Time to stop approval raiding.

[Galiantus III]

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.

Oh, I thought you were claiming it was fair. You're actually saying it is the operational opposite of adding an approval. That's a good point, but it doesn't create a balanced outcome. Creating a new approval is already very easy compared to removing one. Making it even more difficult to do a removal without first letting players try and counter each other isn't a good way to approach approvals.

[Miss Bad Life Choices]

Digital death to raiders of any sort.

Thanks, will order all the Hawks to move their nations to TBH Graveyard to let their nations die out. Congrats on ending TBH after fifteen years.

Anyway overall I still feel like a Technical change to the game over quorum raiding right now in time would be pre-mature. There are several ways for natives and defenders to counter this on their own (literally Commend Northern Borland was raiders moving 90 seconds early into targets and could have been stopped by handful of defenders overall, lazy raiding ftw), and it is politics as Reppy said. I get why some people think a change is needed, but I think it's way too early for something that's only picked up controversy within the last couple months. I'd rather see players work to handle quorum raiding on our own without needing admin intervention, especially as the GP/WA community just introduced a new defender WA voting bloc, quorum raiding was pushed into the spotlight by Repeal Lib CCD, and how it's starting to just catch more attention.

[Crazy girl]

Darn those raiders

This is not the Gameplay forum, it is a Technical discussion. Contribute to the debate or don't post. Consider this a knock it off.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Oh, I thought you were claiming it was fair. You're actually saying it is the operational opposite of adding an approval. That's a good point, but it doesn't create a balanced outcome. Creating a new approval is already very easy compared to removing one. Making it even more difficult to do a removal without first letting players try and counter each other isn't a good way to approach approvals.

I don't understand this counter-argument. Is not procedural fairness is the only kind of fairness that NationStates should expect?

Imposing a substantive fairness standard is pretty out-of-wack with how the game currently works. For this argument, assume there are 50 raider pilers total. Because it is difficult and hard for raiders to install a raider delegate in the North Pacific because the native delegate has over 1000 endorsements, substantive fairness would require the number of endorsements any region can have to be capped to 50 because otherwise it's just too hard for raiders to take TNP. Doing the cap means it's substantively fair: the raiders and defenders have a level playing ground.

Instead what the site staff seem to have preferred historically is procedural fairness: if you want to take over the North Pacific, find yourself an equal number of 'pilers' as TNP already 'has' in their region. This extends also to the World Assembly: substantive fairness would cap, reduce, etc delegate proxy votes. The current system, however, is procedurally fair: you want a 300 vote stomp? Find yourself 299 endorsements.

[Old Hope]

Oh, I thought you were claiming it was fair. You're actually saying it is the operational opposite of adding an approval. That's a good point, but it doesn't create a balanced outcome. Creating a new approval is already very easy compared to removing one. Making it even more difficult to do a removal without first letting players try and counter each other isn't a good way to approach approvals.

I don't understand this counter-argument. Is not procedural fairness is the only kind of fairness that NationStates should expect?

Imposing a substantive fairness standard is pretty out-of-wack with how the game currently works. For this argument, assume there are 50 raider pilers total. Because it is difficult and hard for raiders to install a raider delegate in the North Pacific because the native delegate has over 1000 endorsements, substantive fairness would require the number of endorsements any region can have to be capped to 50 because otherwise it's just too hard for raiders to take TNP. Doing the cap means it's substantively fair: the raiders and defenders have a level playing ground.

Instead what the site staff seem to have preferred historically is procedural fairness: if you want to take over the North Pacific, find yourself an equal number of 'pilers' as TNP already 'has' in their region. This extends also to the World Assembly: substantive fairness would cap, reduce, etc delegate proxy votes. The current system, however, is procedurally fair: you want a 300 vote stomp? Find yourself 299 endorsements.

Yes, but the key problem here is that it is not procedurally fair. If your enemy has 80 approvals locked behind passwords, you cannot approval raid it away except by creating a lot more than 80 regions with two people in it.
On the other hand, if you have 80 normal approvals it takes maybe 10 people to remove a lot of approvals... which gives me a probably awful idea...

[Galiantus III]

Oh, I thought you were claiming it was fair. You're actually saying it is the operational opposite of adding an approval. That's a good point, but it doesn't create a balanced outcome. Creating a new approval is already very easy compared to removing one. Making it even more difficult to do a removal without first letting players try and counter each other isn't a good way to approach approvals.

I don't understand this counter-argument. Is not procedural fairness is the only kind of fairness that NationStates should expect?

Imposing a substantive fairness standard is pretty out-of-wack with how the game currently works. For this argument, assume there are 50 raider pilers total. Because it is difficult and hard for raiders to install a raider delegate in the North Pacific because the native delegate has over 1000 endorsements, substantive fairness would require the number of endorsements any region can have to be capped to 50 because otherwise it's just too hard for raiders to take TNP. Doing the cap means it's substantively fair: the raiders and defenders have a level playing ground.

Instead what the site staff seem to have preferred historically is procedural fairness: if you want to take over the North Pacific, find yourself an equal number of 'pilers' as TNP already 'has' in their region. This extends also to the World Assembly: substantive fairness would cap, reduce, etc delegate proxy votes. The current system, however, is procedurally fair: you want a 300 vote stomp? Find yourself 299 endorsements.

You are right that substantive fairness is a poor metric, but that is the exact motivation behind many of these proposals: a few people with the right skill and coordination can block proposals (provided they aren't massively popular). Rather than address the issue within the game, players are taking it to technical to try and fix it because it's too hard to fight them. Many suggestions are aimed at simply making approval raiding harder for the sake of making it harder.

I have entertained the possibility of tying approvals to either the region or the nation, but not because I am eager for it. We may soon see that a small group of people can indeed wield an unreasonable amount of power over the WA. That would be cause for concern. However I don't think this will happen:

• Target information is totally public and can be used to defend.
• Defending approvals will always be numerically easier than raiding them.
• Manufacturing invulnerable approvals is not hard (2 WAs + password).

Basically, until players have formed an organized response to approval raiding in-game, and demonstrated there is a mechanical (rather than a numeric) disadvantage they cannot overcome, this discussion should be laid to rest.

I think there are other discussions worth having around this that aren't about directly changing the game. As Jakker pointed out, there is a financial burden on proposal authors seeking to campaign for approvals. The fact that queued proposals can be knocked clean out with approval raiding should be corrected. If approval raiding becomes a significant part of the game, these are the first issues to address.

[Eluvatar]

I have no interest in implementing something which would keep approvals after someone lost WA Delegacy.

What if they regain it?

That's something I could imagine doing. I could even imagine allowing nations to pre-approve proposals, such pre-approvals taking effect immediately should they be elected WA Delegate. (And to withdraw pre-approval, too - the main point of this additional mechanic would be to make sure ex-delegates wouldn't be forced to approve a proposal they no longer wish to support when elected again.)

Quorum raiding must be addressed to prevent a breakdown of what little civility exists in the WA, politics or no.

Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.

More seriously, I'm more interested in reasons to act than assertions that we must.

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.

I don't think I fully understand this. It sounds like what you're proposing isn't symmetric, but you're describing it as symmetric. Could you perhaps give some examples?

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?

That might be a more balanced change than what I first thought of. It would prevent proposals from sticking around indefinitely.

Another adjustment would be to only consider a proposal as having reached quorum if it reaches quorum at update. This means that a proposal which has proposals ahead of it could use this mechanism to stick around, but a proposal that reaches quorum before update but is pushed out of it before the update would still get deleted.

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.

1. I don't like it, it feels weird. Not a hard no, but I'd want to do things like make resolution approvals visible on the region page in that case.
2. Why delete it? Might as well have it sit there until the proposal's gone, the region is deleted, or a WA delegate withdraws it.
3b. I dislike anything that prevents players from immediate feedback. Making every new WA delegate have to wait half a day before they can exercise the unique WA Delegate mechanic is not something I want to do.
3c. Huh? Are you saying that only passworded regions should be able to approve or withdraw approvals from proposals??

---

I'm not sure that procedural vs substantive fairness is the most straightforward lens, but I will agree that I wouldn't be interested in anything analogous to capping WA delegate endorsements to make all regions vulnerable to invasion, or to lowering the required approval level low enough that quorum raiding couldn't possibly be effective, or other such changes.

Separately, I like the exchange of thoughts on the possibility of some kind of attached information post not controlled by the proposer of a resolution, but I don't see that as a way to balance quorum raiding, and I don't really like giving anyone who proposes a WA proposal the free ability to TG all Delegates, although I could be persuaded on that.

[Wallenburg]

Quorum raiding must be addressed to prevent a breakdown of what little civility exists in the WA, politics or no.

Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.

More seriously, I'm more interested in reasons to act than assertions that we must.

It does harm to the WA community. Entirely unnecessary harm. I get that admin doesn't care much about the WA, but I'd hope they can at least perceive harm going on.

[Unibot III]

Funny enough Elu, there’s a good reason why it would be fair for the beginning of update to confirm a proposal’s permanent status in the queue: procedural fairness in the WA.

Such a policy would ensure that regardless of whether the queue is busy or not, a WA proposal would be exposed to the same level of risk of quorum raiding and quorum anti-campaigning. If the queue is empty, you only have to keep your proposal queued till the beginning of the next upcoming update, if the queue is full, you’d still only have to keep your proposal queued till the beginning of the next upcoming update.

Otherwise the volume of the queue impacts the vulnerability of proposals to raiding & campaigning.

[Wallenburg]

Funny enough Elu, there’s a good reason why it would be fair for the beginning of update to confirm a proposal’s permanent status in the queue: procedural fairness in the WA.

Such a policy would ensure that regardless of whether the queue is busy or not, a WA proposal would be exposed to the same level of risk of quorum raiding and quorum anti-campaigning. If the queue is empty, you only have to keep your proposal queued till the beginning of the next upcoming update, if the queue is full, you’d still only have to keep your proposal queued till the beginning of the next upcoming update.

Otherwise the volume of the queue impacts the vulnerability of proposals to raiding & campaigning.

1) I don't understand how this would at all change the way the queue works.
2) I don't see how this is possible. Even in this proposed system an approval's validity is determined by the delegate status of the approving nation. The only way to have the approvals reviewed at the beginning of an update is to have all approving delegates updated at the beginning of the update. That's not going to happen.

[The Python]

An influence cost on removing approvals would be best to prevent approval raiding, or at least make it harder.

[Lord Dominator]

An influence cost on removing approvals would be best to prevent approval raiding, or at least make it harder.

That's also a disincentive to approvals being removed due a campaign telegram, which 0 people have expressed issues with.

[The Python]

An influence cost on removing approvals would be best to prevent approval raiding, or at least make it harder.

That's also a disincentive to approvals being removed due a campaign telegram, which 0 people have expressed issues with.

Hmm. What if the influence cost is proportinal to how recently they were elected, so a delegate who has been delegate for 2 months spends little/no influence but someone who gained it 12 hours ago have to spend like 5 or 10 points?

[Galiantus III]

Can I just point out (for the zillionth time) that nothing is preventing players from working against quorum blocking? And I get that a lot of you might not like military gameplay in any form, but I have some ideas for you:

- You don't have to fight at all in a military sense. There are lot of players who really like gameplay and also care about protecting proposals. Work with them.

- You've got all the information you need to fight, if you so choose. Unlike regular defending, you can get a full list of targets before update ever happens. If you are working with defenders, chances are they can manage the logistics of this.

- Work in the circles you already walk in. Talk with delegates and proposal authors about what is happening and work with them. Perhaps you form a committee of safe delegates that are unlikely to be unseated. Perhaps you keep tabs on organizations that quorum block, and provide campaign support for proposals they are likely to target. Perhaps you coordinate the two so potential target proposals go from submission to the floor efficiently as possible.

- A lot of your fight is about spreading awareness and persuading others to help. Write dispatches. Recruit. Find the people who don't approve proposals and get them fired up about this.

I'm just spit-balling here. Hopefully this gets the wheels turning and motivates you to find existing solutions and act on them.

[Wallenburg]

It's been pretty well established that the very nature of how approvals work prevents players from working against quorum blocking. In normal raids, defenders can just counterattack on the next update and get the preferred delegate reinstalled. In approval raids the approval is gone forever. It's an incredibly one-sided process.

[Galiantus III]

It's been pretty well established that the very nature of how approvals work prevents players from working against quorum blocking. In normal raids, defenders can just counterattack on the next update and get the preferred delegate reinstalled. In approval raids the approval is gone forever. It's an incredibly one-sided process.

But that's not true - you can work against quorum blocking. In terms of pure mechanics, here are your options:

1. Pre-emptively reinforce delegates who could be bumped; the targets are public. Blockers must work during update to be very effective, but you can deny them targets before update even begins.
2. Defend approving delegates at update. You don't even have to know how to chase; again, the targets are public. As soon as you see blocking going on, you can predict where they'll be going next and move there early, reducing it to a numbers game you are more likely to win. For raiders and defenders, a lot of it comes down to timing and update variance, because defenders have to be totally reactive during update. This makes it significantly easier to defend against blocking than raiding.
3. Create passworded regions for safe approvals, as an insurance policy if defending fails.

Approvals are also not gone forever. Many can be recovered in matter of hours if you contact the removed delegates and natives that were pushed. This is very different from a raid, where natives are usually powerless to correct the problem on their own, regardless how early they know about it. While defenders have to counterattack to change the state of things, you just have to get a native to click a button.

[Wallenburg]

I may not be well-versed in R/D, but I don't think defender militaries have the ability to be permanently mobilized to prevent quorum raiding. And those few that might would have to pull away irreplaceable forces from their other operations. No military or even multiregional alliance is going to do that. Even the PfS isn't doing that. Just stop fucking pretending that raiders and defenders are on equal footing here.

[Comfed]

I prefer the idea of proposals that have fallen out of the queue staying submitted (so they don’t lose all their approvals) for a period of time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

I don't think I fully understand this. It sounds like what you're proposing isn't symmetric, but you're describing it as symmetric. Could you perhaps give some examples?

Right now to create an approval, you need to have the region and continue to have the region. Under the proposed changes, to withdraw the approval you would have to have the region and continue to have the region. To make a new approval becomes the same thing you need to remove one: have the region and continue to have it. That's what I mean by symmetric.

[Baedan]

I may not be well-versed in R/D, but I don't think defender militaries have the ability to be permanently mobilized to prevent quorum raiding. And those few that might would have to pull away irreplaceable forces from their other operations. No military or even multiregional alliance is going to do that. Even the PfS isn't doing that. Just stop fucking pretending that raiders and defenders are on equal footing here.

A lot of what defender regions do is chasing, where they'll run around stopping tag raiders from successfully hitting regions. Unless a whole lot of regions that don't ordinarily raid start quorum raiding for some reason, the total number of updaters defenders will have to muster will probably not increase. If anything, defenders jobs will get easier, because there's a pretty strictly limited number of targets raiders could hit and defenders could even be able to pile in advance of raiders moving. In addition, because any region getting quorum raided will necessarily already have a WAD, defenders don't have to have as many endorsements to beat the point.
Obviously defenders will have a better understanding of how R/D works on their end, but form my understanding, quorum raiding is more of an uphill battle than normal tagging