NationStates Jolt Archive

heres what the name of the proposal is:
"Questioning the role of the UN"

Here is the proposal:


The United Nations has been a longstanding organization that has stood up for the human rights of nations throughout the globe, and has affected social reform, environmental protection, and even political regimes. In the NationStates world, it is the job of the UN to protect the rights and freedoms of those who chose to join its ranks.

But the UN in recent times has become democratically defunct. Large chunks of the UN voting pool are not democratically decided. Instead, they are cheated votes - cheated from the honest and given to those who seek masterical power over the known NationStates world.

This resolution seeks to discourage all crasher political regimes which undemocratically seize control of more than one region in hopes to sway the votes of those regions or send them into chaos and turmoil.

In essence, much time and effort is devoted to setting up offsite forums and nations who come into control of regions for the sole purpose of destroying much of this effort, banning former democratically elected cabinets, and decimating populations to make them more dictator-friendly should be in essence banned. But since the gameplay mechanics will not allow such a resolution to be put forth, this resolution then authorizes and promotes the mobilization of war against such regimes, war on a mass scale.

1. Let it be known that political regimes that seek to destabilize regions will become targets to the world. May this resolution in effect horrify and shock those that choose imperialism over democracy and self-governance.

2. Let it encourage the fairer democratic delegate be elected. And may it encourage a fairer democracy to rule in the UN.

3. Regions have a right to self-determination, and invader regions shall be deemed to be breaching international law and subject to the full condemnation of the UN and its members in good standing. Let all invader regions of the UN be known that they will be deemed enemies, henceforth, of the United Nations. And may UN members feel imposed and have right to declare unforgiving war against these invader regions in mass.

4. This resolution seeks to coordinate a plan of execution against all invader regions. May nations and regions all around read this in passing and say to themselves "Hey, they are right! We must do something." And may those nations coordinate together against the common enemy.

5. May this resolution seek to inact a change in heart of those who run with invader regions. May they know that it took time, effort, planning, and friendships have been built creating regions. The resolution is that they realize the grieving they cause, and instead decide to build a region of their own and not to interfere with the affairs of other regions. The UN was created for the betterment and protection of mankind, not to impose power against mankind for the furtherence of the elite!

6. And in turn, the resolution demand the regioncrasher delegate have respect for the democratically elected cabinet and offsite forum, and listen with open ears to their wishes if they choose to remain in control of the region. It forces no boundaries to be respected, but calls upon the good of the regioncrashers to have respect to those who put time and effort into turning the region into a community rather than a regime!

7. May this resolution henceforth discourage regioncrashing by United Nation members, as it is undemocratic and against the very principle the UN is founded on.


Thank you all for any help you may give me in approving this

7. May this resolution henceforth discourage regioncrashing by United Nation members, as it is undemocratic and against the very principle the UN is founded on.


Thank you all for any help you may give me in approving this


A number of us have been considering doing something like this, but the hammer of the gods hovers near my friend. Hold off on submitting this until you've had a mod clean this proposal of the game mechanics spector.

If they rule that any proposal on region crashing is game mechanics related, then the approach I've been considering is to make a "convention". Don't run the document via the normal channels, but just write the Convention and have member states that agree sign on. One way to do this would be to make it a Convention on NationStates Warfare, and have signatories agree to only defend regions and to never invade. The rest of the convention could be written around defining the convention and how it would be amended.

It would be an excellent opportunity to study something like the Genevea Convention, and is fine within the realm of roleplaying.

Just an idea.

It would be nice to have something on the UN books about "region crashing."

IICR, someone copy-and-pasted the Geneva Convention into a UN proposal and it was stricken from the floor. So, if it is used, make sure it is used in your own words and not directly, as that, also, will be a violation of the rules of proposal writing.

A resolution like this faces a pretty big hurdle. It either alters a game mechanic, or won't be strongly worded enough to get the mods to enforce it. Region crashers don't care if the majority of the UN condemns them. In fact I'd go so far as to say many crashers realize most people condemn them and that's the whole reason they do it.

You've definitely got my thumbs up to try though.

The Holy Republic of Seriphyn supports this idea.

Nothing is more annoying then getting your region invading in an attempt to overthrow you as regional delegate.

You may be more skilled at the delegate position. Your country may be formal while theres is stupid and eccentric. They may even have no UN activity whatsoever!

The Holy Republic of Seriphyn

I always figured this as a possibility, though along the lines of :

1) If the U.N. resolutions are technically supposed to be abided by, by all member nations, past and present, then :

2) If it was possible to write up a codifying act regarding rules and regulations on region crashing/invasion, then :

3) This act could be written up, put up for endorsing, then if it hit quorum, then voted on in the general floor.

4) If it passed, it would be made a U.N. resolution and be law. And, by being a U.N. member, you would have to abide by it. After all, invaders/crashers need to be U.N. members to seat their own delegate. Don't they. ;)

50 Thus, solid laws would be in place regarding these practices, and being U.N. resolutions, would have to be abided by the people who they are applicable too. It would also give Moderation staff something solid to point at and say " Ha. See, SEE ! ", or something more diplomatic, and then punish rule breakers soundly and 100 % proven " justly ".

Because if the people invading/crashing don't know the rules then ...

* Insert sound of toilet flushing.

But hey, this may just be my dream. Oh, and being a 1st Codifying Act, could have a second Codifying act passed to include further rules or evolve with time and contemporary practices. It might also drag people kicking and screaming into some half decent U.N. participation. But as I said, just an idea.

OOC: A number of the feeder regions are controlled by UN Delegates who live for region crashing. The others would be wary of something like this, so I would get off the bat that there would be around something of the order of 1200 negative votes.

I appauld the effort and will back any debate up, because one reason people region crash is to be "dork" heads (though I really didn't say "dork"). ;)

The reason I say this, is in the moderation forum I've seen a few invaders complain about how "gay" a region or nation was and wanting to take them out. To me that is classic griefing. These people play the game to screw with the rest of us, but fortunately in the cases where the invaders are stupid enough to admit why they've targeted a region they also found themselves *without* UN membership.

There may be other reasons to play the region crashing game and I'd certainly be open to listening to them, but even if we assume all invaders are playing to be dork heads, there are a number of non-invading players, including possibly a few mods, that love this aspect of the game. Because there are players who hate what we do as well. *shrug*

* The Rep of Komokom contemplates running all this past a Moderator or two and possibly devoting time and resources to aiding the developing of a proposal along these lines.

Query : Would imported_MrPopo mind if I ran a re-write up for their/general member consideration here ? The more I think about it, the more this idea of yours smacks me as being pretty darn'd good. Naturally, it would be yours to run with, but I'd like to see if I could tidy it up a bit, and check over the legality of it.

Response ?

I may stand alone in this, but I don't like this idea.

Certainly when the game was designed (or shortly thereafter) the idea of region crashing was addressed and a proper game balance was set forth. Max even talks about it in the FAQ. I think it's a very important part of the nuts and bolts of the game. For one thing it makes nationsates more appealing. I mean it increases the size of its audience. Now you not only entice people to the UN and regional political arenas, or call to the orgy of forum role-playing those so inclined, but you beckon in those that find seizure, control, and imperialism fun, too. It tactfully adds another facet to the game, making its diamond that much more sparkly.

It isn't as if there aren't safeguards, as long as you have the region's founder with you. Of course many regions feel the delegateship powerless without access to regional control, but still. It would stop region crashing.

It isn't as if there isn't warning either. If you need an emergency relief of powers from the delegate before the region is crashed, you have a day to do it.

I believe it gives the delegateship legitimacy. If there isn't some risk that is entailed with giving the delegate power, then how is that mirroring real life? Every time power is given in government there is risk. I think the possibility of region crashing presents some of that risk as well as it can, given the game’s limited nature.

I wonder if this isn't a teensy weensy little power trip. It seems peculiar that two nations which have (in many people's eyes) "rule of the roost" in the forum, come out so strongly against someone else having some authority or power. Or is it peculiar at all? Certainly if I had worked hard to dominate one aspect of the game I would naturally feel inclined to force others to play my game and stay out of the other areas of the game. Areas which I can do little to nothing about...

Anyway, I think that the mechanics are fine the way they are. And I think it would be very hard to change them without of a resolution, and very impossible to change them with a resolution. I think Max did an excellent job with it when he first addressed it, and I don't think there's any need for revision.

*wipes brown off of nose.

While reading about the ejection from the UN of an invader, the player talked about how the region was more gay than region "gay" and thus deserved to be invaded. While I appreciate a diverse game, I don't enjoy the fact that players that are basically here to do nothing but spoil other players enjoyment of the game *are* cheating.

They are being caught, because obviously they aren't the brightest bulbs around, but the active UN nations do have to work harder, because invaders include inactive / non-particapatory UN Delegates. It is *hard* to collection 135 - 145 endorsements in a half week. Extremely hard. And every new region makes it all the harder.

Second, being in the UN at the time of a resolution outcome is optional. You can leave and return and never have a single resolution change your game stats (assuming you care about these things). But if you are in a region without a founder *and* assuming you have roleplayed a history and a war, you could find yourself in a totally different region.

I was pretty upset when I found myself in the Rejected Realms for basically standing up for my allies. I was no political threat, but by speaking out, I was made an example.

It took me a while of listening to the moderators to realize that perhaps a feeder region was *not* the best place for me, but the grief was still there.

So while I admit that region crashing makes the game dynamic and also brings in the jerks that typically vote down ANYTHING in the UN that doesn't address "White power" or "Military Budgets" etc., it still irks me that the game does show a bent in favour of their tactics, with less power sitting in the UN.

I do see your points and for the most part, I actually agree. I would much rather just see a minor change in the game elsewhere:

Perhaps the FAQ talk a bit more about feeders and how you shouldn't be surprised if you find yourself in the Rejected Realms -or- that maybe regions be called political alliances (in order to make it clear they don't physically respresent a place) <--- though making this change would of course disappoint players whom take region at face value.

In any event, the UN *is* about political stablity and is admittedly an organization / tool used to make global statements. If the majority of UN members want to say they disagree with the practice of region crashing, I think a UN statement to that effect should be allowed. A resolution ... maybe / maybe not. But a statement signed by players is really not that much different than what defender groups do when they charter on to reclaim regions.

One more positive about region crashing ... it does encourage nations to snoop around and pay attention to other regions. Without region crashing, I doubt this would happen nearly as much. It is kinda sad that the act is an aggressive act designed to screw somebody else, and that something so negative can have a few positive outcomes, but perhaps that is the lesson of NationStates.

Hmmm, although really, we don't need to change mechanics. Not at all. We can use current mechanics and the U.N. together to partially solve what is rapidly becoming a grave concern for many.

Because if you think about it, this could be a whole new role for the U.N. and could really do some good for all ...

As I said above, if I could have some response from Moderation or the initial writer I'd be glad to help put something worthy together.

* Naturally, if we can work out the legality of this as I wrote out in not the post above, but the one before that.

I find myself supporting this idea not because I'm about strengthening the role of the United Nations (which I am), but because the existance of region crashing and invading irks me to no end.

To my knowledge, this game was not designed with intra-regional-conflict-via-the-UN-delegacy in mind. More and more, I think that someone discovered that you could really tork a few chickens if you moved all your people into their region, and then started messing with their forums and what have you. The moderators or Max or whoever was responsible for making the decision wrote a series of guidelines to accomodate this behaviour for reasons that I have yet to ascertain.

It is difficult to muster sympathy for a vocal minority who demand that they have a right to interfere with other people's NationStates experience. They're annoyance is two-fold, first detracting from a person's ability to run their quiet little simulation in a region with friends from school, and second, from abusing the UN system to accomplish their juvenile pillaging. I'm not sure I agree with regional delegacy in the first place, but whatever it's purpose, the people who participate in invading are certainly not upholding it.

From an IC context, one can find further violation. It is widely agreed that the United Nations is primarily a peace-making and unification body, whose mission is to better the world through cooperative international policymaking. How then can one rationalize using their UN membership to accomplish an activity that is designed to disrupt these goals, and actively prevent nations from acheiving these goals?

Unfortunately, these opinions don't solve anything. The moderators and powers that be have long since made their decision, and continue to accomodate these tactics, despite their negative impact on the game. No matter the means, I would be quite happy to see some kind of policy put into play that weakens or eliminates the ability of these people to continue their practices.

Perhaps I'm just an angry pundit, but I'll do whatever I can.

hm... perhaps it's important that I better understand your experiences with region crashing (what exactly the mods will disallow) before I form a more precise opinion.

I definitely agree with Komokom. If there is to be any action taken, any action, we'd need to consult with a mod (or mods) and get their take on it, understand how much they're willing to bend.

They're annoyance is two-fold, first detracting from a person's ability to run their quiet little simulation in a region with friends from school, and second, from abusing the UN system to accomplish their juvenile pillaging. I'm not sure I agree with regional delegacy in the first place, but whatever it's purpose, the people who participate in invading are certainly not upholding it.


I don't know about that. Often when a kid tries to run a quiet simulation game with his friends at school he makes a new region, thus having the region founder on his side. Plus I don't think it was ever intended to be a quiet simulation game. It's like the NFL. They mix up where players go and use the draft as a tool to keep the teams are on as equal footing as possible. This adds excitement and legitimacy to the winner(s). Every team has to get used to the idea that they are going to lose once in a while.

I do realize that region crashing skews and complicates the passing of proposals. It'd be hard to get the votes in half a week, WITHOUT having to worry about hostile or dormant delegates, not pulling their weight. I still feel inclined that a little resistance to the standard UN way of doing things is only making th UN stronger, forcing people to speak out and be active. Maybe we do need to shift the balance some to favor the more legitimate delegates. But I'm not one with any ideas as to how much, what, or in what way to make this shift.

But NationStates isn't about winning and losing. In fact, unless I'm missing something, it's impossible to beat NationStates. There's no boss to beat at the last level, and while I'm sure you could try role-playing your nation conquering the known universe, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work.

Personally, I don't believe that joining the UN is just something you do because all the cool kids are doing it. Being a delegate because there's a button there and people like you is about as meaningful as being elected prom king. I propose a new rule: no more governing game mechanics the same way teenagers run popularity contests.

Can anyone point out the voting record of a feeder region delegate? They're the most powerful UN members in the game; how many of them post here? Or even read the threads? I agree with you, and many others on this thread, in saying that something needs to change. Unfortunately, I realize just as much that figuring out how to do such a thing is no small task.

Every team has to get used to the idea that they are going to lose once in a while.

I do realize that region crashing skews and complicates the passing of proposals. It'd be hard to get the votes in half a week, WITHOUT having to worry about hostile or dormant delegates, not pulling their weight. I still feel inclined that a little resistance to the standard UN way of doing things is only making th UN stronger, forcing people to speak out and be active. Maybe we do need to shift the balance some to favor the more legitimate delegates. But I'm not one with any ideas as to how much, what, or in what way to make this shift.

The Yankees rarely lose. I know you said NFL, but there aren't experience or time caps on NationStates players, and the truth is, a bit of experience and time can make a nation appear more successful.

Besides, the game isn't supposed to be about teams, it is supposed to focus on Nations.

The problem with region crashing is that it does have a negative impact on the UN, it also rises tensions in the game, not based on ideological difference, but instead on technicalities. The perfect example would be the rift between myself and the player of Tuesday Heights. Politically our nations stand for the same ideals: we are both liberals. Our interest in multiple aspects of the game are nearly has large, and yet because of the North Pacific situation, we both exchanged some very angry telegrams. Now she has done nothing that will have my nation gunning for her in the UN, because I see that as a separate situation, but I'm not about to really go out of my way to help her either. And it is sad that these other things can get in the way of the game.

As Sophista pointed out, role-playing would be nice to see more of, but due to the way the game is designed, that is a bit difficult.

There are some positives that do come out of region crashing, but there are many negatives as well.

I certainly have very little respect for invaders (not the people that say that region crashing is part of the game, but for the people that play to screw others over), but all that said, there is a large part of me that is so sick of region crashing that I'd really rather the UN focus on positive issues. There are so many great ideas and discussions going on, that I'd rather most of our time be spent there, instead of telling a bunch of "dork"heads that they are "dork"heads.

If somebody writes something that basically says, "Hey region crashing promotes conflict and is not appreciated", I'll pin my name to it. But I don't want to play their game, and would much rather more founders just protect their regions.

