Discussion: Count useless GA/SC posts as spam

[Hobbesistan]

I believe Moderation is more 'open' now to the point that this would be the place to post this, but I want to bring up a rule proposal/change:

Generic "X Is against/for Y" (X being nation, Y being proposal) should really be counted as spam on SC and GA proposals.

I'm not saying to get rid of criticism, but it should be constructive. These kind of posts add no content to the thread whatsoever.

Examples:

Okay:

Testistan is opposed to this resolution as it's too vague.

Not okay:

Testistan is opposed.

One of these provides a decent reason and constructive feedback, the other just states a blanket statement with no constructive feedback or any form of contribution to the thread.

I've seen these kind of posts all over the SC and GA and they serve no legitimate purpose, as obviously whether or not you're opposed to a resolution can be decided at vote.

[Cybraxia]

I think this is a good idea. If someone isn't willing to contribute to the threads/debates, why should they post?

[Leppikania]

I also support this idea. "It's too vague" can be of use to the author, because it makes them aware of the need to clarify. "I am opposed" doesn't help.

[Wrapper]

I disagree.

[Wrapper]

Okay, now that my little joke has fallen flat:

As an author, if I get several "opposed" or "support" posts on a draft, especially from nations that don't normally post in the GA or SC, it gives me a clue as to what people are thinking off the top of their heads. Also, I've noticed that many one-line "opposed" or "support" posts are from nations that are relatively new. This is their way of dipping their toe in the pool, so to speak. I honestly don't see a problem with it.

[Enfaru]

There isn't a problem with it. It's on topic, it is demonstrating a nations view... thus not spam. It's just certain people being elitist.

If it was spam or any mod thought it was spam, warnings would have been issued already.

This a rule change looking for a problem to solve.

Edit

Just to be clear. While it is so that nations can cast their view at vote, it has never been common practice in any system. Everyone gets to voice their disagreement at any stage of creation of law is pretty much every legal system except North Korea. Allowing people to express their "agree/disagree" statements up front, can enable you to gauge public uptake of the proposal. If it's full of disagrees, you probably don't stand much of a chance, it's probably inherently just wrong. (I.e they simply don't agree with the premise).

[Hobbesistan]

Okay, now that my little joke has fallen flat:

As an author, if I get several "opposed" or "support" posts on a draft, especially from nations that don't normally post in the GA or SC, it gives me a clue as to what people are thinking off the top of their heads. Also, I've noticed that many one-line "opposed" or "support" posts are from nations that are relatively new. This is their way of dipping their toe in the pool, so to speak. I honestly don't see a problem with it.

Couldn't one easilly make the argument if you're looking for such input you could do something like a poll, which gives you the exact same (actually, arguably better because it does the math for you) information without spamming the thread?

[The Blaatschapen]

I disagree.

Well done

I don't venture out there into GA/SC much. But are people trying to engage with the 1 liner posters (ask why they're against, etc.)? They might be new to the whole GA thing (or even the forums at large)....

[Separatist Peoples]

I disagree.

Well done

I don't venture out there into GA/SC much. But are people trying to engage with the 1 liner posters (ask why they're against, etc.)? They might be new to the whole GA thing (or even the forums at large)....

This is generally the case. While it does take some prompting, answers are occasionally forthcoming from such individuals. Its a good way for somebody to get their toes wet, I feel.

[Wallenburg]

I am against this resolution.



In all honesty, this is hardly a major problem, and I'm just glad to see more people taking even a fleeting interest in the machine behind the GA. By posting even a one-liner on the General Assembly forum, they open themselves up to far more discussion on the proposals and resolutions under consideration. And, as SP has pointed out, they are likely to explain themselves when prompted.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As an author, if I get several "opposed" or "support" posts on a draft, especially from nations that don't normally post in the GA or SC, it gives me a clue as to what people are thinking off the top of their heads.

This.

[Ethel mermania]

Or just drop post count entirely

[Separatist Peoples]

Or just drop post count entirely

I don't think that is really coming into it. If post count was an issue, this would be happening in II, General, or F7, where the posts fly faster. The GA, by comparison, is dead.

[Ryanimus]

I disagree.

I agree with your disagreement.

In my opinion the OP makes an elitist proposal. One that aligns against the NS community conduct of the WA subforums (since 2009?). After consideration, I'd trash this idea. Sorry OP, people are allowed to state their opinion on things.

ADDENDUM: I'd further comment that such generic posts the OP describes can be considered roleplaying. One-liners are seen in RP threads of the diplomacy subforums too correct, and they're tolerated?

[Enfaru]

I don't think GA/SC is role-playing... I think at most it is Gameplay. It's not made clear in the description though.

[Euroslavia]

There isn't a problem with it. It's on topic, it is demonstrating a nations view... thus not spam. It's just certain people being elitist.

If it was spam or any mod thought it was spam, warnings would have been issued already.

This a rule change looking for a problem to solve.

Edit

Just to be clear. While it is so that nations can cast their view at vote, it has never been common practice in any system. Everyone gets to voice their disagreement at any stage of creation of law is pretty much every legal system except North Korea. Allowing people to express their "agree/disagree" statements up front, can enable you to gauge public uptake of the proposal. If it's full of disagrees, you probably don't stand much of a chance, it's probably inherently just wrong. (I.e they simply don't agree with the premise).

Pretty much in agreement with Enfaru (though I wouldn't go as far as calling anyone elitist). As short of a statement as it may be, it's still on topic.

Regardless, I'm not seeing this as a large 'problem' in the first place.

[Wrapper]

I don't think GA/SC is role-playing... I think at most it is Gameplay. It's not made clear in the description though.

GA is generally RP, SC is generally GP.

[Araraukar]

I don't think GA/SC is role-playing... I think at most it is Gameplay. It's not made clear in the description though.

GA is generally RP, SC is generally GP.

And most GA regulars, like me, completely ignore the existence of SC, since it is basically Gameplay...

I don't think the support/no support posts should count as spam - like others have said, they're often the first post of someone new who dared to poke their heads in the door.

[Separatist Peoples]

GA is generally RP, SC is generally GP.

And most GA regulars, like me, completely ignore the existence of SC, since it is basically Gameplay...

I don't think the support/no support posts should count as spam - like others have said, they're often the first post of someone new who dared to poke their heads in the door.

Indeed. I'm not so sure there really is any Gameplay involved in the GA. There's a little bit of involvement from delegates during the voting, but that's as easily considered IC as not. There is a statistical alteration, but that is almost never the heart of the disagreements we encounter. Basically all of what we work with is In Character legality. And, if you spend some time in II, you see that comes about when players argue for or against certain numbers in a war, so there's plenty of precedence.