This idea existed before, but it was called the United Nations of GEwar and now it is called the Security Council.
The idea is that every alliance with 5 members or more can put 1 of their members in the Security Council. They chose who that person is that represents them there.
It's an honour to do that, but also a task of responsibility and devotion.
If you are not upto it, don't apply for it.

The Security Council will have their own subforum and will be the direct spokesperson to the crew.
That means:
1) The crew can talk directly with them if one of their members is not behaving
2) All alliances can discuss on certain features that can't be discussed in the forum because the biggest alliance with the most advantage to it would win
3) Can vote on photoshopped games for geos that can't be voted on for the same reason as nr 2
4) Can discuss how to help newbies
5) Discuss together if certain alliances are ruining gameplay, and come to conclusions on what to do

The Security Council will NOT have more geos, but can have influence because of respect.
A Security Council can be attacked in the game just as easily as any other player. They can't whine about that in their subforum.

It's also not the idea to be like the real UN, and go for peace. This Security Council goes for war ofcourse, not NAP's.

It can add much more depth into the game, as well as competition as after every period Security Council members can vote someone out and another in.
Also alliance members can vote to have their Security Council member replaced by someone else if he/she is not doing a good job.

The Security Council can not only discuss certain problems with other alliances represented there, but also with crew. This way the crew can be updated on things faster then finding them out too late.
The idea is to have as much war, but to get rid of real hate and insults between alliances. Members can speak out when someone goes too far.
Also crew members can express concern about certain members to their Security Council representative.

You will have to decide which of your alliance members become the Security Council member though. And only alliances with more then 5 individuals, not counting people on the same IP adress.

Each crewmember is also automatically a member of the Security Council, but represents the crew instead of the alliance they might be in. In the case they are in an alliance, their alliance can still push a member forward to represent them.

Hey war and politics are combining again.
Any questions so far?

*edit: This is NOT a new alliance. It's a membergroup on the forum with access to a hidden forum. You can stay in the alliance you are in.*

is this going to be a new alliance, that has representation from all alliances, or is it a group that talk on the fourms?

like lets say i do it for BNW, am i leaving BNW?

Yes, you forgot to mention my power of veto, an oversight I'm sure ;club

is this going to be a new alliance, that has representation from all alliances, or is it a group that talk on the fourms?

like lets say i do it for BNW, am i leaving BNW?

No it's not an alliance. Like I said I would like MORE war, not LESS. No napping or making an alliance.
You don't leave BNW then, you represent them if they chose you.
The members chosen become their alliance inside this subforum(and membergroup).
You fight verbally for the best of your alliance and mainly for the game.

is this going to be a new alliance

No, it's just a sub-forum for discussion. You remain in your alliance.

Yes, you forgot to mention my power of veto, an oversight I'm sure ;club

Glad you only said that 3 times today :D
I'm sure I just forgot :)

ok....cool, that was my only question, confused me on the getting attacked part

I have one suggestion, being that I am an indy.

Maybe an indy, or a rep from a smaller alliance could be added to the Security Council if voted in by the existing members. Whaddya say?

I have one suggestion, being that I am an indy.

Maybe an indy, or a rep from a smaller alliance could be added to the Security Council if voted in by the existing members. Whaddya say?

Maybe as a provisional member? Voice but no vote?

By the way, the story needs a picture since it's in Al Gewaria.

http://www.un.int/afghanistan/images/Security%20Council.jpg

Luke says: I choose Al-Gewaria to reach everyone, not to make a real newspost :)

I have one suggestion, being that I am an indy.

Maybe an indy, or a rep from a smaller alliance could be added to the Security Council if voted in by the existing members. Whaddya say?

Sounds good to me :)

Sounds like a good idea. I'm sure SJ would be happy to have a representative to help.

Well whenever you figured out who is going for it in your alliance, post it in the thread in the root of GEwar Talk I just posted. :)

ok red dwarf is in as soon as we vote on our candiddates and we think this is an awesome idea

Are the Security Council Members going to be publicly identified?

I would sure like to know who they are. :-)

Not to mention that this kinda throws a kink in my merging plan (http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4900) .

This seems like a great idea cant wait till its in full swing.

Are the Security Council Members going to be publicly identified?

I would sure like to know who they are. :-)

Yes, in the thread in the root of Gewar Talk, you will be able to see who is a member of the Gewar Council.

Are the Security Council Members going to be publicly identified?

I would sure like to know who they are. :-)

Not to mention that this kinda throws a kink in my merging plan (http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4900) .


yes here http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=4964

No ones posted yet but yeah.......


*EDIT also could there be more representatives if the alliance is really big and do sub alliances have one. Also is this required or not. Will more features be added like a special forum for it or chat of some sort and like meetings on certain days???

yes here http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=4964

No ones posted yet but yeah.......

I didn't expect that yet :)
I'm sure those that want to participate will also have to talk it over.
Nobody around here is arrogant enough to just claim it :D

I didn't expect that yet :)
I'm sure those that want to participate will also have to talk it over.
Nobody around here is arrogant enough to just claim it :D


:eek: Of course no one is that arogant :o

What about cell alliances, should they have a different member there???

What about cell alliances, should they have a different member there???

Cells are part of the larger alliance, so they're all members of the same alliance, hence only 1 voice in the Council.

*EDIT also could there be more representatives if the alliance is really big and do sub alliances have one. Also is this required or not. Will more features be added like a special forum for it or chat of some sort and like meetings on certain days???

At the moment only 1 per alliance(including cells). This is to make sure voting on certain things always goes well, and is not biased on advantages of certain alliances.
Perhaps later rules might be tweaked a little.

The Security Council get's their own Subforum already(like VIP has).
A chatroom could always be considered.

Also:

What if an alliance with a representative happens to lose members until it goes back down to four? Is the Security Council Member de-throned?

At the moment only 1 per alliance(including cells). This is to make sure voting on certain things always goes well, and is not biased on advantages of certain alliances.
Perhaps later rules might be tweaked a little.

The Security Council get's their own Subforum already(like VIP has).
A chatroom could always be considered.


I see equal represantation. I agree cause then the Big alliances get even more power and that wont be good. Will hve to wait and see how this all turns out.

Also:

What if an alliance with a representative happens to lose members until it goes back down to four? Is the Security Council Member de-throned?

Not sure. Guess the Security Council Members would have to vote for that.

Not sure. Guess the Security Council Members would have to vote for that.


If so it should matter on the alliances rank if he can still have representation. If not then he ahs to get 5 members again I think thats fair.

If so it should matter on the alliances rank if he can still have representation. If not then he ahs to get 5 members again I think thats fair.

I'd think you would need a timeframe within they need the members again.
Because something could happen either by accident, or due to an alliance getting into a little fight with their members.
Though you could always say that means the alliance is not fit to represent themselves in the Security Council ofcourse.
But one could perhaps give an alliance like 48 hours to get themselves back together.

I'd think you would need a timeframe within they need the members again.
Because something could happen either by accident, or due to an alliance getting into a little fight with their members.
Though you could always say that means the alliance is not fit to represent themselves in the Security Council ofcourse.
But one could perhaps give an alliance like 48 hours to get themselves back together.


Maybe the whole number of players needs to be increased cause many new and fragile alliances ahve so many things to work on then to worry about this Council. Maybe 8 people thats a good number by then the alliance should be stable and once it joins it will help them more with there problems and they can gain friends. I hope this can make more independent alliances instead of just puppet states for the big juggernaughts.

Well I first said 8 members, but my collegeaus here thought 5 members was better :).

