[JoshuaR]

Recently, admin updated the game so that senators in peace mode would be unable to sanction any nation. After great public backlash (some directed toward the timing of the update, some toward the update itself), he removed the update, instead proposing that it would come within thirty days.

I completely disagree with the planned update and wish to preemptively destroy it before the foundation is set and the first scaffolding goes up. While I am always of the camp that updates such as this should be mentioned at least a few days prior to implementation, I will not argue the timing of this update, as it has already been rolled back. I could care less, IC and OOC, if it comes around while Vox Populi is still at war with the NPO. Rather, I wish to argue the very nature of this update, what it means for the politics of the game, democracy, power, and the loss of another of the very small ways that a cornered opponent may yet at least remain on his knees rather than stomped into the earth.

I will start with the "pro" argument for the update. I can only think of one. To all responders, feel free to argue the pro side of this debate, as I would relish the opportunity to discuss this with all of you, and I would hope that the administration staff see our discussion and make an informed decision because of it.

(PRO) The update prevents nations in peace mode from utilizing an "exploit" and doing harm to other nations through the sanction system when they themselves reside in peace mode for the sole purpose of escaping any military actions directed against them.

---Rebuttal:

First, I would like to counter the argument that this is an "exploit." The argument states that peace mode should not offer a nation any means of aggressiveness towards any other nation. I believe this is inadequate for our purposes. Nations in peace mode already live inside of a shell, with the senate being their only means of interacting with the outside world sans receiving foreign aid and trading with others. Arguably, nations entering peace mode do so only to avoid certain destruction (some may vacation, but they wouldn't be sanctioning anyway, if that were the case). This does not mean that they wish to withdraw from politics and aggression completely. Rather, their intent in running to peace mode is to further aggression between the two parties! Nations hide in peace mode in order to fling nukes at an opportune time, to help aid their alliance in the heat of the battle, or because they find themselves in an inferior position and must wait for a better opportunity before striking back. Examining the primary peace-mode alliances, we look at FAN and (formerly) GOONS. We can also look on an individual nation level and note that nations enter peace mode so that they can barter for political position or strike out at an opportune time, after having saved the requisite war funds. Peace mode is not for peaceful rulers, quite the contrary!

What outlets for interaction does peace mode present to those utilizing it? We may examine GOONS. Since the height of their power, they had domination over the black sphere and more specifically its senate. Once in a compromising position, they had no choice but to withdraw their forces from the front lines and hide in bunkers. Without the senate, however, they would have lost then and there. However, no foreign power could march in and finish off GOONS through sanctioning because GOONS themselves retained control over the senate. They protected themselves from utter annihilation through the use of the senate as a Defensive weapon. To those willing to decry this as an exploit, as GOONS were horrible etc., if any other alliance were on the defensive here, the point remains. Sure enough, GOONS died very soon after they lost the ability to field a senate candidate (peace mode forced banned member below the top 100 in the black team, gee it does have consequences). Now we see that peace mode may be the last string that allows people who might otherwise leave the game to still enjoy themselves (see FAN). To weaken it even further (it is highly destructive) makes little sense.

Second, if nations in peace mode MAY be sanctioned by other senators, they should also have the ability to sanction others, should they be lucky enough to attain a senate seat. Otherwise, that too, is an "exploit" of game mechanics.

More importantly, the senate should remain part of the color sphere it represents and not answerable to all of planet bob. Nations outside of, say, the black sphere should have no right to either destroy enemy nations, pushing them out of another sphere's candidate range, nor should they have the ability to instead force enemy candidates into peace mode, thus making their senate candidacies pointless.

Rather, the senate should remain a democratic institution, separate from war or war preference. If any nation within the top 100 on the team, regardless of peace preference, can manage to attain the votes necessary to make the senate, then he or she deserves the full privileges that come with that position. It is already difficult enough for a nation in peace mode to remain in the top 100 on the team (or else they're in a team where sanctioning doesn't matter...). It is already difficult enough for a nation in peace mode for a reason to attain the necessary votes to sanction, especially if they have many enemies. If they do manage to gain a seat through lack of competition, then they are on a sphere that won't affect their enemies or they are doing a very impressive job coordinating votes in the one avenue left for them to compete! Even so, if they are offensively aggressive (Vox Populi on red), it is not truly an exploit of game mechanics. Instead it is the fault of their competitors. They succeed on the red sphere because the NPO, in their decision to maintain autonomy, has created an environment in which one alliance must fight for all three senate seats. On aqua, the senate could never be used as an offensive weapon unless multiple aqua alliances pooled together in such an effort. Vox's success on the green sphere is also slightly related to the senate conditions, notably with old GGA policies and the Jungle Accords. Prior actions, even if since remedied, have perturbed the future equilibrium such that there are fewer with the power (or daring) to gun for senate seats, thus providing a more suitable target for outside aggression.

This is politics at its finest. Battle weary alliances now turn to one of the last bastions of ingenuity and competition, the senate. If this right becomes destroyed, one of the great competitive arenas in cybernations will become static and boring. No longer will alliances joust so much for the right to have a meaningless senator when they know that any rogue or competitor can merely be nuked to oblivion within a few days, putting them out of range with no ability to prevent their own downfall. No longer will there be any goal for those on their way to complete destruction. No longer will the voice of the people of a color sphere determine the leaders of that sphere. Instead, like every other part of the game, simple Might will determine who holds any power.

Nations in peace mode, as has been repeated many times over by many other than myself, already face severe economic hardship. They lose many of the features of active gameplay and instead lead shell lives. This position is often forced upon them. This makes it even more impressive if they are able to gain enough senate votes to actually hold a seat. This makes the senate even that more important, in its current form, in offering at the very least, small ways to still gain power and prestige, and to play this game.

[KingSrqt]

I think it is a bad idea. Senators are elected and their power comes from the people the status of their actual nation should have no relevance in their ability to act as a senator.

As far as it being an exploits I disagree especially if nations in PM are able to be sanctioned.

This post has been edited by KingSrqt: 24 August 2008 - 05:58 PM

[ender land]

Considering nations in peace mode make almost no income, I guess I don't see why penalizing them that greatly is such a bad thing..

They already can't do much at all, why take the sanction ability away?

I do agree though if you make it so that you can't be a senator in peace mode make it so you cannot be sanctioned in peace mode (or have its effects hurt you).

[Terra Extraneus]

I would simply suggest that nations new to a color should not automatically be able to vote for senate. And then with time, they would earn the right to vote for senate. This would prevent abuse from players who just switch to a sphere to vote for a candidate. One should not have a say in what their color does as soon as they switch to a color. New nations to a color sphere should not be equal to nations that have been in a team color for a longer period of time. Either be 'born' on the color or be naturalized to be able to vote.

Born/Created on Team Color

• Allowed to vote from creation.
  
• Allowed to run for senate from creation. (if in top 100 on said team)

Naturalization:

• Days 0-19: No right to vote.
  
• Day 20: Right to vote granted.
  
• Day 45: Right to run for senate granted. (Nation must be in top 100)

So yeah... (of course, numbers can be modified)

Everything else can be left by itself (the whole sanctioning from peace mode). This would keep team colors somewhat more stable.

Edit # who knows now: I will go as saying that nations in peace mode should not have the ability to vote. Why should a nation in peace mode have access to a tool that would put someone in power that would harm nations on their team color. (I'm not agreeing with removing the power of a senator to sanction from power, but just acknowledging that they don't have a say in who votes for them) I agree with the whole nations in peace mode should not be able to be sanctioned. Also, Nations who vote for senate and then delete should also have their votes deducted from the senate race.

This post has been edited by Mirazi Heket: 24 August 2008 - 06:56 PM

[Pomiel]

I agree with Joshua here.

Though this may seem like an exploit, the conditions stacked against a nation in peace mode getting a senate seat are low. They must both remain in the top 100 with a reduced income and keep enough votes to be one of the top 3 elected.

Joshua's example with the Aqua senate is perfect. With several alliance competing to win senate seats, it would be hard to seize control of one for an alliance in peace mode. Once conditions are made, such as those on the Red and Green spheres, that limit the amount of votes being used, an exploitable system is created. This system is not one born of the game, but one created by those playing.

Quick edit after reading ^^^'s edit: I support this:" Also, Nations who vote for senate and then delete should also have their votes deducted from the senate race. " and only that.

This post has been edited by King Pomi: 24 August 2008 - 07:08 PM

[Katsumi]

Mirazi Heket, on Aug 24 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

Born/Created on Team Color

• Allowed to vote from creation.
  
• Allowed to run for senate from creation. (if in top 100 on said team)

Naturalization:

• Days 0-19: No right to vote.
  
• Day 20: Right to vote granted.
  
• Day 45: Right to run for senate granted. (Nation must be in top 100)

So yeah... (of course, numbers can be modified)

My nation started out on the purple team. Should I be able (if I so chose) to join some rogue alliance with the objective of stealing a purple senate seat and obtain votes *only* because I started on that colour despite having spent most of my time on others?

[Terra Extraneus]

Katsumi, on Aug 24 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

My nation started out on the purple team. Should I be able (if I so chose) to join some rogue alliance with the objective of stealing a purple senate seat and obtain votes *only* because I started on that colour despite having spent most of my time on others?

Well if you switched out and then went back, one would have had to removed their 'birth' right for abandoning the team they were 'born' on. So of course, they would have to be naturalized where they once were created on said color. So pretty much, your 'birth' rights are revoked and must be naturalized to be like a native purple nation.

