Login to vote in this poll.
There should not be a limit on the number of times a player can move among states. Creating such a rule would be a violation of the first decree: "Citizenship by Choice, not birth, state borders cannot restrict movement of goods or people." Any type of restriction would thus take away the choice of the individual and would make the borders more visible. The objective of the first decree is to abolish such laws as this one since it fuels conflict by creating nations, which is a step in the opposite direction. Thus, I believe there should be no limitations on player movement by the state in any way. Players should be free to move among the states in any which way they desire.
I completely agree. If you begin to limit a players ability to freely move across states, as stated in the decree, you will also run the risk of an imbalanced system where players are forced to play in a state whose ideals they might not agree with. Letting the players freely realign themselves with other states will allow states that are doing well for themselves to prosper as more people join their cause, and states that are being run poorly to perish.
This is the beauty of the first decree, the entire game will be self adjusting as players group together with other players of similar virtues. Large groups of people working towards the same goal will lead to this ideal world we wanted to see in the first place.
It is also worth mentioning that if you restrict a player from moving it can lead to unstable states that are self destructive. This would be due to differing opinions from everyone in each state with no way for the people to split into groups of like minded people.
I think there should be a minimum amount of time that a person has to stay in a region if they are not visiting for vacation. This would require that if a person were to leave their region/state they would need to specify if the move was for vacation (or a similar temporary purpose) or to inhabit the area permenantly. I think that if players are permitted to move about regions with no restrictions they are less likely to take time and experience what each place has to offer. Without any restriction, a person in need of immediate money could go to a state that offers quick money and jobs but has no other reason to stay in the area. Then a person is more likely to inhabit that state temporarily and then move on to another location to meet some other immediate need.
Also, in terms of making the game a hint more realistic, the real world does not allow the free flow of people to different regions/states. Whether by circumstance or legal limitations, people are not able to ihabit one state one night and another the next and another the next so on and so forth without having to stay for at least a little while in a single location because general travel does not happen so easily.
I believe players should be able to try to move among states as often as they like. I would imagine they would likely face some security, but unless they were somehow deemed a threat, they should have no problem entering the state. However, a state should not be denied the option of closing its borders in the case of an unforseen situation. This wouldn't affect a player's ability ot move to a different state, unless for some reason every state denied access to foreigners. That extreme situation would limit the number of times a player could move among states.
Smyers, you brought up an interesting point about state security.
Under the 1st Decree, states cannot restrict the movement of people or goods over borders. While I agree that people should have no limit to how many times a player can move states, the idea of "security" inherently contradicts freedom of movement. Giving states any control over who enters and leaves the country could be a slippery slope--the leaders may start restricting entrance more and more as time goes on (sound familiar?). And although something like an invasion would be scary for a state, this game is an experiment--an imagined world. The allowance of border security would compromise not only the 1st Decree, but the chance to see if the existence and enforcement of border security causes more strife than it prevents. In other words, agoraXchange has the ability to demonstrate whether or not the elimination of border security eliminates tensions between states. The game should therefore not allow states border security. We should see what transpires without it--one of the consequences being players' limitless access to travel and movement.
I agree. A limitation on free movement from state to state will do nothing to expand the parameters of the game. Why not allow free movement so that there will be a simulation of what it will actually be like of a global world without state boundaries. This will bring up questions about citizenship and state rights. The former has been contested in our own society from our vast history to our present situation with border control. Lets see what would happen if states indeed have no boundaries.
I just don't see what benefit this limitation would bring. If people are allowed to move among states as many times as they would like, then they are much more likely to explore regions that otherwise would have been neglected for the chance to visit more 'high-profile' regions. I believe the freer the movement of people, the greater equality among all geographical areas will result, as well as a better understanding of different people.