The Category System

[The Dark Star Republic]

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

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.

[Frisbeeteria]

Yeah, if.

Got it.

I've been through so many of those, with so little effect, that I'm really ready for something entirely new.

[Unibot III]

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.

In my view, I think implementation of the stats should be category-less and be decided by experts, mods or resolution specialists, or what have you. That way we retain the link between game stats and the WA, but we basically put the discussion of 'categories' and effects completely out of the political realm once and for all. Game stats are a prominent issue in the WA solely because the category system makes it upfront.

[Elke and Elba]

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.

Unibot's idea makes sense. It would make sense for RPing too - given that the effects of the resolution wouldn't be felt until a little bit later when everything's settled down.

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of need to code stats for some silly resolution which somehow passed (Industrial Pollution Control) which got insta-repealed quite quickly - which definitely lightens REs workload.

[Frisbeeteria]

One thing to bear in mind is that the compliance committee wouldn't need to implement stats right away like they are automated now.

Yeah, they really would.

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.

Changing the category system to a Resolution Editor-edited stat line is a fairly minor change. Implementing the changes at a later date is a MAJOR change.

[Unibot III]

One thing to bear in mind is that the compliance committee wouldn't need to implement stats right away like they are automated now.

Yeah, they really would.

And why is that? Doesn't make any sense why there could be no delays in implementation.

Or, alternatively, why not automatically implement a nominal effect for all GA resolutions to satisfy the old code - like a +0% tax increase for all resolutions - and then allow a manual implementation of stats at the resolution editor's discretion. That way for appearances sake, the compliance commission appears wholly manual.

[The Dark Star Republic]

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.

Having REs make judgement calls on whether a resolution is good enough to warrant bothering coding is such a revoltingly terrible idea it half makes me want to renounce the whole project.

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. The system has to be immediate to be fair. And there's no need for time delays anyway: it shouldn't take anywhere near 4 days to come up with the stats.

[Unibot III]

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 (barring a repeal, which must be automatic)?

Bear in mind, there's a difference between passage and implementation. A resolution passes and takes effect legally at the date of its passage as usually, it would just be the compliance commission which would be slower to announce nations now complied with the resolution.

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.

[Frisbeeteria]

And why is that? Doesn't make any sense why there could be no delays in implementation.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean the reason doesn't exist.

Right now the automated system processes the impact during the same update that the proposal passes. 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.

We (the moderation and administrative staff) ideally want zero "manual" processes in update. It should be entirely automated wherever possible, to provide consistency and prevent player confusion and complaints. Every time that update fails to start on time (the last one due to a database crash), we get inundated with complaints. I'm absolutely opposed to making that complaint storm a part of the process.

[The Dark Star Republic]

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

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!

This setting aside the question of whether it is even possible for a resolution's effects to be detached from the update. Given the progress on the R/D Summit changes, I am massively unenthusiastic about any change to the system that requires any unnecessary code complications.

[Unibot III]

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.

I've suggested 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.

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!

I can understand reasons for being upset about a repeal's implementation being delayed - which is why I mentioned that and you strategically cut that out of the post. However, there's a simple method of resolving that: make repeal stats automatic. Aka, reversing the old resolution's effects.

[Frisbeeteria]

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.

[Elke and Elba]

Why don't just cut out this entire stupid "RESOLUTION PASSED MUST AFFECT STATS" nonsense and get it over and done with?

[Unibot III]

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.

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.

[Kaboomlandia]

I would keep the category system, BUT not yank proposals that have minor category violations, such as the barrier between Healthcare and RDU. Obviously, if someone makes a proposal and files it under Human Rights when it's Free Trade, obvious violations like that can be pulled.

Also, Furtherment of Democracy strikes me as being a difficult category to use because of the ideological ban rule.

[Sedgistan]

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.

[Krioval]

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.

...except that it does nothing to enhance the game experience and has the potential to upset a lot of players in the process due to questions of transparency. Also, it would require additional time (see: "too much work" as a valid reason here) on the part of both the admin and mod staff. Thus the net effect would be to spend time and resources on an "easily implemented" change that would reduce players' expectation of fair implementation.

And being married to a programmer, I don't know why anybody would want to have disorganized code. "But it works" is a terrible sentiment that leads to trouble when, invariably, it *doesn't* work. Why make a code change for something that really won't enhance the game experience dramatically?

[Unibot III]

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.

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?

[Ainocra]

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.

[Kaboomlandia]

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.

Taxation wouldn't work because of the existence of the WAGF, but there's one category I think would see a lot of use: Industrial Regulation.

[The Dark Star Republic]

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 don't think you can really compare the two. Issues require balancing, resolutions don't. Of course coding an issue about abortion is a lot more complex because you have to code an option to legalise abortion, an option to ban abortion, and two or three other related options. Coding a resolution to legalise abortion doesn't have any other random options, so it's much simpler. And coding isn't even the most intensive part of issue editing: issue editors also edit issue text. Resolution editors wouldn't touch the resolution text.

Maybe we could create a new thread for you to complain about the issue system so that this one doesn't cross over, though?

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.

[Unibot III]

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.

On the contrary,

There are three scenarios suggested here...

1. Completely automated.
The status quo.

2. Manual, but obligatorily at Passage.
What you're suggesting.

3. Manual, but not necessarily at Passage.
What I've suggested.

I feel what you're trying to do creates a hamster wheel that you have to keep going around and around on time upon the fourth day - it seems inevitable to me that human error could occur with that system - that someone might not be there to put wood on fire etc. Pick your idiom.

If compliance is split from passage, delays in times of implementation would be expected and wouldn't cause mass dysfunction - that to me strikes me as a more sustainable system.

[Ainocra]

One of the reason I support the categories is because it takes out the possibility of human error and human bias without increasing the workload of the mods.

consider
I make and pass proposal x
which in my mind causes all widgets to have the price tripled
it's plainly stated in the thread that that is my intent (widgets are ebil)

editor reads is and either through bias or error codes it to reduce the cost of widgets

shit storm brewing in

3
2
1

automated takes all that out of the equation

[Flibbleites]

I just had a thought, what if we were to have the Manual stats be an option for authors to use? An author could choose between writing to a category or using the manual stats.

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)

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.

[Frisbeeteria]

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.

I can see that quickly being abused to gain more exposure time for proposals that are close to quorum and coming up just a little short. If there's a Hold button, it needs to take the proposal off the table (perhaps into invisibility mode) to prevent abuse.