[discussion] World Assembly Improvement Foundation

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

Edit 9/12/16: Due to controversy surrounding WAIF, thread modified into a WAIF discussion thread. Should WAIF exist? What is wrong with flying the WA flag?

---

We all know it's true: the General Assembly, unlike Duloc, is not a perfect place. Like Gameside, it has a lot of issues.

Perhaps some of those issues are fixable, or perhaps they aren't and we are doomed to deal with them. So my question to you is this: What do you think would male the GA a better place? I'd like at last what you see as a realistic expectation and an unrealistic expectation.

Realistically, I'd like to see a larger player base with more green players. We're a close-knit group in the GA, but that's not really a good thing. When you have only 20 or so players who have authored or coauthored a resolution in the past two years (during which time almost 200 resolutions could have potentially been passed), you don't have much variety. I've seen GE&T (probably the slowest moving forum in diplomacy) storefronts get more visitors than the GA gets players to debate drafts (I say drafts because far more players show up just to discuss At Vote resolutions than drafts). Some new blood, and I mean new players actually dedicated to the game and not just wannabe badge-hunters, would be nice. I think this is possible, which is basically why I created this account.

Unrealistically, I'd like to see an end to lemmings. This will probably never happen, but for once I'd like to see nobody voting for the next WSA or Law Enforcement Education. I'd like to see a GA where instarepeals are almost impossible because people were actually persuaded by resolution text and not mere blind voters.

[Tinfect]

Perhaps some of those issues are fixable, or perhaps they aren't and we are doomed to deal with them. So my question to you is this: What do you think would male the GA a better place? I'd like at last what you see as a realistic expectation and an unrealistic expectation.

OOC:
Realistically? A sudden burst of reasonably horrible proposals, with Authors that stick around to debate them fiercely, never quite understanding why they are going about a not-entirely unworkable premise in the entirely wrong way. It'd spur activity, and maybe give someone an idea for something decent. That, and I really like being able to utterly demolish drafts by breaking them down into tiny little pieces and smashing them to dust. Whether or not that makes it a better place, or just makes it a bit more active for a while, is debatable, but we might get some, at least temporary, regulars to hang around for a while after.

As for unrealistically, the Return of Past Regulars, Defwa and the like, and the removal of the Furtherment of Democracy and Free Trade Categories, and all Resolutions associated with them that aren't a better fit for Human Rights/A new Bookkeeping Category.

Realistically, I'd like to see a larger player base with more green players. We're a close-knit group in the GA, but that's not really a good thing. When you have only 20 or so players who have authored or coauthored a resolution in the past two years (during which time almost 200 resolutions could have potentially been passed), you don't have much variety. I've seen GE&T (probably the slowest moving forum in diplomacy) storefronts get more visitors than the GA gets players to debate drafts (I say drafts because far more players show up just to discuss At Vote resolutions than drafts). Some new blood, and I mean new players actually dedicated to the game and not just wannabe badge-hunters, would be nice. I think this is possible, which is basically why I created this account.

I wouldn't call that realistic. The GA is not widely respected, and due to the length this sort of thing has been running, it's gotten more than a bit stratified. Hell, it's a pain in the ass to pass anything controversial if you don't either run some work in the Regional Metagame, and you'll get some players that will bring the hammer down on any Repeal of their resolutions without any real criticism of said repeal, and simple attempts to break their morale by working their long history and long reach. We saw it with JT back when he was around, and, this might just be a bias of mine, but Auralia/Railiana as well. I agree that the small group of players familiar with eachother's views and styles, can cause stagnation though, it's definitely not helped that we tend to gang up on new players that show up with something particularly horrendous, and the fact that many of us, myself included, can be quite abrasive towards them, especially if we decide to handle it In-Character. It creates the image that this is a rather hostile place, even for quite reasonable people, so they don't stick around long, or bother posting all that much. I see quite a few players browsing the forum on occasion, and while some of them are certainly puppets that Regulars have forgot to log out of, I'm equally certain that many of them are new players that get scared off by the how some of us regulars treat new players, and how complex it all seems on the surface.

If new players get involved in anything, it'd be R&D, since it doesn't have any Roleplay Elements, which is almost certainly something that helps drive off new players, especially with how hard we can push established convention at times, some of them probably don't want to get involved in the middle of something long-going, as established RP Communities cannot always be all that friendly with New Players, which I've noted above. Anyway, if they do get involved in R&D, they will almost inevitably see the GA as a complete joke. I've seen too many players take it that way, and that exact mindset caused the WSA Clusterfuck that I'm getting really tired of pointing at in these kinds of posts, despite how well it serves as an example of many of the problems we're having. Further, there is a large section of the Playerbase that works entirely on the Gameplay front, avoiding both the R&D Metagame (When it doesn't force itself upon them), and the RP Forums, in favour of their Regional RMB, or their Region's Off-Site Forum or somesuch. There are a lot of places players tend to go before the GA, simply because they're easier to access than a long-running RP scene that consists of a few, often hostile, longtime players.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

Ways to make the GA a better place? I'd start from "no hiding behind undeclared puppets to stir up trouble". So, let's start from "who are you?"

[Separatist Peoples]

*snip*

Ways to make the GA a better place? I'd start from "no hiding behind undeclared puppets to stir up trouble". So, let's start from "who are you?"

How does eliminating undeclared puppets make the WA a better place? Why should the player behind the flag make any difference to what they have to say? I use puppets for this sort of thing all the time (no, WAIF isn't me), because I think its important for players to see that valuable input can come from an unfamiliar face. Do the quality of my opinions diminish for use of a puppet?

