Membership Think Tank

Welcome to the AIN! Come along and introduce yourself, meet our members and learn the ropes. Then when you are ready, post your application!
User avatar
Gregor
Posts: 1408
Joined: December 25th 2011, 2:30 pm
Nation: Oka & Malerno
Location: Lausanne
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Gregor » February 8th 2018, 7:05 pm

Third, I'm not sure with the idea of making side nations super small. This is only because my hopeful side nation was going to be something like a South African Commonwealth
limiting side nations to be small then that presents a serious challenge for me
I'd like people in the government who'd be neutral and not acting in their own interest - I'm not sure I'm enclined to vote after reaing this, especially as the speaker is supposed to be neutral, no?

Balaton is Small. - In my experience small nations have always been better designed and full of life, and larger nations have nothing to envy to them

Yes, South Africa can be interesting, for sure. But many of us have ideas for many nations, I've had at least 10 over the years I make on SC4 but wouldn't dare to apply, as I've commited to Oka. Then we're back on the side nation topic, which I won't say much except, I'd vote no on South Africa, it's far too large to be a "side" nation, I'd only accept it as a main nation.
I think that the city building thing is sort of dying and therefore to survive we might need to adapt.
I'd disagree with that, maybe some members in AIN are less interested in it, but it should in no way leave, or go out of focus, it's what AIN has awlays been, and I second Billy on most points
_____________ Image Oka City AIN Cultural Capital 2018
User avatar
Michael
President of the Alliance
President of the Alliance
Posts: 987
Joined: January 26th 2016, 5:39 pm
Nation: Mikenstein & Sint Cunera
Location: London, UK, EU
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Michael » February 8th 2018, 8:06 pm

My brief thoughts on the matter:
  • We should try and not limit nations too much - the size I believe can be indirectly controlled by other nations and the current exclusion zone system.
  • I think we should be open to applications from both city-building users, and non-city-building users.
  • Like Billy said, we shouldn't turn ourselves upside down. We can definitely look at making some changes, but I don't think we need to flip ourselves around.
  • I also think small nations, wherever they may be, can hold lots of potential.
Image---------------Image WikiForum-----------------------------WikiForum----

Member State since 5th March 2016
Global Moderator since 4th March 2017
President since 1st March 2018

Send me a message!
kendallhart808
Speaker of the Alliance
Speaker of the Alliance
Posts: 936
Joined: August 15th 2015, 1:22 pm
Nation: Carolina & The Cape
Location: NC

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by kendallhart808 » February 8th 2018, 8:42 pm

Gregor wrote:
Third, I'm not sure with the idea of making side nations super small. This is only because my hopeful side nation was going to be something like a South African Commonwealth
limiting side nations to be small then that presents a serious challenge for me
I'd like people in the government who'd be neutral and not acting in their own interest - I'm not sure I'm enclined to vote after reaing this, especially as the speaker is supposed to be neutral, no?

Balaton is Small. - In my experience small nations have always been better designed and full of life, and larger nations have nothing to envy to them

Yes, South Africa can be interesting, for sure. But many of us have ideas for many nations, I've had at least 10 over the years I make on SC4 but wouldn't dare to apply, as I've commited to Oka. Then we're back on the side nation topic, which I won't say much except, I'd vote no on South Africa, it's far too large to be a "side" nation, I'd only accept it as a main nation.
I think that the city building thing is sort of dying and therefore to survive we might need to adapt.
I'd disagree with that, maybe some members in AIN are less interested in it, but it should in no way leave, or go out of focus, it's what AIN has awlays been, and I second Billy on most points
That wasn’t really my point but I’m sorry that I came across that way. I never said I would vote against a measure like that or don’t support it, the South Africa idea isn’t even all that developed now that I have gotten more invested in Carolina. It’s the same apprehension that you would have if a bill was to restrict Oka in any sort of way, and I think that’s just kinda universal. In terms of me being neutral, I don’t think anyone is truly neutral to everything and I or anyone else can try my best but in the end no one is completely unbiased.
User avatar
Gregor
Posts: 1408
Joined: December 25th 2011, 2:30 pm
Nation: Oka & Malerno
Location: Lausanne
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Gregor » February 9th 2018, 7:31 pm

Don't worry Kendall, I know where you're coming from, but I think as a speaker you would have a duty to be more upstanding as the normal member, and look over interests, I think this is a crucial quality. Obviously a bill restricting Oka would be a shame, but if it was necessary, I would be ready to

Anyway! back to the topic
My brief thoughts on the matter:
We should try and not limit nations too much - the size I believe can be indirectly controlled by other nations and the current exclusion zone system.
I think we should be open to applications from both city-building users, and non-city-building users.
Like Billy said, we shouldn't turn ourselves upside down. We can definitely look at making some changes, but I don't think we need to flip ourselves around.
I also think small nations, wherever they may be, can hold lots of potential.
I'm fine wuth there points, except " and non-city-building users." - I'd propose that the user produces creative content depicting his nation, more than flags, maps and CoA - Like drawings, 3D, very detailed urban maps, physical models etc..

I reconsidered my thoughts, and I think the creative essence of designing the nation in it's visual form is important to give it a strong character, wether it be a game or not.

Regading future applicants then I'd say

-We can accept nations of any size if it's quality is deemed sufficient
-Open to non city building games, SC4 or CS being preffered, in all cases keep visual representation necessary
-Stay on earth, and see how it goes, do our best, maybe archive Honorary nations into a "Noble Archive"
Image Garambeno Vulkarai's Ideal City
Image Berlin
Image
Piranesi's Rome
Image Maple Street
_____________ Image Oka City AIN Cultural Capital 2018
User avatar
Jost Van Kortag
Posts: 168
Joined: April 23rd 2016, 11:30 pm
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Jost Van Kortag » March 23rd 2018, 1:48 pm

My modest opinion is that we should simply make city builder's pics facultative, not compulsory. This doesn't mean we should ban them, refer to them as "you-know-what" and erase every trace of them from AIN; it just means that the possibility to show someones proper skills in using them should be left to the discretion of the applicant. Am I wanting to show my ability on city builders? Fine, it means that in my application I'll put the pics I'm most proud of. Am I wanting to show instead other skills in nation building without having to show pics taken from a videogame that maybe I don't like and I'm not good playing at and for which I don't want to waste my money? Equally fine, I'll use other kinds of pictures to show what my country looks like (drawings? Digital art? Real pics?).
Again, no one is talking about forbid city builders: let's simply make them facultative.

For what concerns the fictional world, imo it could be nice but I can confirm that it requires a huge amount of work even only for the creation of continents, not to mention cultures and their diffusion, fictional history and all...

Finally, about the kinds of countries, all of us can see that as Greg said East Asia and Oceania are pretty packed up, while North America can't really be touched anymore after Carolina and Europe is extremely difficult to deal with... But regions like Middle East, Africa and South America are barely if not at all touched. This, coupled with the lack of activity due to the enormous quantity of rich and stable little nations which offer limited possibility to role-play properly, causes an impending need of both big countries and poor or at least unstable countries. So more than reducing drastically the size of side nations I suggest introducing a rule forcing each member to have only two countries, one having to be big and one having to be small, leaving to the applicant's discretion which one of his two has to be poor and unstable and which one has to be rich and stable.
User avatar
Otto
Director of Public Services
Director of Public Services
Posts: 1992
Joined: June 6th 2012, 8:10 pm
Nation: Kingston and Boyce & Balaton
Location: Germany

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Otto » March 23rd 2018, 3:18 pm

Again this nonsense about having two nations? First of all, no one can be forced to have two nations. Especially upon applying, both nations would have to meet the current entry standards, that are already quite high. Demanding of new members to double their work is just going to scare them away and we have nothing.

On the topic of making SC4 or CS pictures voluntary, i’d be okay with that. However there needs to be some other form of pictures of their nations, come it through Simulators or anything else. We need a graphic idea of the country.
Image
User avatar
JellyStar285
Posts: 125
Joined: August 6th 2016, 3:02 pm
Nation: Deimenovinas
Location: The Slums of San Favero
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by JellyStar285 » March 23rd 2018, 3:23 pm

Otto wrote:Again this nonsense about having two nations? First of all, no one can be forced to have two nations. Especially upon applying, both nations would have to meet the current entry standards, that are already quite high. Demanding of new members to double their work is just going to scare them away and we have nothing.

On the topic of making SC4 or CS pictures voluntary, i’d be okay with that. However there needs to be some other form of pictures of their nations, come it through Simulators or anything else. We need a graphic idea of the country.
I mostly agree with that. We shouldn’t force members to have two nations of contrast, and at least hanging some visualization of the nation should be shown.
"Some days I wonder whether life is worth living, then I remember what’s out there in the world. It brings me comfort.”
User avatar
ulisse
Director of Infrastructure
Director of Infrastructure
Posts: 811
Joined: April 23rd 2015, 5:26 pm
Nation: Siculia
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by ulisse » March 23rd 2018, 3:48 pm

I agree with Otto. The secondary nations leave them as they are.

I am favorable to pass the image in game as an optional element.

I also think we need to open a summit on the future of Ain to discuss these problems.
Member State Since 10th December 2015 Director of Public Services From March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018 - Director of Culture Since March 1, 2018 - Director of Infrastructure Since 1, 2018
User avatar
Ramon
Vice President of the Alliance
Vice President of the Alliance
Posts: 378
Joined: August 15th 2015, 10:51 pm
Nation: Santa Catarina
Location: São José, Brazil

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Ramon » March 23rd 2018, 4:29 pm

Otto wrote:Again this nonsense about having two nations? First of all, no one can be forced to have two nations. Especially upon applying, both nations would have to meet the current entry standards, that are already quite high. Demanding of new members to double their work is just going to scare them away and we have nothing.

On the topic of making SC4 or CS pictures voluntary, i’d be okay with that. However there needs to be some other form of pictures of their nations, come it through Simulators or anything else. We need a graphic idea of the country.
Agreed.
Vice-President of the Alliance since March 1st, 2018
Speaker of the Alliance from March 1st, 2017 to March 1st, 2018
Need help? Send me a message!
Visit the Commonwealth of Santa Catarina!
Wiki · Forum · Ministry of International Relations
User avatar
stanisolt
Posts: 361
Joined: August 6th 2012, 11:23 pm
Nation: Amuria
Location: Russian Federative Empire

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by stanisolt » March 23rd 2018, 4:40 pm

I agree with Otto completely.
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy
User avatar
Jost Van Kortag
Posts: 168
Joined: April 23rd 2016, 11:30 pm
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Jost Van Kortag » March 23rd 2018, 5:09 pm

Otto wrote:Again this nonsense about having two nations? First of all, no one can be forced to have two nations. Especially upon applying, both nations would have to meet the current entry standards, that are already quite high. Demanding of new members to double their work is just going to scare them away and we have nothing.

On the topic of making SC4 or CS pictures voluntary, i’d be okay with that. However there needs to be some other form of pictures of their nations, come it through Simulators or anything else. We need a graphic idea of the country.
Did I say that secondary nations should be compulsory? I said that a rule should allow only two countries, not that everyone has to have two countries.

By the way if you all agree on the pictures issue then let's put it to votes in order to make it official.
User avatar
Michael
President of the Alliance
President of the Alliance
Posts: 987
Joined: January 26th 2016, 5:39 pm
Nation: Mikenstein & Sint Cunera
Location: London, UK, EU
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Michael » March 23rd 2018, 6:48 pm

Federico, that is the current rule, and yes, I agree. We should keep the cap at 2 nations, with the second being optional.

I do think we can drop the requirement of City-building images, but equally, we do need images of some sort to gauge an idea of the nation. (This would work well for nations which take real places i.e. I could submit images of Zurich or Salzburg and Kendall could use images of Miami and Atlanta for instance)

As for a fictional world, or any kind of complete rework of Alliance nations, I am more sceptical of.
Image---------------Image WikiForum-----------------------------WikiForum----

Member State since 5th March 2016
Global Moderator since 4th March 2017
President since 1st March 2018

Send me a message!
User avatar
Gregor
Posts: 1408
Joined: December 25th 2011, 2:30 pm
Nation: Oka & Malerno
Location: Lausanne
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by Gregor » March 23rd 2018, 7:00 pm

Ok about the images, though graphic creativity is still important, and I personally will not vote 'yes' to a nation with only raw real life images, even if it's a RL place, but that'll only engage me, in the case it happens.

I think roleplay is more held back by "Nation narcissism" than only having rich nations, in RL rich nations get into all kinds of stuff, even Switzerland heck with UBS and Credit Suisse doing all kinds of shady blargh, let's be real.

I think for most we want our nation under the best light. Some nations are too pristine, and I'm including myself in saying this. This is totally understandable as these nations are for some of us, ideal visions, but it is also problematic
_____________ Image Oka City AIN Cultural Capital 2018
User avatar
ulisse
Director of Infrastructure
Director of Infrastructure
Posts: 811
Joined: April 23rd 2015, 5:26 pm
Nation: Siculia
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Membership Think Tank

Post by ulisse » March 23rd 2018, 7:51 pm

Michael wrote: As for a fictional world, or any kind of complete rework of Alliance nations, I am more sceptical of.
If we are to make an unreal world, we must work hard, but it is a work that makes many people skeptical
Member State Since 10th December 2015 Director of Public Services From March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018 - Director of Culture Since March 1, 2018 - Director of Infrastructure Since 1, 2018
Post Reply

Return to “Membership Office”