Suggested Modification of WA Endorsement System

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The opposite of furtherment of democracy is political stability - reducing political feeedoms (less democratic).

So to Blaat's original point the GA is not pro or anti political freedom. It can (and has) done both.

Somehow I missed political stability.

But yeah, I don't get that the purpose of the WA is to further democracy. It's something it can do, but no where does it say it is something it should do.

The only purpose of the GA is to "improve the world." Deciding what "improvement" looks like and getting your vision across, is what the GA game is about. Having delegates who couldn't care less about such visions, yet have such disproportionate power, is a bigger sucker punch to authors than the lemming effect, because at least with lemmings you can resign yourself to that reality. When delegates arbitrarily stomp your stuff (or, for that matter, elevate dreck to the hallowed status of Law) at random, for kicks, or because of some arcane gameplay reason having nothing to do with your ideas, it's much more infuriating.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Having delegates who couldn't care less about such visions, yet have such disproportionate power, is a bigger sucker punch to authors than the lemming effect, because at least with lemmings you can resign yourself to that reality. When delegates arbitrarily stomp your stuff (or, for that matter, elevate dreck to the hallowed status of Law) at random, for kicks, or because of some arcane gameplay reason having nothing to do with your ideas, it's much more infuriating.

The lemming effect is more powerful in a world without delegates, since there is no guide to thought. Because the people who vote are apathetic and don't want to do any analysis (something we see in the real world as a rational response to one's vote not mattering, something which is the exact same problem as here in NationStates), the vote usually sways around the title and the sections of the resolution which are easy to observe, like stats. The game is much better when delegates have the ability to influence votes, simply because the delegates generally have the will to read proposals and are forced to follow regional voices.

Also, most GA votes are not determined by some 'arcane gameplay reason'. TNP and Europeia, with whom Europe signed an Accord, didn't vote in favour of a proposal which Europe proposed. That is because they disagreed fundamentally with the proposal. Because of the influence of the SC on regional politics, there is a general consensus that delegates follow regional votes, even in the GA, which is much better than the alternative of random or title-based voting.

[The Stalker]

The more endorsements that regions offers you, the harder it was to get there.

That makes no sense.

Sure it does, it's easy to become a WA Delegate of some small region just get one or two endorsements, the bigger the region like a feeder has way more of a process to becoming delegate, way more work put in.

What is truly democratic is time spent equivalent to reward.

That's not democracy. That's oligarchy.

No if anything it's more socialist were the worker reaps the reward for there work, instead of those who don't put in the work.

the informed and motivated leaders know better than the inactive masses who rarely vote.

There are plenty of delegates who don't vote.

I can tell you, in Hell, like only 3 to 5 people vote, plus me. Making Hell's voting power about 20. You reduce my vote, you reduce my ability to represent my constituents, you reduce Hell's overall stability.

If anything WA nations should be able to give their vote to the delegate, like the delegate votes as one's proxy for nations too inactive to vote themselves, which is most of them.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...Because the people who vote are apathetic and don't want to do any analysis (something we see in the real world as a rational response to one's vote not mattering, something which is the exact same problem as here in NationStates)...

It baffles me that you can see this as the root of the problem, yet believe that increasing the relative power of individual nations will somehow have worse results than the status quo.

...the vote usually sways around the title and the sections of the resolution which are easy to observe, like stats. The game is much better when delegates have the ability to influence votes, simply because the delegates generally have the will to read proposals and are forced to follow regional voices.

Also, most GA votes are not determined by some 'arcane gameplay reason'. TNP and Europeia, with whom Europe signed an Accord, didn't vote in favour of a proposal which Europe proposed. That is because they disagreed fundamentally with the proposal. Because of the influence of the SC on regional politics, there is a general consensus that delegates follow regional votes, even in the GA, which is much better than the alternative of random or title-based voting.

You've repeated these basic themes a number of times, but I remain unconvinced.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

That makes no sense.

Sure it does, it's easy to become a WA Delegate of some small region just get one or two endorsements, the bigger the region like a feeder has way more of a process to becoming delegate, way more work put in.

Except in an up-and-coming or smaller region, there's far more work in maintaining power than in most GCRs and high-population regions. A larger delegate often has far more endorsements than the next guy in his region, making it difficult to impossible for their power to be challenged.
In contrast, smaller regions's delegates can change with a difference of only a couple endorsements, so it takes a lot of work to maintain power.

That's not democracy. That's oligarchy.

No if anything it's more socialist were the worker reaps the reward for there work, instead of those who don't put in the work.

Except individual nations won't be getting anything from regional delegates.
And that's not how socialism works.

There are plenty of delegates who don't vote.

I can tell you, in Hell, like only 3 to 5 people vote, plus me. Making Hell's voting power about 20. You reduce my vote, you reduce my ability to represent my constituents, you reduce Hell's overall stability.

That's a remarkably unrelated statement. I said, "There are plenty of delegates who don't vote." I wasn't talking about the power of an individual region or specific nations's voting power.

If anything WA nations should be able to give their vote to the delegate, like the delegate votes as one's proxy for nations too inactive to vote themselves, which is most of them.

And you're still ignoring the fact that many delegates do not vote.

[Stellonia]

One nation one vote works just fine, thank you very much.

[Aclion]

One nation one vote works just fine, thank you very much.

That's a bit extreme, Don't you think?

[The Stalker]

Snip

The average delegate is way way more likely to vote than the average Wa member, and is far more informed.

My point is that it takes more time and effort to become delegate of a large region. It's no easy task, tons of effort involved. Compared to someone who spent all of 10 mins to make a nation and join the Wa.

I think time spent should equal reward. If you worked your way up to becoming delegate you definitely should have more say than someone who spent 10mins joining the Wa. Workers should reap the reward of their work.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Snip

...
I think time spent should equal reward. If you worked your way up to becoming delegate you definitely should have more say than someone who spent 10mins joining the Wa. Workers should reap the reward of their work.

I'm not eliminating endorsements. Individual WA delegates would still have much more power than individual non-delegates.

[Drasnia]

The argument shouldn't be about what's fair or not - besides, how do we define "fair"? Instead, the argument should be about making the game the most interesting - a balancing patch, if you will. As it currently stands, I don't think the endorsement system is very interesting. It gives a bit too much power to the top few delegates. One vote per nation would also ruin the current state of politicking that makes authorship interesting.

Rather, I'd like to see a modification of one of the logarithmic formulas that still gives TNP quite a bit of power (say, 75-100) while reducing that significant gap. (one of these days, I'll stop being lazy and actually figure out that formula >.> . . . maybe) That way, the smaller but still sizeable regions such as my home, Capitalist Paradise, have more sway. This would lead to more interesting voting blocs and, potentially, more participation by delegates such as Capitalist Paradise's. Instead of the near necessity of getting Plemby's vote, authors could instead form coalitions of similar sizeable regions that could more than offset the top few delegates.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

The argument shouldn't be about what's fair or not - besides, how do we define "fair"? Instead, the argument should be about making the game the most interesting - a balancing patch, if you will. As it currently stands, I don't think the endorsement system is very interesting. It gives a bit too much power to the top few delegates. One vote per nation would also ruin the current state of politicking that makes authorship interesting.

Rather, I'd like to see a modification of one of the logarithmic formulas that still gives TNP quite a bit of power (say, 75-100) while reducing that significant gap. (one of these days, I'll stop being lazy and actually figure out that formula >.> . . . maybe) That way, the smaller but still sizeable regions such as my home, Capitalist Paradise, have more sway. This would lead to more interesting voting blocs and, potentially, more participation by delegates such as Capitalist Paradise's. Instead of the near necessity of getting Plemby's vote, authors could instead form coalitions of similar sizeable regions that could more than offset the top few delegates.

It would be extremely difficult to get support for a system that would lessen Plem's vote that much. Mine would leave him over 200 and that's getting enough backlash.

[The Stalker]

I don't think diluting the voting power of WA delegates is the answer.

But maybe increasing the voting power of non-delegate WA nations could be worked in. Like if you've been a member of the WA for a year you get 2, two years 3, and so on, or X number of months even. Be more interesting if long term members had a more weighted vote or create another way to get a larger vote.

[Drasnia]

Alright, with some playing around, I came to this equation: if e < 10 --> 1 + e else 1 + (23/8) * e ^ (1/2).

This would give a delegate of 50 endorsements 21 votes (rounded down), a delegate of 100 endorsements 30 (rounded up), a delegate of 200 endorsements 42 (rounded up), and a delegate of 1200 endorsements 101 votes. That way there is still plenty of incentive for regions to grow while curbing somewhat the massive influence they have currently.

[Frisbeeteria]

Like if you've been a member of the WA for a year you get 2, two years 3, and so on, or X number of months even. Be more interesting if long term members had a more weighted vote or create another way to get a larger vote.

[violet] as stated before that she's not a fan of any seniority-weighted game effects that effectively penalize newcomers.

The exceptions to that are population (which is little more than a longevity clock) and issues depth, which lets long time issue answers a better chance to climb the various leaderboards. There's no actual in-game advantage to either. Longevity based WA voting makes newer players permanently lower status.

[Excidium Planetis]

The marginal method mentioned earlier is my preferred: after a certain number of endorsements, the number of votes gained goes to a fraction of 1. The example limit of 75 is quite good, I think, few regions have more than 75 endorsements, and I don't think mid size regions need to be reduced in voting power, as they hardly control the voting anyways.

I might even suggest a mash-up of that method with Nilla's, v = 1 + e until e = 75, after which v = 75 + (e-74)^(3/4)

[Separatist Peoples]

One nation one vote works just fine, thank you very much.

That's a bit extreme, Don't you think?

Why? What makes anybody else's vote better than anothers? Why should delegates get extra votes? All they did was win a popularity contest.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The only purpose of the GA is to "improve the world."

I'm possibly being Doylist here, but I'd say that the purpose of the GA is to be an engaging subgame within Nationstates which keeps people coming back to Nationstates. The site's only purpose is to increase its own popularity.

I mean, we all know that Max created this game to promote Jennifer Government. Clearly its gone beyond that now, as he loves Nationstates for its own sake, and not just as an advert. But the ultimate purpose of Nationstates is to recruit and retain new Nationstates players.

To that end, I'd say that the General Assembly is at its most successful when maximum number of people feel most engaged. I think there SHOULD be a reward system where the more you put in the more you get out of it, as this encourages people to put more into it. However, it should also not be the case that all the fun is had by only a small number of people.

I'd also add that I don't think this is something to be democratically decided. Ultimately, the decision as to the shape of the game is up to the game designer, and it should be changed according to his vision of how the game should look and feel. It's basically then up to us to vote with our feet, and either participate in the game or not.

As someone who has had the privilege of being invited to sit at the table of game design - albeit in a very junior capacity - my opinion is that the game should be changed so that more people can have fun playing it. There is no fair or unfair, there's just the quality and fun of the game.

[Separatist Peoples]

The only purpose of the GA is to "improve the world."

I'm possibly being Doylist here, but I'd say that the purpose of the GA is to be an engaging subgame within Nationstates which keeps people coming back to Nationstates. The site's only purpose is to increase its own popularity.

I mean, we all know that Max created this game to promote Jennifer Government. Clearly its gone beyond that now, as he loves Nationstates for its own sake, and not just as an advert. But the ultimate purpose of Nationstates is to recruit and retain new Nationstates players.

To that end, I'd say that the General Assembly is at its most successful when maximum number of people feel most engaged. I think there SHOULD be a reward system where the more you put in the more you get out of it, as this encourages people to put more into it. However, it should also not be the case that all the fun is had by only a small number of people.

I'd also add that I don't think this is something to be democratically decided. Ultimately, the decision as to the shape of the game is up to the game designer, and it should be changed according to his vision of how the game should look and feel. It's basically then up to us to vote with our feet, and either participate in the game or not.

As someone who has had the privilege of being invited to sit at the table of game design - albeit in a very junior capacity - my opinion is that the game should be changed so that more people can have fun playing it. There is no fair or unfair, there's just the quality and fun of the game.

Which seems to support a compromise between a flat vote and 1+e systems. Which the square root system really seems to do well. Big regions still get a benefit for their efforts, but it isn't as unfairly extreme as the current system. Compromise! Everybody loses!

EDIT: Just for the GA, in my mind. There are compelling reasons to keep 1+e in the SC.

[Excidium Planetis]

Which seems to support a compromise between a flat vote and 1+e systems. Which the square root system really seems to do well. Big regions still get a benefit for their efforts, but it isn't as unfairly extreme as the current system. Compromise! Everybody loses!

The square root system is awful. It is, as pointed out with data earlier in this thread, effectively the same as 1 nation 1 vote. It isn't a "compromise" between 1 nation 1 vote and 1+e, it is 1 nation 1 vote.

Also, the problem with most of these fractional exponent systems is that they will not only ruin things for big regions, but also mid size and small regions too. When I was Delegate for the Galactic Federacy, at my highest I had 19 endorsements. Under even the Nilla system, I would have had only 9 additional votes. That's half my voting power, and my region doesn't even break 100 total nations. That lowers the engagement of my region, I think. Under the square root system, I would have only 4 additional votes. That's pathetic.

I strongly suggest doing things like tax brackets: under X number of endorsements, 1+e, after that, additional e become e^(?/?). Would you accept v = 1+e until v =100, then v = 100 + (e-99)^(1/2)?

EDIT: Just for the GA, in my mind. There are compelling reasons to keep 1+e in the SC.

I could only support such discrimination if GA and SC membership were split.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Which seems to support a compromise between a flat vote and 1+e systems. Which the square root system really seems to do well. Big regions still get a benefit for their efforts, but it isn't as unfairly extreme as the current system. Compromise! Everybody loses!

The square root system is awful. It is, as pointed out with data earlier in this thread, effectively the same as 1 nation 1 vote. It isn't a "compromise" between 1 nation 1 vote and 1+e, it is 1 nation 1 vote.

Also, the problem with most of these fractional exponent systems is that they will not only ruin things for big regions, but also mid size and small regions too. When I was Delegate for the Galactic Federacy, at my highest I had 19 endorsements. Under even the Nilla system, I would have had only 9 additional votes. That's half my voting power, and my region doesn't even break 100 total nations. That lowers the engagement of my region, I think. Under the square root system, I would have only 4 additional votes. That's pathetic.

I strongly suggest doing things like tax brackets: under X number of endorsements, 1+e, after that, additional e become e^(?/?). Would you accept v = 1+e until v =100, then v = 100 + (e-99)^(1/2)?

The only problem then is that you'd need to resolve yet another debate on what should be the cutoff.

[Separatist Peoples]

Which seems to support a compromise between a flat vote and 1+e systems. Which the square root system really seems to do well. Big regions still get a benefit for their efforts, but it isn't as unfairly extreme as the current system. Compromise! Everybody loses!

The square root system is awful. It is, as pointed out with data earlier in this thread, effectively the same as 1 nation 1 vote. It isn't a "compromise" between 1 nation 1 vote and 1+e, it is 1 nation 1 vote.

Also, the problem with most of these fractional exponent systems is that they will not only ruin things for big regions, but also mid size and small regions too. When I was Delegate for the Galactic Federacy, at my highest I had 19 endorsements. Under even the Nilla system, I would have had only 9 additional votes. That's half my voting power, and my region doesn't even break 100 total nations. That lowers the engagement of my region, I think. Under the square root system, I would have only 4 additional votes. That's pathetic.

Its a lot more fair than e+1. There is no reason that a stat effect that impacts everybody equally should have some nations weighing in more than others. Any boost to a vote is a bonus that delegates should just be grateful for under the new system.

EDIT: Just for the GA, in my mind. There are compelling reasons to keep 1+e in the SC.

I could only support such discrimination if GA and SC membership were split.

Why? SC resolutions are a lot more selective in who they affect. Delegates of a region are disproportionally affected by the SC's actions, so it would be fair to let them have a disproportionate vote. Splitting the SC and GA membership, while something I mostly support, doesn't really become a necessary requirement under this change.

[Excidium Planetis]

The square root system is awful. It is, as pointed out with data earlier in this thread, effectively the same as 1 nation 1 vote. It isn't a "compromise" between 1 nation 1 vote and 1+e, it is 1 nation 1 vote.

Also, the problem with most of these fractional exponent systems is that they will not only ruin things for big regions, but also mid size and small regions too. When I was Delegate for the Galactic Federacy, at my highest I had 19 endorsements. Under even the Nilla system, I would have had only 9 additional votes. That's half my voting power, and my region doesn't even break 100 total nations. That lowers the engagement of my region, I think. Under the square root system, I would have only 4 additional votes. That's pathetic.

Its a lot more fair than e+1. There is no reason that a stat effect that impacts everybody equally should have some nations weighing in more than others. Any boost to a vote is a bonus that delegates should just be grateful for under the new system.

You are right, some nations shouldn't weigh in more than others... so we should allow delegates to endorse themselves!

Everybody except the delegate has equal voting power. But Delegates have 1 less vote than everybody else. That's because ordinary voters have an endorsement vote which they can give to the regional delegate, doubling their voting power at the cost of not having the ability to actually cast that vote themselves. Delegates, on the other hand, gain the ability to cast everyone's second vote on their behalf, at the cost of not having any second vote themselves.

If nations do not like the way their vote is being cast, they can endorse another delegate, or move to another region where their vote will be used more in accordance with their wishes. Or they can just not endorse anyone, and limit themselves to only 1 vote.

The system isn't about empowering delegates. It's about empowering regions, groups of players who cast their support behind a Delegate to increase their collective voting power.

An alternative, and totally fair, system would be to give everyone exactly one endorsement to give. Everyone who had an endorsement gained one vote per endorsement they had. Everyone would have 1 vote, and 1 endorsement to give, so you can't say anyone has more power than others. But some people with many endorsements would cast larger votes... because they had more popular support!

Why? SC resolutions are a lot more selective in who they affect. Delegates of a region are disproportionally affected by the SC's actions, so it would be fair to let them have a disproportionate vote. Splitting the SC and GA membership, while something I mostly support, doesn't really become a necessary requirement under this change.

How are the Delegates of a region disproportionately affected? Seems like everyone in a region is affected by region wide SC resolutions, while player specific resolutions don't necessarily affect delegates more than regular players.

[Araraukar]

Considering how much I've ranted about Delegate votes (as many regions require WA nations to endorse their delegate or be kicked out) before, it won't come as a surprise to people who know me that I'd be very much in favour of reducing superdelegates' powers. I would think an endorsement cap might be the most fair method. Considering how I think the general opinion is that once a delegate gets past 100-150 endorsements, they count as "superdelegate", regardless of whether they're in Top 10, then maybe make the cap 200? Would still let superdelegates be superdelegates, but would stop them from being the absolute vote-deciders.

The current system makes individual votes pretty useless, as they often count for only around 30% (or less) of votes given to either side. (Mind you, I only pay attention to GA votes.) And the anti-democracy pacts the superdelegates make, essentially make them a weapon to use against a proposal you don't like (if you campaign for, they vote against).

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Considering how much I've ranted about Delegate votes (as many regions require WA nations to endorse their delegate or be kicked out) before, it won't come as a surprise to people who know me that I'd be very much in favour of reducing superdelegates' powers. I would think an endorsement cap might be the most fair method. Considering how I think the general opinion is that once a delegate gets past 100-150 endorsements, they count as "superdelegate", regardless of whether they're in Top 10, then maybe make the cap 200? Would still let superdelegates be superdelegates, but would stop them from being the absolute vote-deciders.

The current system makes individual votes pretty useless, as they often count for only around 30% (or less) of votes given to either side. (Mind you, I only pay attention to GA votes.) And the anti-democracy pacts the superdelegates make, essentially make them a weapon to use against a proposal you don't like (if you campaign for, they vote against).

Following my system would put the highest delegate at just over 200 votes.

[Excidium Planetis]

Considering how much I've ranted about Delegate votes (as many regions require WA nations to endorse their delegate or be kicked out) before, it won't come as a surprise to people who know me that I'd be very much in favour of reducing superdelegates' powers. I would think an endorsement cap might be the most fair method. Considering how I think the general opinion is that once a delegate gets past 100-150 endorsements, they count as "superdelegate", regardless of whether they're in Top 10, then maybe make the cap 200? Would still let superdelegates be superdelegates, but would stop them from being the absolute vote-deciders.

The current system makes individual votes pretty useless, as they often count for only around 30% (or less) of votes given to either side. (Mind you, I only pay attention to GA votes.) And the anti-democracy pacts the superdelegates make, essentially make them a weapon to use against a proposal you don't like (if you campaign for, they vote against).

Following my system would put the highest delegate at just over 200 votes.

My proposed method (1+e until 75, and 75+(e-74)^(3/4) after that) would put Plembobria (1285 endorsemwnts at writing) at 280 votes exactly, which is quite a ways over 200, but not a ridiculous amount. And it maintains the voting power of non-super-delegates.

The second option I put forward to SP, 1+e until 100, and 100 + (e-99)^(1/2) after that, yields 134 votes.

What these systems would do is make superdelegates only slightly more powerful than midsized delegates. As it is, the North Pacific can match dozens of smaller delegates, and even has two or three times the power of even other top ten super delegates. This would not be totally accurate under Nilla's system, but TNP would still, at over 200 votes, dwarf even lower superdelegates delegates (one with 100 endorsements, for example would only have 33 votes, one sixth the power of Plembobria). With my systems, Plembobria would, yes, have more votes than in Nilla's system. But so would midsized delegates. One with 100 endorsements in the second system would have 101 votes, over two thirds the votes that Plembobria has, with only one twelfth of the endorsements.