Time to stop approval raiding.

[Lord Dominator]

That would certainly less open to abuse than other proposals

[Wallenburg]

IA's suggestion is, while not a total solution to approval raiding, a solution which has unquestionable benefits. Raiders don't actually remove the approval, just the delegate. If they want the approval to stay dead, they have to keep up the raid instead of having the a team of 4 guys sweep the small delegates and finish their operation in less than an hour.

[Lord Dominator]

IA's suggestion is, while not a total solution to approval raiding, a solution which has unquestionable benefits. Raiders don't actually remove the approval, just the delegate. If they want the approval to stay dead, they have to keep up the raid instead of having the a team of 4 guys sweep the small delegates and finish their operation in less than an hour.

The potential for more accurate defending of such would no doubt be appreciated by the same (defenders that is), seeing as the easiest way to keep it up would be to redo it every update.

[Libertarians]

The problem there would be you’d still need some version of Eli’s proposal, right? Does no good that DelegateNation’s approval would restore when he regains the delegacy if the proposal drops out of queue at the start of the next update for being under quorum.

[Sandaoguo]

I think a lot of people have lost the ball here. The solution to quorum raiding isn't some dispatch gimmick or lengthening queue times or putting cooldowns on disapprovals. The only solution is something which prevents third parties from removing the approval a delegate has granted a proposal.

That’s certainly a solution to *stop* quorum raiding, but good luck getting devs to agree that this (relatively) new form of emergent gameplay that’s generating activity should be ended by them.

That’s why I tried thinking up a solution that doesn’t punish quorum raiding or make it impossible, but rather addresses the underlying reason why people quorum raid (aside from the lulz or war). And it’s not a silver bullet intentionally. When have NS devs ever implemented a silver bullet??

[Wallenburg]

I think a lot of people have lost the ball here. The solution to quorum raiding isn't some dispatch gimmick or lengthening queue times or putting cooldowns on disapprovals. The only solution is something which prevents third parties from removing the approval a delegate has granted a proposal.

That’s certainly a solution to *stop* quorum raiding, but good luck getting devs to agree that this (relatively) new form of emergent gameplay that’s generating activity should be ended by them.

That’s why I tried thinking up a solution that doesn’t punish quorum raiding or make it impossible, but rather addresses the underlying reason why people quorum raid (aside from the lulz or war). And it’s not a silver bullet intentionally. When have NS devs ever implemented a silver bullet??

Your "solution" does nothing other than introduce more problems. It most certainly does not address the issue of quorum raiding.

[The Python]

I think a lot of people have lost the ball here. The solution to quorum raiding isn't some dispatch gimmick or lengthening queue times or putting cooldowns on disapprovals. The only solution is something which prevents third parties from removing the approval a delegate has granted a proposal.

Yes, this would definitely work best, however I don't know if the mods would actually want to do this.

[Sandaoguo]

Your "solution" does nothing other than introduce more problems. It most certainly does not address the issue of quorum raiding.

Unless people are being completely disingenuous about their reasons for quorum raiding, then the commonly stated reason for doing it is that they don't want a misleading or lying resolution to reach the floor, where it will go unchallenged and many people will believe it. Being able to put up a counter-argument right there next to the resolution at vote would definitely address that.

Many in this thread are proposing ideas to stop the symptoms, rather than looking at the motivation and seeing how that can be satisfied some other way. At the end of day, I've been playing this game for almost 13 years and I've never once seen NS devs just shut down a new form of gameplay. And people have asked many times for issues bigger than this. If that's your solution, good luck *shrugs*

[Reploid Productions]

It is also important to remember that quorum raiding is still politics. Sleazy, dirty politics, but politics nonetheless.

I doubt the techies will be on board for any change that completely stops or bans the practice; but they would be more open to making adjustments to make it more balanced. Quorum raiding should still be possible, just not necessarily easy to do.

[Refuge Isle]

IA's proposal seems to fit that description. Would support.

[Lord Dominator]

Your "solution" does nothing other than introduce more problems. It most certainly does not address the issue of quorum raiding.

Unless people are being completely disingenuous about their reasons for quorum raiding, then the commonly stated reason for doing it is that they don't want a misleading or lying resolution to reach the floor, where it will go unchallenged and many people will believe it. Being able to put up a counter-argument right there next to the resolution at vote would definitely address that.

We in TBH have usually done so because we want to slow something down or prevent it from ever reaching vote (or in one infamous instance, to indirectly make a point to an XKIer). Providing methods to promote alternate views of a given proposal wouldn't really change our incentives, and would add something new to "raid."

Of course, I'm not strictly opposed to such a change in the abstract, just not as a 'solution' to quorum raiding.

[Praeceps]

Your "solution" does nothing other than introduce more problems. It most certainly does not address the issue of quorum raiding.

Unless people are being completely disingenuous about their reasons for quorum raiding, then the commonly stated reason for doing it is that they don't want a misleading or lying resolution to reach the floor, where it will go unchallenged and many people will believe it. Being able to put up a counter-argument right there next to the resolution at vote would definitely address that.

Many in this thread are proposing ideas to stop the symptoms, rather than looking at the motivation and seeing how that can be satisfied some other way. At the end of day, I've been playing this game for almost 13 years and I've never once seen NS devs just shut down a new form of gameplay. And people have asked many times for issues bigger than this. If that's your solution, good luck *shrugs*

I can't think of a proposal in recent history that this has been the rationale for so I don't think that proposed solution would solve anything.

[The Python]

I think a lot of people have lost the ball here. The solution to quorum raiding isn't some dispatch gimmick or lengthening queue times or putting cooldowns on disapprovals. The only solution is something which prevents third parties from removing the approval a delegate has granted a proposal.

I think making the approvals persistent by delegate would be the simplest way to achieve this.

What does this mean?

• Delegate Alex approves proposal 'Growing Potatoes'
• Some raiders come in to topple delegate Alex by bumping up new Delegate Bobby
• While Delegate Alex is now just nation Alex, the proposal loses an approval because Delegate Bobby has not approved the proposal
• Raiders leave and Delegate Alex regains delegate position
• Automatically the approval for 'Growing Potatoes' returns if the proposal is still in the submissions list

I think it's an elegant quality of life improvement. It would just restore any approvals previously given by a delegate to still-existing proposals automatically. Basically even if the delegate forgot, the site will remember for you. It's even better in-character: given a WA delegation, it would probably remember if it were un-elected then re-elected to re-approve anything it previously approved. It's just that NS players don't have the same attention and records as a whole IC delegation and their staff would.

It also would be symmetrical. To push something to quorum, you need to create and hold a bunch of regions with delegates to approve it: ie stay in the same place. Currently, it isn't symmetrical, you can remove approvals more easily than create them. This would require raiding groups to create/occupy regions to deny approvals: ie stay in the same place. Sure, approval raiding is still 'possible' but it requires the same kind of deployment that delegate-creation does.

This is a good idea. It means raiders have to pile afterward to be able to, which means they can do less per update.

[Wallenburg]

It is also important to remember that quorum raiding is still politics. Sleazy, dirty politics, but politics nonetheless.

I doubt the techies will be on board for any change that completely stops or bans the practice; but they would be more open to making adjustments to make it more balanced. Quorum raiding should still be possible, just not necessarily easy to do.

Doesn't really change much, but plenty of absolutely heinous things are "politics". That something is political doesn't change value judgements. Quorum raiding must be addressed to prevent a breakdown of what little civility exists in the WA, politics or no.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The problem there would be you’d still need some version of Eli’s proposal, right? Does no good that DelegateNation’s approval would restore when he regains the delegacy if the proposal drops out of queue at the start of the next update for being under quorum.

I think that's true.

The initial idea that I heard was proposed by ShrewLlamaLand back when CCD was getting quorum raided, which was to tie approvals to regions rather than to delegates. I'm not sure whether this works. While in large regions a native might get bumped to break the streak, in small ones, raiders can just elect their own man as delegate, who would then remove the approval manually. Then the new delegate would have to manually give the approval back.

EDIT. The two could be combined to make approvals by region and to cache approvals given by delegate... Actually, reflecting on it, I think combining the two would actually be more symmetric: if quorum raiders want to remove an approval, they need to get their nation elected delegate, do it themselves, and remain delegate. This is basically the exact opposite of creating new delegates to send something to quorum: the pushers need to get elected delegate, do it themselves, and remain delegate.

Adding and removing approvals (not programs, silly Windows) should be reasonably symmetric. Combining a region-based approach and approval caching doesn't stop quorum raids. Raiders can still do them. They're just now on the same playing field as creating delegates to push something to quorum.

[Sandaoguo]

Unless people are being completely disingenuous about their reasons for quorum raiding, then the commonly stated reason for doing it is that they don't want a misleading or lying resolution to reach the floor, where it will go unchallenged and many people will believe it. Being able to put up a counter-argument right there next to the resolution at vote would definitely address that.

We in TBH have usually done so because we want to slow something down or prevent it from ever reaching vote (or in one infamous instance, to indirectly make a point to an XKIer). Providing methods to promote alternate views of a given proposal wouldn't really change our incentives, and would add something new to "raid."

Of course, I'm not strictly opposed to such a change in the abstract, just not as a 'solution' to quorum raiding.

Yes, TBH would fall under the “for the lulz or war” motivations I mentioned earlier. There’s very little I can imagine NS devs doing to stop or discourage that.

[Comfed]

I like IA’s idea, personally.

[Galiantus III]

Seeing as I have played a small role in this becoming a thing...

Balance of Approval Raiding

As a defender, approval raiding is very hard to stop, so an automatic control is necessary.

Something being missed in this discussion is approval defenders (backers) have the exact same information as approval raiders (blockers). Backers of a proposal have every opportunity both before and during an update to counter blockers, because all potential targets come from a small list of regions. This means backers can act preemptively during update and screw over all the efforts of blockers - to a degree defenders never could to raiders.

Additionally, the use of updaters isn't even necessary - they can just reinforce delegates outside of update. If a few regions established a "WA Defense Force", or some kind of proposal sponsorship or delegate protection program, they could increase the difficulty of approval raiding through relatively passive means.

Before any technical solution is implemented it would be wise to wait and see how players respond within the game. Things may already be well balanced, if players use the tools available to them.

Falling off the Queue

The problem is that proposals that run out of time are removed instantly if they fall off the queue.

I have no interest in implementing something which would keep approvals after someone lost WA Delegacy. However, I could be persuaded to implement a reset on expiration time whenever a proposal reached enough approvals that it could reach queue. (So it would need to fall below the required number of approvals for 3 days or whatever to be removed). This way, an author would have time to react to quorum raiding if their proposal is capable of reaching queue.

What could be some desirable or undesirable outcomes of such a change? Any surprises I haven't thought of?

I think the fairest way to implement something like this is to have "fallen" proposals revert back to the number of updates they had left when they reached quorum. Thus counter campaigns and approval raids could still work, but proposal authors would have time to respond. This does mean a proposal could spend well over a week in limbo... but isn't that how legislation can be sometimes?

Technical Solutions
So far there are two technical solutions I think have any merit for addressing approval raiding directly:

• Approvals anchor to the region
• Approvals persist with removed delegates

It would make more sense if approvals were tied to a region and either are on or off for a given proposal, carrying over to a new delegate if it were bumped.

I think making the approvals persistent by delegate would be the simplest way to achieve this.
[...]
I think it's an elegant quality of life improvement. It would just restore any approvals previously given by a delegate to still-existing proposals automatically.

If we address approval raiding directly, one of these solutions is the way to go. Using both is an overreaction, and would totally kill approval raiding since the cost of playing would be too great. As I've already said, backers have a huge information advantage they are not yet attempting to use. If approvals are both anchored to the region and persist with nations, that advantage means approval raiding would be significantly harder than regular raiding, to the point that it would die.

As for which one should be used, if approval raiding does need to be nerfed:

• Region Anchoring would increase the number of people required to initially remove an approval, and would totally close off the possibility of approval raiding in many regions. This would raise the barrier to entry for approval raiding.
• Delegate Persistence would mostly limit the effect of approval raiding to one update. Success with approval raiding would thus require a higher time investment.

I personally think having approvals persist with a delegate makes the most sense. It doesn't needlessly raise the barrier to entry, it is a good quality-of-life feature, and it creates an interesting set of tactical decisions: blockers must consider how much to invest in a given region, and how to prioritize targets. Do they simply push the delegate and buy more time? Or do they commit to an attempt to hold the position for multiple updates? This dilemma already exists to some degree. But since the threat of approvals reverting back is small, committing to a full raid isn't considered.

[Jabberwocky]

Darn those raiders

[Imperium Anglorum]

It would make more sense if approvals were tied to a region and either are on or off for a given proposal, carrying over to a new delegate if it were bumped.

I think making the approvals persistent by delegate would be the simplest way to achieve this.
[...]
I think it's an elegant quality of life improvement. It would just restore any approvals previously given by a delegate to still-existing proposals automatically.

If we address approval raiding directly, one of these solutions is the way to go. Using both is an overreaction, and would totally kill approval raiding since the cost of playing would be too great. As I've already said, backers have a huge information advantage they are not yet attempting to use. If approvals are both anchored to the region and persist with nations, that advantage means approval raiding would be significantly harder than regular raiding, to the point that it would die.

As for which one should be used, if approval raiding does need to be nerfed:

• Region Anchoring would increase the number of people required to initially remove an approval, and would totally close off the possibility of approval raiding in many regions. This would raise the barrier to entry for approval raiding.
• Delegate Persistence would mostly limit the effect of approval raiding to one update. Success with approval raiding would thus require a higher time investment.

I personally think having approvals persist with a delegate makes the most sense. It doesn't needlessly raise the barrier to entry, it is a good quality-of-life feature, and it creates an interesting set of tactical decisions: blockers must consider how much to invest in a given region, and how to prioritize targets. Do they simply push the delegate and buy more time? Or do they commit to an attempt to hold the position for multiple updates? This dilemma already exists to some degree. But since the threat of approvals reverting back is small, committing to a full raid isn't considered.

I think it should be symmetric to create regional approvals and to remove them. I don't think it's an 'overreaction': it merely makes it just as difficult to remove an approval as adding one is. If 'the cost of playing would be too great' given these changes, perhaps it should be easier to add approvals as well. But the delegate-election and approval system seems entirely set in stone.

[Old Hope]

I think the best way forward is:
1. Approvals are tied to a region.
2. If there is no World Assembly Delegate(resigned delegates count as delegates) the approval is lost.
3. The delegate can change or add approvals at any time, except if:
3a:They have resigned from the WA
3b:They have been World Assembly Delegate for less than one update(The new delegate telegram is changed accordingly)
3c:The region has been without password for at least one update.(The new delegate telegram is changed accordingly)

This stops the worst of both worlds: Both approval raiding and approval flooding can be stopped by toppling the delegate.
I know 3c is problematic, but it is absolutely necessary to prevent approval flooding from being unstoppable.

[Wallenburg]

Digital death to raiders of any sort.

politically, in Minecraft

[Galiantus III]

I think it should be symmetric to create regional approvals and to remove them. I don't think it's an 'overreaction': it merely makes it just as difficult to remove an approval as adding one is. If 'the cost of playing would be too great' given these changes, perhaps it should be easier to add approvals as well. But the delegate-election and approval system seems entirely set in stone.

Putting them together doesn't work like you're saying. It just places a bunch of requirements on blockers, but not backers. It's not symmetric. One is just a failsafe for the other so approval defenders/backers have to do virtually nothing:

• If approvals are only tied to the region, the initial defense will be easy, but changing it back may not be possible without invasion.
• If approvals are only tied to the nation, the initial defense will be hard, but changing it back will be relatively easy.
• If approvals are tied to both the region and the nation, the initial defense will be easy, and changing back losses will be trivial.

It doesn't work like that for raiders/blockers, and sets up a ridiculous standard to derive any benefit from approval raiding:

• They must perform a full invasion of the region. This entirely removes many regions from play.
• They must do this with a limited selection of targets, which backers have 100% knowledge of ahead of time.
• They must keep up this style of attack for multiple updates, very frequently against regions with founders.

If you want the type of switching action you are looking for, the best option is to only make one change, not both.

[Galiantus III]

3. The delegate can change or add approvals at any time, except if:
3b:They have been World Assembly Delegate for less than one update

That would definitely put an end to approval raiding. I'm not in favor of that, but if the goal is to eliminate it I'd prefer a simple solution like this.

3c:The region has been without password for at least one update.

Are you saying regions with passwords should not give approvals? I'm not 100% clear.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think it should be symmetric to create regional approvals and to remove them. I don't think it's an 'overreaction': it merely makes it just as difficult to remove an approval as adding one is. If 'the cost of playing would be too great' given these changes, perhaps it should be easier to add approvals as well. But the delegate-election and approval system seems entirely set in stone.

Putting them together doesn't work like you're saying. It just places a bunch of requirements on blockers, but not backers. It's not symmetric. One is just a failsafe for the other so approval defenders/backers have to do virtually nothing:

• If approvals are only tied to the region, the initial defense will be easy, but changing it back may not be possible without invasion.
• If approvals are only tied to the nation, the initial defense will be hard, but changing it back will be relatively easy.
• If approvals are tied to both the region and the nation, the initial defense will be easy, and changing back losses will be trivial.

It doesn't work like that for raiders/blockers, and sets up a ridiculous standard to derive any benefit from approval raiding:

• They must perform a full invasion of the region. This entirely removes many regions from play.
• They must do this with a limited selection of targets, which backers have 100% knowledge of ahead of time.
• They must keep up this style of attack for multiple updates, very frequently against regions with founders.

If you want the type of switching action you are looking for, the best option is to only make one change, not both.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It's entirely symmetric.

Imagine region with native delegate who has approved proposal P. To deprive P of the native delegate's approval: install a raider delegate, actually hit the 'withdraw approval' button, maintain control of the region.

To create a new approval of P, create a new region. Install a delegate, actually hit the 'approve' button, maintain control of the region.