Suggested Modification of WA Endorsement System

[Excidium Planetis]

Now, I don't actually agree with many of the proposed solutions. A square root based solution is one that diminishes returns for increasing work for ALL regions. It basically just shifts power from ALL delegates to ALL the masses, which as you say is not inherently something that makes the WA games better.

This is why I support the earlier proposed system of having 1+e votes until a certain limit, after which additional endorsements provide less than one vote. This allows small and mid size regions to not have diminished returns, but the very largest UCRs and all GCRs to have decreased power. We could even move the bracket point to the lowest for a Feeder, so that only Feeders (and any UCRs that happen to have more endorsements than some Feeders) would be affected.

My own preferred solutions would be the ones that deal with the unfair advantage gained from being a Feeder region. I'd suggest one of the three following fixes. Feel free to shout at me.

1) Feeder Regions get a vote penalty of -X%.

To account for the game recruiting for them, feeder delegates get their voting power reduced by a fixed proportion. This doesn't notably change the balance of power between delegates and masses, but changes the balance of power between feeder and non-feeder delegates. I'd suggest -75%.

2) More Feeders.

Allow any Region that has 50+ WA members within it to spend a big chunk of Influence to become a Feeder Region. They then get an equal share of incoming new nations.
Because this is an opt in system, no-one has to become a Feeder if they don't want to, but then nobody can complain about the unfair advantage of the Feeder Regions, as they've all got a chance to have a share of the pie. Of course, historical power will still have some momentum, but why shouldn't it?

I have a serious problem with number 3, in that it breaks up regional communities, which is unfair. If we got a roleplay community of 300 players, I don't want to see half of them leave because our community got too big.

Number 1 is alright, I suppose. But not my preferred method.

Number 2, however, is an idea I really like. The idea of allowing regions to become Feeders is a cool idea. But that's probably for another topic.

[Phydios]

EP, I thought we were arguing over the number of votes that delegates should have. Why are the votes of non-delegates relevant to that?

[Nilla Wayfarers]

By your logic, a system with an average vote of 1.499 would be completely unacceptable, while one with an average of 1.500 would be absolutely fine.

Yes.

What I'm saying is that you can't pretend there's no difference in vote just because you want to round down to an unreasonable number of digits.

[Flanderlion]

1) Feeder Regions get a vote penalty of -X%.

To account for the game recruiting for them, feeder delegates get their voting power reduced by a fixed proportion. This doesn't notably change the balance of power between delegates and masses, but changes the balance of power between feeder and non-feeder delegates. I'd suggest -75%.

2) More Feeders.

Allow any Region that has 50+ WA members within it to spend a big chunk of Influence to become a Feeder Region. They then get an equal share of incoming new nations.
Because this is an opt in system, no-one has to become a Feeder if they don't want to, but then nobody can complain about the unfair advantage of the Feeder Regions, as they've all got a chance to have a share of the pie. Of course, historical power will still have some momentum, but why shouldn't it?

3) Pro-Competition Interventions

The game sets up a system where very large regions (say 300+ nations in them) get automatically broken apart into two or more regions. This would involve moderator action, and a written policy detailing the limits of individual region size.
Given the size of the change, this would be a triggered process, with a formal procedure over a month long then initiated where two new regions are created, with names discussed and decided, and people able to move to them before the old region is deleted on a fixed date. Also, if the split region is a feeder, then the new regions remain feeders both.

I respect you issue wise, but number 1 seems just like self interest (your region would be one of the ones who would benefit the most from the first option) and the third you're forcing mods to break up communities - which won't happen as Blaat already said. A variant of Option 2 [v] and other mods have expressed interest in, but that argument is in another thread and hopefully will remain dead - had cool aspects but was just giving benefits without any significant costs.

I'm not convinced there is a problem, I don't like TNP having 1.2k votes but it's life, and if it wasn't a Feeder it'd just be a UCR instead in a bit, or an alliance of random regions (or a few guys stacking it when the votes starts, 20 votes for and 10 against is the same as 2000 for and 1000 against in terms of lemming effect). As the game grows, regions grow as well. The normal population is now what a massive Reddit/Imgur horde would cause a while back. We aren't at near 200k atm. but NS will break that soon enough once another horde comes in. The solutions here are either designed to hurt big regions or Feeders, and they aren't exactly going to fix anything. A stack still causes the lemming effect (I don't like the name of that) because the worlds votes are visible, and it doesn't matter if the stack comes from the 5 biggest regions an hour after voting begins, or 10 small delegates as the vote begins.

[Excidium Planetis]

EP, I thought we were arguing over the number of votes that delegates should have. Why are the votes of non-delegates relevant to that?

I thought we were arguing about how delegates had most of the power and the non-delegates' votes didn't matter, and that was the problem we were trying to change. Why are the non-delegates mentioned in the OP, if they aren't relevant? Why is 1 nation 1 vote an option if non-delegates are irrelevant?

What I'm saying is that you can't pretend there's no difference in vote just because you want to round down to an unreasonable number of digits.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the difference in vote between a square root system and 1 nation 1 vote system is so small as to be completely insignificant.

Under the square root system, according to the data earlier in the table, of over 6000 nations voting, including 605 delegates, less than 50 (I counted 48) have more than 5 votes. Less than 130 (I counted 126) of the delegates have more than 3 votes. That means 80% of delegates in the square root system have only 2 or 3 votes. How do these delegates influence elections with 2 or 3 votes any more than in a 1 nation 1 vote system? Does having 1 extra vote over a 1 nation 1 vote system make them any more effective?

But let's look at the probe the square root system is supposed to solve: superdelegates. The top 1% of delegates under the square root system would have roughly 22 or so votes each (I haven't updated the info, I'm just using the table). That's enough that three of them working together (as they have done before, at least three signed on to a loose pact to vote together in certain circumstances) can swing the outcome of some resolutions. By contrast, none of those 80% of delegates that have 2 or 3 votes are going to swing the outcome of the vote. Rather than taking away the power of superdelegates, you've ensured that superdelegates are the only ones with any amount of real power, however lessened it is.

If you put it in real world terms, imagine square rooting an hourly wage. The man making 10 dollars an hour now only make 3. The man making 100 dollars an hour now makes 10. The man making 1000 dollars an hour now makes almost 32. In California, it's not feasible to try and live on 3 dollars an hour. Even 10 dollars an hour is the minimum wage, for a man who was making 100 dollars an hour before (the realism of this example is a bit off, I will admit). However, 33 dollars an hour is a decent wage. A whole lot less than 1000 dollars an hour, but still enough to live comfortably. Who came out the best in the square root system? The one at the top lost the greatest percentage, but he still didn't suffer compared to those with almost nothing losing most of even what they had.

Any system of reform to the endorsement should strive to maintain the power of small delegates while decreasing the power of the largest ones.

[Bears Armed]

2) More Feeders.

Allow any Region that has 50+ WA members within it to spend a big chunk of Influence to become a Feeder Region. They then get an equal share of incoming new nations.

And then there's a massive outcry in these forums when somewhere like 'NAZI EUROPE' follows that process...
At the very least, you'd have to change that specified requirement to "any non-Condemned Region that has 50+ WA members within it".

[Araraukar]

I don't see how diluting the WA delegate's voting power would make the game better, and that should be the goal of any major change.

It would remove the power to decide votes their way from a handful of players and spread it much wider. The game's supposed to be fun for all, including voting for the resolutions, not just the ones who agree with certain 15 people. Most large regions require partaking their offsite forums to be able to affect the internal politics, which also takes activity away from NS.

---

I'll reiterate/rephrase my statement of earlier in the thread: The more complicated the formula, the less likely it 'makes sense' for an outsider/newbie, and the more the formula becomes a political item in itself, for supposed 'rebalancing' purposes.

Hence my suggestion for a simple cap rather than faffing with the math so much.

---

EP, I thought we were arguing over the number of votes that delegates should have. Why are the votes of non-delegates relevant to that?

I thought we were arguing about how delegates had most of the power and the non-delegates' votes didn't matter, and that was the problem we were trying to change. Why are the non-delegates mentioned in the OP, if they aren't relevant? Why is 1 nation 1 vote an option if non-delegates are irrelevant?

I thought this whole thing was to reduce the ridiculous power of the handful of superdelegates, not affect the votes of non-delegates?

---

2) More Feeders.

And then there's a massive outcry in these forums when somewhere like 'NAZI EUROPE' follows that process...
At the very least, you'd have to change that specified requirement to "any non-Condemned Region that has 50+ WA members within it".

A huge influx of clueless newbies could actually be beneficial in crippling the strong-ideology UCRs.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

What I'm saying is that you can't pretend there's no difference in vote just because you want to round down to an unreasonable number of digits.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the difference in vote between a square root system and 1 nation 1 vote system is so small as to be completely insignificant.

Under the square root system, according to the data earlier in the table, of over 6000 nations voting, including 605 delegates, less than 50 (I counted 48) have more than 5 votes. Less than 130 (I counted 126) of the delegates have more than 3 votes. That means 80% of delegates in the square root system have only 2 or 3 votes. How do these delegates influence elections with 2 or 3 votes any more than in a 1 nation 1 vote system? Does having 1 extra vote over a 1 nation 1 vote system make them any more effective?

It makes them twice as effective. It's not that complicated.

But let's look at the probe the square root system is supposed to solve: superdelegates. The top 1% of delegates under the square root system would have roughly 22 or so votes each (I haven't updated the info, I'm just using the table). That's enough that three of them working together (as they have done before, at least three signed on to a loose pact to vote together in certain circumstances) can swing the outcome of some resolutions. By contrast, none of those 80% of delegates that have 2 or 3 votes are going to swing the outcome of the vote. Rather than taking away the power of superdelegates, you've ensured that superdelegates are the only ones with any amount of real power, however lessened it is.

Why are you even doing this math with the square root system? My system is v = 1 + e^(3/4).

If you put it in real world terms, imagine square rooting an hourly wage. The man making 10 dollars an hour now only make 3. The man making 100 dollars an hour now makes 10. The man making 1000 dollars an hour now makes almost 32. In California, it's not feasible to try and live on 3 dollars an hour. Even 10 dollars an hour is the minimum wage, for a man who was making 100 dollars an hour before (the realism of this example is a bit off, I will admit). However, 33 dollars an hour is a decent wage. A whole lot less than 1000 dollars an hour, but still enough to live comfortably. Who came out the best in the square root system? The one at the top lost the greatest percentage, but he still didn't suffer compared to those with almost nothing losing most of even what they had.

Using a square root system for delegate votes is in no way comparable to using one for hourly wages. And again, you're using the wrong method. Use mine.

Any system of reform to the endorsement should strive to maintain the power of small delegates while decreasing the power of the largest ones.

...which mine does. If you look at the data I provided in the OP, the current system gives 58.3-32.1 = 26.2% of the vote to delegates apart from the top 10. Under my system, those same smaller delegates get 37.2-11.4 = 25.8% of the vote.
I think that's pretty close.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

For the sake of keeping people updated on the poll results, here's what the vote looks like if we separate the vote into three categories:
Nilla System ( v = 1 + e^(3/4), both houses )
Current System ( v = 1 + e, both houses )
Other (all other systems in the polls)
This chart includes the results from the poll previous to the current one.

[Aclion]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the difference in vote between a square root system and 1 nation 1 vote system is so small as to be completely insignificant.

This simply is not true.

[Excidium Planetis]

It makes them twice as effective. It's not that complicated.

Two times almost nothing is still almost nothing.

Why are you even doing this math with the square root system? My system is v = 1 + e^(3/4).

Because I wasn't talking about your system. When I said it was 1 nation 1 vote, I was talking about the square root system, in response to SP supporting it.

Using a square root system for delegate votes is in no way comparable to using one for hourly wages. And again, you're using the wrong method. Use mine.

I wasn't talking about your system, so I wasn't "using the wrong system". I was criticizing the square root system, which, if you hadn't noticed, there are still people supporting over your "not wrong" system.

And your system still suffers the same problems as the square root system, it just makes those problems smaller.

...which mine does. If you look at the data I provided in the OP, the current system gives 58.3-32.1 = 26.2% of the vote to delegates apart from the top 10. Under my system, those same smaller delegates get 37.2-11.4 = 25.8% of the vote.
I think that's pretty close.

Close, but it is still reducing the power of small delegates. The system I advocate actually increases the percentage of the vote held by both regular voters and small delegates while reducing it for large delegates.

[Excidium Planetis]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the difference in vote between a square root system and 1 nation 1 vote system is so small as to be completely insignificant.

This simply is not true.

It is when you put in in scale with how many endorsements delegates may realistically have.
Does this look like a compromise?

[Aclion]

This simply is not true.

It is when you put in in scale with how many endorsements delegates may realistically have.
Does this look like a compromise?

The vast majority of delegates will never have anywhere near that number of endorsements so I'm not sure what's realistic about it.
Anyway my point has nothing to do with compromise I'm merely point out that the claim that the function y=1+√x is comparable to y=1(or any value) is not true. It merely approaches a linear function as you get progressively larger values for x.

As for compromise It's not that hard to modify. I agree that nilla's system isn't perfect but personally think that finding a perfect system is something that should wait until there is agreement that we should ask the broader community if the current system ought to be changed.

Ultimately I don't think a function would be used anyway since it would be easier to just make a lookup table.(especially for a process that has to be repeated every time someones changes an endorsement.)

[Nilla Wayfarers]

It makes them twice as effective. It's not that complicated.

Two times almost nothing is still almost nothing.

It's twice as much, so it's twice as far away from nothing. That can't be ignored.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

1) Feeder Regions get a vote penalty of -X%.

To account for the game recruiting for them, feeder delegates get their voting power reduced by a fixed proportion. This doesn't notably change the balance of power between delegates and masses, but changes the balance of power between feeder and non-feeder delegates. I'd suggest -75%.

I respect you issue wise, but number 1 seems just like self interest (your region would be one of the ones who would benefit the most from the first option) and the third you're forcing mods to break up communities - which won't happen as Blaat already said. A variant of Option 2 [v] and other mods have expressed interest in, but that argument is in another thread and hopefully will remain dead - had cool aspects but was just giving benefits without any significant costs.

Good point, good point. Though I'd say its actually in the interests of ALL delegates other than the Feeder delegates. I can move regions if you feel I'm stating this from a position of bias, as I have no special attachment to 10,000 Islands. I move around a lot.

In fact, there you go, I just moved to The West Pacific. Now option 1 is against my interests, right?

So, aside from apparent self interest, what was your argument against #1 again?

[The Anti-Social Socialists]

I respect you issue wise, but number 1 seems just like self interest (your region would be one of the ones who would benefit the most from the first option) and the third you're forcing mods to break up communities - which won't happen as Blaat already said. A variant of Option 2 [v] and other mods have expressed interest in, but that argument is in another thread and hopefully will remain dead - had cool aspects but was just giving benefits without any significant costs.

Good point, good point. Though I'd say its actually in the interests of ALL delegates other than the Feeder delegates. I can move regions if you feel I'm stating this from a position of bias, as I have no special attachment to 10,000 Islands. I move around a lot.

In fact, there you go, I just moved to The West Pacific. Now option 1 is against my interests, right?

So, aside from apparent self interest, what was your argument against #1 again?

I was actually wondering if your penalty idea could be balanced by applying it to all delegates as follows: Delegates receive votes based upon both their endorsement count, and the proportion of the total population (be it just WA, or net population for a region). Using the former option, say, in a region in which 100 out of 200 WA members endorse the delegate, v would equal (100*(100/200)), or simply 50, so as to target inactivity or divides in a region, rather than just the feeders for being feeders.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Good point, good point. Though I'd say its actually in the interests of ALL delegates other than the Feeder delegates. I can move regions if you feel I'm stating this from a position of bias, as I have no special attachment to 10,000 Islands. I move around a lot.

In fact, there you go, I just moved to The West Pacific. Now option 1 is against my interests, right?

So, aside from apparent self interest, what was your argument against #1 again?

I was actually wondering if your penalty idea could be balanced by applying it to all delegates as follows: Delegates receive votes based upon both their endorsement count, and the proportion of the total population (be it just WA, or net population for a region). Using the former option, say, in a region in which 100 out of 200 WA members endorse the delegate, v would equal (100*(100/200)), or simply 50, so as to target inactivity or divides in a region, rather than just the feeders for being feeders.

Nice!

The main downside with that is that many regions wouldn't welcome puppet nations because of that. Best formula might be:

Delegate vote bonus = (endorsements) x (endorsements/WA members in region)

That system, of course, might lead to less democratic regions being more forceful in saying that WA members have to endorse the delegate, but that's just social dynamics, regions can work out that for themselves.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's worth remembering that game admins won't want an option that leaves a variabl up for debate. That's why the square root system has been favored so far by the admins who have commented.

I think the system described above leaves a lot open for debate. It would heavily penalize GCRs (as they have a relatively difficult time coordinating players), and Gameplay regions (as many of their WA members are mobile for raiding and defending, and may not be endorsing the delegate between missions). It would heavily favor non-Gameplay UCRs.

On the other hand, the square root system applies equally across the board.

[The Anti-Social Socialists]

I was actually wondering if your penalty idea could be balanced by applying it to all delegates as follows: Delegates receive votes based upon both their endorsement count, and the proportion of the total population (be it just WA, or net population for a region). Using the former option, say, in a region in which 100 out of 200 WA members endorse the delegate, v would equal (100*(100/200)), or simply 50, so as to target inactivity or divides in a region, rather than just the feeders for being feeders.

Nice!

The main downside with that is that many regions wouldn't welcome puppet nations because of that. Best formula might be:

Delegate vote bonus = (endorsements) x (endorsements/WA members in region)

That system, of course, might lead to less democratic regions being more forceful in saying that WA members have to endorse the delegate, but that's just social dynamics, regions can work out that for themselves.

Just a slight tweak on that one. Since the delegate can't endorse themselves, a rule of v=e((endos of delegate) +1)/(total WA members in region) +1 will allow proportionality, the opportunity to achieve 100% on the endorsement rule, and still allow the delegate's individual vote to count.

[Frisbeeteria]

Delegates receive votes based upon both their endorsement count, and the proportion of the total population (be it just WA, or net population for a region)

That's a really slick suggestion, but it may be more difficult than you think to implement. Right now, I don't believe the WA vote counter pays any attention to your home region if you aren't a Delegate. Your suggestion would require an extensive regional census and vote count to be added to WA voting, which would complicate things a lot more than any other suggestion so far.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So, because I hate peace and quiet, I've been hanging around The West Pacific and talking about this conversation.

Unsurprisingly, most people there aren't keen on a change in the system.

One interesting thing, however, was a new player nation (founded 2 days ago) admitting that they endorsed the delegate because they thought they were expected to.

I won't name that nation, as it's not fair to make a new player into a political football here, but I'd like to hold that up as an example of how feeder nations receive endorsements by virtue of being feeder nations, NOT because of the hard work of their delegates.

There's a systemic inequality in place here, where feeder delegates are fed voting power.

Does this matter? Well, that's for others to decide, but I think it's important to establish that that inequality exists. It's clearly a myth to say Feeder Delegates have earned all the power they have. No doubt they've worked very hard to become delegates, but once in that position, a lot of their voting power just comes from endorsers who think they have to endorse.

The endorsement policy here:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=607754

...basically is the direction for all new players to endorse the delegate. No, it doesn't say they're obliged to. But it does make it massively likely that new players will do so.

This is why I'm in favour of a change to the system.


edit: And unsurprisingly, I've now been banjected from TWP. I don't think they liked me explaining to newbies there that they're not obliged to vote for the delegate.

[Yy4u]

So, because I hate peace and quiet, I've been hanging around The West Pacific and talking about this conversation.

Unsurprisingly, most people there aren't keen on a change in the system.

One interesting thing, however, was a new player nation (founded 2 days ago) admitting that they endorsed the delegate because they thought they were expected to.

I won't name that nation, as it's not fair to make a new player into a political football here, but I'd like to hold that up as an example of how feeder nations receive endorsements by virtue of being feeder nations, NOT because of the hard work of their delegates.

There's a systemic inequality in place here, where feeder delegates are fed voting power.

Does this matter? Well, that's for others to decide, but I think it's important to establish that that inequality exists. It's clearly a myth to say Feeder Delegates have earned all the power they have. No doubt they've worked very hard to become delegates, but once in that position, a lot of their voting power just comes from endorsers who think they have to endorse.

The endorsement policy here:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=607754

...basically is the direction for all new players to endorse the delegate. No, it doesn't say they're obliged to. But it does make it massively likely that new players will do so.

This is why I'm in favour of a change to the system.


edit: And unsurprisingly, I've now been banjected from TWP. I don't think they liked me explaining to newbies there that they're not obliged to vote for the delegate.

Our policy clearly indicates this is encouraged and not obligatory.
Our region clearly has more WA total than is currently endorsing the delegate.
Making it 'massively likely' is part of the dynamics employed by delegates to get those 'earned' endorsements, part of the game as it stands and by no means is insurance that said endorsements will be given.
The 'bias' clearly falls on the individual delegate to 'insure' that all possible endorsements are received, thus 'earned'.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So, I note you've booted and banned me from your region, deleted my posts, and now you're encouraging nations to file a GHR?

That's a real mature way to handle a debate, guys.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

So, I note you've booted and banned me from your region, deleted my posts, and now you're encouraging nations to file a GHR?

That's a real mature way to handle a debate, guys.

As it appears that your sole intention was to stir we've suppressed your posts, we can't delete them. A nation asked about your posts so we told him what to do, did not encourage.

You've had exactly the same treatment we would expect if we went to 10KI and abused their hospitality.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It's your prerogative to eject, ban and delete as you choose. I'm just surprised that was the only counter-argument you could muster.

Fortunately for me, it requires moderator privilege to do the same in this thread. So, let's address the counter-arguments presented.

Our policy clearly indicates this is encouraged and not obligatory.
Our region clearly has more WA total than is currently endorsing the delegate.
Making it 'massively likely' is part of the dynamics employed by delegates to get those 'earned' endorsements, part of the game as it stands and by no means is insurance that said endorsements will be given.
The 'bias' clearly falls on the individual delegate to 'insure' that all possible endorsements are received, thus 'earned'.

If your policy is so clear, why did the new nation I mention think that he was "supposed to" endorse the delegate?

If there's no advantage in being a Feeder delegate, why do they have so many more votes than non-Feeder delegates? Do you really believe that none of this is from being a Feeder delegate? Do you truly believe that every endorsement they have is "earned"? I draw you back to the analogy of the Queen of England. Does she work hard? Yes. But has she earned all the wealth she owns? No.

If the Delegate is the representative of your region's voters, why is it that he is voting in favour of a WA resolution that 75% of your region's voters are voting against?

To be clear here, to me, the delegate of TWP is basically the head of an elite gang (the Guardians). There's an illusion of meritocracy in place, but essentially its power begetting power. There's no way for a new nation to overcome the momentum and strength of the powers-that-be, and the established order.
But then, there's no reason there should be. NS is a world simulator, and in the world there are established power blocs.

However, one thing that we don't have to have is a game system that perpetuates this inequality. I think that the inequality makes the game less enjoyable for a majority of players. Therefore I think that the game design administrators should change the game.

I accept any argument based on the game being better with the status quo, but so far, all I see are claims that the status quo should be preserved because it is the status quo, and the fallacious notion that Feeder delegates "earned" the power they have.

Acknowledge that it's an unjust system, and then please convince me that the game is more fun with an unjust system in place.

However, please don't resort to dirty tricks like misusing GHRs to attack the arguer rather than the argument. That's wasting the moderators time, and frankly they're busy enough as it is. And don't even try to claim that you're not encouraging GHRs. You posted a link to your RMB, and actively suggested this could be done.

Ad hominem positioning just makes it look as if you have no arguments to make. Argue the issue, not the person, please.