Also someone reminded me to say that it is not necessary to have the alliance leader as the Security Council member.
As long as the member is one of the most active ones, and likes to post.
Oh and his English must be better then average.

Maybe the whole number of players needs to be increased cause many new and fragile alliances ahve so many things to work on then to worry about this Council. Maybe 8 people thats a good number by then the alliance should be stable and once it joins it will help them more with there problems and they can gain friends. I hope this can make more independent alliances instead of just puppet states for the big juggernaughts.

This should not matter, it is entirely up the alliance if they want to put a representative into the council, the number is fine, there are many alliances who have 5-8 players in that have been here for a long time so would be penalized because of the newer alliances.

This should not matter, it is entirely up the alliance if they want to put a representative into the council, the number is fine, there are many alliances who have 5-8 players in that have been here for a long time so would be penalized because of the newer alliances.


Your probably right for this could help smaller alliances become stable and help them grow and build up. So at least 5 should be the required number but that could always change in the future.

To clear up some confusion:

The alliance leader can be the representative. I just meant that if the alliance wants somebody else to be the rep., then they can just as well push someone else forward.
You don't HAVE to be the leader to be the Council Member.

Cells are part of the larger alliance, so they're all members of the same alliance, hence only 1 voice in the Council.You just don't like BNW :p

So this is a separate alliance being made?

You just don't like BNW :p

So this is a separate alliance being made?

Nope, If Im correct, and I usually am, :nana
This is to be a new forum usergroup, correct?

Well we already dealt with the question if it's a new alliance :p

You can STAY in your alliance. No infact if you read it, it is even important you ARE in your alliance.
If you step out, you can't be a member of the council anymore.
Just a membergroup indeed.

Will it have a logo though just for the hell of it and if so should reps put it in there profiles if they want.

Will it have a logo though just for the hell of it and if so should reps put it in there profiles if they want.

We can come up with one. Members can put it in their if they want. Don't have to. They can put it in their avatar, signature or Usertitle if they feel like it :)
Your name will have a different colour already so people will see that you are a member.

You can count SSC Commandos in as well. We need to vote first.

We can come up with one. Members can put it in their if they want. Don't have to. They can put it in their avatar, signature or Usertitle if they feel like it :)
Your name will have a different colour already so people will see that you are a member.

Will it be Bold & Red? I think that would be good..... ;smoking
So when does all this kick off? ;slap

It can start this weekend, but I'll give all alliances more time to vote who their member is going to be ofcourse. Won't close the door.

So when does all this kick off?


As soon as more alliances vote and send fourth there reps.

Will it be Bold & Red? I think that would be good.....

That is the color of admins. Members won't have that kind of power.

That is the color of admins. Members won't have that kind of power.


And I don't want the Who's Online section to look like a frikkin' circus.
A slightly different colour blue would be better. You could still see the difference, and it's still easy for tha eyes :)

That is the color of admins. Members won't have that kind of power.
I knew that :nana , so what colour is proposed, I say a purply-blue, in line with only a slight change?
And are you sure over the power issues, it could all go to my head, who knows were I will stop?????? ;banana :sealed

And I don't want the Who's Online section to look like a frikkin' circus.
A slightly different colour blue would be better. You could still see the difference, and it's still easy for tha eyes :)

I think there is no need for an extra colour, there will be a list of the members, for us as staff it is handy to know who is a donator and not a donator by the colours, but adding yet another one would make it confusing. Why not just change your text under the username to state you are the Security Council Rep for your said alliance.

I think there is no need for an extra colour, there will be a list of the members, for us as staff it is handy to know who is a donator and not a donator by the colours, but adding yet another one would make it confusing. Why not just change your text under the username to state you are the Security Council Rep for your said alliance.This works well until people start copying them.. heck I would for awhile for kicks and giggles, but if someone wants to actually watch all usertitles for fakes it'd work..

You probably dont need a seperate color or user title. If your a rep your a rep thats all more should be focused into the councils goal not the color of your name in the forum.

Rough still, but a start.

Rough still, but a start.
I like it! ;clap

Rough still, but a start.


its a very nice start.

One thing about changing user titles: non-donators won't be able to identify themselves.

One thing about changing user titles: non-donators won't be able to identify themselves.
What a shame...... ;dance Still I think purply-blue would be good?

One thing about changing user titles: non-donators won't be able to identify themselves.


Maybe thats a reason most sided against it.

really cool idea!!!! And it's great that everyone can see who they are!!!!
;smi551 ;smi551

So cell alliances cant get a rep here it has to be the mother alliance only? Cause I was getting confused cell alliances sub alliances. But if so they should also get a rep for sometimes they might ahve diffrent views than the main alliance.

...If cell alliances have different views, then they wouldn't be considered part of the alliance. I know that Brave New Warriors is formed as a security contingent, but is still considered full-fledged Brave New World.

...If cell alliances have different views, then they wouldn't be considered part of the alliance. I know that Brave New Warriors is formed as a security contingent, but is still considered full-fledged Brave New World.


Ethier way cell alliances should ahve reps cause many of them have many members plus the number of people in the main alliance. Its too many people to be represented by one person. Maybe not all the views of the cell alliance members will be felt thats what i meant to say.

But that's exactly the point of the SC! So that smaller alliances have a say, and aren't bogged down by larger ones.

I'm glad to see this moving forward, this way we can raise game play concerns to the crew in a more organized and open way.

In the case of the United Nations we always said we are one alliance, so there will be one single player representing UN and UNa. The whole alliance is of course taking part in the election.

This player will do her/his best to help the crew and at the same time defend the interests of all UN + UNa members and the GEWar community in general ;beer

Rough still, but a start.
Really nice logo!

But that's exactly the point of the SC! So that smaller alliances have a say, and aren't bogged down by larger ones.


Im not talking about smaller alliances im talking about sub alliances who might not get a say from there mother alliance cause there is already so many people and the main alliance focus on there own issues. And in this case its about the members within the sub alliance, the cannon fodder of larger alliances.

Im not talking about smaller alliances im talking about sub alliances who might not get a say from there mother alliance cause there is already so many people and the main alliance focus on there own issues. And in this case its about the members within the sub alliance, the cannon fodder of larger alliances.

No, sub-alliances (or cells, or factions, or whatever else you might call them) are still part of the main alliance in reality. Think of it like the UN Security Council -- the US is a member; Guam is a protectoate, so Guam should be able to get in, right? No, the US is already represented, so, by extension, Guam is represented.

No, sub-alliances (or cells, or factions, or whatever else you might call them) are still part of the main alliance in reality. Think of it like the UN Security Council -- the US is a member; Guam is a protectoate, so Guam should be able to get in, right? No, the US is already represented, so, by extension, Guam is represented.


But many sub alliance get realy big with many new comers. The main alliance has there own concerns and many new comers are just being used by big alliances to grow there power. Like look at the US senate, states that have a bigger pop. have more senators to represent them. California has more people than Kansas so why should both have 1 rep. that wont be fair to california cause 1 senator cant express the views of 33,871,648 caifornians. But in the end the alliance itself should decide how many reps.

Im not talking about smaller alliances im talking about sub alliances who might not get a say from there mother alliance cause there is already so many people and the main alliance focus on there own issues. And in this case its about the members within the sub alliance, the cannon fodder of larger alliances.
If they are that oppressed, they can always split off and form their own alliance. No one is forcing them to be a sub-species here. If you want your own say, be your own alliance.

If they are that oppressed, they can always split off and form their own alliance. No one is forcing them to be a sub-species here. If you want your own say, be your own alliance.


Im not saying there opressed just equal represenation. But leave it up to the main alliance then.

Rough still, but a start.
Not bad, but I think you need to pay us some license fees ;geo ;)

Like look at the US senate, states that have a bigger pop. have more senators to represent them. California has more people than Kansas so why should both have 1 rep. that wont be fair to california cause 1 senator cant express the views of 33,871,648 caifornians

really bad example....the senate has 2 members for each state....the house maybe?

Like look at the US senate, states that have a bigger pop. have more senators to represent them. California has more people than Kansas so why should both have 1 rep. that wont be fair to california cause 1 senator cant express the views of 33,871,648 caifornians

really bad example....the senate has 2 members for each state....congress maybe?Sounds more like you were getting at electoral voting, larger states have a larger impact

Gah! Why doesn't everyone on Earth know America's governmental systems down pat? The congress (the more important half of the legislative branch) is made up of 100 members. That's two from each state. However, the House of Representatives is staffed according to population. Electoral voting (though incredibly stupid) is along the same concept, being based on population. Anything else?

*edit: This is NOT a new alliance. It's a membergroup on the forum with access to a hidden forum. You can stay in the alliance you are in.*

I don't like this Security Council idea at all, just like I don't like most of the changes people keep touting and making. But I particularly don't like the hidden forum. I don't think everyone should be able to post to it, but it should be world-readable. How else are we supposed to know how good of a representative our representative is being? What if people get called out unfairly? This sounds like yet another rule/feature that's being added without being truly thought out and that won't help with the actual issues with the game.

I don't like this Security Council idea at all, just like I don't like most of the changes people keep touting and making. But I particularly don't like the hidden forum. I don't think everyone should be able to post to it, but it should be world-readable. How else are we supposed to know how good of a representative our representative is being? What if people get called out unfairly? This sounds like yet another rule/feature that's being added without being truly thought out and that won't help with the actual issues with the game.


Well lets see till it starts if it goes well or not.

Well lets see till it starts if it goes well or not.

How would we even know? What is the definition of success? If we can't even answer these questions, I think there are far bigger problems than inter-alliance issues and newbies being unable to figure out the game. So instead of addressing actual issues, we keep adding gimicks that seriously limit the number of ways to play this game.

How would we even know? What is the definition of success? If we can't even answer these questions, I think there are far bigger problems than inter-alliance issues and newbies being unable to figure out the game. So instead of addressing actual issues, we keep adding gimicks that seriously limit the number of ways to play this game.


if the game is too continue people are going to need to know how to play i know what your saying but helping n00bs is going to help the game grow in numbers.....If no one understood it or wanted to ply we wouldnt be talking right now. Anyhow be more specific when you say "Far Bigger problems" the game is fine just small bugs are being fixed and they are adding more things to give it more depth.

So instead of addressing actual issues, we keep adding gimicks that seriously limit the number of ways to play this game.

I couldn't disagree with you more about this point. First of all, there are a great many fixes to small problems in the donator version that's being tested right now. This feature doesn't limit you in any way; it provides a way to make sure that all the represented alliances (representing the vast majority of all players in the game) are on the same page.

And actually, the more I read your post, the more I take offense to it. We (the crew) are trying to keep the game fun and interesting for everyone. We don't just throw gimmicks out there for the hell of it. We know there are problems, and we're working hard to understand them and address them. Instead of criticizing, speak up and do something to make this a better place for all of us.

*Edit: I forgot my other point: I don't have a problem with the forum being read-only for non-members for the sake of transparency. I don't know if it's technically possible with VBulletin, but I think it's a good suggestion.

Anyhow be more specific when you say "Far Bigger problems" the game is fine just small bugs are being fixed and were adding new things to give it more depth that not a problem.

It is a problem. The new changes are limiting the ways in which a person can participate in the game.

Some examples:
- Real life limits the time a person has to play the game an hour or two a couple of weekdays a week and some block(s) of time on the weekend. Most of the changes being discussed/made severely limit the ability of these people to play.
- Army limits limit the number of cities a person can hold to the limit on the number of armies.
-The security council will most likely be comprised of members who have the most amount of time to spend in game. However, their needs and thoughts about the game are likely to be far different from the needs and thoughts of the majority of the players of the game. Given that we can't see what happens in the forum, we won't be able to judge how well these representatives are representing us and those players without an alliance will have no representation.
- The above case is particularly troublesome given that there is at least a perceived difference in how different groups of people like to play the game. An example is the thread on the different playing styles of the women of the game versus the men. I know I fit the stereotype, preferring instead to build up a bank and hold a city only when I know there is a good chance of my being able to defend it. However, it seems that almost all of the new changes/proposed changes seek to stop me from playing this way because the people who like to spend their geos straight away find it "unfair". I thought this game was fun because it was a great mixture of Risk and Civilization.

However the real issue is that features are being proposed without a clue being given as to what the problem is and how we can measure success or failure. I asked two very simple questions.

- How would we know if our representatives are representing us well if we can't see what is being done, if there is no transparency?
- How will we judge whether or not this change is a success?

The second question is really the more important one for me because it will prove that some thought was given to the change before we decided to just go for it. But as the implications of the answer go far beyond the topic of this thread, the first question is the more pertinent one.

It is a problem. The new changes are limiting the ways in which a person can participate in the game.

Some examples:
- Real life limits the time a person has to play the game an hour or two a couple of weekdays a week and some block(s) of time on the weekend. Most of the changes being discussed/made severely limit the ability of these people to play.
- Army limits limit the number of cities a person can hold to the limit on the number of armies.
-The security council will most likely be comprised of members who have the most amount of time to spend in game. However, their needs and thoughts about the game are likely to be far different from the needs and thoughts of the majority of the players of the game. Given that we can't see what happens in the forum, we won't be able to judge how well these representatives are representing us and those players without an alliance will have no representation.
- The above case is particularly troublesome given that there is at least a perceived difference in how different groups of people like to play the game. An example is the thread on the different playing styles of the women of the game versus the men. I know I fit the stereotype, preferring instead to build up a bank and hold a city only when I know there is a good chance of my being able to defend it. However, it seems that almost all of the new changes/proposed changes seek to stop me from playing this way because the people who like to spend their geos straight away find it "unfair". I thought this game was fun because it was a great mixture of Risk and Civilization.

However the real issue is that features are being proposed without a clue being given as to what the problem is and how we can measure success or failure. I asked two very simple questions.

- How would we know if our representatives are representing us well if we can't see what is being done, if there is no transparency?
- How will we judge whether or not this change is a success?

The second question is really the more important one for me because it will prove that some thought was given to the change before we decided to just go for it. But as the implications of the answer go far beyond the topic of this thread, the first question is the more pertinent one.

Okay well like birq said and he said quite nicely instead of complaining about the game try to help and suggest and fix the problems instead of going on about them. This is a very fun game for me but if your going to ridicule it offer suggestions to help the game.

This game is fun and if you dont think THEN STOP PLAYING IT AND STOP COMPLAINING. ;club

Well, that's not what I'm saying. If it's not fun, help us make it fun.

- How would we know if our representatives are representing us well if we can't see what is being done, if there is no transparency?
- How will we judge whether or not this change is a success?

I already mentioned the first question (transparency is good).

The second will be judged by whether or not the game is stagnant again in 3 months like the last round. We should be able to tell within the first few weeks if people are taking it seriously and participating, and within a month or so we should be able to see how it's developing. We can't really apply hard math to it; it's more of a "wait and see and compare it to how the last round developed" situation.

