The Python wrote:Yes, that would also be a good solution. The only issue with that is that bigger raider groups would find it easier to do that, but as you said, as long as the influence cost is high enough, then that would not be a problem.Unibot III wrote:What about putting an influence cost on reversing approvals? The Influence System is always how we've limited invading in the past. This way a tagging group would need to be large enough (or the leads would have to be plants) to overcome the intial influence cost of reversing an approval. It also limits how many proposals you could impact in one update by approval raiding with each delegacy, because each reversal would drain your influence.
What I'd do if I were NS Moderation would be to consult with active invaders and defenders in a new thread and ask them what kind of size of contingency (showing of force) would be a fair number to 'permit' approval raiding. As a retired vet, I can't answer that question.
Invaders will lowball that figure, defenders will highball that figure. You then run with an average figure between the two subsections. I'm imagining five or six, maybe as high as ten. Enough of a threshold that an update crew just couldn't approval raid on a whim every week, but low enough that if you wanted to run a more sophisticated operation, a group could do so.
The questions to ask are: How big are update crews these days? How many invaders can groups field? And what is a fair number?
I see this as a way to control approval raiding, putting a price on it (in a way), without disrupting the WA or banning the practice. That way you're continuing how we already manage invading: a self-managing cost system.
I might sound a bit touchy about Jakker's proposal, but it's because I'm an old player with a lot of bad experiences with NS Moderation proposing reforms to the WA. Back in the day, players embargoed and shut down the WA for less!! This wouldn't be the first time that NS Moderation got talking to themselves in a back room about how it could make the WA a whole lot better and then proposed something that undermined how the WA worked. This wouldn't even be the fourth time.
The reality is if a player doesn't know to solicit for approvals, their WA proposal is probably unvetted and poorly written. They should be encouraged to seek GA/SC resources, not be enabled with a big spam button. A flood of easy, free campaigns would push WA Delegates to filter out WA Campaigns & lower the quality of resolutions that go to the voting floor. The current WA is very accessible, more accessible than it ever was when I was a player - the WA forum community is far nicer and constructive, the ruleset is clearer and more sensiblle, and there aren't the generational and ideological divisions within the WA that were present a decade ago. (Back in the day, the original Jolt WA forum wasn't really a nice place to get feedback on your resolution, that's why all of us WA Youngins turned into crotchety, miserable GPers.)
EDIT: One way to open up the approval process would be to split the campaign filter into WA Proposals & WA Resolutions. That way delegates, infuriated by WA:all spam, can filter that stuff out without reneging on their duties as WA Delegate. The reality is only a small handful of chrotchy WA Delegates used to ban WA campaigns (there was like four of them - exactly four, and WA Authors had to religiously avoid them everytime you ran a campaign, for fear of being punished). The whole system was a silly little trap for WA Authors which accomidated a handful of cranks (+ that delegate who used to send us all cheese memes - THIS WAS A REAL THING). The new tg system is safer for WA Authors but proliferated 'No-WA-Tgs Delegates' way beyond traditional levels, making it more difficult to get into the queue, raising the cost and the investment required to get into the queue.
