A Supermajority?

[Rolamec]

I have wondered if the World Assembly should begin requiring that commendations, condemnations, and liberations should have a supermajority (66% or more) to become WA law.

I feel it is unjust that commendations, condemnations, and liberations, have been thrown our there right and left. The World Assembly is a neutral organization, and it shouldn't be a mere tool of the majority, whether it be invader or defender. The reason why 10,000 Islands didn't desire a commendation is because it is far too involvd in NS politics to receive a prestigious honor from a so called neutral organization. Just like the condemnation of Grub (which didn't pass) would have been a fundamentally wrong resolution.

After all the Security Council is holding this great power in it's hands, should that power be susceptible to the will of the majority, which changes all the time?

Please share your thoughts.

[Grays Harbor]

interesting idea. Not a good one, but interesting. would also require a change in game mechanics to do. One thing, it would pretty much guarantee nothing ever gets passed and make the WA even weaker than it is now, perhaps even weaker than the RL organization which cannot be named.

[Cinistra]

Maybe an increase in the number of approvals for proposals would help? With only 6% of the WA delegates needed for approving, it's quite easy to get a proposal through the system. However, isn't this a game mechanics related topic? Shouldn't it be moved elsewhere?

[Sedgistan]

We don't have an overload of proposals, and several C&C resolutions have been voted down recently. I don't see the problem with the current voting thresholds.

[Kandarin]

I feel it is unjust that commendations, condemnations, and liberations, have been thrown out there right and left. The World Assembly is a neutral organization, and it shouldn't be a mere tool of the majority, whether it be invader or defender. The reason why 10,000 Islands didn't desire a commendation is because it is far too involved in NS politics to receive a prestigious honor from a so called neutral organization. Just like the condemnation of Grub (which didn't pass) would have been a fundamentally wrong resolution.

10,000 Islands argued extensively against the removal of their Commendation and have been involved in the drafting of a new one. At no point did they claim that the SC was a "neutral organization", nor attempt to turn down an honor.

I am curious which SC resolutions you believe were "thrown out there right and left" and would have been prevented by higher requirements.

[Rolamec]

My apologies about where to put this.

I think essentially that if not many commendations, condemnations, and liberations (CCL) pass, than the game will be better overall. These practices should be used rarely, for example a region to receive a commendation/condemnation should have nearly universal international approval, it shouldn't just pass by a slim margin. Neither should liberations. I am not saying all resolutions should pass in this manner, most certainly not everyday ones from human rights to a international postal service. But I am against having the World Assembly act as a third arm for whatever majority may be in power (whether it be invader or defender). It is suppose to be a neutral region, a reflection where all nations can come together and prepose resolutions to benefit all of NationStates.

The problem we are seeing today is the World Assembly has essentially become a very dangerous tool of the demos, to the point where its near anarchy. Democracy is a great thing, but in its absolute form it is only a step above anarchy. And the World Assembly is exactly that...its an absolute democratic body. In real life the organization which shall not be named, is not perfect, but its current setup is to ensure that no one nation abuses the entire thing. Unfortunately some other nations will threaten to withold funds, also only some nations can be on the Security Council, while others cannot. BUT THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN THIS GAME, there are no funds that can be witheld by bigger nations, nor are only a select group of regions able to vote in the security council. Therefore to compare this organization to the one that will not be named (Yes, I'm spoofing the whole Voldemort thing) cannot be done. The general problems the real organization faces to this one are not the same.

Since I know many NSers are students of history, let me go into there (this is why I thought it belonged in the Security Council area, perhaps General discuss., I was more interested on a debate of supermajorities, safeguards against democracy, than actual technical stuff).
During Peloponnesian War, ten treasurers in the Delian League were accused of embezzlement, and systematically executed one after the other, until one was only left, an accounting error was discovered, and the last individual acquitted. This was perfectly legal and in a sense can be seen to be legal in this game as well.

At the moment we have attempted to condemn Grub, the Axis of Evil, Aegera, and we have condemned Nazi Europe. Whatever our feelings may be towards these individuals, is it right to condemn them? Did they try to hijack the game? Did they try to hack a moderator's account or another prominent individual and were caught in the act? To simply condemn them because they are defender, or because they are invader, because they decided to repeal a biased commendation, is an abuse of the system, and a mockery of what this organization should be. Furthermore we are using this privilege to liberate numerous regions where international support is simply a majority, such as the Jedi Council and Utopia. I favored the liberation of Belgium that was a historical region and it was essential that it be preserved in NS history, but the Jedi Council and Utopia? That is just defenders coming together to garner enough votes, and using the simply majority to abuse the system.

So I guess that is my "right and left" comment.

Overall I think it would be beneficial that the World Assembly resolutions in regards to CCL meet and achieve a clear international support. These resolutions shouldn't be a mere reflection of the majority wills, but what most people do. In a way this doesn't protect the minority, but it places a stronger safeguard, in hopes that less abuse shall come from it.

[Enn]

What you're proposing as reasons for condemnation are, in fact, not grounds we are allowed to condemn on.

I would also point out that yes, people have tried to condemn several nations/regions. And they have failed. Where's the willy-nilly tossing out of condemnations? Or commendations either, they're even fewer on the ground.

There's also the fact that C&Cs don't actually affect anything. All they do is give a nation/region a shiny new badge. This has lead to at least one attempt by a nation to get a Condemnation of itself in a strange twist of pride.

Liberations are somewhat of a different matter, but I don't really think we've truly seen them just get handed out either. Each attempt has had a lengthy argument attached in justification.

For a final point: You talk about the WA having an Invader or defender majority. I don't believe it does. I think the WA has a 'playing the game purely for the issues' majority, who drive resolutions mainly based on a lemming factor.

[Cinistra]

We don't have an overload of proposals, and several C&C resolutions have been voted down recently. I don't see the problem with the current voting thresholds.

Yes, I think we have. When I see all the proposals submitted, many of them are poorly written.

[Sedgistan]

And few of those make it to vote.

[Cinistra]

And few of those make it to vote.

Yes, but those who do often triggers a repeal. Poor grammar is an argument that returns in those repeals. If it was somewhat more difficult to submit a proposal, there probably would be less bureaucracy.

[Enn]

When I first started, it was rare for the proposal list to be shorter than 10 pages. You needed more than 150 endorsements for a proposal to get to quorum. Plus we didn't have those pesky repeals mucking things up, let alone this SC business.

So no, I definitely cannot see this as any sort of 'overload' of proposals.

[Sedgistan]

And few of those make it to vote.

Yes, but those who do often triggers a repeal. Poor grammar is an argument that returns in those repeals. If it was somewhat more difficult to submit a proposal, there probably would be less bureaucracy.

Should've expanded - 'and few of those make it to a vote', and even less of them pass. Perhaps a few examples would help your case.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

interesting idea. Not a good one, but interesting. would also require a change in game mechanics to do. One thing, it would pretty much guarantee nothing ever gets passed and make the WA even weaker than it is now, perhaps even weaker than the RL organization which cannot be named.

The UN, I guess.

A super-majority is indeed feasible to implement with a bit of maths, but considering that only a selection out of many proposals get submitted every day make it to the voting floor, it is unlikely to make any difference other than getting more resolutions defeated. Therefore, a simple majority should do for now.

[Rolamec]

I disagree however. Condemnations/commendations/liberations are things that should not be left to a simple majority, after all a simple majority is dangerous, it can be subject to public opinion, and emotions. Rather than rational thought.

The example I gave in regards to Greece, specifically Athens, should be noted. We should not pass a resolution will will regret later. Even with a supermajority, there are not any promises this won't happen. But its better to be safe than sorry.

[Kandarin]

I think that there's been some misunderstanding of Liberations lately. Admittedly, some of that is on the part of the people trying to use them, but that's just more reason why we need to sort it out.

Liberations aren't there as a weapon for defenders should they get the majority. They aren't there as a weapon for invaders should they somehow get the majority either. Liberations were put in the game for the purpose of countering the tactic of locking down and trophying regions. It isn't a question of whether invaders or defenders are in the majority, since even most of those who would otherwise support (or are) regular invaders consider password-locking regions and making trophies out of them to be contemptible. Those who say that Liberations used against this sort of tactic are somehow breaking the rules or violating the spirit of the game are missing the point, since setting up a tool for opposing that tactic is precisely the reason the admins gave for putting it into the game. Those who try to use Liberations against regular invasions by groups that don't take trophies are likewise missing the point...but it is possible for the usage of Liberations to be expanded.

[Rolamec]

I think that there's been some misunderstanding of Liberations lately. Admittedly, some of that is on the part of the people trying to use them, but that's just more reason why we need to sort it out.

Liberations aren't there as a weapon for defenders should they get the majority. They aren't there as a weapon for invaders should they somehow get the majority either. Liberations were put in the game for the purpose of countering the tactic of locking down and trophying regions. It isn't a question of whether invaders or defenders are in the majority, since even most of those who would otherwise support (or are) regular invaders consider password-locking regions and making trophies out of them to be contemptible. Those who say that Liberations used against this sort of tactic are somehow breaking the rules or violating the spirit of the game are missing the point, since setting up a tool for opposing that tactic is precisely the reason the admins gave for putting it into the game. Those who try to use Liberations against regular invasions by groups that don't take trophies are likewise missing the point...but it is possible for the usage of Liberations to be expanded.

Look. I'm not disagreeing with that sentiment. I think liberations have a purpose, in that, as you say, regions that are invaded and than showcased around, is cruel towards the natives that once resided there, and poor sportsmanship towards defenders. I don't disagree, for example, that Belgium should have been liberated.

But the problem is that the feature has been abused to not only target invaders that are abusing conquest (insulting natives and defenders alike), as it should be, but towards regions that are invading, and promise hope afterwards. Not holding the region hostage and spitting in the face of those that they defeated, but simply just invading, refounding it, and reopening it. At that point, it has indeed been abused.

Which is why we need a super majority in these decisions. Any liberation should meet overwhelming support, as should condemnations and commendations. The Security Council shouldn't be a mere tool of any majority, its a representation and active arm of defenders and invaders alike. But lately has been misused by both sides.

[The Archiepelago]

I have wondered if the World Assembly should begin requiring that commendations, condemnations, and liberations should have a supermajority (66% or more) to become WA law.

I feel it is unjust that commendations, condemnations, and liberations, have been thrown our there right and left. The World Assembly is a neutral organization, and it shouldn't be a mere tool of the majority, whether it be invader or defender. The reason why 10,000 Islands didn't desire a commendation is because it is far too involvd in NS politics to receive a prestigious honor from a so called neutral organization. Just like the condemnation of Grub (which didn't pass) would have been a fundamentally wrong resolution.

After all the Security Council is holding this great power in it's hands, should that power be susceptible to the will of the majority, which changes all the time?

Please share your thoughts.

Ehh. Why not. It shouldn't be left to one thing to be in control of the fate of a lot of things. The majority should also have a say in that power. i guess..my opinion.lol.

[Bears Armed]

I have wondered if the World Assembly should begin requiring that commendations, condemnations, and liberations should have a supermajority (66% or more) to become WA law.

I feel it is unjust that commendations, condemnations, and liberations, have been thrown our there right and left. The World Assembly is a neutral organization, and it shouldn't be a mere tool of the majority, whether it be invader or defender. The reason why 10,000 Islands didn't desire a commendation is because it is far too involvd in NS politics to receive a prestigious honor from a so called neutral organization. Just like the condemnation of Grub (which didn't pass) would have been a fundamentally wrong resolution.

After all the Security Council is holding this great power in it's hands, should that power be susceptible to the will of the majority, which changes all the time?

Please share your thoughts.

Ehh. Why not. It shouldn't be left to one thing to be in control of the fate of a lot of things. The majority should also have a say in that power. i guess..my opinion.lol.

No, they should just give me absolute power instead...

[Topid]

And few of those make it to vote.

Yes, but those who do often triggers a repeal. Poor grammar is an argument that returns in those repeals. If it was somewhat more difficult to submit a proposal, there probably would be less bureaucracy.

Sedge is right. So what if millions are proposed? None make it to quorum... And there hasn't been a horrible resolution in a while, they are getting better. If you look back to the GA's start, the first few UN Resolutions were crap too. Delegates and authors were just badge happy for the first bit.

This idea would be less awful if every single C&C that has gone up had passed. FACT:

Since the creation of the WA in April 2008 only the following resolutions failed in the GA: Ways and Means, Prohibit Child Porn, Repeal Neutrality of Nations, Repeal Nuclear Arms Possession Act, Repeal Access to Science in Schools, Trade Enhancement Act, Fairness in Currency Exchange, First Tort Reform Act, (9 total)

Since June 2009 when SC was released the following have failed: Condemn Gatesville, Commend Equilism, Commend Jey, Repeal Condemn NAZI EUROPE, Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe II, Condemn Grub, Commend Anti World Assembly, Condemn Ageara, Condemn The Axis of Evil, (9 total)

So basically we are looking at the SC, which has passed 57% of the resolutions at vote, and the GA which has passed 89% of all the resolutions at vote. Does that not tell you something?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

So basically we are looking at the SC, which has passed 57% of the resolutions at vote, and the GA which has passed 89% of all the resolutions at vote. Does that not tell you something?

That GA resolutions tend to be more well-written and the voters have a higher tendency to pass them?

[Topid]

So basically we are looking at the SC, which has passed 57% of the resolutions at vote, and the GA which has passed 89% of all the resolutions at vote. Does that not tell you something?

That GA resolutions tend to be more well-written and the voters have a higher tendency to pass them?

The SC has been very effective at weeding out bad resolutions that WA members do not agree with so far.

It seems to me the two resolutions targeted so far in this thread is the one with grammar/spelling mistakes: Commend 10kI, that resolution would have earned a 'supermajority' because it got over 66%; and Condemn NAZI EUROPE which is the ONLY SC resolution that passed below this 'supermajority' line (not very super). And after two repeals shot down by vast majorities, I think we have to assume that for now it is the will of the majority of World Assembly voters to keep that resoution because it meets their standards. Maybe this arguement would have some validity if there had been a lot of successful repeals in the SC due to errors in the text of the resolution... But other than liberations (which are repealed for other reasons) the GA has had more successful repeals since the SC came to be than the SC.

[Jey]

The SC has been very effective at weeding out bad resolutions that WA members do not agree with so far.

Heh, that's "debatable," to say the least.

I support placing a supermajority on SC resolutions for two reasons:

1) SC resolutions are the only pieces of legislation in which the WA actually takes a formal opinion on a matter. If the GA passes a socialist-leaning resolution, you still can't say that the WA "endorses" socialism officially, nor does it "condemn" or "commend" it. You'd run into an ideology ban trying to make that official. Thus, for the WA to officially pass judgment on something, I think a supermajority would do well to ensure there's a consensus.

2) Less SC resolutions.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The SC has been very effective at weeding out bad resolutions that WA members do not agree with so far.

Interesting qualifier you put there. Of course the WA isn't going to pass bad resolutions its members do not agree with; it's not going to pass good resolutions its members don't agree with either. The WA is (more or less) a democracy.

[Topid]

The SC has been very effective at weeding out bad resolutions that WA members do not agree with so far.

Interesting qualifier you put there. Of course the WA isn't going to pass bad resolutions its members do not agree with; it's not going to pass good resolutions its members don't agree with either. The WA is (more or less) a democracy.

Right. The arguement of this proposal is it will weed out poorly worded proposals that would be easy to repeal, or proposals that make basic mistakes and would be easy to repeal. But in fact, all the proposals like that in the SC (player behind the nation of, hearby commend 10000 island, ect.) have passed by large majorities. The only resolution that did fall beneath the 'supermajority' line is Condemn NE, and that resolution has withstood two repeal attempts in the short time since it passed. Which from the WA's standpoint would make it one of the strongest resolutions of all.

[And of course everyone knows I hate Condemn NE.]

The SC already on it's own weeds out all the resolutions that are poorly worded, or proofless (we did let a few slip through early, but we've gotten better since then). We don't need any help from this proposal.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

The SC has been very effective at weeding out bad resolutions that WA members do not agree with so far.

Heh, that's "debatable," to say the least.

I support placing a supermajority on SC resolutions for two reasons:

1) SC resolutions are the only pieces of legislation in which the WA actually takes a formal opinion on a matter. If the GA passes a socialist-leaning resolution, you still can't say that the WA "endorses" socialism officially, nor does it "condemn" or "commend" it. You'd run into an ideology ban trying to make that official. Thus, for the WA to officially pass judgment on something, I think a supermajority would do well to ensure there's a consensus.

2) Less SC resolutions.

I feel like Topi is rubbing off on me.

I support placing a supermajority on GA resolutions for two reasons:

1) GA resolutions are the only pieces of legislation in which the WA actually can formally infringe on national sovereignty (as opposed to regional sovereignty). If the GA passes a socialist-leaning resolution, you still can't say that the whole WA "complies" with socialism officially, nor does it "encourage" or "hopes" for it. You'd run into an ideology ban trying to make that official. Thus, for the GA to officially infringe on national sovereignty on something, I think a supermajority would do well to ensure there's a consensus.

2) Less GA resolutions.