There is one idea I've been toying around with ... we could create an off-site UN forum. This idea though has a serious negative, as people will complain that we are trying to take over the UN. But what I would advocate is that the off-site UN forum *not* be used to debate draft ideas or proposals or resolutions.

That it be a place for: roleplay beyond the scope of the UN, and that it also serve as a "Call" center for proposal authors. I would think we could draft a letter with each of the resolution categories and ask UN Delegates to respond on a scale of 1 to 10 how likely they are to support a "typical" proposal fitting that resolution category and ask them if they'd like us to print their name and/or region on this call list. If they say no or don't respond, they will not be on the list. We won't publish any sort of "Do Not Call" list or anything else. The list would be voluntary and more like a survey.

Any other changes / ideas I have (and I have many) involve the moderators.

What's to prevent us from doing that same role play in this forum? I realize that making an off-site forum would allow us to control things a bit more and it would certainly be more tidy, but it's still possible to do here.

My primary question is how to organize such a thing. Telegrams aren't the most efficient way to exchange information, and I don't think those kind of development talks belong in the forum for all to read. I've heard mIRC mentioned before, but I presume the people involved would be from all over the globe, and coordinating a time to meet up would be next to impossible.

How about you set up a counter region crashing team, of say 10 nations (more could be incorporated as required, for larger regions), whose duty it would be to invade on behalf of the invaded, elect their own delegate, and chuck out the crashers, then leave?

All you need is a thread in the Forum where nations could make an appeal. Just an idea. If this does get started, then rules would have to be written.

Now, this does sound like vigilante justice to me, and I don't now whether the Mods would allow this kind of 'warfare'??

What's to prevent us from doing that same role play in this forum? I realize that making an off-site forum would allow us to control things a bit more and it would certainly be more tidy, but it's still possible to do here.

PROS

On-site:
open to all,
easy to find,
moderator patrolled.

Off-site:
lower traffic,
easier to structure,
less pointless rhetoric,
participants will compromise as they care enough to check it out,
less conflicts.


I'd love to roleplay, but the truth is that when a little kid comes to this forum who clearly doesn't understand basic words like "imperialism" or "sovereignty" or how real world politicans do make compromises all the time, it is really hard to effectively do anything.

Anybody who is a parent (or close friends with a new parent) will remember that little children are a lot of work. They need constant attention, and they really can't understand many things. It is hard to try and teach new comers about *international* relations and roleplay at the same time. Like many others, I was active in Model UNs in high school. In college I went on to organize MUNs (while competiting on the collegiate level across the US -- I'll even boast a bit here and add that I won a few awards ... I'm a much better public speaker and "actor" than you can get via NationStates, by playing nations like North Korea, India, and Zimbabwe) and continue to take an interest in international affairs. I'm sure *many* other people do as well. And there are people here whom I can learn much from. I enjoy talking / interacting with them.

But at the same time, I've *considered* following Frisbeetria's lead and just leaving this forum a few times (most recently after all this crap being caused by Miko ... he honestly doesn't have a clue what he is talking about). My point is it *is* hard to roleplay here, when you do really have newbies out there doing the exact same as tossing nukes right and left.

These kids aren't going to run to some off-site forum. They are looking for attention and will find less of it there. That is honestly why I think there is *some* merit in constructing a call list off-site.

That and the threads are obviously easier to manage and clean there. Not a dig on Jolt, which I'm very pleased with! :) But instead an observation based on how much traffice Jolt's forums get.

Now, this does sound like vigilante justice to me, and I don't now whether the Mods would allow this kind of 'warfare'??

Imperialist! You are going to bankrupt the third world! Your aggression towards socialist developing nations shows your true attempt at world domination! ;)

Just teasing, but I had to get that out of my system.

I think you have a valid point. That is why instead of addressing the subject of region crashing, I'd much rather we find a work-around to the problem invaders and hostile UN Delegates (i.e. the nations that refuse to ever endorse proposals because they violate "sovereignty ... they all do). I think a subject focused "call list" is a good method.

For example:

How likely are you to endorse a typical proposal for each of the following Nation States game categories? Please rate on 1 (least likely) to 10 (most likely).

Free Trade - Strong
Free Trade - Significant
Free Trade - Mild
International Security - Strong
International Security - Significant
International Security - Mild
Human Rights - Strong
Human Rights - Significant
Human Rights - Mild


And the off-site report might look like:

Free Trade - Strong

Grand Teton: 3
Hersfold: 4
Komokom: 3
Mikitivity: 1
Sophista: 3

Free Trade - Significant

Grand Teton: 5
Hersfold: 7
Komokom: 6
Mikitivity: 1
Sophista: 4

Free Trade - Mild

Grand Teton: 7
Hersfold: 9
Komokom: 8
Mikitivity: 2
Sophista: 5

International Security - Significant

Grand Tenton: 1
Hersfold: 5
Komokom: 5
Mikitivity: 3
Sophista: 4

etc.

This would just be a volunteer thing. I'm willing to write up the questionaire and create an off-site board for *just* this purpose. I'd call it a "NS United Nations Diplomatic Lounge", but it would really be a call center.

How about you set up a counter region crashing team, of say 10 nations (more could be incorporated as required, for larger regions), whose duty it would be to invade on behalf of the invaded, elect their own delegate, and chuck out the crashers, then leave?

All you need is a thread in the Forum where nations could make an appeal. Just an idea. If this does get started, then rules would have to be written.

Now, this does sound like vigilante justice to me, and I don't now whether the Mods would allow this kind of 'warfare'??

Great idea.

The Yankees rarely lose. I know you said NFL, but there aren't experience or time caps on NationStates players, and the truth is, a bit of experience and time can make a nation appear more successful.

Besides, the game isn't supposed to be about teams, it is supposed to focus on Nations.

I really should stop posting when tired. I always have to correct myself afterward. You're absolutely right; the NFL example wasn't very good. I guess what I meant should've been something more along the lines of relating risk and power. Not smacking butts and guzzling alcohol.

But then again you bring up an interesting point: the Yankees hardly lose. At least they win unduly more than everyone else. This is because they're rich. They have money to buy the best team out there. I know I'm going to get a many mail bombs from Yankees fans for that, but it IS true. Just compare the numbers.

That's an interesting point to me because it illustrates some similar situations in NS. Those that accumulate 'power' in the UN forum dominate that aspect of the game. They have few rivals...in that sphere. But should there be other ways, other paths to take to "dominance"? Why should it be a one-dimensional game which is easily controlled by the elite few? I mean if there weren't any way to region crash (and I don't mean the griefing kind of crashing), then wouldn't those of power in the UN be like the Yankees: having all the money/best players? Well, the Yankees don't have ALL the good players, but they have a lot of them. A lot more than anyone else. I just think it makes the game more inclusive and more fun to have a legitimate way for people without control over the UN forum to gain some advantage. A little nuance and complication to make it less idealistic and more realistic.

Sophista: Granted, there is no real "winning" with nationstates, which is a critical factor in the game. It makes it role-playing. You're right. But I find this not to mean that there is no point to the game, or no real objective to meet. I think it means more that it's up to the player to decide what his primary objective is. He gets to decide what his nation's MO is and what its motivations are. If we only allow the objectives in the game that are in our favor, how just is that? I think that a ban on region crashing, no matter how much grief it alleviates, will throw out both baby and bathwater.

To present another analogy I'll have to correct later (one of these days I'll get one right...) It's like football, without the pass. Without passing football becomes a game of only running (duh), one dimensional. Those that excel in the run win. Plain and simple. Not very fun.

If you have just the right balance between pass and rush, though, the game gets interesting.

Do we have the right balance between forum UN power and regional-crash UN power? I'd probably say no. But I don't think we should do anything too drastic or we'll just be overcompensating, tipping the balance the other way. Last time I overcompensated for a small mistake I ended up in a ditch.

I hope I'm not saying the same things over and over again, because that's rude to everyone reading and makes me seem short-sighted and stupid. This is how I feel. I've never had my region crashed. I've seen examples of fun and harmless region crashing (it was more like "region landing", not a single ejection was made, and there was much activity on the region-message-thingey). I used to play with the nation Mitae. Back before and during the uproar about the Gay Rights resolution (massive flaming, in more ways than one). Varnorth and Mitae actually were the orchestrators of this "region landing". That's my main experience with what goes through the heads of crashers. I know why they do it. And if it isn't griefing (which I dare not attempt to be an authority on) I think it helps the game more accurately emulate the real world...with the standard nationstates twists, of course.

That's my position, I hope restating it (even though I've tried to be more specific this time) hasn't bogged down the thread in yesterdays news.

An off-site forum? Sounds interesting. I wonder how it would work. There won't be mods? How would that work out?

I just realized how out of character I've been in this thread I hope the RP police don't throw me in the clink. Then I'll have to share a cell Bubba, an out-of-character Bubba.

That's an interesting point to me because it illustrates some similar situations in NS. Those that accumulate 'power' in the UN forum dominate that aspect of the game. They have few rivals...in that sphere. But should there be other ways, other paths to take to "dominance"? Why should it be a one-dimensional game which is easily controlled by the elite few? I mean if there weren't any way to region crash (and I don't mean the griefing kind of crashing), then wouldn't those of power in the UN be like the Yankees: having all the money/best players? Well, the Yankees don't have ALL the good players, but they have a lot of them. A lot more than anyone else. I just think it makes the game more inclusive and more fun to have a legitimate way for people without control over the UN forum to gain some advantage. A little nuance and complication to make it less idealistic and more realistic.

First off, I'm not sure how many of the non-Americans are going to completely understand your football analogy nor my Yankees reference, but it does fit.

As to the myth that there are game power brokers, I'm less certain these individuals exist. Granted Francos is the name that most players either love or hate, but for every ally he gets, he is hated by easily the same number of players.

In other words, popularity has a price / political cost.

Francos exists, but in a way he also is powerless to do many things in the game.

After Francos, there really aren't any other players I can think of that dominate any one game aspect.

Bear in mind that there are more than two games in NS:

- region crashing
- UN
- RPing (with or without the UN)
- issue navigation

I'd rather see us focus more on finding ways to streamline and improve the quality of debate / roleplay / activity in the UN. But I'm not about to approve of region crashing, because the dynamics that come from it, can also be achieved by consistent and informed RP.

How likely are you to endorse a typical proposal for each of the following Nation States game categories? Please rate on 1 (least likely) to 10 (most likely).

Free Trade - Strong
Free Trade - Significant
Free Trade - Mild
International Security - Strong
International Security - Significant
International Security - Mild
Human Rights - Strong
Human Rights - Significant
Human Rights - Mild


And the off-site report might look like:

Free Trade - Strong

Grand Teton: 3
Hersfold: 4
Komokom: 3
Mikitivity: 1
Sophista: 3

Free Trade - Significant

Grand Teton: 5
Hersfold: 7
Komokom: 6
Mikitivity: 1
Sophista: 4

Free Trade - Mild

Grand Teton: 7
Hersfold: 9
Komokom: 8
Mikitivity: 2
Sophista: 5

International Security - Significant

Grand Tenton: 1
Hersfold: 5
Komokom: 5
Mikitivity: 3
Sophista: 4

etc.

This would just be a volunteer thing. I'm willing to write up the questionaire and create an off-site board for *just* this purpose. I'd call it a "NS United Nations Diplomatic Lounge", but it would really be a call center.

The one problem can think of with that idea is that I never judge a proposal by its title. I mean, I am in favour of free trade in principle, but poor nations cannot compete with richer nations in the world market, if all restrictions are removed. This is why I always check proposals on free trade to see whether they support my views. Having said that, it's a good idea.

I think of it as a shopping guide. It still is a sticky topic, because it does something similar to what the "No Call List" would do. It hopefully streamlines the endorsement seeking process. But I want information only to be posted if the UN Delegates want it.

I like the idea of a shopping list, provided enough delegates provided information. It's not going to be very useful if only 10 people are on it. Then again, I imagine response would be strong if you spun the idea as keeping extraneous telegrams out of their mailbox or something like that.

And as much as I'd like to be on the list, I'm not a delgate.

-points to mock up-

* Looks touched at being made an imaginary delegate, ;)

Ah! Imaginary Delegate is so my forum title once I hit the right post count. In the mean time, where could we find a bit of space to host an off-site UN forum? I know there are some pretty atrocious free boards out there, and I'm almost of the belief that no board is better than a really, really bad one.