NationStates

Hi there.

Right now, it is very easy to get pretty much anything to quorum in the World Assembly. This is because of the shrinking number of WA delegates means that the people who rubber-stamp everything make up a larger and larger proportion of approvals required to get to quorum.

It wasn't always this way - the number of delegates used to be somewhere around 75. For this reason, I propose ditching the 6% of delegates formula and replacing it with a hard quorum threshold of 75 delegates. Or some other number - I'm not married to 75.

Is this an attempt to prevent Condemn Elite Leomonade from reaching queue? I'd note that Condemn The Communist Bloc got 168 approvals - of which 143 were gathered in the space of about two days.

Tinhampton wrote:Is this an attempt to prevent Condemn Elite Leomonade from reaching queue? I'd note that Condemn The Communist Bloc got 168 approvals - of which 143 were gathered in the space of about two days.

No. I am not targeting "Condemn Elite Lemonade". Badly-written, low-effort proposals can get to quorum with barely any work on the part of the author. At least the author of Condemn TCB wasted a whole bunch of money on telegram stamps.

It could be 200 and it wouldn’t matter. People will still get garbage to quorum if they throw enough money at it.

The quorum limit is to my understanding less about pure quality control, and more about regulating the proposal backlog and making sure that stuff is regularly getting to the voting floor. Basically, if nothing is reaching quorum and there's a huge backlog of legal proposals, that means big gaps between actual votes and it's time to lower the threshold. If there are tons of legal proposals and all of them are getting to the voting floor, it may be time to raise the threshold.

While I doubt the techies would be on board for setting a hard threshold, it wouldn't be the first time they've raised or lowered the percentage, and that is certainly worth discussing.

I think 6% is good right now. 50ish approvals sounds low but realistically it’s a good barrier. I think raising the cap to even 8% would prevent genuinely high-quality submissions from reaching quorum, at this point in time.

Reploid Productions wrote:The quorum limit is to my understanding less about pure quality control, and more about regulating the proposal backlog and making sure that stuff is regularly getting to the voting floor. Basically, if nothing is reaching quorum and there's a huge backlog of legal proposals, that means big gaps between actual votes and it's time to lower the threshold. If there are tons of legal proposals and all of them are getting to the voting floor, it may be time to raise the threshold.

While I doubt the techies would be on board for setting a hard threshold, it wouldn't be the first time they've raised or lowered the percentage, and that is certainly worth discussing.

Maybe slow the rate limit on campaign spam a tad, or raise the price of stamps a little bit? If more people are steered in the direction of manual campaigning, there is a good chance not as many lower quality proposals would make quorum as easily? Just brainstorming here....

Wayneactia wrote:It could be 200 and it wouldn’t matter. People will still get garbage to quorum if they throw enough money at it.

There are (as of right now) 898 regional delegates. Obviously there are lots of rubber-stamper delegates and due to the 6% threshold, it's very easy to get 50 delegates to approve your proposal. Considering how easy it is to reach quorum especially with minimal campaigning, a bump in the threshold wouldn't be a bad idea.

Wayneactia wrote:raise the price of stamps a little bit?

We've talked about this on the recruiting side a bit, but I'm curious what WA stamp campaigners have to say. Maybe someone should open a topic on stamp pricing for both recruiting and campaigning. It can't be a mod or admin, as we would be seen as having too much of a vested interest (not true, but perception looks like reality). Anyone?

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:raise the price of stamps a little bit?

We've talked about this on the recruiting side a bit, but I'm curious what WA stamp campaigners have to say. Maybe someone should open a topic on stamp pricing for both recruiting and campaigning. It can't be a mod or admin, as we would be seen as having too much of a vested interest (not true, but perception looks like reality). Anyone?

Aren't there other way of campaigning without having to spend money on actual stamps?

Outer Sparta wrote:

Frisbeeteria wrote:We've talked about this on the recruiting side a bit, but I'm curious what WA stamp campaigners have to say. Maybe someone should open a topic on stamp pricing for both recruiting and campaigning. It can't be a mod or admin, as we would be seen as having too much of a vested interest (not true, but perception looks like reality). Anyone?

Aren't there other way of campaigning without having to spend money on actual stamps?

API. As someone who uses stamps, I think there's probably some merit in upping the price. But I would also question the wisdom in that when we have more than just 898 delegates.

I will say that the reason I use stamps is simply a lack of time to fool with API, it gives me a convenient way to get the message out quickly that I want/need approvals. I dare say that's the case for a lot, if not the majority, of us authors.

Hulldom wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Aren't there other way of campaigning without having to spend money on actual stamps?

API. As someone who uses stamps, I think there's probably some merit in upping the price. But I would also question the wisdom in that when we have more than just 898 delegates.

I will say that the reason I use stamps is simply a lack of time to fool with API, it gives me a convenient way to get the message out quickly that I want/need approvals. I dare say that's the case for a lot, if not the majority, of us authors.

I have done numerous campaigns entirely by hand. As mentioned, even if the price of doing a round of campaigning were increased by five times, it's still not particularly abundant effort to draft a joke/spam proposal and spend two hours sending out batches of eight to scarcely 900 delegates. Or fewer, if you only target the delegates most likely to approve any given proposal. There simply aren't a great number of delegates in total.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Hulldom wrote:API. As someone who uses stamps, I think there's probably some merit in upping the price. But I would also question the wisdom in that when we have more than just 898 delegates.

I will say that the reason I use stamps is simply a lack of time to fool with API, it gives me a convenient way to get the message out quickly that I want/need approvals. I dare say that's the case for a lot, if not the majority, of us authors.

I have done numerous campaigns entirely by hand. As mentioned, even if the price of doing a round of campaigning were increased by five times, it's still not particularly abundant effort to draft a joke/spam proposal and spend two hours sending out batches of eight to scarcely 900 delegates. Or fewer, if you only target the delegates most likely to approve any given proposal. There simply aren't a great number of delegates in total.

And more power to you. There are players like my selves who don't have the time to dedicate to that. And I'd be hard pressed to see what $0.50 for 100 would have in terms of an effect.

Hulldom wrote:

Refuge Isle wrote:I have done numerous campaigns entirely by hand. As mentioned, even if the price of doing a round of campaigning were increased by five times, it's still not particularly abundant effort to draft a joke/spam proposal and spend two hours sending out batches of eight to scarcely 900 delegates. Or fewer, if you only target the delegates most likely to approve any given proposal. There simply aren't a great number of delegates in total.

And more power to you. There are players like my selves who don't have the time to dedicate to that. And I'd be hard pressed to see what $0.50 for 100 would have in terms of an effect.

Using API and just simply having to campaign the manual way requires more time and effort than just buying a bunch of stamps and TGing that to each of the delegates. If I decided to write a low-effort resolution like the "Condemn Elite Lemonade" one, why would I waste actual money on stamps to get delegate approval when I know that there are rubber-stampers out there who approve literally everything?

Hulldom wrote:I will say that the reason I use stamps is simply a lack of time to fool with API, it gives me a convenient way to get the message out quickly that I want/need approvals. I dare say that's the case for a lot, if not the majority, of us authors.

This brings up a valid point. Stamps are a very effective tool. When used to bring a legitimate proposal to the floor, that is exactly what they are intended for. Unfortunately, this effectiveness works both ways. It's a catch-22. Raise the price of stamps, and people who are actually using them for the intended purpose now are now being inconvenienced, because someone thought they were being funny and brought a meme to vote.

Refuge Isle wrote:I have done numerous campaigns entirely by hand. As mentioned, even if the price of doing a round of campaigning were increased by five times, it's still not particularly abundant effort to draft a joke/spam proposal and spend two hours sending out batches of eight to scarcely 900 delegates. Or fewer, if you only target the delegates most likely to approve any given proposal. There simply aren't a great number of delegates in total.

Also a legit counter-argument. If you watch the queue enough, you know exactly who to target, and who will just auto-approve and you don't have to bother. Manual campaigns are just as effective. The thing is though, the average memer doesn't dedicate that much time. It's those select few, that somehow manage to write a legal proposal and ram it into quorum by throwing a few bucks at it. The question is, has it become a big enough issue to cause and inconvenience to those that use the tools for their legitimate purposes?

Outer Sparta wrote:Using API and just simply having to campaign the manual way requires more time and effort than just buying a bunch of stamps and TGing that to each of the delegates. If I decided to write a low-effort resolution like the "Condemn Elite Lemonade" one, why would I waste actual money on stamps to get delegate approval when I know that there are rubber-stampers out there who approve literally everything?

Are the rubber stampers prolific enough though? We do have a new Jimmy Hart, but when looking at the queue, the same delegates don't always pop up. I'll be the first one to admit, I haven't done a significant amount of research on this, but I am willing to bet, enough of the less than stellar proposals bought their way into queue. Also the 200 comment was an over exaggeration. It does happen though, as Bitely taught us all too well. When he went as far as taking out ad space, he levelled up to a whole new realm.

Wayneactia wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Using API and just simply having to campaign the manual way requires more time and effort than just buying a bunch of stamps and TGing that to each of the delegates. If I decided to write a low-effort resolution like the "Condemn Elite Lemonade" one, why would I waste actual money on stamps to get delegate approval when I know that there are rubber-stampers out there who approve literally everything?

Are the rubber stampers prolific enough though? We do have a new Jimmy Hart, but when looking at the queue, the same delegates don't always pop up. I'll be the first one to admit, I haven't done a significant amount of research on this, but I am willing to bet, enough of the less than stellar proposals bought their way into queue. Also the 200 comment was an over exaggeration. It does happen though, as Bitely taught us all too well. When he went as far as taking out ad space, he levelled up to a whole new realm.

