Senator Sanction/Team Message Number Requirements

[Orville Reginbacher]

I am a recently elected senator on the Yellow Team, from NDO.  I noticed that there are vote requirements for sanctioning/team messages.  25 for team messages, 30 for sanctioning, if I am not mistaken.

 

The problem is there are only 30 yellow nations total, and there are many colors which do not have enough numbers to ever meet that requirements.

 

With three senators per team, it would be impossible for any color (largest hast just over 80 nations) to have three senators who could sanction.

 

I would suggest that we eliminate the number requirement entirely for TE, just that you have to be on of the elected senators, maybe with at least two votes, or something similar?  There just aren't enough nations playing to make it work.

 

As it stands right now, I could never sanction because there are a handful of inactives already and the person I would sanction would not vote for me.  It would be impossible to get the votes needed.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Orville Reginbacher

[Auctor]

This keeps people from invading small colors and doing sanction wars too easily. There really should be some kind of benchmark that takes more than me asking all my friends on IRC to make a nation and vote in 5 days.

[Orville Reginbacher]

This keeps people from invading small colors and doing sanction wars too easily. There really should be some kind of benchmark that takes more than me asking all my friends on IRC to make a nation and vote in 5 days.

 

That's fine, but as it stands no color could actually have 3 senators with sanction power, at most 2.

 

Maroon, Red, Aqua, Orange, and now Yellow senators are not permitted to do any sanctions.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Orville Reginbacher

[Auctor]

 

That's fine, but as it stands no color could actually have 3 senators with sanction power, at most 2.

 

Maroon, Red, Aqua, Orange, and now Yellow senators are not permitted to do any sanctions.

 

 

Would you rather do no sanctions or would you rather lower the benchmark so me and 10 other guys can jump onto one of the smaller colors and sanction them for the lolz? an inability to be sanctioned *is* the advantage of smaller colors in TE.

[Orville Reginbacher]

 

 

Would you rather do no sanctions or would you rather lower the benchmark so me and 10 other guys can jump onto one of the smaller colors and sanction them for the lolz? an inability to be sanctioned *is* the advantage of smaller colors in TE.

 

You couldn't do that much damage--you going to a small color to screw with them only affects about 10 people tops.  And a color with 30 nations in TE isn't that small.

 

I'd rather the limit be lowered to a percentage of the active color nations, like 10%, so you need a minimum of 10% of the active nation votes to be able to sanction, or maybe 15%.  For a color with 20 active nations, you just need 2 or 3 votes minimum to be able to sanction.

 

Or make it 20% and combine with allowing only 2 team senators in TE.

 

Right now I am powerless to sanction nuclear rogues, spies, etc.  I could get every one of the active nation votes on Yellow, not a small color, be elected to the Senate, but have none of the Senator powers.

[Auctor]

 

You couldn't do that much damage--you going to a small color to screw with them only affects about 10 people tops.  And a color with 30 nations in TE isn't that small.

 

I'd rather the limit be lowered to a percentage of the active color nations, like 10%, so you need a minimum of 10% of the active nation votes to be able to sanction, or maybe 15%.  For a color with 20 active nations, you just need 2 or 3 votes minimum to be able to sanction.

 

Or make it 20% and combine with allowing only 2 team senators in TE.

 

Right now I am powerless to sanction nuclear rogues, spies, etc.  I could get every one of the active nation votes on Yellow, not a small color, be elected to the Senate, but have none of the Senator powers.

 

 

First part of your post says you wouldn't be doing that much damage if you could use it.

 

Second part says you're powerless to do things with it if you can't do it.

[Orville Reginbacher]

 

 

First part of your post says you wouldn't be doing that much damage if you could use it.

 

Second part says you're powerless to do things with it if you can't do it.

 

 

I think you missed the point in the first part of my post, the "why" you couldn't cause too much damage to an entire color.  It's a big issue for a single nation on Yellow.

Also, yes, the senate positions are entirely meaningless and powerless without the ability to do what a senator can do.

[TBRaiders]

What is a rogue in TE?  I don't really understand why we have a senate or sanctions in TE.

[hartfw]

It is 25 to sanction.  Last round saw 12-15 sanctions when I had looked last, so it was definitely functioning fine.

 

If you cannot get 25 votes, you cannot sanction people.  I fail to see how you need the ability to sanction people, but also cannot get the votes.  I would be hard pressed to think of a legitimate reason for making it so someone with the support of 2 people can sanction.

[Orville Reginbacher]

It is 25 to sanction.  Last round saw 12-15 sanctions when I had looked last, so it was definitely functioning fine.

 

If you cannot get 25 votes, you cannot sanction people.  I fail to see how you need the ability to sanction people, but also cannot get the votes.  I would be hard pressed to think of a legitimate reason for making it so someone with the support of 2 people can sanction.

You are wrong, you need 30.  Here is the quote "You do not have enough votes from your team to place sanctions at this time. You need at least 30 votes."

 

Are you saying that people who are on colors with less than 25 nations or 25 active nations have not legitimate reason to sanction and should not be able to do anything?  Because it looks to me like, according to the senate seat election numbers, no one can currently sanction.  There is a good reason to do so to the person that I've been asked to sanction.

[hartfw]

You are wrong, you need 30.  Here is the quote "You do not have enough votes from your team to place sanctions at this time. You need at least 30 votes."

 

Are you saying that people who are on colors with less than 25 nations or 25 active nations have not legitimate reason to sanction and should not be able to do anything?  Because it looks to me like, according to the senate seat election numbers, no one can currently sanction.  There is a good reason to do so to the person that I've been asked to sanction.

 

Actually, and you will have to bear with me, as this might be a tough concept, but I'm saying exactly what I said.

 

If you need me to repeat it, I can.

 

 

would be hard pressed to think of alegitimate reason for making it so someone with the support of 2 people can sanction.

[Orville Reginbacher]

 

Actually, and you will have to bear with me, as this might be a tough concept, but I'm saying exactly what I said.

 

If you need me to repeat it, I can.

 While I appreciate your snark in your response (despite you being wrong on the number of votes needed for sanctioning), there are, at most, 3 senators per team.  The only powers a senator has (and thus the only reason to have senators) is to send team messages, or to sanction.  In many of the current colors, the senators will not be permitted to do either.  If you don't think this is a problem, fine.  If you agree this seems odd, some sort of modification of my idea would be nice.  Otherwise, you are just wasting our time  :D

 

If you are elected to senate in a color, why shouldn't you be able to do either of the things that the senator could do?  While I appreciate the title, either get rid of the senator position entirely in TE, or change the numbers so the senators can actually do something.  This isn't SE, there aren't enough nations playing to make these limits workable.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Orville Reginbacher

[Orville Reginbacher]

What is a rogue in TE?  I don't really understand why we have a senate or sanctions in TE.

Moreso concern for those that spy on guides, etc. in the fora of other alliances.

[hartfw]

 While I appreciate your snark in your response (despite you being wrong on the number of votes needed for sanctioning), there are, at most, 3 senators per team.  The only powers a senator has (and thus the only reason to have senators) is to send team messages, or to sanction.  In many of the current colors, the senators will not be permitted to do either.  If you don't think this is a problem, fine.  If you agree this seems odd, some sort of modification of my idea would be nice.  Otherwise, you are just wasting our time  :D

 

If you are elected to senate in a color, why shouldn't you be able to do either of the things that the senator could do?  While I appreciate the title, either get rid of the senator position entirely in TE, or change the numbers so the senators can actually do something.  This isn't SE, there aren't enough nations playing to make these limits workable.

 

I mean the obvious answer is getting 2 votes doesn't really make you a senator.

 

In terms of me being wrong on the number, last round it was done at 25 like I said. When you get to 25, you can test if the message is simply out of date (happens occasionally).

[Samwise]

Moreso concern for those that spy on guides, etc. in the fora of other alliances.

I have a few points to make, so I'll start with the above. Say NDO decides they do want to see what kind of water War Doves is drinking and spies on us. So? If I sanction your entire alliance on green what does it matter to you? You're on yellow and all your trades are yellow. It would literally mean nothing.

 

2. Every person can vote three times in the sanction race, so getting 25 or even 30 votes is not hard. NDO has more than enough for that mark.

 

3. As hart is saying, the requirements are in place to keep people from abusing the sanction system. Last round, NLoN's senator sanctioned over half of NLoN's members when he knew they were going to boot him from the alliance. The election reset, and there wasn't a blue senator to remove the sanctions until someone got enough votes. NLoN moved to Brown to get around it, since it takes ~couple days to remove the sanction even if you have a senator in place.

 

4. What TBRaiders said. Why sanction someone for "rogue" behavior in TE? The last time I effectively saw a sanction in TE work was when Warriors were flagrunning, so TFK sanctioned Warrior's flagrunner on the last day of the round. That was in R22.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Samwise

[Orville Reginbacher]

I have a few points to make, so I'll start with the above. Say NDO decides they do want to see what kind of water War Doves is drinking and spies on us. So? If I sanction your entire alliance on green what does it matter to you? You're on yellow and all your trades are yellow. It would literally mean nothing.

 

2. Every person can vote three times in the sanction race, so getting 25 or even 30 votes is not hard. NDO has more than enough for that mark.

 

3. As hart is saying, the requirements are in place to keep people from abusing the sanction system. Last round, NLoN's senator sanctioned over half of NLoN's members when he knew they were going to boot him from the alliance. The election reset, and there wasn't a blue senator to remove the sanctions until someone got enough votes. NLoN moved to Brown to get around it, since it takes ~couple days to remove the sanction even if you have a senator in place.

 

4. What TBRaiders said. Why sanction someone for "rogue" behavior in TE? The last time I effectively saw a sanction in TE work was when Warriors were flagrunning, so TFK sanctioned Warrior's flagrunner on the last day of the round. That was in R22.

To respond to your questions.

 

1.  This nation has stayed on Yellow.

2.  DO you mean vote 3 times in one election cycle?  If so, ok, but I still have to wait forever, and this can cause problems like an outgoing angry senator hurting his alliance and then not being able to rectify that until later.

3.  That's why the status quo is a bad idea, like I just said.

4.  So it does happen and does work, is what you are saying.

[Samwise]

To respond to your questions.
 
1.  This nation has stayed on Yellow.
2.  DO you mean vote 3 times in one election cycle?  If so, ok, but I still have to wait forever, and this can cause problems like an outgoing angry senator hurting his alliance and then not being able to rectify that until later.
3.  That's why the status quo is a bad idea, like I just said.
4.  So it does happen and does work, is what you are saying.

1. So do what we do in TE. Kill him with fire. Sanctioning him on yellow will just make him switch colors, and really, that's not a bad thing for him considering yellow is no longer one of the more stable colors since SUN disbanded. Green isn't doing so hot either since NAO and Rat Basterds are no longer around.

2. From in game:

Senate elections reset every 15 days. The next senate election reset is scheduled for 6/29/2014. You may only vote once every 5 days. You last voted on 6/19/2014. Please wait until 6/24/2014 to vote again.

^That means that this election cycle everybody will be able to vote twice in the initial election, since you have to be 5 days old to vote. The next election cycle, people will be able to vote 3 times granted they created nations on time, and they're voting on time.
 
4. Yes, santions do happen, and it's on a case by case basis whether they actually "work" for their intended purpose. I'm not sure you fully understand the functionality of the senate. In SE, yes, you have more people and the ability to get the 25 votes needed is much easier. However, what's also different in SE are the politics. If someone is going nuke rogue in SE, you can petition the other colors to get him sanctioned until he has no choice but to switch to grey. Forcing people to switch to grey in TE would actually mean something in TE, since there are so few nations there. However, it is very unlikely that anyone in TE is going to sanction someone for being a nuke rogue, since the whole reason for TE is to war. And then there's that update admin made where you can change your resources. You don't need to run to other colors for a uranium trade, and there is no foreign aid in TE.
 
You missed my point of why I brought up the sanction in R22. There is a time limit before sanctions can be removed. Warriors had a senator, but since it was the last day, the Warriors flagrunner had no choice but to move to Orange for trades since they didn't have however many days it takes to remove a sanction. Also, if you've voted in the senate race, you can't switch colors until 5 days after you last voted. Had the Warriors flagrunner voted recently in the senate race, s/he would have been screwed. This isn't really a problem for alliances that rule a sphere. War Doves has green. NDO owns yellow. CItadel is on white. However, RE, TPC and Skaro all share black. It is an Auctor said:

an inability to be sanctioned *is* the advantage of smaller colors in TE.

3. That's an example of what happens when alliances make a bad decision of who to trust as their senator. It's the same when you make a bad decision on who to make an admin on your forums, but we don't rectify it by making a bunch more people admin of your forums. Giving more people senator power doesn't empower alliances, it takes power away from them by causing instability. Edited June 20, 2014 by Samwise

[Orville Reginbacher]

1. So do what we do in TE. Kill him with fire. Sanctioning him on yellow will just make him switch colors, and really, that's not a bad thing for him considering yellow is no longer one of the more stable colors since SUN disbanded. Green isn't doing so hot either since NAO and Rat Basterds are no longer around.

2. From in game: ^That means that this election cycle everybody will be able to vote twice in the initial election, since you have to be 5 days old to vote. The next election cycle, people will be able to vote 3 times granted they created nations on time, and they're voting on time.
 
4. Yes, santions do happen, and it's on a case by case basis whether they actually "work" for their intended purpose. I'm not sure you fully understand the functionality of the senate. In SE, yes, you have more people and the ability to get the 25 votes needed is much easier. However, what's also different in SE are the politics. If someone is going nuke rogue in SE, you can petition the other colors to get him sanctioned until he has no choice but to switch to grey. Forcing people to switch to grey in TE would actually mean something in TE, since there are so few nations there. However, it is very unlikely that anyone in TE is going to sanction someone for being a nuke rogue, since the whole reason for TE is to war. And then there's that update admin made where you can change your resources. You don't need to run to other colors for a uranium trade, and there is no foreign aid in TE.
 
You missed my point of why I brought up the sanction in R22. There is a time limit before sanctions can be removed. Warriors had a senator, but since it was the last day, the Warriors flagrunner had no choice but to move to Orange for trades since they didn't have however many days it takes to remove a sanction. Also, if you've voted in the senate race, you can't switch colors until 5 days after you last voted. Had the Warriors flagrunner voted recently in the senate race, s/he would have been screwed. This isn't really a problem for alliances that rule a sphere. War Doves has green. NDO owns yellow. CItadel is on white. However, RE, TPC and Skaro all share black. It is an Auctor said:
3. That's an example of what happens when alliances make a bad decision of who to trust as their senator. It's the same when you make a bad decision on who to make an admin on your forums, but we don't rectify it by making a bunch more people admin of your forums. Giving more people senator power doesn't empower alliances, it takes power away from them by causing instability.

Either being a senator matters or it doesn't.  If it matters, then keep it and make it so that duly elected senators (after 5 days of voting, maybe) have the power to sanction regardless of amount of votes.

 

If being a senator doesn't matter, then just get rid of it, that's all I'm saying.  It's as simple as A or B.  I have the CN:TE equivilent of caerulei testes here.

[hartfw]

Either being a senator matters or it doesn't.  If it matters, then keep it and make it so that duly elected senators (after 5 days of voting, maybe) have the power to sanction regardless of amount of votes.

 

If being a senator doesn't matter, then just get rid of it, that's all I'm saying.  It's as simple as A or B.  I have the CN:TE equivilent of caerulei testes here.

 

But that is not what your saying.  Your saying you want it to matter -- for you -- regardless of vote total.  Your saying you want a commonsense barrier to when the powers kick in -- comon sense barriers that have always existed and are shown not to be too hard for you to pass -- to be eliminated because you feel the need to sanction a guy you won't even bother to attack.  

 

This whole thread reads as a whine on what powers you feel deserved to without bothering to get enough votes, or listening to why what you are posting would be bad in general.  On the bright side, it has been consistent.

[Orville Reginbacher]

 

But that is not what your saying.  Your saying you want it to matter -- for you -- regardless of vote total.  Your saying you want a commonsense barrier to when the powers kick in -- comon sense barriers that have always existed and are shown not to be too hard for you to pass -- to be eliminated because you feel the need to sanction a guy you won't even bother to attack.  

 

This whole thread reads as a whine on what powers you feel deserved to without bothering to get enough votes, or listening to why what you are posting would be bad in general.  On the bright side, it has been consistent.

I wrote it, therefore it is exactly what I am saying, right?  I could copy it here again if it would help.  In the words of great hartfw:

 

 

Actually, and you will have to bear with me, as this might be a tough concept, but I'm saying exactly what I said.

 

 

Senators should be senators and should have the power of senators.  No one else on yellow will have as many votes as I will in these first 20 days (first 5 don't count, couldn't vote then).  Even so, even though I get the clear supermajority of the votes, and am clearly wanted by Yellow to be a senator, I may not be able to have any powers to do anything.  Does that make sense to you?  If so, please tell me how.  No one on some other colors will ever have a senator with any ability to do anything.  Does that make sense to you?

 

Either allow the clearly elected senators (after 5 days) to be able to do something, or get rid of a (according to Samwise and others) useless game mechanism.

 

As it stands, certain colors, even if everyone voted as often as they could, could never have senators with any powers.  That doesn't really concern you unless you are on those colors.  Additionally, in any larger color (e.g. Black), this doesn't create risks that you need to worry about, because the same people that belong to the same large alliances will get the same senate seats as they otherwise would in the first 5, 10, and 15 days.  

 

It's a common sense change for TE due to the low number of nations participating.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Orville Reginbacher

[hartfw]

I wrote it, therefore it is exactly what I am saying, right?  I could copy it here again if it would help.  In the words of great hartfw:

 

 

 

Senators should be senators and should have the power of senators.  No one else on yellow will have as many votes as I will in these first 20 days (first 5 don't count, couldn't vote then).  Even so, even though I get the clear supermajority of the votes, and am clearly wanted by Yellow to be a senator, I may not be able to have any powers to do anything.  Does that make sense to you?  If so, please tell me how.  No one on some other colors will ever have a senator with any ability to do anything.  Does that make sense to you?

 

Either allow the clearly elected senators (after 5 days) to be able to do something, or get rid of a (according to Samwise and others) useless game mechanism.

 

As it stands, certain colors, even if everyone voted as often as they could, could never have senators with any powers.  That doesn't really concern you unless you are on those colors.  Additionally, in any larger color (e.g. Black), this doesn't create risks that you need to worry about, because the same people that belong to the same large alliances will get the same senate seats as they otherwise would in the first 5, 10, and 15 days.  

 

It's a common sense change for TE due to the low number of nations participating.

 

If you are going to switch from saying a guy with 2 votes deserves to sanction, to someone with lets say 20 instead of 25, maybe it makes sense.  But until now, you have simply been ranting that by having the most votes regardless of how few should entitle you to have sanctioning powers.  It has been a whiny thread because you have just kept insisting that you deserve those powers and ignored all the obvious reasons why eliminating the bar entirely is stupid.

 

In terms of some colors not having sanctioning powers, that is actually one of the big draws of those colors....

[Orville Reginbacher]

I've actually offered various ideas (technically 4) for solving this problem (dropping the number entirely and allowing all senators to sanction;, tying votes needed to a percentage of active color nations instead of a hard number; make it available to those who are senators after the first 5 days of voting; eliminating senators entirely from TE).  That's 4 different ideas to solve the problem, not just whining.  But I understand you just want an argument, whether or not its on the merit of the ideas.

 

Instead of offering any ideas or discussing what might work, you have simply poopoo'ed all the ideas, contributing none of your own.  I suppose that is the easiest position to take, just criticize everyone else and contribute nothing of your own.  That is what you have been doing in other suggestion threads, as well.  I get it, you just want to argue with someone.  I understand that, but if that is all you are going to do, I'm not going to consider your opinions.  

 

I've posited a few ideas.  You have made no response as to why at least 2 of the 4 would be bad.  You just don't like anything I say.

 

If you want to debate about the options, and discuss positive and negative aspects of them, great.  If you just want to argue, I'm ignoring your posts.

[hartfw]

I've actually offered various ideas (technically 4) for solving this problem (dropping the number entirely and allowing all senators to sanction;, tying votes needed to a percentage of active color nations instead of a hard number; make it available to those who are senators after the first 5 days of voting; eliminating senators entirely from TE).  That's 4 different ideas to solve the problem, not just whining.  But I understand you just want an argument, whether or not its on the merit of the ideas.

 

Instead of offering any ideas or discussing what might work, you have simply poopoo'ed all the ideas, contributing none of your own.  I suppose that is the easiest position to take, just criticize everyone else and contribute nothing of your own.  That is what you have been doing in other suggestion threads, as well.  I get it, you just want to argue with someone.  I understand that, but if that is all you are going to do, I'm not going to consider your opinions.  

 

I've posited a few ideas.  You have made no response as to why at least 2 of the 4 would be bad.  You just don't like anything I say.

 

If you want to debate about the options, and discuss positive and negative aspects of them, great.  If you just want to argue, I'm ignoring your posts. 

Lets review your 4 separate ideas:

1) Eliminating the bar.

2) Eliminating the bar after 5 days -- before which there is no voting. {Either you are being intentional or unintentionally misleading calling this different,  but I won't speculate an answer if it is ignorance or intentional misleading,)

3) Setting the bar at 10% of active nations -- so a bar of 3 votes on yellow, and less on other colors.  This is practically the same thing, so see my comment above.

4) Eliminate the Senate entirely because I cannot do it right now and waaaaaaa.

[hartfw]

 

Instead of offering any ideas or discussing what might work, you have simply poopoo'ed all the ideas, contributing none of your own.  I suppose that is the easiest position to take, just criticize everyone else and contribute nothing of your own.  That is what you have been doing in other suggestion threads, as well.  I get it, you just want to argue with someone.  I understand that, but if that is all you are going to do, I'm not going to consider your opinions.  

 

I'm going to respond to this separate.  I've proposed several suggestions to TE in threads, agreed with a lot, including ones that would actively hurt me to make the game better. I don't think anyone can look at the TE suggestion forum and say what you say honestly.  Here you have promoted a terrible idea, refused to listen to why, and then attack me personally.  It doesn't help your case for why you should be able to sanction willy nilly to do so, isn't on topic to this idea at all, and isn't accurate.

 

The reason people are telling you your idea is terrible, is because it is terrible.  Lashing out at the people saying why doesn't change that.

[Orville Reginbacher]

Lets review your 4 separate ideas:

1) Eliminating the bar.

2) Eliminating the bar after 5 days -- before which there is no voting. {Either you are being intentional or unintentionally misleading calling this different,  but I won't speculate an answer if it is ignorance or intentional misleading,)

3) Setting the bar at 10% of active nations -- so a bar of 3 votes on yellow, and less on other colors.  This is practically the same thing, so see my comment above.

4) Eliminate the Senate entirely because I cannot do it right now and waaaaaaa.

This is the first time you responded to the ideas, so I will respond to this.  You can't honestly claim I attacked you personally, the only mention of you is a criticism of your posts not contributing to the discussion.  I said if you don't want to discuss the ideas, and simply want to argue for the sake of arguing, I'm going to ignore you.

 

1.  Yes, one idea is to eliminate the bar, that is an idea which you have criticized.  This would allow anyone elected senator to issue sanctions or send team messages.  You and others criticized it because it would allow anyone to jump to a color, take over senate, and sanction.  Two possible solutions, require someone to be on a color for 5 days before they can vote, or go to the other options below:

 

2.  Allow those elected senator after 5 days OF VOTING (see the first post I mentioned it in--I said the sanctions can be issued by those senators clearly elected after 5 days of voting).  You are purposefully misrepresenting what I said.  So far I don't see the downside of this one.  If after 5 days you are a senator, odds are you will be one 10 days, and 15 days, later.  It allows people on small colors to coordinate their votes before their color is taken over by someone else (which I'm not so sure is a big problem if people wanted to do that anyways).

 

3.  Not practically the same thing, requires a MINIMUM of 10% or 15% of active nations on the color to have voted for you and you still to be elected as a Senator (wherever makes sense).  You still need to be in the top 3 to be a senator, too.  I could have made that more clear, that is my bad.  It's a two part checklist.  Haven't seen criticism here yet.

 

4.  Eliminate the senate entirely because according to what others have posted in this thread, it really doesn't do anything other than that on the super populated cover it can be used to knock out the competition for an award at the end of the round.

 

Finally, do you see the irony of you accusing me of attacking you personally (please find where I made an ad hominem attack) and the repeated theme and language of your posts stating that I am "whining," that my posts are "whiny," that I am "ranting" and that you paraphrase my idea as "waaaa?"  That's it, I simply won't be responding to your future posts.  Every post I've ever made in a suggestion thread you have simply poopoo'ed the ideas.  My job isn't to appease you, I'm trying to offer multiple ideas to make a common sense change to a TE mechanic that doesn't make sense due to the lack of nations playing TE.