Regarding Issue #163

[The Blackcat Isles]

#163: Referenda: Are they Right For @@NAME@@?

I wanted to make this thread to discuss something that I have highlighted a while back in a separate thread here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=471122. In this thread I had made the suggestion that the game could benefit from a Direct Democracy policy and Trotterdam pointed out that it is something that is already being tracked by the game, but not yet visible as a policy:

Whether or not your nation makes regular use of referendums actually is a policy the game already tracks, as evidenced by the existence of a followup issue (#253) that is specifically aimed at nations that do this. It just isn't currently shown on the policy page. So adding it to the policy page is certainly a thing that could be done.

However, the following bit was also pointed out to me in the same forum thread:

[SNIP]

So basically, there is absolutely no point to players suggesting policies in the fora. The game isn't built in a way where suggestions of that sort will be implemented, ever.

If you want to see a particular policy in the game, the thing to do is to write a good quality issue which depends upon a past decision to affect how it is depicted. That's the only approach that will make a change, so come over to Got Issues, and get drafting!

While I would gladly get to drafting an issue on this topic myself as I think a Direct Democracy policy would really suit the game, this brings me to issue #163 which already revolves around the subject of introducing direct democracy into @@NAME@@. I would therefore like to propose two options in regards to this, that could see Direct Democracy become a visible policy in NationStates:

1. In order to avoid duplication, the Direct Democracy policy could be added as an effect to Option 1 of Issue #163 which reads as follows:

1. "We want real democracy, and we want it now!" proclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, spokesperson for special interest group 'Direct Democracy Now!' "The fact that this latest law went through has proven that voting for a Parliament every four years is obviously not enough. Laws must be passed by the masses - that is the only way we can be sure that the will of the people is truly being enforced! We must have mandatory referenda for ALL new laws."

I think it would be very reasonable to add the policy here, as it makes the most sense this way. However, there is the problem of people who have already answered this particular issue. Either the policy would have to be added as an afterthought to their policy page, or the issue would have to be made to appear again so that they can answer the renewed version.

2. I would be more than willing to write a new issue draft regarding this subject, yet as I said the problem of duplication could pose a problem. I do however have an idea in mind that would approach the issue from a different angle, thus hopefully creating two distinct issues about a similar subject. But I would like to know if it would be acceptable if I'd write it from a different angle, or whether writing about introducing Direct Democracy would be considered duplication regardless of what angle I'd take. Because as I said, I'd love to wrote an issue draft about this, but it would be a pity if it would be rejected either way because of duplication, hence why I wanted to ask in advance. This way however, the issue would be new and therefore could be laid before any nation, with one of the effects being the introduction of the Direct Democracy policy.

What do people think? Which would be a more logical or suitable option to pick from the two I have proposed? Or is there a third alternative? If people think that the Direct Democracy policy is not needed within the game, then I'd like to hear that as well, yet, since it's already tracked within the game as Trotterdam pointed out, I don't see a reason why it couldn't become a visible policy

[The Free Joy State]

We already an option to make it mandatory to hold referenda, which is similar to direct democracy -- at least similar enough. Players can't see it; editors cannot code visible policies (that is something only the Admin can do; that would be best raised in Technical -- where you raised it before).

While you are very welcome to write a new issue, it would need to have an interesting storyline (it could not be "people want direct democracy"), and tackled from a different angle, and it may not be determined to require a different policy if it is edited (submitting an issue does not guarantee that it will be edited, although working on it in Got Issues greatly increases the chances). We don't add policies because they are wanted, but because they are needed; adding new policies is a time-consuming procedure -- we have over 1200 issues to go through and decide whether they need the new policy adding or not.

And -- even if a new and separate policy was felt to be absolutely needed by the Issues team (and referenda really seem enough IMO) -- it would almost certainly be a hidden policy.

So, if you have a good idea for an interesting issue with a cohesive story that you want to write, please write it (I recommend reading "How to Write Issues for NS" and browsing others' current drafts to get an idea of formatting first). But, as with any draft, the policies it needs would be ultimately decided by the editors.

[The Blackcat Isles]

We already an option to make it mandatory to hold referenda, which is similar to direct democracy -- at least similar enough. Players can't see it; editors cannot code visible policies (that is something only the Admin can do; that would be best raised in Technical -- where you raised it before).

Which is why I linked that very issue at the top of the OP, as I am aware that the option is already there I've also linked my thread in the Technical forums in the OP, as I am also aware that I have raised it before in the Technical forums. However, as I state in the OP, Marxist Germany had quoted the following:

Policies were initially created for backstage purposes only, in order to create more consistent narratives where player decisions later give access to or lock out other issues. They later became player-visible, but were never intended for this purpose, so they don't always turn on and off when you might expect.

New policies are added by the editing team when the issues demand it, not on a basis of a decision's notability in a nation's fiction. For example, we track the fine detail of whether a nation has dinosaurs AND whether a nation has a dinosaur theme park, because there are issues where the distinction is important. Likewise there's a code to track if players chose to personally go to ground zero in the first issue of The Enemy Within chain, as that affects some future narratives.

On the other hand, we don't track whether a minimum wage has been implemented or not, because no issue options need to check against this information. The presence or absence of a minimum wage is a much more notable feature of a nation than the things just mentioned, but notability is not the criterion by which we create policies.

For a policy to be created, it needs to have an Issue that lets you choose that policy direction. For us to code it as a tracked policy, it needs to have places elsewhere in the narrative that want to reference and track that. Also, of course, adding a new policy takes a while for each policy, as the adding editor then needs to reread all 1000+ issues to spot places where the new policy would affect existing narratives, and edit accordingly.

So basically, there is absolutely no point to players suggesting policies in the fora. The game isn't built in a way where suggestions of that sort will be implemented, ever.

If you want to see a particular policy in the game, the thing to do is to write a good quality issue which depends upon a past decision to affect how it is depicted. That's the only approach that will make a change, so come over to Got Issues, and get drafting!

Hence why I also wanted to check here.

While you are very welcome to write a new issue, it would need to have an interesting storyline (it could not be "people want direct democracy"), and tackled from a different angle, and it may not be determined to require a different policy if it is edited (submitting an issue does not guarantee that it will be edited, although working on it in Got Issues greatly increases the chances). We don't add policies because they are wanted, but because they are needed; adding new policies is a time-consuming procedure -- we have over 1200 issues to go through and decide whether they need the new policy adding or not.

And -- even if a new and separate policy was felt to be absolutely needed by the Issues team (and referenda really seem enough IMO) -- it would almost certainly be a hidden policy.

So, if you have a good idea for an interesting issue with a cohesive story that you want to write, please write it (I recommend reading "How to Write Issues for NS" and browsing others' current drafts to get an idea of formatting first). But, as with any draft, the policies it needs would be ultimately decided by the editors.

Which is why I raise the question in the OP whether it wouldn't be more reasonable to make the policy visible as an effect of Issue #163, which is already about that subject. As I stated before, I already raised the subject in the Technical forums yet there I was referred to here and now I'm again referred back to the Technical forums. It creates a bit of confusion of where to go to

[Trotterdam]

The only thing that has a decent chance of happening here is the already-existing-but-hidden policy being given a visible-to-players name and banner. The ultimate choice of whether to do this, and the work that would be required to do it, lies in the hand of the admins, not the issue editors. If this does get added, then it wouldn't require players to re-answer any issues - all players that previously had the hidden policy would immediately gain the visible one.

It is pretty obvious that #163 option 1 currently sets that hidden policy. Option 3 may or may not also do this - the fact that it's a hidden policy makes this difficult to test. #253 is an issue that requires this policy to be assigned (and gives you an opportunity to get rid of it again).

Changing any option on #163 or #253 to grant a new policy not corresponding to the already-existing hidden policy is much less likely to happen. Possibly that could happen if you write a followup issue, but that would have to be a very good followup issue which addresses some aspect of referenda not already adequately covered by #163 or #253, and even a followup issue isn't guaranteed to warrant an actual policy. (Of course, if you do have an interesting idea for expanding on the treatment of referenda in issues, it can be worth trying to write that issue even if it doesn't result in a policy.)

[The Blackcat Isles]

The only thing that has a decent chance of happening here is the already-existing-but-hidden policy being given a visible-to-players name and banner. The ultimate choice of whether to do this, and the work that would be required to do it, lies in the hand of the admins, not the issue editors. If this does get added, then it wouldn't require players to re-answer any issues - all players that previously had the hidden policy would immediately gain the visible one.

It is pretty obvious that #163 option 1 currently sets that hidden policy. Option 3 may or may not also do this - the fact that it's a hidden policy makes this difficult to test. #253 is an issue that requires this policy to be assigned (and gives you an opportunity to get rid of it again).

Changing any option on #163 or #253 to grant a new policy not corresponding to the already-existing hidden policy is much less likely to happen. Possibly that could happen if you write a followup issue, but that would have to be a very good followup issue which addresses some aspect of referenda not already adequately covered by #163 or #253, and even a followup issue isn't guaranteed to warrant an actual policy. (Of course, if you do have an interesting idea for expanding on the treatment of referenda in issues, it can be worth trying to write that issue even if it doesn't result in a policy.)

Indeed, that's what I had been thinking as well. The Mandatory Referendums is the closest thing that gets to Direct Democracy and it's very understandable that coding an entirely new policy would be very difficult/taxing.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to try my hand at executing the idea I had for an issue draft about this. Even if it turns out it would be too close to the other ones, it would be useful practice at least