User choice stats

[Coronational Chechyans and affiliates]

I would like the option to see what percent of users picked a certain option on an issue after we select it. I think it could be really interesting

[Quebecshire]

Interesting idea. I'm not sure (I'm not staff or anything, take my word with a grain of salt) but you might want to take that to the Technical forum.

[Jedinsto]

I think this could be a nice improvement.

[Tocan Isle]

This would definitely be interesting. I would be in favor of this.

[Merconitonitopia]

That would be a nice addition. I believe the site does track issue choices. Alas, the results would be skewed by farms. I'm not sure how significant this would be, but I'm sure it wouldn't be trivial. I do wonder what percent of issue answering is done by farms.

[Nooooooooooooooo]

That would be a nice addition. I believe the site does track issue choices. Alas, the results would be skewed by farms. I'm not sure how significant this would be, but I'm sure it wouldn't be trivial. I do wonder what percent of issue answering is done by farms.

Maybe the mods could do a thing to count out farms?

[Saint Kanye]

Dumbass here, what's a farm?

[Frisbeeteria]

Maybe the mods could do a thing to count out farms?

We have no way to determine what your main nation is, much less which is your [farm / RP / invader] puppet. There's no required format.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

I do wonder what percent of issue answering is done by farms.

Puppets are tracked by multiple people in the cards community; 9003's puppet reporting:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =733627866

There are more than 48000 puppets that are being used for card farming, so at the very least 1 of every 5 nations is a card farm puppet, there are other puppets from other things like r/d and just alts, but don't usually answer issues as often so less impactful per nation.

[Valentine Z]

Dumbass here, what's a farm?

Card farms are nations that often answer issues for the sake of it and not for the stats, in order to get card packs.

This often skews issue choices and percentages in the stats. One possible example is the huge trend of nations in ~50 Economic Freedom.

[Saint Kanye]

Thanks, Val.

This is why, while I think this suggestion is nice, I don't feel it will be implemented.

[Sanctaria]

The Editors already have a tool for this but unfortunately since the introduction of cards, the tool's been made rather redundant.

So I can tell you there'd be absolutely zero benefit for the wider user population being able to see this information.

[Zeritae]

Perhaps it could show WA nations which answered the issue.

[Islands Of Ventro]

Perhaps it could show WA nations which answered the issue.

This would work since it would also weed out all the puppets!

[Valentine Z]

If it is just WA nations, this is going to get a bit tricky. It is good because you will be able to weed out a lot of nations that are card farms. At the same time, there are still a handful of nations out there that are not in WA, but are answering issues either on a regular basis, or they have been doing it way before cards are a thing.

First graph shows the distribution of nations that have 0 WA Endorsements, which is safe to assume that 99% of these are nations that are not in WA. Some of them may be WA nations with 0 Endo, but this is so far the best I can do.

And this is the distribution of issue-answering for nations that has at least 1 WA Endorsement.

In short, in a relativistic sense, both WA and non-WA category has a distribution of nations that answered issues, so if we are doing WA-only, that solves the card farm problem, while also taking out a handful of legitimate issue-answering nations that are not in WA.

[Islands Of Ventro]

If it is just WA nations, this is going to get a bit tricky. It is good because you will be able to weed out a lot of nations that are card farms. At the same time, there are still a handful of nations out there that are not in WA, but are answering issues either on a regular basis, or they have been doing it way before cards are a thing.

First graph shows the distribution of nations that have 0 WA Endorsements, which is safe to assume that 99% of these are nations that are not in WA. Some of them may be WA nations with 0 Endo, but this is so far the best I can do.

(Image)

(Image)

And this is the distribution of issue-answering for nations that has at least 1 WA Endorsement.

(Image)

(Image)

In short, in a relativistic sense, both WA and non-WA category has a distribution of nations that answered issues, so if we are doing WA-only, that solves the card farm problem, while also taking out a handful of legitimate issue-answering nations that are not in WA.

Another benefit of going the WA could be getting your issue answers to count toward whatever might happen with this

[Candensia]

Speaking as a player, when I answer issues, I appreciate that they feel unique to my nation, even though I know they aren't. In my opinion, if issues go about revealing answer distributions following an option selection, then that detracts from their immersion. Suddenly my national decision isn't special and the issue itself doesn't feel personal.

[Dexterra]

That would be cool. I think it would be even cooler if you could see the percentage of nation types/classifications per chosen answer.

If they extend this to the 'dismiss issue' option, I think this could also help the moderation team figure out which issues need editing

[Frisbeeteria]

Part of the premise of the issues game is about making difficult choices for your nation. This suggestion is more about agreeing with poll results than making the choices yourself. I strongly disagree with the premise.

help the moderation team figure out which issues need editing

Just FYI: The issue editors are entirely responsible for adding and editing the issues. One or two mods are also Issue Editors, but they don't control the team.

[Coronational Chechyans and affiliates]

Perhaps it could show WA nations which answered the issue.

This would work since it would also weed out all the puppets!

This is even better then my idea. This way we know it would only be people primary nation

[Coronational Chechyans and affiliates]

Part of the premise of the issues game is about making difficult choices for your nation. This suggestion is more about agreeing with poll results than making the choices yourself. I strongly disagree with the premise.

help the moderation team figure out which issues need editing

Just FYI: The issue editors are entirely responsible for adding and editing the issues. One or two mods are also Issue Editors, but they don't control the team.

Not sure if I made it clear but I was thinking the results would show up after you picked the decision. The same way forum polls work

[The Free Joy State]

From an editors' point of view, I strongly dislike this idea. If an issue has a skew towards one option then, due to the almost inevitable effect (often seen in polls) of more popular options drawing more votes, that skew will likely get worse.

Even if the information was not intended to be known until after you answered, I think there's a risk people will also be disincentivised from reading the issue, instead choosing to seek the most "popular" option (because, as with forum polls, chances are there would be some way to find out the information before you answer).

The Editors already have a tool for this but unfortunately since the introduction of cards, the tool's been made rather redundant.

So I can tell you there'd be absolutely zero benefit for the wider user population being able to see this information.

^ Also this.

It's doubtful the information would be very much use.

[Merni]

Even if the information was not intended to be known until after you answered, I think there's a risk people will also be disincentivised from reading the issue, instead choosing to seek the most "popular" option (because, as with forum polls, chances are there would be some way to find out the information before you answer).

Not that I support this proposal (my views are the same as Candensia's) but a "way to find out the information before you answer" already exists, even if it isn't official, namely Trotterdam's list of issue options (which contains both the number of data points recorded for each option and the stat effects). Someone who is willing to do the research can find information to make a choice anyway.

[The Free Joy State]

Even if the information was not intended to be known until after you answered, I think there's a risk people will also be disincentivised from reading the issue, instead choosing to seek the most "popular" option (because, as with forum polls, chances are there would be some way to find out the information before you answer).

Not that I support this proposal (my views are the same as Candensia's) but a "way to find out the information before you answer" already exists, even if it isn't official, namely Trotterdam's list of issue options (which contains both the number of data points recorded for each option and the stat effects). Someone who is willing to do the research can find information to make a choice anyway.

As you say, Trotterdam's list is not official.

There is a difference between a player collecting the information they are able to gather and site staff handing out all the information we have in full. It changes the dynamic -- from a game of unintended consequences and hard decisions -- if it's an official resource. My point stands.

[Merni]

Not that I support this proposal (my views are the same as Candensia's) but a "way to find out the information before you answer" already exists, even if it isn't official, namely Trotterdam's list of issue options (which contains both the number of data points recorded for each option and the stat effects). Someone who is willing to do the research can find information to make a choice anyway.

As you say, Trotterdam's list is not official.

There is a difference between a player collecting the information they are able to gather and site staff handing out all the information we have in full. It changes the dynamic -- from a game of unintended consequences and hard decisions -- if it's an official resource. My point stands.

The official resource wouldn't be available until the option is selected finally. All you would be able to see before that would be some unofficial (and partly out of date, inevitably) reproduction of the official resource.