Okay well like birq said and he said quite nicely instead of complaining try to help and suggest wut to do to solve the problems instead of going on about them. This game is fun and if you dont think THEN STOP PLAYING IT AND STOP COMPLAINING. ;club

I made a suggestion, stop making all these changes that seek to limit how people can play the game. That is not complaining. On top of it, I made a number of other suggestions:

- Don't make changes until you can tell people clearly and succinctly what problems you are trying to fix and how we can measure whether or not they are fixing those problems.
- When making changes, keep in mind that a large number of players do not participate in the forums nor should it be required that the do so to play the game. So if a person relies solely on forum responses, they are likely to have a biased viewpoint of the issues being faced by players.
- When making changes, keep in mind that there are a wide variety of reasons why and how people play the game. What is fun to you, might not be fun to me.

I'm not the only person who thinks many of the changes being made are making the game too complicated and less fun. I think the issue is that when they attempt to communicate that, their concerns are often minimized either by making fun of them or calling them a complainer.

I made a suggestion, stop making all these changes that seek to limit how people can play the game. That is not complaining. On top of it, I made a number of other suggestions:

- Don't make changes until you can tell people clearly and succinctly what problems you are trying to fix and how we can measure whether or not they are fixing those problems.
- When making changes, keep in mind that a large number of players do not participate in the forums nor should it be required that the do so to play the game. So if a person relies solely on forum responses, they are likely to have a biased viewpoint of the issues being faced by players.
- When making changes, keep in mind that there are a wide variety of reasons why and how people play the game. What is fun to you, might not be fun to me.

I'm not the only person who thinks many of the changes being made are making the game too complicated and less fun. I think the issue is that when they attempt to communicate that, their concerns are often minimized either by making fun of them or calling them a complainer.



Well the forum is a huge part of the game. If your not apart of it you can still play and this is not something required nor does the rep matter to YOU gameplay if you were an alliance leader then it would matter and the alliance leaders would probably get acsess to this forum anyhow. And this is not a change it is an addition and even though one player might not like it dosnt mean we shouldt be able to try it out or get to use the new feature. Mabye you like the game to be more simple fine your opinion. I was upset about saying that this was like a scam to hide real problems and you didnt start saying anything till 3 post later so Thats why i said if you didnt like how the staff was making scams or how the game was not the way you liked it why are you playing.

Although I don't like hearing whining, I do agree with Tracy in that it would be nice if the Security Council forum was at least open for non-members to see, even if we're not allowed to post.

Although I don't like hearing whining, I do agree with Tracy in that it would be nice if the Security Council forum was at least open for non-members to see, even if we're not allowed to post.I'm torn on that, it'd be good for all to see, but who knows what might be said? Something might provoke a player into something bad... like taking the topics onto this forum anyway. No, keep the forum private, secrecy is better here since if things can be viewed they can be quoted, and they can be replicated.

I'm torn on that, it'd be good for all to see, but who knows what might be said? Something might provoke a player into something bad... like taking the topics onto this forum anyway. No, keep the forum private, secrecy is better here since if things can be viewed they can be quoted, and they can be replicated.

But what's the purpose of the SC? To facilitate communication, right? No need to keep it secret. If you're talking about someone specifically, there are already places to do that. If anything, non-members might be able to learn something helpful by glancing through the SC forum.

Well the forum is a huge part of the game. If your not apart of it you can still play and this is not something required nor does the rep matter to YOU gameplay if you were an alliance leader then it would matter and the alliance leaders would probably get acsess to this forum anyhow. And this is not a change it is an addition and even though one player might not like it dosnt mean we shouldt be able to try it out or get to use the new feature. Mabye you like the game to be more simple fine your opinion. I was upset about saying that this was like a scam to hide real problems and you didnt start saying anything till 3 post later so Thats why i said if you didnt like how the staff was making scams or how the game was not the way you liked it why are you playing.

Yes it is my opinion, but I don't understand why I can't express that I don't like a particular idea. I don't like the idea on its merits. However, if we do implement it, I would at least like to have an idea of what it's goals are and why we think it will meet those goals. Maybe in the course of discussion you'll be able to convince me why it's a good idea or maybe we could come up with something better.

No particular idea is a scam to hide real problems, but if we just keep throwing things out there to see if they stick and if we only ask the advice of people who come up with ideas in the first place, I think there is a very good chance that the game will go downhill.

For this particular suggestion, I don't understand:
-how it will decrease NAPs/increase war as it doesn't address the reasons why alliances enter into these agreements in the first place
-how this helps people express concerns/ideas that are not shared by the more active groups
-what happens when alliances agree to represent similar opinions to the crew/in the forum (similar to rate setting in an industry) for reasons other than they think they are in the best interest of the game
-can the security council really call for the breakup of an alliance because the other alliances feel that it has become too powerful?

I also agree that the board should be visible for everyone.

But what's the purpose of the SC? To facilitate communication, right? No need to keep it secret. If you're talking about someone specifically, there are already places to do that. If anything, non-members might be able to learn something helpful by glancing through the SC forum.Maybe then one person of the SC has mod powers over it and can move all "resolved" threads into the main one and have it locked but viewable after things are taken care of. This way no threads in discussion can be viewed and disrupted by outside views in this forum or by PM to players, but lessons can be learned from the end result.

Maybe non-donators should have a rep.

Just because it seems that their limitations are often times ignored on the forums.

For this particular suggestion, I don't understand:
-how it will decrease NAPs/increase war as it doesn't address the reasons why alliances enter into these agreements in the first place

I think a forum we can discuss this amongst the alliances will help figure what can be done to help that. Rest assured SJ is all about encouraging more war. NOT war where a large alliance picks on non-allied guys, or a bunch of alliances pick on one, but where two alliances decided to go to war, and they do so.

For instance, SJ and SSC/SSC Commandos are at war right now. Granted, SJ is a little outnumbered member-wise, (19 vs 41 or so), so we'll probably lose, but that's still better odds then a loner who wants to take an ODA or Red Dwarf city stands. And, so far, no other alliances have entered the fray, and despite being outnumbered we have no plans to change that. I think (and mods/admins can chime in) this is exactly what we want to promote. Best way to figure out how to do that is get guys involved who are doing it.

Maybe then one person of the SC has mod powers over it and can move all "resolved" threads into the main one and have it locked but viewable after things are taken care of. This way no threads in discussion can be viewed and disrupted by outside views in this forum or by PM to players, but lessons can be learned from the end result.

I think in most cases a "good" representative would be sharing the information with their alliance anyway, at least where "good" means that the representative continues to be a representative. Given that, it's likely that the discussions will be well known to most people in the game anyway.

There are only two groups of players who I see not having access to said information:
- players who are not a member of an alliance
- alliances who elect a representative who does not report back to them

In addition, it's quite likely that in order to achieve the goals of better communication concerning features the representative would have to report back the ideas in order to get feedback from their alliance members. The best way to do this would be to copy and paste what is in the forums since things can be lost in translation. It might be easier if the admins/crew posted the proposed changes and asked for feedback from the community. It might be too much to ask, but maybe they could even send a PM to members.

I am also worried that the people who are not part of an alliance would be completely left out of the feedback process.

I think in most cases a "good" representative would be sharing the information with their alliance anyway, at least where "good" means that the representative continues to be a representative. Given that, it's likely that the discussions will be well known to most people in the game anyway.

There are only two groups of players who I see not having access to said information:
- players who are not a member of an alliance
- alliances who elect a representative who does not report back to them

In addition, it's quite likely that in order to achieve the goals of better communication concerning features the representative would have to report back the ideas in order to get feedback from their alliance members. The best way to do this would be to copy and paste what is in the forums since things can be lost in translation. It might be easier if the admins/crew posted the proposed changes and asked for feedback from the community. It might be too much to ask, but maybe they could even send a PM to members.

I am also worried that the people who are not part of an alliance would be completely left out of the feedback process.As a BNW rep I vow I would tell you nothing at all :p

Never thought of that though, so reps would either have to be very well trusted, or the info be open I guess...

But the non-allianced is a tough crowd to cover, though it can be fixed by saying: get into one, or make one. I know this is hard sometimes but seems reasonable enough

But the non-allianced is a tough crowd to cover, though it can be fixed by saying: get into one, or make one. I know this is hard sometimes but seems reasonable enough

Wouldn't that make everything easier? I mean, if they're part of an alliance and I decide to take their city, at least then I'm not picking on them for being non-aligned.

But then they might join together but they will be part of a smaller alliance, so obviously my attack would be bullying.

And then they might decide that getting bigger numbers is better, but then they hit the alliance caps.

So they might decide to bank up for awhile, but, wait, many of the suggested features for the new game will make that impossible. And in the current game unless they are donators, they can only save up 2500 geos without cities. So they have to attack a bigger alliance to get a city which will likely lead them to be attacked in return or they will have to bully the smaller alliances or independents. Or they have to buy a city and hope that person can defend it and is trustworthy enough to be their bank.

Sometimes I feel like we are trying to make the game fairer and yet at the same time making it less so. ;)

I think in most cases a "good" representative <snip>

Am I speaking? Are you reading my posts? :)

I already agreed with the transparency issue, and we're looking into how to set it up that way.

There are only two groups of players who I see not having access to said information:

We have already agreed (and it's mentioned in this thread) that people not in an alliance can apply for membership so they can make their voice heard. I don't think anyone has thought about membership criteria yet, but I assume it'd probably be a majority vote of crew based on forum citizenship.

Possibly to join as an Independent they need to have a set amount of City Value at a given time in the Game?

Possibly to join as an Independent they need to have a set amount of City Value at a given time in the Game?

Haha good idea, except for one thing: someone can just pop into the game just in at the right time, take a city through some fluke, and then be in the SC.

Reply to below note: The above post says "AT" a given time, not "FOR" a given time. I guess that threw me off.

He also said after a given amount of time though, so it's a good idea IMO

whats to stop like from putting the main issues in this forum for all to see so that all have a chance to see whats changing each week however while we are building up the game please remember while we are building a better mousetrap as my dear old dad used to say the more parts there are the more things can go wrong keep it simple keep it fun :D

There you go Randy again....

Blatant disregard for punctuation :D

@ Quorg and Generic

What I meant was possibly something like this. An Independent takes over a couple cities, holds them for a period of one week, the value would have to be at least 1mil total, then he has earned the right to go before the board and is reviewed and then voted on a yay or nay into the Security Counsel.

Wow this thread became big....and not with what it was supposed to be but more questions and doubts while this was originally an idea of players itself.

I took the time reading all posts, which might be quite hard...but I see at least someone who kept raising questions that were already answerred.
So if you want to ask questions, please read the thread first.

As for cell alliances being represented....that would just make the polling unfair again.
Biggest alliance having more chance to win that poll.

Maybe the way forward for Independant players is that if they have a particular problem, maybe a member of staff could be elected as the spokesperson for them, that way they can then have somebody who is entirely impartial help them out. The Independant players would pm the member of staff with their query/suggestion/problem and then the said member of staff takes it to the SC, this way no players are being left out of the SC.

As for alliance sub groups, they as Luke stated can only have one member from the alliance as a whole (please note I only used these alliances as an example).

Maybe the way forward for Independant players is that if they have a particular problem, maybe a member of staff could be elected as the spokesperson for them, that way they can then have somebody who is entirely impartial help them out. The Independant players would pm the member of staff with their query/suggestion/problem and then the said member of staff takes it to the SC, this way no players are being left out of the SC.

As for alliance sub groups, they as Luke stated can only have one member from the alliance as a whole (please note I only used these alliances as an example).
yuck. If I were independent I would want a way to voice my own concerns and not run to staff. STaff shouldn't be involved.

Ok independant....but we do ofcourse have crew being in the SC also :).
It's also trying to give players more of a voice in the game, without it being ruled by the biggest alliances.
And for better communication between alliances(hopefully leads to less hate), and better communication between players and staff.

Those who for some reason are still against it:
Don't join, and you won't notice the difference inside the game.

yuck. If I were independent I would want a way to voice my own concerns and not run to staff. STaff shouldn't be involved.

Its not that we would be involved at all, its just that with so many independent players they would need a spokesperson, the member of staff given this chore would not by any means be allowed to to let their own opinion on the matter in hand cloud the discussion the would only put forward the views of the said player. Besides it is just a suggestion, I am wondering how we may be able to incorporate the independent players without them feeling left out of the SC. Because ultimtately the game also involves them and their views too.

Maybe each alliance can have a lone player voice added to his/her voice?

I thought Indy players could be voted in by SC?

I thought Indy players could be voted in by SC?
that is what was talked about in this thread. prior to PS wanting staff to represent. :rolleyes:

that is what was talked about in this thread. prior to PS wanting staff to represent. :rolleyes:

Its not so much that I want to represent them, I think that all players have a voice. I was just putting out a suggestion thats all. If players are happy to vote in Independents, then should they not also be happy to vote in alliances of less than 5 players also?

Wow this thread became big....and not with what it was supposed to be but more questions and doubts while this was originally an idea of players itself.

I took the time reading all posts, which might be quite hard...but I see at least someone who kept raising questions that were already answerred.
So if you want to ask questions, please read the thread first.

As for cell alliances being represented....that would just make the polling unfair again.
Biggest alliance having more chance to win that poll.


Yeah alot happened in this thread :)

Its not so much that I want to represent them, I think that all players have a voice. I was just putting out a suggestion thats all. If players are happy to vote in Independents, then should they not also be happy to vote in alliances of less than 5 players also?


Yes. It is my humble opinion that the initial SC should be made up of ONE person per 5 member alliance (including sub alliances). After that, indies and smaller alliances can put themselves in for nomination. It could be voted on by the SC. If they are voted in, they would have a voice, but no vote for a period of time. After that period of time, they could put themselves up for nomination for voting status. Is this fair?

Sounds fair enough I guess.

Sounds fair enough I guess.



wait so your saying that you agree with brobie saying that sub alliances get a rep tooo?????

wait so your saying that you agree with brobie saying that sub alliances get a rep tooo?????

NO, emperor!! God, sub alliances WILL NOT get representation. It would be unfair! Get over it!

It's also trying to give players more of a voice in the game, without it being ruled by the biggest alliances.
And for better communication between alliances(hopefully leads to less hate), and better communication between players and staff.


Well, I think that the decisions conducted by this council must be above the alliances interests.
Of course the council members will keep playing the game like they are now, but obviously members can´t think that they can participate from the council to have personal/alliance advantages. If biggest alliances start to rule on their own benefice, they didn´t understand the council purpose.
Said that, I think that:
- it could be a good idea if alliance cells can have their representative. Although during the game they have the same major objectives, each alliance cell usually have its own leaders. These leaders can contribute a lot with the council.
- independents /small alliances that wants to participate may have their chance. Maybe if those that wants to join give their names, it is made a poll, and 5 most voted will represent the independent / small alliances. To avoid people giving only self-votes, each person has to vote in two people - usually himself :p and another that he thinks is good to represent them.

NO, emperor!! God, sub alliances WILL NOT get representation. It would be unfair! Get over it!


it seems some one woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning its okay :p :nana

No... I am practicing my angry face for when I become a mod.

It's just kind of frustrating when Luke says something, and you try to contradict it every other post with the same phrase, and no other arguments. At least Hmira had something contributive to say on the matter, and because of it, and see his point of view.

Well for the moment cells aren't included though :).
If they have their own goal and policy, they should better just change the name of their alliance totally ;).
But like I said: Those rules might be tweaked in time.

For now for several reasons, they're not in.

Yes. It is my humble opinion that the initial SC should be made up of ONE person per 5 member alliance (including sub alliances). After that, indies and smaller alliances can put themselves in for nomination. It could be voted on by the SC. If they are voted in, they would have a voice, but no vote for a period of time. After that period of time, they could put themselves up for nomination for voting status. Is this fair?

Yes I agree to a certain extent, this seems the fairest way to do things, however I do think if they have made it through the voting stage, then they should have the right to vote, after all there could be things being discussed that could also affect them, and it seems only fair to me, that they have a say in these things.

Also I do not agree that sub alliances should have a seperate vote, they are part of a larger alliance and should just have one player in the SC.

If cell Alliances dont have some sort of voice I dont see why indie players should. I realize that cell alliances are part of a bigger alliance but if they should have something to say or at least someone around to explain what is going on in the SC. Maybe not a total seat but someone to report what is going on. As sometimes the cell alliance and parent alliance have a lot of players.

If cell Alliances dont have some sort of voice I dont see why indie players should. I realize that cell alliances are part of a bigger alliance but if they should have something to say or at least someone around to explain what is going on in the SC. Maybe not a total seat but someone to report what is going on. As sometimes the cell alliance and parent alliance have a lot of players.

The minion alliance player can report to the uber alliance representative to air the concerns of the downtrodden alliance. They don't need to have representation. They should be happy with the dirt kicking role and trust in their superiors enough not to need to say anything anyway, If they have an issue, they should maybe just jewel some more (Yes, baas).

Indie players are removed from the politics of a large alliance, they can have something to say, or some other issues to raise.

Remember one of the goal of the Security Council. Peers discipling peers. Or should we leave Tara and Mercury to go on banning sprees all the time - The ginger ninjas. But without their representation (in the extreme cases) Indies can be trodden on and abused with no recourse.

And for example I want to do a christmas-gewar photoshopping contest.

SC would vote the winner.
If SC had different cell members in, they would probably just all vote for their alliance mate.

For the record...

When I said "including suballiances"....I meant that the sub alliance would be included WITH the main alliance. Sorry to bring up the same discussion that has already happened about 17 times in this thread.

For the record...

When I said "including suballiances"....I meant that the sub alliance would be included WITH the main alliance. Sorry to bring up the same discussion that has already happened about 17 times in this thread.

Thats ok, that was me misunderstanding you then and I apologise. I think the Indies would have alot to bring to the SC for example why are they not in an alliance, I have always been curious about that one, and also if we are discuss help for newbs, I think vet players like Brobie should definately have a say, they have after all been playing a long time and have a wealth of knowledge of the game.

In Brobie's case he is a vet and an Indie, which makes it even more important in my view that he is part of the SC. (Sorry to use you as the example)

being a lifer, im all for making things donators only. so how about making it, one user from each alliance to be represented, but the user has to be a donator.

For those alliances without donators in them, they would go into a group that also had independants in them that would be represented by an independant donator, such as brobie or someone else if brobie didnt want to do it.

Just that donators have generally been playing longer, or play it more then non donators, and have a fair idea of how the game works as well. as well as knowing whats to come in the future, so they would have more experience i guess.

I like that idea - not just because I am one - but for all the reasons you mention.

The minion alliance player can report to the uber alliance representative to air the concerns of the downtrodden alliance. They don't need to have representation. They should be happy with the dirt kicking role and trust in their superiors enough not to need to say anything anyway, If they have an issue, they should maybe just jewel some more (Yes, baas).
Hehe, dear Blitzy ;) your view of cell alliances will never change... As said, the UN is happy with a single representative. But not because UNa are minions that won't be represented !!

We are one alliance and all UN and UNa players will be equally represented in the Security Council. Just had to clarify, now please back to topic...

being a lifer, im all for making things donators only. so how about making it, one user from each alliance to be represented, but the user has to be a donator.

For those alliances without donators in them, they would go into a group that also had independants in them that would be represented by an independant donator, such as brobie or someone else if brobie didnt want to do it.

Just that donators have generally been playing longer, or play it more then non donators, and have a fair idea of how the game works as well. as well as knowing whats to come in the future, so they would have more experience i guess.

1. I don't really want to represent "the indies" nor do I think that indies should get representation unless the SC votes them in. If I would be responsible for the opinions of others, it would kind of defeat the purpose of being an indy.... at least for me.

2. And as for donators being the only people allowed in the SC...I don't really like it, but I guess I don't have any reason to back that up.

3. I love lists.

4. I am going to have to humbly decline your offer of making me a moderator.

4. I am going to have to humbly decline your offer of making me a moderator.What offer! :p

1. I don't really want to represent "the indies" nor do I think that indies should get representation unless the SC votes them in. If I would be responsible for the opinions of others, it would kind of defeat the purpose of being an indy.... at least for me.

2. And as for donators being the only people allowed in the SC...I don't really like it, but I guess I don't have any reason to back that up.

3. I love lists.

4. I am going to have to humbly decline your offer of making me a moderator.You're right on #2, #3, what's with #4 no one asked :p, and on #1 it seems to me you may as well be a rep for your alliance, even though it's 1 member since you're just like a regular alliance but on your own

Hehe, dear Blitzy ;) your view of cell alliances will never change...

Gotta keep fightin' the good fight ;95

Just a few points:

1But the non-allianced is a tough crowd to cover, though it can be fixed by saying: get into one, or make one. I know this is hard sometimes but seems reasonable enoughIt's reasonable enough to force people into alliances! Why?

Just because most people in the game don't feel they can stand on their own two feet doesn't mean you should force everybody to join an alliance just so they can have a voice in how the game is run. This attitude is precisely why you need independent players on the SC; otherwise the big alliances will continue to rule the game.

As a radical suggestion: if you want more fighting, get rid of alliances, they're the reason there are so many NAPs and you all reckon NAPs are a bad thing. (I'm not actually advocating this but it would make life interesting for the big boys).

Maybe if there were to be one or more independents on the SC, other independents could PM them with ideas and opinions that could be put forward to the SC. You don't have to be in an alliance to communicate.

2
yuck. If I were independent I would want a way to voice my own concerns and not run to staff. STaff shouldn't be involved. Here, here.

3
Just because tracy disagrees with an idea is no reason to slag him off as some have done on this thread. He is entitled to a view and he has made some good points.


4
I do think if they (meaning reps of small alliances and independents) have made it through the voting stage, then they should have the right to vote, after all there could be things being discussed that could also affect them, and it seems only fair to me, that they have a say in these things. I agree absolutely.

5
My main point I've left until last: I've read through 13 pages now and there still seems to be confusion as to exactly what's happening. It would be good if somebody (eg Luke) could maybe edit the first message on the thread so that it presents a synopsis of the subject. Please.

