Security Council Rush Decisions

[Connatopia]

I've been a member of the NationStates community for a decent amount of time now and I personally feel that everything about the website is great. I enjoy playing it and it is certainly easy to use. One minor issue that I have though is that for World Assembly decisions, voting takes place over the course of four days. I understand that this is in place to give as many members as possible the chance to cast their vote for a specific issue. However, I was wondering if it would be possible to create an option for at least the Security Council and possibly the General Assembly to allow for rushed votes than end after possibly 1 or 2 days instead of 4. In situations in which regions need liberation this could be extremely helpful in reducing the amount of time that they are under an enemy control. This would effectively reduce time between issues, allowing for more to come up, and also increase the frequency with which players ought to check the World Assembly. All of this is just a suggestion. Let me know what any of you think.

[North Wiedna]

I've been a member of the NationStates community for a decent amount of time now and I personally feel that everything about the website is great. I enjoy playing it and it is certainly easy to use. One minor issue that I have though is that for World Assembly decisions, voting takes place over the course of four days. I understand that this is in place to give as many members as possible the chance to cast their vote for a specific issue. However, I was wondering if it would be possible to create an option for at least the Security Council and possibly the General Assembly to allow for rushed votes than end after possibly 1 or 2 days instead of 4. In situations in which regions need liberation this could be extremely helpful in reducing the amount of time that they are under an enemy control. This would effectively reduce time between issues, allowing for more to come up, and also increase the frequency with which players ought to check the World Assembly. All of this is just a suggestion. Let me know what any of you think.

I doubt this'll be implemented, people are going to be mad if they miss too much legislation while on vacation etc and raiders might get mad that one of the checks against liberations (the long time required to pass) will be eliminated.

[Swkoll]

This seems like a good idea. The person submitting the legislation could have an option of the full time on the floor or half of it. I feel that there would have to be some disadvantage to the shorter time though.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This seems like a good idea. The person submitting the legislation could have an option of the full time on the floor or half of it. I feel that there would have to be some disadvantage to the shorter time though.

It's a terrible idea. They would only need to convince one voting block to go a certain way, then the debate would end before everyone had a chance to lobby/vote.

[Unibot II]

I don't like this suggestion but I think one thing that could be suggested though is Liberations should have priority in the Security Council's queue.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don't like this suggestion but I think one thing that could be suggested though is Liberations should have priority in the Security Council's queue.

Why?

[Unibot II]

I don't like this suggestion but I think one thing that could be suggested though is Liberations should have priority in the Security Council's queue.

Why?

Because by nature of their category, liberations are most important than C&Cs, if a liberation had been in the queue after "Commend Unibot II" and it looked like the community could be destroyed within eight days, I would have strongly advised the author of "Commend Unibot II" to withdrawal the proposal.

[Sedgistan]

That sounds like there's already a solution to the 'problem'.

[North Wiedna]

That sounds like there's already a solution to the 'problem'.

Not really, there's no guarantee that it'll be pulled.

[Sedgistan]

So lobby delegates to withdraw approvals.

Liberations have a significant effect, and should be considered carefully, hence the need for 4 days voting. Prioritising them over other proposals reduces politicking - something that the WA is built around. Besides, there isn't even a problem with the timing of Liberations - these are both solutions in search of a problem.

[Ballotonia]

If time waiting for a proposal going to vote is the issue, then one could always make it so that instead of the 'next in line' proposal getting to the floor, it is the one with the most delegate approvals. That way it is in the hands of the players what the order of voting is. Could be fun for competing proposals: instead of rushing to submit first (at possible the cost of proposal quality), one would have to lobby to get more delegate approvals.

Voting for a shorter time period has problems: less time to debate, and high-endorsement delegates having an even bigger voice in the final outcome. Perhaps this could be fixed by placing requirement on cutting the voting time short. For instance at least 80% approval, minimum of X votes cast, or a certain amount of support from non-delegate voters, all to indicate that the final outcome is highly likely to be the same anyway. But... is there a need for this? Can someone refer to cases where the current Liberation process was tried but turned out to not be fast enough as is? The concern strikes me as rather theoretical in nature.

Ballotonia

[Mallorea and Riva]

If time waiting for a proposal going to vote is the issue, then one could always make it so that instead of the 'next in line' proposal getting to the floor, it is the one with the most delegate approvals. That way it is in the hands of the players what the order of voting is. Could be fun for competing proposals: instead of rushing to submit first (at possible the cost of proposal quality), one would have to lobby to get more delegate approvals.

Voting for a shorter time period has problems: less time to debate, and high-endorsement delegates having an even bigger voice in the final outcome. Perhaps this could be fixed by placing requirement on cutting the voting time short. For instance at least 80% approval, minimum of X votes cast, or a certain amount of support from non-delegate voters, all to indicate that the final outcome is highly likely to be the same anyway. But... is there a need for this? Can someone refer to cases where the current Liberation process was tried but turned out to not be fast enough as is? The concern strikes me as rather theoretical in nature.

Ballotonia

I can't think of any examples, but I'll let the more ancient gameplayers answer that one. As far as your first suggestion, that would raise it's own host of problems.