State Meeting Agenda (Release Candidate)

Translation from native Speakers is in process. In languages where the translation is not yet finished a computer based translation is shown.

Want to volunteer and help translating in a specific language? Please PM meoww in the game about the current translation status in your native language.

1. Overview

  • 1. Overview

  • 2. General Scope

  • 3. Voting Process

  • 4. Administrative Topics

    • 4.1. Executive State Rules

    • 4.2. Executive Roles

    • 4.3. Involvement Topics

    • 4.4. Process for “Workarounds” (“Grey Rules”)

    • 4.5. Process for Punishments

  • 5. Rule adjustments

    • 5.1. Attack Rules (Settlements)

    • 5.2. Bunker Rules

    • 5.3. Tile Hitting

  • 6. New Rule Proposals

    • 6.1. Chain of Escalation

    • 6.2. Disrespectful behavior

    • 6.3. Indirect Harassment / Bullying

    • 6.4. Violation of State Territory Sovereign

    • 6.5. Respect for local legislative Rules

    • 6.6. War

  • 7. Not registered Topics

  • 8. Conclusion / Next Steps

2. General Scope

The current rules on state 205 have been designed to organize a harmonic living. The key goal is that all players have fun – and stick to the game. To bring that in order different Rules have been established.

Summarizing the State goals into one sentence: Do not be a bully – and ensure to behave in a way that all Players have fun. 

All major allies stand behind the central idea. Rules are not  meant to prevent a central element of State of Survival (War) – but to help organize core aspects of social living. Only Players that do accept the above main principle of the State are protected from State Rules.

Since the State evolved, details in the rule set do need optimization. Also, due to the History of the state not all Alliances have been integrated in a decision making process properly.

3. Voting Process

The process of decision making is not yet finalized. Details on the technical “how” need to be discussed between multiple alliances.

Here are the main points on how we do plan to operate:

– Inform a large number of alliances that a meeting will take place – and ask for initial input for topics that need discussion (done, both over state chat and from Meoww, contacting Leaders of over 30 Alliances directly in game (Top 20 plus X)

– Finalize Translation of this agenda by native speakers, get input from all alliances on the wording (in progress)

– Distribute the final document to the highest number of players possible (this will be  work for all alliances – Who takes over what will be discussed in State Leader Cat).

– Set a date for a meeting with one representative of every alliance. For easier communication the meeting will be in English language. In this meeting we share arguments to every topic listed.

– The Chat log will be made public. To not risk falsifying the meaning of the speakers this will be published in English language only (translators might have different opinions on the details of implementation).

– The input form this meeting is collected, so we can create a list of different options to vote upon. If there is only one proposal it will be a yes/no voting. 

– Voting takes place on a discord Server (one Vote per Alliance). The time where alliances can vote will be 3 days.

 

 

4. Administrative Topics

All rules need a defined way of both deciding about them – and enforcing that they are followed. In modern societies usually a system called “trias politica” is in place. This means a clear separation of 

  1. Executive (Enforce Rules)
  2. Legislative (Create Rules)
  3. Iudicative (Decide about Rule Breaks)

As a small society we do not need a separation of the branches by person – but we do need to define a bit closer how we operate as a state in general. Important open Topics are listed here.

4.1. Executive State Rules

Whoever speaks in the role of “the state” has to follow certain guidelines. In this short session we share opinions on it. 

Examples for a discussion:

  • Can a Governor debuff other players without a formal involvement of a larger group ?
  • Can a Governor call a “zeroing” allowed to another player without a formal involvement of a larger group?
  • Can a Governor call a “zeroing” allowed to another alliance without a formal involvement of a larger group?
  • Can a “Cop” (executive role) attack an offending player/alliance ? What process does he need to follow?

4.2. Executive Roles

Every player that speaks for “the state” needs some sort of authorization to do so. The borders in which he or she operates need to be clearly defined. Also a compensation for work for “the state” needs do be discussed.

Examples:

  • Can a Player that likes to help a smaller Ally attack the offending side without consulting other allies? If so, who is legitimated to do so. Or do we need to have an “executive branch” on our State to enforce the rules?
  • A “Cop” that helps smaller allies in a conflict has expenses – what ways are possible to compensate this player for lost troops ?

4.3. Involvement Topics

In some cases an individual player can not decide by himself. This is because the consequences of his decision are too large. An involvement process needs to be defined.

Examples:

– Can one person declare “zeroing allowed” to another Ally as a punishment for violating state rules ?

– How about the same for a single a single person ?

– At what level of participation from multiple alliances is a state punishment considered approved ?

– Which things can e handled without involving a larger number of players?

4.4. Process For “Workarounds” (Grey Topics)

Sometimes players bend the rules – violating the core idea of why rules are in place (do not be a bully). They operate within currently given boundaries, however they find loopholes. To make it simple for al, communicated rules should be kept simple, and reduced to the most important aspects. It should be made clear to all players that all rules just follow one main principle: Managing a reasonable living between each other. 

Unfortunately, some players do not respect the main goal. A clear process how to deal with this “rule breakers by loophole” should be discussed. In some cases this is a case-by-case situation.

Example Scenario:

– An alliance hates a specific player. They decide it is necessary to give this player a lesson. 25 players attack him one after another – leaving 25 troops behind. They do play “by the rules”

In this case the situation might be not as obvious as it seems. What if this player attacked settlements of this alliance for months (so bullied  them indirectly by “bending” the rules)?

4.5. Process for Punishments

All punishments done by the state need to be made transparent. Currently a lot of anger is created in the average base because people do not know about the decision making process.

Info:

On the new state discord Server a “ticket system” for rule breaking is planned. Is it technically possible to add all cases on a Website ?

 

5. Rule Adjustments

Over time the state evolved. Also the involvement process in the beginning was not optimal – since not all alliances could/did participate. More players involved create better solutions . All rules where created from a very small group of English speaking players.

5.1. Attack Rules (Settlements)

Right now there is the rule in place to allow one attack per player and settlement. This is indeed an easy to understandable rule – however it creates overhead (loopholes). Also some players do not like the rule – they do interfer with the game mechanics of a war game.

Example (from another Viewpoint):

A player enjoys hunting for resources, by attacking other settlements. He does this in a polite way – so not overdoing it on a single target, and also not humiliating the target  In the game he behaves like a gentleman, e.g. stopping when he sees that targets are not sent to hospital anymore, but die.  He might have other questions on this topic:

– “I invested now 30k of my troops to “open” this base” (clarification: sent the initial higher troops to hospital). Why I can only get a few resources out of this base. This player has a lot of resources – and I invested in it.

– Should the attacked player get protected by state rules for making mistakes in his defense and preparation ?

– Is one attack per day the right number?

– What about 3 times per 3 days?

– How about a limit of maybe 50% of the resources?

– How about attacks are allowed until the kill report shows that the victims troops are not sent to hospital- but die ?

5.2. Bunker Rules

The bunker rules where designed to give also smaller alliances the chance to participate in this event format. Until a certain point in time the gear of the rally lead makes a large difference in game. The Bunkers where split by power rank-  not the maximum level of members. Are there better rules to enable all players to enjoy this content ?

In practice this created in the past questionable situations:

– An alliance with a high player was low on power rank. By design they could compete on bunkers reserved for small alliances (and also believed very long that they can not try other bunkers (miscommunication).

– Another alliance (in the top 10) has a lot of active players, but all with a low base level (under 26). Due to the rules they had no real option to compete in an even manner.

5.3. Tile Hitting

Looking into state chat a lot of “rule breaking discussions” go around the Topic of “tile hitting”.  The rule itself is clear, however the discussions about it create a lot of overhead both on the side of Alliance leaders and other involved players. Technically it does waste sometimes a lot of time from other players, to sort this things out. Also in a large number of cases an “attack” is not done by intend – but because of in game issues. One player might assume that a resource node next to him is “free” – but on the other side of the map another player launched troops going there already(the client updates this late sometimes).

In most cases the troop loss for the attacked player is minimal. What however other players do loose is valuable free time to deal with this kind of minor issues.

The rule itself needs now adjustment, However it should not be made too easy for any individual to complain on the state (without investing e.g. resources for filing the complain itself). See also “Chain of Escalation” for future remarks on that topic.

6. New Rule Proposals

The rules that where invented before all had where made when the state was in a different situation. Over time other topics came up – which are not yet discussed. If we do need to include this things in the “easy” communicated rules is to discuss on a case-by-case basis. Some of the topics only concern alliance leaders – others are basically normal rules of social living. 

6.1. Chain of Escalation

The tendency is that players complain first on discord, before trying to solve smaller issues between each other (and get a better understanding). This takes time from other players that need to deal with it. Also it removes you from understanding the Viewpoint of the other player.

Suggested Chain of Escalation (as mentioned from multiple persons):

– In a conflict situation the offended player should talk first with the other player involved. Understand why they did something that offended you.

– If you can not solve this on your own, inform your ally leader/R4.

– The Ally leader should then approach the offending player first.

– If this is not fruitful diplomatic channels between the two involved allies should be used (contact Ally Leader/R4 on the other side)

– Only if all previous attempts did not lead to a resolution : Bring up the topic on State Discord.

Side topic: Need punishments be in place if someone wastes other peoples time by not following this chain?

6.2. Disrespectful Behavior

In some cases a debate may become heated, and insults get shared between people. There is no real rule to deal with that kind of issues (except calling the State of Survival Support). Also some words in one country may have a much harder meaning in another (so it may be a cultural misunderstanding).

– Is it a state Topic?

– How do we cope with this situations as a state?

– Do punishments need to be enforced?

6.3. Indirect Harassment / Bullying

Scenario:

A player/an alliance attacks another Alliance/player multiple times. The aggressor mentions to play by the rules (every Aggressor only attacks only once every individual Settlement per Day).

Open Questions:

– Is this a punishable act ?

– If so, at what point in time can an alliance “call to arms” and attack the offending player multiple times with the stronger Players?

– Can the attacked player/Alliance react on their own – or does the state executive needs to be involved in case it is necessary to discipline the attacking player ?

– Is this “bending” of the rules, looking at the global goal to prevent bullying?

– Is this considered as an act of War? (See informations about the Topic of War below).

6.4. Violation of State Territory Sovereign

Scenario:

A player/multiple players fills the settlement(s) with reinforcement troops from other players in their alliance. Then he/she/they teleport to another Alliances Area, trying to provoke an attack. Earlier attacks from this player(s) make the  alliance feel uncomfortable of this players presence – even if he/she/they do not attack. 

– At what point in time does the invading player(s) looses protection from the state rules (especially the one Attack per Settlement) ?

– How long is a grace time?

– Is zeroing allowed ?

– Should the state force this player to leave the area of the other alliance ?

– Is this considered as an act of War? (See informations about the Topic of War below).

 

6.5. Respect for local legislative Rules

An ally has more harsh rules then the state rules. An Alliance Membership is a decision by choice.

– If a player knows about alliance internal rules, then violates them, (and for example) gets kicked out and zeroed. Is this an issue where the state should interfere?

Or

– Should the state respect the autonomy of an Ally, if they do enforce harder alliance-internal disciplinary actions?

6.6. War Rules

State of Survival is by design a war game – and not a base building game.

We have already a few basic rules in place. However this important aspect of  the game is not covered yet.

Detail question examples:

– How to declare a War formally.

– How long is the grace time before starting the attacks?

– How long should a war last?

– At what point in time the war should be  considered finished? (Define Goals etc.)

– Is a non aggression pact necessary after a War (e.g. 3 days before starting a war again)?

7. Not registered Topics

We did asked more then 30 Alliances for their feedback in the preparation phase of this document. Not all alliances however could be reached directly. At the end of the formal discussion of the registered topics we should reserve time to cover other important questions.

8. Conclusion / Next Steps

Details on the “How” need to be fine tuned bu multiple alliances.

The next steps on a high level basis:

  • Implement any last-minute requests for change in this document (wording, clarification)
  • Translate this document with native speakers into the main spoken language on our State
  • Distribute this document to (ideally) all alliances. This is of course impossible from one alliance alone. It should be the duty from both the top 20 alliances and all volunteers to distribute it in their area of influence (Provide the link to the English version, so we can work on native translations)
  • Set a formal date for a meeting on the detail proposals on this document (Coordination over state leader chat)

 

Feedback:

1.) ingame (pm Meoww directly, or contact another person involved in the organisation.

2.) Over the Disccusion Forums on the State Discort.

3.) 100% anonymous by filling out the below Form. Please do not spam here.