NationStates

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 6:27 pm**

Frisbeeteria wrote:
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.

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.

I was thinking along those lines too, it wouldn't go up for vote or expire but it couldn't gain any approvals either (I don't see any to to completely prevent it from losing approvals though).

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 9:35 pm**

Frisbeeteria wrote:
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.

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.

Here's a better idea. Get rid of the whole approvals process completely. Just let the mods approve proposals, as it seems they are required to pass mid scrutiny before they are permitted to go to vote, quorate or not.

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 10:55 pm**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote: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.

Here's a better idea. Get rid of the whole approvals process completely. Just let the mods approve proposals, as it seems they are required to pass mid scrutiny before they are permitted to go to vote, quorate or not.

Absolutely not. If every proposal got to vote just because it was legal, we'd never get anything done.
Proposal didn't work the first time? Keep submitting it until it does, maybe the outcome will be different

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 1:26 am**

Frisbeeteria wrote:
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.

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.

I have a vague memory of you suggesting a "table" mechanism absolutely years ago. (I remember, because "table" means something different in British English than American English and at the time it caused a bit of mild confusion.) I can't remember the specifics of the suggestion, though, I don't know if anyone else can.

Unibot III wrote: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.

Well, as we've already told you there is no reason to expect delays: 4 days is ample time. (And most of the time it will be more than 4 days: we began discussing the stats for Sciongrad's proposal before he'd even submitted it!)

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 7:24 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote: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.

I have a vague memory of you suggesting a "table" mechanism absolutely years ago. (I remember, because "table" means something different in British English than American English and at the time it caused a bit of mild confusion.) I can't remember the specifics of the suggestion, though, I don't know if anyone else can.

If memory serves, a similar comment came up in Tech a few years ago (I think it used the word "hold" though, versus "table") if anyone has time to do a forum search for it. I'm out of town for Mother's Day weekend, but otherwise, I'll see if I can't do a search of that nature when I'm back home later tonight.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 2:05 pm**

if such a thing were put in how would it be used

I like the idea though

perhaps put a time limit on how long a proposal can be tabled, say 48-72 hours tops?

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 3:42 pm**

Defwa wrote:
Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
Here's a better idea. Get rid of the whole approvals process completely. Just let the mods approve proposals, as it seems they are required to pass mid scrutiny before they are permitted to go to vote, quorate or not.

Absolutely not. If every proposal got to vote just because it was legal, we'd never get anything done.
Proposal didn't work the first time? Keep submitting it until it does, maybe the outcome will be different

Agreed. Last month, I saw a proposal that consisted of three lines.
Since one of the lines was an action clause, the proposal didn't duplicate or contradict anything, and no other rules were broken, it was barely legal.
If we had to waste four days of everyone's time voting on that...

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 3:56 pm**

Kaboomlandia wrote:
Defwa wrote:Absolutely not. If every proposal got to vote just because it was legal, we'd never get anything done.
Proposal didn't work the first time? Keep submitting it until it does, maybe the outcome will be different

Agreed. Last month, I saw a proposal that consisted of three lines.
Since one of the lines was an action clause, the proposal didn't duplicate or contradict anything, and no other rules were broken, it was barely legal.
If we had to waste four days of everyone's time voting on that...

You two need to adjust your sarcasm detectors. JPT was taking the piss.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 3:57 pm**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Kaboomlandia wrote:Agreed. Last month, I saw a proposal that consisted of three lines.
Since one of the lines was an action clause, the proposal didn't duplicate or contradict anything, and no other rules were broken, it was barely legal.
If we had to waste four days of everyone's time voting on that...

You two need to adjust your sarcasm detectors. JPT was taking the piss.

Oops!

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 7:57 pm**

"I'm actually a huge fan of the illegalities that category violation creates, because it helps catch the myriad of proposals that wouldn't necessarily be illegal otherwise, but have no business being in the queue.

I'm also increasingly uncomfortable about this no category idea because of how subjective this becomes, and, worse, how much more of this decision making goes behind the scenes and between a small group. At least with categories being immutable coding amounts, nobody can point fingers and argue that there was bias.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 11:34 pm**

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

This is a point I would also like to address. WA members can choose answers to issues which are in contravention of passed resolutions so why is it such a big thing that resolutions must affect stats?

My opinion is either tie in issues with resolutions and have unselectable answers for WA members while keeping the category system, or get rid of the category system and the stats effect from resolutions and just let people write good resolution without worrying about stat wankers. Firstly, I would not support getting rid of the category system although it could be loosely enforced, IE once a proposal has even just a tenuous link to the stated category it should be legal. Possibly there could be a few extra categories too.

Secondly, I could see individual stat effects for each resolution being a huge can of worms and leading to loads of arguments. For example, for some bizarre reason, a lot of NSers seem to consider stopping parents from hitting children to be a contravention of the parent's human rights rather than a vindication of teh child's human rights. This seems to stem from a poor definition of human rights being freedom from government control leading from this sentence in the category rules: "Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects?" It would seem to me that the 1960s era civil rights legislation in the US would have been moral decency in NS as it would increase government control, similarly much equality legislation IRL consists of the government telling people you can't do this or that. If the current definitions are used as a base for this "stats for individual resolutions" system, then I'm opposed.

Now if a group of people are going to look at each resolution as it passes to decide stat effects, couldn't this group also decide that certain answers to issues should also be unselectable for WA members?

As an aside, I see that it has been stated that this process of deciding individual stat effects is not particularly onerous, so I don't think that we should be worrying about how long it takes or if there's a delay, it's hardly a big deal if a resolution's effect aren't implemented immediately upon passage. A few days of a delay while this team decides particularly controversial stat effects wouldn't be something to get bogged down in.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 11:40 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'm actually a huge fan of the illegalities that category violation creates, because it helps catch the myriad of proposals that wouldn't necessarily be illegal otherwise, but have no business being in the queue.

I'm also increasingly uncomfortable about this no category idea because of how subjective this becomes, and, worse, how much more of this decision making goes behind the scenes and between a small group. At least with categories being immutable coding amounts, nobody can point fingers and argue that there was bias.

...and currently, proposals have a fixed effect regardless of what they state.
And why do you think you have the right to decide which ideas have no business being in the queue? Apart from grossly offensive ideas.

And no to the no stat effects resolutions. Absolutely not. The idea is to get the stats players back, not to throw them out completely. Which means less activity.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 1:54 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:I'm actually a huge fan of the illegalities that category violation creates, because it helps catch the myriad of proposals that wouldn't necessarily be illegal otherwise, but have no business being in the queue.

So many of the rules we've already discussed fall into this trap: blogposal, committee-only, NatSov repeal, and category.

They're not real rules. They're not actually there to make the game fair and functional. They're no impediment to players with even a smidgeon of WA experience. They're there solely to make it easier for the mods to quickly clear out the submission queue. With the new telegram system it is so easy to get a proposal to quorum that that should no longer be a concern.

worse, how much more of this decision making goes behind the scenes and between a small group

Others have mentioned this objection, but it misses the point a bit. There has already been decision making behind the scenes between a small group, in deciding what the original category stats would be. Those stats aren't revealed to players - and the vague descriptions that are given to players are in some cases not even terribly accurate.

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 4:21 am**

Old Hope wrote:...and currently, proposals have a fixed effect regardless of what they state.
And why do you think you have the right to decide which ideas have no business being in the queue? Apart from grossly offensive ideas.

What makes you think you have any better an opinion on that? You should take the advice Kaboom keeps getting.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:I'm actually a huge fan of the illegalities that category violation creates, because it helps catch the myriad of proposals that wouldn't necessarily be illegal otherwise, but have no business being in the queue.

So many of the rules we've already discussed fall into this trap: blogposal, committee-only, NatSov repeal, and category.

They're not real rules. They're not actually there to make the game fair and functional. They're no impediment to players with even a smidgeon of WA experience. They're there solely to make it easier for the mods to quickly clear out the submission queue. With the new telegram system it is so easy to get a proposal to quorum that that should no longer be a concern.
worse, how much more of this decision making goes behind the scenes and between a small group

Others have mentioned this objection, but it misses the point a bit. There has already been decision making behind the scenes between a small group, in deciding what the original category stats would be. Those stats aren't revealed to players - and the vague descriptions that are given to players are in some cases not even terribly accurate.

Those behind the scenes stat changes are relatively constant, though. There's far less politicking about who decided Lilliputia's proposal would be so weak when Bigtopia's was so strong. If more categories with more reasonable stay impacts could be added, we would likely solve the problem of limited usefulness of the category system without adding more complexity, because we'd be expanding an existing part of the system. The last thing we need is another scandal where a well known but polarizing author is viewed as having had the authorities make a personal attack on their proposal

Posted: **Mon May 11, 2015 4:50 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:Those behind the scenes stat changes are relatively constant, though. There's far less politicking about who decided Lilliputia's proposal would be so weak when Bigtopia's was so strong. If more categories with more reasonable stay impacts could be added, we would likely solve the problem of limited usefulness of the category system without adding more complexity, because we'd be expanding an existing part of the system. The last thing we need is another scandal where a well known but polarizing author is viewed as having had the authorities make a personal attack on their proposal

And the intense round of bickering over the deletion of On Universal Jurisdiction was just a fever dream? I hope I recover soon.

To continue the On Universal Jurisdiction example, had resolution editors coded a small increase in police funding from that, do you really think that Auralia would be calling them out on that choice? Even if he disagreed with that stat change, his resolution would still have been allowed to pass instead of being deleted, forcing him to rewrite it to fit a very vague ruling. During the proposal coding experiment, it was observed that several of the resolutions - divorce, banana elections, arms trading - didn't really match their stats (though all were ruled legal) and that stats that could much more accurately match their descriptions could be applied by hand. Yet in each case the author spent relatively little time fussing over category and was actually much more concerned with getting the resolution passed in the first place.

Your argument - which you haven't responded to the rebuttal of - is that the category system works because it makes otherwise legal proposals illegal. If you sincerely think that is a good thing, then I'll admit we're simply approaching this from two incommensurable positions.

Bananaistan wrote:Secondly, I could see individual stat effects for each resolution being a huge can of worms and leading to loads of arguments. For example, for some bizarre reason, a lot of NSers seem to consider stopping parents from hitting children to be a contravention of the parent's human rights rather than a vindication of teh child's human rights. This seems to stem from a poor definition of human rights being freedom from government control leading from this sentence in the category rules: "Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects?"

The NS stats are more complex than that, and the players' interpretation of that issue is actually wrong. I really can't say any more in detail, but suffice it to say it is possible to custom code a set of stats that would reflect that concern much more accurately. Ironically, the only thing that doesn't take account of that complexity - is the hardcoded Human Rights category. The fact that categories are so rigid and don't interact very well with the game stats is precisely what forces these odd rulings.

Now if a group of people are going to look at each resolution as it passes to decide stat effects, couldn't this group also decide that certain answers to issues should also be unselectable for WA members?

Probably not: this has been raised before, and I believe admin has always ruled that they wouldn't make such a change (though there is a code function that would allow it). But, having custom stats would anyway cause resolutions to interact better with issues. For example - again, being as vague as I can because I'm not allowed to reveal the specifics - the resolution to legalise divorce didn't really legalise divorce, from a stats perspective: it just increased freedom a bit. A custom coding of that resolution could allow it to do so, which would then affect divorce-related issues.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2015 6:35 pm**

I would like to see the category system abolished with the addition of a resolution editing process between quorum and voting. That said, we'd definitely need a new rule in place to prevent proposals that are too broad. Maybe something like this?

No proposal shall address more than one topic (general or particular). A resolution to protect free speech? Okay. A world bill of rights that protects a dozen different liberties? Illegal.

Omnibus proposals have bugged me for years. Even if we keep the category system, I'd like to see such a rule anyway. It'd prevent a handful of players from taking up all of the "good topics," thus leaving room for new authors to find their niche (human rights, free trade, environmental legislation, etc.).

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2015 1:55 am**

Christian Democrats wrote:I would like to see the category system abolished with the addition of a resolution editing process between quorum and voting. That said, we'd definitely need a new rule in place to prevent proposals that are too broad. Maybe something like this?

No proposal shall address more than one topic (general or particular). A resolution to protect free speech? Okay. A world bill of rights that protects a dozen different liberties? Illegal.

Omnibus proposals have bugged me for years. Even if we keep the category system, I'd like to see such a rule anyway. It'd prevent a handful of players from taking up all of the "good topics," thus leaving room for new authors to find their niche (human rights, free trade, environmental legislation, etc.).

That looks like something we can discuss in regards to the blocker rule.

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2015 12:43 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:I would like to see the category system abolished with the addition of a resolution editing process between quorum and voting.

Considering the dearth of proposals right now, that has dropped to about seven hours (from personal experience).

Christian Democrats wrote:That said, we'd definitely need a new rule in place to prevent proposals that are too broad. Maybe something like this?

No proposal shall address more than one topic (general or particular). A resolution to protect free speech? Okay. A world bill of rights that protects a dozen different liberties? Illegal.

Omnibus proposals have bugged me for years. Even if we keep the category system, I'd like to see such a rule anyway. It'd prevent a handful of players from taking up all of the "good topics," thus leaving room for new authors to find their niche (human rights, free trade, environmental legislation, etc.).

No objection to this. Massive proposals are usually hard to pass anyway (CDSP's splitting of his war resolutions helped on that front).

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2015 12:49 pm**

I am in favour of having more niche proposals, rather than a few clunky blockers that close off future legislation. For example, Restrictions on Child Labour neatly closes off any further legislation on child soldiers with one sentence.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 9:58 pm**

Kaboomlandia wrote:For example, Restrictions on Child Labour neatly closes off any further legislation on child soldiers with one sentence.

And where is the problem? Why do we need to legislate on the same shit over and over if we can simply do it in one resolution?

(The question is rhetorical, as I know what your answer will be)

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2015 2:18 pm**

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

This is a point I would also like to address. WA members can choose answers to issues which are in contravention of passed resolutions so why is it such a big thing that resolutions must affect stats?

I don't think has been addressed at ll. Why is it so important for WA play in the game to effect one particular area but not others? There's a huge dissonance around stats being affected by resolutions but not issues. What's the justification for going halfway but not all the way?

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2015 2:50 pm**

Bananaistan wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:This is a point I would also like to address. WA members can choose answers to issues which are in contravention of passed resolutions so why is it such a big thing that resolutions must affect stats?

I don't think has been addressed at ll. Why is it so important for WA play in the game to effect one particular area but not others? There's a huge dissonance around stats being affected by resolutions but not issues. What's the justification for going halfway but not all the way?

I can't speak for how the game staff see it, but for me, it's because the WA is fundamentally a part of the game. If all you want is to vote on resolutions with no statistical impact, there is nothing stopping you creating a roleplay organization for that purpose (except for the fact that international law is wildly unpopular in the Dipliomacy forums).

It may also be an issue of game balance (again, this is not me speaking for the game staff, just guessing): if the WA couldn't affect national stats, there would be no downside to joining, given that compliance isn't really enforced.

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2015 2:53 pm**

Also, from a gameplay perspective, who'd want to join the WA if it'd limit their ability to enjoy a separate part of the game (issues)?

Posted: **Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:07 pm**

Summary of proposed changes:

Split consensus on whether using the Category rule to take down otherwise legal (but undesirable) proposals is fair
General consensus that arguing over the current system is mostly pointless until a decision is made on Proposal Coding

NationStates

The Category System