Yeah, if. He's saying, if not, then could other hardcoded categories (e.g. Knootoss's "Economic Development", the long-mooted "Scientific Research", and for the love of [violet] an Environmental, Mild, subcategory) be brainstormed and maybe added.
Advertisement
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat May 09, 2015 9:58 am
by Frisbeeteria » Sat May 09, 2015 10:02 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Yeah, if.
by Unibot III » Sat May 09, 2015 10:03 am
[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.
by Elke and Elba » Sat May 09, 2015 10:06 am
Unibot III wrote:One thing to bear in mind is that the compliance committee wouldn't need to implement stats right away like they are automated now. We could get a telegram about a resolution coming in effect, a week later or so, even, or whatever, depending on how long it took for the stats-makers to come up with the implementation.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Frisbeeteria » Sat May 09, 2015 10:06 am
Unibot III wrote:One thing to bear in mind is that the compliance committee wouldn't need to implement stats right away like they are automated now.
by Unibot III » Sat May 09, 2015 10:08 am
[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.
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat May 09, 2015 10:11 am
Elke and Elba wrote:The good part about this would be the lack of need to code stats for some silly resolution which somehow passed (Industrial Pollution Control) which got insta-repealed quite quickly - which definitely lightens REs workload.
by Unibot III » Sat May 09, 2015 10:15 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Remember that much of this discussion began with a concern about transparency. Now, because game stats aren't revealed to the players the system can never be particularly transparent, but any system that had proposals take different amounts of time to kick in would immediately lead to charges of unfairness.
[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.
by Frisbeeteria » Sat May 09, 2015 10:16 am
Unibot III wrote:And why is that? Doesn't make any sense why there could be no delays in implementation.
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat May 09, 2015 10:19 am
Unibot III wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:Remember that much of this discussion began with a concern about transparency. Now, because game stats aren't revealed to the players the system can never be particularly transparent, but any system that had proposals take different amounts of time to kick in would immediately lead to charges of unfairness.
Why would anyone care about how long it took to implement a resolution
by Unibot III » Sat May 09, 2015 10:22 am
If we separate the two events, then we need a manual way to remove implementation in the "passing" update and a manual method to insert the changes in a "implementation" debate.
Are you really saying that if it took them a week and a half to implement the effects of Repeal "NAPA", but implemented the effect of a repeal of one your resolutions instantaneously, you wouldn't cry foul? Shit, I would!
[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.
by Frisbeeteria » Sat May 09, 2015 10:24 am
Unibot III wrote:I've suggest creating an automatic way to remove implementation in the passing update: changing effects on passage to be nominal - aka, faux stat changes (like 0% increases on taxes) not visible to the user.
by Elke and Elba » Sat May 09, 2015 10:26 am
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Unibot III » Sat May 09, 2015 10:27 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:Unibot III wrote:I've suggest creating an automatic way to remove implementation in the passing update: changing effects on passage to be nominal - aka, faux stat changes (like 0% increases on taxes) not visible to the user.
So an even more completed method that's less transparent is your preferred methodology?
I'm sorry, but your suggestion is absurd, and I'm not going to spend any more time trying to convince you that it's a really stupid idea.
[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.
by Kaboomlandia » Sat May 09, 2015 10:51 am
by Sedgistan » Sat May 09, 2015 10:53 am
Unibot III wrote:As for delays, all I've ever heard from issue editors is how complex and mind-numbing stupid and clunky, the game code is - every time the implementation days for issues are justified - so I had just assumed more than four days might be necessary for resolution editors.
by Krioval » Sat May 09, 2015 10:54 am
Unibot III wrote:It's not absurd, it's a way to get around having to rewrite massive parts of the code infrastructure - you maintain the old infrastructure running nominally and implement the new infrastructure. It has nothing to do with 'transparency' and everything to do with trying to make something work as opposed to dismissing everything for the past decade (as you have) as uncodeable or 'too much work'.
The virtue of not being open source is your backroom doesn't have to be pretty. All you're doing however is throwing out bizarre reasons why new systems can't work and now resorting to 'that's absurd!' retorts as a stalling technique. What's absurd is you think I'd believe that stats couldn't be easily implemented outside of the passing update.
by Unibot III » Sat May 09, 2015 10:56 am
Sedgistan wrote:Unibot III wrote:As for delays, all I've ever heard from issue editors is how complex and mind-numbing stupid and clunky, the game code is - every time the implementation days for issues are justified - so I had just assumed more than four days might be necessary for resolution editors.
I either posted it in this thread or the other, but getting the stats done in 4 days isn't a problem, so there's not a need to delay the statistical effects.
[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.
by Ainocra » Sat May 09, 2015 12:23 pm
by Kaboomlandia » Sat May 09, 2015 12:26 pm
Ainocra wrote:I think doing away with them would be problematic at best.
While it might not be a huge increase on the mod workload, there have been some interesting points raised.
I would be all for the expansion of the categories a bit. Add a few broad categories intended as catch all so if we can't get a proposal to fit into one of the rather nuanced categories we already have it would still have a home . Few off the cuff examples
Technical, Administrative (yay Mouse!) Taxation, Rights, Bureaucracy, Technology,
These are just examples but I like the idea of mods being able to change the category without having to toss the proposal too.
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat May 09, 2015 3:10 pm
Unibot III wrote:As for delays, all I've ever heard from issue editors is how complex and mind-numbing stupid and clunky, the game code is - every time the implementation days for issues are justified - so I had just assumed more than four days might be necessary for resolution editors.
Unibot III wrote:Well, there could be a reason - what happens if a crisis happens - you miss the deadline for four days. A surprise GA resolution catches everyone off guard. Everyone's busy. Nobody is manning the ship.
Does anything break if no statistical effect is specified?
by Unibot III » Sat May 09, 2015 4:35 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Unibot III wrote:Well, there could be a reason - what happens if a crisis happens - you miss the deadline for four days. A surprise GA resolution catches everyone off guard. Everyone's busy. Nobody is manning the ship.
Does anything break if no statistical effect is specified?
If there's a crisis, then there's a crisis. But we should design a system that works, and then make an exception when it doesn't, not create a system that assumes it can never work.
[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.
by Ainocra » Sat May 09, 2015 5:36 pm
by Flibbleites » Sat May 09, 2015 5:55 pm
Mousebumples wrote:If we go that route, I'd probably ask for a "hold" option (to keep a proposal from going to vote in the short term)
by Frisbeeteria » Sat May 09, 2015 6:22 pm
Flibbleites wrote:Actually, it might not be a bad idea to see if we can get that "hold" option just for those times when we get a last minute legality challenge.
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement