BelgiumFury

sure I mean you have the right to say whatever you want bro 😛 I simply believe that being constructive is probably more efficient than what this thread is.

I think we all know this is a bit disingenuous. An achievement for 2020 probably takes him 3 minutes to make and no-one really is actively opposed to it. Fixing more complex bugs is harder. Fixing a flame war is a lot harder because you are guaranteed to upset people. Do they need to be fixed?, yes ofcourse, but this seems a bit like "Oh no he spent 2 minutes making an achievement but !@#$ him, he didnt fix that bug which would take 40 hours". Alex gets a lot of hate, a lot of people expect a lot from him, he wants to introduce some itneresting features (imho) and people who want to constructivly critique his decisions or choices are all good, but this (and a lot of behavior from others) just seems like ragte complaining which won't do anything good for you, for alex or for anyone else. "What we need are actual game fixes and new content." does not at all help Alex. 0. No, you will only be able to see the upvoted posts on one page. Other alliances will get just as much for their money, but in this "Ad rank" people will be able to see ranks.

Nothing. This is really going away from the original discussion so this is what i wanted to say.

Neither of the groups are involved (so far) trump denounced it but at the same time was a big reason this happend. This is like an arson saying fire is bad imho.

This point is clearly objectively wrong. The charges facing Rittenhouse include first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide and attempted first-degree intentional reckless homicide, a charge of violation of curfew . Okay.. and how does this invalidade is argument? This is some whataboutism as well 😛 You clearly know there is a diffrence between planning to do a kidnapping and saying someone should be shot (though I support neither), and this too is some whataboutism. I am too lazy to check more, but it seems that extreme right people are also storming capitol hill right now 😛

There are real differences between the dynamics of a 300 people group or a 300M one. In communities everyone knows everyone, if you did somethign wrong once people will more often remember. There has also been research that would show that conservatives are more willing to donate and help local groups (communities) while "liberals" would be more willing to help nation or world wide projects. This would show us that they aren't just diffrent, on a structural level but also that at least in some aspects people act diffrent inside of them. If you did actually mean communities though as in 300 people, we (at least in my opinion) are the most advanced species on earth. Not because of our individual abilities because these can be quite udnerwhelming, but a combination between our own personal judgement, our ability to form culture (which we haven't seen anywhere else on a serious scale) and our ability to cooperate with huge groups. I feel like if you take away the huge cooperation (because as shitty as cooperations might be sometimes, they do manage to get people from all over the world to work togheter on a signle thing), and have more people live of the land (as you mentioned you didn't think that would be too bad). We would be moving backwards in society. If we have small communities we would need more farmers (or we would need communities who specialzie in farming and then trade it but that brings obvious monopolistic issues with it), every person who works on a farm, is a person that can't do anything more complex. In this case the power plant issue comes up too, if there is tribalism, no central agency that makes sure cooperations exist to a minimal level, why would we trust them with our powerplant.

I mean on some level it is. If I hear communities i think about groups of 300 people and not 1 Billion. But maybe I am udnerstanding this wrong? There has been international cooperation (facilitated by corperations and international universities) This is an issue because at least in theory we have a way to protect minorities in democratic states with a constitution. Without these systems (aka with direct democracy) it would be very hard to prevent people exiling the less capable in times of need, even more than in current capitalist systems. Once again this was based on my ideas of communities which are small, not nation like communities.

You know this has nothing to do with this whole discussion, but in dutch we have a word, (apperantly) for a type of socialism thatj ust focuses on the material needs of the people and nothing else and it is called (translated) steaksocialism. I tought this was a funny word. This is a very small technicallity and not as much a debate(or maybe i'm wrong lmao), but although marx believed in a two phase revolution, Lenin only did so at the beginning and later on stopped suporting this idea. (as you an see, Russia moved from Feudal to Lenin in one sweep). It wasn't the Bolsheviks lead by Lenin but rather Plechanov and his Menshiviks. Next up there is another issue which is once again a technicality. I don't think it is fair to say social-democrats aren't socialists in today's day and age. Words change meaning and political words do even more often than usual. In Europa if I say "socialist", everyone is pretty sure I am not talking about thr type of socialist you mean. The same is the case with liberalism and what not. Here I will just follow your definition, but, i tought it was worth clarifying. The actual interesting stuff I have a few questions for you, just so I know what i can actually talk about. You support small communities, what would happen with more advanced industries that aren't immediate needs for anyone and or are too expensive / complex for a community. Example: We have a dissease, not like covid, but like the Plague. We could try to make a medicine or vaccine, but this would undoubtidly require the greatest minds in all of the world. So would we have to pull these people from their communities or..? Next up we would need massive production, we aren't talking about immediate food needs (which are logical for everyone to make), but we would need factories for millions of vacine doses or places to keep the capsules safe. To do this efficiently (resource logistics, export logistics, costs..) we would have to do this in a few concentrated places not every small community can have these advanced thigns right?. These factories are crazy hard to make and set up, it would be very hard to make happen. People need power (I mean arguably), how would power logistically be done, it is a project that often supplies more than one community to be efficient. How would this work. Who would make these windmills, nuclear reactors etc.. who would run them? What if people (lets not even say a majority, but a sizeable minority of 20%) does not want to live in this system with anymore, what would their voice be accounted to? And what if a group of these people lived very close togheter, and started to radically change this system in these few places? Let's assume communities would be a close bunch of people willingly working togheter. But these people would (presumably) be further removed from other communities, isn't it a real possiblity that there will be a tribalism between communities. Do you think people will have enough solidairty within a community, what happens to the people there if they dont. What happens in your proposed system if someone is not well liked because they are diffrent than the average (someone has another race, is autistic, is highly gifted, has a leg less) and society decides to exclude these few persons (as has happend in the past a lot). Would there be any protections or..? That was quite the list but I am interested in continuing this conversation. ps: interesting thread ~Belgium

That's indeed what I tought originally but then resulted to not actually act upon. Both projects and mines would have to be rebalanced to an extreme amount that would make inflation hyperbolic. Unless ofcourse we raise prices (in this case if a mine makes 4 iron instead of one, everything should go times 4 in cost), this would however cause its own issues in the short term. I think these might be mediated by doing the price changes gradually over the time span of a few months (a multiplier which slowly in a linear way ticks up every turn). The problem is that someone would have to do all the maths on this and alliances (or people) that have money in store will very duped. Then we would still have projects that boost production, which would have to change too. I however think there is a relatively easy fix for them (I will take the ironworks as example). "This project will give you (5*0.27*12 = 16.2, rounded off that would be 16) 16 steel per city with 5 steel mills every day change." This would nerf the project sligtly, but I must assume that most people with steel mills have 5 steel mills in their cities, if this is not the case however they would not hagve to but this project (aka it would not affect everyone if they didn't want it too). I am usually not in favor of nerfing things that people payed for but projects like ironworks are very cheap and every serious nation has an econ project. I don't think increasing inflation times 4 is a good idea, and I don't think rebalancing the costs with it is very easy or would be very much appreciated.

This makes complete sense. The other option would be to make that .7 aluminium useable. Trade offers would have a minimum size of 1 (as is today) but if you want to dump all your aluminium you would be able to dump your 25,000.7 aluminium on themarket? I don't think it is optimal but it might be the best way to account of the issue you stated.

The title explains itself. I don't think anyone cares about whatever amount of money behind the decimal point. Will some people gain and some people lose resources?; yes, but the rules will be the same for everyone and the playing field will be equal. This is actually an extension to this: "@" in depositing to the alliance bank + trading (QoL) - Game Suggestions - Politics & War Forum (politicsandwar.com) post I made. Because this proposal might be a lot easier if we round up numbers. (for example what if someone has 25,000.7 aluminium and sells down to @20000, we can't sell .7 of a resource..) This is however a different post because it touches on a completly diffrent thing and people might have reasons to support one and oppose the other. ~~Belgium

A short while back I suggested this: "@" in buying units - Game Suggestions - Politics & War Forum (politicsandwar.com) It was a widely well recieved quality of life suggestion, i so i tought it would be worth it to expand on it. @ In Alliance Banks Now I am basically proposing the same for people who deposit into the alliance bank. If I remember correctly depositing and withdrawing are 2 diffrent screens so this wouldn't affect people with bank permissions in weird ways. In essence this proposal would make it so that if you type @25000 (for example aluminium), everything in excess of 25000 aluminium would be deposited into the alliance bank. This could be used to make sure you don't have too many resources on your nation just before a war. This would (quite obviously) be limited to the amount of resources you have on hand, you wouldn't be able to do cheeky withdraws this way. @ In Trading This would work just like you would expect it too. When creating a sell offer (let's say @25000 aluminium) everything in excess of 25000 aluminium would be sold at the price you put. When responding to a buy offer it would make it so you have the amount you want (capped at the size of the listed trade). When creating a buy offer (let's say @25000 aluminium) it would create a buy offer for the amount of aluminium you need untill 25000. When responding to a sell offer (let's say @25000 aluminium) you would buy enough resources for you to get 25000 aluminium. The four listed proposals would obviously be limited to the size of the trade offers or to how much you have on hand. This proposal also has an "extension" which would probably make it easier to implement and would be a QoL feauture on it's own, this can be found here: Rounding resources to the closest natural number (QoL) - Game Suggestions - Politics & War Forum (politicsandwar.com) ~~Belgium

Ah happy to see you here 😛 Sometimes I wonder if 1000 days nation age is too old to make an introductory post like this. xp These post always make me smile.

Ships are "useless" already so giving them even a slight buff sounds nice. Seem interesting enough.

But why do you think right that certain communities in their private members would care if a rape joke was made. Or if someone jokingly says "man I have so much homework i'm gonna kill myself". Now it maye be offending to some, and that is fine, in that case they can without any doubts stay in an alliance that doesn't do this. This does not mean that every community has to care. And as i brought up earlier, why can certain discords not have an NSFW channel (which would be explicitly againt the game rules) if they have a mature way of handeling this. These communities are often groups of friends playing a game, and what works for some does not work for others. I myself do like some friendly and nice discussion (as for example SRD said, discord channels can be heavy moderated). This does not mean i want to enforce this in other places. Next up sketchy is 100% right in knowing that people will abuse this, and I was here during Goons and boy have I seen some absolute ******** reporting. I in addition also believe that spying in alliance chats could become a very lucrative hobby if you an get people banned for misspeaking or whatever. I think community moderation is a nice idea but very hard to execute and I believe the only use case are the worst scenarios (doxxing someone, blackmailing people with IRL threats..) but anythign that is only partially gray should be left alone.

Seems interesting but i'd be more interesting of some better econ minds weighed in on this discussion 😛

Some of these ideas are interesting. Some of them are to say the least, unbalanced. The smart munitions are interesting, but, should be far more of a rare resource, even rarer than in your proposal. The Mechanisation project on the otherside.. Well.. On my 23 City nation this would lead to an estimated 13.5M extra revenue a day (untaxed), while with (a very) expensive estimate it would cost 21M + 200 Microchips. Now I don't know if you ever heard of a steal, but a project with an ROI of 2 days is a steal. tl;dr: some of the ideas are interesting but balance isn't there.

I might be in a minority here, but personally I believe baseball would be better used as 1 game per day (or maybe per turn), with a bigger reward. This as an incentive for players to stay active, but not as an incentive to spqam a buttom 150 times. Might just be me

I mean sure, but i already said this 2 posts later didn't I? :/

I agree with you, a ban would be more in place. But I indeed hope that the community would also band togheter yes. That wouldhowever be against the game rules 😛

So i have tought a bit more. I think proposal one should only be used in very explicit circumstances. Let's say I doxx someone, i think that should deserve a moderation strike. But if we do rule nr.1, we need to make absolutly sure that it is very limited in scope to a few very specific issues.

So I think rule 1 is interesting but, it's hard and needs to be done with care. There are things in this game that don't allign with community guidelines that do happen in discord servers. What happens if a sever has an NSFW channel. It would go straight agaisnt all pnw guidelines. What if a member says [leader of generic alliance] is retarded. Because he thinks this person is a bad leader. What if someone makes a suicide joke and thinks it should be reported. In short I think this is a tool that allows a lot of power, and it will be used by potty people for generic strikes that Noo-ne wants and there will be so many gray areas it's not even funny. Point three is interesting and generally not bad. Once again I would be carefull though. Would for example an alliance of only 18+ people be allowed or do you not want this? I personally do not know a single alliance in this game that officially has this rule, but I have seen alliances in other games that do. Is this bad or not, would 5his constitute an ooc attack.

The multi city nuke is a lot better than the other nukes. I dont think spy sat should be made less expensive.

You know i completly forgot about this. Yeah thats right, if noone complained about it then, neither should they do so less than a few weeks after implementation without any real use. My bad. Im sorry.

Oooo Scary pirate ships Congrats!