GA discard notification

[Imperium Anglorum]

When moderators discard a proposal, something should come up on the voting screen to say that it has been discarded. Perhaps, a big red image behind the graph saying 'discarded' or something like that.

Now, I would say that discard should be removed.... but no consensus has been reached on that.

[Mousebumples]

Can you post a screenshot of what you currently see? On my account, I can see that it has been discarded, but that's probably a mod-only thing that I figured was visible to everyone.

[Leppikania]

Can you post a screenshot of what you currently see? On my account, I can see that it has been discarded, but that's probably a mod-only thing that I figured was visible to everyone.

For us non-mods, the fact that it has been discarded doesn't become evident until after the voting period, except for the announcement in the debate thread that it has been discarded.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Can you post a screenshot of what you currently see? On my account, I can see that it has been discarded, but that's probably a mod-only thing that I figured was visible to everyone.

For us non-mods, the fact that it has been discarded doesn't become evident until after the voting period, except for the announcement in the debate thread that it has been discarded.

This is truth.

[[violet]]

I can see the code and it looks easy to change, but I'm not quite sure why it works this way... e.g. why don't we just yank it altogether when a mod wants to discard it? Think I'll leave this to Ballotonia.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can see the code and it looks easy to change, but I'm not quite sure why it works this way... e.g. why don't we just yank it altogether when a mod wants to discard it? Think I'll leave this to Ballotonia.

I would be in favour of getting rid of the discard altogether.

[Wrapper]

I can see the code and it looks easy to change, but I'm not quite sure why it works this way... e.g. why don't we just yank it altogether when a mod wants to discard it? Think I'll leave this to Ballotonia.

I would be in favour of getting rid of the discard altogether.

I would not, but that's off-topic.

[Wrapper]

why don't we just yank it altogether when a mod wants to discard it?

Wasn't that tried once in the past and it caused a problem?

[Ballotonia]

I can see the code and it looks easy to change, but I'm not quite sure why it works this way... e.g. why don't we just yank it altogether when a mod wants to discard it? Think I'll leave this to Ballotonia.

If we discard it immediately it will cause the next resolution in queue to hit the floor next update, which could be very inconvenient to the campaign in favor / against the next resolution. It remains there to block voting so the WA queue remains predictable. Imagine having a proposal next in queue, going away for a weekend not having made any arrangements because one can do so after the weekend, and then logging back in and seeing the vote already half done.

The reason there's nothing visible is because the procedure is as follows:
- GM sees proposal which is possibly invalid due to a rule violation. Will need to discuss with other mods, because if it were really obvious it should've been removed when in queue.
- GM may decide to mark the proposal for discard during internal Mod Hive Mind discussion. Sometimes things don't go as planned with internal discussions (mods do not convene together at one tine in one location, we're still saving up airmiles for that), and this way it's possible to discuss with a 'default decision' present which discards the proposal at vote end.
- GM at this time does *NOT* announce whether a discussion is on-going to possibly discard the proposal at end-of-vote. This would after all unduly influence the vote itself.
- When the Hive Mind has reached a consensus to leave it, any discard mark is removed.
- When the Hive Mind has reached a consensus to discard the proposal, any mod can announce that decision (on the forum) and if no discard mark was placed on the proposal yet it is done at that time. (note placing the discard mark can also be done during the internal discussion)

Due to timing limitations, and the inherent disturbance it would have on voting itself, the discussion of legality isn't public (like this could be done when a proposal is still in draft, or even when it's in the queue).

Only thing I can see to improve this process is to place a notice on the WA page that the vote will be discarded at vote end, but obviously only do so after the Mods have reached consensus to do so.

So, yes, this is all a but tedious, and the blunt instrument of simply yanking it is so much simpler. But surgeries with blunt instruments is rarely a good idea. I'm in favor of not interfering with people playing the game (referring to the next vote in queue) unless it is really necessary.

Ballotonia

[Mousebumples]

Only thing I can see to improve this process is to place a notice on the WA page that the vote will be discarded at vote end, but obviously only do so after the Mods have reached consensus to do so.

Would this be possible if, say, 2 different mods click the link to Discard the vote?

I can definitely see why it doesn't happen "automatically" (I've misclicked enough on this site - including accidentally banjecting a player I was trying to send a telegram to ), but if there's a second mod giving "confirmation" that they agree that the vote should be discarded, perhaps that could trigger the statement for players?

Of course, this is all prefaced with the, "I have no clue how complicated this is to code" statement.

[Elke and Elba]

Discard function is necessary - it's the same function that kicked Auralia's WA-multi self-commendation proposal out of the floor, and all those illegal against-the-rules stuff out. I'd call it a gift from the mods.

Also, I really find it a bit annoying someone thinks that discard should be discarded (ironically) whilst ignoring the previous threads about it and expecting his opinion to be, uhm, leveraged because someone has a few WA resolutions passed and a few more votes at the floor. It's not the first incident, nor will it be the last, unfortunately.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also, I really find it a bit annoying someone thinks that discard should be discarded (ironically) whilst ignoring the previous threads about it and expecting his opinion to be, uhm, leveraged because someone has a few WA resolutions passed and a few more votes at the floor. It's not the first incident, nor will it be the last, unfortunately.

I was to link back to the main discussion to inform people that people such a discussion was taking place. But was called away. That oversight has been corrected. Now we can all chill.

[[violet]]

- GM at this time does *NOT* announce whether a discussion is on-going to possibly discard the proposal at end-of-vote. This would after all unduly influence the vote itself.

In the interests of openness and transparency, would a line like "The legality of this proposal has been challenged" be appropriate once a moderator has hit the DISCARD button? It seems like if it reaches that point, we're not talking about a frivolous challenge, and there's no reason to hide the fact that it's happening from voting nations. In at least a few cases, it seems like that's actually public knowledge due to mod posts, but the only nations who know are those who check the forum.

[Mallorea and Riva]

- GM at this time does *NOT* announce whether a discussion is on-going to possibly discard the proposal at end-of-vote. This would after all unduly influence the vote itself.

In the interests of openness and transparency, would a line like "The legality of this proposal has been challenged" be appropriate once a moderator has hit the DISCARD button? It seems like if it reaches that point, we're not talking about a frivolous challenge, and there's no reason to hide the fact that it's happening from voting nations. In at least a few cases, it seems like that's actually public knowledge due to mod posts, but the only nations who know are those who check the forum.

We don't discard a proposal until we're certain that it is illegal, so a more definite statement would be fine by me.

[Mousebumples]

In the interests of openness and transparency, would a line like "The legality of this proposal has been challenged" be appropriate once a moderator has hit the DISCARD button? It seems like if it reaches that point, we're not talking about a frivolous challenge, and there's no reason to hide the fact that it's happening from voting nations. In at least a few cases, it seems like that's actually public knowledge due to mod posts, but the only nations who know are those who check the forum.

We don't discard a proposal until we're certain that it is illegal, so a more definite statement would be fine by me.

Agreed.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I can see the code and it looks easy to change, but I'm not quite sure why it works this way... e.g. why don't we just yank it altogether when a mod wants to discard it? Think I'll leave this to Ballotonia.

I would be in favour of getting rid of the discard altogether.

Me too. It hasn't solved any problems with actual illegalities, it's just created new ones with nitpicking.

[Imperium Anglorum]

- GM at this time does *NOT* announce whether a discussion is on-going to possibly discard the proposal at end-of-vote. This would after all unduly influence the vote itself.

In the interests of openness and transparency, would a line like "The legality of this proposal has been challenged" be appropriate once a moderator has hit the DISCARD button? It seems like if it reaches that point, we're not talking about a frivolous challenge, and there's no reason to hide the fact that it's happening from voting nations. In at least a few cases, it seems like that's actually public knowledge due to mod posts, but the only nations who know are those who check the forum.

People would vote against due to that line. Challenges can also be failed challenges. For example, the GA resolution at vote was challenged quite some time ago. But to put that sign up earlier would have been bad for Vancouvia's voting. People should vote on what has been written by the author, not on legality nitpicks. However, there needs to be a notification for when a proposal has been discarded.

[Mousebumples]

In the interests of openness and transparency, would a line like "The legality of this proposal has been challenged" be appropriate once a moderator has hit the DISCARD button? It seems like if it reaches that point, we're not talking about a frivolous challenge, and there's no reason to hide the fact that it's happening from voting nations. In at least a few cases, it seems like that's actually public knowledge due to mod posts, but the only nations who know are those who check the forum.

People would vote against due to that line. Challenges can also be failed challenges. For example, the GA resolution at vote was challenged quite some time ago. But to put that sign up earlier would have been bad for Vancouvia's voting. People should vote on what has been written by the author, not on legality nitpicks. However, there needs to be a notification for when a proposal has been discarded.

I didn't mark it for Discard though. We don't mark it for Discard until after a discussion has been had to decide to Discard.

It wouldn't have affected Vancouvia's voting because it never was implemented in the first place.

[[violet]]

People would vote against due to that line. Challenges can also be failed challenges. For example, the GA resolution at vote was challenged quite some time ago. But to put that sign up earlier would have been bad for Vancouvia's voting. People should vote on what has been written by the author, not on legality nitpicks. However, there needs to be a notification for when a proposal has been discarded.

I don't think it's appropriate to direct how people should vote. That's up to voters. All we should be concerned with is what's the most informative and least misleading--not what would be good or bad for someone's campaign.

[[violet]]

We don't discard a proposal until we're certain that it is illegal

That's a bit different to the procedure B describes, then.

[Imperium Anglorum]

People would vote against due to that line. Challenges can also be failed challenges. For example, the GA resolution at vote was challenged quite some time ago. But to put that sign up earlier would have been bad for Vancouvia's voting. People should vote on what has been written by the author, not on legality nitpicks. However, there needs to be a notification for when a proposal has been discarded.

I don't think it's appropriate to direct how people should vote. That's up to voters. All we should be concerned with is what's the most informative and least misleading--not what would be good or bad for someone's campaign.

I interpreted what you said as: proposal challenged on legality followed by proposal marked as challenged on legality. I attempted to correcte for the situation if the was then proposal cleared on legality.

However, Mousey took it differently, in that this would only be used in the case of a discard. But if that were the case, I feel that it should simply say that the proposal was discarded for rule violations.

[The Silver Sentinel]

But if that were the case, I feel that it should simply say that the proposal was discarded for rule violations.

What difference does it really make? Let the proposal run it's course whether it is going to be discarded or not. It is interesting to see how people vote. Believe it or not, 99% of people DO NOT read debate threads and wouldn't have a clue that it is going to be discarded anyway. There is nothing broken at the moment, so nothing needs to be fixed. Just leave it be.