General Assembly Proposal Coding

[Knootoss]

Reploid Productions, a technical question that might affect your concern is: is it necessary that the effect is coded prior to the resolution being passed? Presumably the coding of the effect would usually happen while the resolution is at vote, but suppose that it doesn't because RL becomes a problem. Couldn't the effect just be put through in the next cycle to all WA nations with a codey trick?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Reploid Productions, a technical question that might affect your concern is: is it necessary that the effect is coded prior to the resolution being passed? Presumably the coding of the effect would usually happen while the resolution is at vote, but suppose that it doesn't because RL becomes a problem. Couldn't the effect just be put through in the next cycle to all WA nations with a codey trick?

Some kind of invisible resolution?

[Knootoss]

Exactly. I'm not saying that it is ideal, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if the effect wasn't immediate.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I think my biggest concern with such a system is that it relies on a fairly small group of people being able to quickly and consistently input stats.

There are several GA mods, and Sedgistan is currently running a training session for them to learn issue stats. If all of them are simultaneously unavailable for 4 days, then (a) that's a bigger problem with the WA as an illegal resolution could make quorum and (b) there's still other mods and issue editors who could fill in as an emergency fallback.

It really shouldn't take longer than 1-2 days to come up with the stats and agree on them. I could see it stretching over a weekend or a holiday, but not to a point where it would create a problem. Christmas Eve 2013 I was still able to get a legality ruling from some GA moderator!

[Frisbeeteria]

is it necessary that the effect is coded prior to the resolution being passed? Presumably the coding of the effect would usually happen while the resolution is at vote, but suppose that it doesn't because RL becomes a problem. Couldn't the effect just be put through in the next cycle to all WA nations with a codey trick?

It really is necessary. The specific effects need to be attached to the resolution so they can be processed when the resolution passes. Only those nations that were in the WA at the time of passage would be affected, and pushing it back a day or three would change that subset. There are other reasons why doing a "codey trick" wouldn't be practical, the main one being that the admins simply don't want anything to do with a kludge like that.

Another thing to bear in mind is that having several proposals at quorum would significantly increase the amount of time for REs to add stats. We haven't seen a lot of those lineups lately, but they used to be quite common. If we free resolution authors from the constraints of the category system, I can see long lines again.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don't think a hybrid system is the way to go. In my mind that just further complicates things, if we can code things for each individual resolution to maximum accuracy, which I believe we absolutely can, then we should. It opens up whole new avenues of strategy in the GA and completely removes all category debates going forward which I think we'd all be happy to see gone.

[Sedgistan]

I think my biggest concern with such a system is that it relies on a fairly small group of people being able to quickly and consistently input stats. What happens if Real Life kicks a bunch of the editors/mods in the face at the same time? Some of that could be mitigated by having proposals that have reached quorum be "sent to committee for final review" or something along those lines, where they wouldn't go to the floor until the stats are done, but it still makes an otherwise automated system have a potential weak link with the live people component.

I think we've got enough people who can code stats (and more on the way once I've finished training the GA mods) that this won't happen. I don't think I've even had a 4 day period of not accessing the site since I was modded, so there's that too Plus 4 days is the absolute minimum amount of time we'd have - usually it'd be more, and repeals won't even require stats (those would be coded with the original resolution). About the only potential problem I can see happening is a server issue causing the game to still run, but be inaccessible by anyone (it's happened once before).

On the other hand, a pure "pick the stats it effects" could prevent that human risk of failure, but it would need to be handled carefully. For one thing, we can't just give people the full set of stats that issues can affect, since we don't want to give away what exactly is going on under the hood as it were. For another, I could see that still requiring a lot of moderation oversight to prevent people trying to use it to game the WA census or otherwise mis-categorizing their proposal text to the stats that they pick.

That kind of system wouldn't work. The stats would have to be so vague that they'd be even less accurate than the current category system, and it'd require mod oversight anyway to ensure they're being applied appropriately. Basically, it's the "worst of both worlds".

Kinda like the idea of a hybridized system though, where people could just use an existing category from the system (probably adding more categories would help in any case,) or to have it sent to some sort of legality committee or whatever in-character term folks come up with for the stats editing folks. Then those who prefer to write to category can still do so, while simultaneously opening a whole new slice of potential legislation for people who might prefer to focus explicitly on the text of their resolution, with all the potential for riders and related legal shenanigans that go with it. Plus, if something happens that delays the editing team for whatever reason, the GA could still function on the category-based legislation until the team could catch back up.

As Mall says, this would overcomplicate things.

[The Dark Star Republic]

repeals won't even require stats (those would be coded with the original resolution)

Which is one of the technical aspects yet to be decided. Not to jump ahead - I know this is a way from convincing players of its merits - but if if if this system were put in place, a decision would need to be made about whether repeals of resolutions passed prior to the system i.e. resolutions passed under fixed categories would have those stats used when repealed, or custom stats.

[Sedgistan]

I was thinking only of repeals of resolutions passed under this, rather than under the category system. You're right that it's undecided how we would treat repeals of those passed under the category system.

[Greater Louisistan]

I'm excited about this suggestion. That's a really good one, DSR.

I'm absolutely in favour of the fluid system and if site staff think they can pull it off - great! I also think riders should be allowed. It might get people to read the damned proposals before voting on them. At least after Kenny's rider declaring himself supreme overlord of the WA, which I expect will be included in one of his first proposals under this system
Seriously, I don't think riders will be that much of a problem. Either the voters go "meh, I'll vote for it anyway" or they'll say "this is absolutely inacceptable" and vote against. I think it could be fun.

[Old Hope]

Is it necessary for the ban on amendments to stay if this system is implemented?

[Sedgistan]

Is it necessary for the ban on amendments to stay if this system is implemented?

Aha. We were waiting for that one to come up. This system would make amendments possible*. What would need to be decided is if they were desirable, and if so how they would work. That's really a separate discussion that would follow on from this if it were decided to implement proposal coding.

*If admin coded it in.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Is it necessary for the ban on amendments to stay if this system is implemented?

Aha. We were waiting for that one to come up. This system would make amendments possible*. What would need to be decided is if they were desirable, and if so how they would work. That's really a separate discussion that would follow on from this if it were decided to implement proposal coding.

*If admin coded it in.

Allowing amendments would seem to then require a repeal of the original to also repeal the stat changes of the amendment as well. I get the impression that would require additional coding changes (since you're repealing the entire resolution, amendments and all, you're technically repealing multiple resolutions with a single repeal)? If so, how godawful or pain-in-the-ass would making those changes be, for the tech staff?

TL;dr, is this line of discussion getting ahead of ourselves since we haven't even seen the custom law system in play yet?

Edit: asked and answered. Somehow I missed the entire final sentence. Sorry for the spam.

[Flibbleites]

Kinda like the idea of a hybridized system though, where people could just use an existing category from the system (probably adding more categories would help in any case,) or to have it sent to some sort of legality committee or whatever in-character term folks come up with for the stats editing folks. Then those who prefer to write to category can still do so, while simultaneously opening a whole new slice of potential legislation for people who might prefer to focus explicitly on the text of their resolution, with all the potential for riders and related legal shenanigans that go with it. Plus, if something happens that delays the editing team for whatever reason, the GA could still function on the category-based legislation until the team could catch back up.

As Mall says, this would overcomplicate things.

I fail to see how, simply add "Custom Stats" as a category option and when one of those is submitted the editing team is alerted to get to work. It doesn't even have to be an automatic alert it could just as easily be a mod doing a proposal sweep or a member of the editing team who rounds everyone up to get to work.

[Old Hope]

As Mall says, this would overcomplicate things.

I fail to see how, simply add "Custom Stats" as a category option and when one of those is submitted the editing team is alerted to get to work. It doesn't even have to be an automatic alert it could just as easily be a mod doing a proposal sweep or a member of the editing team who rounds everyone up to get to work.

No, this is a faulty compromise. Let me explain why.If we make it selectable, then a good part of the discussion will be
"No, submit it under category system" or "Make custom stats", and many good proposals may get defeated just because of that.
... and that is something we want to avoid, no?

[Luna Amore]

I think my biggest concern with such a system is that it relies on a fairly small group of people being able to quickly and consistently input stats. What happens if Real Life kicks a bunch of the editors/mods in the face at the same time? Some of that could be mitigated by having proposals that have reached quorum be "sent to committee for final review" or something along those lines, where they wouldn't go to the floor until the stats are done, but it still makes an otherwise automated system have a potential weak link with the live people component.

I think we've got enough people who can code stats (and more on the way once I've finished training the GA mods) that this won't happen. I don't think I've even had a 4 day period of not accessing the site since I was modded, so there's that too Plus 4 days is the absolute minimum amount of time we'd have - usually it'd be more, and repeals won't even require stats (those would be coded with the original resolution). About the only potential problem I can see happening is a server issue causing the game to still run, but be inaccessible by anyone (it's happened once before).

Is there any reason we can't keep the best of both? Keep the category system for submissions as a fall back, but just nix it as a reason for removing the proposal from queue. Authors would submit what they feel is the correct category (this wouldn't need to be public since it would only concern the editors under this system), mods and IEs would still be able to tweak the stats to fit the resolution. If, for whatever reason, no one was able to manually tweak the stats, the same rigid category stats would go in as they always have.

That at least creates some sort of contingency for human error.

[Old Hope]

I think we've got enough people who can code stats (and more on the way once I've finished training the GA mods) that this won't happen. I don't think I've even had a 4 day period of not accessing the site since I was modded, so there's that too Plus 4 days is the absolute minimum amount of time we'd have - usually it'd be more, and repeals won't even require stats (those would be coded with the original resolution). About the only potential problem I can see happening is a server issue causing the game to still run, but be inaccessible by anyone (it's happened once before).

Is there any reason we can't keep the best of both? Keep the category system for submissions as a fall back, but just nix it as a reason for removing the proposal from queue. Authors would submit what they feel is the correct category (this wouldn't need to be public since it would only concern the editors under this system), mods and IEs would still be able to tweak the stats to fit the resolution. If, for whatever reason, no one was able to manually tweak the stats, the same rigid category stats would go in as they always have.

That at least creates some sort of contingency for human error.

Invisible categories, that will normally get changed, but serve as fallback, and are not part of the legality set?
I guess this is a better compromise. But it might make the custom stats tweaking undesired by those who do it, and then they might only use it as fallback, instead of using the stats altering every time possible.

[Mallorea and Riva]

As Mall says, this would overcomplicate things.

I fail to see how, simply add "Custom Stats" as a category option and when one of those is submitted the editing team is alerted to get to work. It doesn't even have to be an automatic alert it could just as easily be a mod doing a proposal sweep or a member of the editing team who rounds everyone up to get to work.

But why would we keep a flawed category system around if we are capable of custom tailoring stats to fit each proposal? I'd much rather do away with the category system thereby allowing players the freedom to write to the issue rather than a faulty category.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I think we've got enough people who can code stats (and more on the way once I've finished training the GA mods) that this won't happen. I don't think I've even had a 4 day period of not accessing the site since I was modded, so there's that too :P Plus 4 days is the absolute minimum amount of time we'd have - usually it'd be more, and repeals won't even require stats (those would be coded with the original resolution). About the only potential problem I can see happening is a server issue causing the game to still run, but be inaccessible by anyone (it's happened once before).

Is there any reason we can't keep the best of both? Keep the category system for submissions as a fall back, but just nix it as a reason for removing the proposal from queue. Authors would submit what they feel is the correct category (this wouldn't need to be public since it would only concern the editors under this system), mods and IEs would still be able to tweak the stats to fit the resolution. If, for whatever reason, no one was able to manually tweak the stats, the same rigid category stats would go in as they always have.

That at least creates some sort of contingency for human error.

The benefit of this system is not only providing better custom stats, but also doing away with tedious legality issues over category. If the category system remained in place, even as an "invisible contingency", those same issues would remain. Players would still have to choose approximately the right category for their proposal; if there were no appropriate category they wouldn't be able to submit their proposal, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise, and if they chose the wrong category the proposal would have to be deleted despite the contingency not even being needed.

[Luna Amore]

Is there any reason we can't keep the best of both? Keep the category system for submissions as a fall back, but just nix it as a reason for removing the proposal from queue. Authors would submit what they feel is the correct category (this wouldn't need to be public since it would only concern the editors under this system), mods and IEs would still be able to tweak the stats to fit the resolution. If, for whatever reason, no one was able to manually tweak the stats, the same rigid category stats would go in as they always have.

That at least creates some sort of contingency for human error.

The benefit of this system is not only providing better custom stats, but also doing away with tedious legality issues over category. If the category system remained in place, even as an "invisible contingency", those same issues would remain. Players would still have to choose approximately the right category for their proposal; if there were no appropriate category they wouldn't be able to submit their proposal, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise, and if they chose the wrong category the proposal would have to be deleted despite the contingency not even being needed.

I'm saying keep the framework as a fallback and get rid of the legality aspect.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The benefit of this system is not only providing better custom stats, but also doing away with tedious legality issues over category. If the category system remained in place, even as an "invisible contingency", those same issues would remain. Players would still have to choose approximately the right category for their proposal; if there were no appropriate category they wouldn't be able to submit their proposal, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise, and if they chose the wrong category the proposal would have to be deleted despite the contingency not even being needed.

I'm saying keep the framework as a fallback and get rid of the legality aspect.

And if people do use the wrong category, how does that fallback help? Someone submits a proposal to boost military spending in the Global Disarmament category. The moderators either don't delete it, meaning that if it passes as a "fallback" the stats are completely wrong, or they do delete it, in which case we're back to legality rulings.

[Luna Amore]

I'm saying keep the framework as a fallback and get rid of the legality aspect.

And if people do use the wrong category, how does that fallback help? Someone submits a proposal to boost military spending in the Global Disarmament category. The moderators either don't delete it, meaning that if it passes as a "fallback" the stats are completely wrong, or they do delete it, in which case we're back to legality rulings.

I feel like I'm missing something. We're talking about letting a group of staff manually code the stats of resolutions. If we're making that big of a change, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let mods change the category. When a player would submit a proposal, the game would take whatever stats are coded under that category they chose and autopopulate it for the stats of the proposal. The mod/editor would then be able to tweak it as need be, but then at least there's always some stat. This doesn't protect against people using the wrong category, but it adds at least some fallback. Also, if categories were changeable on the back end (and I'm not sure why they wouldn't be under this system), then a wrong category could be switched to the right one in 10 seconds.

[The Dark Star Republic]

And if people do use the wrong category, how does that fallback help? Someone submits a proposal to boost military spending in the Global Disarmament category. The moderators either don't delete it, meaning that if it passes as a "fallback" the stats are completely wrong, or they do delete it, in which case we're back to legality rulings.

I feel like I'm missing something. We're talking about letting a group of staff manually code the stats of resolutions. If we're making that big of a change, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let mods change the category. When a player would submit a proposal, the game would take whatever stats are coded under that category they chose and autopopulate it for the stats of the proposal. The mod/editor would then be able to tweak it as need be, but then at least there's always some stat. This doesn't protect against people using the wrong category, but it adds at least some fallback.

It's not a helpful fallback if it's the wrong category!

Also, if categories were changeable on the back end (and I'm not sure why they wouldn't be under this system), then a wrong category could be switched to the right one in 10 seconds.

That's assuming there is a "right category".

The category system is very limiting. To use a recent example, Pharthan complained when writing his nuclear safety regulation proposal that there really wasn't a suitable category and he had to spend more time "shoehorning", a common GA practice, than concentrating on the important stuff. It's happened before. The existing category system doesn't adequately cover the scope of topics the WA could consider - development, industrial regulation, science - and equally the presence of some categories - gun control, gambling, tort reform - does seem to encourage a lot of submissions that aren't really international issues.

If the category system were adequate there'd be no need to replace it.

That said, I will step back and allow others to comment on your suggestion, as I'm obviously just not getting it.

[Luna Amore]

Is there any reason we can't add/modify categories? I can appreciate that it'd be frustrating if you want to use the color green and all anyone has is red and yellow. But it doesn't mean we should throw away red and yellow.

That said, I will step back and allow others to comment on your suggestion, as I'm obviously just not getting it.

It's more likely me that's missing something. I don't have any GA experience.

[Old Hope]

I fear DSR is right. The fallback sounds nice, but would either keep the barrier we have(categories must be assigned) or allow massive misrepresentations(like... someone submits, and passes "Criminalizing Thought Crimes" under Human Rights, or "Maximum Wage Act" under Health-Bioethics.) It would be better to have statless proposals than that.
I am sure that the stat editing team will be able to assign stats to each proposal at vote. However, only if they warn us if they are getting inactive.