Ok I'll edit the post later. Though I'm not sure exactly what has changed except for the indipendant players or small alliances having a chance to be voted in.
But then I mean total indipendant players, as I'm sure the SC agrees on(otherwise you'll just see some people quitting an alliance to be able to get a place in the SC, while still in heart being with the alliance).
The idea is to give all people the same vote on a lot of thing, without that voice always being ruled by the biggest alliance just because it's better for them at that moment.

And like I said before, the first thing for the SC to discuss is how we can help new players, as they are now being intimidated by big alliances(or so I read on the gewar wikipedia...not sure who wrote that yet).

And like I said before, the first thing for the SC to discuss is how we can help new players, as they are now being intimidated by big alliances(or so I read on the gewar wikipedia...not sure who wrote that yet).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GEWar&diff=91795469&oldid=91469882

Now I wonder who flutefluteflute is? :sealed

As a radical suggestion: if you want more fighting, get rid of alliances, they're the reason there are so many NAPs and you all reckon NAPs are a bad thing. (I'm not actually advocating this but it would make life interesting for the big boys).


Here's an interesting fact. Some independents NAP as well. Generally they either know someone in the alliance in RL or they have gained the respect of someone in the alliance. Sometimes alliances even allow such players to obtain cities within their territories which serves to deter others from attacking them.

Also some independents form informal alliances with each other in addition to relationships alliances. Since these ties are not formal, these people could game the SC system.

Finally, without the ability to make alliances and NAP, we might as well all be playing against a computer or we should all start and end at the same time and have mini-sessions. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of a multi-player game like this one is.

Without alliances, alliance would still exist, but out of the game. Many have external forums which they would continue to use and continue to work as an alliance.

Here's an interesting fact. Some independents NAP as well. Generally they either know someone in the alliance in RL or they have gained the respect of someone in the alliance. Sometimes alliances even allow such players to obtain cities within their territories which serves to deter others from attacking them.

Also some independents form informal alliances with each other in addition to relationships alliances. Since these ties are not formal, these people could game the SC system.

Finally, without the ability to make alliances and NAP, we might as well all be playing against a computer or we should all start and end at the same time and have mini-sessions. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of a multi-player game like this one is.I'd be amazed if there is anybody who manages to get anywhere in the game who doesn't NAP. I certainly have made various different types of agreements with lots of players.

As I said in my post, I'm not advocating doing away with alliances - I think they are an integral part of the game - and I know that, as fluteflute says, all the major alliances have a private forum. There were alliances in the game before formal alliances were even introduced. Playing with and against real people (as opposed to a machine) is what makes the game so interesting. The diplomacy of the game is as important as the fighting.

My response was more to the idea that independent players have to be forced into an alliance in order to be heard. I only thought of the idea "off the cuff" as possibly a radically different idea that would not be considered by somebody who is firmly established within an alliance and maybe couldn't conceive of a different way of playing. I think the Indies would have alot to bring to the SC for example why are they not in an alliance, I have always been curious about that one,

Informal alliances and agreements between players can work very well. Anybody who remembers several big alliances having to gang up to defeat NO will realise this.

Again though this has, I think, reinforced my view that having some independent input in the SC is important. It is very interesting, for example, that an experienced player like princesssunshine is curious to know why independent players are not in an alliance.

I ll be the representant for NO GURU

NAR even became strong due to the fact there were no official alliances.
They had their own forum, and were the first real alliance.
As the rest were just lone players, this alliance helped eachother and became very strong due to the absense of official alliances.

And well...we couldn't ban people for helping eachother out now could we? :)
Though I'm reading good stuff about some certain point system, that could perhaps make NAP's a bit less worthwhile.

Because NAP's then could mean you are giving points away to your NAP'ed alliance.
But someone will soon enough start to talk about that on the forums(hint to those).

But reality is NAP's will always be there. The only way an alliance could get rid of them, is if their enemies did the same. As neither will be the first one to do that, they will remain.
I must however say I was very pleased that some alliances recently chose to just have fun instead of trying to be nr1, and got rid of the NAP's.

Perhaps those even have the most fun. They don't take things too serious, don't get frustrated but joke about, and aren't panicking when a reset is announced because they don't care about saving in the bank...it's the action and thrills of attacking that are important.
But let people play however they choose to play. As long as the game doesn't end up with just 2 sides, and no room for a third smaller one.

As I said in my post, I'm not advocating doing away with alliances - I think they are an integral part of the game - and I know that, as fluteflute says, all the major alliances have a private forum. There were alliances in the game before formal alliances were even introduced. Playing with and against real people (as opposed to a machine) is what makes the game so interesting. The diplomacy of the game is as important as the fighting.


Sorry, I was just trying to expand your argument, not trying to argue for or against it and make the point, as I believe you are, that diplomacy is important to the game.

I think if independents have the opportunity to be voted onto the SC (maybe as non-voting members at first), then someone on the SC would have the opportunity to say, "Hey! Soandso isn't really an independent, they're an allied merc with Alliance X." So while it's not without risks, it does allow for certain benefits as well.

Time outside alliances + value of cities held now/in the recent past ought to be criterion for nomination, though. Otherwise you'll have people bailing on their alliance to get an extra seat, or every Tom, Dick, and Theo asking for a seat. What does the UN call them, NGOs? They don't get a vote, but they can sit in and made their voices heard, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_observers

i'm not sure i understand the purpose of the sc. if it's to discuss proposed game changes and such, i think it's a great idea. if it's to discourage naps or help make more war, then i'm against it. we have a game, let people play it! trying to preordain an end just seems wrong to me. we can discuss changes to the game to make it more fluid but using this as a club to beat down strong groups is the wrong approach, imo. certain people will find a way to gain advantage in the game and the fight to stop them from doing so IS THE GAME.

i think the 5 number is good. splinter groups also should not have a voice. if splinter groups have issues they should send them to the head office to be dealt with.

as far as indies go, i want say tough luck, but then again being an indie is a valid strategy and should not be penalized. i don't have the number of active players, but i imagine that indies make up the bulk of the membership. having them all have a voice is obviously a sure road to chaos. my proposal would be to set up a number of indie seats to be filled to balance the organized alliances. indies who want to join the group can submit their name. every month or so a random lottery will be taken and a set number of indies will be allowed in. this should be rotating to allow many people to participate and also to acknowledge that indie players don't have as much clout in the game and therefore should not have too much power in the sc.

tli will discuss and forward the name of our rep.

i'm not sure i understand the purpose of the sc.
It is all about improving communication between the players and staff, a place to discuss upcoming game changes where each group will have the opportunity to let crew know their feelings, through their rep, in an organized civil way without a bunch of off topic posts skewing the discussion. Also, returning the avatar/photoshop contest voting back to the players where the number of people in an alliance will not decide the winner. BTW, I really like the idea of a certain number of seats to be filled by independents and small alliances.

thanks for the clarification, gb. it is a great idea ;smi551

Ive allready argued that Cells should have a place on the SC. For the case of RD Starbug we were a cell of RD before the reset so it only makes sense that we should be after the reset but In our case we came back bigger and stronger then the mother alliance. (No offense RD)

Cells should have a say in the SC.
The only thing we share with our mother alliance is NAPS and our name
Other then that we are seperate.



If cell Alliances dont have some sort of voice I dont see why indie players should. I realize that cell alliances are part of a bigger alliance but if they should have something to say or at least someone around to explain what is going on in the SC. Maybe not a total seat but someone to report what is going on. As sometimes the cell alliance and parent alliance have a lot of players.

