World Assembly Legislative League

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This is about the Game, mate.

Making pretty much unbeatable power blocs (unless you try to pass something really, really unpopular) is a real shitty thing to do and is bad for the spirit of the game.

The worst part is you treat us like sheep by getting the majority early, so the rest of the ordinary nations just vote with you.

I won't be treated like a sheep anymore.

This entire viewpoint was previously exposed as bullshit.

Good luck with your resolution writing!

…

The resolution was 'ban on ritual sacrifice.' Of course people are going to support that.

[Lyrical International Brigade]

This entire viewpoint was previously exposed as bullshit.

Good luck with your resolution writing!

…

The resolution was 'ban on ritual sacrifice.' Of course people are going to support that.

So what's your standard of falsification here then? If a nobody or noob country passed "Ban on Fun and Apple Pie" (Moral Decency, Strong) with only a delegate approval campaign, would that be sufficient? Because I'm pretty sure even WALL couldn't get that one through. Leave the goalposts where you already had them, please.

[Grater Tovakia]

The resolution was 'ban on ritual sacrifice.' Of course people are going to support that.

wrong, I believe that people should practice in whatever way they see fit.

[Miporin]

This is about the Game, mate.

Making pretty much unbeatable power blocs (unless you try to pass something really, really unpopular) is a real shitty thing to do and is bad for the spirit of the game.

The worst part is you treat us like sheep by getting the majority early, so the rest of the ordinary nations just vote with you.

I won't be treated like a sheep anymore.

This entire viewpoint was previously exposed as bullshit.

Good luck with your resolution writing!

Sample size of one. I'm impressed

[Unibot III]

Wrapper's results that rejects the Lemming Effect contradicts Starrie's findings that the Lemming Effect "probably" exists and is "effectively employed":

"We can conclude that the lemming effect probably exists and is effectively employed with early vote piling, although a larger sample size is needed in order to achieve higher statistical significance."
- Starrie.

Here is Starrie's full work for the Rejected Times that shows evidence of a Lemming Effect present...

Does "The Lemming Effect" Exist?
OPINION | STARRIE

We will look for evidence of the "lemming effect", the tendency for members to follow the crowd and vote towards the winning side, which causes early votes to have a greater effect.

If the effect does exist, we should be able to see that when one side has n% of the total votes, the proportion of new votes towards that side is more then n%. For example, the side 70% of the votes should be getting more than 70% of new votes. This effect is not expected to hold up when n is close to 100, because the population is not completely composed of lemmings.

Since the effect does not hold up at high proportions, we should see a downward curve in a plot of the effect if it exists which means the coefficient of the x^2 term in a quadratic regression line should be negative

The difference between the current and total proportion increases as the proportion of votes increases. Imagine the true opinion happens to be 50%. An early pile of 70% might cause less positive votes (60%) than an early pile of 90%, which might pull 70% positive votes. Therefore, the higher pile is more effective, but the difference in proportions of the current total (the current pile) and the newest votes decreases from -10% to -20%.

When all these conditions are satisfied we will be able to claim that the lemming effect does exist.

For all of the following charts, the x-axis shows the proportion of total votes currently going to the winning side. The y-axis shows the proportion of the newest votes going to the winning side. Each point represents a bucket of 1000 consecutive votes.

This first graph, of all votes, has the majority of points above the line y = x, which means the first condition is met. A single sample t-test gives us a p-value of 0.0141.



A plot of the residual values, which shows the strength of the effect, reveals that there is a upward trend, meaning that the effect becomes weaker as the proportion grows higher as expected. The 95% confidence interval for our plot, (-5.200, -0.749), is completely negative.



Next, we use the bootstrap method to find the confidence interval for the x^2 coefficient of a quadratic regression line drawn through the original plot. The 95% interval is from -2.49 to 2.87, with a mean of 0.42. While this does not follow our expectations, it does not seriously endanger the hypothesis of the lemming effect because it merely says the effect does not decrease as we expect.



If we look at only votes from delegates, counting all votes as a single vote, we get a p-value of 0.0003 that the points are above the line.



A regression line for the residuals also shows a general downward trend, with the confidence interval for the slope at (-1.78,-0.55). It seems delegates are not immune to this effect.



The confidence interval (-1.86, 1.01) for the coeffient is even less conclusive in this case. It does give some indication that the lemming effect exists though.



If we weigh the delegates based on their vote count, a different picture shows. Although the mean is still above the y = x line, it is only slightly above, and p = 0.6135. Since endorsement-heavy delegates may participate in early vote piling, and are therefore not affected by the lemming effect, it is expected that we've failed to find conclusive evidence of it.



As before, the regression line for the residuals is also decreasing, but the confidence interval (-2.758, 1.194) includes zero, so we do not have good evidence to suggest it really is below zero.



Our coefficient here is in the interval (-1.95, 0.35), which is the closes out of the three to be statistically significant. However, we cannot conclude that the effect exists here because it appears that the vote piling nations not susceptible to the lemming effect.


(note: some plots were done with buckets of 500 rather than 1000 votes, and that is why the dots do not match up exactly)

We can conclude that the lemming effect probably exists and is effectively employed with early vote piling, although a larger sample size is needed in order to achieve higher statistical significance.

Anecdotally, as a WA Author who passed dozens and dozens of resolutions, I have to call bullshit on the idea that vote stacking isn't a real phenomenon. If WALL is so assured that vote stacking isn't real, then they might as well abandon their efforts then? It's like gerrymanderers claiming gerrymandering doesn't work. If you don't believe in it, why put so much effort towards making it happen?

[Borovan3]

ugh math brain hurts

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

If you don't believe in it, why put so much effort towards making it happen?

So much effort to be on at update. Oh jeez how do these guys do it. Must be such an issue for them to know what time to be online.

[Lord Dominator]

I wasn't aware that Wrapper saying that the Lemming effect is overstated at best/inconsequential at worst counts as him saying it doesn't exist at all.

[Frattastan IV]

If you don't believe in it, why put so much effort towards making it happen?

So much effort to be on at update. Oh jeez how do these guys do it. Must be such an issue for them to know what time to be online.

How often are you up at 5 am for NationStates business?

I wasn't aware that Wrapper saying that the Lemming effect is overstated at best/inconsequential at worst counts as him saying it doesn't exist at all.

If it exists but is "inconsequential", it may as well not exist at all.

[Lord Dominator]

I wasn't aware that Wrapper saying that the Lemming effect is overstated at best/inconsequential at worst counts as him saying it doesn't exist at all.

If it exists but is "inconsequential", it may as well not exist at all.

Notice that 'inconsequential' is phrased as being one of the extremes, not the default

[Invertere Utopia]

Honestly, the people treat themselves like sheep if they vote a given way just to follow the herd.

I would like to make an association between this statement and the idea of "blaming the victim". Assuming the people participating in the World Assembly have done so deliberately and voluntarily, the present vote status can be seen as an indication of the will of a superior collective intelligence. I think 'voting to support what you assume to be better' is different than "following the herd". There is a lot of information out there; what is an individual to know, if anything can be known at all? Thus we are sympathetic to the apparent majority, in this and all things, believing there to be sound reason behind the things that are.

More importantly, all things are subject to time, during which expiration and revision are always available, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, ad hoc. So every election is always the most important election, but also not at all.

But also, if my hypothesis is correct, there are now two things that could be working in tandem to support whoever happens to be ahead in the polls at the time a given voter arrives: herd mentality and sympathy to superiority. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right?

This calls for a proposal: hide the current vote count until the deadline has passed! Someone else do it; I'm a nobody.

It's like gerrymanderers claiming gerrymandering doesn't work. If you don't believe in it, why put so much effort towards making it happen?

Whether or not your interpretation of those others' words was accurate, there's a mighty fine answer to that question: the same reason defense attorneys don't agree that their clients are guilty (outside of a guilty plea, of course). You are accusing someone of being a liar while simultaneously relying on the input of that same someone—who, if you remember from a few words ago, you think is lying. There is nothing to gain from saying or doing something that conflicts with your own interest, so nobody does that ever. As it turns out, you can't really tell whether anyone is being honest about anything you don't already know. Shucks.

If you practice taking others' words at face value (as words that other people said, not representations of truth/reality/fact/etc.), you'll be a lot less certain about anything but better able to deal with everything.

Personally, my interest is in being transparent, because I believe that interest will inevitably enrich my life in a bunch of other ways:

-Being seen as an honest person increases how much people like you, in my experience
-No lies to cover up; lies can take time, energy, and resources to maintain
-Improved mood from participating voluntarily in all things
-Fewer misunderstandings to correct or that will backfire; I don't smile and nod when it's important
-Additional experience in the realm of being completely wrong (and internalizing it fully), increasing humility
-More (quantity of) more (quality of) meaningful meaningful interactions with other people [increased critical chance AND increased critical damage, in other words]
-Et cetera

so I have little to no incentive to lie, most of the time, now. I regret ever having been younger than now, every new day, because I believe I am becoming a 'better person' with each one.

[Borovan3]

Honestly, the people treat themselves like sheep if they vote a given way just to follow the herd.

I would like to make an association between this statement and the idea of "blaming the victim". Assuming the people participating in the World Assembly have done so deliberately and voluntarily, the present vote status can be seen as an indication of the will of a superior collective intelligence. I think 'voting to support what you assume to be better' is different than "following the herd". There is a lot of information out there; what is an individual to know, if anything can be known at all? Thus we are sympathetic to the apparent majority, in this and all things, believing there to be sound reason behind the things that are.

More importantly, all things are subject to time, during which expiration and revision are always available, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, ad hoc. So every election is always the most important election, but also not at all.

But also, if my hypothesis is correct, there are now two things that could be working in tandem to support whoever happens to be ahead in the polls at the time a given voter arrives: herd mentality and sympathy to superiority. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right?

This calls for a proposal: hide the current vote count until the deadline has passed! Someone else do it; I'm a nobody.

It's like gerrymanderers claiming gerrymandering doesn't work. If you don't believe in it, why put so much effort towards making it happen?

Whether or not your interpretation of those others' words was accurate, there's a mighty fine answer to that question: the same reason defense attorneys don't agree that their clients are guilty (outside of a guilty plea, of course). You are accusing someone of being a liar while simultaneously relying on the input of that same someone—who, if you remember from a few words ago, you think is lying. There is nothing to gain from saying or doing something that conflicts with your own interest, so nobody does that ever. As it turns out, you can't really tell whether anyone is being honest about anything you don't already know. Shucks.

If you practice taking others' words at face value (as words that other people said, not representations of truth/reality/fact/etc.), you'll be a lot less certain about anything but better able to deal with everything.

Personally, my interest is in being transparent, because I believe that interest will inevitably enrich my life in a bunch of other ways:

-Being seen as an honest person increases how much people like you, in my experience
-No lies to cover up; lies can take time, energy, and resources to maintain
-Improved mood from participating voluntarily in all things
-Fewer misunderstandings to correct or that will backfire; I don't smile and nod when it's important
-Additional experience in the realm of being completely wrong (and internalizing it fully), increasing humility
-More (quantity of) more (quality of) meaningful meaningful interactions with other people [increased critical chance AND increased critical damage, in other words]
-Et cetera

so I have little to no incentive to lie, most of the time, now. I regret ever having been younger than now, every new day, because I believe I am becoming a 'better person' with each one.

Makes sense

[The Gilded Star]

I would like to make an association between this statement and the idea of "blaming the victim".

I don't agree with that. A victim tends to be helpless and not have a choice in their situation. No one's forced to vote with the WALL if they don't want to.

I'd also disagree that 'voting to support what you assume to be better' is different than 'following the herd' if the only reason you assume it must be better is because it's what the herd is doing. The entire point of following the herd in the first place is exactly what you explained- the rationale that they must know what they're doing.

That being said, if people don't care whether or not they're voting with the WALL, then there's not a problem. If people hate the WALL, don't throw up a white flag and join them. Go against them. Encourage other people to go against them. Spread awareness. Numbers add up, that's how the bloc was formed in the first place.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

So much effort to be on at update. Oh jeez how do these guys do it. Must be such an issue for them to know what time to be online.

How often are you up at 5 am for NationStates business?

Pretty sure WA resolutions go up at minor.

[Altmoras]

How often are you up at 5 am for NationStates business?

Pretty sure WA resolutions go up at minor.

They go up at the closest update be it major or minor. The current GA Resolution went up at Major.

[Bears Armed]

So much effort to be on at update. Oh jeez how do these guys do it. Must be such an issue for them to know what time to be online.

How often are you up at 5 am for NationStates business?

If raiders and defenders can do it...

[Imperium Anglorum]

The largest problem with this kind of statistical analysis is both simultaneity and omitted variables. If people like a resolution, they will vote in favour of it, both delegates and members. Same if they dislike one. Moreover, delegate votes are dependent a lot of the time on nation votes (e.g. TEP and most democratic regions). You would have to run some kind of instrumental variables analysis. I cannot for the life of me think of an appropriate instrument.

The real question for causality is building a model of voter choice and then calibrating that model. But due to the fact we have no metrics for resolution support other than the thing we are trying to predict, that's more or less impossible. As an economist, I would not trust any statistical analysis coming from these time series.

[Unibot III]

Whether or not your interpretation of those others' words was accurate, there's a mighty fine answer to that question: the same reason defense attorneys don't agree that their clients are guilty (outside of a guilty plea, of course). You are accusing someone of being a liar while simultaneously relying on the input of that same someone—who, if you remember from a few words ago, you think is lying. There is nothing to gain from saying or doing something that conflicts with your own interest, so nobody does that ever. As it turns out, you can't really tell whether anyone is being honest about anything you don't already know. Shucks.

This is a terrible counterexample, a defense attorney makes a case for its client because that’s their job: the act of making a defense does not indicate guilt.

Rejecting the impact of an activity (like vote manipulation), on the other hand does contradict the same coalition’s desperate efforts to enact said activity.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Whether or not your interpretation of those others' words was accurate, there's a mighty fine answer to that question: the same reason defense attorneys don't agree that their clients are guilty (outside of a guilty plea, of course). You are accusing someone of being a liar while simultaneously relying on the input of that same someone—who, if you remember from a few words ago, you think is lying. There is nothing to gain from saying or doing something that conflicts with your own interest, so nobody does that ever. As it turns out, you can't really tell whether anyone is being honest about anything you don't already know. Shucks.

This is a terrible counterexample, a defense attorney makes a case for its client because that’s their job: the act of making a defense does not indicate guilt.

Rejecting the impact of an activity (like vote manipulation), on the other hand does contradict the same coalition’s desperate efforts to enact said activity.

Which you need to prove that they do.

[Pierconium]

Invertere Utopia
-Being seen as an honest person increases how much people like you, in my experience

This has never been my experience in Gameplay.

[Lord Dominator]

Invertere Utopia
-Being seen as an honest person increases how much people like you, in my experience

This has never been my experience in Gameplay.

"I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid."
- Captain Jack Sparrow

[Invertere Utopia]

This is a terrible counterexample, a defense attorney makes a case for its client because that’s their job: the act of making a defense does not indicate guilt.

Rejecting the impact of an activity (like vote manipulation), on the other hand does contradict the same coalition’s desperate efforts to enact said activity.

"The act of making a defense does not indicate guilt. This doesn't apply to them, though, because they're guilty! Guilty, guilty, guilty!"

That's what I got out of that. Even if I'm misunderstanding something, the idea of hard-and-fast hypocrisy like that is entertaining.