NATION

PASSWORD

Time to stop approval raiding.

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5926
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:30 pm

The Python wrote:
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.
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.


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.
Last edited by Unibot III on Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:55 pm, edited 6 times in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
The Python
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Python » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:45 pm

I agree with Unibot, more opinion from raiders and defenders is needed.
Card Farmer (and Snake, and Defender). Nation mainly represents real-life views.
For: Universal healthcare, Universal Basic Income, Gun Control, Democratic Socialism, Pacifism, Abolition of military, Human rights, Animal rights, Political Freedom etc.
Against: Fascism, Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, One-party states, Racism, Militarism, War, Donald Trump, Nationalism, Conservatism, Abortion, Animal abuse etc.
Z-defender, Bucardo, Apatosaurus, A time traveller 1 and all the other time travellers, N-defender etc.
Time-zone: GMT+13 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time)

User avatar
Jakker
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2739
Founded: May 17, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jakker » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:51 pm

Unibot III wrote: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.)


It would help all WA authors, not just ones with less experience in the WA. Also, I have seen plenty of decent proposals submitted that had no chance of getting to vote because the author did not send a telegram. The quality may not be top notch, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is not decent enough to at least warrant a vote. But again, it would help all authors.
One Stop Rules Shop
Getting Help Request (GHR)

The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.

User avatar
The Python
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Python » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:54 pm

Now there's two parallel ideas here: approval raiding and free campaigning.

On approval raiding: I do prefer the idea that delegates that have gotten their seat cannot vote on or change votes on WA proposals until they have been delegate for at least 12 hours (even though I still like both ideas). An influence cost would still not stop approval raiding as one can still approval raid if they have a big enough crew.
Last edited by The Python on Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Card Farmer (and Snake, and Defender). Nation mainly represents real-life views.
For: Universal healthcare, Universal Basic Income, Gun Control, Democratic Socialism, Pacifism, Abolition of military, Human rights, Animal rights, Political Freedom etc.
Against: Fascism, Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, One-party states, Racism, Militarism, War, Donald Trump, Nationalism, Conservatism, Abortion, Animal abuse etc.
Z-defender, Bucardo, Apatosaurus, A time traveller 1 and all the other time travellers, N-defender etc.
Time-zone: GMT+13 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time)

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5926
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:06 pm

Jakker wrote:
Unibot III wrote: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.)


It would help all WA authors, not just ones with less experience in the WA. Also, I have seen plenty of decent proposals submitted that had no chance of getting to vote because the author did not send a telegram. The quality may not be top notch, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is not decent enough to at least warrant a vote. But again, it would help all authors.


If WA Authors who have gone through a vetting process and sought some help and advice on their resolutions, still don't know how to get their resolution in the queue, something has gone wrong here - EG: a failure of the FAQ Documentation to catch up to the difficulties of campaigning in today's WA.

If what you're saying is that there are some WA Authors who haven't sought assistance for their resolution, don't know anything about campaigning, and yet have written well written resolutions in spite of it ... I think you're describing a pack of unicorns. These folks might come around once in a while, but it would be a rather poor idea on Moderation's part to open up Delegate's TG Box on the working premise that there's lots of good, unassisted authors out there. They're not the norm. The norm are newbies who need guidence before they should submit a resolution - yes, they may be able to draft a legal proposal accidentially, but that doesn't mean they should be given an easy way to spam their way into the queue.

I mean I wrote a half decent resolution back in the day and didn't really know how to campaign properly, but the assistance I recieved from a player named Sydia when I failed to get in the queue, really, really helped shaped my first resolution constructively - I learnt a lot from Sydia and it changed the direction of my involvement in NS (you all have Sydia to blame), because I got more involved with the WA forum as a result of Sydia's mentoring and guidence. I wouldn't have accepted that help if I had been able to get queued easily.
Last edited by Unibot III on Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Jakker
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2739
Founded: May 17, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jakker » Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:11 pm

Unibot III wrote:
Jakker wrote:
It would help all WA authors, not just ones with less experience in the WA. Also, I have seen plenty of decent proposals submitted that had no chance of getting to vote because the author did not send a telegram. The quality may not be top notch, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is not decent enough to at least warrant a vote. But again, it would help all authors.


If WA Authors who have gone through a vetting process and sought some help and advice on their resolutions, still don't know how to get their resolution in the queue, something has gone wrong here - IE: a failure of the FAQ Documentation to catch up to the difficulties of campaigning in today's WA.


