[Suggestions]Shouldn't fully depend on the forums

[Ballotonia]

Role Plays
It should be implemented on a separated script that's made specially for role-playings.
Confession scripts are not bad. http://codecanyon.net/item/one-page-pre ... w/10159180

General Assembly Drafts
It should be associated in the in-game instead of separated to forums. So, whenever submit proposal, there are options to choose whether it's final, draft and/or idea. So the comments shall be named "Feedback". Of course, there should be option to reply to feedbacks.
And there should be feedback rating whether it's a good feedback or bad, ranking based on the amount of positive rating.

After proposer receives sufficient feedback, the proposer should have option on the same proposal page to submit as finalised proposal, then the feedback will be instantly locked and finalised proposal will be under-reviewed by mods.

Also, there should be a feature on the same proposal page for 2nd draft, then the system itself will identify the difference between the 1st and 2nd draft and highlight out the removed/added sentences.

Technicals
NationStates should use NiceReply software (demo: https://feedback.uservoice.com/) for better management of support issues and suggestions.

Off-topic Chats
NationStates should implement chat bar like Facebook instead of using forums. ChatCat (https://chatcat.io/) not bad.

Random Tips for every Sections
As the information are too wordy, although I read all, but I can't remember every details. So there should be random tips like how other games do during loading page especially smartphone game apps.

Disclaimer: I've no intention to criticise the current community forums.

[Gandoor]

This is a bad idea simply because we already have the forums, so why bother replacing something that's been working for years?

This isn't some super complex game, it's a fairly simple (gameplay-wise) text based game.

[Phydios]

Why fix what isn't broken? There have never been any issues with using the forums for any of the features you describe. Your proposal would decentralize player-to-player communication, making access more difficult (so I should go here for roleplays, here for chat, and here for technical issues? Why can't everything be in one place?) and the features themselves more complicated.

After proposer receives sufficient feedback, the proposer should have option on the same proposal page to submit as finalised proposal, then the feedback will be instantly locked and finalised proposal will be under-reviewed by mods.

Furthermore, this part actually changes the proposal process instead of just changing the way or place that it's implemented. It would require players to get a certain amount of feedback on the proposal before being allowed to submit it, and the proposal would have to be mod-reviewed before being presented to WA Delegates. In addition, players would not be allowed to comment on submitted proposals. All of those changes would greatly hurt the process.
First, player feedback is not required now, and there's no reason it should be. Proposals must pass two different stages of player approval before becoming law; there's no reason to add another stage in there. More is not always better.
Second, mods have enough to do without manually approving every proposal. They already remove any submitted proposal that breaks the rules. Again, it's just another barrier to legislating that does no good.
Third, there is no reason under the sun why players should not be allowed to give feedback on submitted proposals. None whatsoever.

[Xenforo]

This is a bad idea simply because we already have the forums, so why bother replacing something that's been working for years?

This isn't some super complex game, it's a fairly simple (gameplay-wise) text based game.

Yup, but more better interface for users. Like Facebook and Google always changing.

Why fix what isn't broken? There have never been any issues with using the forums for any of the features you describe. Your proposal would decentralize player-to-player communication, making access more difficult (so I should go here for roleplays, here for chat, and here for technical issues? Why can't everything be in one place?) and the features themselves more complicated.

It's just suggestion, not "fix".
Chat you can chat anywhere on the whole site using chat bar like Facebook.

As for roleplay, aren't you travelling from multiple forums too? Now travel multiple pages doesn't make a huge difference.

Everything on 1 place isn't really "professional". I seen some role-play specifically for 2 persons exist publicly, which is annoying.

Facebook has user profiles, Facebook Page, App Center (New), Apps, Facebook App Page, Groups, Lists, etc. Their settings also different from edit profile page.

Why those aren't complicated for you?

After proposer receives sufficient feedback, the proposer should have option on the same proposal page to submit as finalised proposal, then the feedback will be instantly locked and finalised proposal will be under-reviewed by mods.

Furthermore, this part actually changes the proposal process instead of just changing the way or place that it's implemented. It would require players to get a certain amount of feedback on the proposal before being allowed to submit it, and the proposal would have to be mod-reviewed before being presented to WA Delegates. In addition, players would not be allowed to comment on submitted proposals. All of those changes would greatly hurt the process.
First, player feedback is not required now, and there's no reason it should be. Proposals must pass two different stages of player approval before becoming law; there's no reason to add another stage in there. More is not always better.
Second, mods have enough to do without manually approving every proposal. They already remove any submitted proposal that breaks the rules. Again, it's just another barrier to legislating that does no good.

It's just an idea/suggestion, perhaps it can be twisted such that without feedback also can directly submit finalised proposal and automatically lock but not recommended...