Its halfway through June. NS Summer is in full swing, but the GA forum is full of threads by regulars, with maybe two exceptions. The GA has a problem picking up new blood. It also has a problem with a bureaucratic morass that abides by more strict rules regarding overlap than any real life legislative body, the loosest RP realities players can come up with, historically inconsistent legality interpretations, and a Gameside system that is divorced from Roleplay. Even if you justify all of those problems, and you pretty easily can, that is still a breeding ground for confusion, doubt, and low recruitment. Even if they weren't, asking what can be done to improve the forum doesn't imply that the forum is in trouble.

In light of that, I fail to see exactly what trouble is being stirred up in the first place. Even if the poster wasn't an obvious puppet, but a SOVIET UNION VERSION#30589 with the new nation flag and three posts, the question would be reasonable and the poster's opinion valid.





I tell ya what, this distrust of new players is something we could all work on. I've been trying to take a large amount of bite out of my posting when dealing with new players. I don't bring it out unless they're either established enough to handle it, or being obtuse in the face of well-meant assistance. We shouldn't be looking at them as targets for bile, and we shouldn't be second-guessing their identity to discredit them.

[Losthaven]

Better rules to prevent lying in repeals...

[The Sheika]

I am going to have to go with the sentiment of treating newer "faces" in the WA a little lighter than those who have been here long enough would be something we could all work on. For the most part, I try to be polite when interacting with a player I am not familiar with when they post a draft here for two reasons; they posted a draft before submitting which is a good thing, and I try to "speak" in a supportive manner when engaging with them. For example "Hey, it looks like you have a good idea, but does it already exist?" or "Looks like you are off to a good start, but you may want to check with existing resolutions to see if this is legal".

As Separatist Peoples had pointed out, being polite can only go so far if the player is unwilling to change their stance despite evidence proven against their point. I also have no issue with puppets as a means to show that it is not just the same old faces talking around here. Dishonest? Not really, not unless they blatantly go out of their way to break the rules or advise other players to do so.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Better rules to prevent lying in repeals...

More feedback on proposals before they are submitted.

I am going to have to go with the sentiment of treating newer "faces" in the WA a little lighter than those who have been here long enough would be something we could all work on. For the most part, I try to be polite when interacting with a player I am not familiar with when they post a draft here for two reasons; they posted a draft before submitting which is a good thing, and I try to "speak" in a supportive manner when engaging with them. For example "Hey, it looks like you have a good idea, but does it already exist?" or "Looks like you are off to a good start, but you may want to check with existing resolutions to see if this is legal".

As Separatist Peoples had pointed out, being polite can only go so far if the player is unwilling to change their stance despite evidence proven against their point. I also have no issue with puppets as a means to show that it is not just the same old faces talking around here. Dishonest? Not really, not unless they blatantly go out of their way to break the rules or advise other players to do so.

Quite. I can admit I haven't been very good at this. A welcoming committee or something would be helpful. The more optimal solution would be or everyone to support the drafting of legislation regardless of their political beliefs, but that trades-off with one's political convictions. In a polarised environment, I don't see that as very likely.

[Araraukar]

How does eliminating undeclared puppets make the WA a better place?

It's often people who have gotten "burned" by one way or another that make threads like this. They view the issues very one-sidedly from their own point of view and usually through a filter of hurt pride/feelings.

Do the quality of my opinions diminish for use of a puppet?

I trust you to have enough self-confidence to stand behind your words and use either your main acc or a declared puppet.

Its halfway through June. NS Summer is in full swing, but the GA forum is full of threads by regulars, with maybe two exceptions.

Considering what NS Summer usually does to the various forums, I count that as a good thing.

The GA has a problem picking up new blood.

Yes, and complaining about it doesn't do anything to address the problem. I know I TG each and every one of the people who submit well-written but illegal proposals, and suggest they come to the GA forum to sort out the illegalities. If I get a reply back (happens less often than you'd think), I try to remember to include a "GA RP" guide to try and ease their entry into our society.

Even if they weren't, asking what can be done to improve the forum doesn't imply that the forum is in trouble.

This is one reason why I advocate not hiding behind puppets to post things like this; the forum is not necessarily

Even if the poster wasn't an obvious puppet, but a SOVIET UNION VERSION#30589 with the new nation flag and three posts, the question would be reasonable and the poster's opinion valid.

To be fair, someone named that, with that flag and that post count, is pretty much the epitome of a puppet. Because this one is using the WA flag and a name that looks semi-official, I can only conclude that it is a regular or someone who used to be a regular before they burned too many bridges.

I tell ya what, this distrust of new players is something we could all work on.
*snip*
We shouldn't be looking at them as targets for bile, and we shouldn't be second-guessing their identity to discredit them.

Yeah, except this thread isn't a drafting thread and the person posting it obviously (WA flag and official sounding name) isn't new to the WA. And in case you haven't noticed, I do try to help people who seem to be new but receptive to constructive critcism.

I also have no issue with puppets as a means to show that it is not just the same old faces talking around here.

Wouldn't using a puppet mean exactly that, though? If it's a regular using a puppet account, it's not a new face except in the RP sense.

Better rules to prevent lying in repeals...

More feedback on proposals before they are submitted.

A chance to give feedback before submission, too. Many people submit and then post here for discussion. We need a facepalm emote for those occasions.