No, I am saying that authors may have gone through all of the process to write their proposal and this helps to remove a bit of a barrier. Some may not want to/be able to purchase stamps or may not understand how to use the API. Or this just helps to set things up for them to make the process of sending the telegram a bit simpler/easier.
Last edited by Jakker on Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
One Stop Rules Shop
Getting Help Request (GHR)

The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5926
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:24 pm

Jakker wrote:
Unibot III wrote:
If WA Authors who have gone through a vetting process and sought some help and advice on their resolutions, still don't know how to get their resolution in the queue, something has gone wrong here - IE: a failure of the FAQ Documentation to catch up to the difficulties of campaigning in today's WA.


No, I am saying that authors may have gone through all of the process to write their proposal and this helps to remove a bit of a barrier. Some may not want to/be able to purchase stamps or may not understand how to use the API. Or this just helps to set things up for them to make the process of sending the telegram a bit simpler/easier.


You're dodging the question!

If WA Authors who have been assisted on the forum can't get into the queue, you've got a major problem - and the spam feature is a bad patch fix for a systemtic issue (e.g., too many filtered tg boxes or not enough documentation).

[I should note, I think this may be true - manual telegramming was labour-intensive but simple for experienced WA Authors - I could get in the queue within 90 mins at my best. The new telegram system has made manual telegramming much harder by proliferating filtered tg boxes, and has pushed WA Authors to using the API which is not user-friendly or opening their wallet in an attempt to reach a bigger audience. HOWEVER, a free spam button would just make the original problem worse by driving more delegates to block WA campaigns, which is what has created this situation in the first place!]

If you're trying to make things easier for WA Authors who haven't been assisted on the forum, you're just enabling players who should be encouraged to seek GA/SC resources first, and unintentionally flooding the telegram system and the queue with unvetted stuff to the overall detriment of the WA.

Either way this is a bad response to approval raiding and a bad way to help WA Authors, new and old.
Last edited by Unibot III on Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Flanderlion
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1638
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Flanderlion » Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:39 pm

I think Approval Raiding is a legitimate way to play, and I think it fits both OOC and IC with NS. Countries irl are threatened when they support resolutions other nations don't like, Israel's response to NZ's resolution comes to mind.

Re the free campaign TG for authors, it should be triggered only when at least one mod has ruled it legal if it goes ahead. I personally default to 'no free TGs' purely from it being taking money away from NS, but if admin doesn't care too much, then I'm fine with it.
As always, I'm representing myself.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2215
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:41 pm

Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Comfed
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 383
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:42 pm

Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

I do agree with this, and I think GA proposals should be exempted from this. But only GA proposals.
Mall:
Best part about being a mod was engaging in normal player behavior and getting accused of abuse
"You think this is abuse? I'll SHOW you abuse."

User avatar
The Python
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Python » Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:49 pm

Jakker wrote:
Unibot III wrote:
If WA Authors who have gone through a vetting process and sought some help and advice on their resolutions, still don't know how to get their resolution in the queue, something has gone wrong here - IE: a failure of the FAQ Documentation to catch up to the difficulties of campaigning in today's WA.


No, I am saying that authors may have gone through all of the process to write their proposal and this helps to remove a bit of a barrier. Some may not want to/be able to purchase stamps or may not understand how to use the API. Or this just helps to set things up for them to make the process of sending the telegram a bit simpler/easier.

I agree with Jakker, there could be a very good WA proposal that does not get voted on because the author does not know/cannot camapign.

Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

Exactly. There should be an automatic control to prevent approval raiding. (Free campaigning won't solve this problem, campaigning is probably a separate issue)
Last edited by The Python on Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Card Farmer (and Snake, and Defender). Nation mainly represents real-life views.
For: Universal healthcare, Universal Basic Income, Gun Control, Democratic Socialism, Pacifism, Abolition of military, Human rights, Animal rights, Political Freedom etc.
Against: Fascism, Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, One-party states, Racism, Militarism, War, Donald Trump, Nationalism, Conservatism, Abortion, Animal abuse etc.
Z-defender, Bucardo, Apatosaurus, A time traveller 1 and all the other time travellers, N-defender etc.
Time-zone: GMT+13 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time)

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 481
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:46 pm

Comfed wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

I do agree with this, and I think GA proposals should be exempted from this. But only GA proposals.

As far as I know, that is the current convention.
Luca Vytherov (29, F, herbivore)
Refugi Arch-Administrator
Admin assistant: Siv Ember
A List of HistoryA List of Lists
Founder of Refugia
3x WA Author
Posts not OOC are assumed to be made under duress

User avatar
Praeceps
Diplomat
 
Posts: 530
Founded: Feb 08, 2016
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Praeceps » Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:05 am

Refuge Isle wrote:
Comfed wrote:I do agree with this, and I think GA proposals should be exempted from this. But only GA proposals.

As far as I know, that is the current convention.

Not wading into all this debate (yet) but RtL did approval raiding for one of IA's resolutions on abortion. IIRC, TNP then retaliated against a proposal supported by those who did the approval raiding (also a resolution about abortion).
Apparently simultaneously a Ravenclaw puppet, a NPO plant, and a Warden spy. I had no idea I was that good. Depending on who you ask, my aliases include Krulltopia.

Former Guildmaster of The North Pacific Cards Guild and Former Minister of Foreign Affairs for The North Pacific

User avatar
Xoriet
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1825
Founded: Jun 08, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Xoriet » Fri Nov 20, 2020 4:46 am

Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

I also agree that GA proposals should be left alone, and I am similarly a proponent of leaving alone all proposals in the SC that do not relate to the Gameplay community. SC proposals of the GP nature are fairer game, because typically it is the work of someone involved in the same sphere. My exception to these rules if it relates to a fascist on NS. However, this is also only if they really get close to quorum, which happened one time with CCD in the GA. Since CCD has since made steps to correct their fascist issues, they aren't really a target anymore, either.
Last edited by Xoriet on Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:03 am, edited 3 times in total.
Legatus of the New Pacific Order

Let's show them that we can
Free our minds and find a way.
The world is in our hands.
This is not the end.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2215
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:48 am

Refuge Isle wrote:
Comfed wrote:I do agree with this, and I think GA proposals should be exempted from this. But only GA proposals.

As far as I know, that is the current convention.

Even if it is, GA proposals will still be affected. Many of the small delegates that approve SC proposals will approve GA proposals too, and therefore those approvals get removed. For example, Morover said that their proposals have been affected by approval raiding before, despite them never being explicitly targeted by raiders. Many GAers are roleplayers. They have no interest in raiding, defending, GP or even the SC as a whole.
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
A Bloodred Moon
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 135
Founded: Jan 13, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby A Bloodred Moon » Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:08 am

Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

I am sure you can then supply me at least a dozen cases where proposals that most likely would’ve made it to the voting floor were crashed out of quorum? That the GA has struggled to get it’s resolutions to vote?

Unfortunately for you, both military gameplay and the SC are political tools. Is anyone surprised or outraged that gameplay means are being used on a political game, to further a political agenda? Let’s not pretend the WA has dropped dead as soon as quorum raiding was invented, either. Can you supply me with significant evidence that approval raiding is a serious threat to the functioning of a portion of the game, rather than a political means to pursue an agenda?
Armaros

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2215
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:49 am

A Bloodred Moon wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

I am sure you can then supply me at least a dozen cases where proposals that most likely would’ve made it to the voting floor were crashed out of quorum? That the GA has struggled to get it’s resolutions to vote?

Unfortunately for you, both military gameplay and the SC are political tools. Is anyone surprised or outraged that gameplay means are being used on a political game, to further a political agenda? Let’s not pretend the WA has dropped dead as soon as quorum raiding was invented, either. Can you supply me with significant evidence that approval raiding is a serious threat to the functioning of a portion of the game, rather than a political means to pursue an agenda?

I’m not sure why you think it can’t be both. Approval raiding motivated for political reasons? Fine, do what you want. But approval raiding that causes collateral damage is not cool at all, and since almost all approval raiding will cause that unless extremely careful steps are taken, then I call for it to be severely restricted. Also, as I said, nations like Morover has struggled to get things to quorum as a result of this
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
The Python
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Python » Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:08 am

Xoriet wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

I also agree that GA proposals should be left alone, and I am similarly a proponent of leaving alone all proposals in the SC that do not relate to the Gameplay community. SC proposals of the GP nature are fairer game, because typically it is the work of someone involved in the same sphere. My exception to these rules if it relates to a fascist on NS. However, this is also only if they really get close to quorum, which happened one time with CCD in the GA. Since CCD has since made steps to correct their fascist issues, they aren't really a target anymore, either.

