Proposal category reform

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

A sense that those three categories are domestic issues not suitable for international issues, and an observation that the overwhelming majority of proposals written in those categories have been of a very low quality.

Honestly, you were closer to the mark with the fact that they are arguably unnecessary and haven't been used in 13 years of gameplay. Eroding national sovereignty is the entire purpose of the WA; that some players object to the domestic nature of some policy areas is no reason to limit the WA's power.

[Sanctaria]

My own personal thoughts here - if resolutions within categories you want retired were repealed beforehand it could probably be more likely to deactivate them.

I mentioned this earlier, and I think it relevant to raise again following some comments made since.

I've been reading that there is apparently a broad consensus that certain categories are the realm of nations and should not be international issues - as such they should be scrapped. I know that you can't cry NatSov solely in a repeal, but I would probably guess it'd be easier to retire a category if the existing resolutions in that category were all already repealed.

Obviously that's not saying that if repealed those categories will then definitely be retired, but I do know it'd be easier to do so (they'd effectively become as Bookkeeping currently is).

[The Dark Star Republic]

A sense that those three categories are domestic issues not suitable for international issues, and an observation that the overwhelming majority of proposals written in those categories have been of a very low quality.

Honestly, you were closer to the mark with the fact that they are arguably unnecessary and haven't been used in 13 years of gameplay.

Sure, I was just trying to give additional reasons beyond those I initially posited. As I originally said:

These categories have produced very little success - a combined 5 resolutions out of over 550 passed have come from these categories

And of those 5: UN Drug Act was a blocker, Ban International Trafficking has been supplanted by the Drug Trafficking Act (which passed in IS), Guns and Mental Capacity was repealed, and by Mousebumples's own admission the main reason for writing Essential Medications Act was passing something in the RDU category. That leaves only Child Firearm Safety Act.

[Unibot III]

Some technical thoughts:

In keeping with the desire to trim down category numbers, how about having "Arms Control" as an area of effect for International Security, and having that replace both Global Disarmament and Gun Control?

The main problem with dumping existing categories is that the WA is structured identically to the old UN, which was written by an amateur coder named Max back in 2002. In other words, it's such a mess code-wise that new categories have to follow certain rules. In technical terms, it was never designed to scale properly, and that's what this whole discussion is about.

In the code, there's no such category as (for instance) Global disarmament. It's identified in the code as something like "Category=13", Strengths equal to "1,2,3". If we have any existing Global Disarmament proposals, then we need to leave the category intact to allow for proper labeling of existing content and also future repeals. From a code perspective, that's a major drawback.

Categories that can be easily deleted are categories with no prior history in ANY strength. I think at least two of the trio of of those interminable Outlaw/Legalise categories are currently empty and could conceivably be dumped. Any new categories would be added at the end of the numerical sequence. If someone wants to analyze the existing body of laws (including repealed resolutions for labeling purposes, but not including the UN) and locate any empties, that's at least a starting point.

Unibot's suggestion of a complete rewrite would involve disassembling the entire WA resolution code and starting from scratch with a properly scalable, database-oriented back end. If we ever do a UN => WA move again, that's precisely what I'd suggest. Unfortunately, given that Max has said repeatedly "NEVER AGAIN" to a International Organization change; and that [violet]'s workload is concentrated in other areas, I think the rewrite idea is pretty much dead in the water.

I don't understand why you would need to dump any of the categories, Hack. Just disable their usage, and create a new set of categories with the old names which makes it look as though from the user-side, they're the same category.

I've suggested a complete rewrite because I think it'd properly streamline our categories under broad umbrellas that'd see a lot of use - a piecemeal change here or there, will probably only confuse our system more because you'd be introducing things that overlap potentially.

[Unibot III]

What's the reasoning behind wanting to actually cull categories? What harm/annoyance do they cause by being there? (Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one.)

To streamline the system for new players - I proposed fifteen or so categories - broad categories. If I included the existing Gun Control, Gambling ones etc. the category list bloats and becomes more unwieldly, even though they're totally unnecessary as categories - Gun Control can go under Civil Rights, Security etc. Gambling under Culture, Civil Rights etc. Recreational Drugs under Civil Rights, Health, Culture etc. They're just not used enough to justify; not when we want to make the system more intuitive, not less.

[Ardchoille]

What's the reasoning behind wanting to actually cull categories? What harm/annoyance do they cause by being there? (Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one.)

Because they look like easy, accessible topics, their mere existence encourages new players to gallop in and either post or, worse, submit, proposals on them. (This, I should point out for non-GA folk, is a Bad Thing. Unlike other forums, the GA does not encourage people to just jump into its official activity, though jumping into debate threads is fine).

It's not just their apparently simple all-or-nothing choices that attract newcomers, though that's a primary problem. At first glance they look as direct as Yes/No, but they aren't.

They're also topics that everyone thinks they know something about (unlike, say, Moral Decency, which tends to bring people out in hives). Gun control, particularly, is a topic on which people get extremely emotional. The poor blighters who fall for these categories then get swamped with responses that, even when diplomatic, vibrate with outrage. As if that weren't enough, if they've submitted the damn things, they get an ominous Voice of Mod TG and have to start worrying about their WA membership. Not a pleasant introduction to international diplomacy.

They add to the guff that new players have to go through to get an idea of what goes on here. Newbies are referred straight to the Rules for Proposals, which is longer than almost as long as a Unibot essay. Offering three categories that are tempting, but almost certainly doomed to fail, is just plain mean.

(BTW, writing a "How To Generally Assemble" sticky that consists of just a few sentences, followed by the Helpful Links that I've been collecting in the Rules thread, is one of my projects for this year. GA-ers are welcome to TG me with polite suggestions for links.)

[Separatist Peoples]

Re: not straddling categories? Because that would be an interesting change indeed. I'm very glad that the mod staff is so open to this reform idea.

Uh ... look, don't get too excited. Seems I misunderstood your query; I thought you were just asking if Health's existing stats could be changed. I thought they couldn't, but apparently they can. I didn't think I was saying anything about allowing proposals that straddle categories. Like, allowing proposals that are deliberately written to be half Human RIghts and half IntSec, or any other half-and-half (or why not third-third-third?) combination? That's what people seemed to be talking about when I read through discussions after I came back. Possibly I've misunderstood that, too. But at the moment -- this is just me, personally, not speaking for all -- I'd sooner eat glass. It's hard enough to rule on disputed proposals as is, without adding another ingredient to the mix.

That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure. I've no particular love for half-and-half resolutions. Not knowing the particular stats that each Health category affects, it can look, to the untrained eye, as though the Heath category has four sections that do the same thing, so it was worth clarifying.

(BTW, writing a "How To Generally Assemble" sticky that consists of just a few sentences, followed by the Helpful Links that I've been collecting in the Rules thread, is one of my projects for this year. GA-ers are welcome to TG me with polite suggestions for links.)

Considering the number of players that are instantly discouraged from playing based on that reception, player-wise and from an illegal submission, that's probably going to do more than a category reform for the GA.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

From my knowledge of the situation and the code the game currently uses in this regard, effectively retiring a category would make any resolutions currently in that category unrepealable - something that Max wants to avoid. There'd have to be coding to do otherwise - I don't know how to code so I don't know how possible or difficult this is, especially in the context of the game's code, but I do understand it to be an undertaking not lightly done.

Perhaps we are over thinking this. What does "retire a category" mean? Perhaps we are over thinking this.

You go to the WA Page, you go to the Submit a proposal page. You see the drop box.
If you simply remove the item from the drop box you have effectively retired the category as it can't be used anymore by normal people.
You could still repeal the resolution because that is done at the resolution itself.

That may require a change to the screen code but I can't see drop down box code being that difficult.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Perhaps we are over thinking this. What does "retire a category" mean? Perhaps we are over thinking this.

You go to the WA Page, you go to the Submit a proposal page. You see the drop box.
If you simply remove the item from the drop box you have effectively retired the category as it can't be used anymore by normal people.
You could still repeal the resolution because that is done at the resolution itself.

That may require a change to the screen code but I can't see drop down box code being that difficult.

Exactly this. The only change needed to deactivate a category is to remove it from the drop box on the proposal submission page: that's it.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Perhaps we are over thinking this. What does "retire a category" mean? Perhaps we are over thinking this.

You go to the WA Page, you go to the Submit a proposal page. You see the drop box.
If you simply remove the item from the drop box you have effectively retired the category as it can't be used anymore by normal people.
You could still repeal the resolution because that is done at the resolution itself.

That may require a change to the screen code but I can't see drop down box code being that difficult.

Exactly this. The only change needed to deactivate a category is to remove it from the drop box on the proposal submission page: that's it.

I suspect that it would break something else. For instance, what is so special about #1 that makes it unrepealable? The fact that the category does not exist? If you remove the category, you would technically be removing all the stats associated with it, would you not? So by removing the category, the game is going to think that all resolutions under that category no longer exist, and probably going to remove the repeal function of them as well. That is my guess anyway.

[Separatist Peoples]

Perhaps we are over thinking this. What does "retire a category" mean? Perhaps we are over thinking this.

You go to the WA Page, you go to the Submit a proposal page. You see the drop box.
If you simply remove the item from the drop box you have effectively retired the category as it can't be used anymore by normal people.
You could still repeal the resolution because that is done at the resolution itself.

That may require a change to the screen code but I can't see drop down box code being that difficult.

Exactly this. The only change needed to deactivate a category is to remove it from the drop box on the proposal submission page: that's it.

That code shouldn't just be left there, if my rudimentary computer science knowledge is at all accurate. Which it may not be. At some point it would need to be cleared out and checked to ensure other operations weren't affected. That said, it wouldn't need to be immediate, I should think.

[Sedgistan]

The code to "deactivate" a category (prevent further submissions, but allow repeals of existing resolutions) isn't in place currently, but it's something that probably isn't too hard to add.

[Railana]

Once again, I'd like to point out that we should be examining proposals for category reform exclusively on their merits, not on the apparent difficulty of implementation of the proposal. Notwithstanding all of the theorizing in this thread, the truth is that we really don't know how the NationStates backend works. Let's wait for an admin to weigh in on these issues, shall we?

...and I feel it would be key to have the stats effect done immediately.

Why?

[Sedgistan]

Once again, I'd like to point out that we should be examining proposals for category reform exclusively on their merits, not on the apparent difficulty of implementation of the proposal.

Difficulty of implementation is directly relevant to the merits of a suggestion. You could theorise an absolutely perfect system that gives proposal authors the freedom to write whatever what they want, and have stats perfectly tailored to each proposal, but if it's going to take an admin a year to code, and a full-time staff to maintain, it's not going to happen.

Notwithstanding all of the theorizing in this thread, the truth is that we really don't know how the NationStates backend works. Let's wait for an admin to weigh in on these issues, shall we?

You don't, others do. Myself and other mods have more than enough understanding to comment with authority on these matters. It is highly unlikely you will see an admin involved in this debate.

...and I feel it would be key to have the stats effect done immediately.

Why?

Same reason issues effects are applied once an issue goes through. So there's a direct and observable link between the passage of a law, and its effects upon your nation.

[Separatist Peoples]

You don't, others do. Myself and other mods have more than enough understanding to comment with authority on these matters. It is highly unlikely you will see an admin involved in this debate.

Why? Not that I distrust you or the rest of the Mod Team on the subject, but other then the demand on their time, I don't see why not. I've seen [violet] weigh in on other threads in Technical, and it seems like the only reason this isn't in Technical is because it's still in something of a brainstorming stage.

[Sedgistan]

The primary reason is that it's not necessary. Mods are the ones that would decide on what changes to make, I'd write up the stats for them, and then it requires an admin to review and implement.

EDIT: as an update, we're expecting to post some suggestions in the next day or so.

[The Dark Star Republic]

When [violet] starts deciding to play around with the WA, the players start stocking up on canned food.

Getting back to the thread OP, one of the points I originally made was that, with the new Health category, there's no point having the complicated Social Justice category also necessitate healthcare spending. Changing this has been suggested to be possible before, but comments in this thread seem to be backtracking on that. Is it:

• something other players would support?
• if so, something that could be done?

Edit: posted this as Sedgistan was posting his update, so forgive my prompting.

[Sedgistan]

Getting back to the thread OP, one of the points I originally made was that, with the new Health category, there's no point having the complicated Social Justice category also necessitate healthcare spending. Changing this has been suggested to be possible before, but comments in this thread seem to be backtracking on that. Is it:

• something other players would support?
• if so, something that could be done?

It can be done, and probably will.

[Unibot III]

The code to "deactivate" a category (prevent further submissions, but allow repeals of existing resolutions) isn't in place currently, but it's something that probably isn't too hard to add.

What I'd suggest is doing such a "deactivation" on a number of categories to implement new categories that cover their old mandates but in a more organised fashion.

If this would be quicker, of course, than rewriting the WA's proposal category system altogether.

[Ardchoille]

OK, the following are mostly agreed to and can apparently be implemented without breaking anything ("mostly" because some discussion is needed to firm up names, effects):

• Remove health spending from Social Justice
• Set "Gun Control", "Gambling", and "Recreational Drug Use" to 'repeal only' (i.e. categories are effectively abolished, existing resolutions remain in place, but can be repealed).
• Set "Tort Reform" to repeal only (as above).
• Advancement of Industry -- new "Business Deregulation" and "Subsidise" sub-categories (if you have better names, please suggest them).
• Environmental -- add new "Mild" sub-category (again, we could do with a better name here).
• Bookkeeping -- open up to players.

So: the "repeal only" categories would mean that when you go through the proposal submission process, you won't see a clickable option for these. When you go for a Repeal, they'll still be there. (We'd probably retire the descriptions to a spoiler at the bottom of the Rules.)

The two new Advancement of Industry sub-categories would to an extent be the opposites of some of the proposed "Regulation" sub-categories (See thread here. We've been discussing something along these lines:

"Business Deregulation" is distinct from "Labor Deregulation" and offers potential for a range of proposals, including possibly some element of privatising.

The "Subsidise" sub-category gives an opportunity for government support of industry that doesn't exist elsewhere. You could cover such things as government support for strategic industries (food, fuel, defence) or some government support for small businesses, or start-ups, or hi-tech ones, or failing ones, etc.

Bookkeeping opened to players: the joy of this category is the stat detail that I wasn't game to mention earlier, but now can: currently, there's none. It doesn't affect even WA member nations in any way. So, as I tried to explain here without releasing that little snippet, it avoids metagaming because it doesn't do anything. Anything at all.

What could it be used for? Here's an idea:

I'd suggest it be for the WA -- maybe even just the GA -- alone.

At the moment we don't really have a community consensus even on where the GA is.

If it's on land donated by an unnamed WA nation, and it is still officially part of that nation, then it's already subject to existing law about treatment of employees, human rights, etc, and we can stop right now.

But if it's not, or if it's a nation in its own right (though currently uncreated by any Founder), then it can't be legislated on by the GA, because, being a not-nation or an uncreated nation, it can't be a WA member. Attempts to legislate on it keep running into game mechanics.

SInce the undefined not-a-nation/uncreated nation option doesn't force any one version of the GA on RPers, leaving players a wider RP field, that's the one I'd go for. We could then treat the Bookkeeping category as the place to make laws for the GA's "national" affairs. Players could vote on separate legislation for its internal security, its labour force, distribution of profits, addition of new features, infrastructure, legal expenses, advertising, delegations' accommodation, medical support, etc.

They could be light-relief debates, since nobody's nation would be directly affected by either the text or the stats. Could be fun.

Anyway, fast forward to something that hasn't been decided on yet: the military/police split. I'll go with whatever the consensus is, but I'm wondering why an author couldn't just use the workaround format for IntSec/Global Disarmament:

• Prefatory clause using the words "security forceS".
• active clauses about one specific security force, eg, "... must ensure that police blah blah blah".
• final clause in which the other security force is required to do something fluffy but relevant that will arguably cost something or save money, however little; eg, the military will set up liaison officers with/introduce training periods for/develop co-ordination strategies about/prepare operational integration reports on whatever the police are doing in the main text.

That meets the category requirements, and keeps the police and the military from tripping over each other. Not saying it's any big deal, just that I'm not yet convinced of the need for change there. Over to you, authors.

[Sudarium]

OK, the following are mostly agreed to and can apparently be implemented without breaking anything ("mostly" because some discussion is needed to firm up names, effects):

• Remove health spending from Social Justice
• Set "Gun Control", "Gambling", and "Recreational Drug Use" to 'repeal only' (i.e. categories are effectively abolished, existing resolutions remain in place, but can be repealed).
• Set "Tort Reform" to repeal only (as above).
• Advancement of Industry -- new "Business Deregulation" and "Subsidise" sub-categories (if you have better names, please suggest them).
• Environmental -- add new "Mild" sub-category (again, we could do with a better name here).
• Bookkeeping -- open up to players.

So: the "repeal only" categories would mean that when you go through the proposal submission process, you won't see a clickable option for these. When you go for a Repeal, they'll still be there. (We'd probably retire the descriptions to a spoiler at the bottom of the Rules.)

The two new Advancement of Industry sub-categories would to an extent be the opposites of some of the proposed "Regulation" sub-categories [will edit in link to that when I make the thread]. We've been discussing something along these lines:

"Business Deregulation" is distinct from "Labor Deregulation" and offers potential for a range of proposals, including possibly some element of privatising.

The "Subsidise" sub-category gives an opportunity for government support of industry that doesn't exist elsewhere. You could cover such things as government support for strategic industries (food, fuel, defence) or some government support for small businesses, or start-ups, or hi-tech ones, or failing ones, etc.

Bookkeeping opened to players: the joy of this category is the stat detail that I wasn't game to mention earlier: there is none. It doesn't affect even WA member nations in any way. So, as I tried to explain here without releasing that little snippet, it avoids metagaming because it doesn't do anything. Anything at all.

What could it be used for? Here's an idea:

I'd suggest it be for the WA -- maybe even just the GA -- alone.

At the moment we don't really have a community consensus even on where the GA is.

If it's on land donated by an unnamed WA nation, and it is still officially part of that nation, then it's already subject to existing law about treatment of employees, human rights, etc, and we can stop right now.

But if it's not, or if it's a nation in its own right (though currently uncreated by any Founder), then it can't be legislated on by the GA, because, being a not-nation or an uncreated nation, it can't be a WA member. Attempts to legislate on it keep running into game mechanics.

SInce the undefined not-a-nation/uncreated nation option doesn't force any one version of the GA on RPers, leaving players a wider RP field, that's the one I'd go for. We could then treat the Bookkeeping category as the place to make laws for the GA's "national" affairs. Players could vote on separate legislation for its internal security, its labour force, distribution of profits, addition of new features, infrastructure, legal expenses, advertising, delegations' accommodation, medical support, etc.

They could be light-relief debates, since nobody's nation would be directly affected by either the text or the stats. Could be fun.

Anyway, fast forward to something that hasn't been decided on yet: the military/police split. I'll go with whatever the consensus is, but I'm wondering why an author couldn't just use the workaround format for IntSec/Global Disarmament:

• Prefatory clause using the words "security forceS".
• active clauses about one specific security force, eg, "... must ensure that police blah blah blah".
• final clause in which the other security force is required to do something fluffy but relevant that will arguably cost something or save money, however little; eg, the military will set up liaison officers with/introduce training periods for/develop co-ordination strategies about/prepare operational integration reports on whatever the police are doing in the main text.

That meets the category requirements, and keeps the police and the military from tripping over each other. Not saying it's any big deal, just that I'm not yet convinced of the need for change there. Over to you, authors.

My first bookkeeping proposal will affect the gnomes. Expand the committees to include other soecies.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I must say I do like that idea for opening up bookkeeping. The way you have described it, technically we can legislate upon the Gnomes, and I can push my name old proposal to create a union for them.

Very nice indeed.

[Sudarium]

I must say I do like that idea for opening up bookkeeping. The way you have described it, technically we can legislate upon the Gnomes, and I can push my name old proposal to create a union for them.

Very nice indeed.

That's what Ithought of earlier when I suggessted adding bookkeeping as a category. I didn't think the mods would like the idea of adding a category just for roleplaying though, so I added a bit of the category affecting administration budget of national governments to give it a purpose.

My real suggestion is what you support; add bookkeeping so players can legislate on the WA itself. No stats needed! Oh and if it's alright allow us to repeal GAR#1...

[Ardchoille]

Oh and if it's alright allow us to repeal GAR#1...

You want us all to disappear up a black hole of negative causation?

[Sudarium]

Oh and if it's alright allow us to repeal GAR#1...

You want us all to disappear up a black hole of negative causation?

Absolutely! We will all be reincarnated as something greater! Glorious deaths for everybody! World Assembly 2.0!

Oh, we could also add a boxing ring in the center of the GA hall so delegates can duke it out. The profits from the sports betting can to toward funding WA resolutions.

Oh and Railana/Auralia should host the WA in their nation since they want to create a new World Assembly Charter. Whomever is the author of the WA charter should host the WA HQ itself.