General Assembly Proposal Coding

[Mallorea and Riva]

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.

The problem with adding categories is resolutions that have overlap between categories, and the fact that adding categories will always be inferior to removing them altogether in terms of allowing author creativity/openness.

[Frisbeeteria]

Is there any reason we can't add/modify categories?

Yes. It's a major pain in the ass that usually takes more than a year to implement. Part of it is due to a failure to achieve consensus, and the other part is finding admin time to shift things around. I think we've successfully added categories twice or perhaps three times since the beginning of the game.

Also, modifying categories is right out, as that changes the effective value of yet-unwritten repeals of Resolutions voted in using those categories. That's straight from [violet], btw, not my interpretation. She's totally closed that door for any category that has passed resolutions in it, repealed or not.

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

It's become more and more difficult to find topics that work under the existing categories that haven't already been legislated to death. I believe it's time for a choice: keep the old, or go with the new. Building a hybrid that includes the old, failed system doesn't make sense. It's broken, and we're trying to fix it. You don't reuse the old broken parts when you're fixing something.

[Tzorsland]

A quick question. If we implement Proposal Coding, what happens to repeals? Would the repeal coding be potentially written at the time the proposal coding was done? Or would it be determined at the time the repeal was proposed?

[The Dark Star Republic]

A quick question. If we implement Proposal Coding, what happens to repeals? Would the repeal coding be potentially written at the time the proposal coding was done? Or would it be determined at the time the repeal was proposed?

Although during the experiment/trial, we mocked up stats for passed resolutions, in my opinion, the only fair thing is really to have the stats for repeals of resolutions passed prior to the experiment beginning to be based on their stats when passed, because that may have affected people's voting. This wouldn't apply to resolutions passed subsequently.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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!

What about the suggestion before to give mods the tools to switch categories if necessary? Would that work in concert with this? Or would it just make the process all the more complicated, seeing as if a proposal is obviously in the wrong category, the Resolution Editors would not be able to modify the stat effects until the category is fixed...?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Another suggestion to go along with this: keep the categories, but null their effect. They'd just be there as a framework to give voters the general idea of what the resolution is about, and a starting point for Editors to work with when they start adding the statistical effects. Mods can still correct the category if it is obviously wrong, but it would not complicate the "editing" process, and there needn't be any penalties for disagreeing with the mods on which category a proposal belongs in.

[Frisbeeteria]

Another suggestion to go along with this: keep the categories, but null their effect.

If we're going to have a zero-value variable, I'd rather it be in the form of forum posts. Mods don't currently have the ability to shift categories, so you're actually making the whole process more complicated.

Discuss your category / stat choices in the forum thread. I can tell you with complete assurance that the playerbase doesn't realize just how complicated NS stats really are, and that Categories are little more than issue stats' moronic cousin. No matter what you choose or discuss, it will be in almost complete ignorance.

[Old Hope]

Another suggestion to go along with this: keep the categories, but null their effect. They'd just be there as a framework to give voters the general idea of what the resolution is about, and a starting point for Editors to work with when they start adding the statistical effects. Mods can still correct the category if it is obviously wrong, but it would not complicate the "editing" process, and there needn't be any penalties for disagreeing with the mods on which category a proposal belongs in.

Emphasis added.
And why should that be good? That sounds bad to me. The players should look at the proposal, not the category.
We want more players to partipiciate. And really... the category could be way off from what is right intentionally when you don't get punished for picking the wrong category. No.

[Flibbleites]

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.

I think I'm seeing the key difference in how we're approaching this. You see the current system as being flawed, I don't. I'm a three time author and have never once had a problem with getting a proposal to fit a category (granted the second one was just a rewrite of the first, but the point is still valid). And if you have the category in mind while you're writing a proposal, it's not that hard to make it fit a category.

[Old Hope]

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.

I think I'm seeing the key difference in how we're approaching this. You see the current system as being flawed, I don't. I'm a three time author and have never once had a problem with getting a proposal to fit a category (granted the second one was just a rewrite of the first, but the point is still valid). And if you have the category in mind while you're writing a proposal, it's not that hard to make it fit a category.

If. If you have an idea not based on a category- like lots of people have- then it is difficult. If you want to do something that would have two or more categories, but not splittable, you have no chance. And I am going to repeat it, since nobody seems to have noticed it, but custom stats as an option would create endless discussions about why the author should use custom stats or not, and I am sure some will just oppose custom stats proposals/proposals without custom stats. Precisely what we do not want.

[Flibbleites]

I think I'm seeing the key difference in how we're approaching this. You see the current system as being flawed, I don't. I'm a three time author and have never once had a problem with getting a proposal to fit a category (granted the second one was just a rewrite of the first, but the point is still valid). And if you have the category in mind while you're writing a proposal, it's not that hard to make it fit a category.

If. If you have an idea not based on a category- like lots of people have- then it is difficult. If you want to do something that would have two or more categories, but not splittable, you have no chance. And I am going to repeat it, since nobody seems to have noticed it, but custom stats as an option would create endless discussions about why the author should use custom stats or not, and I am sure some will just oppose custom stats proposals/proposals without custom stats. Precisely what we do not want.

I noticed that argument of yours, but it's a non issue. It would be up to the author to decide whether to use an existing category or the custom stats option. And if the players want to spend all their time debating whether or not the author made the right decision on that front, that's their prerogative.

[Old Hope]

If. If you have an idea not based on a category- like lots of people have- then it is difficult. If you want to do something that would have two or more categories, but not splittable, you have no chance. And I am going to repeat it, since nobody seems to have noticed it, but custom stats as an option would create endless discussions about why the author should use custom stats or not, and I am sure some will just oppose custom stats proposals/proposals without custom stats. Precisely what we do not want.

I noticed that argument of yours, but it's a non issue. It would be up to the author to decide whether to use an existing category or the custom stats option. And if the players want to spend all their time debating whether or not the author made the right decision on that front, that's their prerogative.

If we have custom stats, and categories, and you are a lazy stat player, what would you do? Oppose all custom stats proposals because you cannot predict the outcome, and continue to support those categories you want.
And if you don't like the rigid stat system at all, as its effects aren't dynamic, you do a blanket oppose on all category proposals.
The outcome is lots of opposes regardless of proposal quality.
Activity in the WA proposals process isn't very high. A good portion of that is due to the category restrictions. May I ask what benefits exactly the hybrid system has over the pure stats allocation system, in your opinion?

[Bears Armed]

If we replace categories (with fixed stat effects) with individual coding for each new resolution, would it become legal to write proposals whose clauses' effects effectively cancelled each other out, e.g. one that under the old definitions would have been half 'Human Rights' and half 'Moral Decency'... and therefore illegal?

[The Dark Star Republic]

If we replace categories (with fixed stat effects) with individual coding for each new resolution, would it become legal to write proposals whose clauses' effects effectively cancelled each other out, e.g. one that under the old definitions would have been half 'Human Rights' and half 'Moral Decency'... and therefore illegal?

I don't agree that a proposal of that type would be inherently illegal. Abortion Legality Convention was challenged on exactly those grounds - that it contained both Moral Decency and Human Rights language - and the ruling was that although it did, the Moral Decency was a bit stronger. As has been mentioned several times, players aren't given a good enough sense of how the stats work to truly be able to guess that their proposal will exactly "balance out".

Which is my longwinded way of saying I would guess not, but equally, that it doesn't really seem much of a change from the system now.

Maybe an example, if that wasn't helpful?

[Frisbeeteria]

half 'Human Rights' and half 'Moral Decency'

The Category system is entirely inflexible. The raw stats are quite a bit more flexible. Each of the Freedom indicators (Civil rights, political freedoms and economic freedoms) have multiple sub-categories available to the stat writers, so it's possible for a given subject to affect one aspect of civil rights positively and a different one negatively. So hypothetically, yes, you could have apparent contradictions that could legally work.

The other thing to bear in mind is that each Freedom that is granted to one set of parties usually removes some Freedom from another party. A prime RL example is gay marriage. Granting the freedom to allow gay marriage advances the civil rights of gays in terms of a contractual agreement with the State; but certain opposing parties believe it limits their religious freedoms, a different area of civil rights. Issue Editors have long made an effort to balance both sides of that equation. Resolution Editors would have the same tools and the same constraints.

The category system was also based on very middle-of-the-road statistical manipulation. Even though every WA nation received the same statistical formula, a given nation's statistics might change more or less than a nation with a different set of priorities. Under the new system, we wouldn't necessarily face the same constraints. A highly democratic nation might see almost no statistical movement as a result of a gay marriage resolution, where a tightly locked down dictatorship might see significant upheavals. I think that stat-watching WA members will find the GA much more interesting (and much more impacting) than they used to.

players aren't given a good enough sense of how the stats work to truly be able to guess that their proposal will exactly "balance out".

FWIW, I don't believe I revealed anything that wasn't available in the Got Issues or Technical forums. The main takeaway is that "stats are more complicated and flexible than most people think."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Another suggestion to go along with this: keep the categories, but null their effect. They'd just be there as a framework to give voters the general idea of what the resolution is about, and a starting point for Editors to work with when they start adding the statistical effects. Mods can still correct the category if it is obviously wrong, but it would not complicate the "editing" process, and there needn't be any penalties for disagreeing with the mods on which category a proposal belongs in.

Emphasis added.
And why should that be good? That sounds bad to me. The players should look at the proposal, not the category.
We want more players to partipiciate.

For one, the latter point has nothing to do with the former. And really, if voters want to statwank, who are you to tell them they can't? For a lot of players, it's part of the game.

[Old Hope]

Emphasis added.
And why should that be good? That sounds bad to me. The players should look at the proposal, not the category.
We want more players to partipiciate.

For one, the latter point has nothing to do with the former. And really, if voters want to statwank, who are you to tell them they can't? For a lot of players, it's part of the game.

I am not sure what you mean with statwank, but they could still try to determine if they want the stat effects of the resolution. For that, they simply have to read the resolution and think. If they find any undesirable things in a draft, they can try to persuade the author that that needs to be changed. If the author didn't want to do that, they'd change it. If they did, well, the stat players can still vote. Or even resign from the WA.(and come back shortly)

[Separatist Peoples]

For one, the latter point has nothing to do with the former. And really, if voters want to statwank, who are you to tell them they can't? For a lot of players, it's part of the game.

I am not sure what you mean with statwank, but they could still try to determine if they want the stat effects of the resolution. For that, they simply have to read the resolution and think. If they find any undesirable things in a draft, they can try to persuade the author that that needs to be changed. If the author didn't want to do that, they'd change it. If they did, well, the stat players can still vote. Or even resign from the WA.(and come back shortly)

Statwanking is the term describing how some players play in order to maximize the hard numbers of their nation. That includes targeted issue selection and voting according to category within the WA. In fact, it is likely that most players are stat players, since the people who play R&D outnumber, by far, the people who RP in the GA, and have had such issues with Moral Decency and Global Disarmament in the past.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I don't really think proposal coding will preclude "statwank" voting. You can still vote for a proposal because you think it will increase your civil freedoms or against it because you think it will decrease your mining industry. Such voting will be a bit less accurate, because you won't have the hardcoded category to guarantee it, but statwank voting was never completely accurate because players are not given enough information about how the existing hardcoded categories interact with the game stats to make those predictions well enough.

[Old Hope]

Is there any reason we can't add/modify categories?

Yes. It's a major pain in the ass that usually takes more than a year to implement. Part of it is due to a failure to achieve consensus, and the other part is finding admin time to shift things around. I think we've successfully added categories twice or perhaps three times since the beginning of the game.

Also, modifying categories is right out, as that changes the effective value of yet-unwritten repeals of Resolutions voted in using those categories. That's straight from [violet], btw, not my interpretation. She's totally closed that door for any category that has passed resolutions in it, repealed or not.

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

It's become more and more difficult to find topics that work under the existing categories that haven't already been legislated to death. I believe it's time for a choice: keep the old, or go with the new. Building a hybrid that includes the old, failed system doesn't make sense. It's broken, and we're trying to fix it. You don't reuse the old broken parts when you're fixing something.

Looking at the current state, at the inflexibility of the category system, and the year- long addition process...
Considering the fact that the active proposal writers are most likely those who can sustain those limitations, then looking at the support by a number of those active proposal writers
and then considering the low number of those whose proposals make it to vote
we should drop the category system.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Looking at the current state, at the inflexibility of the category system, and the year- long addition process...
Considering the fact that the active proposal writers are most likely those who can sustain those limitations, then looking at the support by a number of those active proposal writers
and then considering the low number of those whose proposals make it to vote
we should drop the category system.

Uh-huh. This discussion already presumes that such should happen, and these remarks really don't add much.

EDIT@TDSR: I would still prefer that proposals/resolutions include the "A resolution to Yakety Sax" boilerplate and such at the top. It looks more formal, and it would preserve some semblance of categorization for those who like to play that way...otherwise, how would Palentine & I continue to boast that we've never voted for a Human Rights resolution?!

[Old Hope]

Looking at the current state, at the inflexibility of the category system, and the year- long addition process...
Considering the fact that the active proposal writers are most likely those who can sustain those limitations, then looking at the support by a number of those active proposal writers
and then considering the low number of those whose proposals make it to vote
we should drop the category system.

Uh-huh. This discussion already presumes that such should happen, and these remarks really don't add much.

EDIT@TDSR: I would still prefer that proposals/resolutions include the "A resolution to Yakety Sax" boilerplate and such at the top. It looks more formal, and it would preserve some semblance of categorization for those who like to play that way...otherwise, how would Palentine & I continue to boast that we've never voted for a Human Rights resolution?!

Read the resolution, maybe? If the resolution sounds like a human rights increasing proposal, you can vote against/abstain if you like. Reading a resolution and thinking about the effects will lead you to these answers. You can still categorize proposals for yourself. But generally, proposals will have unique effects- and you will see if you made a critical mistake(For example, by approving something like Reducing Automobile Emissions and then wondering why your environmental stats go down)
The boilerplate is not workable under that stat system, I am afraid. The boilerplate for every proposal is then basically "A resolution to have some effect based on the resolution text"
Or have I misunderstood you?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The categories have been in place for 13 years. We commonly organize resolutions by category on the forums and on game wikis. They have been a mainstay of UN/WA legislation since it was created. A lot of players still vote based on category, whether you think they're "doing it wrong" or not. Stats are always a valid reason for playing any game a certain way, not just NS. (This is a game, after all, not a crude imitation of Model UN.)

Besides, the Resolution Editors may be able to add a category to a resolution themselves while coding it, based on the overall statistical effect. If it mostly affects personal freedoms -- Human Rights or Moral Decency; if it mostly affects economic freedoms, Free Trade or Advancement of Industry...and so forth.

[The Dark Star Republic]

EDIT@TDSR: I would still prefer that proposals/resolutions include the "A resolution to Yakety Sax" boilerplate and such at the top. It looks more formal, and it would preserve some semblance of categorization for those who like to play that way

I don't see any way that could work, unless players themselves wrote the description lines. What did you have in mind?

Edit: posted at the same time.

The categories have been in place for 13 years. We commonly organize resolutions by category on the forums and on game wikis. They have been a mainstay of UN/WA legislation since it was created. A lot of players still vote based on category, whether you think they're "doing it wrong" or not. Stats are always a valid reason for playing any game a certain way, not just NS.

Abolishing the category system doesn't preclude stats based voting. Many people answer issues in stat terms, but issues don't come with descriptors designated "the Human Rights option".

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I understand that, but seeing as resolutions are Yes/No questions, and not multiple choice (with varying stat effects based on which option you choose), being able to figure out the prevailing statistical effect of "Yes" should not be hard. I don't know. Obviously I'm not an expert on stat coding.