[PASSED] Commend Northern Borland

[Honeydewistania]

The Black Hawks, though I’m not exactly sure why.

I agree that the commendation is funny, and that’s what I want to pursue, but many people strongly feel that a commendation is inappropriate, or not suitable, or something.

Edit: FYI, I’ve withdrawn the proposal

I believe that it was directly influenced by the recent telegram from THX1138 to all delegates in which they stated that quorum raiding is essentially multing and should be treated as such.

"Look, look, we did exactly what XKI did not want us to do haha lmao gottem"

"Lol XKI destroyed silly fendas aha"

Honestly, this childlike behaviour would be hilarious if I weren’t crying a little on the inside.

Thanks for proving the point that approval raising is full of shit, TBH.

[Jakker]

I believe that it was directly influenced by the recent telegram from THX1138 to all delegates in which they stated that quorum raiding is essentially multing and should be treated as such.

"Look, look, we did exactly what XKI did not want us to do haha lmao gottem"

"Lol XKI destroyed silly fendas aha"

Honestly, this childlike behaviour would be hilarious if I weren’t crying a little on the inside.

Thanks for proving the point that approval raising is full of shit, TBH.

I would argue that any proposal has the potential to be subjected to various political dynamics. Sounds like there were multiple things involved here that affected how people viewed this proposal at this time.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

and raiders then knocking it out of queue "just because". It seriously needs to end.

"It's fun"

Woulda thunk that one of the top figures in defending had figured out the raison d'être of raiding by now.

I believe that it was directly influenced by the recent telegram from THX1138 to all delegates in which they stated that quorum raiding is essentially multing and should be treated as such.

Turns out the only thing better than "it's fun" is "it's fun, *and* someone told the whole world that we should be banned for doing it using a ridiculous metaphor." Who knew.

[Wallenburg]

and raiders then knocking it out of queue "just because". It seriously needs to end.

"It's fun"

Woulda thunk that one of the top figures in defending had figured out the raison d'être of raiding by now.

Guess who it's not fun for: everyone with a proposal in either queue. I am so fucking fed up with this sort of behavior. It's destructive and nothing else.

I believe that it was directly influenced by the recent telegram from THX1138 to all delegates in which they stated that quorum raiding is essentially multing and should be treated as such.

Turns out the only thing better than "it's fun" is "it's fun, *and* someone told the whole world that we should be banned for doing it using a ridiculous metaphor." Who knew.

If bans would stop approval raiding then yeah, maybe that would be a good solution. Approval raiding breaches the civility expected on the forums, and maybe it's time that actions be treated at least as seriously as words.

[Comfed]

"It's fun"

Woulda thunk that one of the top figures in defending had figured out the raison d'être of raiding by now.

Guess who it's not fun for: everyone with a proposal in either queue. I am so fucking fed up with this sort of behavior. It's destructive and nothing else.

Turns out the only thing better than "it's fun" is "it's fun, *and* someone told the whole world that we should be banned for doing it using a ridiculous metaphor." Who knew.

If bans would stop approval raiding then yeah, maybe that would be a good solution. Approval raiding breaches the civility expected on the forums, and maybe it's time that actions be treated at least as seriously as words.

You can counter approval raiding, right? Just like you can counter tag runs and raids.

[Refuge Isle]

Guess who it's not fun for: everyone with a proposal in either queue. I am so fucking fed up with this sort of behavior. It's destructive and nothing else.

If bans would stop approval raiding then yeah, maybe that would be a good solution. Approval raiding breaches the civility expected on the forums, and maybe it's time that actions be treated at least as seriously as words.

You can counter approval raiding, right? Just like you can counter tag runs and raids.

An approval only lasts as long as the delegate who gave it is still in power. So if you raid a region, approve something, then resign, that approval is dropped as soon as your WA is. You can theoretically get a h*ckload of people to take up temporary one-endo delegacies and remain there for a queue, although this would cause the number of approvals needed to rise slightly. Mechanically, it doesn't have the same boosting power as a quorum raid's stopping power.