(I have no idea how to explain what I am trying to explain :psy?:

Though, I may as well just start my own topic now >_>

[JoshuaR]

Noting that admin stated to Doitzel at the end of the other, gameplay discussion thread, that he could bring up things like why does a senator need to be in the top 100... I would also like to add that we should keep the top 100 limitation. I sort of see it as an age thing. U.S. presidents cannot be 18, Roman senators cannot be 3, etc. It also creates a challenge in maintaining a senate candidate (for example GOONS funneling tech to banned member). Or it forces you to move to a weaker team to stay competitive, also helping the game by creating incentives in joining the weaker teams.

Though... I'm also not sure why a nation in the top 100 can disallow senate votes, and all of a sudden a weaker nation outside of the top 100 gains this ability? I posted a thread in Gameplay Discussions regarding this, as well. Anyway, that may be drifting off topic... Apologies.

[SilverHawk]

The Almighty Admin has decided that Senators being able to Sanction from the safety of Peace Mode is an exploit and will be dealt with in the future. Measures should also be taken to disallow people from shifting around color spheres and basically "flash-mobbing" each Senate race to install somebody to power and then moving on to repeat the process.

If the Senator wants to use his/her power to Sanction, he'll/she'll have to be in War Mode to potentially suffer the results of his/her actions. Being able to Spy is one thing, being able to do great harm to another Nation in peace mode via removing said nation's trades and ability to recieve Aid is something all together different.

[JoshuaR]

For gameplay purposes, why?

I somewhat agree with you on flash-mobbing, though I think the losses the mob takes (losing trades just to mob) aren't necessarily worth a few enemies sanctioned.

However, why should a senator suffer his actions through the war system? Why is the democratic election process not enough? If a dangerous senator is reaching sanction status, shouldn't it be up to the competitor to make sure he doesn't get the votes? Why is a sanction war not enough? If the senator sanctions, sanction back. It's almost like an independent war system.

I look forward to your response.

[(DAC)Syzygy]

I can only agree with the OP. Removing the ability to sanction others for an ELECTED senator even while he can be target of a sanction is one of the worst possible directions. Not only that a Senator represens the will of a significant population of that team, it is often the ONLY WAY for oppressed and outgunned factions to raise a voice *at all*.

This game has ALREADY gone away from a political simulation (what is the orgininal intention of the game) to a WarGame in which only one thing counts: Have the Bigger Gun!

If a senator is acting against the will of a certain alliance in the game, this alliance has the option to either vote him out or to think about why so many hundred nations feel the need to chose this senator as tool of resistance against them.

After all - if you perform this update, please remove the Top100 requirement so EVERYONE regardless of NS can run for the senate. In this case the 'offended' party can bomb him down, but they cannot prevent him from being elected.

One-Sidedly removing the sanction ability removes one of the last parts of direct politics this game has left.

Think about who benefits from such an update and if they really need more support.

Also a requirement of 30days on a specific team before you can vote or run for the Senate would be a good idea.

This post has been edited by (DAC)Syzygy: 25 August 2008 - 05:14 AM

[Andre27]

KingSrqt, on Aug 25 2008, 01:57 AM, said:

I think it is a bad idea. Senators are elected and their power comes from the people the status of their actual nation should have no relevance in their ability to act as a senator.

As far as it being an exploits I disagree especially if nations in PM are able to be sanctioned.

Placing a sanction is a serious act of war, equal to a nuclear strike. Why should a senator hold such power while being in Peace Mode?

A senator should be held responsible for his actions. This means that sanctions should only be possible from war mode and that the senator should not be able to enter peace mode for the duration of the sanction.

[(DAC)Syzygy]

andre27, on Aug 25 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

A senator should be held responsible for his actions.

Let me guess, that means everyone 'the strong' don't want to see in the senate they should either be allowed to bomb down (if he is in war mode) until you cannot elect him any more, or at least he should be totally powerless, making his election nonsense.

You are kidding if you say the senator would open the hostilies with his sanction. The truth is he would be attacked (and sanctioned, funny eh?) for the fact that he is senator alone just because the stronger side simply does not allow *any* opposition to the rules they have made themselves.

So, please change it so that WarMode is an requirement for sanctioning, but than also allow everyone to run for the senate, no matter the NS. Quid pro Quo.

[Andre27]

(DAC)Syzygy, on Aug 25 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

So, please change it so that WarMode is an requirement for sanctioning, but than also allow everyone to run for the senate, no matter the NS. Quid pro Quo.

Allowing everyone to run for senate may be a bit difficult since the scroll down bar used for the elections cannot possibly show 1000+ candidates. AFAIK that, together with the assumption that anyone who manages to reach the top-100 has a decent understanding of the game, is the reason for limiting the senate candidates to the top-100 for each team.

Another issue which needs to be addressed is that every nation on the team can vote. This raises the suspicion that those willing to grab a senate seat, could use a multi account. Create account, vote, allow account to be deleted due to inactivity. It would make a lot of sense only to let nations older than.. 20+x days vote, or only allow nations to vote who reached a certain NS.

[(DAC)Syzygy]

andre27, on Aug 25 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

Allowing everyone to run for senate may be a bit difficult since the scroll down bar used for the elections cannot possibly show 1000+ candidates. AFAIK that, together with the assumption that anyone who manages to reach the top-100 has a decent understanding of the game, is the reason for limiting the senate candidates to the top-100 for each team.

Another issue which needs to be addressed is that every nation on the team can vote. This raises the suspicion that those willing to grab a senate seat, could use a multi account. Create account, vote, allow account to be deleted due to inactivity. It would make a lot of sense only to let nations older than.. 20+x days vote, or only allow nations to vote who reached a certain NS.

So you claim that someone with low NS that has been beaten down in a war has no proper understanding for the game and its politics and should not be a senator? Even while he has maybe led sanctioned alliances in the past and is around here for years?

The technical issue is absolutely no problem, the admin has already thought about a simplification of the voting process, where you can vote directly on a nations view page. No scroll down list needed.

I agree with your last hint, I would generally require a 30days team history for anyone who wants to vote or run for the senate.

This post has been edited by (DAC)Syzygy: 25 August 2008 - 06:35 AM

[Andre27]

(DAC)Syzygy, on Aug 25 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

So you claim that someone with low NS that has been beaten down in a war has no proper understanding for the game and its politics and should not be a senator? Even while he has maybe led sanctioned alliances in the past and is around here for years?

The technical issue is absolutely no problem, the admin has already thought about a simplification of the voting process, where you can vote directly on a nations view page. No scroll down list needed.

I agree with your last hint, I would generally require a 30days team history for anyone who wants to vote or run for the senate.

No, that's not what i meant. I vaguely recall a discussion on the old forum just why only the top-100 members were candidates for senator and for AFAIK those were the arguments.

If the voting process can be simplified, then i don't see a problem with allowing more people up for senate. However i must admit i'd prefer to see a certain level of game understanding/maturity in a senator.

[der_ko]

I completely agree with OP. If nations in peace mode can be sanctioned then they sure as hell ought to be allowed to sanction back.

[SilverHawk]

JoshuaR, on Aug 25 2008, 05:28 AM, said:

For gameplay purposes, why?

I somewhat agree with you on flash-mobbing, though I think the losses the mob takes (losing trades just to mob) aren't necessarily worth a few enemies sanctioned.

However, why should a senator suffer his actions through the war system? Why is the democratic election process not enough? If a dangerous senator is reaching sanction status, shouldn't it be up to the competitor to make sure he doesn't get the votes? Why is a sanction war not enough? If the senator sanctions, sanction back. It's almost like an independent war system.

I look forward to your response.

Here is what I propose :

1. A Nation can vote everyday, but only has one vote. So if said nation votes for Nation A one day and Nation B the next, his vote is moved from Nation A to B. This allows more fluid and natural "Will Of The People" happenstance.

2. There is a naturalization peroid of 15 days from the next voting cycle. (In other words a newcomer will have to wait up to 30 days to begin voting.)

3. An elected Senator cannot Sanction while in Peace-Mode

4. A nation in Peace-Mode cannot be Sanctioned

5. Sanctions can be lifted the day after they are made, no longer a three day waiting peroid.

[Mirreille]

andre27, on Aug 25 2008, 09:09 AM, said:

No, that's not what i meant. I vaguely recall a discussion on the old forum just why only the top-100 members were candidates for senator and for AFAIK those were the arguments.

If the voting process can be simplified, then i don't see a problem with allowing more people up for senate. However i must admit i'd prefer to see a certain level of game understanding/maturity in a senator.

But it isn't just the top 100 that are running now. JoshuaR already mentioned it, but I know of a friend on Purple who is no where near the top 100 here, but he is already a candidate, because so many people disable the voting option.

How do you determine a candidate's knowldege/maturity? What about re-rolls? When the senate becomes a point of contention, like it has recently on Green and Red, people will not be able to agree.

I do like the idea of requiring a nation to be on a color for a period of time before being able to vote/be eligible for senate. I still think you have to either let a peace mode senator sanction, or take away that ability and allow everyone on the color to be eligible. The OP and Syzygy make good points.

[Delta1212]

SilverHawk, on Aug 25 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

5. Sanctions can be lifted the day after they are made, no longer a three day waiting peroid.

Actually, the purpose of this is to keep sanctions from being abused. Each senator has 5. If I place 5 sanctions, delete them, then place 5 more, I've effectively sanctioned 10 nations, as they don't magically get trades back once a sanction is lifted.