Would you like there to be an official Gewar UN, controlled by the Admins and other people of high authority?

Maybe there could be a election in it aswell for ordinary players to join? i.e Players that have contributed in some way, the admins choose a selection of people, then we the members get to vote to as who we think should become a member of the UN...
This might cause biased voting however...

These people might get some special power or something.
Possibly when bullying occurs (i.e Constant attacking of a weak player) the members voted to be part of the UN can make a joint decision to as whether something should be done about it, like a peace keeping army could be sent to the homebase of the bullied etc.

I wanted to create this thread to see what everyone thought about it, so please add new ideas etc.

Sounds really interesting. I like the idea of certain powers being elected to those who can use it wisely and stuff. And the election thing will stop anyone excessively greedy randomly joining. Hmm, maybe the UN could be given something everyday to use against terrorism in the game lol.

Well I know that recently UN and NO joined forces to fight what they believed to be facist players or something like that.

That would be a good example of what the official UN could be doing! But I would leave it in admins hands, otherwise corruption will soon appear ;smoking

How would you call it, maybe "GEWar UN"? Otherwise we'll have to change the name of the "unofficial" alliance and our popularity drop by 5% to 95% or something like that :'(

I`d love for this to happen, but doubt something totally offical shall arise, unfortunately.

It would be great if something official could happen, but if not an un-official council could be created.

But first I would like to see what Luke has to say about this thread? :cheesy

I think its rather fun. Creating a whole new level of reality.

But how would you do it? And how would you make sure that those UN players don't start expanding their own territory?

There would be a few problems like that, it could turn into just one powerfull, dangerous alliance, plotting to overtake the game...

But if I were to start a council I would have to be part of no alliance to make it less biased (people would definatly start complaining if LoW started getting lot's of power etc).

But I was hoping for there to be an official council, ran by admins and voted players etc.

Well first off... designate certain cities as Neutral cities like it was done with BERN. One in each major country that only the League of Nations Security Forces have only access to and can be used as staging areas for attacks on offenders.

But we need to set up a player Security council and have the sanctions voted on before anything can happen.

The player would only hold seat for 2 weeks at a time and then new ones would be invited to join the council.

The L.O.N. Council should also be able to compensate people who have been manipulated or damaged by the actions of cheaters. I suggest return of their cities and a NAP on that city for 10 days to allow them to build back up their resources.

We need somewere to intensely discuss ideas. I suggest, for all those interested in taking part in discussion, a time and chatroom is chosen, therefore increasing the ability to communicate.

Not enough members would have read this thread yet, so i will choose times at a later date for discussion.

But for now anyone willing to suggest more ideas for it please do, and they will be bought up in discussion when the time is chosen.

For all those people who are reading this thread and think 'What the hell is the point in a peacekeeping force in a War game?', Well to awnser that The Council will be used to...

1) Bring balance to the game, some people are complaining it's too easy for people to just hibernate and get uber rich of interest, then go on a huge rampage and over take the game, possibly the council will do something about this.

2) There have been cases of players just being 'bullied', constantly being attacked with armies outside their homebase, this could cause the player just to get bored and leave the game.

Whether there is any issue, be it these or another the council members will vote to see if something should be done about the issue etc.

So, all the alliances would be accountable to this UN, which would likely have the power to nuke the world? What if someone wants to take on the UN? The UN could become this admin-endorsed unbeatable alliance...that sounds real n00b-friendly.

The idea of it being controlled by Admins no longer exist.

But ideas like it being Regulated by an Admin would exist. For instance: An elected member of the council will be used as the council's bank acount (and each week the member incharge being used as the council's bank will be passed on to the nexts persons turn, and so on), to avoid that person running away with all the money the acount would be regulated by an admin to make sure nothing like this happens like this etc.

Controlled by admins isn't possible indeed.
Maybe indeed regulated.
But those in it couldn't go on rampages themselves which makes it complicated again.

Need more ideas please :)

I'm skeptical. Yes, in cases where someone has every army in their homebase continually destoyed something like this would be nice. But I don't think we need something as elaborate as an in-game UN to deal with that. The unfortunate player who's being attacked can always PM the attacking alliance's enemies to ask for help.

- needs to be open to ALL players. Just like the real UN, you have countries like Syria and Lybia with the same voting rights as the US or Russia. (other than security council).

- If players don't want to participate, they don't have to. It is voluntary to be on the UN. I don't know that I want to be on the UN, but there are players out there with feelings and emotions that may want in... I just don't know

-With the honor of being on the UN, you also have the responsibility to contribute to it's funding. Maybe Admins can match donation of members to help boost the size of troops.

- Issues / grievances need to be put up in the forum by the party that was hurt, with the reason for the issue. Just because you are being attacked doesn't mean you have a right to get protection or compensation

- after discussion and vetting by the GENERAL population - and use a vote on the thread - it can be turned over to the UN.

- The UN can step in and act - sanctions on the attacking player (no interest, no planting of resources, etc) - return a city or cities to the hurt player - send a UN controlled army to defend a city or cities for a hurt player.

- NEVER Financial retribution from the attacking player to the hurt player. I can't remember the last time a country was actually given money.

- Just like real life, the attacking player can still go after the hurt player - countries ignore UN resolution all the time and attack UN troops all the time.

- Just like real life, the troops need to be sent from UN member countries - ie, they can't just be spawned by the admins.

Like those ideas Nytransit.
Only one thing isn't possible, thats the sanctions of no interest and resources as the UN can't access the database ofcourse :). Has to stay within the game.

Downside of a UN is that people might feel less free to just attack.

Upside is that new players can be welcomed and put into certain alliances by them(if that alliance wants them).

But lets not forget it's a wargame ofcourse :). If this idea comes through, the main idea is to stop bullying(like a whole alliance vs 1 person that can't get into the game).

I think this could help prevent bad war ethics, like if you pay for a city, send your army there, and then they just kill your army and take your geos that you rightfully paid for the city, the UN could try to stop things like that. If this has been mentioned sorry, I didn't read all the posts above.

I think this is a bad idea.

1) A layer of "Authority" over players, making it possible to hammer unliked players not just with your own armies but a vast evil MGO (Multi Government Organization.)

2) Sould to me in some ideas its going to be Admins paying people to build armies.

3) Luke you made small cities HIGHLY valuible if you (like me) think you just killed all the new players chances of EVER getting a city creating a 'Newbie' defender alliance just isn't going to work.

4) There is an alliance called the United Nations. It might be as effective as the real United Nations but making another as it sounds to me is just going to make another alliance.

5) This is a wargame, a strategy game with politics and Diplomacy involved in it. People think in terms of Cease-Fire, NAP, have you thought in terms of If someone breaks a treaty with us you are to aid us in the punishment of the offender? Also remeber there is betrayal in Real Life as their should be in the game. Also people change sides. Italy did that in BOTH world wars. Memo to self if ever there is a 3rd World War and Italy starts off on my side - advocate a peace treaty.

6) Can we get the server moved, the changes done that should be done soon. Like ohhhh splitting and joining armies, Natural Disasters and other wonderful things like city defenses and assault trained troops, maybe even experience.

As for bullying. It happens, RL and in the game. Some of it is understandible in my eyes (Me and McLamb) Sorry folks you piss off a whole alliance or insult admins your going to get what you deserve and suck it up.

There there are the less noble bullies "Give me 100 Geos or I attack your city." Put them together (there have been a couple alliances like this) and you get 3-4 people who will terrorize n00bs in a general area. This I am more inclinded to stop. But creating a Staff sactioned ruling body to do this.. Nah.

But again this happens RL one side has what the other wants, that side has the bigger army or access to the ocean thus the land locked nation needs to pay transit rights for its oil pipeline to cross the sea side ocean and use its port faculties. Or your a modest nation called Yugoslavia next to an increasingly authoritian (Even Facist) nation like Russia and you won't bow down to Russia's threats so Russia cuts off your oil. (Diplomacy in action!) Only after your end consumer is threatened (Western Europe) and they get up in arms do you stop your bullying. Oh well unlike real life the owners of Resource cities can not cut off the income of resources to people they do not like (Woot now isn't THAT an idea)

RomJ

RomJ

This is exactly what the UN's purpose is for, along with others of course.

And sattisfy those in United Nation alliance i'm renaming in to the 'GEwar Council'

Just to clear some things up RomJ...

http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=14908#poststop

And it will be completely unofficial, allowing members to remain in their alliance and attack other members of the council.

For all those interested in this concept, and for anyone who wopuld like to dicuss further, meet in the 'Game Talk' chatroom now.

the only major suggestion that the UN can run to enforce anything is to give a limit to the number of cities a person can own. Just say that if 1 person owns more than 10 cities then he will have to deal with the UN. this makes it so that not 1 player can own too much.. and that the only way for an alliance to own the world is to have many members.
You have more cities left over for noobs, and they have a bigger chance of joining an alliance because it now becomes beneficial to have big alliances.

Possible, but how much is too much will have to be dicided.

I still like the name League of Nations after the post WWI effort.

the only major suggestion that the UN can run to enforce anything is to give a limit to the number of cities a person can own. Just say that if 1 person owns more than 10 cities then he will have to deal with the UN.
I don't share this view... The whole idea of this thread was not about limiting success but rather preventing bullying.

There are 7 players with more than 10 cities and they have all played fair and not bullied anyone, as far as I know.

If the UN has a limited budget and takes action only in special cases (like when a whole alliance attacks a player at the HB, or the case of Bern) then I'd be happy to contribute :)

those in the UN cant be in an alliance.
only way i see that will keep it fair.

I think this is a bad idea.

1) A layer of "Authority" over players, making it possible to hammer unliked players not just with your own armies but a vast evil MGO (Multi Government Organization.)

2) Sould to me in some ideas its going to be Admins paying people to build armies.

3) Luke you made small cities HIGHLY valuible if you (like me) think you just killed all the new players chances of EVER getting a city creating a 'Newbie' defender alliance just isn't going to work.

4) There is an alliance called the United Nations. It might be as effective as the real United Nations but making another as it sounds to me is just going to make another alliance.

5) This is a wargame, a strategy game with politics and Diplomacy involved in it. People think in terms of Cease-Fire, NAP, have you thought in terms of If someone breaks a treaty with us you are to aid us in the punishment of the offender? Also remeber there is betrayal in Real Life as their should be in the game. Also people change sides. Italy did that in BOTH world wars. Memo to self if ever there is a 3rd World War and Italy starts off on my side - advocate a peace treaty.

6) Can we get the server moved, the changes done that should be done soon. Like ohhhh splitting and joining armies, Natural Disasters and other wonderful things like city defenses and assault trained troops, maybe even experience.

As for bullying. It happens, RL and in the game. Some of it is understandible in my eyes (Me and McLamb) Sorry folks you piss off a whole alliance or insult admins your going to get what you deserve and suck it up.

There there are the less noble bullies "Give me 100 Geos or I attack your city." Put them together (there have been a couple alliances like this) and you get 3-4 people who will terrorize n00bs in a general area. This I am more inclinded to stop. But creating a Staff sactioned ruling body to do this.. Nah.

But again this happens RL one side has what the other wants, that side has the bigger army or access to the ocean thus the land locked nation needs to pay transit rights for its oil pipeline to cross the sea side ocean and use its port faculties. Or your a modest nation called Yugoslavia next to an increasingly authoritian (Even Facist) nation like Russia and you won't bow down to Russia's threats so Russia cuts off your oil. (Diplomacy in action!) Only after your end consumer is threatened (Western Europe) and they get up in arms do you stop your bullying. Oh well unlike real life the owners of Resource cities can not cut off the income of resources to people they do not like (Woot now isn't THAT an idea)

RomJ

RomJ
I'm going to agree with RomJ on this one.

The point of the UN in real life is to make it so countries don't fight with each other, but rather focus on their own economic development and to increase the standard of living. Since neither of those things really apply to GEwar, a UN would essentially mean that nobody gains any territory from anyone, and we all just swoop down on any Kim Jong Ils who try to start a war. If you want to make coalitions, you can do it in the game yourself. Since public opinion seems split on this issue anyways, I don't think a real UN could take off because those who oppose it would be equally as powerful.

Oh and to have the admins in on this would be the equivelant of having divine intervention in real life.

those in the UN cant be in an alliance.
only way i see that will keep it fair.
Players dont have to be in an alliance to be swayed...

Players dont have to be in an alliance to be swayed...


wow, we agree on this....

An official alliance would be a bad idea.....

Also, I agree with RomJ from above, no admin sanctioning, admin, or endorsement....

however, if done correctly, it could be a force of good in the game. Admins have done a great job of not getting involed in game play, just running the game and pusshing good ideas as needed....Would be good for n00bs to have some experienced player to help them out beyond advice in the forums...

I've got another idea that I'm sure we'll all love

A UN forum, like the VIP forum. Here players can be discussed without having random players post about everyhting.

What do you all think about it?

I've got another idea that I'm sure we'll all love

A UN forum, like the VIP forum. Here players can be discussed without having random players post about everyhting.

What do you all think about it?

this was discussed in the chat room earlier and we all agreed it would be a good idea;)

Ah, I wasn't in the chat room today, I missed out

A further discussion will be held to discuss final matters before The GEwar Council is on it's way to creation.

For all those who would like to discuss go to the 'Game Talk' chat room, everyone is welcome.

ehm, i'm late in the discussion, but are we talking about forming a group of people defending their values and such?

wow, i could swear we had something like that.. ehm.. yes! alliances!

everyone in this new "UN" would enforce the "law" but with anymore force then they do now? furthermore, i like treaties to be broken, people to be intimidated etc, thats the attraction of a multi-player game. leave the protection of noobs to real rules of which i have suggested some..

Exactly, Do not try and make this war game into a peace game. There is no fun in that. There is no point in creating a war game if a Multi Goverment Alliance would be the centre of attention, policing the world. Even if this idea is forced on us, may I at least request a change of name. There already is a UN so a new name would be better. Make a name more neutral towards the current war status

All infomation on it will be posted into the forum soon, there has been intense discussion around the subject and the council is almost done enough to be be formed.

As for the name it's called The GEwar Council.

I must add ofcourse that if you all like this idea, and it would come through... the idea is not to stop wars from happening.
Just bullying into the extreme, and to help noobies along the way.

Absolutely, even members with in the Council will be aloud to battle eachother and act normally.

I have sent you a PM explaining everything Luke ;

Absolutely, even members with in the Council will be aloud to battle eachother and act normally.

I have sent you a PM explaining everything Luke ;

I imagine the next question is if they are allowed to attack other users?

Of course, usual gameplay will continue by the members as usual, just with goals of the Council being taken into action.

The GEwar Council goals, also being the everyones 'rights'

The rights of all players



1) All players should be protected against continuous and / or unfair attacks.

The act of a continuous or unfair attack shall be decided and voted upon by the council. Anybody wishing to submit their plea to the council will be heard, the accused will be notified and both sides will be allowed to represent their side. Upon hearing both sides, and discussing it amongst the council, a vote will take place to determine which side is correct. Both sides will be informed of the vote and, if necessary, will be offered a diplomatic outcome. If diplomacy fails then The GEwar council will step in and defend this right.



2) All players will be protected from bullying

If at any time a neutral player is bullied upon or forced to do something against his wishes, in which the outcome will suppress the player then The GEwar Council will step in to protect the right of this individual. For example.; A neutral player being forced to pay a fee in order not to be attacked. Such actions will be examined and decided upon by the GEwar council, If we have determined that these actions will continuously hinder the players’ game-play then they council has the right to step in.



3) Players have the right to ignore proposals and actions of the council.

As the council is set to defend against unfair actions, the players have the right to determine what they view as fair or unfair in their own gameplay. The Council will only step in when a dispute has not been resolved among the players involved and it is brought into the Council’s attention by one of the involved players. The GEwar Council will not get involved unless a player has requested.

(Needs cleaning up slightly)

But even the council should be subjected to rules ofcourse.
So they know upfront what is a fair attack and what is not.
Well...ofcourse at first all attacks are fair and when you can steal money from homebases, even those are fair.

What would be seen as an unfair attack? I'd love an example here :)

I am worried that the United Nations will be biased by taking to much action, or not taking enough action. There is a thin line there, does anyone have an idea on how to make that work? I'm not sure if it is possible.

Okay, well not really unfair attack, more like unfair attacking ;)
For example, a high ranking player might get a grudge against a newbie (This could be because they had a newb take one of his cities embarrisingly) Then for the reast of the game, or for a long while they sent an army to this players homebase, not letting them create any armies, or make any attacks, constently attacking.

And an example of 'unfair' play could be: A deal was made, one player would purchase a city of another person, occupy the city onced reached there and not pay them the agreed amount. Although this would be hard to determine we would have to look into the situation.

Any more questions?

Yes. Agreed with the first part. Taking away the fun from the game of someone else by attacking him with a whole alliance time after time after time.

Though the second one I'm not sure... this because whenever that happened I thought it was pretty funny actually :D. Also gives a certain amount of freedom.

And I like the idea of newbies being able to PM someone from this UN and that they could help him find an appropriate alliance.

What a lot are affraid off I guess is that this UN might use its power to choose sides for the ones they like sometimes...

Every single decision is decided by casting a vote, upon whoch every single member of the Council gets one vote (For or Against), and since the council and all it's members have only one in purpose in the council, and that is to make the game more fun for everyone. It will also help Newbies think that they can get somewere in the game.

a few other thoguhts/replies to above comments..

First, I think the term "official" needs to be taken out of the title... "Official" implies some kind of sanction from the admins, and from everything I have seen and read this in no way will be actually endorsed by the admins... we have to setup it up ourselves... Admins may help out with some back office details (forums,, chat, etc), but I haven't seen them offer any help that would require code changes. Again, I like this aspect....

Second, bullying is one of those things that you know when you see it... If I am only attacking a single weak playing time and time again, asking for Geo's not to attack, following them around and hitting their armies outside other players cities, and there is a PATTERN of abuse, then if the player I am hitting want, it would go to the Council who would talk about it.. and determine if action needs to be taken.

Just like the real UN, some people will agree, others will disagree, and at the end the day, the way you obtain the needed votes for action is is by negotiating the resolution.... for example (and I am not trying to start a debate on other issues) but when the US said Iraq will be invaded, nobody agreed... when the resolution said "serious consequences" members voted for it... while the Council's actions should be CRYSTAL CLEAR, there are levels - harming player gets hit with a 10K army....harming player gets hit with 50K army... both different penalties, but some members may thing the action is worth a 10K punishment, but not a 50K punishment.


If the council is big enough and from a diverse pool of player - Top 10, Top 5 individuals not in allainces, rep from top 10 allainces, voted on by players, etc, then I don't think it will be easy to take sides....

With respect to Council actions 2 things..

1) Since it is funded by members, as opposed to admin money, the council will think twice before taking action. considering how much we all work for Geos, we spend them wisely or foolishly, but that is our choice and we have a goal in mind.... when my money is being spent to right some wrong and I gain nothing in terms of game play, I would think twice before allowing action to be taken.

2) The council will not seek out players to help. PLayers must come to the council. That right there is a limiting factor. Just like the real UN, the Council will only take action when pressed to.

with that said, I still don't know if I like this idea.... lol

First, I think the term "official" needs to be taken out of the title... "Official" implies some kind of sanction from the admins, and from everything I have seen and read this in no way will be actually endorsed by the admins... we have to setup it up ourselves... Admins may help out with some back office details (forums,, chat, etc), but I haven't seen them offer any help that would require code changes. Again, I like this aspect....

THis thread was started out with that in mind, but you are correct and there will be a new thread created soon, with ALL the infomation needed. and it's new titel The GEwar Council


Second, bullying is one of those things that you know when you see it... If I am only attacking a single weak playing time and time again, asking for Geo's not to attack, following them around and hitting their armies outside other players cities, and there is a PATTERN of abuse, then if the player I am hitting want, it would go to the Council who would talk about it.. and determine if action needs to be taken.

This is exactly what is going to happen.



Just like the real UN, some people will agree, others will disagree, and at the end the day, the way you obtain the needed votes for action is is by negotiating the resolution.... for example (and I am not trying to start a debate on other issues) but when the US said Iraq will be invaded, nobody agreed... when the resolution said "serious consequences" members voted for it... while the Council's actions should be CRYSTAL CLEAR, there are levels - harming player gets hit with a 10K army....harming player gets hit with 50K army... both different penalties, but some members may thing the action is worth a 10K punishment, but not a 50K punishment.

This is why votes will be casted for everysingle decision, and arguments made by both sides too.


1) Since it is funded by members, as opposed to admin money, the council will think twice before taking action. considering how much we all work for Geos, we spend them wisely or foolishly, but that is our choice and we have a goal in mind.... when my money is being spent to right some wrong and I gain nothing in terms of game play, I would think twice before allowing action to be taken.

We understand this and that is why with everyone and everything there is a choice, be that joining the Council, or too help someone out etc. And the council is voluntary in respect, with others in mind.


2) The council will not seek out players to help. PLayers must come to the council. That right there is a limiting factor. Just like the real UN, the Council will only take action when pressed to

This will be happening too, anymore questions. All infomation about rules etc will be given out later, but for purpose and what it will do i can awnser now.

I still say its a bad idea. Look who is proposing it. The Lords of War! And we all know they are Paragons of virtue with their pay us and we'll kick that person's ass for you!!

*RomJ is taken aside by NYTransit*

Pardon me yes everyone must like this idea it is smart and well thought out. Do not mind us parking our armies outside your cities its got to do with the United Nations idea.

Oh we attacked your city, well a n00b needed it.

We have not given it to a n00b you say.. Well we have to pay for troops we lost in the process.... He'll get it when our costs are paid for.

RomJ

Man am I so going to get kicked out of ANOTHER alliance. :D

I still say its a bad idea. Look who is proposing it. The Lords of War! And we all know they are Paragons of virtue with their pay us and we'll kick that person's ass for you!!

I new from the beggining people will think things because i'm in LoW, but the Council is not run by me, it is run by all it's members and everyone has equal power, even i could be kicked out of it.


Oh we attacked your city, well a n00b needed it.

We have not given it to a n00b you say.. Well we have to pay for troops we lost in the process.... He'll get it when our costs are paid for.

We will not ever take anyone possesion from anybody unless the council it'self is attacked in an atempt to bring it down.

We are here to help people out being unfairly attacked, never will we attack at city just to give it to someone else, if ever a city is taken by the council it will then be immediatly abondoned.

Everyone has different views on how this game should be played. "Bullying" is a legitimate strategy that may be used from time to time. Lets not lose sight of the fact that this is a WAR GAME. Personally, after subjectively looking over the pros and cons in this thread, I have to say that I am opposed to this idea. There are already alliances built in for players to draw support from, additional bureaurcracy will not solve anything here. "The New World Order" has no place in GEWar.

Man am I so going to get kicked out of ANOTHER alliance. :D

No worries RomJ....I think i'm with you on this one.

I also don't think it will make it. If it does there will be little support or it. No support...no funding..no funding...no council thingy....

But if it does somehow make it....I'm going to try to be the first person to get "sanctioned" :evil

The Gewar Council is there to help out people who have no other choice.
an example was given above. If a very strong player were to pick on daily on weak player, then the weak player would be forced to quit this game because he/she has no chance of ever making any progress. This is where the Council steps in.

We are not here to give cities to new players, all we offer is a chance to a new player. If there is a fight for a city then we wont interfeare. but if a new player comes to the council and says. " for two weeks i have been trying to get any city in my region, but as soon as i get it StrongPlayer sends a gigantic army and takes it from me. I even tried to capture a city on the other side of the world, but he did the same thing." Then thats something that the council will look at.. and we will tell StrongPlayer for input in the matter and to defend his side.