[Comfed]

You can counter approval raiding, right? Just like you can counter tag runs and raids.

An approval only lasts as long as the delegate who gave it is still in power. So if you raid a region, approve something, then resign, that approval is dropped as soon as your WA is. You can theoretically get a h*ckload of people to take up temporary one-endo delegacies and remain there for a queue, although this would cause the number of approvals needed to rise slightly. Mechanically, it doesn't have the same boosting power as a quorum raid's stopping power.

I suppose, but couldn’t you do a kind of chasing, but for approval raids?

[Lord Dominator]

An approval only lasts as long as the delegate who gave it is still in power. So if you raid a region, approve something, then resign, that approval is dropped as soon as your WA is. You can theoretically get a h*ckload of people to take up temporary one-endo delegacies and remain there for a queue, although this would cause the number of approvals needed to rise slightly. Mechanically, it doesn't have the same boosting power as a quorum raid's stopping power.

I suppose, but couldn’t you do a kind of chasing, but for approval raids?

Defenders by my knowledge do chase on approval bumps, once they adjust after realizing it is one.

More easily, it'd be entirely legal to send a new campaign (provided it just notes the recipient had their approval removed) to the delegates so bumped once they're back in office I believe.

[Honeydewistania]

I suppose, but couldn’t you do a kind of chasing, but for approval raids?

Defenders by my knowledge do chase on approval bumps, once they adjust after realizing it is one.

More easily, it'd be entirely legal to send a new campaign (provided it just notes the recipient had their approval removed) to the delegates so bumped once they're back in office I believe.

So the best way to counter this destructive practice is to throw more money away because raiders feel like it.

and raiders then knocking it out of queue "just because". It seriously needs to end.

"It's fun"

Woulda thunk that one of the top figures in defending had figured out the raison d'être of raiding by now.

I believe that it was directly influenced by the recent telegram from THX1138 to all delegates in which they stated that quorum raiding is essentially multing and should be treated as such.

Turns out the only thing better than "it's fun" is "it's fun, *and* someone told the whole world that we should be banned for doing it using a ridiculous metaphor." Who knew.

It’s fun to wreck my hard work because of your political agenda, of which I have no interest or connection to. I mean, but that’s just the effect of most raids, isn’t it?

An approval only lasts as long as the delegate who gave it is still in power. So if you raid a region, approve something, then resign, that approval is dropped as soon as your WA is. You can theoretically get a h*ckload of people to take up temporary one-endo delegacies and remain there for a queue, although this would cause the number of approvals needed to rise slightly. Mechanically, it doesn't have the same boosting power as a quorum raid's stopping power.

I suppose, but couldn’t you do a kind of chasing, but for approval raids?

Sure, but many authors aren’t able to mobilise defending efforts and therefore rely on defenders to protect their proposals.

[Jakker]

Defenders by my knowledge do chase on approval bumps, once they adjust after realizing it is one.

More easily, it'd be entirely legal to send a new campaign (provided it just notes the recipient had their approval removed) to the delegates so bumped once they're back in office I believe.

So the best way to counter this destructive practice is to throw more money away because raiders feel like it.

You and I both know that there are ways to do so that does not involve money. You could have gone back to see which delegates were toppled and individually campaign telegram them once they regained delegacy. That would not cost any money and I think that is far more effective than stamps. I recognize that the aspect of money with stamps makes anything related to telegramming tricky and I personally don't like that many authors have to utilize funds for campaign telegramming (regardless of whether this type of raiding occurs) unless they use API like you did.

[Honeydewistania]

So the best way to counter this destructive practice is to throw more money away because raiders feel like it.

You and I both know that there are ways to do so that does not involve money. You could have gone back to see which delegates were toppled and individually campaign telegram them once they regained delegacy. That would not cost any money and I think that is far more effective than stamps. I recognize that the aspect of money with stamps makes anything related to telegramming tricky and I personally don't like that many authors have to utilize funds for campaign telegramming (regardless of whether this type of raiding occurs) unless they use API like you did.