Okay yeah, sometimes the rubber-stampers are not enough, which is when you take the campaigning into account so the rubber-stampers know that you actually submitted it. You don't need to make a good argument, just say "pls approve my proposal it'll make my day" and that's enough.

Outer Sparta wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:Are the rubber stampers prolific enough though? We do have a new Jimmy Hart, but when looking at the queue, the same delegates don't always pop up. I'll be the first one to admit, I haven't done a significant amount of research on this, but I am willing to bet, enough of the less than stellar proposals bought their way into queue. Also the 200 comment was an over exaggeration. It does happen though, as Bitely taught us all too well. When he went as far as taking out ad space, he levelled up to a whole new realm.

Okay yeah, sometimes the rubber-stampers are not enough, which is when you take the campaigning into account so the rubber-stampers know that you actually submitted it. You don't need to make a good argument, just say "pls approve my proposal it'll make my day" and that's enough.

I have no doubt about that. What I was saying is that IF people are nudged more in the direction of manual campaigning, instead of throwing money at it, are they going to be more likely to campaign quite as hard for that proposal? Especially if it is being torn to shreds on the forums? Would the inconvenience outweigh the potential benefits?

Outer Sparta wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:It could be 200 and it wouldn’t matter. People will still get garbage to quorum if they throw enough money at it.

There are (as of right now) 898 regional delegates. Obviously there are lots of rubber-stamper delegates and due to the 6% threshold, it's very easy to get 50 delegates to approve your proposal. Considering how easy it is to reach quorum especially with minimal campaigning, a bump in the threshold wouldn't be a bad idea.

Missed this one earlier. See this runs into a potential pitfall. The whole quorum raiding thing is still big drama right now. Raising the threshold then makes it harder to quorum raid a proposal, and it has been made clear by the the duly appointed representatives that they do not wish to interfere in that at this time. I'm not saying anyone would make such an accusation. But if made, it would be really hard to defend against it, and that is damn unfair.

Wayneactia wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Okay yeah, sometimes the rubber-stampers are not enough, which is when you take the campaigning into account so the rubber-stampers know that you actually submitted it. You don't need to make a good argument, just say "pls approve my proposal it'll make my day" and that's enough.

I have no doubt about that. What I was saying is that IF people are nudged more in the direction of manual campaigning, instead of throwing money at it, are they going to be more likely to campaign quite as hard for that proposal? Especially if it is being torn to shreds on the forums? Would the inconvenience outweigh the potential benefits?

Outer Sparta wrote:There are (as of right now) 898 regional delegates. Obviously there are lots of rubber-stamper delegates and due to the 6% threshold, it's very easy to get 50 delegates to approve your proposal. Considering how easy it is to reach quorum especially with minimal campaigning, a bump in the threshold wouldn't be a bad idea.

Missed this one earlier. See this runs into a potential pitfall. The whole quorum raiding thing is still big drama right now. Raising the threshold then makes it harder to quorum raid a proposal, and it has been made clear by the the duly appointed representatives that they do not wish to interfere in that at this time. I'm not saying anyone would make such an accusation. But if made, it would be really hard to defend against it, and that is damn unfair.

I would think they would campaign harder since the low-picking fruit methods would be harder to do or be more inconvenient. If it gets torn at vote, then it's on them, but at least it would mean they wouldn't try to actually buy a badge by WA campaigning for a crappy resolution and pushing it to vote via stamps.

As for the quorum raiding thing, I hadn't considered that as a potential consequence to raising the threshold. I'm keen to see how the debate with quorum raiding progress and how it relates to the WA quorum as a whole (whether you raise or lower it).

Outer Sparta wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:I have no doubt about that. What I was saying is that IF people are nudged more in the direction of manual campaigning, instead of throwing money at it, are they going to be more likely to campaign quite as hard for that proposal? Especially if it is being torn to shreds on the forums? Would the inconvenience outweigh the potential benefits?


Missed this one earlier. See this runs into a potential pitfall. The whole quorum raiding thing is still big drama right now. Raising the threshold then makes it harder to quorum raid a proposal, and it has been made clear by the the duly appointed representatives that they do not wish to interfere in that at this time. I'm not saying anyone would make such an accusation. But if made, it would be really hard to defend against it, and that is damn unfair.

I would think they would campaign harder since the low-picking fruit methods would be harder to do or be more inconvenient. If it gets torn at vote, then it's on them, but at least it would mean they wouldn't try to actually buy a badge by WA campaigning for a crappy resolution and pushing it to vote via stamps.

Jeez..... You have far more faith than I do in your average memer. I suppose the whole forums thing was a loaded question. But most crappy proposals don't hit the forums until someone happens to notice they are on the radar and creates a thread. At that point the campaign is likely out there. So what do we do? Appoint a panel of arbiters to judge what proposals are likely to go down in flames and discard them? (I'm not overly serious here...... Floating a test balloon)

Outer Sparta wrote:As for the quorum raiding thing, I hadn't considered that as a potential consequence to raising the threshold. I'm keen to see how the debate with quorum raiding progress and how it relates to the WA quorum as a whole (whether you raise or lower it).

Likely to be split along ideological grounds. The declaration wasn't defeated by all that much, so the community is fairly evenly split, minus the lemmings, and votes against for other bullshit reasons.

Refuge Isle wrote:I have done numerous campaigns entirely by hand.

Same here, although for my most recent few proposals I've used stamps donated to me [several years ago, now] by a 'WA Improvement' puppet that one or another of the GA regulars created.

As mentioned, even if the price of doing a round of campaigning were increased by five times, it's still not particularly abundant effort to draft a joke/spam proposal and spend two hours sending out batches of eight to scarcely 900 delegates. Or fewer, if you only target the delegates most likely to approve any given proposal. There simply aren't a great number of delegates in total.

Agreed. My manual campaigns usually started on a targeted basis too, and only became more general if just a few extra approvals were needed with the deadline approaching. In my experience the success rate for a targeted campaign was around 20-25% of the delegates approached, so at present contacting just the 300 "likeliest" delegates should usually be sufficient.
Note that I actually sent out several versions of the TG for each proposal, explaining in them why I thought that delegates to whom those particular versions were sent might consider approval appropriate (e.g. for 'Environmental' proposals, the fact that those delegates' regions had the 'Green' tag).

One thing adding to this idea,

Its also harder to get a proposal to quarem without the use of stamps, it’s possible but you only see it every once in a while.

Now noting the fact they I don’t have any ideas on how to fix this.

Nations they don’t want to spend money on the game are deterred(I think) from making proposals due to seemingly pay to win system (as a example, you see high quality issues fail to make it to quarem without stamps and then there’s elite lemonade, who did a joke proposal with little effort but used stamps so it made it to quarem.)

This is just a part of WA thst I dislike I really don’t know if others share this opinion

I do not support the raising of WA campaign stamps under any circumstances - I can appreciate the sentiment, but it would ultimately be a far larger detriment than benefit, I think. Sure, the relatively low cost allows people with subpar proposals to get to queue faster than most would prefer, but I definitely think that the instances of this are far-and-few-between, if I'm honestly speaking. They stick with us because they are frustrating, but it's really not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

Raising the price does put a larger burden on the authorship base, though. As others have mentioned, manual and API campaigns are possible, and even feasible right now, but when the number of delegacies inevitably increases (I imagine this'll happen around the release of the autocracies/democracies feature or whatever it's called now), it becomes a lot less feasible. It is possible to get to quorum, but only by sinking large amounts of time into the process, which I know I can't spend, and I imagine a lot of the other active authorsare with me on that front. Of course, we could just shell out the extra money, but I think it's a pretty widespread belief that we shouldn't try and increase the financial barrier to having a relatively enjoyable game.

One strategy that could work, perhaps, would be replacing stamps for campaigns with a "redeem one tag:delegates telegram" for $1 - this wouldn't run into the difficult option of scaling up but it could address the immediate issue.

Morover wrote:As others have mentioned, manual and API campaigns are possible, and even feasible right now, but when the number of delegacies inevitably increases (I imagine this'll happen around the release of the autocracies/democracies feature or whatever it's called now), it becomes a lot less feasible.

I did most if not all of my manual campaigns when the quorum requirement was over 90, in at least one case when it was over 120.

Islands Of Ventro wrote:One thing adding to this idea,

Its also harder to get a proposal to quarem without the use of stamps, it’s possible but you only see it every once in a while.

Now noting the fact they I don’t have any ideas on how to fix this.

Nations they don’t want to spend money on the game are deterred(I think) from making proposals due to seemingly pay to win system (as a example, you see high quality issues fail to make it to quarem without stamps and then there’s elite lemonade, who did a joke proposal with little effort but used stamps so it made it to quarem.)

This is just a part of WA thst I dislike I really don’t know if others share this opinion

1. It's spelled "quorum."
2. Stamps are definitely the easy way to get things to reach quorum since it's the easy way out to getting your message to delegates but you have to pay actual currency to make that happen. Right now, it's more ideal to do manual or API campaigning but once delegate counts increase, it makes that task harder.

Quality control should be performed during the vote, not prior to it. To me it seems like just another attempt to ensure that only the regulars will get to play with the WA, while all others are excluded. I can understand a change in percentage of WA delegate approvals, as it seems logical to adjust that a little bit with a shrinking number of delegates. But any other measure seems like arbitrary gatekeeping to me.