Well it has been said a lot of times that they won't. So I don't see much reason to debate that anymore.

I'm sure the majority can see why...no point in doing subjective voting if one alliance would then again be stronger then the other.
You say you have nothing in common, but another cell might. And if we allow one, we have to allow all.

SO for the moment no cells.

If the wait time between posting, and posts appearing in the Security Council could be brought under several hours, it might encourage more activity....

If the wait time between posting, and posts appearing in the Security Council could be brought under several hours, it might encourage more activity....
I PM'd Luke about it this morning it should be fixed.

I PM'd Luke about it this morning it should be fixed.

Yep, it is:
http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5054

hey, i just come up with an idea, the real united nation in real life have army, i was think let all the sc have 1 milion troops and let them decided on where to hit, that would be kool.

Let's do it!

You're full of good ideas, TDINH08!

The problem with it is that it's a wargame, where users(as long as not cheating or intimidating others) are free to do what they want.
The real UN has an army to maintain peace. But we don't want peace, we want war.
And we don't want to tell other players what they can and can't do.
So what would it be used for?

If it's used to crush players that intimidate newbies, I would agree :D

The problem with it is that it's a wargame, where users(as long as not cheating or intimidating others) are free to do what they want.
The real UN has an army to maintain peace. But we don't want peace, we want war.
And we don't want to tell other players what they can and can't do.
So what would it be used for?

If it's used to crush players that intimidate newbies, I would agree :D

An army used to attack any top 5 alliances would be a good idea...

An army used to attack any top 5 alliances would be a good idea...

In saying that and as much as I agree in looking at the current "top 5 alliances", it is rather a disincentive to success and will drive people away from this game. Shake up the top 5 I say! Don't leave it all to Rabban! Little allaince unite agains the NAP-<expletive deleted>

The problem with it is that it's a wargame, where users(as long as not cheating or intimidating others) are free to do what they want.
The real UN has an army to maintain peace. But we don't want peace, we want war.
And we don't want to tell other players what they can and can't do.
So what would it be used for?

If it's used to crush players that intimidate newbies, I would agree :D

I am gonna have to disagree with u on this one luke. I look as this game from a different point of view, i believe this game involve more political than fighting is needed, it's only 20% geo and troops, 40% political(communication skill),and 40% team work. One of the reason i play this game is to getting my english and communication skill to a better level, it teach me real life lesson about human being. U dont need to motivate people to fight, it is gonna happen anyway, through billion and bilion of years, our ancestor always go to war restlessly. But the goal here is to test ur survival skill, and it is not about peace, it is about what is right and wrong,it is about justice, the sc have the right go to war with their troops if they are fighting for the right thing. tdinh08

I am gonna have to disagree with u on this one luke. I look as this game from a different point of view, i believe this game involve more political than fighting is needed, it's only 20% geo and troops, 40% political(communication skill),and 40% team work. One of the reason i play this game is to getting my english and communication skill to a better level, it teach me real life lesson about human being. U dont need to motivate people to fight, it is gonna happen anyway, through billion and bilion of years, our ancestor always go to war restlessly. But the goal here is to test ur survival skill, and it is not about peace, it is about what is right and wrong,it is about justice, the sc have the right go to war with their troops if they are fighting for the right thing. tdinh08
it's crap like this that makes me wish I were here at the game's inception to have enjoyed the good ol days.

it's crap like this that makes me wish I were here at the game's inception to have enjoyed the good ol days.

This is not the colosume, be alittle more polite, i see that u dont like my opinion about this game, but if u have an opposite opinion, put up some support for it.
Reply like a third grader is not gonna gain u any good but bad reputation.

Reply like a third grader is not gonna gain u any good but bad reputation.


Like you..... Ohh no that was a 5th grader sorry..... And he was just expressing his point of view so basically what you said was more childish then his post....

Like you..... Ohh no that was a 5th grader sorry..... And he was just expressing his point of view so basically what you said was more childish then his post....

dont u think we argue enough on the" all going down" thread emp55, i dont want to bring it into this thread to.

dont u think we argue enough on the" all going down" thread emp55, i dont want to bring it into this thread to.


then be quiet..... I can say what I want its you who replies to me..... Anyhow YOU made that "All going down" thread..... Now that you are out of lies and arguments your a total wussy.....


And Ive never heard of "Argue Too Much"

Back on topic...NOW

Thank You!

i like to sign adama up for my alliance sc.

hi luke i would like to join the Gewar Council

ok i came across this, and was wondering if this is still going on, and if not why?? because it sounds like a great idea

It was shut down due to lack of participation.

It was shut down due to lack of participation.

really?? I would have thought this would be a good idea, i would participate if it was up

That's kinda what we thought, too. ;)

Security council for what?

raban is already inprisioned in Cuba..

This idea existed before, but it was called the United Nations of GEwar and now it is called the Security Council.
The idea is that every alliance with 5 members or more can put 1 of their members in the Security Council. They chose who that person is that represents them there.
It's an honour to do that, but also a task of responsibility and devotion.
If you are not upto it, don't apply for it.

The Security Council will have their own subforum and will be the direct spokesperson to the crew.
That means:
1) The crew can talk directly with them if one of their members is not behaving
2) All alliances can discuss on certain features that can't be discussed in the forum because the biggest alliance with the most advantage to it would win
3) Can vote on photoshopped games for geos that can't be voted on for the same reason as nr 2
4) Can discuss how to help newbies
5) Discuss together if certain alliances are ruining gameplay, and come to conclusions on what to do

The Security Council will NOT have more geos, but can have influence because of respect.
A Security Council can be attacked in the game just as easily as any other player. They can't whine about that in their subforum.

It's also not the idea to be like the real UN, and go for peace. This Security Council goes for war ofcourse, not NAP's.

It can add much more depth into the game, as well as competition as after every period Security Council members can vote someone out and another in.
Also alliance members can vote to have their Security Council member replaced by someone else if he/she is not doing a good job.

The Security Council can not only discuss certain problems with other alliances represented there, but also with crew. This way the crew can be updated on things faster then finding them out too late.
The idea is to have as much war, but to get rid of real hate and insults between alliances. Members can speak out when someone goes too far.
Also crew members can express concern about certain members to their Security Council representative.

You will have to decide which of your alliance members become the Security Council member though. And only alliances with more then 5 individuals, not counting people on the same IP adress.

Each crewmember is also automatically a member of the Security Council, but represents the crew instead of the alliance they might be in. In the case they are in an alliance, their alliance can still push a member forward to represent them.

Hey war and politics are combining again.
Any questions so far?

*edit: This is NOT a new alliance. It's a membergroup on the forum with access to a hidden forum. You can stay in the alliance you are in.*
Somehow it just never worked out, we tried to get the members involved, but it was like waiting for a train that never arrived... The whole idea was to try to promote war without all of the whining and such that seems to come with it nowadays. A way to say, "hey your group is not doing the right thing" without personal attacks or finger-pointing. Perhaps it can work out someday.

Somehow it just never worked out, we tried to get the members involved, but it was like waiting for a train that never arrived... The whole idea was to try to promote war without all of the whining and such that seems to come with it nowadays. A way to say, "hey your group is not doing the right thing" without personal attacks or finger-pointing. Perhaps it can work out someday.

no winning and flaming on the forums?!!

No way.... ;baddy

no winning and flaming on the forums?!!

Lol ya thats me a fosks life, and Theos, and Misfits, and NAOW (well not lately), and...

lol