Proposal category reform

[The Dark Star Republic]

Proposal Category System Creaking At The Seams?
OPINION | GRUENBERG, SENIOR REPORTER

The deletion of "On Universal Jurisdiction" (qv. TRTXXXII), which at time of writing had been resubmitted and passed with a comfortable mandate, has highlighted an ongoing problem with the General Assembly. The proposal category system - whereby to be legal, a proposal has to be assigned to a specific category and have in-game effects broadly commensurate with that, such as a Human Rights proposal increasing civil freedoms or an Educational proposal increasing education spending - has become so unwieldy and difficult to understand that it is in danger of discouraging participation, especially from new players.

The category system has always been something of an uneasy fit. NationStates is a game designed around forcing people to confront the difficult or unexpected consequences of their decisions: most issues end up with exaggerated or unanticipated effects. Developing one's nation in a favoured way may end up with extremely high tax rates, crippling crime problems, or zero defence budgets. To an extent, the proposal category system is intended to mirror this: the newer categories in particular come with guarded warnings that, for example, dispersing international aid will increase tax rates, or advancing tort reform privilege corporations over people.

But this runs counter to what has evolved as the aim of the GA game: to write good, well rounded international law suitable for a large number of widely disparate nations. Resolution authors are exhorted by the moderators to post drafts to the forums and go over them with a fine tooth comb to weed out possible loopholes; yet at the same time, they have to shackle their proposals to a mechanical category that is more or less designed to be cumbersome. It means, for example, that it is impossible for the WA to promote both the environment and the economy, because all Environmental resolutions have a default negative economic impact.

The topic areas available for legislation are also problematic. International development has been the prevailing concern of international organizations in recent years, yet there is no "development" category for legislators to use (and those that do promote human, social or environmental ends, as mentioned, have zero or negative economic impact). Economic regulation is also extremely difficult, given the regulatory category Social Justice has the bizarre requirement of mandating welfare and even healthcare spending as well as restricting economic freedoms, while Environmental has no "Mild" option available, meaning any general environmental law ends up with the dreaded All Businesses hit to the world economy.

Furthermore, while the NSUN/WA evolved to become an organization devoted to international law, some of the proposal categories seem decidedly domestic in scope, such as Recreational Drug Use, Gambling, and Gun Control. These categories have produced very little success - a combined 5 resolutions out of over 550 passed have come from these categories - and those proposing resolutions on legalising marijuana or banning handguns are routinely told by WA regulars that such matters are "not an international issue": to which they might reasonably respond, then why does the category exist at all?

New categories have failed to invigorate the system. Several years ago, Education & Creativity and Advancement of Industry were added with four Areas of Effect each: but of those, only two, Education and Cultural Heritage, have ever received significant attention, with the others barely used at all. At present there is only a single active Advancement of Industry resolution, itself a rehash of an NSUN proposal passed years ago. The new International Health category was also added last year amid great fanfare. The WA is yet to even vote on a single resolution making use of it; the new Fishing and Agriculture Environmental subcategories have also been unused.

The category system has become so confusing and complicated as to be beyond the understanding of even experienced WA players, while at the same time proving a worrying disincentive to participation from new players with a good idea but no way to make use of it. The practice of "shoehorning" - forcing a proposal into a category for political purposes, even if the text doesn't really match the category - has also become popular. Previously Human Rights and Free Trade were popular categories; currently the vogue is to jam just about any proposal into International Security by including some nebulous enforcement requirement.

But, much as reform is needed, the WA needs a proposal category system of some sort. Abolishing categories altogether would leave an organization whose mission is already extremely vague - the WA has no real statement of purpose beyond "improving the world one resolution at a time" - completely bereft of any sense of itself. Anything could be considered, meaning wasted time voting on pointless domestic issues not suitable for international law; equally, resolutions could become groaning omnibuses, such as the ill-fated Law of the Sea passed in the NSUN's messier days, crossing myriad categories. Removing categories would also sever the WA from any remaining connection to the game mechanics.

A more complicated - likely too complicated - option would be to employ "Resolution Editors", similar to the Issue Editors who process the effects of daily issues. That would allow much greater nuance in determining the effects of resolutions, but it would also place a huge burden on them, having to keep up with a new resolution every four days. It would also lead to charges of politicisation, and risk having players in a position to make resolutions they dislike have unfavourable outcomes. Perhaps the simplest solution would be to open a dialogue between game staff and players about which categories currently work, which don't, and which could be added. But the recent history of the WA has not been one of much engagement between game staff and players: indeed, a forum post by a moderator in the GA section is currently about as rare as a workable Gun Control proposal.

I wrote this article for The Rejected Times, and Sedgistan indicated he might be willing to listen to player comment about the proposal categories.

I have the following specific suggestions, and it'd be interesting to see if anyone else had thoughts:

• The Social Justice category should be edited. We now have a dedicated category for Health proposals, so there's no point having the SJ category require (at Significant and Strong) healthcare spending.
• The lack of an Environmental, Mild option is an ongoing problem. It means any general environmental proposal has to be "All Businesses", which is a big economic hit. Several past resolutions don't really justify such strength, but because they're not about a specific industry they ended up in All Businesses. Splitting All Businesses between Mild and Strong would allow for much better, more nuanced legislation.
• The ruling on On Universal Jurisdiction created quite a shift, and if that's to be the case - that enforcement proposals have to go in IS - then it might be worth splitting the International Security category. Why combine military and police spending when they're really quite different? A military/security proposal would have very different priorities to an enforcement/policing proposal.

[Chester Pearson]

Why combine military and police spending when they're really quite different? A military/security proposal would have very different priorities to an enforcement/policing proposal.

I agree wholeheartedly. What we need are areas of effect for IS, and GD proposals.

[Grays Harbor]

Yes, military and police are quite different. I could support splitting them.

[Railana]

Why not allow authors to assign multiple categories to a given proposal with different weights? For instance, "On Universal Jurisdiction" could have been half Human Rights, half International Security.

[Chester Pearson]

Why not allow authors to assign multiple categories to a given proposal with different weights? For instance, "On Universal Jurisdiction" could have been half Human Rights, half International Security.

I am not overly familiar with the code of the game, but I suspect it would be a coding nightmare. That being said, it would be nice. The NAP had elements of IS in it, but not enough to qualify (or so I was told )

Now per se, if this was to happen, would it not be prudent to wipe out all resolutions and allow a clean slate so we could pass some effective law?

[Grays Harbor]

Starting over from scratch yet again? Not something i would find apprpriate.

Multiple categories for a single resolution may cause severe problems with the coding, or cause our coders to quit in disgust.

[Ainocra]

I agree with DSR this is a good set of ideas.

I do think that spanning a proposal over multiple categories would be too difficult to code and might cause our resident code monkies to grow wings and begin chasing us

[The Republic of Lanos]

Now per se, if this was to happen, would it not be prudent to wipe out all resolutions and allow a clean slate so we could pass some effective law?

I'm not sure that Max is willing to up and restart the WA again. There's no International Body That Must Not Be Named named for the WA.

[Railana]

I am not overly familiar with the code of the game, but I suspect it would be a coding nightmare.

Multiple categories for a single resolution may cause severe problems with the coding, or cause our coders to quit in disgust.

I do think that spanning a proposal over multiple categories would be too difficult to code and might cause our resident code monkies to grow wings and begin chasing us

Given that none of us are admins, I don't think we should just assume that my idea would be impossible to implement. Let's focus on the merits of the idea itself, shall we?

[Chester Pearson]

I am not overly familiar with the code of the game, but I suspect it would be a coding nightmare.

Multiple categories for a single resolution may cause severe problems with the coding, or cause our coders to quit in disgust.

I do think that spanning a proposal over multiple categories would be too difficult to code and might cause our resident code monkies to grow wings and begin chasing us

Given that none of us are admins, I don't think we should just assume that my idea would be impossible to implement. Let's focus on the merits of the idea itself, shall we?

I did not say it would be impossible. I happen to know you are a far more experienced coder than myself (me being limited to re-writing shitty windows drivers, and compiling Linux code). I was simply saying that it would be a challenge. I know Violet (Max) is working on the new system for delegate elect, and some new stuff for the SC, so this might not be the highest of priorities. That being said, I would be the first one to jump up and down like a schoolgirl if this was to actually happen....

[Defwa]

Environmental definitely needs reform. Having a 'mild' would solve some issues, but really we need to find out how to improve more specific areas of effect.
Some of the areas of effects are okay. Agricultural, logging, fishing are good. But a comprehensive list is just too difficult.
Another way would be to focus on types of environmental pollutions. Air, soil, water areas could completely replace the current system. Then possibly space and biological.

Health categories need to be reconsidered. The fact that resolutions on abortion or genital mutilation aren't covered by the category seems ridiculous to me. If its regulating (or deregulating) a medical procedure, it should fit in the health category somewhere.

I'd also like to see some access to bookkeeping or something similar. They don't need to have a real effect on nations but it makes sense that the WA should be able to regulate certain functions that aren't metagaming. Things like the WA Headquarters or gnome rights as employees. The WA can have complexity to its operations without infringing on roleplay rights.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Health categories need to be reconsidered. The fact that resolutions on abortion or genital mutilation aren't covered by the category seems ridiculous to me. If its regulating (or deregulating) a medical procedure, it should fit in the health category somewhere.

So repeal and replace the existing resolutions. But previously passed resolutions shouldn't be reassigned to new categories. The WA voted on them as Human Rights resolutions; it's impossible to say if the vote would have gone the same if they'd been in a different category. Resolutions have never been reassigned previously: when Education & Creativity was introduced, Artistic Freedom wasn't reassigned to Artistic, Freedom of Press to Free Press, etc. This was also discussed when the Health category was first introduced.

Why not allow authors to assign multiple categories to a given proposal with different weights? For instance, "On Universal Jurisdiction" could have been half Human Rights, half International Security.

It makes precedent a lot harder to understand for new (and even old) players. 300+ passed resolutions to look at in a single category each, and then suddenly choosing two different categories going forward?

Here's my suggestion for the International Security category:

International Security - A resolution to improve world security by boosting military budgets.
This proposal boosts defence spending.
Policing and Enforcement - A resolution to address world crime by boosting police budgets.
This proposal boosts law & order spending.

I don't know whether it would be necessary to also split the Global Disarmament category.

[Sedgistan]

Here's my suggestion for the International Security category:

International Security - A resolution to improve world security by boosting military budgets.
This proposal boosts defence spending.
Policing and Enforcement - A resolution to address world crime by boosting police budgets.
This proposal boosts law & order spending.

I don't know whether it would be necessary to also split the Global Disarmament category.

Question: are there any resolutions that actually work as a mix of police/military spending that would struggle to fit into a police only or military only category?

[Bears Armed Mission]

I have the following specific suggestions, and it'd be interesting to see if anyone else had thoughts:

• The Social Justice category should be edited. We now have a dedicated category for Health proposals, so there's no point having the SJ category require (at Significant and Strong) healthcare spending.
• The lack of an Environmental, Mild option is an ongoing problem. It means any general environmental proposal has to be "All Businesses", which is a big economic hit. Several past resolutions don't really justify such strength, but because they're not about a specific industry they ended up in All Businesses. Splitting All Businesses between Mild and Strong would allow for much better, more nuanced legislation.
• The ruling on On Universal Jurisdiction created quite a shift, and if that's to be the case - that enforcement proposals have to go in IS - then it might be worth splitting the International Security category. Why combine military and police spending when they're really quite different? A military/security proposal would have very different priorities to an enforcement/policing proposal.

I'd like to see all of those changes made.

Here's my suggestion for the International Security category:

International Security - A resolution to improve world security by boosting military budgets.
This proposal boosts defence spending.
Policing and Enforcement - A resolution to address world crime by boosting police budgets.
This proposal boosts law & order spending.

I don't know whether it would be necessary to also split the Global Disarmament category.

Question: are there any resolutions that actually work as a mix of police/military spending that would struggle to fit into a police only or military only category?

If you mean existing resolutions, 'Prevention of Wildfires' was deliberately written to include potential increases of spending in both of those fields and that was at least in part so that it would fit the category's current definition.

[Sedgistan]

Question: are there any resolutions that actually work as a mix of police/military spending that would struggle to fit into a police only or military only category?

If you mean existing resolutions, 'Prevention of Wildfires' was deliberately written to include potential increases of spending in both of those fields and that was at least in part so that it would fit the category's current definition.

But if the category had only required one or the other, you would have preferred to go with that (police, presumably)? What I'm checking is whether there are any resolutions that could only have worked as a combination of police and military spending changes, and would not have been able to fit into a category that only changed one or the other.

[Bears Armed]

If you mean existing resolutions, 'Prevention of Wildfires' was deliberately written to include potential increases of spending in both of those fields and that was at least in part so that it would fit the category's current definition.

But if the category had only required one or the other, you would have preferred to go with that (police, presumably)?

Yes.. although I do think that the 'Military' aspect in that one would actually be a good idea too.

[The Dark Star Republic]

If you mean existing resolutions, 'Prevention of Wildfires' was deliberately written to include potential increases of spending in both of those fields and that was at least in part so that it would fit the category's current definition.

But if the category had only required one or the other, you would have preferred to go with that (police, presumably)? What I'm checking is whether there are any resolutions that could only have worked as a combination of police and military spending changes, and would not have been able to fit into a category that only changed one or the other.

Here's a (not quite up to date) list of IS resolutions. Some of those proposals certainly cross categories a bit between military and police, such as Suppressing International Piracy and the terrorism proposals. But many resolutions cross categories a bit, such as Human Rights proposals with some restrictions or Global Disarmament proposals with some enforcement requirements. I don't see any that couldn't have fitted into one of the suggested "forked" categories if they'd been available at the time.

For what it's worth, if that forking of categories were introduced, I wouldn't suggest you recategorise passed resolutions: the IS category would just be retired and going forward proposals would have to choose between military or police.

[Defwa]

Health categories need to be reconsidered. The fact that resolutions on abortion or genital mutilation aren't covered by the category seems ridiculous to me. If its regulating (or deregulating) a medical procedure, it should fit in the health category somewhere.

So repeal and replace the existing resolutions. But previously passed resolutions shouldn't be reassigned to new categories. The WA voted on them as Human Rights resolutions; it's impossible to say if the vote would have gone the same if they'd been in a different category. Resolutions have never been reassigned previously: when Education & Creativity was introduced, Artistic Freedom wasn't reassigned to Artistic, Freedom of Press to Free Press, etc. This was also discussed when the Health category was first introduced

I didn't say reassign anything. I just said that resolutions about medical rights or regulating medical procedures should be health going forward.
Right now the only way to do that would be to force government subsidies for the relevant procedure.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you meant. You want a proposal that's "about medical issues" to go in Health even if it doesn't contain any funding requirements? It sounds like Bioethics could be used, though I suppose that's only if the proposal restricts the procedure. If it legalises it - for example, permitting IVF (which so far as I can see the WA has never really legislated on, Biomedical Rights notwithstanding) - then there's no suitable category.

[Defwa]

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you meant. You want a proposal that's "about medical issues" to go in Health even if it doesn't contain any funding requirements? It sounds like Bioethics could be used, though I suppose that's only if the proposal restricts the procedure. If it legalises it - for example, permitting IVF (which so far as I can see the WA has never really legislated on, Biomedical Rights notwithstanding) - then there's no suitable category.

Thats more what I was saying.
From a game mechanic and stats standpoint, even though deregulation of some treatment may not require government spending, it can still change health spending in the economy

[Unibot III]

I would suggest a proposal category called "International Justice" (or simply just "Justice") which concerns with justice, criminal law and the enforcement of human rights.

[Defwa]

I would suggest a proposal category called "International Justice" (or simply just "Justice") which concerns with justice, criminal law and the enforcement of human rights.

That would require a serious discussion on how enforcement and compliance work.

[Yelda]

I have the following specific suggestions, and it'd be interesting to see if anyone else had thoughts:

• The Social Justice category should be edited. We now have a dedicated category for Health proposals, so there's no point having the SJ category require (at Significant and Strong) healthcare spending.
• The lack of an Environmental, Mild option is an ongoing problem. It means any general environmental proposal has to be "All Businesses", which is a big economic hit. Several past resolutions don't really justify such strength, but because they're not about a specific industry they ended up in All Businesses. Splitting All Businesses between Mild and Strong would allow for much better, more nuanced legislation.
• The ruling on On Universal Jurisdiction created quite a shift, and if that's to be the case - that enforcement proposals have to go in IS - then it might be worth splitting the International Security category. Why combine military and police spending when they're really quite different? A military/security proposal would have very different priorities to an enforcement/policing proposal.

I've been wanting something done about the Environmental category for some time now. I would be highly in favor of your proposed change. Your proposed changes to Social Justice and International Security seem sensible as well.

[Yelda]

Starting over from scratch yet again? Not something i would find apprpriate.

I wouldn't be overly thrilled with it either but let's be realistic, it's probably going to have to happen at some point. We currently have 314 GA Resolutions (including repeals), plus a nearly incomprehensible set of rules and case law regarding legality and duplication. If I wanted to start writing resolutions again I wouldn't even know where to begin. Imagine what it must be like for new players.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I would suggest a proposal category called "International Justice" (or simply just "Justice") which concerns with justice, criminal law and the enforcement of human rights.

That would require a serious discussion on how enforcement and compliance work.

How so? All the category does is determine the in-game stat changes to nations.