Would had been ideal, except the proposal was hit with only 12 hours left to achieve quorum (deliberate?), and the delegates would not had time to regain their delegate seats.

[Electrum]

I think this would work better as a condemn. Their number ones are the ones which are traditionally evil, and we need a counterpart to Kindjal after all.

It is such a shame to see this one get knocked out of queue. That was not a nice thing to do.

I was looking forward to voting for this one.

[Jakker]

You and I both know that there are ways to do so that does not involve money. You could have gone back to see which delegates were toppled and individually campaign telegram them once they regained delegacy. That would not cost any money and I think that is far more effective than stamps. I recognize that the aspect of money with stamps makes anything related to telegramming tricky and I personally don't like that many authors have to utilize funds for campaign telegramming (regardless of whether this type of raiding occurs) unless they use API like you did.

Would had been ideal, except the proposal was hit with only 12 hours left to achieve quorum (deliberate?), and the delegates would not had time to regain their delegate seats.

The timing was not deliberate and just sort of happened. You could have reached out to some other delegates individually via the same process. I am not trying to argue that this does not add some extra work for you and other authors who may be affected with this when it happens occasionally (I think it has happened maybe 6-7 this whole year?). It also is about a ten minute process to find some delegates who have not approved it yet, write a template, and telegram. You can telegram up to 8 people at once. I have done this myself before and I could probably telegram about 50 people or so in 10 minutes including the time to find delegates.

I get the frustration though. It is unfortunate that you were affected by someone else's (THX1138) actions.

[Honeydewistania]

Would had been ideal, except the proposal was hit with only 12 hours left to achieve quorum (deliberate?), and the delegates would not had time to regain their delegate seats.

The timing was not deliberate and just sort of happened. You could have reached out to some other delegates individually via the same process. I am not trying to argue that this does not add some extra work for you and other authors who may be affected with this when it happens occasionally (I think it has happened maybe 6-7 this whole year?). I get the frustration. It also is about a ten minute process to find some delegates who have not approved it yet, write a template, and telegram. You can telegram up to 8 people at once. I have done this myself before and I could probably telegram about 50 people or so in 10 minutes including the time to find delegates.

You do have a point about the campaigns, and the non-requirement of spending money, but there is still no guarantee that the new delegates will approve or even be active enough to read the campaign TG (for example a few of the delegates hit were inactive for around a week).

[Jakker]

The timing was not deliberate and just sort of happened. You could have reached out to some other delegates individually via the same process. I am not trying to argue that this does not add some extra work for you and other authors who may be affected with this when it happens occasionally (I think it has happened maybe 6-7 this whole year?). I get the frustration. It also is about a ten minute process to find some delegates who have not approved it yet, write a template, and telegram. You can telegram up to 8 people at once. I have done this myself before and I could probably telegram about 50 people or so in 10 minutes including the time to find delegates.

You do have a point about the campaigns, and the non-requirement of spending money, but there is still no guarantee that the new delegates will approve or even be active enough to read the campaign TG (for example a few of the delegates hit were inactive for around a week).

You're right. There is no guarantee in this game when it comes to player dynamics. Another way for authors to consider in terms of countering this is to create a list of delegates with 10+ endorsements and reaching out to them early on in the approval process. They will rarely if ever be affected by these practices.

[HumanSanity]

IC: There is something ironic to me about a proposal which is part of a growing trend to have non-gameplay recognized by the SC being used as collateral damage for an exceptionally petty gameplay dispute.

Obviously there were redressive actions that can be taken, but those all require time, organization, and a lot of things to go right. Short timelines, reaching Delegates who may not be attentive to the queue, avoiding violating rules against duplicating campaign telegrams, and more make that process complicated. Further, even if those actions do solve, it creates asymmetric burdens on some proposals and authors, granting small groups of nations an outsized ability to effect the WA which violates the WA's spirit as a collective representation of the will of its members.

This demonstrates the core problem with raiding itself in a specific context: it takes something another nation has invested time and resources into developing and messes with it, fundamentally denying the idea that regions regions are sovereign with the rightto self determination. In this context, it takes it a step further to interfere with the intended democratic process of the World Assembly.

It is unfortunate that you were affected by someone else's (THX1138) actions.

I do not believe it is appropriate to blame THX for causing others to approval raid. THX sent a telegram. Others, for the explicit purpose of spiting them, decided to approval raid. That rests squarely on those who organized and conducted the raid.

[Jakker]

It is unfortunate that you were affected by someone else's (THX1138) actions.

I do not believe it is appropriate to blame THX for causing others to approval raid. THX sent a telegram. Others, for the explicit purpose of spiting them, decided to approval raid. That rests squarely on those who organized and conducted the raid.

I am not here to say that those who were involved in the raiding are not responsible, but it is incorrect to say that THX's actions did not play a role, specifically trying to make the claim that quorum raiding is like an existing illegal practice. Using that kind of language is not helpful to the game and is intended to argue that players are rule-breakers.

Ultimately as I said before, there seemed to be multiple dynamics at play here and I am sure this proposal could be more successful at another time with some changes.

[Morover]

Counter-campaigns are just as effective as approval raiding, without the harmful consequences.

I've had many of my proposals bludgeoned by Approval Raiding - typically as an unintended side effect - and I can attest firsthand that it doesn't feel good. I personally was opposed to the Commendation, as I felt that the humor it intended wasn't exactly what a humorous proposal should be (among other reasons) - I'll send you some feedback on the condemnation at some point within the next week, Honey.

Approval raiding should not be removed, legitimately. I think it's a scummy practice that should be discouraged, but it should not be removed. Honey - I'm sorry you went through that. The rise of approval raiding as a mainstream tactic is harmful to the World Assembly and hinders those who either don't have funds or are not well-connected within the community. Such a targeted attack on this proposal specifically due to an unrelated political issue is another furtherment of the issue that I think should be discouraged within the community. What was once a tactic used to shut down fascists or other similarly extreme ideologies is now used for petty political conflict.

Without comment on the actual ethics of raiding, I see no reason why actual tags can't fill the void for fun. I certainly understand that from an SC-perspective it is more acceptable than a GA perspective, given the entanglement of the two, but a harsh truth is that the Security Council grows further from Gameplay with each passing day - something that this proposal is a part of.

I can't speak for everyone involved in the World Assembly, but the reason I got involved here instead of R/D is because R/D is utterly uninteresting to me, and the conflict that is present essentially for the sake of conflict is mind-numbing. I see no reason to bring that conflict to a realm that is otherwise restricted by non-mechanical actions.

People like Sedgistan have expressed that, in their eyes as a low-endo delegate, bumping isn't harmful at all. I understand that this justifies it for some, but I think it's poor form to take the ability for one of the most experienced and skilled players in the game to adapt to things as indicative of the ordinary player to bounce back. Raiding and defending are a part of the game - I'm not complaining about that - but I think it's pretty rude when they intrude on other parts of the game with what they see as fun. It's not fun for us. There are plenty of options for both sides to enjoy what they're doing, without intentionally harming the actual gameplay experience of others.

---

I won't pretend like this is actually going to change anything - far from it. I think it should be known that the defense of their actions (being in response to THX) is farcical. I'm glad you're having fun in the game. That doesn't give you the right to hinder the fun of others.

Approval raiding should not be overused. It is acceptable in the most extreme of circumstances. This isn't one of them. If it really is, retaliate through action that might actually affect those that made those choices. Honey did nothing, and neither did the authors that were raided before you.

Just remember - when the RtL gang tried to stop A2A from getting to vote, it only made the sentiment of the players more entrenched in passing it. You don't want to be RtL, here.

[Jakker]

Just remember - when the RtL gang tried to stop A2A from getting to vote, it only made the sentiment of the players more entrenched in passing it. You don't want to be RtL, here.

I personally wouldn't mind if this passes. If you knew TBH, then you would know why it is funny that you are trying to compare to RtL to make a point

Accessibility within GA/SC is important and I think there is ways to improve that overall which I am thinking through.

[Morover]

Just remember - when the RtL gang tried to stop A2A from getting to vote, it only made the sentiment of the players more entrenched in passing it. You don't want to be RtL, here.

I personally wouldn't mind if this passes. If you knew TBH, then you would know why it is funny that you are trying to compare to RtL to make a point

Accessibility within GA/SC is important and I think there is ways to improve that overall which I am thinking through.

I'm not comparing the organizations, I'm comparing their actions. I welcome positive change, but I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that the more acceptable Approval Raiding becomes to the public eye, the worse off the World Assembly at large is.

[Makdon]

The timing was not deliberate and just sort of happened. You could have reached out to some other delegates individually via the same process. I am not trying to argue that this does not add some extra work for you and other authors who may be affected with this when it happens occasionally (I think it has happened maybe 6-7 this whole year?). It also is about a ten minute process to find some delegates who have not approved it yet, write a template, and telegram. You can telegram up to 8 people at once. I have done this myself before and I could probably telegram about 50 people or so in 10 minutes including the time to find delegates.

I get the frustration though. It is unfortunate that you were affected by someone else's (THX1138) actions.

This is bullshit. Let's just take a step back and make sure we have a full and accurate understanding of the story. THX1138 sends out an overdramatic tg to WA delegates advocating for approval raiding to be treated equivocally to WA multing. TBH responds by raiding delegates who approved Commend NB to be snarky and spite him. When called out on this, TBH essentially says that did nothing wrong, and blames THX1138 for what happened, as well as acting as though on some level the author is at fault for not trying hard enough to get back to quorum? This sentence is exceptionally absurd: "It is unfortunate that you were affected by someone else's (THX1138) actions." To be clear, Honeydew was most directly hurt by TBH's actions and that is completely unquestionable, so let's not try and blame shift. And I hate the implication that WA authors should be responsible for cleaning up the mess left by raiders acting out over petty GP politics. I'm not generally opposed to approval raiding, but it's use here is just immature, and is very clearly at the expense of the WA.

I agree that THX1138's tg was stupid, but this was a cruel and completely unwarranted reply, and the way TBH has respond to criticism over it is exceptionally disappointing.

[Jakker]

I personally wouldn't mind if this passes. If you knew TBH, then you would know why it is funny that you are trying to compare to RtL to make a point

Accessibility within GA/SC is important and I think there is ways to improve that overall which I am thinking through.

I'm not comparing the organizations, I'm comparing their actions. I welcome positive change, but I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that the more acceptable Approval Raiding becomes to the public eye, the worse off the World Assembly at large is.

I think you give the World Assembly far less credit than it deserves. Additional factors like so many other political aspects of the GA/SC add challenges to any author. This is just another one and I am confident of players' ability to overcome them. I have already noted fairly straightforward, doable solutions to limit the effects. If and when quorum raiding regularly stops proposals from reaching vote, then I would say a conversation would be warranted. Until that point, there is opportunity to think through accessibility as a whole.

[Honeydewistania]

I think restrictions on approval raiding need to be implemented before it becomes a mainstay in the World Assembly.

[Flanderlion]

I think restrictions on approval raiding need to be implemented before it becomes a mainstay in the World Assembly.

I disagree. It's a valid way to stop resolutions.

[Wallenburg]

If and when quorum raiding regularly stops proposals from reaching vote, then I would say a conversation would be warranted. Until that point, there is opportunity to think through accessibility as a whole.

It works every time someone does it, and it's happening more and more often with less and less concern over the consequences to the WA game. Any asshole with 10 friends can dequeue a proposal, and we're facing that problem on a regular basis now. You just want to pretend that problem doesn't exist, because you think you're more important than any other WA player.