Proposal Submission Link on WA main page

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I don't know why the Proposal List is so short lately (and you know how forumgoers love to scan the list for the silly/illegal ones ), but does anyone think placing a link to the Proposal Submission form back on the WA front page might encourage more authors to submit? A small "[ Submit ]" link next to the number of proposals in both Council columns should work. (Visible to WA Members only, obviously.)

This may not encourage "responsible" proposal drafting (i.e., through the forums), but on the whole it does encourage more WA activity, and isn't that always a good thing?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Also, I do realize that there are "Submit a Proposal" links on both Council pages, but I rarely visit those anymore, unless I want to read the resolution at vote or view the delegate list. I'm just thinking that other, less-active players might be in the same habit and thus miss the Proposal Submission links.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I don't know why the Proposal List is so short lately (and you know how forumgoers love to scan the list for the silly/illegal ones ), but does anyone think placing a link to the Proposal Submission form back on the WA front page might encourage more authors to submit? A small "[ Submit ]" link next to the number of proposals in both Council columns should work. (Visible to WA Members only, obviously.)

This may not encourage "responsible" proposal drafting (i.e., through the forums), but on the whole it does encourage more WA activity, and isn't that always a good thing?

Not until we have a PREVIEW RESOLUTION BUTTON, in order to "encourage "responsible" proposal drafting"... If people can't care drafting in the forums, they should at least SEE what they are doing beforehand.

And it would greatly help us experienced resolution-writers, too.

[[violet]]

There's a "Submit" link at the top of the Proposals pages, so I would think that anyone interested in proposals knows they can submit one. I tend to think the low numbers of proposals is more a function of the learning curve required to successfully submit one (i.e. become familiar with all the rules) than not knowing it's possible.

I was actually thinking of lowering quorum %. That's the usual way of managing the proposal queue when it gets too long or too short. And with two Councils we effectively have double the throughput.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I was actually thinking of lowering quorum %. That's the usual way of managing the proposal queue when it gets too long or too short. And with two Councils we effectively have double the throughput.

Please don't.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I was actually thinking of lowering quorum %. That's the usual way of managing the proposal queue when it gets too long or too short. And with two Councils we effectively have double the throughput.

Please don't.

For the first time ever, I agree with Quintessence of Dust.

[[violet]]

Reasons would be helpful.

[Linux and the X]

It's already easy for a good proposal to get approved, and it's also not difficult enough to get a bad proposal approved. I don't think anything too bad has gotten approved yet, but it's been close.

[Sionis Prioratus]

To cite but one reason, enough bad proposals reach quorum with the threshold as it is. Just ask the Game Mods how many GHRs they have to deal with. Ask them if they'll be much happier dealing with LOTS more!

Let's face it, the majority of the submitters do not even care for the forums.

If only not to drive Game Moderators crazy, no to this idea.



Attaining quorum is supposed to be difficult.

[Quintessence of Dust]

@Violet

Do you care? Reasons don't seem to have mattered before. Nonetheless:

Because the number of proposals has very little correlation to the number of proposals in queue. There hasn't been a lack of quorate proposals lately. Looking back at the last few months, we've seen very few days without something to vote on. Lowering the quorum threshold does not make it easier for people to submit proposals, and right now not many people have submitted proposals. Lowering the quorum threshold makes it easier for proposals to get to quorum, and right now that is obviously not a problem for activist legislators (odd, given we have "already discussed pretty much every issue", of course).

In sum, the problem OMGTKK mentioned bears no relation to the proposed fix. And I see no problem for the latter to fix.

Edit: Furthermore, you state that is the "usual way" of managing the queue. Err, no, it's not. You guys changed the quorum threshold in, I think, 2003? You certainly haven't changed it in at least 6 years. The usual way of managing the queue is more or less proactive moderation.

Edit 2: Yep, and if the four of us are agreeing on something it has to be pretty extraordinary.

[Unibot]

Reasons would be helpful.

Its quite easy to get a proposal a up-to-vote. Fifty-four goes like that. *snaps fingers*

Commend A Mean Old Man recently got up to vote without a telegram campaign. It lated failed at vote with an astonishingly low approval rate (24%).

I'm not saying increase the levels, as I think the current rate is doing a decent job at filtering out poor quality resolutions and I've been successful at anti-campaigns so far on the poorest ones to reach quorum like "Condemn Macedonia" and "Condemn The North Pacific". But I don't think we don't need the levels lowered by any means.

[Flibbleites]

Reasons would be helpful.

We don't need another Max Barry Day incident.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I tend to think the low numbers of proposals is more a function of the learning curve required to successfully submit one (i.e. become familiar with all the rules) than not knowing it's possible.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. There wasn't a "learning curve" problem before, when the proposal list was pages long and littered with various illegalities and formatting problems. Why is it suddenly a problem now?

There isn't a problem with getting proposals to quorum, however, as the low number of delegates to begin with (with the decline of the NS population overall) makes it very easy to get something to quorum if you want a vote on it -- sometimes even without a telegram campaign. Lowering the quorum percentage would only ensure that badly written proposals would have a greater chance at getting to vote. And as you well know, illegal proposals cannot be changed or deleted once they get to vote. As Flib said, we don't need another Max Barry Day.

[[violet]]

QoD, as I think I've said before, I'm not going to respond to your posts when they contain sniping and dark references to past wrongs. If you have a question, ask it. If you have a point, make it. If you say, "Here's what I think although I know you don't care just like during the Noodle Incident," I'm going to ignore you.

There wasn't a "learning curve" problem before, when the proposal list was pages long and littered with various illegalities and formatting problems. Why is it suddenly a problem now?

It's not a problem. What I said was that it contributes to lower number of proposals, which you suggested was a problem. If there were no rules governing proposals, for example, we would have many more of them. Rules raise the standard, of course, which is why we have them. But I do think there's a trade-off between quality and quantity.

There isn't a problem with getting proposals to quorum, however, as the low number of delegates to begin with (with the decline of the NS population overall) makes it very easy to get something to quorum if you want a vote on it -- sometimes even without a telegram campaign. Lowering the quorum percentage would only ensure that badly written proposals would have a greater chance at getting to vote.

Right. But this would have a very significant effect on queue length. In fact, all the numbers do (# of incoming proposals per day, % that attain quorum, # of days before being dropped, length of resolution voting). It's like filling a bucket with a hole in it: if the amount of water coming in is greater than the amount going out, even a little, then before long you have a full bucket. If it's slightly unbalanced the other way, you soon have an empty bucket.

[Ardchoille]

Why are there fewer proposals in the proposal list? Let me spell it out for you:

K R Y O Z E R K I A.

Also, E u r o s l a v i a.

It's not for any lack of proposals. There are now three Game Mods working the list where there was only one before.

But, believe me, the volume of incredibly illegal ones never seems to diminish.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why are there fewer proposals in the proposal list? Let me spell it out for you:

K R Y O Z E R K I A.

Also, E u r o s l a v i a.

It's not for any lack of proposals. There are now three Game Mods working the list where there was only one before.

But, believe me, the volume of incredibly illegal ones never seems to diminish.

Great. Then if there's no problem, I'll gladly drop the subject, and you can lock this thread. In fact, please do.

[[violet]]

Another easy change would be to give proposals more time to gain approvals before they are removed from the queue. Currently it's 3 days.

[Topid]

Another easy change would be to give proposals more time to gain approvals before they are removed from the queue. Currently it's 3 days.

I'd rather you do this than lower the percent. An extra day wouldn't do much, I can't remember a bad proposal getting very close to quorum in a long time.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Did no one notice my lock request?

Another easy change would be to give proposals more time to gain approvals before they are removed from the queue. Currently it's 3 days.

Again, quorum is only 55 approvals; getting proposals to quorum is not hard. Quorum wasn't even the issue when I started the thread, because we've been voting on resolutions non-stop since January. I only suggested another link to the proposal submission form so more people would see it.

Or are you only doing this because you like to argue?

[[violet]]

Hey, I'm happy to leave it as is. You said the proposal queue was very short like it was a bad thing, I was just throwing up some ideas to address that.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Well, thank you for responding, nonetheless. However, I still think it best to close this topic.

[Ardchoille]

*snootily points out that OPs do not have thread ownership in Tech*

*realises Pyth hates Tech threads that go on once answered*

*tosses up relative scariness of Pyth (lock thread!) and [violet] (allow full and free discussion)*

*hastily locks thread*