Limit delegate influence in the GA

[[violet]]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether it would be appropriate to reduce the amount of power that regional delegates currently have in the General Assembly, as well as possible mechanisms for doing so.

Please note that this discussion is not about the Security Council, which has closer links to regional politics than the General Assembly.

The following is my own analysis of the present situation and some possible solutions.

Present situation

1. Delegates -- especially high-endorsement delegates -- have extraordinary power over the General Assembly. For example, the delegate of the North Pacific alone has 1000+ endorsements. Many other delegates, including most GCRs and some UCRs, have 100-500+. This translates to thousands of votes in the hands of a few players.

In recent times, power has been further concentrated through voting blocs. The only example of note is the World Assembly Legislative League, which includes the North Pacific, Europeia, the International Democratic Union, and Balder. The League has between them a grand total of 1703 votes. This becomes 2038 if you also count Europe, an informal member. Voting power of this magnitude, deployed early enough, is sufficient to effectively guarantee a resolution's passage or failure right out of the gate in most cases.

2. This level of influence is unfair and unwarranted. The balance of power in the General Assembly has tilted too far away from the General Assembly author and the individual voter. There are several reasons why this is the case:

a. Skilled regional politicians and gameplayers are rewarded with General Assembly influence despite not doing anything to deserve it. It is completely unnecessary to participate in the General Assembly in order to become delegate of a large region, so it is not clear to me why NationStates is rewarding success in one part of the game with power in not only that part of the game but also in a completely unrelated part of the game.

To demonstrate this problem, consider the opposite case: what would happen if skilled GA players suddenly gained disproportionate influence in regional gameplay? Let's say the nation with the most passed GA resolutions in a region suddenly gained the power to eject and ban any other nation in that region. There would certainly be a massive outcry from R/D players, and rightly so -- GA players have done nothing to deserve such power. Power in regional gameplay should arise from skill in regional gameplay; the same principle holds true for the General Assembly.

b. Many delegates do not have any interest in the General Assembly and abuse their excess votes. There is minimal overlap between the subset of players who enjoy writing legislation and convincing people to vote in favour on its merits in the context of a European Union-style roleplay, and the subset of players who enjoy building regional communities and taking part in conspiracies to backstab each other and overthrow regional delegacies. It is my experience that relatively few players are interested in both, much less skilled at both.

As such, most delegates simply don't care about the General Assembly and treat it as a joke. They either vote capriciously without doing any research, or derive entertainment from forcing GA authors to demean themselves by grovelling for their favour. On one occasion I was asked to change my nation's flag to an absurd image in order to secure a vote from a major GCR. This is not my idea of enjoyable GA gameplay.

c. The few delegates who do have an interest in the General Assembly therefore have nearly complete control. This is because, as I said before, there are few other delegates with an interest in the General Assembly to counter their influence. At present, the General Assembly only has one major voting bloc -- the World Assembly Legislative League -- and it is unlikely that there is sufficient interest in the General Assembly among other regions to support another.

These kinds of monopolies are simply not healthy in any game because they make players feel powerless and irrelevant. The GA has enough problems attracting and keeping new players as it is, and this just makes the problem worse.

d. The current structure provides no incentive for delegates to encourage genuine regional participation in the General Assembly, which is arguably the only legitimate purpose of the excess votes. The primary purpose of most "World Assembly development programs" in major regions is to encourage nations to endorse the delegate, because that is all that is required for the delegate to benefit. There is no incentive to get nations to vote in the GA because the delegate can already cast their vote unilaterally and get the votes of all their endorsers, regardless of how the endorsers voted or whether they even voted at all.

Possible solutions

There are a significant number of ways that we could limit delegate influence over the General Assembly:

1. Abolish all delegate excess votes. Delegates would have no GA advantage over individual voters.

2. Give all delegates the same number of excess votes, regardless of the number of endorsements. This would be similar to the existing quorum system. Delegates would have greater influence than individual voters, but all delegates would be on the same footing. This would be relatively fair since the barrier to entry to becoming delegate of a small region is relatively low.

3. Use a slow growing function to determine delegate votes. Delegates would still get more votes with more endorsements, but the relationship would no longer be linear -- incremental changes in vote count would require progressively higher incremental changes in number of endorsements.

4. Limit the excess vote on a resolution to the number of nations who have not only endorsed the delegate, but who have also voted on that resolution, perhaps also in accordance with the delegate. This approach has the benefit of incentivizing delegates to encourage regional participation in the General Assembly since such participation is necessary to get the full effect of their vote.

I think 4 is probably the best compromise candidate -- it better achieves what I understand to be the primary goal of the excess votes while still serving to limit delegate power, at least in the earlier stages of voting.

[Trotterdam]

2. This level of influence is unfair and unwarranted.

I think Max Barry would say this is working as intended, as it's teaching players about the realities of political corruption.

b. Many delegates do not have any interest in the General Assembly and abuse their excess votes.

Many players do not have an interest in raiding, either, but that does not stop raiding from affecting them.

Let's fix that first.

[Tim-Opolis]

As such, most delegates simply don't care about the General Assembly and treat it as a joke. They either vote capriciously without doing any research, or derive entertainment from forcing GA authors to demean themselves by grovelling for their favour. On one occasion I was asked to change my nation's flag to an absurd image in order to secure a vote from a major GCR. This is not my idea of enjoyable GA gameplay.

I'll admit that I don't give even the smallest of cares about the General Assembly. However, while serving as Osiris Delegate, I always voted accordingly with the recommendations of my WA Advisors and the forum vote on the resolution. Just because the delegate doesn't care doesn't mean others don't. As for changing your nation's flag to an absurd image, I think there's something beautifully realistic in that. Nationstates is, afterall, an over-the-top version of reality rather than a sugarcoated rose-tinted one. In real votes, bribes, voting blocs, and so on are frequently utilized. I see nothing wrong with a similar behavior in our World Assembly.

[Drasnia]

b. Many delegates do not have any interest in the General Assembly and abuse their excess votes.

Many players do not have an interest in raiding, either, but that does not stop raiding from affecting them.

Let's fix that first.

Or, you know, you could stop trying to derail threads here in Technical so you can snipe at military gameplay.

[Wrapper]

Option 4 sounds too complicated, and would entirely wipe out stacking, as no extra votes would be counted until a region's voters started voting. I'm all for reducing the effects of stacking, but eliminating it entirely takes too much power away from regional delegates.

Option 3 is an interesting idea. A simple formula could be, instead of adding one vote for each endorsement, add the square root of the number of endorsements, dropping the fraction. Example:

Delegate with 1 endo = 1 + sqrt(1) = 2 votes
Delegate with 4 endos = 1 + sqrt(4) = 3 votes
Delegate with 9 endos = 1 + sqrt(9) = 4 votes
.
Delegate with 100 endos = 1 + sqrt(100) = 11 votes
.
Delegate with 1000 endos = 1 + sqrt(1000) = 101 votes

[Excidium Planetis]

4. Limit the excess vote on a resolution to the number of nations who have not only endorsed the delegate, but who have also voted on that resolution, perhaps also in accordance with the delegate.

This will only work if it is "in accordance with the delegate". Otherwise, voting against the delegate actually makes your net effect zero and the effect of an abstain option (as you proposed) +1 to the delegate's side, both of which encourage non-voting when you disagree with the delegate.

However, I dislike all these options. IMO, the best way to reform delegate votes is to separate the GA and SC completely, separate membership, separate endorsing, SC Delegate is the regional executive and GA delegate has the GA votes and no power. This encourages regions to appoint GA delegates who are solely concerned with the GA.

[Aclion]

Option three has been discussed at length.

I also suggest one of these ideas,, but allows regions to separate the gameplay aspect of the delegacy from the GA, which means GA superdelegates are more likely to care about the content of the laws they're voting on. This doesn't affect regional power directly, but it does change who is likely to wield that power.

I think Max Barry would say this is working as intended, as it's teaching players about the realities of political corruption

I'd argue that having the GA power in the hands of people interested in GA would make GA corruption closer to the political reality. Instead of silly demands to change your nations flag you'd see more vote trading and blocs based on GA policy platforms.

[Principality of the Raix]

I think in some form this is very to the point, it is a problem or rather issue. However, when no one is within those delegates regions can not compete against the endorsements. It makes the voting exceedingly one sided, however that is how corrupt politics tend to work. Good or bad.

[Consular]

As such, most delegates simply don't care about the General Assembly and treat it as a joke. They either vote capriciously without doing any research, or derive entertainment from forcing GA authors to demean themselves by grovelling for their favour. On one occasion I was asked to change my nation's flag to an absurd image in order to secure a vote from a major GCR. This is not my idea of enjoyable GA gameplay.

How do you know the Delegates aren't doing any research?

It doesn't take a PhD in the World Assembly to know to vote against your proposals, for example.

[Tananat]

This sounds like whining based off of a resolution failing to pass. The system as it is works, it ensures that WA authors must actually put some effort into resolution as big stacks are the best method of ensuring resolution quality - the GA forum fails woefully in this regard - and also that resolutions are of a correct ideology.

Authors have ways to influence big delegates and instead of crying about the system should work within it.

[Aclion]

This sounds like whining based off of a resolution failing to pass. The system as it is works, it ensures that WA authors must actually put some effort into resolution as big stacks are the best method of ensuring resolution quality - the GA forum fails woefully in this regard - and also that resolutions are of a correct ideology.
Authors have ways to influence big delegates and instead of crying about the system should work within it.

Considering how often "the forum" has to write instarepeals for the hideously flawed legislation that the GCR delegates stack for I think it's rich claiming they're ensuring quality. Especially when just last week I myself had to run a counter-campaign against a proposal that permitted nations to ban miscegenation; a proposal that your delegate approved.
It's more like they're only reading the titles, or is preventing the dilution of racial bloodlines part of the The North Pacific's ideology?

[Bananaistan]

This sounds like whining based off of a resolution failing to pass. The system as it is works, it ensures that WA authors must actually put some effort into resolution as big stacks are the best method of ensuring resolution quality - the GA forum fails woefully in this regard - and also that resolutions are of a correct ideology.

Authors have ways to influence big delegates and instead of crying about the system should work within it.

What Aclion said there in response to this. You can't point to the delegates power in the current arrangements as quality control when it is patently anything but.

Also, this cannot be dismissed as mere whining. Auralia has ~20 passed resolutions to his name, with the most recent only 6 weeks ago or so. He is obviously well able to deal with the current arrangements.

Option 3 is an interesting idea. A simple formula could be, instead of adding one vote for each endorsement, add the square root of the number of endorsements, dropping the fraction. Example:

Delegate with 1 endo = 1 + sqrt(1) = 2 votes
Delegate with 4 endos = 1 + sqrt(4) = 3 votes
Delegate with 9 endos = 1 + sqrt(9) = 4 votes
.
Delegate with 100 endos = 1 + sqrt(100) = 11 votes
.
Delegate with 1000 endos = 1 + sqrt(1000) = 101 votes

Completely getting rid of additional votes for delegates would be my first preference. Something like this would be my second. The stack against and subsequent lemming effect is the big problem with the current arrangements.

In the absence of any material change, I would suggest that the delegate's vote be hidden from everyone but themselves for the first day or two of voting.

Delegates already have control over which resolutions reach the vote and that should be enough to satisfy the corruption/politics requirements of all these non GA regulars. Is it really necessary to also grant them such huge power over what passes as well once it's at vote?

[Tananat]

This sounds like whining based off of a resolution failing to pass. The system as it is works, it ensures that WA authors must actually put some effort into resolution as big stacks are the best method of ensuring resolution quality - the GA forum fails woefully in this regard - and also that resolutions are of a correct ideology.

Authors have ways to influence big delegates and instead of crying about the system should work within it.

What Aclion said there in response to this. You can't point to the delegates power in the current arrangements as quality control when it is patently anything but.

Also, this cannot be dismissed as mere whining. Auralia has ~20 passed resolutions to his name, with the most recent only 6 weeks ago or so. He is obviously well able to deal with the current arrangements.

Auralia only ever brings this up - either on the forums or in Discord chats - when his resolutions, like his most recent one - get stomped.

It's whining.

[Merni]

What Aclion said there in response to this. You can't point to the delegates power in the current arrangements as quality control when it is patently anything but.

Also, this cannot be dismissed as mere whining. Auralia has ~20 passed resolutions to his name, with the most recent only 6 weeks ago or so. He is obviously well able to deal with the current arrangements.

Auralia only ever brings this up - either on the forums or in Discord chats - when his resolutions, like his most recent one - get stomped.

It's whining.

1. When many delegates don't really care about the WA, you can hardly say they're ensuring quality.
2. Stop saying it's whining—do you have any material objections to this or not?
3. I would personally support a complete separation of WA delegate and regional executive powers. That is, one nation could be appointed WA delegate, and his power would only extend to the WA part. Even then, his vote would be limited by some formula. The regional executive (provisional name) would be the nation with the most endorsements, and would have all the powers of the current WAD except WA voting. This, of course has been discussed before.

[Excidium Planetis]

On more point:
Any system which totally kills the power of delegates will likely have the effect of making the WA pay to win.

Currently, the counter to a stamp campaign that hits the entire WA is that many people can afford to just telegram delegates, and reach roughly half the vote. You remove delegate power, and suddenly just reaching delegates is no longer very effective. Now, paying ~$20 to reach the whole WA is the most effective way to get votes.

[Kylia Quilor]

There is no 'abuse' going on to be reformed by GP region delegates.

[Auralia]

I think Max Barry would say this is working as intended, as it's teaching players about the realities of political corruption.

Yes, that makes perfect sense! And hey, while we're at it, why don't we make your RP region founderless and prevent you from using a password. That way you can also be taught a lesson; you can learn about the difficulty of maintaining stable regional communities.

The purpose of a game is not to "teach players a lesson". The purpose of a game is to have fun, and it is not fun to play a game when some players have an unfair advantage.

Many players do not have an interest in raiding, either, but that does not stop raiding from affecting them.

Let's fix that first.

Look, it's clear that you don't really care about the GA -- that's fine. The fact remains that R/D gameplay is not superior to GA gameplay, nor are its problems more important. If you don't have anything substantive to contribute to this discussion, please don't post here.

I'll admit that I don't give even the smallest of cares about the General Assembly.

Then why should you have been entrusted with power over the General Assembly? Why should anyone play a game when the people with the most power and influence in the game have no interest in actually playing it?

However, while serving as Osiris Delegate, I always voted accordingly with the recommendations of my WA Advisors and the forum vote on the resolution. Just because the delegate doesn't care doesn't mean others don't.

Why is it a good thing for GA players with regional connections to have more power and influence than those who do not? Why should GA players be forced to participate in regional gameplay in order to succeed, when these parts of the game are effectively separate and there is no comparable obligation for regional gameplayers to participate in the GA to do well in their areas of interest?

As for changing your nation's flag to an absurd image, I think there's something beautifully realistic in that. Nationstates is, afterall, an over-the-top version of reality rather than a sugarcoated rose-tinted one. In real votes, bribes, voting blocs, and so on are frequently utilized. I see nothing wrong with a similar behavior in our World Assembly.

I obviously do not object to politics in the General Assembly. Negotiation and compromise are an integral part of the game. But politics and political advantage should arise naturally from the GA, not be imported from regional gameplay.

Option 4 sounds too complicated, and would entirely wipe out stacking, as no extra votes would be counted until a region's voters started voting. I'm all for reducing the effects of stacking, but eliminating it entirely takes too much power away from regional delegates.

Delegates could still stack, just not in the early stages of voting.

It doesn't take a PhD in the World Assembly to know to vote against your proposals, for example.

This sounds like whining based off of a resolution failing to pass.

Your personal attacks are hereby acknowledged. Please refrain from posting in this thread if you have nothing substantive to add to this discussion.

Any system which totally kills the power of delegates will likely have the effect of making the WA pay to win.

Not if we also make voter information easier to distribute for all players. We could increase the API telegram rate limit to make it easier to send pan-WA telegrams for free, or we could create a pro-con style page for the current resolution that players could submit arguments to and vote on.

[Principality of the Raix]

In a mannerism, I can not disagree with the above. Seeing as it is all reasonable.

[Tananat]

[

This sounds like whining based off of a resolution failing to pass.

Your personal attacks are hereby acknowledged. Please refrain from posting in this thread if you have nothing substantive to add to this discussion.

Am I wrong? Would you posting this topic if Marriage Blocker had passed with a massive delegate stack in your favour? I doubt that somehow.

This is just like the time this topic was done, GA Authors don't want to put the effort in to get delegates on side so instead they want to gut their power and grab it for themselves. Your motives are relevant to this discussion.

[Frisbeeteria]

GA Authors don't want to put the effort in to get delegates on side so instead they want to gut their power and grab it for themselves.

This argument is nonsense. GA authors don't want to grab the power for themselves. They want to be fairly judged by the 24,623 WA member nations on the basis of their written argument, not by their ability to sway the 10 players who hold the most power.

if Marriage Blocker had passed

The author of Marriage Blocker was Clean Land, an entirely different player.

Your motives are relevant to this discussion.

They really aren't, particularly when your counterarguments are this nonsensical. This is Technical, where arguments are decided on their merits, not the authors' popularity.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This has always been an issue, and there is no real excuse for it. Not a single huge Delegate became Delegate so they could determine vote outcomes in the WA, least of all the GA. That has been the case since I’ve been playing NS (nearly a decade now). Theoretically the extra votes are a “reward” for becoming Delegate. Practically, it’s an unwarranted reward because these handful of players controlling half or more of all votes aren’t interested in playing the WA game. It’s a secondary fringe benefit, but it’s not one that’s specifically convincing somebody to take the job, so to speak.

[Fauxia]

Wrapper’s idea makes sense to me. I think the way it should work is not to count all endorsements as equal. The difference between 978 and 979 endorsements is much less than 25 and 26 endorsements.

The thing is, it can’t be too complicated that a sizeable sum can’t understand how it is calculated bc they don’t understand the math. Wrapper’s idea makes sense- though, a Delegate with 1000 endos only has 3 times the influence of one with 100, which seems a little too much...

[Kylia Quilor]

This has always been an issue, and there is no real excuse for it. Not a single huge Delegate became Delegate so they could determine vote outcomes in the WA, least of all the GA. That has been the case since I’ve been playing NS (nearly a decade now). Theoretically the extra votes are a “reward” for becoming Delegate. Practically, it’s an unwarranted reward because these handful of players controlling half or more of all votes aren’t interested in playing the WA game. It’s a secondary fringe benefit, but it’s not one that’s specifically convincing somebody to take the job, so to speak.

Given that most of the biggest delegates are big because the GCRs are artificially large...

[Excidium Planetis]

Any system which totally kills the power of delegates will likely have the effect of making the WA pay to win.

Not if we also make voter information easier to distribute for all players. We could increase the API telegram rate limit to make it easier to send pan-WA telegrams for free, or we could create a pro-con style page for the current resolution that players could submit arguments to and vote on.

Several problems here:
1) You are now suggesting multiple large changes instead of one. Not only is that more difficult, but if the system fails, it is harder to pinpoint what is not working as intended. Additionally, these changes impact more than just the GA: an API rate limit increase affects more than just the GA or even the WA.

2) Neither of those problems fix the pay to win problem. Not enough players are competent with API to make it a serious competitor to paying for stamps (just look at how many regions use stamp recruitment campaigns versus API, even though API is free) and the rate would have to double just to have a chance to hit all the WA in 4 days. I don't have the numbers, but just to get the API telegrams out to the whole WA in a reasonable time for people to receive it during the vote (say, 24 hours) there would need to be a massive increase in the rate limit, and that's not going to happen.

And the pro/con idea is good, and I support it, but that's not going to make telegram campaigns ineffective. Repeals literally contain their pro arguments in them, but a counter campaign can still destroy a repeal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This has always been an issue, and there is no real excuse for it. Not a single huge Delegate became Delegate so they could determine vote outcomes in the WA, least of all the GA. That has been the case since I’ve been playing NS (nearly a decade now). Theoretically the extra votes are a “reward” for becoming Delegate. Practically, it’s an unwarranted reward because these handful of players controlling half or more of all votes aren’t interested in playing the WA game. It’s a secondary fringe benefit, but it’s not one that’s specifically convincing somebody to take the job, so to speak.

Given that most of the biggest delegates are big because the GCRs are artificially large...

That’s how it is today, yeah. 9 years ago, though, the biggest Delegate was Alsted in Europe, competing with 10000 Islands.