EDIT(s) because my fingers are not cooperating today.

[Imperium Anglorum]

More feedback on proposals before they are submitted.

A chance to give feedback before submission, too. Many people submit and then post here for discussion. We need a facepalm emote for those occasions.

Hey! That proposal was up for weeks!

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

I tell ya what, this distrust of new players is something we could all work on. I've been trying to take a large amount of bite out of my posting when dealing with new players....

I am going to have to go with the sentiment of treating newer "faces" in the WA a little lighter than those who have been here long enough would be something we could all work on.

.... I can admit I haven't been very good at this. A welcoming committee or something would be helpful....

I know I TG each and every one of the people who submit well-written but illegal proposals, and suggest they come to the GA forum to sort out the illegalities....

Taking my Mod hat off for a bit.

This is something I hadn't noticed when I first started here. I certainly felt welcome, and was able to effortlessly jump right in, particularly on the in-character side of things. I think it started to change about a year or so ago; the backlash against newcomers was quite noticeable when World Space Administration was passed. Some of that went on for quite awhile, as new writers were belittled and berated (and, to some extent, still are today in the Silly/Illegal thread) for daring to refuse to conform to convention, or to cover anything that was "not an international issue! NEXT!" or to duplicate or contradict something that's already covered in CoCR, or in GAR#2, or in clause X of GAR#YYY.

My feeling at the time was, it's a shame that some of the hostility that was thrown at Bitely and his WSA cronies was also directed at every other newcomer, most of whom deserved no such enmity. That's around the time I made a conscious effort to encourage, rather than discourage, anyone who took the time to post a draft on the forums. True, sometimes they cheesed off some of the old guard with their naïveté or their failure to heed convention; I'm reminded of that whole bit between CP and Kaboom (which, thankfully, blew over as Kaboom eventually found his bearings here).

That said, I am seeing a lot less of it today. Not to point fingers, but since he's already outed himself, yes, I have noticed Ambassador Bell is a bit less abrasive than he used to be toward the newbies (he saves his hostility for the Secretariat now ). I've noticed Ambassador Leveret wielding her Proposal Scalpel^TM on drafts that, some would argue, deserve cremation and not vivisection. And, I've seen a lot less "kill it with fire"-type posts, in favor of "we can't support this, but"-type posts. Here's a good example of something that would have been laughed at or dismissed out of hand a year ago. I was happy to see the overall response, even if the consensus was "this should be abandoned".

I think we're getting there.

Better rules to prevent lying in repeals...

Thanks to a violent player revolt some well-meaning feedback, the Honest Mistake rule was re-revised. Factual inaccuracies are not allowed in repeals.

[Losthaven]

This is something I hadn't noticed when I first started here. I certainly felt welcome, and was able to effortlessly jump right in, particularly on the in-character side of things. I think it started to change about a year or so ago; the backlash against newcomers was quite noticeable when World Space Administration was passed. Some of that went on for quite awhile, as new writers were belittled and berated (and, to some extent, still are today in the Silly/Illegal thread) for daring to refuse to conform to convention, or to cover anything that was "not an international issue! NEXT!" or to duplicate or contradict something that's already covered in CoCR, or in GAR#2, or in clause X of GAR#YYY.

At the end of the day, I blame the collapse of the Int Fed movement. When we had a vibrant group of players who believed in the power of the WA to do good by passing legislation we also had players who were willing to work with new folks on their projects. Unfortunately, many of the strong Int Fed voices have lost interest for one reason or another and just faded away, leaving the primary political stance in the WA as a form of NeoNatSovism. It's not the same Nat Sov we used to have. At one time "not an international issue" was an RP way of responding to a proposal that seemed needlessly micromanage-y, or bloody stupid (Want to paint all houses green? That's not an international issue. Want to dictate the minutiae of School Board policy? That's not an international issue). But folks seem to have lost track of that and now people just shout "not an international issue" at anything they don't like and they've trained others to do so as well. It's not an environment conducive to bringing in new players when the go to reaction of the primary political ideology is to simply say "sorry, your idea for legislation isn't something we do around here."

And I am not sure anything is getting better; my habit of fading away and then coming back as a new nation about a year later gives me a unique perspective: I get to experience first hand how the active players in the forum react to someone new proposing a legal idea. While some ambassadors may be getting better, that's not true across the board. This most recent experience as Losthaven has been my worst yet. There used to be reasoned discussion. Now there's just lies and twisted arguments. Very few if anyone offers constructive criticism anymore: it's all some combination of "not an international issue" and twisting language around so that someone can later mount a repeal. My understanding is that the practice has a name now: "a convenient repeal hook." The fact that that is what we are looking for in our analysis of other people's proposals says much about the problem. No one is actually interested in helping others pursue legislation anymore. Why even have a GA forum?

I get that some players have staked that out as the way they want their IC ambassadors to represent their IC nations. They will say "It's not that I'm a relentless jerk who just wants to poo poo other people's ideas, but you see Ambassador So-and-so is just fundamentally against this and is politicking against it very hard." I guess that's fine - it's kind of the point of a role-playing game that the players get to define the dynamic. But it's a systemic problem for attracting and retaining new players. And until the culture of the group that plays this game regularly changes, the dismal pattern of 20 or so of the same authors pursuing their agenda while repealing everyone else's is not going change.

[The Sheika]

I do have to agree that Bitely and the WSA shtick did kind of sour it for me. Why, though? Well, it doesn't help when you have somebody insist that their proposal can be altered for whatever reason at any point despite being told otherwise several times. It also didn't help when you had countless others who had not even read the resolution come forward and argue in favor of it with facts that were not even applicable to the resolution. And, lest we forget, through all of it if anybody disagreed with Bitely they were part of the "elite" trying to "keep the masses down". I can't deny I went back to my region and questioned my position as their delegate when dealing with such matters.

Then the repeal had come, passed, and it was all supposed to be history. Unfortunately it didn't stay in the history books; other resolutions just like it, and I mean that in the literal sense, kept popping up with nations who were just as stubborn as Bitely. Since then I took a rather conservative stance whenever a proposal had come up. Also since then, I try to remember that not everybody understands the rules. To be fair, I am actually pretty happy when I see a proposal posted here instead of blindly submitted.

*EDIT: Started two consecutive sentences with "Since then". That was not jiving with me.

[Separatist Peoples]

At the end of the day, I blame the collapse of the Int Fed movement. When we had a vibrant group of players who believed in the power of the WA to do good by passing legislation we also had players who were willing to work with new folks on their projects. Unfortunately, many of the strong Int Fed voices have lost interest for one reason or another and just faded away, leaving the primary political stance in the WA as a form of NeoNatSovism. It's not the same Nat Sov we used to have. At one time "not an international issue" was an RP way of responding to a proposal that seemed needlessly micromanage-y, or bloody stupid (Want to paint all houses green? That's not an international issue. Want to dictate the minutiae of School Board policy? That's not an international issue). But folks seem to have lost track of that and now people just shout "not an international issue" at anything they don't like and they've trained others to do so as well. It's not an environment conducive to bringing in new players when the go to reaction of the primary political ideology is to simply say "sorry, your idea for legislation isn't something we do around here."

I've been bitter about what has happened to the NatSov movement for some time. I've been guilty of using it as a cop-out on occasion, but the NeoNatSov notion of opposing just about anything that limits member states is infuriating.

And I am not sure anything is getting better; my habit of fading away and then coming back as a new nation about a year later gives me a unique perspective: I get to experience first hand how the active players in the forum react to someone new proposing a legal idea. While some ambassadors may be getting better, that's not true across the board. This most recent experience as Losthaven has been my worst yet. There used to be reasoned discussion. Now there's just lies and twisted arguments. Very few if anyone offers constructive criticism anymore: it's all some combination of "not an international issue" and twisting language around so that someone can later mount a repeal. My understanding is that the practice has a name now: "a convenient repeal hook." The fact that that is what we are looking for in our analysis of other people's proposals says much about the problem. No one is actually interested in helping others pursue legislation anymore. Why even have a GA forum?

I have to disagree that it isn't getting better, but I also have to admit that Preventing Animal Abuse and it's repeal's have been the single worst example of obstructionist drafting I've seen in year. And not on your end. The disingenuous approach is why I've taken my ideological opposition to the concept off the table: I won't be a part of the dishonest repeal efforts.

I'll also admit that my lack of assistance stems more from a lack of free time than a malicious desire to refuse help to authors. I only get so long where I can actually post, as opposed to just reading or tucking in a one liner. So, not all of us are trying trying to be difficult deliberately. Some of us are just legitimately stuck on the sidelines.

I do have to agree that Bitely and the WSA shtick did kind of sour it for me. Why, though? Well, it doesn't help when you have somebody insist that their proposal can be altered for whatever reason at any point despite being told otherwise several times. It also didn't help when you had countless others who had not even read the resolution come forward and argue in favor of it with facts that were not even applicable to the resolution. And, lest we forget, through all of it if anybody disagreed with Bitely they were part of the "elite" trying to "keep the masses down". I can't deny I went back to my region and questioned my position as their delegate when dealing with such matters.

Then the repeal had come, passed, and it was all supposed to be history. Unfortunately it didn't stay in the history books; other resolutions just like it, and I mean that in the literal sense, kept popping up with nations who were just as stubborn as Bitely. Since then I took a rather conservative stance whenever a proposal had come up. Also since then, I try to remember that not everybody understands the rules. To be fair, I am actually pretty happy when I see a proposal posted here instead of blindly submitted.

*EDIT: Started two consecutive sentences with "Since then". That was not jiving with me.

Looking back analytically at the last two years, I think that Bitley was a clear catalyst to the sudden decrease in pH here. The WSA represented a significant negative upset to the order of things, and it was precipitated by a recalcitrant new player who manipulated the stamp system to force something terrible through. That put us all on edge against those who might do the same thing. Is it a justification? Nah. We're adults, or at least we all pretend to be. We should be able to rise above it. But I think its a mitigating excuse in that it offers an explanation and a reasonable stimuli.

[Separatist Peoples]

It's often people who have gotten "burned" by one way or another that make threads like this. They view the issues very one-sidedly from their own point of view and usually through a filter of hurt pride/feelings.

We've already seen in this thread that that isn't necessarily the case, though.

I trust you to have enough self-confidence to stand behind your words and use either your main acc or a declared puppet.

I'm always confident in my own opinions. Often to a fault. But sometimes I like to make a point from an apparent newbie. It shatters the idea that veterans are the only ones with a valid opinion.

Considering what NS Summer usually does to the various forums, I count that as a good thing.

If even the trolls avoid the toxic waters of the GA? I don't know if I buy that.

Yes, and complaining about it doesn't do anything to address the problem. I know I TG each and every one of the people who submit well-written but illegal proposals, and suggest they come to the GA forum to sort out the illegalities. If I get a reply back (happens less often than you'd think), I try to remember to include a "GA RP" guide to try and ease their entry into our society.

Sometimes they're lost causes. I'm not saying we scare away everybody, but sometimes the damage is already done.

This is one reason why I advocate not hiding behind puppets to post things like this; the forum is not necessarily

I really don't think that using puppets much impacts the value of the forum.

To be fair, someone named that, with that flag and that post count, is pretty much the epitome of a puppet. Because this one is using the WA flag and a name that looks semi-official, I can only conclude that it is a regular or someone who used to be a regular before they burned too many bridges.

Its pretty common for enthusiastic players, and a remix of the USSR is the most trite version I could think of. Even if it was UFoC or Afforess trying to pull the wool over our eyes (it isn't, I know who's puppet it is), it really doesn't take away from the value of the question posed. Ok, so both my examples are DOS, but the point stands that we ought not be judging a valid question based on the identity, or lack thereof, of the poster.

Yeah, except this thread isn't a drafting thread and the person posting it obviously (WA flag and official sounding name) isn't new to the WA. And in case you haven't noticed, I do try to help people who seem to be new but receptive to constructive critcism.

I know you do. Its more than I actively attempt, that's for sure. But there isn't any harm in a player using that flag or posting these kinds of threads, and the cultural distrust we have of that sort of approach isn't helpful.

[Araraukar]

I think it started to change about a year or so ago; the backlash against newcomers was quite noticeable when World Space Administration was passed.

I was away at the time, and several months before it, dealing with real life stuff. When I came back last year, I apparently hit the end of a very hostile period, with one clique of newer writers calling all the veterans "WA Elite" (or was it "GA Elite", I can't remember) in an effort to summon up the "occupy" mentality, and of course GA veterans responding in kind, because, well, that's how humans work. I helped to draw attention to how "WA Elite" was basically flamebaiting/trolling, and finally got the official judgement on it that agreed with that reading.

I think since then, things have been getting back towards the more normal setting, with certain people (not just you, SP) being more careful about how they approach newbies, with snark being deployed only when the new person has demonstrated unwillingness to work on improvements.

(and, to some extent, still are today in the Silly/Illegal thread)

To be fair, most people whose submissions end up there, probably aren't aware of this forum existing, and certainly don't care.

or to duplicate or contradict something that's already covered in CoCR, or in GAR#2, or in clause X of GAR#YYY.

Also to be fair, outlining why something is illegal is a way to help.

I've noticed Ambassador Leveret wielding her Proposal Scalpel^TM on drafts that, some would argue, deserve cremation and not vivisection.

Well, the flamethrower still comes out when the proposal critter has all but perished, and the nicest thing is to let it out of its misery. Also, doing vivisections on proposals is very satisfying when the week has been horrible in real life and you feel the need to go "RAAAAAGH!" at something. Better it's text than people.

and the cultural distrust we have of that sort of approach isn't helpful.

I have a "cultural distrust" of anyone trying to appear as though they were some sort of authority, without actually having authority. And this isn't just on this forum or in NS in general or even in Internet, this (being suspicious of people's intentions when they try to appear as an authority) is part of how I approach life.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think there are some more prescient root causes to things. While I don't buy that the death of International Federalism is the primary factor (I would lay the blame between that and a very certain player who trashed every single person's proposal: from SchutteGod [which was hilarious, by the way] to Kaboomlandia to myself), the cause of this, I believe, is quite clear. The World Assembly is getting older. And that means that more areas have simply been legislated upon. I believe that most everything that everyone can certainly agree upon has already been legislated at least once. The collapse of International Federalism simply has to do with the fact that the World Assembly has the number of resolutions it does now. IntFed once would have been a plausible ideology, but everything that the IntFeds can agree upon has already been done, so the project is over.

Today, there are really three kinds of drafts which predominantly appear on the forums. (1) Genuinely stupid ideas, (2) things which have already been done, and this is most everything, and (3) jokes. And the sheer arcane-ness of the ruleset and the passed resolutions (come on, there are nearing 400 of them) is one of the main reasons why nobody stays long. The vast majority of players who come to the GA forum are hit by either: political disagreements blowing everything out of proportion or a wall of 'this duplicates and or contradicts [x] GA, [y] GA, and [z] GA'. Confused and at a loss, they leave.

I recall a telegram from a person who proposed a repeal of 4 GA basically stating this. As a more personal note, a significant part of the reason why I stayed was because of two players (at least initially and back when I was using my old White Ensign flag): Auralia and Knootoss. I discussed WA paradigm with the first for quite some time. And fundamentally, I still don't understand the vitriol against Auralia. The other was Knootoss, who, posted his list of Knootian targets. I agree with the majority of those targets. And, more importantly, it was a fantastic idea trove when I couldn't think of anything. Finally, was the fact that I (like many around here) came out of the darkness around the time of the attempt to repeal 10 GA. That crystallised my own opinions strongly as it divided the community. And I will still hold that NSC should have been repealed immediately after that attempt on NAPA solely because it was used to justify such an attempt.

And that same issue has to do with what you call Neo-NatSov-ism. The only place where innovation on anything can be done is in the repeal box since there is so much to repeal and so little to legislate upon. Furthermore, new legislation suffers four major problems: (1) not everyone agrees and repeal, (2) it has already been done better and flashier, (3) it is blocked by something already there, or (4) it is an esoteric topic which most people don't really care about. If you really want to pass new legislation, the thing you will have to do most of the time is repeal something first.

Oh, and the fact that the voting masses are usually rabid NatSovs (I recall that SP called them trolls or orcs back when I was new) means that NatSov is the way to go if you want to get anything done.

[Araraukar]

from SchutteGod [which was hilarious, by the way]

And that's a good example of why I dislike puppetry. I have hard enough time remembering names as is, trying to remember the names of people's puppets is often beyond me. I can barely get the names of my own puppets right!

So yeah, if someone shows up with a name I don't recognize, they get treated as a newbie, or as a newbie-that-is-suspiciously-good-at-drafting.

The World Assembly is getting older. And that means that more areas have simply been legislated upon.
*snip*
so the project is over.

Which is why I suggested the reset. Most people were not supportive of the idea, for various reasons.

And fundamentally, I still don't understand the vitriol against Auralia.

He got caught trying to Commend himself in SC, if memory serves. I think I missed that kerfuffle too. Other than that, for my part at least, he and I are on the extreme opposite sides in certain emotionally charged issues. So I don't especially like him (I hate cheating in all its forms), but I don't actively hate him either.

If you really want to pass new legislation, the thing you will have to do most of the time is repeal something first.

Or wait that a newbie comes up with a good idea you didn't think about, but can totally improve on.

[Sciongrad]

Realistically, I'd like to see a larger player base with more green players. We're a close-knit group in the GA, but that's not really a good thing. When you have only 20 or so players who have authored or coauthored a resolution in the past two years (during which time almost 200 resolutions could have potentially been passed), you don't have much variety. I've seen GE&T (probably the slowest moving forum in diplomacy) storefronts get more visitors than the GA gets players to debate drafts (I say drafts because far more players show up just to discuss At Vote resolutions than drafts). Some new blood, and I mean new players actually dedicated to the game and not just wannabe badge-hunters, would be nice. I think this is possible, which is basically why I created this account.

I don't know if that's as realistic a goal as you think it is. Having passed 400+ resolutions, the only real issues that require legislation are esoteric policy areas that require a level of expertise and wonkiness that most players probably don't have. When the requirements for meaningful participation are so prohibitive, it deters potential players. And even if we accept that the group of individuals who are both familiar with arcane policy areas and enjoy debating them is larger than the current crop of GA regulars, we also need to accept that the GA has a reputation as cliquey, dogmatically adherent to tradition, inefficient, complicated, and generally skeptical of new players which likely deters new blood.

However, I also believe a significant portion of the blame falls on us regulars. While unthinking adherence to tradition is often times a bad thing (the fantastically absurd and totally vicious reaction to Alchemic Queendom, who dared to submit a proposal without first submitting it to the forum, despite the fact that the resolution was not only legal and original, but well written, comes to mind), it's also important to remember that the one thing that sets this forum apart from General is our rich and unique approach to roleplay. That's essentially been thrown out the window, recently. I know a lot of excellent roleplayers still contribute to this forum, but there are also a lot of players that conflate OOC and IC, participate IC only nominally, and there have even been authors that were just downright hostile to roleplay (Weed comes to mind).

I think we should all strongly consider two things. Sunset clauses (which obviously need to be applied retroactively). New players want to legislate on genocide - let them. This is distinct from a total reset, which I absolutely oppose. When Knootoss first proposed the idea, there was even discussion of a certain threshold which, if exceeded, would make a resolution immune to the sunset clause. I don't know if that's a route we'd want to go down, but I think sunset clauses in general are a good idea. But secondly, we need to make a greater effort to balance a welcoming atmosphere with a healthy dose of roleplay.

I won't even broach the topic of moderation, which is undoubtedly the primary reason for the general decline in the GA for the past several years, because I know that won't get us anywhere.

Unrealistically, I'd like to see an end to lemmings. This will probably never happen, but for once I'd like to see nobody voting for the next WSA or Law Enforcement Education. I'd like to see a GA where instarepeals are almost impossible because people were actually persuaded by resolution text and not mere blind voters.

The lemming effect is overstated. It's overcome literally all the time. Of course, you'll never find a solution to the mega-delegates or to the decent chunk of players that don't read resolutions, too. And I would impute the frequency of instarepeals to a criminally loose honest mistake rule, not the lemmings. Most players couldn't care less about the GA, do you really think they're going to meticulously compare a repeal argument to the original? You shouldn't expect them to, either. It's reasonable for them to assume a repeal is thoroughly honest in its argumentation. Unfortunately, both the players and the moderators have failed spectacularly in that regard.

So yeah, if someone shows up with a name I don't recognize, they get treated as a newbie, or as a newbie-that-is-suspiciously-good-at-drafting.

I think treating "newbies" differently is probably part of the problem - it makes the GA feel cliquey. New players should be handled more delicately, but they shouldn't be condescended to.

The collapse of International Federalism

EDIT: I'll add. I don't know if you can really claim International Federalism has collapsed when it was never really a unified ideology like National Sovereignty to begin with. There were (and still are!) players that identify as IntFed, but they never had a unified conception of what that meant, it has never been particularly popular with voters in general, and its proponents usually couldn't stand one another. The IntFed camp might have fewer voices than it had, but that doesn't mean its "collapsed."

[Imperium Anglorum]

However, I also believe a significant portion of the blame falls on us regulars. While unthinking adherence to tradition is often times a bad thing (the frankly fantastically absurd and totally vicious reaction to Alchemic Queendom, who dared to submit proposal without first submitting it to the forum, despite the fact that the resolution was not only legal and original, but well written, comes to mind),

Regarding the question of legality. I've started to hate the petty rules-lawyering that consumes half of threads. A lot of the time, instead of arguing why something shouldn't happen or campaigning, we invent BS reasons for why something is illegal and hope to get it shot down that way. This is one of the main reasons I have long-supported very narrow readings of the rules.

it's also important to remember that the one thing that sets this forum apart from General is our rich and unique approach to roleplay. That's essentially been thrown out the window, recently. I know a lot of excellent roleplayers still contribute to this forum, but there are also a lot of players that conflate OOC and IC, participate IC only nominally, and there have even been authors that were just downright hostile to roleplay (Weed comes to mind).

I can certainly say that I am not that much of a roleplayer. I increasingly view it as boilerplate. Back when I started out, I used to continually use 'Your Excellency'. But that's just massive amounts boilerplate that don't add anything to what you wrote.

I think we should all strongly consider two things. Sunset clauses (which obviously need to be applied retroactively). New players want to legislate on genocide - let them. This is distinct from a total reset, which I absolutely oppose. When Knootoss first proposed the idea, there was even discussion of certain threshold which, if exceeded, would make a resolution immune to the sunset clause. I don't know if that's a route we'd want to go down, but I think sunset clauses in general are a good idea. But secondly, we need to make a greater effort to balance a welcoming atmosphere with a healthy dose of roleplay.

I entirely agree with this. Perhaps something like 50% -> two month, and every 5% more gets an extra month. So the maximum would be a year with 100% of the vote.

I won't even broach the topic of moderation, which is undoubtedly the primary reason for the general decline in the GA for the past several years, because I know that won't get us anywhere.

I actually agree with the direction which moderation has taken. A more narrow reading of the rules increases proposal diversity and thereby allows for arguments to be made and therefore, more participation. More recently, I would argue that the NatSov rule should simply be dropped. We need to repeal more things, not less. Open the door to NatSov argumentation means we repeal them for better reasons instead of the 'flaw finding' stuff that is the source of the petty rules lawyering.

So yeah, if someone shows up with a name I don't recognize, they get treated as a newbie, or as a newbie-that-is-suspiciously-good-at-drafting.

I think treating "newbies" differently is probably part of the problem. It's makes the GA feel cliquey. New players should be handled more delicately, but they shouldn't be condescended to.

Certainly. The problem is that nobody right now knows how to implement that. And the amount of abuse has gone down more recently (since the plurality of abuse came from one player).

[Sciongrad]

...the removal of the Furtherment of Democracy and Free Trade Categories...

Why? Especially free trade, which absolutely has a role in international legislation and is appropriately used by many resolutions. It's one thing to oppose a category ideologically, but that does not mean it should be removed.

[Tinfect]

...the removal of the Furtherment of Democracy and Free Trade Categories...

Why? Especially free trade, which absolutely has a role in international legislation and is appropriately used by many resolutions. It's one thing to oppose a category ideologically, but that does not mean it should be removed.

Hey, the question was "what would make the GA Better", I gave an honest answer.
Personally, I've always felt that Furtherment of Democracy is, on its face, a violation of the Ideological Ban rule. But the way it's been used, just feels like a subtle way to stick it to Dictatorships, which, if the implications from having things like Freedom of Expression in there, must be Totalitarian and Oppressive by default, even though those resolutions are a far better fit for human rights. Most of the other resolutions in there could also be reshuffled to other categories. The only resolution that really belongs there, is Disabled Voters Act, which I've always felt was just kind of silly.

As for Free Trade, yeah, I agree with you. It does have a legitimate international role, and the World Assembly should work with it. But the way the category has been used, largely to fuck over any state that doesn't agree with market economic policy, is just not something that I'd like to allow to continue.

[Araraukar]

I've started to hate the petty rules-lawyering that consumes half of threads.

If we move to pet hates, I have a few that come to mind, and I'm sure you know - and are the source of - at least some of them.

But IA aside, recently there seem to have been grammar and dictionary wars more than anything else, which are really making many people (myself included) reluctant to partake the debate. It's one thing to want an author to define something that clearly has many interpretations, and quite another as to whether something should be written in present tense or passive voice or whether the word "requires to" is equal to "orders to", or whatever the exact wording squabble is.

I can certainly say that I am not that much of a roleplayer. I increasingly view it as boilerplate. Back when I started out, I used to continually use 'Your Excellency'. But that's just massive amounts boilerplate that don't add anything to what you wrote.

For me the RP around here is the main thing I get out of this forum. If I wanted to debate only with real life sources and quotes, I'd go to NSG. I spent years debating there, but I prefer the less-vicious, more RP-oriented GA forum. (If you think the snarky comments in here are bad, never post on General forum.)

I respect Tinfect in constructing well-thought out responses to various issues, projected through a thick RP lense. I have Araraukar's IC universe mapped out in my head (including PPU and WAKK), but as my main debating nation isn't in the WA, I tend to go lighter on the RP reality. (My "heavy RP" nation is PPU, as you all know.)

I entirely agree with this. Perhaps something like 50% -> two month, and every 5% more gets an extra month. So the maximum would be a year with 100% of the vote.

I'd make the times longer, 6 months minimum. And honestly I'd like to add a month of "live with what you voted for on" time on every passed resolution. Yes, it means we'd have to live with the really crappy things for a month at the minimum, but then maybe (yes, I know, dream on) more people would consider just what they're voting on.

Also, I'm not sure that the game coders want to spend the time to code the best before dates for GA resolutions.

More recently, I would argue that the NatSov rule should simply be dropped.

I'm mostly NatSov-oriented and at least I think that's a bad idea. A "because WA violates NatSov" one-liner should not be considered a proper repeal - even if only because it can be applied to all resolutions equally, without the repeal-writer having to even read the target resolution.

I think treating "newbies" differently is probably part of the problem. It's makes the GA feel cliquey. New players should be handled more delicately, but they shouldn't be condescended to.

Certainly. The problem is that nobody right now knows how to implement that. And the amount of abuse has gone down more recently (since the plurality of abuse came from one player).

Personally I think newbies should be treated differently from the veterans, and while I admit to sometimes being waspish (usually due to physical RL discomfort - the past year has not been good with my physical health), I try to be more lenient, explain things more, link to relevant things and occasionally follow it up with TG.

One way to make GA a better place that immediately comes to mind, would be to appoint RP mentors, people who would contact new authors, who would be willing to answer questions in TG, because even though we have the Q&A thread, it's still publicly visible to all, and thus can be a fairly high hurdle for someone who's uncertain about RP in general and the GA environment in particular.

[Imperium Anglorum]

But IA aside, recently there seem to have been grammar and dictionary wars more than anything else, which are really making many people (myself included) reluctant to partake the debate. It's one thing to want an author to define something that clearly has many interpretations, and quite another as to whether something should be written in present tense or passive voice or whether the word "requires to" is equal to "orders to", or whatever the exact wording squabble is.

I am the formatting annoyance. I don't recall making nitpicks about grammar.

I respect Tinfect in constructing well-thought out responses to various issues, projected through a thick RP lense. I have Araraukar's IC universe mapped out in my head (including PPU and WAKK), but as my main debating nation isn't in the WA, I tend to go lighter on the RP reality. (My "heavy RP" nation is PPU, as you all know.)

IA is a 1913-nation, except when arguments require it not to be... Which makes that very annoying, since we are debating so many different time periods. Another element is that RP utterly detaches arguments from any anchor of realism. Economics moves into magic and government policies are predicated on omnipotence. I don't believe we can write functional legislation if arguments are so unhinged from any conventional sense of how things work.

More recently, I would argue that the NatSov rule should simply be dropped.

I'm mostly NatSov-oriented and at least I think that's a bad idea. A "because WA violates NatSov" one-liner should not be considered a proper repeal - even if only because it can be applied to all resolutions equally, without the repeal-writer having to even read the target resolution.

Those should be proper repeals. And those repeals will get voted down. I remember back when I was proposing the Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid. A number of people voted against it simply because it was so short and therefore, did not feel like a proper resolution. So I don't believe that such a repeal would actually succeed at vote. And if it did, then it is clear that whatever was targeted really is a violation of national sovereignty.

tl;dr -> people don't vote for short resolutions. if a one-liner NatSov, which is what we're talking about, succeeds, it must really be a big issue.

Also, allowing NatSov means that we can make real arguments again, instead of finding flaws in resolutions. This decreases the annoyance of the Honest Mistake rule simply because then, people can make more free-form arguments. Also, the Description boilerplate should count as the repeals line.

Certainly. The problem is that nobody right now knows how to implement that. And the amount of abuse has gone down more recently (since the plurality of abuse came from one player).

Personally I think newbies should be treated differently from the veterans, and while I admit to sometimes being waspish (usually due to physical RL discomfort - the past year has not been good with my physical health), I try to be more lenient, explain things more, link to relevant things and occasionally follow it up with TG.

One way to make GA a better place that immediately comes to mind, would be to appoint RP mentors, people who would contact new authors, who would be willing to answer questions in TG, because even though we have the Q&A thread, it's still publicly visible to all, and thus can be a fairly high hurdle for someone who's uncertain about RP in general and the GA environment in particular.

I entirely agree.

[Araraukar]

Sometimes it's worth TGing newbies.

(Though I'd like to point out I didn't ask for any of the thanking they do in that first post. I just suggested they post their proposal here, and explained why it's unlikely to make it to quorum.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Reminds me of this document I archived:

Welcome to the World Assembly!

It's fantastic to see a new face around here. I entrust that it is the duty of the new to moderate the cynicism and aggression of the old. While I can't be like Clippy in older versions of Word and give you advice about your proposal in real time, I can give you some guiding words after the fact.

The World Assembly follows rules in its legislation. Read them. They are linked at the top of the forum and here in this post. If something is ruled illegal and has been submitted, the moderators will ding you. If you are dinged three times, you will be ejected from the Assembly. However, if you plagiarise, you will be ejected immediately.

Furthermore, to get a sense of what we do here in the Assembly, it is best to look back at past work. There is a link at the bottom to the list of resolutions passed by the World Assembly. Read a few so you can get a hand on what it is that we do and how to format your proposals.

Also, the World Assembly is an RP forum, so when you're speaking, you are the ambassador for your country to the World Assembly. So, my ambassador, Cyril Parsons, says 'Good morning and welcome!'. However, departures from RP to speak about the metagame are entirely acceptable.

Do not mind the nay-sayers who will offer quite harsh criticisms, but if something is quite wrong, do make an attempt to fix it. Usually, the 'regulars' are correct in legalities and submitting it with a call to the people will do nothing about procedural issues.

— Important Links —

Rules | Resolutions | Questions & Answers | Stranger's Bar