General Assembly Proposal Coding

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Obviously, there'd be no need for strengths and subcategories either.
That said, I rather like the description line. I think it would be good to make it customizable.

A resolution to ___________________________.

I think the description line needs to stay, but I'm not sure whether the author or the RE should write it. I like the idea of player-generated descriptions, but I'd like to hear from potential REs as well.

Also, what limits should it have? Like forum sigs, having a custom field leads to size abuse, so is a character limit justified? And if your description is "A resolution to cure cancer" but your proposal is about gun control, is that something that the REs should change, or is it simply justification for removing the proposal?

Yes - thank you.

Resolution Editors should add the line - but if they're still coding it while it's at vote, it may be a good idea to let players add it in initially, then let editors edit as necessary (if that's possible w/i NS's loopy game code).

EDIT:

Yes, I would advocate a character limit -- maybe, 75 characters (including spaces).

Agreed.

[The Dark Star Republic]

No, don't keep the description line.

It would be impractical for resolution editors to add it. Repeal "Sexual Privacy Act" reached quorum and went to vote within a single update of being submitted, only a few hours. (Ignore for the moment that it was a repeal.) There would have been no time for resolution editors to add a line, meaning it would only have been added by the time voting began. A resolution should not change mid-vote!

If players are allowed to fill the description line, they'll just use it to make their proposal seem good. Why would anyone admit that their resolution is "to improve the environment at the expense of industry"? They'll just write "to improve the environment and have absolutely no ill effects on industry whatsoever and also cure cancer". People already title their resolutions in misleading ways to try to fool voters (Individual Self-Determination, Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths, Reproductive Freedoms) and adding another custom field will only add to that. If people want to boast about their proposal, they can do that in the preamble.

[Christian Democrats]

If players are allowed to fill the description line, they'll just use it to make their proposal seem good.

So what? The replacement for SPA, if there is one, obviously won't be called the Libertine Debauchery Act. A customizable description field would give authors a place to give a more thorough account of their goals for lazy busy players. Maybe, everybody who votes just based on the title would start voting based on the title and the description, which would certainly be a step up for all of us.

[The Dark Star Republic]

If players are allowed to fill the description line, they'll just use it to make their proposal seem good.

So what?

So we shouldn't be adding yet more ways to allow resolution authors to lie to voters. The description line at present is by definition accurate, because if it's ever inaccurate, the proposal must be in the wrong category and will hence be deleted. Without the category system, there's no metric against which to measure whether or not a description is accurate.

Libertine Debauchery

Sometimes, you don't really help yourself.

[Christian Democrats]

Libertine Debauchery

Sometimes, you don't really help yourself.

I could have worded that more eloquently. Players won't choose titles that make their proposals seem bad.

A neutral title would be the "Deregulation of Sex Between Consenting Adults Act." Clearly, though, this title is too long. Hence, it would be helpful to have a customizable description field. Then, a player could submit a proposal that says something like:

Sexual Freedom Act
A resolution to deregulate sex between consenting adults.

Short, accurate, and presumably fitting for the proposal text to come.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I don't see what that example proves. You've come up with an accurate description, congratulations. There's no guarantee that players will use such an accurate description, though. Which leaves either a pointless fluff box, or something the mods actually police in which case we're back to massive judgement calls.

The description line was to describe the category; if there is no category, there is no need for a description. Players will have to base their votes on the resolution text as a whole, just as resolution editors will have to base their stats on the resolution text as a whole.

[Christian Democrats]

The description would serve the same function for a resolution that the long title serves for a legislative bill. The short title is the name of the act, and the long title gives people a brief description of what the act does. In the GA, this could be a good reference aid, especially when players are scanning through old resolutions to determine what has and has not been legislated.

[Bears Armed]

Also, what limits should it have? Like forum sigs, having a custom field leads to size abuse, so is a character limit justified? And if your description is "A resolution to cure cancer" but your proposal is about gun control, is that something that the REs should change, or is it simply justification for removing the proposal?

Set the length limit at the highest length for any of the currently-used descriptions?
Justification for removal.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If there are technical limits as TDSR says, it's probably not going to work. If the mods can't edit the resolution themselves, then we should probably not err on the side of something requiring more rules and likely more screwy moderating.

[Old Hope]

If players are allowed to fill the description line, they'll just use it to make their proposal seem good.

So what? The replacement for SPA, if there is one, obviously won't be called the Libertine Debauchery Act. A customizable description field would give authors a place to give a more thorough account of their goals for lazy busy players. Maybe, everybody who votes just based on the title would start voting based on the title and the description, which would certainly be a step up for all of us.

Yeah. And the cure for that is to scrap the description and the title as a special field. Edit: Or maybe not. Doesn't look too good...
If we keep the description field, we have to add a rule about not abusing the description field(for example, A resolution to increase human rights;Title On Ritual Sacrifice, text mandates ritual sacrifice in every member state.)

[Luna Amore]

So what? The replacement for SPA, if there is one, obviously won't be called the Libertine Debauchery Act. A customizable description field would give authors a place to give a more thorough account of their goals for lazy busy players. Maybe, everybody who votes just based on the title would start voting based on the title and the description, which would certainly be a step up for all of us.

Yeah. And the cure for that is to scrap the description and the title as a special field. Edit: Or maybe not. Doesn't look too good...
If we keep the description field, we have to add a rule about not abusing the description field(for example, A resolution to increase human rights;Title On Ritual Sacrifice, text mandates ritual sacrifice in every member state.)

Why? Isn't stretching the truth and painting your proposal in a favorable light just politics as usual?

[Christian Democrats]

Yeah. And the cure for that is to scrap the description and the title as a special field. Edit: Or maybe not. Doesn't look too good...
If we keep the description field, we have to add a rule about not abusing the description field(for example, A resolution to increase human rights;Title On Ritual Sacrifice, text mandates ritual sacrifice in every member state.)

Why? Isn't stretching the truth and painting your proposal in a favorable light just politics as usual?

That's what I said. Examples:

Sexual Liberty Act
A resolution to secure sexual sovereignty for all people.

Sex Deregulation Act
A resolution to deregulate sex between consenting adults.

Libertine Debauchery Act
A resolution to permit sexual immoralities of all kinds.

Or let me give examples for another issue:

Free Commerce Act
A resolution to foster free trade among nations.

Anti-Tariff Act
A resolution to reduce protectionist tariffs.

Capitalist Exploitation Act
A resolution to let capitalists exploit the developing world.

Obviously, authors will always portray their proposals in a positive or neutral light. A customizable description field would be helpful for (1) players who are too lazy to read the proposal text and (2) players who are skimming through old resolutions. I don't see any downsides. Right now, players in group (1) read only proposal titles; and players in group (2) use categories to help them navigate. The addition of custom descriptions would help make group (1) more informed and would help group (2) scan old resolutions after the loss of categories.

[Old Hope]

Why? Isn't stretching the truth and painting your proposal in a favorable light just politics as usual?

That's what I said. Examples:

Sexual Liberty Act
A resolution to secure sexual sovereignty for all people.

Sex Deregulation Act
A resolution to deregulate sex between consenting adults.

Libertine Debauchery Act
A resolution to permit sexual immoralities of all kinds.

Or let me give examples for another issue:

Free Commerce Act
A resolution to foster free trade among nations.

Anti-Tariff Act
A resolution to reduce protectionist tariffs.

Capitalist Exploitation Act
A resolution to let capitalists exploit the developing world.

Obviously, authors will always portray their proposals in a positive or neutral light. A customizable description field would be helpful for (1) players who are too lazy to read the proposal text and (2) players who are skimming through old resolutions. I don't see any downsides. Right now, players in group (1) read only proposal titles; and players in group (2) use categories to help them navigate. The addition of custom descriptions would help make group (1) more informed and would help group (2) scan old resolutions after the loss of categories.

Yes, but those descriptions are all in line- sure, the positive and negative sides are shown ownly, but they are not completely off.
If the Sexual Sovereignity Act, for Example, would be named Preserve The Environment, or told as
A resolution for the benefit of the environment- well, that would be completely off.
Or if your Sexual Liberty Act with all your descriptions would have a text that only bans extramarital sex, with high punishment.

[Christian Democrats]

Thus, the recommendation that titles and descriptions must fit the proposal text.

[Mousebumples]

I don't know if it's codable, but could the author's "description" field be hidden from view until it's "confirmed" by a Moderator? That way, it would prevent any illegal text, inappropriate descriptions, etc. It could also potentially be left blank, but if a player wants to provide more explanation, they could.

[Christian Democrats]

I don't know if it's codable, but could the author's "description" field be hidden from view until it's "confirmed" by a Moderator? That way, it would prevent any illegal text, inappropriate descriptions, etc. It could also potentially be left blank, but if a player wants to provide more explanation, they could.

Do we do that now with titles? Let's hide your proposal title in case it's inappropriate or misleading.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't know if it's codable, but could the author's "description" field be hidden from view until it's "confirmed" by a Moderator? That way, it would prevent any illegal text, inappropriate descriptions, etc. It could also potentially be left blank, but if a player wants to provide more explanation, they could.

Do we do that now with titles? Let's hide your proposal title in case it's inappropriate or misleading.

I'm inclined to agree with CD on this topic. The description line should be made editable. If one accepts that it isn't much different than a title, I don't see any extremely convincing reasons why it shouldn't be made editable. In that case, however, something should make the category very clear lest people forget what the categories are.

Yet, if one accepts it as part of the text as Kenny does, then it can be something which is annoyingly moderated (which is, after all, from where this entire discussion originates). However, in that case, simply create a rule which mandates that the text in the description line describes what the proposal does.

Coming down to it, I see all the rules as coming from two requirements — (1) it look like a piece of international legislation and (2) it meshes well with the stats system. The description line would make it look more like a piece of international legislation.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I don't know if it's codable, but could the author's "description" field be hidden from view until it's "confirmed" by a Moderator?

Do you enjoy making more work for yourselves?

[Bears Armed]

Why? Isn't stretching the truth and painting your proposal in a favorable light just politics as usual?

Many people vote on resolutions without bothering to read the forum debate, which means that (even if they actually bother look further than just the title...) the text is all that they go by: In that situation, the only way to get a rebuttal of any false claims to most of the voters would be by a verry large-scale TG campaign... which I think would be beyond many players' means. That being the case, in my opinion letting authors place false claims in proposals when their opponents have no easy way to respond would give the liars far too much of an advantage.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Make a dropdown menu, then. Every category description the game uses now ("to improve worldwide human and civil rights"/"to slash worldwide military spending"), and possibly a few others that don't quite fit the category limitations.

Let the mods change if necessary, just as with categories, when we were discussing allowing the mods to possibly change those instead of deleting outright.

[Old Hope]

Or we scrap the description entirely.
Sure, we still have the title, but less people will vote according to the title alone. Much less actually, because titles are known to be misleading sometimes.
You want to use the description to categorize something?If it is customizable then it is worthless for that.

And we can even reduce the problems relating to the title if we move the title to the Description screen- something like this:

General Assembly Resolution at vote

Proposed by:______________

Title: ____________
Description and law text:

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Or we scrap the description entirely.

Yes, we already know you have a bias against categories and subheadings.

Let us try and see if we can't make something work, then you can resume your wailing-and-not-adding-much.

[Old Hope]

Or we scrap the description entirely.

Yes, we already know you have a bias against categories and subheadings.

Let us try and see if we can't make something work, then you can resume your wailing-and-not-adding-much.

And we already know you have a bias for those. Because you are for categories and subheadings.
Right?
Well, no, but not everyone who disagrees with you is biased.

Categories limit creativity and close off some areas and types for legislation, they use effects that might not come even close to the actual effects the text should have, because the effects are set.
Subheadings like those currently look like an official description(currently, that is about right, ofc)
Subheadings that only appear when approved before going to vote could be acceptable, but that would give resolution editors more work, and I am not sure that that is desirable.
Subheadings that the propser can assign at will are not ok, because the effect should be told in the resolution itself(deceptive or not) and not in an official looking subheading!

[Excidium Planetis]

I support doing away with Categories and adopting a custom stats option.

I also support riders. Imagine the things one could get the lemmings to pass! Mwahahaha! We could even create an organization dedicated to passing ridiculous and pure evil riders in otherwise good resolutions: We could call it The Black Riders!

[Imperium Anglorum]

\We could call it The Black Riders!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB1kp9adYYE