NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all please note - this is not a proposal, nor is it a call for a change in the game.

There are, apparently, issues with the way the UN system of democracy works. And while some people might think this is just sour grapes because a proposal failed, there might be more to it than that. So...

If I may be so bold as to quote someone else without asking, the reason for the post is this :-


Originally Posted by Love and esterel
The UN vote system is a dual system based on region+nation vote, and my present post is absolutly not intended to change anything but just to provide some stats:


- FOR - AGAINST
Votes - 7093 - 7193
Members - 3585 - 2462
Delegates - 624 - 455
Members+Delegates - 4209 - 2917
Delegate Votes - 3508 - 4731


% - FOR - AGAINST
Votes - 49,7 - 50,3
Members - 59,3 - 40,7
Delegates - 57,8 - 42,2
Members+Delegates - 59,1 - 40,9
Delegate Votes - 42,6 - 57,4


This is how the vote went against the most recent resolution (which failed).

And while I understand this is how it is, it was further complicated by what I would consider to be an attempt to hijack one of the biggest regions in the game with a false agenda to ensure the vote was no.

There has been a number of posts/dicussions here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446611&page=9) about what happened (or what people think happened), but as Mik so helpfully pointed out, it would be better to start again.

I think my basic problem (I am speaking just for Pallatium here, not for anyone else, so come yell at me if you disagree) is that while the UN works on a theoretically democraticly based system (ew! not a fun sentence to write), there are actually no checks on how it works, and the regions that hold the most power in the system are entirely unchecked as to how they work. A number of them say they represent their members, having off site polls and so forth to decide the vote, but the offsite votes can easily be hijacked and warped by... I don't want to say cheating, but by less than ethical means.

Again - this is not a call for a permenant revolution, just a comment about the way things are.

While some reigons may have unchecked powers, other reigons may indeed do not...

When I started a TG campagin to sway delgates who was voting YEA to voting NAY, several people responded. They said that most people in their reigons told them to vote FOR the propsal, so why should they change their vote? This is an informal poll, but I'm showing there is another side to the issue.

What we need is regional delgates who are accountable...nothing else. Some reigons do off-site polls, but other reigons say, "Hey, endorse whoever you want..." which in reality seems more fair, less chances for cheating...and you don't have to endorse somebody who you hate. Delegates who don't abuse their power...and listen to the people that actually supported them...that will end the crisis.

my friend, if by one of the largest regions in the games you mean Gatesville let me explain.

I brought this to the attention of the Gateville nations by posting it in our website. I only started the ball rolling by stating my arguments that i'd already posted up in the NSUN forum.

the members who did comment on this all voted no except for one person who abstained.

I never had any contact with our regional delegate so i'd assumed he'd voted according to our poll.

the people spoke up and our delegate voted accordingly.

my friend, if by one of the largest regions in the games you mean Gatesville let me explain.

I brought this to the attention of the Gateville nations by posting it in our website. I only started the ball rolling by stating my arguments that i'd already posted up in the NSUN forum.

the members who did comment on this all voted no except for one person who abstained.

I never had any contact with our regional delegate so i'd assumed he'd voted according to our poll.

the people spoke up and our delegate voted accordingly.

It wasn't Gatesville to which I was referring :} If that is the way it happened there, then it is something I would wish to happen everywhere.

my friend, if by one of the largest regions in the games you mean Gatesville let me explain.No, he's griping about the West Pacific, which as far as I know is not one of the largest regions, but the single largest region, at least according to the delegate vote count. I must say, I am very pleased with the West Pacific's behavior of late: Its delegate votes alone have saved the UN from making some very terrible mistakes, including Transgender Equality and now the Worldwide Media Act. It also saved the repeal of Ban Chemical Weapons.

No, he's griping about the West Pacific, which as far as I know is not one of the largest regions, but the single largest region, at least according to the delegate vote count. I must say, I am very pleased with the West Pacific's behavior of late: Its delegate votes alone have saved the UN from making some very terrible mistakes, including Transgender Equality and now the Worldwide Media Act. It also saved the repeal of Ban Chemical Weapons.

I didn't have the relative sizes to hand, and am not one to make rash claims about things :}

But the problem is not so much the vote, but the way the decision to vote was arrived at.

(OOC: It might have been interesting if you added a poll asking players how the delegate system works in their region, whether the delegate approves proposals and votes on floor items based on a democratic vote, a poll, consensus, consultation, discussion, eenie-meenie-meinie-mo, thumb-wrestling, total delegate unilateralism, whatever.)

I speak on behalf of a delegate nation whose votes comprised a fifth of the margin of defeat on the last proposal -- that's right, an entire fifth. So obviously I am a Very Important Person here, and as such I'd like to exploit my V.I.P. status to extoll the superior delegate-accountability system in our region.

Our region has no accountability.

This is because our region is comprised mainly of grumpy rogue regimes who are totally isolated from the international community. There are no complaints about this; in fact, the region members like being isolated. It gives them more freedom to do whatever the heck they want. Where members are in the UN (and the vast majority are not), they rarely discuss UN matters; only one other nation besides myself even bothers to post on the UN forum. None have ever contacted me about how I intend to cast my vote or whether I will approve a proposal. I don't know if most of them even bother voting on UN resolutions. As you can imagine, such apathy leaves a sort of natural vacuum in our region's governance. (We do have a governing body of charter nations, but they mostly just sit around and do nothing -- and speaking of sitting around and talking about our own importance, I've been on this forum since May; who do I gotta kill to get an invite to join the UN Old Guard?).

As I see it, my neighbors don't want me constantly pestering them about UN business or holding regular regionwide votes about UN proposals or resolutions, so I vote the way I want to (sometimes to tragic outcomes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9768585&postcount=223)), and if the region members don't like it, they can try and topple me in the endorsement count (btw, it's been tried before, and failed). It's something I like to call representative democracy, even though our region is not democratic in any way, shape or form: The UN members in my region elected me to do a job, and I'm going to do it, and if they don't like it, elect someone else. Do my (RL) congressman or senators hold a vote to determine how they will vote on a bill before Congress? No. Should they? No. Otherwise, what's the point of even holding congressional elections? Congressmen are not the Electoral College; they are not specifically instructed to vote the wishes of their constituency.

Why should a UN delegate be any different? Believe it or not, delegates are all players with their own minds; they are not mindless drones who automatically react to a regional vote -- but, frankly, too many of them behave that way. Many even use "democracy" or "the wishes of my region" or "the democratic vote of my region" as an excuse for their own apathy when contacted about a proposal or UN vote. I really don't like the fact that so many large regions elect their delegates or hold UN votes on their off-site forums, where at the very most only a dozen members will take part. A delegate may have 185 votes, but he will only vote a certain way because six people in his region wanted him to. That just strikes me as irresponsible and somewhat anti-democratic. In my view, consult yes, debate yes; if you're a larger region, wait till as many members as possible have weighed in before voting, but in the end, vote your own conscience.

... But I suppose that if members in my own region did want a stake in how I exercized my voting prowess, it would have to be decided by rock-paper-scissors (best out of three, of course).

That's my take.

I really don't care what mechanism a feeder delegate, or any other delegate, uses to arrive at his/her decision on how to vote. It's a regional matter and it's none of my business. As for myself, I vote as I see fit unless I truly am undecided. Then i consult the other members. I usually recieve a resounding "meh" and end up having to make up my own mind anyway.

The fact is, this is how the UN votes. Players can always withdraw their endorsements if they feel their delegate is voting inappropriately. You say it's not sour grapes...but you haven't really identified a problem. The UN has approved some terrible resolutions, and rejected some fine ones. Say the old folks, just shows you never can tell.

I think my basic problem (I am speaking just for Pallatium here, not for anyone else, so come yell at me if you disagree) is that while the UN works on a theoretically democraticly based system (ew! not a fun sentence to write), there are actually no checks on how it works, and the regions that hold the most power in the system are entirely unchecked as to how they work. A number of them say they represent their members, having off site polls and so forth to decide the vote, but the offsite votes can easily be hijacked and warped by... I don't want to say cheating, but by less than ethical means.

You are missing one vital point: it's the UN members that let this happen. Democratically. They *choose* not to tell their delegate what to do.

The UN is a kind of anarchy-democracy. You can endorse UN members you like. One of them is a delegate. But the delegate only holds as much power as the endorsers give. If they don't like their delegate's voting (which is what you suggest by presenting that analysis of the voting), they can un-endorse the delegate, or elect another one in the next delegate elections, whatever way the region prefers. If they don't, that's simply those UN members saying that they trust the delegate to vote on their behalf.

One important fact to notice in the vote count on the last resolution is that not all UN members vote directly, but they may be represented by their delegate. So their vote only shows up in the delegate count. They probably don't care either way, so they're happy with the result as it is (otherwise, they'd have voted).

With your vote count, it looks as if a majority of UN nations would want a crap resolution like the Worldwide Media Format resolution. The formal vote count says otherwise. This is not because of unfair proceedings, a failing of the UN democratic system, or anything like that. It's the silent group who let the delegate vote. They "decided" by not actively voting that the delegate could decide, and the delegate decided that they were against.

I think the UN democratic system is working. It's just a bit sad that if a resolution (justly) fails, the whole system is suddenly put into question. Bad losers, I say.

You are missing one vital point: it's the UN members that let this happen. Democratically. They *choose* not to tell their delegate what to do.


It wasn't the members of the region who had the say. It was members of other regions who told the delegate what to do.

That would be my problem :}

It wasn't the members of the region who had the say. It was members of other regions who told the delegate what to do.

That would be my problem :}

You don't know that in every case. You cannot second-guess the motivations of voters. This argument has been through the works plenty; it's tired, and old.

You don't know that in every case. You cannot second-guess the motivations of voters. This argument has been through the works plenty; it's tired, and old.

I know. But what I saw was this -

A nation who is not part of a region (according to their nation's info screen) came to the regional board, posted a wild accusation in regard to the proposal that had no basis in fact, and scared at least three others in to voting against it (from the posts in the message board).

I am all for debate and discussion, but the whole implication of kicking people out for UN-multi accounts is that no one person should be able, or should try, to manipulate the UN process. And from what I saw, that is clearly not actually happening.

And yeah - I don't have a solution. I just figured that it was one of those things that people might want to be aware of (new players more than older players I guess).

Ok. You thought we might want to be aware that people will campaign for, and against, resolutions. News to me. Thanks.

Ok. You thought we might want to be aware that people will campaign for, and against, resolutions. News to me. Thanks.

(grin) Again - if it was just campaigning, I would not have an issue. But pretending to be someone else, attempting to rig regional votes, intefering with what is supposedly a democractic vote you are not involved in by using scare tactics.......

If this is campaigning then there is far more wrong with the UN than I had considered.

As we have already said, by posting those stats on the forum Love and esterel didn't intend to change the Vote system and never intended to say that the vote on "Worldwide Media Act" was not democratic.

The rules of the vote are clear, simple and democratic, and noone can say they don't know them. It's always important to discuss this rules freely in order to improve them, but love and esterel has no position about it.

As we have said, by posting those stats we just intended to say that 59% of UN Members and Delegates who voted, voted FOR, that's all.

Furthermore we also want to say that for the UN Nations and Delegates who don't vote for a resolution, there is no way to know if they abstain or don't read it => it's better to not speculate about it

As we have already said, by posting those stats on the forum Love and esterel didn't intend to change the Vote system and never intended to say that the vote on "Worldwide Media Act" was not democratic.

The rules of the vote are clear, simple democratic, and noone can say they don't know them. We can of course discuss them in order to improve them, but love and esterel has no position about it.

As we have said, by posting those stats we just intended to say that 59% of UN Members and delegates who voted, voted FOR, thats' all.

Furthermore we also want to say that for the UN Nations and Delegates who don't vote for a resolution, there is no way to know if they abstain or don't read it => it's better to not speculate about it

I don't want to change it, or a recount, but I am willing to say that the "democraticness" of it depends on your definition :}

(grin) Again - if it was just campaigning, I would not have an issue. But pretending to be someone else, attempting to rig regional votes, intefering with what is supposedly a democractic vote you are not involved in by using scare tactics.......

If this is campaigning then there is far more wrong with the UN than I had considered.

Anything that is illegal should be reported as such. Anything that is not is all fair.

Anything that is illegal should be reported as such. Anything that is not is all fair.

And therein lies the problem :}

I must agree with Yelda. Accountability of the delegates is irrelevant, as it is the delegate's choice what he wants to do - or perhaps the region. My region has held, under both administrations, the belief that the delegate should vote whatever way he wants on a resolution. He'll endorse any proposal requested by the general populace, but never has the region pushed for the vote to go one way or the other. That said, we will still debate the resolution and figure out the rest from there.

Each region is governed by their own constitution. The UN gives you no right to change it, so what right do you have to tell them how they should do it?

Feeder regions are the worst. Delegates will have hundreds of votes, and they vote based upon polls on off-site forums - which are used by....maybe a dozen people?

(grin) Again - if it was just campaigning, I would not have an issue. But pretending to be someone else, attempting to rig regional votes, intefering with what is supposedly a democractic vote you are not involved in by using scare tactics.......

If this is campaigning then there is far more wrong with the UN than I had considered.

Its called politics, and politics is a very dirty game ;):D.

What happened in The West Pacific is a regional problem not a UN problem. If they are allowing those from outside the region post on their forum and swing their votes, then thats something they will need to deal with themselves.

I have native nations in 4 of the Pacifics (and the RR), have had for months, and have registered on the offsite forums of 3 of them. I have a grand total of 4 posts in those three forums. The main reason is because I've noticed the Pacifics offsite forums are very, very clique driven. Its a bit hard to join in when by only reading the offsite forums in those regions, you feel like you're invading someone elses home.

The core group of people from each Pacific all post on each others forums. Its hard for me to tell the actual home region of most of them. When they are welcomed in each others forums and allowed to post wherever they want to, then things like this will happen.

Maybe instead of posting this here, its a problem that should be raised in the West Pacific instead.

Its called politics, and politics is a very dirty game ;):D.
<lights cigar> I'll have you know that our smoke-filled rooms are the cleanest in all of nationstates.

I have native nations in 4 of the Pacifics (and the RR), have had for months, and have registered on the offsite forums of 3 of them. I have a grand total of 4 posts in those three forums. The main reason is because I've noticed the Pacifics offsite forums are very, very clique driven. Its a bit hard to join in when by only reading the offsite forums in those regions, you feel like you're invading someone elses home.

The core group of people from each Pacific all post on each others forums. Its hard for me to tell the actual home region of most of them. When they are welcomed in each others forums and allowed to post wherever they want to, then things like this will happen.
I've have nations in the pacifics myself, but ended up pulling them out. I know what you mean, I always sort of felt like I was there as a "guest" or a spy or something. Of course, the whole purpose of having the puppet there was to keep an eye on them, so maybe I felt that way for a reason. :)

First of all please note - this is not a proposal, nor is it a call for a change in the game.

There are, apparently, issues with the way the UN system of democracy works. And while some people might think this is just sour grapes because a proposal failed, there might be more to it than that.

This doesn't sound like sour grapes to me. It sounds like a reasonable concern. I've always had an uncomfortable itch about the regional delegate vote. I realize two things. First, that this is the way the game is set up, and that if I don't like it, I don't have to play. Second, there are a variety of points of view that deserve consideration. That being said....

What bothers me is that the regional delegate voting system allows a very small number of nations to effectively control a very large number of votes. For example, my own region has 10 votes and the regional vote is determined by voting in our regional forum. The problem is that usually only three or four of us vote. So four people determine 10 votes. Now, that's not a big deal. But I recall a proposal a while back that was discussed in another forum. It was reported that one region with several hundred votes had only 14 or 15 people voting on the issue in its forum. Now, I know, I know.... Everyone has a right to not vote on an issue, trust their delegates, etc. But this sort of thing still bothers me.

I'll live with it. I have to. But here's what I'd change if it were up to me:

1) Regional delegates would retain the power to approve proposals. I think this is a necessary feature which keeps us from having to debate and vote on a whole lot of trash proposals.

2) Voting on proposals would be a pure democracy. One nation = one vote. There would be no regional delegate votes.

One last item and then I'll shut up and go away.... ;)

When this was being discussed in another thread, someone suggested an analogy to the US Congress and its bicameral system. The analogy is appropriate, but I think it would be good to recall why the system was set up that way. When the US Government was being established, it was considered primarily a federation of states (even though it doesn't look much like that today). So the Senate, with its two votes per state, was to represent the states. The House, with its membership determined by population, was to represent the people. I don't see the same sort of rationale as applicable to the NSUN.

Just my thoughts.

2) Voting on proposals would be a pure democracy. One nation = one vote. There would be no regional delegate votes.

I would not like it, as it would trivalize nations.

Delgates are given more votes, which means they have more ablity to infulence if a propsal passes or not. This means the delegate has power.

If it is one nation-one vote, then all nations would be equally powerful...and therefore equally powerless. Nobody would be able to infulence the vote, and NSUN would fall in disrepair...people will realize their vote won't matter.

This is why the current delgate system works...it gives some people the chance to actually affect an election...gives people a chance at getting power. Power corrupts, true, but power is also a lure. It lures people to join the UN and pay attention to it...and even care about it...since they contorl it.

This chance for power is sometimes a very important reason why many reigons has entered into the UN to begin with. Take away this chance...and the UN would be rendered meanignless forever.

OOC: IRL, this is why some small states in the US do support the electoral college. The electoral college gives the small states a chance to sway presidental elections...while, in a one person-one vote, the small states would have no power whatsoever.

The fact is, this is how the UN votes. Players can always withdraw their endorsements if they feel their delegate is voting inappropriately. You say it's not sour grapes...but you haven't really identified a problem. The UN has approved some terrible resolutions, and rejected some fine ones. Say the old folks, just shows you never can tell.

The differences between UN Delegate and UN Member votes is something that can work both ways.

In the case of the Worldwide Media Act the data provided by Love and Esterel clearly shows that UN Delegate votes were not representative of the ensemble of UN Member votes without respect to region. But my government has been under the impression that many other resolutions (including several we've sponsored) have vote totals that could over estimate the level of UN Member support. This is just a possibility.

I think the take home point here is to consider that there really are two levels of votes: (1) regional decisions, and (2) UN decisions which are influenced by regional decisions.

For example, if 40% of the IDU were to support a measure while 60% opposed it, 100% of the IDU Delegate votes would go against in addition to the 60% already cast against. In this case, since Delegate votes are always all-or-nothing, it might appear that 80% of the votes (160 out of 200) were cast against a measure when only 60% of the votes really supported that position.

This has always been the way our UN functions. (OOC: This is also the way the United States President is elected via the Electoral College, which in most US States is treated as an all-or-nothing vote. In the case of the US, it is often suggested that the US is not a direct democracy, but rather an indirect democracy for this and other reasons. The same label might be applied to the UN.)

With this in mind, when my government has been a sponsor of a resolution, we've made a point to lobby for 50%+1 support of the votes in the larger regions, in hopes of getting 75% instead of just 50% of that regions votes via UN Delegate votes.

For nations that might not like the fact that the UN uses a Delegate system, it might be useful to make public a list of regions which use purely democratic systems to determine how their UN Delegate shall vote. Releasing this information via a non-governmental organization like the United Nations Association, might then allow for pro and con sides of a resolution to attempt to lobby the *same* regions, and thus this might help to promote direct democracy within UN decision making.

I would not like it, as it would trivalize nations.

Delgates are given more votes, which means they have more ablity to infulence if a propsal passes or not. This means the delegate has power.

If it is one nation-one vote, then all nations would be equally powerful...and therefore equally powerless. Nobody would be able to infulence the vote, and NSUN would fall in disrepair...people will realize their vote won't matter.

This is why the current delgate system works...it gives some people the chance to actually affect an election...gives people a chance at getting power. Power corrupts, true, but power is also a lure. It lures people to join the UN and pay attention to it...and even care about it...since they contorl it.

This chance for power is sometimes a very important reason why many reigons has entered into the UN to begin with. Take away this chance...and the UN would be rendered meanignless forever.

OOC: IRL, this is why some small states in the US do support the electoral college. The electoral college gives the small states a chance to sway presidental elections...while, in a one person-one vote, the small states would have no power whatsoever.

But isn’t that how it already works? My vote is already trivial because it means nothing compared to the delegate votes…

I’ve got one vote – just one. Some nations have much more. So why should I bother to vote at all? My vote accounts for very little compared to the votes of the delegates.

In my experience, in many of the regions, endorsements are given, not based on whether or not you actually like the nation, but based on how as much power as possible can be gathered in one delegate vote. The upshot of this is that the largest regions command an incredible number of votes, whereas the smaller regions command none. Their delegates have too little support to truly influence the vote, and the vote of the individual nations are, as already noted, largely irrelevant…

I fully support the one-nation-one-vote idea. Make all nations equal!

I would not like it, as it would trivalize nations.

Delgates are given more votes, which means they have more ablity to infulence if a propsal passes or not. This means the delegate has power.

If it is one nation-one vote, then all nations would be equally powerful...and therefore equally powerless. Nobody would be able to infulence the vote, and NSUN would fall in disrepair...people will realize their vote won't matter.


Of course people could influence the vote. But they would have to do it using words instead of other methods.

There is no electoral college in the UK - one person gets one vote, and one vote elects one MP. It seems to work here (not very well, but that is down to the way the MPs are handled, not the voting)

It would mean that rather than one person holding 550 votes (4% of the votes cast in the last floor vote), each person would vote for themselves, and then try to convince others of their message. It might meen more people on here, and it might meen more debate about a proposal when it is before the floor.


(Again - not calling for a change, just pointing things out)


This is why the current delgate system works...it gives some people the chance to actually affect an election...gives people a chance at getting power. Power corrupts, true, but power is also a lure. It lures people to join the UN and pay attention to it...and even care about it...since they contorl it.


And sometimes it gives people power to interfere in other regions to affect the voting procedure :}


OOC: IRL, this is why some small states in the US do support the electoral college. The electoral college gives the small states a chance to sway presidental elections...while, in a one person-one vote, the small states would have no power whatsoever.

(ooc) The evidence from the past two elections would suggest this might not always be a good thing. But that is a topic more suited to general, so I am really not going to get in to it here :}

A nation who is not part of a region (according to their nation's info screen) came to the regional board, posted a wild accusation in regard to the proposal that had no basis in fact, and scared at least three others in to voting against it (from the posts in the message board).

That's simply campaigning. Perhaps not in the most ethical way, and below the standards of you, me, and many others, but that's also democracy.

If you endorse a delegate, you trust them to represent you in the UN and to safeguard your region. How they go about representing you in the UN is entirely down to the region. If members lend their endorsement and are passive, then the delegate is perfectly entitled to vote as they wish. If, as in the ACA and many other regions, members lend their endorsement and are active, the delegate will vote according to the wishes expressed.

If Pacific nations endorse a nation in their hundreds, they hand over a great deal of responsibility. It's up to them to hold their delegate to account. It would seem that the vast majority of West Pacific nations are content to waive their franchise - so be it.

It strikes me as the nearest way of having a bicameral system, such as the real UN has. Therefore, I have nothing against it

If you endorse a delegate, you trust them to represent you in the UN and to safeguard your region. How they go about representing you in the UN is entirely down to the region. If members lend their endorsement and are passive, then the delegate is perfectly entitled to vote as they wish. If, as in the ACA and many other regions, members lend their endorsement and are active, the delegate will vote according to the wishes expressed.

If Pacific nations endorse a nation in their hundreds, they hand over a great deal of responsibility. It's up to them to hold their delegate to account. It would seem that the vast majority of West Pacific nations are content to waive their franchise - so be it.

The argument I believe isn't about the responsibility or sovereign right regions have over their own governing proceedures, but instead should focus on the awareness that nations, particularly those in larger regions, have about the sensitivity of the voting process.

-Katzman

and speaking of sitting around and talking about our own importance, I've been on this forum since May; who do I gotta kill to get an invite to join the UN Old Guard?).

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find the last Greater HotRodian Swallow and kill it. Then you have to cook it and eat it, that being your only meal for two weeks. Good luck.

Hey Miki, I sent you a telegram and you never replied... Anyways, being from (and currently sitting in) the West Pacific, I do have to say that many of the people endorse one another for the sake of endorsing. As far as our delegacy, yes Nee Nee has lots of political sway in regards to endorsements equaling votes. Personally, I think its an excess of power, but if someone had to have it, it would be her I would want. We have similar political outlooks, and I have no qualms discussing the latest proposals with her.

And she frequently gives me cookies :D

The solution would be to increase the number of feeder regions, in my opinion, to spread the nations out more so that each feeder reagion doesn't have so many nations in it in the first place.

But yeah...I know, I know...that's changing the game mechanics, and it won't happen.

EDIT: Hey...nobody give me cookies... :(

Im not trying to stray off topic, but perhaps that could be made as a suggestion for NS2. Feeder regions definately need a bit of a lowering in power. Adding more feeders only seems logical...

Im not trying to stray off topic, but perhaps that could be made as a suggestion for NS2. Feeder regions definately need a bit of a lowering in power. Adding more feeders only seems logical...

Finally! Someone I'm not arguing with! :D

Heh, I mean when we play other games and the servers get crowded, what happens? We get more servers, thats what! Comparably, with Feeders getting larger, we need more of them to displace all the power. The only reason this hasn't happened yet is, is because their's no ceiling on how many people can join a region. We'd have three times as many feeders if the ceiling was only say, 2000. With currently 6,335 nations inhabiting the West Pacific, we should be thankful that Nee Nee only has 572 endorsements.

The solution would be to increase the number of feeder regions, in my opinion, to spread the nations out more so that each feeder reagion doesn't have so many nations in it in the first place.

But yeah...I know, I know...that's changing the game mechanics, and it won't happen.

EDIT: Hey...nobody give me cookies... :(

(grin) I would, but I thought you might think they were poisened :}

And besides, Nee Nees cookies are all laden with mind control drugs. I only eat them because theyre so darn good... Mmm...