Post

Jutsa wrote:

PRE-Draft of the "2022 Amendment Amendment" Version B

[...]

Proposed new text with changes underlined:

9.1 Amendments to the Constitution add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution may be brought forward in three ways:

i. The Head of State may call for an amendment.

ii. The Forest Keeper may call for an amendment.

iii. Either five resident nations or 5% of resident nations, whichever is numerically greater, may publicly call for an amendment on the RMB.

The requirement for 5% of the region's population is simply untenable. Currently, that would require 18 nations to support it on the RMB. This not only would feel spammy, but it's also a large portion of historical turnout. Anything that goes through with that would be nearly impossible to stop (Though is Forest's specific case, that isn't really that bad of a thing). Furthermore, this just specifies resident nations, meaning a person with multiple nations in the region can affirm as many times as they have nations.

Changing it to resident WA nations alleviates this issue. Not only is that in line with how elections are normally handled, it also cuts down the required number of players to 5.75 at the time of writing.

Regardless, both the current proposal and my amendment to the amendment are lower bars than the current Constitution, which requires 28.75 WA nations at the time of writing.

Zerphen wrote:

I've always thought of it as a bit odd that people don't want to condemn bad regions for the bad things they've done in favor of condemning the bad people that do bad things instead, and then the bad people who do bad things also don't seem to get condemned because they are bad. Like are we just supposed to condemn good people who would rather be condemned than commended, and commend good people who want to be commended, without ever condemning the bad people for the bad things they've done? Why must we exist in this horrid purgatory where people consider a condemnation as strictly either a good or a bad thing? Why can't we just accept that condemnations can be a good thing or a bad thing sometimes?

Gameplay politics are ... pretty weird at the best of times. In some cases, condemnations are rewards to players who played the villain role well and who want it as a badge of honor. In other cases, it's for people who have done legitimately unpopular/bad things and don't want the badge. In that sense, it actually serves as a punishment for them. However, there is a third group who wants it as a badge of honor, but aren't as likeable - or are outright hated - and so SC regulars try to keep them from getting the "award".

Yeah, it's dumb and confusing, but that's just human interactions for ya.