Get Ready For The Future...



  • So, we're now a foundered region! Rejoice, just rejoice!

    This does, however, lead to a variety of questions about how we go forward as a region. Questions like:

    1. To what extent do we integrate NationStates (henceforth, NS) gameplay (henceforth, GP) with the RP? For instance, if we wanted to create a 'military' force in NS, would that be decided by a separate GP government and legislature, or would we - as is traditional - put the whole thing in RP terms and have the European Council vote on it? On the one hand, we're an RPing region; but on the other hand, what's good for GP might not sit well in the RP. Do we want to risk detracting from our status as an RPing region, or do we want to risk RP ideology getting in the way of GP necessity (or vice versa)?
    2. If we're to have a separate GP government, what form should it take? 
    3. What role should the World Assembly Delegate play? How should they be chosen, and to what extent should the wider community have a say in how they vote?
    4. What are we going to do about the fact that we've currently got two regions going? Should we focus on EU or TEU, or should we maintain both - and if the latter, how do we integrate that with the previous three questions?
    5. While we're at it, should we create some kind of formal governing structure for the management of the community as a whole? Right now this is a bit of a free-for-all, to say the least.
    6. What else can we do to optimise activity and help attract new people to the community, and in particular to the RP?
    7. Any other questions I've forgotten to mention (please do mention any).

    Plenty to discuss, so let's get discussing!


  • Commission

    To add to this, I have discovered through the continued maintenance of stats that we propose another population formula change. Instead of our multiplier being at 1%, reducing it to 0.5% for larger nations (over 400 million NS Pop)

    This would get the gap down between smaller and larger nations, and give us more of a plausible European population. 

    This would give the UK a population around 82,925,000, for example, from its 12.585 billion NS population.



  • First of all, let me be the first to congratulate all of the people who managed to re-found the EU. I'm not completely familiar with the mechanics of NS gameplay and its tactics, but I do understand it has been quite an accomplishment to bring our old region back to life.

     I am very fond of Rping. When I discovered NS, it was the very first time I was able to explore the possibilities of being "in control" of a whole nation. Therefore, while I am open to new roads and options, I wouldn't want there to be a complete separation between Rping and Gping. Ideas have already been proposed on our Discord server, and I would stick with the one  the Duxburian Union proposed. Having two regions does open the door to a Westminster System parliament, where one region is controlled by the majority and the other by the opposition, or where one political spectrum controls TEU and another the EU. But how would we integrate Rp into that? Council, in my opinion, has to remain at the centre of decision making when it comes to our regional laws. The WA is a completely different scene, one that I have never fully understood. So, when it comes to the Rping side of the equation, I'd be happy to submit my noobie views and positions, but perhaps I am not the most indicated to offer a stance on how we should integrate Gping in the sum.

    Concerning the governing of our, hopefully, growing community, I would propose the enlargement of our current Executive power. People are always hungry for important positions, and having only three chairs to fill is just too little. This executive can guide both sides of our region into decision making, whether it be in this forum or in NS, through the World Assembly. Ultimately, I would assume the leaders of each "party" or ideology were to become Delegate, and I think the voting should take place the same way it does with our Europarties, through the forum. The RMB does have its good side, but it doesn't offer the possibilities the forum already has. New members should be asked to pledge allegiance to the party they see fit, thus gaining the right to vote for their leader.

    I don't really know how else I could contribute to this conversation for the moment, so I hope others can express their views too.



  • I'm, er, I'm going to bump this a little.



  • OK, sod that. I'll propose some things and wait for everyone to complain.

    1. I think @Duxburian-Union and @Inquista were leaning towards integrating gameplay (or GP) things into roleplay (or RP) in this thread, and I think they're right. Part of our USP could be integrating, rather than segregating, RP and GP. The Foreign Affairs Commissioner (or FAC) should stay as an RP position with, in essence, GP responsibilities translated into RP language. At the same time, I don't think it's a wise idea to totally subsume GP into RP, since we could end up with our RP being stunted by having to take GP necessities into consideration. Or, alternatively, we could end up harming ourselves GP-wise because certain GP necessities would be intolerable to our RP governments. Therefore, what I'd like to suggest is having specific GP offices under the authority of the Foreign Affairs Commissioner. These would be, essentially, permanent diplomats, military commanders, and so on. Whether they'd be appointed or elected or some sort of hybrid system, I don't know, but I think that's the best way to deal with these things. In broad terms, GP issues would be the responsibility of the FAC and put into RP terminology, but specifics would be devolved to the diplomats &c. and spoken about in GP terms. This would involve the creation of a GP forum, of course.
    2. As explained above, I think we should retain one common RP government, but with GP officers serving the FAC.
    3. I think we should elect the Delegate (or WAD) and perhaps have a mechanism whereby we can decide whether to bind them to vote a certain way on a certain resolution. This would be on the GP forum and not interfere with the RP. SC resolutions, I think, should be subject to certain restrictions - perhaps it should be more difficult for the region as a whole to bind the WAD, or perhaps FAC/diplomats/commanders should be able to bind them. SC votes, obviously, can be quite serious business and we ought to tread carefully.
    4. Personally I'd be fine with us just moving back to EU, but I'd like to invite @Duxburian-Union to tell us a bit about his government/opposition idea and how it could fit in with the general governance of the community.
    5. The answer to this is 'yes'. Right now I feel like I in particular have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in this regard (case in point: creating and reviving this thread), and have an undue amount of sway. I'd like admin/mod positions to be formalised, elected or appointed for long terms (with a mechanism to cover what happens if someone goes AWOL), and for a formal mechanism to be established for voting on rule changes.
    6. I'd happily support @The-United-Kingdom and his 0.5% population idea. Other than that, I'm sure we can come up with other ideas. We really ought to rewrite our recruitment TG once all this is done.


  • B U M P


    P


  • Moderator

    I support @The-United-Kingdom's proposed population changes, as well as all the points @Angleter has made. 

    As I already mentioned, I would like to integrate RP and GP as much as possible, but I realise there are reasonable limitations to this, as pointed out by @Duxburian-Union. I'm fine with keeping the FA Commissioner role basically the same; with some GP-relevant roles also created outside of RP as suggested by Angleter. Otherwise, I'm personally inclined to going back to EU (which I have now done), but I'm fine with inhabiting either region. I am excited to hear about this new system DU wants to do with the dual delagacies!


  • administrators

    Greetings All,

    I'd like to sound off on a few of these:

    1) Why not compartmentalize our forum to address this? We can keep RP and GP separate sections of the website, where the RP section organizes storylines and how nations interact with each other traditionally on these forums, whereas our GP section deals with practical coordinating (defending the region or regions, endorsement of any proposed WA Delegate, recruitment, etc.). The GP could also have different settings so only verified EU members can view it and participate in potentially sensitive discussions. 

    2) We may not necessarily need a separate GP government: RP roles could be used for RP purposes within that particularly section, but could carry over to specific GP roles. In crisis scenarios, we could also implement an "all hands on deck" philosophy and immediately onboard trusted EU/TEU members.

    3) Delegates, as far as now, really only have voting power at the WA and take their endorsements with them. Honestly, I don't mind this model. I think that the Security Officer model worked well.

    4) This is something I'd be interested to discuss with a full crowd. Between each region we have about 120 nations (give or take). I'm currently WA Delegate in The European Union and have about 16 endorsements (more than EU), but the EU has more nations. It may make sense to try to relocate all active nations to EU, and keep TEU on lockdown as our tactical retreat region in emergency scenarios.

    5) See above. We could also bring back an old system of governance, the "European Union Security Council." We could elect a handful of nations that have been around the longest to serve (better as an odd number). They can vote simple majority to settle any issues and can also be utilized in RP scenarios for peacekeeping missions and regional governance (sort of a UN model).



  • 1. I support doing whatever level of integration makes sense.  A lot of GP is OOC, whether by nature or by necessity.  Echoing Angleter's thoughts here, organizing potential offices within the Commission makes the most sense.  Not necessarily just under the Foreign Commissioner - if you see a better match elsewhere, it should go there.  However, everything from diplomats to military commanders to delegates are inherently dealing with foreign affairs, and could all go there.  Appointment vs election can be worked out based on what makes the most sense for each position.  Diplomats are probably best appointed, delegates elected, etc.  We should still probably establish offices formally, using the European Council.  Perhaps mark such GP-related proposals in a way that they need not be IC.  We'd still be debating and voting with councillors, not as players, but said debate could be OOC where necessary.

    2. I would be a bit hesitant to place GP roles on the RP commissioners themselves.  We currently have no security screening process for new members the way other regions do.  Beyond checking IP to make sure they aren't multiing, and checking that their desired map plot isn't taken...we have almost no formal application and screening process.  Other regions have careful masking with several levels of access and citizenship.  We should at least establish something like this before handing out actual regional control.

    3. I'm of the opinion that the WA delegate should remain non-executive for now.  Executive delegates are juicy raid targets even in foundered regions.  I can always give the delegate a separate RO position with the other powers if we want the delegate to have them (a raider delegate wouldn't automatically get that position, and thus would remain powerless to tag the region).  The delegate could have an "ex-officio" role on the Commission (along with the founder) with observational powers.  Can't vote on executive matters, can't propose legislation, can't set or change policy in any office, but can give advice, liaison between commissioners, help organize elections, and represent the region externally.  Basically, a status-quo backup system for the Commission when it is too inactive to do their job, and the Council is too inactive to impeach them.  All functions of the region should not just grind to a halt when inactivity is high.

    I think we should bind delegate votes to the regional popular vote in the WA, but perhaps run with Belarum's idea and recreate the Security Council for voting on SC proposals.  The EUSC could perform both RP and GP roles, helping defuse internal conflict and guiding votes on external liberations/commendations/condemnations.  We have allies and enemies in the greater NS world, by serving on the SC, more players can learn about our relationships.

    4. The "dual delegacies" idea was to keep both regions and set up a GP parliament where there is a government and an opposition, each with a delegacy.  The government's delegate could vote how its supporters vote, and the opposition's could vote how its supporters vote.  More interestingly, their voting power would depend on how well they campaign/tart for WA endorsements.  Admittedly, this is an ambitious idea for some future where we actually have the amount of politically-involved players this would require, and players who actually care about the WA/SC at that.  For now, it might make the most sense to re-concentrate in European Union and keep The European Union as backup.  We're only allowed to use one of them for recruiting, anyway.

    5. We definitely have a need for overhauling the admin and mod structure.  Most of our mods are inactive and we only have one active game admin.  We need more people who can create masks and forum sections, mask new people on the forum and Discord, etc.  I don't think we need a ton of forum mods, but we definitely need admins.

    6. Full support for going to 0.5% population.  At some point, I'd like to pass on admin of the war system to someone new.  A population change will necessitate war sheet updates, and might as well get someone to overhaul the war system while thinking about that.


  • Commission

    BUMPITY BUMP



  • We should move on this soon, as the region isn't looking so good now.  Who else has feedback?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.