atrophis Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Ugh.This change was requested months ago. It is an entirely logical change to avoid sanction abuse. Leave politics out of game design, please. As has already been said, the election process controls who gets into the senate. If some nation is not happy about who is a senator, then they can work to get that senator un-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Sharpe Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) You still didn't answer me. How has the system been manipulated, in any way? Peace mode is a double edged sword. It protects you for a later time, but at the same time, it eliminates any offensive abilities you have. Allowing sanctioning doesn't really fit that mold. Edited August 22, 2008 by Lord Sharpe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kswiss2783 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I find it funny that if you were still in NPO, you wouldn't be saying a word... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atrophis Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Peace mode is a double edged sword. It protects you for a later time, but at the same time, it eliminates any offensive abilities you have. Allowing sanctioning doesn't really fit that mold. In that case, then anyone in the senate should NOT be able to sanction anyone in peace mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Smyth Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I am strongly opposed to this action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Front Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I find it funny that if you were still in NPO, you wouldn't be saying a word... Probably because this change doesn't affect the bigger alliances as much as the smaller ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) Ugh.This change was requested months ago. It is an entirely logical change to avoid sanction abuse. Leave politics out of game design, please. How it is "abuse" if the people condone a senator's actions by voting for him? Exactly. There can be no "abuse" of sanctions - they are used by democratically elected servants. In the example of both of our senators, their vote count is almost (or more than) quadruple our actual membership. Their actions are endorces by the people that voted for them in spite of anti-Vox-senator campaigning. Your definition of "sanction abuse" is the definition that suits your alliance on the opposite side of the surrent conflict and is without merit whatever. Why not consider not hiding as cowards in peace mode? You are an anarchist alliance planning not to survive this,why peace mode? You are on everyone's PZI list already. Admin says so,then thats how it will be. He won't change it,Admin is to powerful. And...weren't you the one saying there would be no sanction wars? Btw,I just voted Andromeda member for Senate,Cylon not up there anymore,whoops. Whats the difference between vox larger members, such as this senator, hiding in peace mode and watching the others get slaughtered? We see it in wars where a bunch of guys get wind and let there alliance mates get wrecked while they sit in peace mode. These replies are trash. Peace mode is a strategic tool provided by Admin because "he is to [sic] powerful." They show a complete lack of understanding of any aspect of play other than mashing the "deploy" button - the type of play that truly makes wars worth fighting. They also display a complete ignorance of current events - no one "got wind" of a Vox war - we declared war in the same thread that we declared our existence. The timing is unfortunate, no doubt, but you can easily argue that this conflict has shown exactly how easily the system can be manipulated, hence the need for correction.Not sure shouting "admin bias" is going to help. There can be no manipulation of the system. All efforts were made and successful within the system Changes are made when he gets em programmed. I remember wars being fought when he changed how tech affected battles.It happens...you can't expect Admin to wait forever while the rest of CN fights. At the very least there won't be cowardly senators anymore. What is "cowardly" about a nation taking on a senate campaign while being sanctioned by 8 spheres and in full knowledge of the fact that he will PZIed for his campaign? Can anyone do a better job of justifying this, because really so far this discourse is lackluster at best. Don't even consider the timing -- there simply is no reason to implement this change at all. Edited August 22, 2008 by Schattenmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Probably because this change doesn't affect the bigger alliances as much as the smaller ones? Certainly it does. It protects them from our one, last method of fighting back while they will continue to sanction us, nuke us, bill lock us, and chase us across re-rolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffman04 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Certainly it does. It protects them from our one, last method of fighting back while they will continue to sanction us, nuke us, bill lock us, and chase us across re-rolls. Of course the staff doesn't find a problem with these Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Sharpe Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) In that case, then anyone in the senate should NOT be able to sanction anyone in peace mode. Possibly. Manipulated how? Democratically elected Senators are responsible to their constituents. There is no need for this change, the Senate system already has checks on its power. Peace mode is and always has been a perfectly legitimate tool in war. But then again, the "responsibility to their constituents" argument is inherently flawed. Voters can not re-vote for a different senator, and sanctions are instant. Rogue senators do not need to make constituants happy. The only way they have to remove a rogue senator, other then waiting it out, is to attack them. Oy, I hate game rules. Edited August 22, 2008 by Lord Sharpe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutty Carrot Cakes Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Game changes in the middle of war are bad enough, but ones that are very obviously biased to one side are the worst kind of fail: it's just cheating. Plain and simple. Play the game; don't change the rules if you feel you're losing (which you're not, incidentally). Poor show, admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 But then again, the "responsibility to their constituents" argument is inherently flawed. Voters can not re-vote for a different senator, and sanctions are instant. Rogue senators do not need to make constituants happy. The only way they have to remove a rogue senator, other then waiting it out, is to attack them.Oy, I hate game rules. Then they're obviously "reaping the consequences" of their ill-informed votes. There are two rounds of voting for each Senate term. The longest a team will have to put up with a "rogue senator" -- the concept of which is ridiculous as a Senator cannot be elected by his actions alone -- is two weeks if they organise to vote him/her out. Considering the restrictions already in place for the number of sanctions and how often they can be placed it's not like the senator can go sanctioning half the team. If there is a problem, popular vote will prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackyseto123 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Hrm. I know being elected as a Team Senator is already a feat enough, but I wouldn't want a person that's a hippy to lead, although being elected as a Team Senator clearly states that the people would want a hippy to lead so it's a really conflicting idea. I would suggest you just get out of Peace Mode, I mean if you're really Friends > Infra then you wouldn't mind losing a few Infrastructure or Tech