Third, there is no reason under the sun why players should not be allowed to give feedback on submitted proposals. None whatsoever.

It can be discussed in the chat bar.
Or, a comment feature can be implemented while the resolution is in voting process.

Disclaimer: I've no intention to criticise the current community forums.

[Aikoland]

Chat you can chat anywhere on the whole site using chat bar like Facebook.

As for roleplay, aren't you travelling from multiple forums too? Now travel multiple pages doesn't make a huge difference.

Everything on 1 place isn't really "professional". I seen some role-play specifically for 2 persons exist publicly, which is annoying.

Facebook has user profiles, Facebook Page, App Center (New), Apps, Facebook App Page, Groups, Lists, etc. Their settings also different from edit profile page.

This is not Facebook nor any other social media site, it's an online game. It does not need to needlessly copy a social media website because the functions of a social media website are not at all related to what an online game needs to do.

[External Nation]

Chat you can chat anywhere on the whole site using chat bar like Facebook.

As for roleplay, aren't you travelling from multiple forums too? Now travel multiple pages doesn't make a huge difference.

Everything on 1 place isn't really "professional". I seen some role-play specifically for 2 persons exist publicly, which is annoying.

Facebook has user profiles, Facebook Page, App Center (New), Apps, Facebook App Page, Groups, Lists, etc. Their settings also different from edit profile page.

This is not Facebook nor any other social media site, it's an online game. It does not need to needlessly copy a social media website because the functions of a social media website are not at all related to what an online game needs to do.

He isn't emphasising the functions of Facebook, but he's emphasising the separation of functions. You don't see they put their apps, profiles all in forums right? They separated into separate places.

[Corvus Corax]

Feedback to WA-GA?

As far as I know everyone can already give that feedback already in every Draft and proposal threads in both General Assembly and Security Council, submitted or not, when they are At vote in World Assembly itself, often long even after a resolution is made and passed quorum and made a resolution. Repeals are also way to give feedback. What kind Extra Feedback there would be needed anymore? Authors of drafts/proposals/submitted proposals can of course change a status of their drafts/proposals before submitting, when ever they wish (For Example [Draft]/[Abandoned]/[Postponed]... or just [Delayed] for Feedback). No matter how titled and what status, everyone can give feedback as long as corresponding thread isn't locked.

Different issue is then that could it be wise add direct link to corresponding WA forum threads of submitted GA and SC proposals. That would make it little easier to give that Feedback and check what is happened when drafting the proposal.

[Phydios]

This is a bad idea simply because we already have the forums, so why bother replacing something that's been working for years?

This isn't some super complex game, it's a fairly simple (gameplay-wise) text based game.

Yup, but more better interface for users. Like Facebook and Google always changing.

Your example is perfect. Facebook and Google change according to what the admins think is cool, not what the users think. It shows clearly that they aren't user-centric, and irritates a lot of people. Here, we don't change just because the new way looks cooler. People have this idea that simplicity = undeveloped and unprofessional, and that's just not true. Making things more complicated does not always improve user experience.

Why fix what isn't broken? There have never been any issues with using the forums for any of the features you describe. Your proposal would decentralize player-to-player communication, making access more difficult (so I should go here for roleplays, here for chat, and here for technical issues? Why can't everything be in one place?) and the features themselves more complicated.

It's just suggestion, not "fix".

No, it's both. What do you think "suggestion" means? You're suggesting a huge site change because, in your opinion, centralization is unprofessional. "Fixing what isn't broken" is a term used to describe changing for the sake of change; changing something even when there are no issues with the status quo (beyond personal preference). It's a very bad practice that often backfires.

Chat you can chat anywhere on the whole site using chat bar like Facebook.

This isn't Facebook. This isn't social media. This is a political simulator.

As for roleplay, aren't you travelling from multiple forums too? Now travel multiple pages doesn't make a huge difference.

You're going to have to clarify this line. Are you trying to say there's no substantial difference between completely separate site features and separate areas within the forums?

Everything on 1 place isn't really "professional". I seen some role-play specifically for 2 persons exist publicly, which is annoying.

It's "annoying" and "unprofessional" to you, not necessarily to anyone else. I'd be very surprised if any of the mods or admins share your views. You may be used to sites that work like that, but that doesn't mean it's a better structure.

Facebook has user profiles, Facebook Page, App Center (New), Apps, Facebook App Page, Groups, Lists, etc. Their settings also different from edit profile page.

Why those aren't complicated for you?

Facebook is a much bigger and much more complex site. You cannot compare NS to FB. NS is a political simulator; FB is a social media site. Their focuses are very different.
I would suggest you read at least sections 1 and 2 of the FAQ (ideally the whole thing). That will teach you what NationStates is.

Third, there is no reason under the sun why players should not be allowed to give feedback on submitted proposals. None whatsoever.

It can be discussed in the chat bar.
Or, a comment feature can be implemented while the resolution is in voting process.

I've got nothing to say on this point that I haven't already said. I'm not repeating myself.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Xenforo and External Nation are the same person. They registered within a day of each other and have identical signatures (which is by far the strongest point). Also, External Nation is the only player that's supporting Xenforo. I'd like for a mod/admin to give their position on using puppets to give the illusion of support, as well as Xenforo's proposal in general. I assume one will find this thread eventually and reply?

[Frisbeeteria]

I'd like for a mod/admin to give their position on using puppets to give the illusion of support, as well as Xenforo's proposal in general.

It is, in fact, very poor form to support the suggestions of one puppet with a different puppet. They should stop that immediately.

I'm very much not in favor of any of these suggestions. We're not Facebook, Google, UserVoice, CodeCanyon, nor a chat site, and I believe whole-heartedly that the vast majority of our players are fine with that. I don't care if we're not the most modern of sites. What we have here works fine for our community. I'm not convinced that a player who has trouble understanding the FAQ is in any position to offer suggestions on the best direction this site should take.

[External Nation]

lol, sorry. Yes, I'm same person, I'm not trying to use puppet to support but I used wrong account to reply. I was discussing about laws suddenly used this account for reply and accidentally post.

If I'm really want to use puppets to support, I wouldn't be stupid to use same signature as mentioned.

EDIT: If you disbelieve, you can check the accounts posts. This account really discussing on laws.

[Xenforo]

It's just suggestion, not "fix".

No, it's both. What do you think "suggestion" means? You're suggesting a huge site change because, in your opinion, centralization is unprofessional. "Fixing what isn't broken" is a term used to describe changing for the sake of change; changing something even when there are no issues with the status quo (beyond personal preference). It's a very bad practice that often backfires.

Suggestion is similar to idea that can be ignored with no problem but fix usually required.

So, everyone can ignore this suggestion if you think it's not good. I don't force and it's just my idea, freedom of expression.

As for your idea responses, there's no point for me to repeat myself again too since I've clearly told Gandoor & Phydios of what I wanted to say.

What you saying is just some non-logical reasons to support your thinking.

Chat you can chat anywhere on the whole site using chat bar like Facebook.

This isn't Facebook. This isn't social media. This is a political simulator.

Who was the one complaining the new idea would be difficult to chat because need to navigate different pages?

making access more difficult (so I should go here for roleplays, here for chat, and here for technical issues?

So I told that it isn't true because chat bar (like Facebook) is site-wide.
Don't worry, that's only 1 out of the non-logical reasons you gave me. Thus, I'm not going to reply to it.

Also, I already disclaimed multiple times that I'm not trying to criticise but just suggestion.

I'd like for a mod/admin to give their position on using puppets to give the illusion of support, as well as Xenforo's proposal in general.

It is, in fact, very poor form to support the suggestions of one puppet with a different puppet. They should stop that immediately.

I'm very much not in favor of any of these suggestions. We're not Facebook, Google, UserVoice, CodeCanyon, nor a chat site, and I believe whole-heartedly that the vast majority of our players are fine with that. I don't care if we're not the most modern of sites. What we have here works fine for our community. I'm not convinced that a player who has trouble understanding the FAQ is in any position to offer suggestions on the best direction this site should take.

1. There are no rules that restrict this.
2. I've given you valid reason, validate or invalidate that reason is up to you since I've clear conscience.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Different issue is then that could it be wise add direct link to corresponding WA forum threads of submitted GA and SC proposals. That would make it little easier to give that Feedback and check what is happened when drafting the proposal.

This is the one useful suggestion in this entire thread. But it's been brought up before, and I seem to remember the game staff saying it was too technically difficult because of the lack of linkage between gameside and forumside; and there's not even a requirement that a proposal have a forum thread anyway.

[Xenforo]

and there's not even a requirement that a proposal have a forum thread anyway.

But the rules strongly recommend draft...

[Sedgistan]

Different issue is then that could it be wise add direct link to corresponding WA forum threads of submitted GA and SC proposals. That would make it little easier to give that Feedback and check what is happened when drafting the proposal.

This is the one useful suggestion in this entire thread. But it's been brought up before, and I seem to remember the game staff saying it was too technically difficult because of the lack of linkage between gameside and forumside; and there's not even a requirement that a proposal have a forum thread anyway.

The difficulty with that is that the link would have to either be manually inputted by a Game Mod (or by the proposal author, and then approved by a GM). So the link wouldn't always be visible at a consistent time in the proposal submission process. That said, it would certainly be better than nothing, and I'm not opposed to it being implemented. EDIT: Might be better off in a new thread.

[Xenforo]

Bye-bye since my suggestions are well-hated.

Please close this topic for me, thx.