The GEwar Council will be made up from strong and influential players, it is kinda like a way for them to say, "Hey pick on someone your own size".

And this is not meant to be that active, every member in there will probably be in an alliance, and they have their own interest and enemies and things. So overall, defending others will not be a constant thing.

In reality, think of it like this; a few of us are joining up and saying.. "hey we are all really strong, If a player isnt as strong as us, then try your best not to pick on him too much, cause it would not be fair."

aye, just to add, atm i try to lead a clean life, i dont attack noobs, i help any of them who find me and PM me, i try to attack the richest people etc. in short im doing the stuff good for the game.

but...

as soon as a strong "UN" comes a long, i ofcourse, will not be able to stand the temptation to attack with all force forever.

c'mon, noone can expect me to lay low in such a case, thats just too beautifull.

The only attack I consider unfair is an attack funded through cheating, and that is already illegal. If the players of GEwar want to try and create their own UN, I have no problem with that, and I will enjoy seeing what happens. However it should stay completely within the players themselves and the game administration should not get involved. The real UN had no help from an almighty power from above, so if people here want to make an effective UN, they should have to set up the forums, write the Charter, and enforce it themselves. As long as its within the rules, players have a right to persistently harrass certain individuals, usually due to some sort of provocation. I'm sure anyone would be frustrated if they were attacked or insulted personally, and could not gain cold brutal revenge.

The only attack I consider unfair is an attack funded through cheating, and that is already illegal. If the players of GEwar want to try and create their own UN, I have no problem with that, and I will enjoy seeing what happens. However it should stay completely within the players themselves and the game administration should not get involved. The real UN had no help from an almighty power from above, so if people here want to make an effective UN, they should have to set up the forums, write the Charter, and enforce it themselves. As long as its within the rules, players have a right to persistently harrass certain individuals, usually due to some sort of provocation. I'm sure anyone would be frustrated if they were attacked or insulted personally, and could not gain cold brutal revenge.

OH man o man o man...it's a sad day.... I completely agree with everything you just said powdy....now i gotta kill myself..thanks :p :p

If a UN is created, it should act as a regulator not enforcer. If someone is suspected of cheating. The accusers go to the UN with their complaint and evidence. The UN decides what actions should be takin. Upon a decision, the UN can either be an intermediate between the two parties or pass their judgement to the Mods/Luke. That way these desputes are no longer an issue with ie Luke and he can concentrate on game play/bug....itself. Again, the UN should only be there to solve disputes, cheats, and problem players based on other peoples PM's or threads.

As for elections. People, even admins run for elections and polls are done. Top 12 or whatever are elected. Every 2-? months(eg) a new election can be held. Or votes of non-confidence can be held by poles. The UN would soley be on Chat or message not owning a city. Unless 1 is given to them and the profits somehow split or each member is allowed to hold the city for a given amount of time, like the stanley cup. If that city "is" attacked the attacker/alliance would then face an assault by all of the UN members alliances so it would be unwise. It would take a bit to figure out the little things but it could work if done properly. Obviously my suggestion will not sound good to all, however some points might help?

Good luck to whoever makes the decisions ;)

Also, only 1 member of an alliance can be elected. That way it seems a bit more fair. NAP's are inevitable I know, and deals will be made, but that is how the real UN works as well.

If a UN is created, it should act as a regulator not enforcer. If someone is suspected of cheating.

the Council can't act as a regulator... Because this is being done without support of the admins, the Council won't have access to server logs and what not. If someone is suspected of cheating that would still need to be handed over to the admins.

The Council would be an enforcer for disputes that are brought to it for resolution.

everyone does have different views of how this game should be be for them. and when it comes down to it, we will not be imposing may of these rules unless things just go way too far.. Many of the people who currently oppose it here have already been selected to be given invitations to become members. So you dont need to fear that you will be underrepresented. As well, you will have the right to vote for some people to join the council. so they can also represent your ideas.

We do understand that this is a war game. and we in no way want to stop players from taking power from others. But to "torture" someone untill he quits or changes names should not be tolerated even by the admins. Imagine the top 30 players just decide to give themselves a NAP and go after the bottom of the food chain. that would just kill the game.
Chances are that if people find it unfair what the Gewar Council does, someone will complain, and things will get resolved. As you should know, the ge war council will be made up of top (strong) and influential players. I do not think they will really want to limit themselves much, but i bet that when it comes down to it, theer are a few rules which the majority can agree on.

Question for the Lords of War:

What happens if this GEwar council goes through, and then you are hired by someone to attack a noob and keep armies outside his homebase? Will you really do *anything* as long as costs+fees are paid?

