On mass telegrams and the World Assembly

[Auralia]

My attempt to create a well-documented, easy-to-use mass telegram script used for sending telegrams to regional delegates and the resulting fallout has demonstrated that there needs to be a discussion about the appropriate usage of mass telegram scripts with respect to the World Assembly, and whether or not there needs to be a change to the rules to prevent abuse, unfairness or reduced quality of gameplay. This thread is intended to serve as a hub for these discussions.

NOTE: Read this thread first to get an idea of where this discussion left off.

[Auralia]

I personally have expressed my support for a method for nations to opt-out of automatic telegramming through some sort of indicator that can be read through the API and must be respected by scripts as part of the rules. I know that Frisbeeteria has spoken out against a "No Automatic Telegrams" region tag, but the feature doesn't necessarily need to be implemented through regions.

I think something like this would be a good compromise. It would allow nations who don't want to be adspammed to opt-out and only receive manual (often more personalized) telegrams, while allowing adspammers to contact those who chose not to opt-out.

[Glen-Rhodes]

(This will make more sense if you read the other thread first.)

Just to point out, I've been automating my campaigns for the past two years. In that time, 10 of my resolutions have reached quorum. Taking out duplicates and withdrawn proposals, that number comes down to 8. I've submitted more than 8 proposals in the past two years. Not all of them reach quorum, even though my campaigns reach hundreds of delegates. To paint automation as some sure-fire way to reach quorum is wrong. Quality still matters. There is no difference between an automated campaign reaching 200 delegates and a manual campaign doing the same. But it seems like a few of you guys are saying that a bad proposal will fare better under the automated one than under the manual one. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Mallorea and Riva]

(This will make more sense if you read the other thread first.)

Just to point out, I've been automating my campaigns for the past two years. In that time, 10 of my resolutions have reached quorum. Taking out duplicates and withdrawn proposals, that number comes down to 8. I've submitted more than 8 proposals in the past two years. Not all of them reach quorum, even though my campaigns reach hundreds of delegates. To paint automation as some sure-fire way to reach quorum is wrong. Quality still matters. There is no difference between an automated campaign reaching 200 delegates and a manual campaign doing the same. But it seems like a few of you guys are saying that a bad proposal will fare better under the automated one than under the manual one. That doesn't make sense to me.

The difference is there, GR. The fact that you can't tell the difference between me clicking a button to message 1,200 people, and me taking the time to do a more limited, targeted campaign, leads me to believe that you really aren't thinking over the matter. There are a number of delegates who will approve anything. Literally, anything. Quality matters when resolutions come up to vote, but that is more due to the influence of the larger regional delegates (which can be subverted). Also refrain from calling those who oppose certain aspects of scripts "Luddites". It's insulting and does nothing to further the debate.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The difference is there, GR. The fact that you can't tell the difference between me clicking a button to message 1,200 people, and me taking the time to do a more limited, targeted campaign, leads me to believe that you really aren't thinking over the matter.

You're focusing narrowly on the means, and none on the ends. In either case, 200 delegates are sent a campaign telegram. Like I said, it seems several people are arguing that delegates will be more apt to approve if they're sent an automated telegram, than if they were sent a manual telegram. That doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't care if people don't like the means. That's a matter of opinion on what is the more "pure" and "superior" method. You can't tell the difference between an automated telegram and one sent manually. If you take time to personalize your telegrams, that's great for you. I never have, because it's not important and I doubt it has any significant impact whatsoever on how many delegates approve a proposal. The only difference between sending 200 telegrams with a script and sending 200 manually is time.

We can argue about how fair that is, but it's an argument I've already had numerous times over the past two years. I don't care if other people view it as unfair. They choose to campaign manually. There are scripts available to the public. My script in particular was written with campaigning in mind, hence its original name of Campaigner (which has since been changed to AutoTG). If scripts were hoarded and kept secret, fairness would be a legitimate point. But they're not, so it isn't.

All that's left is arguing whether or not automated campaigns affect the quality of World Assembly proposals. If you guys can't tell me why delegates would be more apt to approve a poorly written proposal because they were sent an automated telegram, then you lose that debate. I've been waiting two years for somebody to provide a concrete answer to this.

Also refrain from calling those who oppose certain aspects of scripts "Luddites". It's insulting and does nothing to further the debate.

I wouldn't view people as Luddites if they offered up arguments that weren't basically saying manual campaigning is better because it's more work.

[Mallorea and Riva]

The difference is there, GR. The fact that you can't tell the difference between me clicking a button to message 1,200 people, and me taking the time to do a more limited, targeted campaign, leads me to believe that you really aren't thinking over the matter.

You're focusing narrowly on the means, and none on the ends. In either case, 200 delegates are sent a campaign telegram. Like I said, it seems several people are arguing that delegates will be more apt to approve if they're sent an automated telegram, than if they were sent a manual telegram. That doesn't make any sense at all.

You really completely missed my point on targeted campaigns. Go read Knoot's posts in the previous thread, he explains it very well.

I don't care if people don't like the means. That's a matter of opinion on what is the more "pure" and "superior" method. You can't tell the difference between an automated telegram and one sent manually. If you take time to personalize your telegrams, that's great for you. I never have, because it's not important and I doubt it has any significant impact whatsoever on how many delegates approve a proposal. The only difference between sending 200 telegrams with a script and sending 200 manually is time.

See above.

We can argue about how fair that is, but it's an argument I've already had numerous times over the past two years. I don't care if other people view it as unfair. They choose to campaign manually. There are scripts available to the public. My script in particular was written with campaigning in mind, hence its original name of Campaigner (which has since been changed to AutoTG). If scripts were hoarded and kept secret, fairness would be a legitimate point. But they're not, so it isn't.

All that's left is arguing whether or not automated campaigns affect the quality of World Assembly proposals. If you guys can't tell me why delegates would be more apt to approve a poorly written proposal because they were sent an automated telegram, then you lose that debate. I've been waiting two years for somebody to provide a concrete answer to this.

I loved it in high school debate when my opponent would set his own winning conditions for a debate, placing the burden on the opposition, yet refused to acknowledge what his loss conditions were. One would assume that it would be the opposite of the winning conditions, namely me being unable to tell you why delegates would be more apt to approve a poorly written proposal because of the autotg system. So, let's go over it.

Give every WA author access to a script. This includes the newbies. Bad proposals get smacked when they try to reach quorum. This is usually because the author lacks the time or inclination to campaign for them. But now, with the click of button, they can message every viable delegate. Not every delegate critically analyzes the text. I would argue that many delegates simply approve what is sent to them, unless it is an extremely touchy subject for them personally. That's the simplified version of the argument GR. Flesh it out yourself.

Also refrain from calling those who oppose certain aspects of scripts "Luddites". It's insulting and does nothing to further the debate.

I wouldn't view people as Luddites if they offered up arguments that weren't basically saying manual campaigning is better because it's more work.

You not understanding the argument being raised != us being Luddites.

[Unibot II]

Give every WA author access to a script. This includes the newbies. Bad proposals get smacked when they try to reach quorum. This is usually because the author lacks the time or inclination to campaign for them. But now, with the click of button, they can message every viable delegate. Not every delegate critically analyzes the text. I would argue that many delegates simply approve what is sent to them, unless it is an extremely touchy subject for them personally. That's the simplified version of the argument GR. Flesh it out yourself.

(1) What newbie has the time and the brains to set up a script, but not the time to write a decent resolution?

(2) You're painting the motivation of all people who use scripts as they "lack the inclination to campaign", when in fact, most people who use scripts to campaign have a lot going on in life; too much to take the time out to manually campaign -- but they've sat down and written a good resolution since one can do that on and off, everyone once and while to draft.

(3) Recruitment scripts have really taken off for major UCRs, but not newbie UCRs (at least not those led by experienced players). Why? Because to get access to scripts, you need to be somewhat of an experienced player -- it would help to.. visit the forum, or know someone like G-R, which would probably require you to still be on the forum and see the drafting threads. So your concern isn't even sound in practice -- maybe that's why we haven't seen any outbreak of newbie scriptmysters with a battalion of shit resolutions yet (although the sheer fear and panic of it in the WA Community has existed for YEARS).

(4) Why should it be the Admins problem to create a system that enforces "quality"? If delegates don't "critically analyze texts" like you want them to and this is deemed good by *you*, then it's your job to lobby against these resolutions either at the quorate level or the voting level -- not the admin's problem to go around changing any little thing you think is going to cause a suspected "wave of newbishness", "n00bgeddon", "revenge of the newbs" etc.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Give every WA author access to a script. This includes the newbies. Bad proposals get smacked when they try to reach quorum. This is usually because the author lacks the time or inclination to campaign for them. But now, with the click of button, they can message every viable delegate. Not every delegate critically analyzes the text. I would argue that many delegates simply approve what is sent to them, unless it is an extremely touchy subject for them personally. That's the simplified version of the argument GR. Flesh it out yourself.

If the author of a proposal lacks the time or inclination to campaign, having access to a script isn't going to make them any more likely to campaign. They still have to install the script and figure out how to run it, which requires them wanting to campaign in the first place. Regardless, a poor author isn't going to be a good campaigner. Brute force isn't an effective campaign strategy, otherwise we'd simply be sending links to our proposals. It doesn't matter how many telegrams you send, it doesn't matter how you send them: if your campaign sucks, it's not going to be effective.

Even in effective campaigns, delegates do judge on the quality of the proposal. That's the purpose of the quorum threshold. If a poor proposal can reach quorum without automated campaigns, then obviously it will be able to reach quorum with them. The issue is not the campaigns, it's the quorum threshold.

Not that we've actually seen truly terrible resolutions reach quorum, if we're being completely honest. Not liking a resolution does not make it poorly written. Resolutions written by non-regulars may not be the greatest ever, but they're not written poorly by any reasonable metric. When was the last time a proposal like this was voted on? Plenty have been submitted, even when delegates look at the proposal list regularly. (Fun fact: there have been a few points in the past several years where campaigning wasn't even necessary.)

You not understanding the argument being raised != us being Luddites.

I completely understand the argument. I do not agree with it. Why? Because the arguments don't go beyond saying manual campaigning is better because making campaigns hard is a good thing.

Drawing from your argument, would you propose that blanket campaigns be banned altogether? It's not that difficult to telegram 200 delegates manually. A decent campaigner can send 3 or more telegrams per minute. So they can run a campaign just as fast as a script can. Should we ban that, because it's superior to run smaller, more targeted and personalized campaigns?

[The Most Glorious Hack]

(1) What newbie has the time and the brains to set up a script, but not the time to write a decent resolution?

Are you kidding? It's two completely different kinds of writing.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Give every WA author access to a script. This includes the newbies. Bad proposals get smacked when they try to reach quorum. This is usually because the author lacks the time or inclination to campaign for them. But now, with the click of button, they can message every viable delegate. Not every delegate critically analyzes the text. I would argue that many delegates simply approve what is sent to them, unless it is an extremely touchy subject for them personally. That's the simplified version of the argument GR. Flesh it out yourself.

If the author of a proposal lacks the time or inclination to campaign, having access to a script isn't going to make them any more likely to campaign. They still have to install the script and figure out how to run it, which requires them wanting to campaign in the first place.

So what you're saying is, scripts are not massively easier than hand campaigning? Is that really the argument you're trying to make GR?

Regardless, a poor author isn't going to be a good campaigner. Brute force isn't an effective campaign strategy, otherwise we'd simply be sending links to our proposals. It doesn't matter how many telegrams you send, it doesn't matter how you send them: if your campaign sucks, it's not going to be effective.

You just obliterated the argument in favor of using scripts for campaigning. I thank you for that. That having been said, you're incorrect. If I sent out 1,200 tgs with just that link, I'd wager that I'd get at least a ten percent rate of return.

Even in effective campaigns, delegates do judge on the quality of the proposal. That's the purpose of the quorum threshold. If a poor proposal can reach quorum without automated campaigns, then obviously it will be able to reach quorum with them. The issue is not the campaigns, it's the quorum threshold.

When was the last time a crappy proposal got to vote without a campaign? I can't remember it. There have been some objectively bad resolutions at vote, but not as many as there would be if everyone had access to a script.

Not that we've actually seen truly terrible resolutions reach quorum, if we're being completely honest. Not liking a resolution does not make it poorly written. Resolutions written by non-regulars may not be the greatest ever, but they're not written poorly by any reasonable metric. When was the last time a proposal like this was voted on? Plenty have been submitted, even when delegates look at the proposal list regularly. (Fun fact: there have been a few points in the past several years where campaigning wasn't even necessary.)

Soooooo why on earth do we need scripts then?

You not understanding the argument being raised != us being Luddites.

I completely understand the argument. I do not agree with it. Why? Because the arguments don't go beyond saying manual campaigning is better because making campaigns hard is a good thing.

Drawing from your argument, would you propose that blanket campaigns be banned altogether? It's not that difficult to telegram 200 delegates manually. A decent campaigner can send 3 or more telegrams per minute. So they can run a campaign just as fast as a script can. Should we ban that, because it's superior to run smaller, more targeted and personalized campaigns?

Let me put it this way GR. When I turn on a video game and start to play, I set it on a high difficulty, because the challenge is part of what makes the game rewarding. I can't help but feel as though you crank the settings all the way down and breeze through it on easy, and now you're trying to do the same here.

[Auralia]

If the author of a proposal lacks the time or inclination to campaign, having access to a script isn't going to make them any more likely to campaign. They still have to install the script and figure out how to run it, which requires them wanting to campaign in the first place.

So what you're saying is, scripts are not massively easier than hand campaigning? Is that really the argument you're trying to make GR?

No, I think he's saying that both require a certain amount of time and dedication; it's just that past that point, scripts are easier than manual campaigning.

Regardless, a poor author isn't going to be a good campaigner. Brute force isn't an effective campaign strategy, otherwise we'd simply be sending links to our proposals. It doesn't matter how many telegrams you send, it doesn't matter how you send them: if your campaign sucks, it's not going to be effective.

You just obliterated the argument in favor of using scripts for campaigning. I thank you for that. That having been said, you're incorrect. If I sent out 1,200 tgs with just that link, I'd wager that I'd get at least a ten percent rate of return.

I have a real problem with this argument; it stems from the fact that "bad" regional delegates shouldn't know about proposals, because then they'll approve "bad" ones. Well, that's they way the game works - regional delegates are allowed to approve proposals. It's only fair - who determines what a "good quality" proposal is? Who determines who the "good" regional delegates are?

Even in effective campaigns, delegates do judge on the quality of the proposal. That's the purpose of the quorum threshold. If a poor proposal can reach quorum without automated campaigns, then obviously it will be able to reach quorum with them. The issue is not the campaigns, it's the quorum threshold.

When was the last time a crappy proposal got to vote without a campaign? I can't remember it. There have been some objectively bad resolutions at vote, but not as many as there would be if everyone had access to a script.

Not that we've actually seen truly terrible resolutions reach quorum, if we're being completely honest. Not liking a resolution does not make it poorly written. Resolutions written by non-regulars may not be the greatest ever, but they're not written poorly by any reasonable metric. When was the last time a proposal like this was voted on? Plenty have been submitted, even when delegates look at the proposal list regularly. (Fun fact: there have been a few points in the past several years where campaigning wasn't even necessary.)

Soooooo why on earth do we need scripts then?

Because others do require campaigns. But even if no proposal required a campaign, the same argument could be used against you - why do you view manual campaigning as such an integral element of the game, if it isn't even necessary?

I completely understand the argument. I do not agree with it. Why? Because the arguments don't go beyond saying manual campaigning is better because making campaigns hard is a good thing.

Drawing from your argument, would you propose that blanket campaigns be banned altogether? It's not that difficult to telegram 200 delegates manually. A decent campaigner can send 3 or more telegrams per minute. So they can run a campaign just as fast as a script can. Should we ban that, because it's superior to run smaller, more targeted and personalized campaigns?

Let me put it this way GR. When I turn on a video game and start to play, I set it on a high difficulty, because the challenge is part of what makes the game rewarding. I can't help but feel as though you crank the settings all the way down and breeze through it on easy, and now you're trying to do the same here.

No, I think you're ignoring the element of the game that many of us do find rewarding - drafting and passing a resolution. I don't want to speak for G-R, but I don't find manual telegram campaigns all that interesting; actually, they're quite annoying and I'd rather put my effort elsewhere. I don't see why I should be forced to "enjoy" a particular element of the game.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So what you're saying is, scripts are not massively easier than hand campaigning? Is that really the argument you're trying to make GR?

Auralia is correct. I don't know where you started to misunderstand my comment. Somebody who lacks the motivation or knowledge to run a manual campaign won't magically gain those things because of scripts. They have to find the scripts, first of all. After that, they have to come up with an actual campaign. Both of those things require motivation and knowledge.

You just obliterated the argument in favor of using scripts for campaigning. I thank you for that. That having been said, you're incorrect. If I sent out 1,200 tgs with just that link, I'd wager that I'd get at least a ten percent rate of return.

I'm not sure how I "obliterated" my argument. Sending 1,200 telegrams isn't realistic. It would take 400 minutes (7 straight hours) to do that via script. I don't think NationStates keeps you logged in for 7 hours, unless you're remaining active during that period. I don't even know how long it would take to run a manual campaign in that time. Nobody should be spending 7 hours campaigning, both from a personal sanity level and a good game design level.

My point was that an ineffective campaign isn't going to work. Just because somebody has a script to send telegrams for them doesn't mean their campaign is going to be any good. Would you approve a proposal just because somebody sent you a link? I don't think so, and I don't think very many delegates would either. Brute force also isn't an effective strategy because turnout is very low. I sent telegrams to at least 300 delegates each campaign and rarely get more than a third of those to approve of the proposal. I doubt the ~130 delegates that do ultimately approve of the proposal are all targets of a campaign. It's not just mere coincidence that most proposals get around that many approvals after reaching quorum.

When was the last time a crappy proposal got to vote without a campaign? I can't remember it. There have been some objectively bad resolutions at vote, but not as many as there would be if everyone had access to a script.

"Crappy" does not mean "poorly written." Again, just because you don't like a proposal doesn't mean it's low quality. A lot of the language coming from you and your side is very paternalistic. It seems that you want to ensure that only an elite few should be able to get proposals to quorum by making sure that campaigning remains difficult and tedious.

Soooooo why on earth do we need scripts then?

Because campaigning is boring, tedious, and too time consuming. It's poor game design and Violet has definitely acknowledged this numerous times. You are convinced that campaigning is perfect right now, but it's not. It's broken and always has been. Yes, some level of campaigning will probably always be necessary. But ideally delegates should be visiting the proposal list frequently. You shouldn't have to spend hours doing monotonous tasks to reap the benefits of spending weeks and months drafting a proposal. Just because we've always had to do it doesn't mean it's a good way for the system to work.

Let me put it this way GR. When I turn on a video game and start to play, I set it on a high difficulty, because the challenge is part of what makes the game rewarding. I can't help but feel as though you crank the settings all the way down and breeze through it on easy, and now you're trying to do the same here.

And there we have it. You've come full circle, right back to arguing that automated campaigns should be illegal simply because manual campaigns are more pure. If we allow automate campaigns, the quality of work will deteriorate and the World Assembly will be ruined. I don't know why you get angry when I call that Luddism. That's exactly what it is.

[Auralia]

Because campaigning is boring, tedious, and too time consuming. It's poor game design and Violet has definitely acknowledged this numerous times. You are convinced that campaigning is perfect right now, but it's not. It's broken and always has been. Yes, some level of campaigning will probably always be necessary. But ideally delegates should be visiting the proposal list frequently. You shouldn't have to spend hours doing monotonous tasks to reap the benefits of spending weeks and months drafting a proposal. Just because we've always had to do it doesn't mean it's a good way for the system to work.

This really is the core argument here, and why I wrote my script in the first place.

[Mallorea and Riva]

So what you're saying is, scripts are not massively easier than hand campaigning? Is that really the argument you're trying to make GR?

Auralia is correct. I don't know where you started to misunderstand my comment. Somebody who lacks the motivation or knowledge to run a manual campaign won't magically gain those things because of scripts. They have to find the scripts, first of all. After that, they have to come up with an actual campaign. Both of those things require motivation and knowledge.

Right, because we've never seen regions post threads in gameplay that consist of nothing more than "join my region". You can't have your cake and eat it too, either scripts are easy to use and accessible to all (thereby making the game "fair") or they are too complicated to result in a spamfest. The focus here is around the fact that there are many users (such as Auralia) who have good intentions and are willing to release an easy to use public script. This means that anyone can use it, with minimal difficult.

You just obliterated the argument in favor of using scripts for campaigning. I thank you for that. That having been said, you're incorrect. If I sent out 1,200 tgs with just that link, I'd wager that I'd get at least a ten percent rate of return.

I'm not sure how I "obliterated" my argument. Sending 1,200 telegrams isn't realistic. It would take 400 minutes (7 straight hours) to do that via script. I don't think NationStates keeps you logged in for 7 hours, unless you're remaining active during that period. I don't even know how long it would take to run a manual campaign in that time. Nobody should be spending 7 hours campaigning, both from a personal sanity level and a good game design level.

*clicks the autorefresh tab* boom. Problem solved. And since it's scripted, you don't need to do it manually.

My point was that an ineffective campaign isn't going to work. Just because somebody has a script to send telegrams for them doesn't mean their campaign is going to be any good. Would you approve a proposal just because somebody sent you a link? I don't think so, and I don't think very many delegates would either. Brute force also isn't an effective strategy because turnout is very low. I sent telegrams to at least 300 delegates each campaign and rarely get more than a third of those to approve of the proposal. I doubt the ~130 delegates that do ultimately approve of the proposal are all targets of a campaign. It's not just mere coincidence that most proposals get around that many approvals after reaching quorum.

Right, you use a targeted campaign. Meaning it is relatively small in scale. The script here could be used for every single regional delegate, so that even a relatively poor campaign would have a chance simply because it maxed out the number of delegates it could potentially reach.

When was the last time a crappy proposal got to vote without a campaign? I can't remember it. There have been some objectively bad resolutions at vote, but not as many as there would be if everyone had access to a script.

"Crappy" does not mean "poorly written." Again, just because you don't like a proposal doesn't mean it's low quality. A lot of the language coming from you and your side is very paternalistic. It seems that you want to ensure that only an elite few should be able to get proposals to quorum by making sure that campaigning remains difficult and tedious.

No, I'm trying to make sure that only proposals that can stand on their own merits, or with a targeted campaign, get to vote. I don't want dubious proposals to get tossed into a quorum pile just because someone decided to script their way into it.

Soooooo why on earth do we need scripts then?

Because campaigning is boring, tedious, and too time consuming. It's poor game design and Violet has definitely acknowledged this numerous times. You are convinced that campaigning is perfect right now, but it's not. It's broken and always has been. Yes, some level of campaigning will probably always be necessary. But ideally delegates should be visiting the proposal list frequently. You shouldn't have to spend hours doing monotonous tasks to reap the benefits of spending weeks and months drafting a proposal. Just because we've always had to do it doesn't mean it's a good way for the system to work.

Ideally delegates would care. Ideally a ton of things. If you've spent weeks and months drafting a proposal, it honestly does not take that much longer just to toss some tgs around manually. If you have that level of commitment one would think that you'd be willing to actually put in the work. You have an interesting thought process of "this isn't exciting, it must be made easier and faster for everyone!", whereas I think that scripts will result in a cheapening of the process.

Let me put it this way GR. When I turn on a video game and start to play, I set it on a high difficulty, because the challenge is part of what makes the game rewarding. I can't help but feel as though you crank the settings all the way down and breeze through it on easy, and now you're trying to do the same here.

And there we have it. You've come full circle, right back to arguing that automated campaigns should be illegal simply because manual campaigns are more pure. If we allow automate campaigns, the quality of work will deteriorate and the World Assembly will be ruined. I don't know why you get angry when I call that Luddism. That's exactly what it is.

Opposition to a single tool which changes the way the game works != Luddism GR. You don't see me railing against the possibility of server upgrades, tg reforms, or robots. Don't equate a dislike of scripts in the WA with a hatred of all things which make life good and easy. Doing so just makes it harder to have a rational conversation on the subject.

Because campaigning is boring, tedious, and too time consuming. It's poor game design and Violet has definitely acknowledged this numerous times. You are convinced that campaigning is perfect right now, but it's not. It's broken and always has been. Yes, some level of campaigning will probably always be necessary. But ideally delegates should be visiting the proposal list frequently. You shouldn't have to spend hours doing monotonous tasks to reap the benefits of spending weeks and months drafting a proposal. Just because we've always had to do it doesn't mean it's a good way for the system to work.

This really is the core argument here, and why I wrote my script in the first place.

I've listed my counter to this several times, but I'll go over it once more. Yes, the game is difficult. No, not everyone should be able to spam the delegates with their crap proposals. Why? Because it's annoying as hell to the delegates, and to the voters if the thing actually achieves quorum. Is the system time consuming now? If you try to blanket campaign manually, yes. If you do a targeted campaign, it's not so bad.

[Auralia]

I've listed my counter to this several times, but I'll go over it once more. Yes, the game is difficult. No, not everyone should be able to spam the delegates with their crap proposals. Why? Because it's annoying as hell to the delegates, and to the voters if the thing actually achieves quorum. Is the system time consuming now? If you try to blanket campaign manually, yes. If you do a targeted campaign, it's not so bad.

What are you saying? If I used the script for a targeted campaign (let's say, maybe 200 delegates), would that be acceptable to you?

[Mallorea and Riva]

I've listed my counter to this several times, but I'll go over it once more. Yes, the game is difficult. No, not everyone should be able to spam the delegates with their crap proposals. Why? Because it's annoying as hell to the delegates, and to the voters if the thing actually achieves quorum. Is the system time consuming now? If you try to blanket campaign manually, yes. If you do a targeted campaign, it's not so bad.

What are you saying? If I used the script for a targeted campaign (let's say, maybe 200 delegates), would that be acceptable to you?

What I'm saying is that it really isn't necessary to use it at all. I don't have much of a problem with certain people using it, since I know they aren't going to smash through as many pieces of nonsense as they can, but I certainly don't think that everyone should have a copy of it. The problem arises when people point out that this isn't really "fair", and there isn't much of a comeback to that, since it isn't.

[Embolalia]

This is just one of the questions I don't feel I've been able to get a good answer for: (and I should be clear this isn't the crux of my argument, just something I'd like to know before I spend too much time arguing.)
The assertion has been made that using a script is not a difficult task. It is easy to do, anyone capable of writing a decent proposal should be smart enough to figure out.
The assertion has been made that using a script takes a fair amount of time to figure out. You have to really want to campaign, this has to be really worth it to you, because it's going to take some doing.
So what I don't understand here is, how is it difficult and easy?

To put another spin on it, say someone creates a program to effortlessly send out the TGs to the right people. It finds all the delegates, it takes care of the tags; all you have to do is write the TG itself. And lets say this person creates pre-compiled binaries for Windows, OSX, and a distro or two of Linux. Doesn't even need to be installed, it's a standalone thing. Click the download button, double click the icon, paste in the TG, click go.
Assuming the author and staff were willing, would you say putting links to this in major sticked threads, where anyone who even bothers to read the rules will find it, would be a good or bad thing? Would this require of the author the minimum effort that has been mentioned before?

[Auralia]

To put another spin on it, say someone creates a program to effortlessly send out the TGs to the right people. It finds all the delegates, it takes care of the tags; all you have to do is write the TG itself. And lets say this person creates pre-compiled binaries for Windows, OSX, and a distro or two of Linux. Doesn't even need to be installed, it's a standalone thing. Click the download button, double click the icon, paste in the TG, click go.
Assuming the author and staff were willing, would you say putting links to this in major sticked threads, where anyone who even bothers to read the rules will find it, would be a good or bad thing? Would this require of the author the minimum effort that has been mentioned before?

I still think there needs to be some effort involved. The user needs to go into the technical forum, download and run the script, craft the TG message, and leave his computer running for several hours while the program sends TGs at a rate of 3 per minute. Users who write lousy proposals often don't even go into the GA forum to post their draft; I doubt they'll go through the hassle of using a script - the thought probably won't even occur to them.

By the way, it is my intention to do just what you've described, once there's been enough debate, and assuming the rules haven't been changed and I haven't been convinced otherwise. In fact, below is a screenshot of what I'm working on:

[Embolalia]

Forgive me if I'm a bit lost here. You say you want to do exactly what I said, but that doing exactly what I said is not enough effort? You say using a script should be a hassle, but you want to make your program easier to use?

If you're saying what I think you're saying, that you want to make it easy but obscure, I think we'd run into another problem. You'd know how to get it, I'd know how to get it. All the "elites", the established authors, will all know about it. The newbies, as you said, won't even think of it. Even people who've been around a bit, but just didn't know such a thing existed (and, for what it's worth, I didn't even hear of scripts until I joined the UDL - after I'd passed 2 resolutions) won't think of it. We could end up with a massive disparity between those who've been clued in, and can thereby get something to quorum with a few seconds of campaigning effort, and those who haven't, and thereby can't. Or, we could end up with it being common knowledge, despite the attempt at obscurity. (What are the chances of someone putting it in their sig? Posting it in an offsite forum? Just telling anyone who submits something?) Security through obscurity just doesn't work.

[Auralia]

Forgive me if I'm a bit lost here. You say you want to do exactly what I said, but that doing exactly what I said is not enough effort? You say using a script should be a hassle, but you want to make your program easier to use?

If you're saying what I think you're saying, that you want to make it easy but obscure, I think we'd run into another problem. You'd know how to get it, I'd know how to get it. All the "elites", the established authors, will all know about it. The newbies, as you said, won't even think of it. Even people who've been around a bit, but just didn't know such a thing existed (and, for what it's worth, I didn't even hear of scripts until I joined the UDL - after I'd passed 2 resolutions) won't think of it. We could end up with a massive disparity between those who've been clued in, and can thereby get something to quorum with a few seconds of campaigning effort, and those who haven't, and thereby can't. Or, we could end up with it being common knowledge, despite the attempt at obscurity. (What are the chances of someone putting it in their sig? Posting it in an offsite forum? Just telling anyone who submits something?) Security through obscurity just doesn't work.

Sorry, I should clarify. I'm not saying that the script should be deliberately obscured, I'm saying that newbies will only find it as it is if they're dedicated and curious enough. Someone who really wants to get their resolution passed will ask around to try to find the best way to get it to quorum, and will learn of the script. Others who don't really care (and who probably don't have very good resolutions) will just throw it into the queue and wait. I haven't been around here for that long, but I was really interested in the game, did some research, read the forums, asked round and eventually learned about scripts. I think the same will apply for newbies.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Sorry, I should clarify. I'm not saying that the script should be deliberately obscured, I'm saying that newbies will only find it as it is if they're dedicated and curious enough. Someone who really wants to get their resolution passed will ask around to try to find the best way to get it to quorum, and will learn of the script. Others who don't really care (and who probably don't have very good resolutions) will just throw it into the queue and wait. I haven't been around here for that long, but I was really interested in the game, did some research, read the forums, asked round and eventually learned about scripts. I think the same will apply for newbies.

This is what people said about auto recruitment scripts. That most people wouldn't use them. That it wouldn't spread. But the unfortunate reality of the situation is this: the state of the telegram system is such that it would only take an extremely tiny number of players to take one of these scripts and turn it into a huge problem. Even experienced GA regulars would have problems utilizing it once the script is turned to counter-campaigning. Every new GA player will see this as a tool that will boost them above the criticism leveled at them by the GA regulars, who are the real first filter of bad proposals. If the Admins disagree with my assessment I'd like to hear why, because to me the logic is fairly clear.

[Nahhhhhh]

I agree with what the shark said.

[Auralia]

The following is a summary of the two chief arguments I've heard so far, and my response to each.

Argument 1: A WA auto-campaign script will inform "less-discriminating" regional delegates of the existence of the queue, which will result in approvals for "low quality" proposals.

This argument is rooted in the belief that only "high quality" proposals should reach quorum. There are two fundamental flaws in that assertion. The first is that a "good" delegate does not necessarily check the queue often or receive manually-sent telegrams. I'm sure there are many delegates who are active in the WA (or who are not, but still possess sufficient judgement to make a qualified decision on the "goodness" or "badness" of a proposal) who simply don't check the queue that often. That fact should not be sufficient to deny them the opportunity to approve (or not approve) proposals.

The second has to do with the question of who, exactly, determines what a "high quality" proposal is. The reality is is that, with the exception of the moderators, who determine proposal rules, the majority of WA members determine what constitutes a "high quality" proposal, by voting for or against it when it comes to vote. Therefore, any proposal - so long as it doesn't violate the rules - is just as valid as any other, regardless of whether the WA regulars feel it doesn't match up to their standards. Now, it's true that with the quorum system, we limited the electorate to regional delegates in an attempt to reduce the size of the queue, but the system is still a (representative) democracy, and every regional delegate has just as much right to approve a proposal as any other, regardless of the views of WA regulars. The WA is not a technocracy - it's a democracy.

And yes, I've heard the argument that the priority should be gameplay rather than upholding the WA's democratic nature, but I'd argue that the WA's democratic nature is essential to gameplay; it's not very much fun if you have to be a member of an elite group of WA regulars in order for your voice to be heard.

Argument 2: A WA auto-campaign script will result in mass floods of telegrams for and against proposals, which will be a significant annoyance for regional delegates.

Nobody likes spam, which is why two solutions have been proposed for this problem. The first is to use the existing "No GA Campaigning" tag. The chief objection I've heard to that is the idea that some regional delegates don't want to cut themselves off to manually-sent telegrams, only automatic telegrams, because of some perceived difference in quality. I don't think that's the case - there's no rule that manual TG campaigns have to be personalized.

But even if we accept that objection for a moment, we have another solution - create a new tag called "No Automated Telegrams". It's the equivalent of putting a "No Solicitors" sign on your door rather than banning the practice of door-to-door sales. We took the former approach in RL, why not here?

EDIT: Plus, is there any empirical evidence of this happening, given that scripted campaigns have been legal for some time?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm sorry, but anybody who believes campaign scripts will cause a deluge of newbies to draft proposals, submit them, and coordinate a campaign doesn't know what they're talking about. My script was high-profile for quite some time, to the point where I routinely got telegrams about it, and we didn't see any such thing. There's zero reason to believe continuing to allow what's already been allowed for the past year and half is going to suddenly have a huge adverse impact out of nowhere.

[Auralia]

I'm sorry, but anybody who believes campaign scripts will cause a deluge of newbies to draft proposals, submit them, and coordinate a campaign doesn't know what they're talking about. My script was high-profile for quite some time, to the point where I routinely got telegrams about it, and we didn't see any such thing. There's zero reason to believe continuing to allow what's already been allowed for the past year and half is going to suddenly have a huge adverse impact out of nowhere.

What's more, even if I do release a GUI-based WA script, not many people are going to use it; newbies just won't care enough.