Limit delegate influence in the GA

[Wrapper]

This is what happens when you "appeal to the voters".

No, that's what happens when you spam member nations who don't want your spam.

Nonsense. WA campaign TGs are not spam. Member nations don't want them? They can opt out.

[Tananat]

No, that's what happens when you spam member nations who don't want your spam.

Nonsense. WA campaign TGs are not spam. Member nations don't want them? They can opt out.

Spam is in the eye of the beholder, in this instance - and GA authors can easily either telegram regional delegates or the signatories of that accord's World Assembly Affairs departments to get their voice heard. It's something many do, on both sides of this debate.

[Sovreignry]

Nonsense. WA campaign TGs are not spam. Member nations don't want them? They can opt out.

Spam is in the eye of the beholder, in this instance - and GA authors can easily either telegram regional delegates or the signatories of that accord's World Assembly Affairs departments to get their voice heard. It's something many do, on both sides of this debate.

And if someone thinks that WA Campaign TG's are spam they can block those types of TGs, that's literally the point of the blocking system.

[Tananat]

Spam is in the eye of the beholder, in this instance - and GA authors can easily either telegram regional delegates or the signatories of that accord's World Assembly Affairs departments to get their voice heard. It's something many do, on both sides of this debate.

And if someone thinks that WA Campaign TG's are spam they can block those types of TGs, that's literally the point of the blocking system.

At the risk of this avenue of discussion becoming rather circular - evidently the governments and citizenry of those regions decided to do more than just block the TGs, as regions have before with recruitment spam.

[Bananaistan]

And if someone thinks that WA Campaign TG's are spam they can block those types of TGs, that's literally the point of the blocking system.

At the risk of this avenue of discussion becoming rather circular - evidently the governments and citizenry of those regions decided to do more than just block the TGs, as regions have before with recruitment spam.

Yes they did decide to do more. They specifically tried to stop GA players from using a legitimate feature of the game in order to allow these delegates a huge level of power on what content can and can't reach the ears of their residents. The simple fact of the matter is that a TG direct to voters has a far better chance of getting your views across to the largest amount of people than posts on offsite forums or single TGs to delegates who may or may not pass on the information.

This is a discussion about removing such huge power from a handful people and their acolytes on offsite forums. The "anti-spam" travesty was a clear action taken by these people to further concentrate WA power in their hands.

That they equated campaign TGs with spam shows just the level of contempt these people have for GA players.

[Mallorea and Riva]

At the risk of this avenue of discussion becoming rather circular - evidently the governments and citizenry of those regions decided to do more than just block the TGs, as regions have before with recruitment spam.

Yes they did decide to do more. They specifically tried to stop GA players from using a legitimate feature of the game in order to allow these delegates a huge level of power on what content can and can't reach the ears of their residents. The simple fact of the matter is that a TG direct to voters has a far better chance of getting your views across to the largest amount of people than posts on offsite forums or single TGs to delegates who may or may not pass on the information.

This is a discussion about removing such huge power from a handful people and their acolytes on offsite forums. The "anti-spam" travesty was a clear action taken by these people to further concentrate WA power in their hands.

That they equated campaign TGs with spam shows just the level of contempt these people have for GA players.

Have you gone to those regions to debate their governments on the issue?

[Tananat]

Yes they did decide to do more. They specifically tried to stop GA players from using a legitimate feature of the game in order to allow these delegates a huge level of power on what content can and can't reach the ears of their residents. The simple fact of the matter is that a TG direct to voters has a far better chance of getting your views across to the largest amount of people than posts on offsite forums or single TGs to delegates who may or may not pass on the information.

This is a discussion about removing such huge power from a handful people and their acolytes on offsite forums. The "anti-spam" travesty was a clear action taken by these people to further concentrate WA power in their hands.

That they equated campaign TGs with spam shows just the level of contempt these people have for GA players.

Have you gone to those regions to debate their governments on the issue?

Of course not, that would be like work and effort and stuff. The likes of Auralia sometimes do and IA will, but we shouldn't expect GA authors to actually try, that would be pointless, expecting them to take part in politics and lobbying in a political game.

[Kylia Quilor]

At the risk of this avenue of discussion becoming rather circular - evidently the governments and citizenry of those regions decided to do more than just block the TGs, as regions have before with recruitment spam.

Yes they did decide to do more. They specifically tried to stop GA players from using a legitimate feature of the game in order to allow these delegates a huge level of power on what content can and can't reach the ears of their residents. The simple fact of the matter is that a TG direct to voters has a far better chance of getting your views across to the largest amount of people than posts on offsite forums or single TGs to delegates who may or may not pass on the information.

This is a discussion about removing such huge power from a handful people and their acolytes on offsite forums. The "anti-spam" travesty was a clear action taken by these people to further concentrate WA power in their hands.

That they equated campaign TGs with spam shows just the level of contempt these people have for GA players.

You do realize the Spam Accords weren't even popular with Gameplayers, right?

[Unibot III]

Yes they did decide to do more. They specifically tried to stop GA players from using a legitimate feature of the game in order to allow these delegates a huge level of power on what content can and can't reach the ears of their residents. The simple fact of the matter is that a TG direct to voters has a far better chance of getting your views across to the largest amount of people than posts on offsite forums or single TGs to delegates who may or may not pass on the information.

This is a discussion about removing such huge power from a handful people and their acolytes on offsite forums. The "anti-spam" travesty was a clear action taken by these people to further concentrate WA power in their hands.

That they equated campaign TGs with spam shows just the level of contempt these people have for GA players.

You do realize the Spam Accords weren't even popular with Gameplayers, right?

Principally, Gameplayers who were WA Authors. Not everyone is one or the other.

I do have a question related to this conversation, since I know Auralia has always been passionate about repealing GA#2. Does WALL still take the hardline protecting GA#2? (As it did under Mousebumbles.) That case helps to explain my perspective I've shared, the GA#2 repeal was probably the most cynical triangulation of NatSov politics, questionable moderation, and Independentist geopolitics ever to be witnessed. It appears to me from the outside that the recent WA reforms (GenSec), the new ruleset and the general politics of the modern WA is the community's shared recognition that the GA#2 repeal debate was a step too far towards outright corruption and intellectual dishonesty. But has WALL moved on too, or is it a legacy institution from that older era, effectively enforcing those views on the present WA?

[Kylia Quilor]

You do realize the Spam Accords weren't even popular with Gameplayers, right?

Principally, Gameplayers who were WA Authors. Not everyone is one or the other.

I do have a question related to this conversation, since I know Auralia has always been passionate about repealing GA#2. Does WALL still take the hardline protecting GA#2? (As it did under Mousebumbles.) That case helps to explain my perspective I've shared, the GA#2 repeal was probably the most cynical triangulation of NatSov politics, questionable moderation, and Independentist geopolitics ever to be witnessed. It appears to me from the outside that the recent WA reforms (GenSec), the new ruleset and the general politics of the modern WA is the community's shared recognition that the GA#2 repeal debate was a step too far towards outright corruption and intellectual dishonesty. But has WALL moved on too, or is it a legacy institution from that older era, effectively enforcing those views on the present WA?

1 - I'm not involved in the administration of WALL. Go ask someone who pays attention to it.

2 - lots of Europeians who don't care much about the GA weren't happy about the Spam Accords either - it was not well recieved among the regional population.

[Drasnia]

2 - lots of Europeians who don't care much about the GA weren't happy about the Spam Accords either - it was not well recieved among the regional population.

Wasn't it repealed fairly quickly in both Euro and TNP because of all the outcry?

[Unibot III]

Principally, Gameplayers who were WA Authors. Not everyone is one or the other.

I do have a question related to this conversation, since I know Auralia has always been passionate about repealing GA#2. Does WALL still take the hardline protecting GA#2? (As it did under Mousebumbles.) That case helps to explain my perspective I've shared, the GA#2 repeal was probably the most cynical triangulation of NatSov politics, questionable moderation, and Independentist geopolitics ever to be witnessed. It appears to me from the outside that the recent WA reforms (GenSec), the new ruleset and the general politics of the modern WA is the community's shared recognition that the GA#2 repeal debate was a step too far towards outright corruption and intellectual dishonesty. But has WALL moved on too, or is it a legacy institution from that older era, effectively enforcing those views on the present WA?

1 - I'm not involved in the administration of WALL. Go ask someone who pays attention to it.

To be clear, I was throwing that question out to anybody who knew.

[Kylia Quilor]

2 - lots of Europeians who don't care much about the GA weren't happy about the Spam Accords either - it was not well recieved among the regional population.

Wasn't it repealed fairly quickly in both Euro and TNP because of all the outcry?

I know it was in Euro, yes, as I understand it. I can't speak for TNP, but I'd guess so.

[Eluvatar]

While I'd love to talk about the WALL and WAASC (seriously, that sort of thing is/was my bread and butter as a player) this probably isn't the right place for it.

[Kylia Quilor]

While I'd love to talk about the WALL and WAASC (seriously, that sort of thing is/was my bread and butter as a player) this probably isn't the right place for it.

Well, the whole conversation is bound up in the politics of Delegates though.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

When I first looked at this, I thought some moderate capping might be appropriate. Having read through the debate, I'm much more coming round to the view that this is a solution in search of a problem.

Effectively, WA nations have 2 votes. One they cast themselves, and one the may choose to invest in a delegate. The regional delegacy contest is a large part of what makes the game what it is. The large block votes exist because people have put time and effort into recruitment and organization. If you don't like the situation, you can combat it using the same methods.

[Aclion]

When I first looked at this, I thought some moderate capping might be appropriate. Having read through the debate, I'm much more coming round to the view that this is a solution in search of a problem.

Effectively, WA nations have 2 votes. One they cast themselves, and one the may choose to invest in a delegate. The regional delegacy contest is a large part of what makes the game what it is. The large block votes exist because people have put time and effort into recruitment and organization. If you don't like the situation, you can combat it using the same methods.

Large vote blocks exist because delegates with large numbers of endorsements are needed for security reasons. It has nothing to do with the WA vote.

[Frisbeeteria]

Large vote blocks exist because delegates with large numbers of endorsements are needed for security reasons. It has nothing to do with the WA vote.

Then nobody will mind if we remove their voting block power, correct? If we follow the OP's suggestions and severely reduce the number of votes?

You're either remarkably naive or deliberately avoiding the topic. It has EVERYTHING to do with how the WA votes.

[Aclion]

Large vote blocks exist because delegates with large numbers of endorsements are needed for security reasons. It has nothing to do with the WA vote.

Then nobody will mind if we remove their voting block power, correct? If we follow the OP's suggestions and severely reduce the number of votes?

You're either remarkably naive or deliberately avoiding the topic. It has EVERYTHING to do with how the WA votes.

I suggest you read some of my posts in the thread before you start throwing shade.

[Unibot III]

Large vote blocks exist because delegates with large numbers of endorsements are needed for security reasons. It has nothing to do with the WA vote.

Then nobody will mind if we remove their voting block power, correct? If we follow the OP's suggestions and severely reduce the number of votes?

You're either remarkably naive or deliberately avoiding the topic. It has EVERYTHING to do with how the WA votes.

What Aclion is saying is that delegates tart incessantly to get endorsements and keep their position as WA Delegate. If the WA's endorsements were separate from regional endorsements, WA Delegates would probably be pretty lazy about amassing WA endorsements because it's not a huge regional priority for big gameplay regions.

[Excidium Planetis]

What Aclion is saying is that delegates tart incessantly to get endorsements and keep their position as WA Delegate. If the WA's endorsements were separate from regional endorsements, WA Delegates would probably be pretty lazy about amassing WA endorsements because it's not a huge regional priority for big gameplay regions.

Which is why, in my opinion, the best way to limit delegate influence is not to kill delegate voting power, but to separate regional endorsements from GA endorsements. Whether that means complete separation of WA and Regional Delegates, or simply a GA/SC split with the SC getting the Delegates, I don't particularly care. But the problem right now is that delegates have a large amount of votes in a section of the game they are not involved in, and an easy fix is to make it so the people who wield the votes in the GA are people who are solely interested in using those votes in the GA.

If it is true, that, if GA endorsements were only for GA votes and the delegate was decided with regional endorsements, we would see a lower level of endotarting, then I expect we would see a natural decline in GA voting power, fitting the goals of the proposed changes here. Additionally, what little campaigning needed to be done would be aimed at players who were primarily GA officers and not regional Delegates.

[Ayamya]

i think delegates should keep or even have more influence in the GA because they are trusted by the people who endorse them

[Unibot III]

What Aclion is saying is that delegates tart incessantly to get endorsements and keep their position as WA Delegate. If the WA's endorsements were separate from regional endorsements, WA Delegates would probably be pretty lazy about amassing WA endorsements because it's not a huge regional priority for big gameplay regions.

Which is why, in my opinion, the best way to limit delegate influence is not to kill delegate voting power, but to separate regional endorsements from GA endorsements. Whether that means complete separation of WA and Regional Delegates, or simply a GA/SC split with the SC getting the Delegates, I don't particularly care. But the problem right now is that delegates have a large amount of votes in a section of the game they are not involved in, and an easy fix is to make it so the people who wield the votes in the GA are people who are solely interested in using those votes in the GA.

If it is true, that, if GA endorsements were only for GA votes and the delegate was decided with regional endorsements, we would see a lower level of endotarting, then I expect we would see a natural decline in GA voting power, fitting the goals of the proposed changes here. Additionally, what little campaigning needed to be done would be aimed at players who were primarily GA officers and not regional Delegates.

This is an interesting thought.

Have WA Endorsements be just Endorsements - and there would be a button to "sponsor" the delegate's WA vote.

[Unibot III]

I think I have a very different way to address delegate influence. Perhaps a better way than just readjusting how votes are counted with a simple algorithm.

What if a region had multiple WA delegates? The "Top WA Delegate" would remain as the head of the region with WA delegate powers as they've conventionally been bestowed, but any nation with a third of the region's WA nations endorsing them would also become, by definition, a WA delegate of said region.

Among the GCRs, TNP would be the clear outlier. It would have 68 more WA delegates if this change were implemented. All of the sinkers would gain one more WA delegate and all of the rest of the feeders would gain five WA delegates, except the Pacific which would retain only have one WA delegate. Europe would have 21 more delegates, while Europeia would have three more delegates.

We know that the more open the endorsement trading, typically the larger the WA electorate, so this proposal would recognize that relationship. The more diffuse your endorsements, the more diffuse your WA influence. I believe that it's the fairer proposal to larger WA regions because those regions would still command significant authority in the WA and you would have even more reason to want to join said regions and collect and trade endorsements in the largest of WA regions - which is good news, not bad news for regions like the North Pacific and Europe. This proposal would not change the relative difference between the votes cast by regions - the ratio between TNP and TRR would remain the same, for instance - and nor would it change the ratio between Delegate Votes and Non-Delegate votes. It simply changes who is casting the votes which would in effect democratize the process more.

I would anticipate all WA Delegates having voting rights and approval rights - how that would affect quorum is difficult to project. I would expect it would double quorum roughly. If this proposal were implemented, the quorum rate might have to be dropped to accommodate the larger pool of WA delegates and the increased cost of a telegram campaign.

How you would calculate the votes that each WA delegate is open for discussion, but the method I prefer is giving the Top WA Delegate, votes equal to half his or her endorsements, then distributing the remaining surplus (capped at a quarter of the WA Delegate's votes) equally among the other WA delegates in their region. This way, regions would have a material reason to not want to be so unequal as to have only one or two WA delegates because any region with less than three WA Delegates would be wasting votes/influence in the WA - for instance, the Pacific's strict endorsement practices would cost them 257 votes. Ouch.

(Also, I would presume only integers would be considered, so many smaller regions would not be affected by this change in policy. In my opinion, I would only implement the change of policy for regions with less than 4 Top Delegate Endorsements because until that point, a non-Top WA Delegate would have a WA vote that is less than two. The proposal might function better for small regions though if it were only to come into effect with regions with a much higher endorsement count. After all, it's really a proposal that's meant for larger regions. One way to conceptualize that would be to say, you're a WA Delegate if you have "endorsements equal to a third of the region's WA Nations provided you have at least ten endorsements.")

This proposal would diffuse influence within the WA without affecting the relative position of regions in the WA, while discouraging unilateral endorsement distributions and encouraging activity in the largest, most open Game-Created Regions. Effectively, it'd be a proposal that would be better for the WA and better for Gameplay too, encouraging more participation in both spheres.

[Tananat]

I think I have a very different way to address delegate influence. Perhaps a better way than just readjusting how votes are counted with a simple algorithm.

What if a region had multiple WA delegates? The "Top WA Delegate" would remain as the head of the region with WA delegate powers as they've conventionally been bestowed, but any nation with a third of the region's WA nations endorsing them would also become, by definition, a WA delegate of said region.

Among the GCRs, TNP would be the clear outlier. It would have 68 more WA delegates if this change were implemented. All of the sinkers would gain one more WA delegate and all of the rest of the feeders would gain five WA delegates, except the Pacific which would retain only have one WA delegate. Europe would have 21 more delegates, while Europeia would have three more delegates.

We know that the more open the endorsement trading, typically the larger the WA electorate, so this proposal would recognize that relationship. The more diffuse your endorsements, the more diffuse your WA influence. I believe that it's the fairer proposal to larger WA regions because those regions would still command significant authority in the WA and you would have even more reason to want to join said regions and collect and trade endorsements in the largest of WA regions - which is good news, not bad news for regions like the North Pacific and Europe. This proposal would not change the relative difference between the votes cast by regions - the ratio between TNP and TRR would remain the same, for instance - and nor would it change the ratio between Delegate Votes and Non-Delegate votes. It simply changes who is casting the votes which would in effect democratize the process more.

I would anticipate all WA Delegates having voting rights and approval rights - how that would affect quorum is difficult to project. I would expect it would double quorum roughly. If this proposal were implemented, the quorum rate might have to be dropped to accommodate the larger pool of WA delegates and the increased cost of a telegram campaign.

How you would calculate the votes that each WA delegate is open for discussion, but the method I prefer is giving the Top WA Delegate, votes equal to half his or her endorsements, then distributing the remaining surplus (capped at a quarter of the WA Delegate's votes) equally among the other WA delegates in their region. This way, regions would have a material reason to not want to be so unequal as to have only one or two WA delegates because any region with less than three WA Delegates would be wasting votes/influence in the WA - for instance, the Pacific's strict endorsement practices would cost them 257 votes. Ouch.

(Also, I would presume only integers would be considered, so many smaller regions would not be affected by this change in policy. In my opinion, I would only implement the change of policy for regions with less than 4 Top Delegate Endorsements because until that point, a non-Top WA Delegate would have a WA vote that is less than two. The proposal might function better for small regions though if it were only to come into effect with regions with a much higher endorsement count. After all, it's really a proposal that's meant for larger regions. One way to conceptualize that would be to say, you're a WA Delegate if you have "endorsements equal to a third of the region's WA Nations provided you have at least ten endorsements.")

This proposal would diffuse influence within the WA without affecting the relative position of regions in the WA, while discouraging unilateral endorsement distributions and encouraging activity in the largest, most open Game-Created Regions. Effectively, it'd be a proposal that would be better for the WA and better for Gameplay too, encouraging more participation in both spheres.

This is the only suggestion made in multiple topics on this issue that is interesting enough for me not to just outright oppose.

Perhaps these non-top delegates could be called WA Representatives, to better reflect the differences between them, and how they would only have WA-related powers.