for the better being of your friends right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ho Chi Win Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Hrm.I know being elected as a Team Senator is already a feat enough, but I wouldn't want a person that's a hippy to lead, although being elected as a Team Senator clearly states that the people would want a hippy to lead so it's a really conflicting idea. I would suggest you just get out of Peace Mode, I mean if you're really Friends > Infra then you wouldn't mind losing a few Infrastructure or Tech for the better being of your friends right? That's cute but no. Having kingzog leave peace mode and allow himself to be destroyed until he is no longer eligible to run for senate will not be very helpful to those people who would want to vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackyseto123 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 That's cute but no. Having kingzog leave peace mode and allow himself to be destroyed until he is no longer eligible to run for senate will not be very helpful to those people who would want to vote for him. Erm, can't you guys just have a line up of possible team senators and they will rotate out of peace mode to be a candidate so you guys can always have somebody in the senate position but not in peace mode? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) Possibly. But then again, the "responsibility to their constituents" argument is inherently flawed. Voters can not re-vote for a different senator, and sanctions are instant. Rogue senators do not need to make constituants happy. The only way they have to remove a rogue senator, other then waiting it out, is to attack them. Oy, I hate game rules. More arbitrary terms and definitions. There can be no "rogue" senator; it's simply not possible. Every candidate must gain a large amount of support to become a senator - the votecount legitimizes every senator in every circumstance. You simply apply loaded terms to an opposition candidate because it sounds nice. Additionally, while a ruler cann't "re-vote" for a senator, they can remove their vote to the same effect by switching color, saving, then immediately switching back. This has no effect on their collections but removes their support from that senator - there s the method for dealing with a senatorial action you disagree with. Once a nation or group of nations move to a color sphere, the senate becomes representative of that group. They are nativized and should exercise their democratic power. Whatever action a senator they elect takes is representative of their will and sanctioned by their support. Hrm.I know being elected as a Team Senator is already a feat enough, but I wouldn't want a person that's a hippy to lead, although being elected as a Team Senator clearly states that the people would want a hippy to lead so it's a really conflicting idea. I would suggest you just get out of Peace Mode, I mean if you're really Friends > Infra then you wouldn't mind losing a few Infrastructure or Tech for the better being of your friends right? One more outright silly "lol peace mode" comment from someone with 2d thought. One 50k NS nation leaving peace mode to be mobbed by three 80k NS nations does nothing for a war, 200 nations exercising movement and voting abilities to elect one senator is strategy. Maybe if some alliances I'm replying to exercised strategy they wouldn't be last year's news. Edited August 22, 2008 by Schattenmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 This is aimed at us and completely unfair. Nothing more to say. I was going to reply to Mogar's post but yours seems more appropriate. I don't agree with you on that. If anything, I am surprised at how measured and careful FAN member's posts have been in this thread, since it COMPLETELY destroys their ability to control a Yellow senate seat now. Vox is certainly affected too, but FAN has been fighting their war from a losing position for what, 9 months now, and now THIS gets implemented?? They are so boned. It's Admin's decision to make, but I am sure everyone in this thread would like some response from him or the Mods as to why this change was felt to be needed. I like Lord Sharpe's idea, but it doesn't really go far enough. If we are going to do things this way, then the requirement for being in the top 50 or 100 or whatever should be just dropped. I agree with Yala Misr here, this change basically hands the seat to whoever has military power in the team, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atrophis Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I was going to reply to Mogar's post but yours seems more appropriate. I don't agree with you on that. If anything, I am surprised at how measured and careful FAN member's posts have been in this thread, since it COMPLETELY destroys their ability to control a Yellow senate seat now. Vox is certainly affected too, but FAN has been fighting their war from a losing position for what, 9 months now, and now THIS gets implemented?? They are so boned.It's Admin's decision to make, but I am sure everyone in this thread would like some response from him or the Mods as to why this change was felt to be needed. I like Lord Sharpe's idea, but it doesn't really go far enough. If we are going to do things this way, then the requirement for being in the top 50 or 100 or whatever should be just dropped. I agree with Yala Misr here, this change basically hands the seat to whoever has military power in the team, period. Yes. To everything in this post. And more so to the bold text. If this is the route that senates are going, then everyone should be a possible candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) I've rolled the update back and have decided against any changes at this time. Edited August 22, 2008 by admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackyseto123 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Well Senators are supposed to be the voice of the people, that's correct, but if they can't play the game right and defend themselves then they shouldn't even be playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grossman Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) Edit: NVM. Edited August 22, 2008 by Grossman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ho Chi Win Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I think that in addition to this change, the minimum strength requirements should be removed as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linkz Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I'm not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Sanctions by senators in peace mode is an exploit that I hadn't noticed before that will be closed. However, I understand the concerns of everyone about the timing of this update so I have rolled back the update and changed the game update log to state that the update will come within the next 30 days. Indeed, admin is right in saying it is an exploit. When in peace mode, you cannot do harm to other nations, nor can they do harm to you (try spying away nukes or killing tanks while someone is in peace mode). The same should apply to sanctioning as well, as it is an offensive actions that causes harm to other nations. I'm glad to see the change, and even would welcome it immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homura Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Indeed, admin is right in saying it is an exploit. When in peace mode, you cannot do harm to other nations, nor can they do harm to you (try spying away nukes or killing tanks while someone is in peace mode). The same should apply to sanctioning as well, as it is an offensive actions that causes harm to other nations.I'm glad to see the change, and even would welcome it immediately. Then nations in peace mode should be unsanctionable, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts