Advertisements

Second Coalitions Meeting Results // Third Coalitions Meeting

*UPDATED TO ADD LATE VOTERS*

Last week we continued our path to reform by ushering in our first officially established rule, and laid the framework down for more. Read on to find out what the Private Voting Panel discussed, and the timings for the next meeting.

A total of 7 rules were set on the agenda for this past meeting. However, due to a time crunch, only 4 were voted on. This means that the remaining rules will comprise the agenda for the upcoming meeting.

Each one of the rules below aimed to offer a solution for an evident and harmful problem or issue this community has been facing. We met together to vote on the best way to proceed, reject, or alter these rules and the issues they represented.

For the purposes of this meeting, as was decided during the first, there were three ways an army could vote. Yes, No, or to Amend the bill. If the Amend vote won, the community would work in conjunction to repair or alter the rule to a more agreed upon format. 6 Yes votes, the rule passes. 6 No, the rule dies. 6 votes to amend, the rule is drafted until the appropriate modifications are met.

If a rule did not meet the required 6 Votes to decide the proper way to function, the floor will open up for 48 hours to armies who did not cast their vote for the bill. We should have a decision after the voting of the absent has been factored in.

~

24-hour Rule 

The 24-hour rule has been a widely acknowledged staple in this community for many years.

The rule states that all invasions must be overtly posted a minimum of 24-hours prior to the start of the invasion. If any alterations are made to the invasion timings or dates during the 24-hour period, the 24-hour period restarts following the change. If this rule is proven to be broken, the invasion will not be recognized as legitimate.

This rule can be waived if both participating armies agree to it beforehand.

Final Vote Tally: 10 Yes, 0 No, 0 Amend – Voted Into Law

~

SMAC-Army Protection Rule

When an army reaches the CPAC Top Ten, they are no longer allowed to declare war on, or invade, an SMAC Top Ten army. The only exception is if the SMAC Top Ten army is the aggressor, and declares war first.

If an SMAC army makes it into CPAC one week, goes to war with a CPAC army, then falls back to SMAC the following week, it is up to the discretion of the fallen army whether to proceed with the war or not.

Final Vote Tally: 6 Yes, 2 No, 2 Amend – Voted Into Law

Absentee Voters: Wild Ninjas

~

AUSIA Invasion Spam Protection Rule

An army is limited to 3 consecutive AUSIA invasions to prevent an AUSIA spam against an army with no AUSIA. If they attempt to exceed this, their invasions will not be recognized by CPA.

This rule can be waived if both participating armies agree to it beforehand.

Final Vote Tally: 4 Yes, 3 No, 5 Amend – No Consensus

Absentee Voters:  Wild Ninjas,

~

Invasion Spam Protection Rule

An army is limited to 4 invasions for every 24-hour time period. 4 invasions, plus 4 defenses, means that each war is limited to 8 battles per day.

This rule can be waived if both participating armies agree to it beforehand.

Final Vote Tally: 5 Yes, 0 No, 5 Amend – No Consensus

Absentee Voters: Wild Ninjas

~

If you lead one of the absentee armies and would like to cast your vote, either comment on this post, the identical post on CPA, or find Goblin on chat.

Coalitions Project General Assembly

Saturday, June 18th

Army Central Chat

1 PM – 2 PM EST

12 PM – 1 PM CST

11 AM – 12 PM MST

10 AM – 11 AM PST

Following the conclusion General Assembly, ArmyCentral chat will be reset. After the reset, we’ll begin to grant two delegates from each army moderator on chat. They’ll then make their way to the Private Voting Forum pool on chat, and the voting process will begin.

Note: If you wish to have a delegate that is not a current leader of your army present to represent you, you MUST inform either Goblin or Lorenzo at least one day prior to the meeting.

Coalitions Project Private Voting Panel

Saturday, June 18th

ArmyCentral Chat

2 PM EST

1 PM CST

12 PM MST

11 AM PST

~

We thank you all for reading, and taking this journey alongside us. I don’t exactly know where this path leads, I don’t know how much longer this community has, but I know that with your continued support, anything is possible. We’ve built many great things as a community before, our entire community is a testament to that, let’s see if we have one more great evolution in us. Thank you for reading, thank you for participating, and thank you for getting involved.

Goblin

CPAC CEO

CPA CEO

Club Penguin Army Community Member

Advertisements

29 Responses

  1. Please vote people, participate. Get involved. Attend the meetings, show an active interest in reform. Quite simple, without you, this all goes away. There is nobody coming to save you. Nobody here to force you to do anything. The only one who has the power, the ability, to help us, is you.

  2. The “AUSIA Invasion Spam Protection Rule” is, in my opinion, discriminatory.

    Yes, it is usually a tactic frowned upon and an issue surfaced countless times, and I understand that.

    But to limit only the AUSIA division to a maximum of 3 invasions a day, while limiting all other divisions to 4 invasions a day if the “Invasion Spam Protection Rule” gets passed, would put the AUSIA community at a serious disadvantage. This would mean an AUSIA-majority army VS a US-majority army will always lead to the US-majority army becoming the victor.

    And if the “AUSIA Invasion Spam Protection Rule” is passed but not the “Invasion Spam Protection Rule”, then the position of AUSIA would be gravely undermined, and the idea of fair-play would be completely eroded in our community. This would be the entirely contrary of the purpose this rule has even been suggested.

    As such, I hope that should there be a cap in number of invasions, they would apply EQUALLY to ALL DIVISIONS, rather than to target one particular division.

    Reply to this comment, I am open to suggestions and debate.

    -Fluffy Sheep-
    S/M Army Legend
    AR Legend
    One of the Pioneers of the AUSIA Community

    • P.S. The meetings held so far have never been at AUSIA-friendly times, as such, I hope matters regarding the AUSIA community’s rights will still be fairly brought up.

      • *..be entirely contrary to the..

    • AUSIA is still somewhat new to the community. I doubt many armies keep up with more than 2 invasions a day anyways. Perhaps if AUSIA became a formidable division because lately, it has become a division where USA troops stay up until midnight to attend. I’m sure if everyone puts in the effort to recruit, we can compromise. But from what I know, the community did fine without AUSIA back then. On the contrary, there aren’t enough AUSIA leaders per army to keep the troops in the army.

      The end goal that I believe we’re trying to push for is where armies actually fight each other rather than avoiding each other using different divisions to attack at alternate times. I don’t think it’s realistic to fit more than 3 AUSIA invasions in one day when there are UK and USA divisions to be considered. Unless you have one ausia invasion an hour after the other, (which would be tedious)any other AUSIA event would be overlapping UK timezones.The majority of the community is USA and I’m guessing that’s why the AUSIA invasion spam rule was created. There aren’t enough AUSIA troops so when one army gets an AUSIA division, it puts all other armies at a disadvantage since AUSIA is so rare.

      • didn’t construct that well and there’s some errors, but those are just my thoughts.

        • or the message I was trying to convey

      • I will write my reply in point form so it’s clearer (not being rude or anything)

        1. It is unfair to say that the community did ‘fine’ back then without AUSIA, as it was ‘fine’ only to the US majority while the AUSIA community was neglected and deprived of the opportunity to take part in battles. That would be a biased view.

        2. I agree that there may not be enough capable* AUSIA leaders to lead a division for every army. But each army can still train AUSIA troops to become future leaders, they can still hire AUSIA troops from other armies to join theirs, they can, if they wish to, stay up slightly later and recruit more AUSIA troops until these new AUSIA troops can recruit on their own. This has been done before by the RPF in late 2013 whereby US owners stayed up and built an AUSIA division, and eventually did not need to stay up as the new AUSIA troops that joined took up that role after some time. RPF had started off with a miniature AUSIA division which grew to be one of the largest by early 2014.
        As such, it is not impossible, just tremendously difficult. This means that those who work hard enough to successfully lure AUSIA troops to join their armies are deserving of such an advantage as a fair reward for their efforts. And those who fail to build it are just sore losers for trying to make a rule to make up for it.

        3. Armies with no AUSIA force are disadvantaged, that I agree.
        BUT THAT’S THE POINT. The purpose armies build an AUSIA force is to put their enemies at a disadvantage! To invest in a ‘foreign’ division is a tactical warfare strategy, and those capable enough to lure troops in or hire a good leader should be rightfully rewarded. It is a FAIR DISADVANTAGE, since everyone has the ability to build an AUSIA force if they work hard enough to recruit a leader, stay up, or train that one or two AUSIA troops already present in their army to recruit and lead, or hire AUSIA leaders from another srmy. However, setting up a rule to put AUSIA at a disadvantage would be an UNFAIR disadvantage, as this would be basically incapable armies turning to new rules to prevent their failure to build a strong force from causing them too much harm. Do you know what this is like?

        Let’s say Army A attacks Army B, and Army A has 15 troops while Army B has 7 troops, and Army B whines, “This is unfair because Army A is bigger! Let’s make a rule to prevent bigger armies from attacking smaller armies because bigger armies have an advantage!” Think deeply about this, because the more I do, the more idiotic this rule gets. An army being larger than the other, regardless of time zone, can never be described as a disadvantage, since well.. Someone needs to be smaller than the other for someone to be the victor.. Right?

        So so what if one army has a smaller AUSIA force than the other?
        That’s how this game works isn’t it?
        The smaller army just loses, the bigger one wins. How are we actually changing the rules of the game just to pander to the demands of armies without AUSIA who are indignant at their failure to build an AUSIA division of their own?

        • Basically reiterated my point of having to recruit AUSIA troops into the community first before deciding what’s best for the division.

          • My former comment was not ‘reiterating’ your point.If this rule is passed, and having an AUSIA division is no longer an advantage, then nobody’s going to recruit for AUSIA.

            If we need to recruit more AUSIA troops first in order to ‘decide what is best for the division’, like you said, then why on earth would we disadvantage the division further? If you want more people joining the division, you promote it by touting its advantages such that more armies will work towards building it, not penalizing it further with ridiculous, unfair regulations like this.

            That’s like a country having an aim to increase its population, but getting citizens to pay a fine if they produce babies.
            Are you sure of what you are standing for?

    • Oh fuck we’re basically like the KKK for disregarding the AUSIA community, yet there is only 3 AUSIA divisions in armies and like 30 AUSIA troops in this whole community.

      • inb4 someone launches 10 US/UK invasions on an AUSIA-majority army which can only fire back thrice.

        This rule would be pretty much an open invitation for armies to commit a genocide of AUSIA.

        #AusiaRightsMovement

        • There is no AUSIA majority army tho

          • Lel idk I’m retired.

            • Fluffy i would to talk to you on xat, how could that be possible??

              • Baa, is it important?

                • nvm

  3. SP agree with all except SMAC-Army Protection Rule and AUSIA Protection Rule.

  4. Silver Surfers agree with everything.

    • Thought you are in Golds?

      • Yeah but I can also represent them.

        • Oh alright.

  5. Didn’t put my name on it even though I helped you. I’m going to ddos you kid

    • afk

  6. WHY ISNT THERE A RULE TO GIVE AUSIAS MORE WORTH/POINTS BECAUSE ARMIES SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO DEVELOP AUSIA DIVISIONS. OTHERWISE THEY CAN EASILY LEAVE AUSIAS AND DO UKS/USS ONLY. THAT’S STUPID. -.-

    • Lel chill.

      Despite being AUSIA myself, I will admit that the idea of bonus points for AUSIA isn’t something AUSIA clearly deserves, it’s highly debatable, as there’s the possibility it ends up giving AUSIA armies too much of an unfair advantage.
      It’s not something I would demand for, and not something I would use to describe the rule-makers as ‘stupid’, since it’s not directly clear.

      It would make sense for majority US armies to be given this incentive if they take the effort to build an AUSIA..
      But it won’t make sense if a purely AUSIA army gets the advantage.
      My point is, it should only be rewarded to armies with multi-divisions, so that armies won’t be rewarded simply because their leaders are born in Australia/Asia, but for the reason they take the initiative to build up a division differing from their own.
      (Eg. A US army building up an AUSIA division,
      an AUSIA Army building up a US division, a U.K. army building an AUSIA division etc.

      But not for a solely AUSIA army.)

  7. Glad that change is finally happening to stabilize the corruption in the community, but too many rules is going to shut the community off from the demographic of the game it is played in: it will be more difficult to keep 6 – 12 year olds playing if there is so much to consider and remember, and it is even more difficult to keep 14 – 18 year olds in a game they have outgrown.
    Change is good, but integrity and simplicity should be the goal

  8. I disagree with the making of the SMAC-Army Protection Rule into a law.

    I agree it is unethical for major armies to attack S/M armies, but it must not be made into a rule.

    Armies will always need a villain for the game to be interesting. Making it into law would prevent the rise of these antagonists that are crucial to the fun of the game.

    If this was a law from the very beginning, then Order 67 would never have happened, nor would CPUN have formed in the past. Many wars start because of the immoral actions of a few which results in opposing views, and hence a war. To make it into law would be to prevent a war, and war is a fabric of our game, hence it would undermine the fun of our community.

    INSTEAD, the rule can be changed to:

    When a CPAC Top 10 Army declares war on a SMAC Top 10 Army, the SMAC Top 10 Army will be allowed to call for allies to help in battle, while the CPAC Top 10 Army will not be allowed to do so. However, if it is the SMAC Top 10 Army that declares war on the CPAC Top 10 Army, both parties may call for allied help in battle.

    This rule can be waived if both participating armies agree to it beforehand.
    —————————————

    This would ensure that armies take it upon themselves to actually settle things through war rather than through law, making battles more interesting and have an actual purpose.
    Those who believe S/M armies should not be attacked by CPAC top 10 armies would be able to assist S/M armies, allowing the concept of diplomacy to have a greater purpose as well. This would be a rare situation where allies can come in, which will make the game more interesting.
    At the same time, S/M armies are more ‘protected’, but it remains their duty to form their own alliances to fend themselves.

  9. Is the voting supposed to take place the next day or is that s typo?

What do YOU think? Comment your opinion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: