Discussion: change GA modding? (split from Q&A)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Agreeing with the decision to discuss this here rather than continue to hijack the proposal thread.

SL, it's not victim-blaming to say that those mods who reversed the decision accepted the deleting mod's explanation pointing out to us the issues they saw with the text.

*Sigh.* I don't have a) the stomach for arguments about personal conduct (as opposed to philosophical principles, historical interpretations, or science fiction); b) knowledge of the histories or personalities involved in the convoluted ins and outs of this thread generally; or c) the wine connoiseurial knowledge of, and taste for, soap opera dramatics that would (seem to) be necessary for me to dive in here wholehearted. However.

What you're saying is that Alice did something illegitimate to Bob; Cliff came in and helped Bob towel himself off, and told him that Alice shouldn't have done what she did; but then tried to tell Bob how to avoid the type of his own, Bob's, behavior, that led to Alice doing what she did.

Yeah man, Alice shouldn't have poured her drink on your shirt, but if you wear a different-colored shirt, she probably won't do it again.

Oh, sure, I poured my soda on him - but it was because his pocket square gave me the finger; if he didn't insist on wearing a pocket square, I wouldn't have done it, so tell him I'm sorry I did it, and if he stops with the pocket square, I won't do it again.

That is the definition of blaming the victim. I mean, OK, my line about brass balls might have been over the top, and I'm sorry I didn't show greater restraint in talking about this. But please let's try not to pretend that making out like Bananaistan provoked the deletion of his/her proposal is anything but what it is. If the deletion should not have happened, then that's it. Anything coming after that full stop is by definition an attempt to shift blame onto the victim. Again, sure, it's a game, not a situation where "victim" means victim of a crime, thank heavens. But this kind of attempt to mitigate circumstances a posteriori is illegitimate in any context.

[Kaboomlandia]

A couple of suggestions that I have:

1. Move quorum proposals to the top of the queue automatically (don't know if the mods have the power to do this). This would help in giving the better proposals more visibility. For example:
Instead of (from top to bottom): quorum --> bad proposal --> bad proposal --> quorum, quorum proposals should be bumped to the top.

2. Seriously, specifically put in a rule (or add to the Branding rule) about writing in first person. It would help immensely for new writers, as the current Branding rule doesn't mention writing in first person.

3. Combine RL violations and Metagaming into one rule, similar to the SC's R4, which covers all metagaming and real-life violations.

[The Dark Star Republic]

1. Move quorum proposals to the top of the queue automatically (don't know if the mods have the power to do this). This would help in giving the better proposals more visibility.

The proposal's already reached quorum: it doesn't need visibility.

2. Seriously, specifically put in a rule (or add to the Branding rule) about writing in first person. It would help immensely for new writers, as the current Branding rule doesn't mention writing in first person.

If this rule is going to be enforced, yes, it would be simpler to explicitly state it.

3. Combine RL violations and Metagaming into one rule, similar to the SC's R4, which covers all metagaming and real-life violations.

What value would "combining" rules? All the rules are "combined" into one set of rules. Making the writing of them even more complex and counterintuitive would accomplish nothing.

[Kaboomlandia]

1. Move quorum proposals to the top of the queue automatically (don't know if the mods have the power to do this). This would help in giving the better proposals more visibility.

The proposal's already reached quorum: it doesn't need visibility.

2. Seriously, specifically put in a rule (or add to the Branding rule) about writing in first person. It would help immensely for new writers, as the current Branding rule doesn't mention writing in first person.

If this rule is going to be enforced, yes, it would be simpler to explicitly state it.

3. Combine RL violations and Metagaming into one rule, similar to the SC's R4, which covers all metagaming and real-life violations.

What value would "combining" rules? All the rules are "combined" into one set of rules. Making the writing of them even more complex and counterintuitive would accomplish nothing.

Combining RL and Metagaming would make things simpler, as there would be fewer rules to look through.

[Ikania]

Stop removing proposals for miscategorization. It's a simple mistake, and instead of punishing people and making them start over, it would be much better to just change the category to the appropriate one. I think it's completely ridiculous that these mistakes can be considered an offense.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Combining RL and Metagaming would make things simpler, as there would be fewer rules to look through.

Okay then. Forget I asked.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Stop removing proposals for miscategorization. It's a simple mistake, and instead of punishing people and making them start over, it would be much better to just change the category to the appropriate one. I think it's completely ridiculous that these mistakes can be considered an offense.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Stop removing proposals for miscategorization. It's a simple mistake, and instead of punishing people and making them start over, it would be much better to just change the category to the appropriate one. I think it's completely ridiculous that these mistakes can be considered an offense.

I think changing the category around on an author would upset them quite a bit. Thoughts?

[Kaboomlandia]

Stop removing proposals for miscategorization. It's a simple mistake, and instead of punishing people and making them start over, it would be much better to just change the category to the appropriate one. I think it's completely ridiculous that these mistakes can be considered an offense.

I kind of disagree, as people still need to know the categories. I mean, if somebody writes a Human Rights proposal and calls it Gun Control, there's going to be issues.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Stop removing proposals for miscategorization. It's a simple mistake, and instead of punishing people and making them start over, it would be much better to just change the category to the appropriate one. I think it's completely ridiculous that these mistakes can be considered an offense.

I kind of disagree, as people still need to know the categories. I mean, if somebody writes a Human Rights proposal and calls it Gun Control, there's going to be issues.

Yes but if they write something with the intent of it being an IntSec proposal and we rule it GlobDisarm then they would be quite upset I would think. To the point where they might rather pull the proposal than have it go forward.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Stop removing proposals for miscategorization. It's a simple mistake, and instead of punishing people and making them start over, it would be much better to just change the category to the appropriate one. I think it's completely ridiculous that these mistakes can be considered an offense.

I think changing the category around on an author would upset them quite a bit. Thoughts?

Why does the player even have to assign the category? Given the game stats aren't revealed to players, you're basically asking players to guess and then punishing them when they guess wrong.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think changing the category around on an author would upset them quite a bit. Thoughts?

Why does the player even have to assign the category? Given the game stats aren't revealed to players, you're basically asking players to guess and then punishing them when they guess wrong.

The category experiment is one potential solution to this problem. I'm very interested in seeing how it turns out.

[Ikania]

Stop removing proposals for miscategorization. It's a simple mistake, and instead of punishing people and making them start over, it would be much better to just change the category to the appropriate one. I think it's completely ridiculous that these mistakes can be considered an offense.

I think changing the category around on an author would upset them quite a bit. Thoughts?

Upsetting them more than having it completely wiped from the floor?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Allowing the mods to change the category is a much more useful fix than the "Resolution Editors" thing.

[Sciongrad]

When you say eliminate the hivemind, what precisely would envision the new order to look like?

I mean individual moderators that make regular contributions to this forum need to be the ones making rulings, not a group of moderators that consist of individuals that make a handful of posts in this forum annually. It doesn't really make any sense to have "the hivemind" weigh in on every decision. Kenny expressed it well here:

What is needed is one or two players, a la Hack or Fris, to get out in front of the Hivemind and more-or-less be part of the drafting process. That way, the mods have a greater understanding of the thinking behind the language and the components of the proposed legislation, and there are fewer misunderstandings and fuck-ups in the queue.

More participation is absolutely necessary, no doubt about it.

If you don't mind me asking, how do you guys plan on going about this? Will moderators that aren't active in this forum be permitted to participate in rulings discussions and remove resolutions from the queue?

[Euroslavia]

Allowing the mods to change the category is a much more useful fix than the "Resolution Editors" thing.

I like this idea.


Sorry I haven't been around to keep up the thread the last week, massive amounts of overtime have occupied my time along with a final exam prep for next week in Word Processing. Catching up tonight.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

There is discussion of an idea in the GP forum that bears repeating here: viewtopic.php?p=24368778#p24368778

Volunteer players/GA regulars (akin to "mentors" in RP communities) who advise the mods on proposal legality, have a specific aim at helping newer players understand the rules, and overall serving as a "bridge" between the mods and players.

EDIT: I realize the idea of "GA mentors" has been raised and shot down before, but this idea seems a bit more constructive.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think changing the category around on an author would upset them quite a bit. Thoughts?

Changing the category around on an author, without permission, would be a grey area, but I doubt that a minor mistake like this would be grounds for a rules violation strike (sic). Changing the category should be permitted if the author requests it.

[Euroslavia]

There is discussion of an idea in the GP forum that bears repeating here: viewtopic.php?p=24368778#p24368778

Volunteer players/GA regulars (akin to "mentors" in RP communities) who advise the mods on proposal legality, have a specific aim at helping newer players understand the rules, and overall serving as a "bridge" between the mods and players.

EDIT: I realize the idea of "GA mentors" has been raised and shot down before, but this idea seems a bit more constructive.

If I may ask, would the idea of GA mentors be superior to simply modding a couple more GA regulars? Genuine question on where you all would stand. (Personal opinion and by no means an official "We're going to mod a few more people if you guys want it").

[Sovreignry]

There is discussion of an idea in the GP forum that bears repeating here: viewtopic.php?p=24368778#p24368778

Volunteer players/GA regulars (akin to "mentors" in RP communities) who advise the mods on proposal legality, have a specific aim at helping newer players understand the rules, and overall serving as a "bridge" between the mods and players.

EDIT: I realize the idea of "GA mentors" has been raised and shot down before, but this idea seems a bit more constructive.

If I may ask, would the idea of GA mentors be superior to simply modding a couple more GA regulars? Genuine question on where you all would stand. (Personal opinion and by no means an official "We're going to mod a few more people if you guys want it").

Did you not hear the reaction the last time more GA regulars were modded? That's probably not the solution.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I am not sure if this has been raised before, but I was thinking about rewriting the architecture of the World Assembly General Assembly: a lot of new features have been added to NationStates but it seems that the GA has not kept up with the times because of the category system.

The statistical effects of future GA resolutions should instead follow the standard of issues (e.g. [stats] taxes +3, economy -6), allowing for more flexibility instead of relying on the old category system. Unlike issues however, the proposed stat changes would have to be made public.

This also raises the issue of having GA editors, but I have said that changing the category around on an author, without permission, would be a grey area. I am not sure what others think about changing the stats around on an author, instead of the category.

[Euroslavia]

If I may ask, would the idea of GA mentors be superior to simply modding a couple more GA regulars? Genuine question on where you all would stand. (Personal opinion and by no means an official "We're going to mod a few more people if you guys want it").

Did you not hear the reaction the last time more GA regulars were modded? That's probably not the solution.

I'm aware of the reaction last time, which is still why I'm asking for feedback from everyone on it.

[Greater Soviet Ukraine]

Suggestion: Create a rule of engagement for debates. GA debates should be more formal than General debates. Maybe add a few bits from the list of logical fallacies:
Here
(Strawman gets used a whole lot)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Did you not hear the reaction the last time more GA regulars were modded? That's probably not the solution.

I'm aware of the reaction last time, which is still why I'm asking for feedback from everyone on it.

I've responded to a lot of public transport consultations over the years and I was thinking whether proposing a new moderator should be subject to a public consultation like what TfL does?

Indeed I think that a selection of any new moderator is likely to attract criticism but that is not to say that it is impossible to have public consultations. Of course, common sense would eventually determine the result of any proposed selections.

In addition, I would tighten up the criteria for including proposals in "Silly and/or Illegal GA Proposals. zOMG!" I recently came to realise that this thread has the potential to put off newcomers if a honest misunderstanding leads them to being "named and shamed".

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

There is discussion of an idea in the GP forum that bears repeating here: viewtopic.php?p=24368778#p24368778

Volunteer players/GA regulars (akin to "mentors" in RP communities) who advise the mods on proposal legality, have a specific aim at helping newer players understand the rules, and overall serving as a "bridge" between the mods and players.

EDIT: I realize the idea of "GA mentors" has been raised and shot down before, but this idea seems a bit more constructive.

If I may ask, would the idea of GA mentors be superior to simply modding a couple more GA regulars? Genuine question on where you all would stand. (Personal opinion and by no means an official "We're going to mod a few more people if you guys want it").

The GA has enough mods as it is. At issue here is making them more accessible and apprised of the situation "on the ground," and not so cloistered in their Hivemind. Appointing a couple "advisers" to help mull over problems that mods have with proposals before deleting them, and also helping familiarize newbs with the complex ruleset, is just one suggestion that might help in that respect.

I think changing the category around on an author would upset them quite a bit. Thoughts?

Changing the category around on an author, without permission, would be a grey area, but I doubt that a minor mistake like this would be grounds for a rules violation strike (sic). Changing the category should be permitted if the author requests it.

Whether or not the author approves of a mod action is really not at issue if the category comprises a rules violation (an actual one).