NationStates

At least WA Security council have been lately able to produce only 'weak' to 'very weak' proposals. Changing Quorum rule wouldn't give any extra benefits for anyone (if a normal quality of stream of papers would justify documents for only to be piled in a WC for further, their natural use), but if submitted proposals would go first to a pre-Quorum stage '[In Legality Evaluation]', before approved as legitime proposals for WA, that would clean illegal drafts automatically out from the process.

Then, there are people playing this game whom may have tens and tens nations in WA during a single evening, and only useful options that WA can offer them are 'Apply to join' and 'Resign' buttons. Option for voting seldom comes even to a mind.

Ah. More work for the mods. Sorry.

Although it was not part of the original, I think Cora's idea of a formal scrutiny stage makes sense, with or without changes to the voting levels.

---

As to major changes, it may be significant in terms of the gameplay effect, but I don't think it should be a huge coding change. Presumably at some point in the current code (hopefully only once) there is something along the lines of...

Code: Select all

If (votes.for > votes.against) { //code for passing } else { code for failing };


The suggestion is that that should become...

Code: Select all

// Define MODERATE_TARGET_PERCENT and SIGNIFICANT_TARGET_PERCENT as suitable constants, say 55 and 60.

target := votes.against;
if (proposal.strength == moderate) target := floor((votes.total * MODERATE_TARGET_PERCENT) / 100);
if (proposal.strength == significant) target := floor((votes.total * SIGNIFICANT_TARGET_PERCENT) / 100);
// Or use a case statement, etc., I'm not trying to prescribe style.

If (votes.for > target) { //code for passing } else { code for failing };


If I'm missing something, please enlighten me. It doesn't look like a drastic change as far as I can see.

---

I see the benefits as two-fold.

Firstly, it gives a genuine meaning to the severity rankings. That adds to the realism and involvement levels for the game.

Secondly - and I believe this was the OPs main idea - it gives a meaningful additional consideration when writing a proposal. If strengthening the wording makes it harder to pass, then the tactical consideration comes into play: should I keep this mild(er) to give it the best chance of passing, or stong(er) to get the maximum change in the direction I want? The whole process become more nuanced once there are consequences to the choices made. I believe that would add interest to the drafting process, and could lead to better-considered proposals. That can't be a bad thing.

[color=#0000FF]

Pdor wrote:For the strong resolution I think is unfair a quorum of 50%+1. In the WA there are almost 20000 nations and I think is unfair to let a strong resolution pass if 10001 agree and 9999 disagree. I think that chaining (after have asked the other WA members if they agree) to a system where for a mild resolution you need at least 50% for (pro), for a significant 60% and for a strong 70% (for example, it could be different, like 50/65/75,...). I think that this could bring benefits to the game:
-When submitting a proposal someone should also think about how many votes he/she could collect and if take a risk with a strong resolution or play safe with a mild one;
-Strong resolution won't be able to affect potentially half of the WA members (that maybe voted against).


PS: I'm new in Nation Sates, maybe I've posted on the wrong forum/topic/....
PS: English is not my native language, maybe there're some errors in the text.

[/color]

All Strategy Gamerz United wrote:Please kindly reconsider this proposal of ours fellow nation

As you can see by the 26 posts preceding your copy/paste of the OP, we DID consider it. Rather thoroughly, in fact. This seems to be the best summary/response.

Mousebumples wrote:And other than you saying you'd like this proposed way better (despite a lack of details on _why_ it would be better), there has been no arguments trying to persuade others to your way of thinking.

This wouldn't be a new feature - it is changing an existing part of the game for no discernible reason other than "because." If there's no explanation for why this change would benefit the overall community and game, why should admin spend the time and effort to "fix" something that isn't broken?

because it will be regrettable if we left the more significant resolution neglected coz it will affected the other members who would benefit by which resolutions which will be favored more..

Frisbeeteria wrote:

All Strategy Gamerz United wrote:Please kindly reconsider this proposal of ours fellow nation

As you can see by the 26 posts preceding your copy/paste of the OP, we DID consider it. Rather thoroughly, in fact. This seems to be the best summary/response.

Mousebumples wrote:And other than you saying you'd like this proposed way better (despite a lack of details on _why_ it would be better), there has been no arguments trying to persuade others to your way of thinking.

This wouldn't be a new feature - it is changing an existing part of the game for no discernible reason other than "because." If there's no explanation for why this change would benefit the overall community and game, why should admin spend the time and effort to "fix" something that isn't broken?

Yet both I and the OP did give reasons why we thought it was better. If you disagree, then let's hear your arguments, don't just keep pretending they don't exist.

I really like the idea personally. I think it would really cut down on the number of times we vote on something just to turn around and have the infamous "insta-repeal" vote. Then have to re-vote on the same issue after someone re-proposes it in a slightly re-worded, watered down version.

Also I believe it would give it a more RL feel to it as in most RL governments you need allies and coalitions to get stuff passed. Here all a person really has to do is mass-TG the Delegates and hope they like them enough; whereas with the proposed changes a person would need to really consider what they are doing and really work on building a consensus. Not only would it add new life to the WA game, but I think it would increase the overall quality of this aspect of the game. We also feel that it would lead to a higher quality of proposals written and submitted, and add weight to paying your dues of debating here on the forums to build your voting blocs,etc. If you believe in what you're proposing then you should be willing to fight for it.

I also think repeals should have to follow whatever vote requirements that were necessary for the resolution being repealed needed to pass in the first place.

I also think that Delegate votes should move away from being based on the number of overall endorsements, and make each endorsement count as a half vote. So if you have 300 endorsements your Delegate vote would be 150. That way a person would have to do more than win the Feeder/Sinker Delegate vote to get something passed, repealed, or defeated.

As for the concern of the Mods regarding folks submitting things in a weaker category to attempt to get around vote requirements; why not just make harsher penalties for being an idiot as relates to this. Like if you can't consistently follow the rules then use your Mighty Mod/or Admin powers and ban them from the WA just like you would for other certain rule violations.