I wouldn't worry too much about fascist proposals getting to quorum because, in the current system, nearly a third of the votes come down to the delegates of the GCR's. Unless there is a fascist GCR (which there isn't and will never be) it will be extremely hard for fascist proposals to get voted in. Also most people would probably vote against, so the chance of a fascist proposal getting voted in is extremely small.

Honeydewistania wrote:
A Bloodred Moon wrote:I am sure you can then supply me at least a dozen cases where proposals that most likely would’ve made it to the voting floor were crashed out of quorum? That the GA has struggled to get it’s resolutions to vote?

Unfortunately for you, both military gameplay and the SC are political tools. Is anyone surprised or outraged that gameplay means are being used on a political game, to further a political agenda? Let’s not pretend the WA has dropped dead as soon as quorum raiding was invented, either. Can you supply me with significant evidence that approval raiding is a serious threat to the functioning of a portion of the game, rather than a political means to pursue an agenda?

I’m not sure why you think it can’t be both. Approval raiding motivated for political reasons? Fine, do what you want. But approval raiding that causes collateral damage is not cool at all, and since almost all approval raiding will cause that unless extremely careful steps are taken, then I call for it to be severely restricted. Also, as I said, nations like Morover has struggled to get things to quorum as a result of this

Completely agree. My views are biased as a defender, but approval raiding is detrimental towards the WA, especially the GA as it is not related to R/D gameplay.
Last edited by The Python on Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:07 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Card Farmer (and Snake, and Defender). Nation mainly represents real-life views.
For: Universal healthcare, Universal Basic Income, Gun Control, Democratic Socialism, Pacifism, Abolition of military, Human rights, Animal rights, Political Freedom etc.
Against: Fascism, Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, One-party states, Racism, Militarism, War, Donald Trump, Nationalism, Conservatism, Abortion, Animal abuse etc.
Z-defender, Bucardo, Apatosaurus, A time traveller 1 and all the other time travellers, N-defender etc.
Time-zone: GMT+13 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time)

User avatar
Frisbeeteria
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 24878
Founded: Dec 16, 2003
Anarchy

Postby Frisbeeteria » Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:53 pm

The Python wrote: especially the GA as it is not related to gameplay.

The GA is part of this game, as is the R/D subgame. Like it or not, they're ALL aspects of "gameplay". I'm not seeing a compelling reason to separate the two chambers in this discussion.

User avatar
Sweeze
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 117
Founded: Oct 21, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Sweeze » Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:07 pm

Makdon wrote:
Sweeze wrote:tbh if anything approval raiding should be made easier to even better simulate RL politics where a small group of people can prevent any resolution from ever being passed, sounds like a good time to me

"Let's introduce filibustering to the WA"

this but unironically
| Lily Supreme Command | The MT Army Third In Command |
4058+ times tag/detag delegate, 4663+ regions hit, only person to become delegate of 200+ regions in an update (multiple times)
[11:06 AM] Haku: lily is the only one who's done anything impressive :frowning:
[1:00 PM] Roavin: sweze is insane (in a good way)
[1:00 PM] Tim: I love sweeze
[1:01 PM] Syberis: Sweeze for raider of the year?
[3:08 PM] Tim: I fucking love LILY's use of tables
[4:53 PM] Haku: Lily are the best
[12:16 AM] Tim: the best tagging org NS has literally ever seen
[1:41 AM] Tim: except LILY, they're on godgamer status too
[9:46 AM] Haku: pro taggers 143 hits with 2 people wtf

User avatar
Comfed
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 383
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:10 pm

Frisbeeteria wrote:
The Python wrote: especially the GA as it is not related to gameplay.

The GA is part of this game, as is the R/D subgame. Like it or not, they're ALL aspects of "gameplay". I'm not seeing a compelling reason to separate the two chambers in this discussion.

Because the Security Council is about Gameplay, which involves politics and regional governments and such things, whereas the GA is primarily a branch of roleplay just like P2TM, except that P2TM doesn't have an in-game aspect to it.
Mall:
Best part about being a mod was engaging in normal player behavior and getting accused of abuse
"You think this is abuse? I'll SHOW you abuse."

User avatar
The Python
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Python » Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:16 pm

Comfed wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote:The GA is part of this game, as is the R/D subgame. Like it or not, they're ALL aspects of "gameplay". I'm not seeing a compelling reason to separate the two chambers in this discussion.

Because the Security Council is about Gameplay, which involves politics and regional governments and such things, whereas the GA is primarily a branch of roleplay just like P2TM, except that P2TM doesn't have an in-game aspect to it.

Not really. GA resolutions, when passed, influence regional stats so it is a branch of gameplay (but not R/D or interregional type gameplay)
Card Farmer (and Snake, and Defender). Nation mainly represents real-life views.
For: Universal healthcare, Universal Basic Income, Gun Control, Democratic Socialism, Pacifism, Abolition of military, Human rights, Animal rights, Political Freedom etc.
Against: Fascism, Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, One-party states, Racism, Militarism, War, Donald Trump, Nationalism, Conservatism, Abortion, Animal abuse etc.
Z-defender, Bucardo, Apatosaurus, A time traveller 1 and all the other time travellers, N-defender etc.
Time-zone: GMT+13 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time)

User avatar
Luna Amore
Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 12376
Founded: Antiquity
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Luna Amore » Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:59 am

Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

It's forcing people to maintain their delegate status to maintain their approvals. That makes sense to me. If you want to be able to maintain approvals of proposals, you should maintain your WA Delegate status.

Comfed wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote:The GA is part of this game, as is the R/D subgame. Like it or not, they're ALL aspects of "gameplay". I'm not seeing a compelling reason to separate the two chambers in this discussion.

Because the Security Council is about Gameplay, which involves politics and regional governments and such things, whereas the GA is primarily a branch of roleplay just like P2TM, except that P2TM doesn't have an in-game aspect to it.

And yet, raiders can raid RP regions. I'm not seeing this as fundamentally different.

User avatar
The Python
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Python » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:53 am

Luna Amore wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

It's forcing people to maintain their delegate status to maintain their approvals. That makes sense to me. If you want to be able to maintain approvals of proposals, you should maintain your WA Delegate status.

Comfed wrote:Because the Security Council is about Gameplay, which involves politics and regional governments and such things, whereas the GA is primarily a branch of roleplay just like P2TM, except that P2TM doesn't have an in-game aspect to it.

And yet, raiders can raid RP regions. I'm not seeing this as fundamentally different.

Raiding roleplay regions tends to be easier for defenders to stop than approval raiding.
Card Farmer (and Snake, and Defender). Nation mainly represents real-life views.
For: Universal healthcare, Universal Basic Income, Gun Control, Democratic Socialism, Pacifism, Abolition of military, Human rights, Animal rights, Political Freedom etc.
Against: Fascism, Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, One-party states, Racism, Militarism, War, Donald Trump, Nationalism, Conservatism, Abortion, Animal abuse etc.
Z-defender, Bucardo, Apatosaurus, A time traveller 1 and all the other time travellers, N-defender etc.
Time-zone: GMT+13 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time)

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5926
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:08 am

Luna Amore wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:Approval raiding negatively impacts other proposals, and there are many GAers who would rather not get involved in r/d. It’s unfair that they are forced to play an aspect of a game they don’t like if they want their proposals to go to vote

It's forcing people to maintain their delegate status to maintain their approvals. That makes sense to me. If you want to be able to maintain approvals of proposals, you should maintain your WA Delegate status.


We're talking about small UCRs here, where they maybe have one other endorsee. I feel like the Moderation team's response here is just to put all the responsibility on the delegates - despite the fact that their options for defending against invaders have always been limited.

The whole point of defending is most UCRs struggle to defend themselves against invasions. That's why defenders defend. Because the game has always leaned towards invading.

The game is particularly vulernable to approval raiding because a team of three can dislodge dozens of delegates in a single update and there are no additional influence costs involved in targeting a WA Resolution. This has been a continued problem with tagging - while ejecting/banning players costs influence and requires investment, invaders can freely 'suppress spam' (suppressing everything) and disrupt the WA at no influence cost at all: all they have to do is take the delegacy.

The Influence System has never priced in all the extraenous damage that invaders can do to a region.

If NS Moderation wants to say "The Answer to Approval Raiding is Defending Against Invaders" then say that, don't come to this thread proliferating non-answers about campaign telegrams and self-responsibility. I can't imagine anyone seriously thinks the answer to approval raiding is for delegates to "take more responsibility" and for new WA Authors to cheaply spam more delegates. These aren't answers, they're deflections and they're not particularly sincere deflections either.
Last edited by Unibot III on Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads