prevented without leaving the WA. As for the specifics of the resolutions ("Ban whaling!", etc.), this is largely a literary/roleplay thing and and to enforce such things on all players who are interested in that aspect of the game would be both hideously complex and restrictive.

If you want that part of the resolution to apply, some sort of function adding WA resolutions to the nation description cycle might be a good idea, i.e. "Biology and religious education classes have recently been merged, politicians are losing their jobs in a plan to make the government 'leaner and fitter', and whaling has been banned in accordance with a recent WA resolution".

There was nothing keeping you from going against the UN either. The NationStates World Assembly functions precisely as the NationStates UN formerly did. Except the WA has pretty green carpets.

There was nothing keeping you from going against the UN either. The NationStates World Assembly functions precisely as the NationStates UN formerly did. Except the WA has pretty green carpets and their armed forces have green helmets.

I was actually comparing the WA in NS to the UN in real life.

And the WA is pretty ilinteractive. Like I said, maybe have an elected WA leader or something. If the WA was more interactive, I could guarantee it would bring more activity..

That would require a major job in recoding the game, so the likelihood of it is very small.

To elect a WA leader sounds pretty much like a superdelegate over all regions with a delegate... I don't think we would want to depend upon a single player to have that much power in the game.

There is a way to make the WA more interactive: Politicking and RPing. You could roleplay getting up and defying the WA's rules; you could RP the consequences with other players: embargoes, espionage, and perhaps military shows of force.

Then make it a major job if it needs to be. It always should have been a bit better than it currently is.

Or not.

As far as roleplaying defiance goes, most WA regulars consider defiance Godmoding (Sophista being a huge exception), and most II regulars refuse even to acknowledge the WA's existence, so I don't think a WA defiance roleplay would work out very well. Besides that, what would this elected leader even do? The mods already unofficially occupy Secretariat positions and fulfill all the duties expected of an executive.

As far as roleplaying defiance goes, most WA regulars consider defiance Godmoding (Sophista being a huge exception), and most II regulars refuse even to acknowledge the WA's existence, so I don't think a WA defiance roleplay would work out very well. Besides that, what would this elected leader even do? The mods already unofficially occupy Secretariat positions and fulfill all the duties expected of an executive.

So, what you are saying is that Max is the Secretary General and the mods are his posse?

Meh, I just thought it would be cool to have a real working WA and not just one that only allows you to vote.

As far as roleplaying defiance goes, most WA regulars consider defiance Godmoding (Sophista being a huge exception), and most II regulars refuse even to acknowledge the WA's existence, so I don't think a WA defiance roleplay would work out very well. Besides that, what would this elected leader even do? The mods already unofficially occupy Secretariat positions and fulfill all the duties expected of an executive.

Hm. Roleplaying defiance is fine so long as the majority of us regulars hate the resolution. :cool: