The Category System

[Mallorea and Riva]

Category

Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc[ing] income inequality and increas[ing] basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labelled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.

[Mallorea and Riva]

First round discussion bump.

[Kaboomlandia]

As has been suggested in the past, Gun Control might have to go. Recently, with Responsible Arms Trading, a legality query was filed with regards to the category. There isn't much policy to cover: Gun Control only covers personal gun ownership.

[Ikania]

I see no problem, but we have to stop removing proposals for category violations. The mods should not waste a TG campaign's worth of money and make the submitter start over if they've made an error; it would be much easier to just switch the category.

[Flibbleites]

I see no problem, but we have to stop removing proposals for category violations. The mods should not waste a TG campaign's worth of money and make the submitter start over if they've made an error; it would be much easier to just switch the category.

Two problems with that idea.
1. We don't have that ability.
B. The author may not want it to be in a different category.

[NERVUN]

I see no problem, but we have to stop removing proposals for category violations. The mods should not waste a TG campaign's worth of money and make the submitter start over if they've made an error; it would be much easier to just switch the category.

Two problems with that idea.
1. We don't have that ability.
B. The author may not want it to be in a different category.

三. Also delegates who approve of a proposal might not approve of it having been changed.

Not saying it's a BAD thing mind, but these are points to consider.

[Krioval]

Can of worms time: is there any way that proposal authors/the GA at large could have some idea of the statistical effects of their proposals? We have all these national statistics now, and I could see an environmental resolution either penalizing industry or raising taxes in member states as a way to fund environmental protection. Likewise, trade proposals could be limited to specific industries. It would probably be a massive pain to implement, and given a certain amount of opacity (as with issues), there are likely to be complaints in any case.

[Elke and Elba]

I'm of the opinion that categories should be abolished, but can't think of a good replacement. Categories are too restrictive in some aspects that writers of extant legislation proposals might find it transgressing other categories. On the other hand, the lack of categories is too loose in a way we might be having people legislate on gay sex and abortion in a single proposal if they are allowed to run wild.

[Sedgistan]

Can of worms time: is there any way that proposal authors/the GA at large could have some idea of the statistical effects of their proposals?

There's not. We already give you a little more than is ideal in the rules description of categories (though I appreciate that's necessary to be able to write a proposal that fits that category). It's a fundamental of the game design that the exact variables and the effects of your decisions (i.e. issues/GA resolutions) are hidden.

[Old Hope]

The category system is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw in the WA.
The current system has the following negative effects:
1.Submitters have to shoehorn a proposal into a category.
Well... less creativity. And more time wasted. That is obviously bad.
2.Categories limit the potential effects of WA resolutions and produce always the same stats at the same category and strength
This is the worst aspect, actually.
Currently, a significant amount of members look at the category and determine their vote according to the stat effects- probably even without looking at the proposal. They don't feel compelled to care about drafting because it doesn't affect how the proposals will work. They get all of it handed on a plate. That is probably one of the main reasons for the lack of drafting activity.

My suggestion would be the following:
We need, after submission, four phases
Phase 1:Debate.
This is when everyone who has been granted access to the stats(which are probably not so much, not even most mods if I know it correctly)
can give the proposal some stats, and where the mods can spot illegalities and remove the proposal. And it gives those who are interested time to look at the proposal before it comes to vote(as the queue and vote can be reached fast if there is no active proposal).
When the stats have been decided, the submitter could either bring it to the usual approval state or, if selected, it would reach approval state automatically.
Phase 2:Approval.
Basically what happens now when a proposal is submitted. The mods can still remove for illegalities not spotted before(for example, plagiarism)
Phase 3:Queue
The proposal has reached the needed approvals and goes to vote the next update there is neither something at vote nor a proposal that reached queue earlier. Removal by mods possible.
Phase 4:Vote
Not different from now.

Advantages:
[*] member nations now look at the proposal
[*]stats are more dynamic and political debate is stronger
[*]More creativity allowed.
[*]the actual possible effects of the proposal are debated
[*]Interested nations can see what happens with the stats of their nations and can still notice if something odd or unwanted happens
Probably advantages:
[*]Opponents could react to a proposal, it wouldn't be possible for a proposal to go from submission to vote in ten minutes and getting a massive pile, giving opponents no time to react and pressing a proposal through without even a sensible debate.
Disadvantages:
[*]The stats determination process would produce more workload, and would have to be maintained regularly. Especially as there are only a few with access to the stats.


This obviously wanders a bit off the category system a bit, but the category system is the source of the problems.

[Separatist Peoples]

The stats system is exactly why we need categories. The Mods are hard pressed to keep up with things during certain times of the year as it is. That would require a subjectivity analysis, coding, and a consensus on that every single time something was submitted. That's fine during quiet seasons. But what about during Christmas? The Summer rush?

The restrictions of the categories can be fixed by adding more categories. With more options, there's less shoehorning.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The Mods are hard pressed to keep up with things during certain times of the year as it is. That would require a subjectivity analysis, coding, and a consensus on that every single time something was submitted. That's fine during quiet seasons. But what about during Christmas? The Summer rush?

So make the issue editors do it, or appoint some players as resolution editors, or just appoint some more moderators. An initial test of coming up with stats didn't seem overly burdensome; I don't know what I'm allowed to share about that, but perhaps Sedgistan can fill in the details.

The restrictions of the categories can be fixed by adding more categories. With more options, there's less shoehorning.

I do agree that should the proposed reform not go through, then adding categories would be a good fallback option, but it doesn't really do much about the existing categories presenting difficulties.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Mods are hard pressed to keep up with things during certain times of the year as it is. That would require a subjectivity analysis, coding, and a consensus on that every single time something was submitted. That's fine during quiet seasons. But what about during Christmas? The Summer rush?

So make the issue editors do it, or appoint some players as resolution editors, or just appoint some more moderators. An initial test of coming up with stats didn't seem overly burdensome; I don't know what I'm allowed to share about that, but perhaps Sedgistan can fill in the details.

The restrictions of the categories can be fixed by adding more categories. With more options, there's less shoehorning.

I do agree that should the proposed reform not go through, then adding categories would be a good fallback option, but it doesn't really do much about the existing categories presenting difficulties.

Adding extra people didn't seem to help the mods out terribly last time. And, as they would have to remain impartial, that essentially DQs a few veteran players from the game. Lord knows we can use all the active vets we can get out there.

I know I'm just not comfortable with the idea of having a legal spaghetti resolution that goes fifteen different directions.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Adding extra people didn't seem to help the mods out terribly last time.

That's because the people they added were sycophants who didn't seem to get terribly active in WA moderation. But I still don't grant the premise that it needs extra people: it's not that high intensity a problem.

And, as they would have to remain impartial, that essentially DQs a few veteran players from the game. Lord knows we can use all the active vets we can get out there.

They have to remain impartial in terms of "this increases personal freedoms" or "this cuts the healthcare budget". They can still argue for or against a proposal on its merits. Ardchoille has quite often ruled a proposal legal as Ardchoille, and then argued against it as Ardchoilleans, for example.

I know I'm just not comfortable with the idea of having a legal spaghetti resolution that goes fifteen different directions.

Others have voiced this fear, and I suppose it's reasonable, but there's nothing really stopping anyone from writing a spaghetti resolution right now, so long as it fits the category. The reason those resolutions aren't popular isn't a mechanical constraint: it's because the more diverse elements you introduce, the more likely one of them is to attract opposition and sink the whole proposal. How often do we see "I like the idea but can't vote for this because of Article 4"?

[Old Hope]

Like I said:

Disadvantages:
[*]The stats determination process would produce more workload, and would have to be maintained regularly. Especially as there are only a few with access to the stats.

Only when we can overcome this disadvantage, it would work. If we have too few...
Nevertheless, just adding some categories would lessen shoehorning...
but that is it.
It would not strike the other problem out: the stats are still presented on a table, and those interested in the stats have no interest to partipiciate, and there is less incentive to think about what your proposal actually does because you know the stats.
I know this needs more workload permanently, but it would also massively improve the WA.

[Snefaldia]

Can of worms time: is there any way that proposal authors/the GA at large could have some idea of the statistical effects of their proposals?

There's not. We already give you a little more than is ideal in the rules description of categories (though I appreciate that's necessary to be able to write a proposal that fits that category). It's a fundamental of the game design that the exact variables and the effects of your decisions (i.e. issues/GA resolutions) are hidden.

I understand this thought, but I think when talking about WA legislation it might help to know a bit more- when you answer a daily issue, you have a pretty good idea what areas are going to be hit, even if you're not %100 sure, based on the options presented. Right now most of the arguing is over legal language and precedent, rather than areas on individual nations. Could we look at maybe different ways to present a resolution's impact on specific aspects of the nation?

This could look something like a new line in the nation overview like "Due to recent World Assembly legislation, it is now illegal to harbor invisible people in trees and the woodchipping industry has been gutted."

[Mousebumples]

I see no problem, but we have to stop removing proposals for category violations. The mods should not waste a TG campaign's worth of money and make the submitter start over if they've made an error; it would be much easier to just switch the category.

Two problems with that idea.
1. We don't have that ability.
B. The author may not want it to be in a different category.

Flib is right that we don't have that ability _now_, but it may be worth asking the techies for that ability, perhaps.

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) and send a telegram to the author explaining that their proposal should be health care, not human rights. (For example) I'd offer to change it for them, or remove the prop so they can redraft to make the proposal human rights.

If there's no response from the author after, say, 24 hours the proposal would either have the category changed or be pulled sure to the category "violation." (Obviously, we'd have a standard response, but I don't know if players would have a preference there.)

[Bears Armed]

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)

Even if we don't go that route, Mods having the "hold" option available could be useful: Cases where a plausible-looking GHR is filed against a quorate proposal very shortly before that would otherwise reach the floor, for example...

[Sedgistan]

The stats system is exactly why we need categories. The Mods are hard pressed to keep up with things during certain times of the year as it is. That would require a subjectivity analysis, coding, and a consensus on that every single time something was submitted. That's fine during quiet seasons. But what about during Christmas? The Summer rush?

As DSR said, we tested it, and it really did not take at all long for us to code the stats. Between the two of us, it was a max of about 4 posts (total) and we were decided. So it doesn't add much at all to our workload. The main concern on that front is coverage - ensuring that there is always someone around able to code the stats. Aside from the Issues Editors, and several mods who know stats, I've also been training up the other GA mods on how these stats work, so I'm confident our coverage would be good.

There's not. We already give you a little more than is ideal in the rules description of categories (though I appreciate that's necessary to be able to write a proposal that fits that category). It's a fundamental of the game design that the exact variables and the effects of your decisions (i.e. issues/GA resolutions) are hidden.

I understand this thought, but I think when talking about WA legislation it might help to know a bit more- when you answer a daily issue, you have a pretty good idea what areas are going to be hit, even if you're not %100 sure, based on the options presented. Right now most of the arguing is over legal language and precedent, rather than areas on individual nations. Could we look at maybe different ways to present a resolution's impact on specific aspects of the nation?

This could look something like a new line in the nation overview like "Due to recent World Assembly legislation, it is now illegal to harbor invisible people in trees and the woodchipping industry has been gutted."

That's actually an interesting idea, and worth exploring. On a related note, we have been looking into giving players better ways of tracking changes to their nation from issues/WA resolutions - that's a long-term improvement plan, but will be happening at some point.

[Frisbeeteria]

when you answer a daily issue, you have a pretty good idea what areas are going to be hit, even if you're not %100 sure, based on the options presented.

There's really no difference in designing stats for issues versus proposals. The IEs look at every word and phrase in the content, then add appropriate stats. If the phrasing suggests an ambiguity with unintended consequences, that is also coded. Such is the nature of the Law of Unintended Consequences - you're never going to be 100% sure when you write the thing that it will do only what you intended it to do.

Right now most of the arguing is over legal language and precedent, rather than areas on individual nations.

If we implement this, that would surely change.

We need, after submission, four phases
Phase 1:Debate.
Phase 2:Approval.
Phase 3:Queue
Phase 4:Vote

I'm thinking of it as

1. Pre-queue - submitted proposals are only visible to stat editors
2. Queue - where approvals are given
3. Quorum - fully approved and awaiting floor vote
4. Voting

So the only difference would be that a new, hidden queue would be created for Resolution Editors and Mods (collectively, REs). Proposals would not instantly be visible to players, but grossly offensive and other serious rulebreaking proposals would never hit the queue at all.

The obvious advantage of this would be that it gives REs a bit of flexibility in getting to proposals on a timely basis while not giving any single player a time advantage over another. The obvious disadvantage is that there would be a new layer of hidden activity before proposals hit the floor.

[Snefaldia]

That's actually an interesting idea, and worth exploring. On a related note, we have been looking into giving players better ways of tracking changes to their nation from issues/WA resolutions - that's a long-term improvement plan, but will be happening at some point.

That's good. To build a bit more on what I mean, let's say we've got a Free Trade, strong, resolution that makes migrant labor easier and establishes a WA Office of Migrant Labor. After it passes, you get a hit or boost to some trade as the case might be, and then a note saying something like "After recent WA legislation, the borders are now overrun by Bigtopian migrant laborers looking for work." It gets repealed, and you get a notice saying "After recent WA legislation was repealed, the WA Office of Migrant Labor was burned to the ground by jubilant Snefaldian workers."

[Defwa]

If moderation is confident they can offer effective coverage to rate the effects of every proposal, I would be satisfied with the removal of the category system. I would even be okay if it took a few days after the vote to do (after all, immediate effect international regulation is a little unrealistic).

But failing in that, just having a thread dedicated to people naming every possible category they can think of and then having those merged together by a review team is satisfactory to me.

[Frisbeeteria]

I would even be okay if it took a few days after the vote to do

That would require a major technical change, as the impact of passed resolutions are processed in the same update in which the proposal passes.

just having a thread dedicated to people naming every possible category they can think of and then having those merged together by a review team is satisfactory to me.

Huh? If we implement the new RE categories, it'll be the REs adding the stats and writing the tag lines. I'm not sure where you're headed with the thread suggestion.

[Defwa]

I would even be okay if it took a few days after the vote to do

That would require a major technical change, as the impact of passed resolutions are processed in the same update in which the proposal passes.

just having a thread dedicated to people naming every possible category they can think of and then having those merged together by a review team is satisfactory to me.

Huh? If we implement the new RE categories, it'll be the REs adding the stats and writing the tag lines. I'm not sure where you're headed with the thread suggestion.

"But failing in that"
If the first option doesn't work, thats the second option I would be satisfied with

[Elke and Elba]

I'm thinking of it as

1. Pre-queue - submitted proposals are only visible to stat editors
2. Queue - where approvals are given
3. Quorum - fully approved and awaiting floor vote
4. Voting

So the only difference would be that a new, hidden queue would be created for Resolution Editors and Mods (collectively, REs). Proposals would not instantly be visible to players, but grossly offensive and other serious rulebreaking proposals would never hit the queue at all.

The obvious advantage of this would be that it gives REs a bit of flexibility in getting to proposals on a timely basis while not giving any single player a time advantage over another. The obvious disadvantage is that there would be a new layer of hidden activity before proposals hit the floor.

Huh. So essentially there isn't an added advantage of submitting right after major/minor update where there would be an additional twelve hours for approvals?

I'm also worried about the potential for abuse - an area of concern given that Kryo has been deleting many proposals without accounting to anyone. With that hidden layer, it makes it even less detectable than it is today.