Argument against lowering the quorum threshold

[Quintessence of Dust]

OMGTKK requested this discussion not continue in his thread, so hopefully it's OK to start a new one. Shorn of any naughty context, here is my argument against lowering the percentage of delegate approvals needed to attain quorum for a WA proposal:

...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...

...

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. This is something a comment by a moderator strongly bears out.

Right. But [lowering the quorum level] would have a very significant effect on queue length.

I'm worried you're conflating 'queue', as in the list of all submitted proposals, and 'queue' as in the list of quorate proposals; typically in WA discussions (or at least it used to be this way) 'queue' refers only to the latter.

But if you're suggesting lowering the quorum level would make more people submit proposals, I flatly disagree. The vast majority of submitted proposals never get anywhere near quorum and new posters in the WA forum routinely express ignorance of telegram campaigning; I know when I started playing, I for one had no idea such energies would be necessary. For your assumption to be true, the following would have to hold:

Players routinely don't submit proposals because they are concerned their proposals will not get the approval of 6% of delegates.

Do you have anything to suggest that is really the case? I would argue the sheer number of objectively poor proposals submitted suggests people have very little grasp of that.

Finally, the increasingly small delegate pool acts to naturally decrease the quorum threshold anyway. While it always remains 6%, any proposal is going to get 10-20 approvals as a matter of course, particularly if it appears well written. Bumping that up to 50 is easier than bumping it up to 150, even if you have fewer contacts to telegram.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Personally, I would be against lowering the requirement. 6% is a pretty small number already. And even when it required 150 or so approvals, we still regularly had Proposals at vote. The Delegate requirement acts as a circuit breaker, and lowering it much more would eliminate that.

[Mousebumples]

I agree that quorum should not be lowered - at least, not for the General Assembly. If anything, GA quorum should perhaps be raised. The many, many GA proposals that have been voted on as of late (mostly) received far more than the quorum requirement. The current proposal in quorum has 91 approvals, and I know that there were a number of proposals in February that had 100+ approvals. (That's not to say that quorum should be raised to 10% - or should necessarily be raised at all - but if we're considering changing quorum, I would suggest perhaps a 7% approval rate for the GA, which would require the approval of 63 delegates - depending on how the system does the rounding.)

I'm sure that having separate quorum rates for the GA and the SC may require additional coding, but a lower quorum threshold for the SC may be worth considering. Generally, there seems to be less overall delegate interest in the SC, which can make it more difficult for SC proposals to reach quorum. (For example, changing the current quorum requirement from 6% to 5% for the SC would result in only needing 45 delegates, versus the current 55, to achieve quorum.)

I would also support extending the period that proposals have to attain quorum. As those who frequently refresh the proposal queue may recognize, the current GA proposal at vote was submitted multiple times by it's author without reaching quorum. I don't believe that any substantial rewrites (if any) occurred between resubmissions, and I know that the proposal was close to attaining quorum in the past - before being pulled from the floor due to a lack of support.

Alternatively (and this is likely even more complicated to code), if a proposal is within a given threshold of quorum (i.e. at 5% versus the required 6%), the proposal will be given an additional day to recruit enough supporters to meet the quorum requirement.

In summary, my suggested changes (if any are adopted) are as follows:
General Assembly: Quorum is raised to 7%*
Security Council: Quorum is lowered to 5%*
^{*If having separate quorum levels is not feasible, I would suggest no changes at this time to quorum requirements.}
Time on the floor: Increase to 4 days.

I am interested to hear the opinions of other WA members (and delegates) on this subject.

Yours,

[Sionis Prioratus]

I am a longtime proponent of raising the quorum threshold. Not sure about percentages, but whatever percentage would now be equivalent to 80 Delegates. Both councils. I'd want a higher threshold to SC proposals, at least liberation ones, given how everybody feels warm'n'fuzzy liberating a Region.

Against stretching floor time to attain quorum... it is supposed to be difficult.

[Glen-Rhodes]

General Assembly: Quorum is raised to 7%*

I don't see a reason to raise or lower the quorum threshold. We haven't had any serious problems with too many resolutions going to vote too fast, or no resolutions going to vote for months on end. So... what's the problem that warrants a raise? :\

[Quintessence of Dust]

General Assembly: Quorum is raised to 7%*

I don't see a reason to raise or lower the quorum threshold. We haven't had any serious problems with too many resolutions going to vote too fast, or no resolutions going to vote for months on end. So... what's the problem that warrants a raise? :\

Ok, if my OP is tl;dr, read this post instead, because it says everything that needs to be said.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Ok, if my OP is tl;dr, read this post instead, because it says everything that needs to be said.

I was asking Mousebumples...

[Quintessence of Dust]

And? What you said can be applied to any "the quorum level needs to be changed because otherwise space monkeys will eat our children" argument.

[Mousebumples]

General Assembly: Quorum is raised to 7%*

I don't see a reason to raise or lower the quorum threshold. We haven't had any serious problems with too many resolutions going to vote too fast, or no resolutions going to vote for months on end. So... what's the problem that warrants a raise? :\

I didn't necessarily say that quorum SHOULD be raised. Just, that if changes needed to be made, quorum should be raised instead of lowered.

To quote from my post:

I agree that quorum should not be lowered - at least, not for the General Assembly. If anything, GA quorum should perhaps be raised. The many, many GA proposals that have been voted on as of late (mostly) received far more than the quorum requirement. The current proposal in quorum has 91 approvals, and I know that there were a number of proposals in February that had 100+ approvals. (That's not to say that quorum should be raised to 10% - or should necessarily be raised at all - but if we're considering changing quorum, I would suggest perhaps a 7% approval rate for the GA, which would require the approval of 63 delegates - depending on how the system does the rounding.)

I'm sure that having separate quorum rates for the GA and the SC may require additional coding, but a lower quorum threshold for the SC may be worth considering. Generally, there seems to be less overall delegate interest in the SC, which can make it more difficult for SC proposals to reach quorum. (For example, changing the current quorum requirement from 6% to 5% for the SC would result in only needing 45 delegates, versus the current 55, to achieve quorum.)

I would also support extending the period that proposals have to attain quorum. As those who frequently refresh the proposal queue may recognize, the current GA proposal at vote was submitted multiple times by it's author without reaching quorum. I don't believe that any substantial rewrites (if any) occurred between resubmissions, and I know that the proposal was close to attaining quorum in the past - before being pulled from the floor due to a lack of support.

Alternatively (and this is likely even more complicated to code), if a proposal is within a given threshold of quorum (i.e. at 5% versus the required 6%), the proposal will be given an additional day to recruit enough supporters to meet the quorum requirement.

In summary, my suggested changes (if any are adopted) are as follows:

IF a change was going to be made, quorum should be increased rather than decreased. No changes are necessary, by any means, and my main point was to dissent with [violet]'s original suggestion that perhaps quorum should be lowered.

[Glen-Rhodes]

And? What you said can be applied to any "the quorum level needs to be changed because otherwise space monkeys will eat our children" argument.

Eh. I misread your post. For some reason, I thought you were telling me to reread the OP.

@Mousebumples: I'd rather not give the admins ideas either way. :\ I like the current 6%.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

@Mousebumples: I'd rather not give the admins ideas either way. :\

By God, that's the most sensible thing I've read all week! Just play the stupid game and stop encouraging the admins to ruin it with more experiments.

Besides, the queue time already is four days, if you submit at 9 p.m. (Pacific time). The longer you wait after 9:00, the shorter your time in the queue lasts (down to three days if you submit after 8:00 p.m. the next day). At least that's how it worked when I last toyed with the proposal form.

[[violet]]

By God, that's the most sensible thing I've read all week! Just play the stupid game and stop encouraging the admins to ruin it with more experiments.

Hmm...

[[violet]]

Btw I do not intend to lower quorum threshold. That was covered in the original thread and I'm not sure why we need a new one.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Edit: dunno why I bothered replying.

[[violet]]

Oh, okay. I posted that yesterday though. Today this thread has filled up.

[[violet]]

Edit: dunno why I bothered replying.

???

Original post was something like: "I started this thread before the old was closed."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

By God, that's the most sensible thing I've read all week! Just play the stupid game and stop encouraging the admins to ruin it with more experiments.

Hmm...

Yeah, proposal links and confirm screens. Big revolutionary changes, there!

[[violet]]

Heh, it's okay Kenny, I like your suggestions. Keep 'em coming.

[Sionis Prioratus]

By God, that's the most sensible thing I've read all week! Just play the stupid game and stop encouraging the admins to ruin it with more experiments.

Hmm...

Yeah, proposal links and confirm screens. Big revolutionary changes, there!

Heh, it's okay Kenny, I like your suggestions. Keep 'em coming.

[violet], if you like, please implement!