Hmm, has anyone ever hired you guys to attack one of your own cities? Does the confidentialty agreement even exist within the alliance (in other words, could I hire one LoW member to attack another, and if so, would the attacker be bound by confidentiality to not tell his alliance mate of the attack?)

If a UN is created, it should act as a regulator not enforcer. If someone is suspected of cheating. The accusers go to the UN with their complaint and evidence.

NO!!!!

Cheating, the hint of cheating and the investigation of cheating MUST and can only be investigated by Staff namely araT and Luke. THEY are the only ones who should be able to investigate cheating and handle the case.

We can not let alligations of cheating mar the forums, players should not be able to access the infromation on other players to discover if indeed the alliagation is correct. NO NO NO NO! No player looking into alligations of cheating. NO player council to deal with cheaters. Its a bad idea and we'll be back to forums filled with alligations of cheating with no solid basis in fact.

NO!!!!!

RomJ
NO!!!!!

For the record of the staff I think only araT and Luke have full total access to the game and licence (and power) to ban, investigate transactions and IP addresses. There is also a log that I know scribbles every change someone made to functions so if someone did try something naughty they get spanked. Further, Moderators, P0wderfinger and myself get no great access into the game. We can not see the database nor change things in it.

Question for the Lords of War:

What happens if this GEwar council goes through, and then you are hired by someone to attack a noob and keep armies outside his homebase? Will you really do *anything* as long as costs+fees are paid?

Hmm, has anyone ever hired you guys to attack one of your own cities? Does the confidentialty agreement even exist within the alliance (in other words, could I hire one LoW member to attack another, and if so, would the attacker be bound by confidentiality to not tell his alliance mate of the attack?)

We as a group haven't decided whether or not we want to be a part of this. Some of use like the idea...some of us don't.....with that being said:

Only Mercury knows who hires us. I have received many P/Ms regarding our services and I have told them to contact Mercury. Only Mercury controls this. There could have been a hit on one of us. I have even asked her if an attack on one of us was hit. She's good...she will not tell us...no matter how much i beg :p .

NO!!!!

Cheating, the hint of cheating and the investigation of cheating MUST and can only be investigated by Staff namely araT and Luke. THEY are the only ones who should be able to investigate cheating and handle the case.

We can not let alligations of cheating mar the forums, players should not be able to access the infromation on other players to discover if indeed the alliagation is correct. NO NO NO NO! No player looking into alligations of cheating. NO player council to deal with cheaters. Its a bad idea and we'll be back to forums filled with alligations of cheating with no solid basis in fact.

NO!!!!!

RomJ
NO!!!!!

For the record of the staff I think only araT and Luke have full total access to the game and licence (and power) to ban, investigate transactions and IP addresses. There is also a log that I know scribbles every change someone made to functions so if someone did try something naughty they get spanked. Further, Moderators, P0wderfinger and myself get no great access into the game. We can not see the database nor change things in it.

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!! the question of cheating can AND SHOULD only be decided by Luke and/or Tara. They are the only ones with the proper access to the database to tell for sure. And they are too busy to deal with "the counsil's" list of possible cheaters.

Question for the Lords of War:

What happens if this GEwar council goes through, and then you are hired by someone to attack a noob and keep armies outside his homebase? Will you really do *anything* as long as costs+fees are paid?

Hmm, has anyone ever hired you guys to attack one of your own cities? Does the confidentialty agreement even exist within the alliance (in other words, could I hire one LoW member to attack another, and if so, would the attacker be bound by confidentiality to not tell his alliance mate of the attack?)

yep, wildcat's right. mercury's kinda crazy about not telling us who contacts her about jobs. and we've had a good number of jobs and she's kept it confidential. i don't know what to say, i think we've proved ourselves as an alliance that keeps our word on such matters. any dissatisfied customers out there? our fees are pretty low (almost not worth it--except that we just love war) and we're both efficient and discrete. but to restate your main question of confidentiality: mercury is the only person who knows the client: if the council had a job, no one but mercury and the council would know that. moreover, i (and the other hitmen) all agree: we don't want to know who the customer is! period. sure, some jobs we probably have an idea who ordered it, but mercury tells us nothing. it's fun, and it's kind role-playish, but that's how we do it. :bang by the way, mercury's awesome: PM her for quotes ;)

NO!!!!

Cheating, the hint of cheating and the investigation of cheating MUST and can only be investigated by Staff namely araT and Luke. THEY are the only ones who should be able to investigate cheating and handle the case.

We can not let alligations of cheating mar the forums, players should not be able to access the infromation on other players to discover if indeed the alliagation is correct. NO NO NO NO! No player looking into alligations of cheating. NO player council to deal with cheaters. Its a bad idea and we'll be back to forums filled with alligations of cheating with no solid basis in fact.

NO!!!!!

RomJ
NO!!!!!

For the record of the staff I think only araT and Luke have full total access to the game and licence (and power) to ban, investigate transactions and IP addresses. There is also a log that I know scribbles every change someone made to functions so if someone did try something naughty they get spanked. Further, Moderators, P0wderfinger and myself get no great access into the game. We can not see the database nor change things in it.

agreed. i don't want a gewar version of the red scare/mccarthyism on our hands. no witch hunts.

I have already told shadownation that I do not like this idea and will not support it, so please do not think that this is some master stroke by the LoW to gain more power. As for our operations Mercury is the only one with the access to all that info.

Question for the Lords of War:

What happens if this GEwar council goes through, and then you are hired by someone to attack a noob and keep armies outside his homebase? Will you really do *anything* as long as costs+fees are paid?

Hmm, has anyone ever hired you guys to attack one of your own cities? Does the confidentialty agreement even exist within the alliance (in other words, could I hire one LoW member to attack another, and if so, would the attacker be bound by confidentiality to not tell his alliance mate of the attack?)


You know, this is a great list of hypothetical questions... and if we ever go down a path where a Council has been setup ....then where soemone hires us to be bullies then someone else raises the issue, well, you will see the results....

Like WildCat and Red said, we aren't lone gun men... Contact Mercury, she manages it all....

While an official UN appealed to me at the time of placing my vote, reading through this thread and the conditions imposed by the "council" has made me think otherwise.
Considering it is not sanctioned by the admins it would be more of an unofficial UN anyway.

Everyone has different views on how this game should be played. "Bullying" is a legitimate strategy that may be used from time to time. Lets not lose sight of the fact that this is a WAR GAME. Personally, after subjectively looking over the pros and cons in this thread, I have to say that I am opposed to this idea. There are already alliances built in for players to draw support from, additional bureaurcracy will not solve anything here. "The New World Order" has no place in GEWar.

Well said, I couldn't agree more. You read my thoughts.

T.

How about this....
New members can chose to join this UN alliance, which will cost them certain percentage of the profit, but that would protect them from big members (5 times the size let's say). The big members just will not be able to attack them... There need no be players to actually enforce this, this would be done automatically...

I've been following this thread from the beginning and refrained from posting or voting just to see where it went. After seeing the other thread I now know. Nowhere. If anything it just made things worse.

The people that want this "UN" or "Council", or whatever you want to call it, are forgetting a very important bit of info. The real United Nations IS an alliance. And here in GEwar just like in real life there is nothing stopping anyone from attacking anyone else other than a piece of paper saying you have been bad.

What the "founders" are suggesting, an alliance of alliances, is called world peace. We all know how well that's turned out.

The only way such a group could work is if a group of people all decided, "OK, I have enough cities and wealth," and stop taking cities right then, agree to help n00bs get accustomed to the game and help less powerful players in the case of "bullying."

Of course these players would have to be pretty rich so they can protect themselves and there would have to be an odd number of them, or at least divisible by 3 so you can really get that 2/3s majority.

Then it comes back to the "this is a war game" argument. Who really wants to stop fighting and growing?

Just some things to think about.

Should some people really want to take on this responsibility I'd like to suggest a couple alliance names, "n00B kNowledge" or "Bully Busters".

Still at work here so have to make it brief...i noticed something about cheating.
Although some already posted it here, I will do it again:

Only Tara and me can see for sure who is cheating and who's not, so when there are any suspicions, only PM us about it.
Nobody else should be PM'ed about it, just like it shouldn't be posted on the forum.

Thank you for your time :)

Nobody should make any comments on this thread anymore, it is very frustrating when people comment on something that doesn't even exist yet.

A full description on everything about the council will be given soon, alot of the comments people are writing saying things like 'The Council protects you from ****** members' is completely an utterly not true. We want the game to keep running smoothly and normally (This means any player can attack any other player), even members with in the council WILL attack eachother as normal.

I cannot comment on the posts anymore, but everyone will find out everything soon, so please don't post anything about what the council is and isn't because it doesn't even exist at the moment. But we are making ALOT of progress and I ask of everyone to be patient so they can find out the truth about the council, as opposed to rumours.

i do like the idea but however, if things follow on like in real life then the americans would ignore anything the UN would have to say and go in all guns blazing anyway, obviously with the help of Bush's bunny rabbit Tony Blair. i think it would be one big massacre like iraq!

One what you say about the council is up to you, but you have no knowledge of it yet so please don't post ingnorrant things.

Secondly what you posted could be offensive to many, besides it being incorrect and un-accurate. I don't think dicussion or your thoughts on real life politics should be posted here.

One what you say about the council is up to you, but you have no knowledge of it yet so please don't post ingnorrant things.

Secondly what you posted could be offensive to many, besides it being incorrect and un-accurate. I don't think dicussion or your thoughts on real life politics should be posted here.

:p you just saved there shadow....was getting ready to be a bad boy :o

I'm closing this thread, and will continue in a new one with an expanded poll.