General Assembly Proposal Coding

[The Dark Star Republic]

So are you suggesting that as soon as a proposal is submitted (or as soon as possible thereafter) the resolution editors apply a public byline to it - "a resolution to increase personal freedoms", "a resolution to improve the environment at the expense of the timber industry" - and then work on the custom stats in private to be ready by the time it passes? I'm just trying to get the technical details of what you're proposing straight.

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 agree, but that should be true for players too. I don't see why you need a byline to be able to tell that an anti-terrorism law will increase military spending and a weapons ban decrease it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I get that part. The categories/bylines would be chiefly to preserve a necessary element of WA forum/legislating culture that has been in place since the game was created, whether just aggregating resolutions based on category - like on wiki timelines, mousey's category thread, or even offsite resources like Safalra's now-defunct Web site - or just making discussion of legislation trends easier. ("The WA does not care about human rights." "Actually, eight resolutions passed in the last six months have concerned human rights.") You might think I'm being silly or sentimental, but I still think the categories are an important component to WA play - even if they would be mostly symbolic if Resolution Editing is implemented.

So are you suggesting that as soon as a proposal is submitted (or as soon as possible thereafter) the resolution editors apply a public byline to it - "a resolution to increase personal freedoms", "a resolution to improve the environment at the expense of the timber industry" - and then work on the custom stats in private to be ready by the time it passes? I'm just trying to get the technical details of what you're proposing straight.

Category/byline could be added by the Editors at the same time that the proposal is coded, if that makes it easier. I made a suggestion for players to add the categories themselves upon submission, and give Editors the option to change the category and make additional stat changes based on the text, but Fris shot that down. Obviously I would need to know more about how the game is actually coded.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Category/byline could be added by the Editors at the same time that the proposal is coded, if that makes it easier.

But that would mean the byline would only be added once the proposal was at vote, meaning it wouldn't help voters. You know as well as anyone that all the voting that matters is done in the first few hours, and yet resolution editors would probably need at least a day to get this stuff together.

You might think I'm being silly or sentimental, but I still think the categories are an important component to WA play - even if they would be mostly symbolic if Resolution Editing is implemented.

I don't think that, I'm merely concerned about the practicalities.

But as you point out, most of the use of the category actually comes from players. The admin and mods didn't set up Safalra's website, didn't set up the NSwiki timeline. Players could still apply "categories" to proposals themselves, even if they weren't formally coded as such.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Category/byline could be added by the Editors at the same time that the proposal is coded, if that makes it easier.

But that would mean the byline would only be added once the proposal was at vote, meaning it wouldn't help voters. You know as well as anyone that all the voting that matters is done in the first few hours, and yet resolution editors would probably need at least a day to get this stuff together.

Oh. I was assuming the coding would happen before it went to vote. Maybe go back to my previous suggestion to leave the categories there for proposers to choose when they submit, but let the Editors code the actual stat effects based on the text while it's at vote. I don't know if it's feasible to allow them to change the category at that stage. Probably not.

But as you point out, most of the use of the category actually comes from players. The admin and mods didn't set up Safalra's website, didn't set up the NSwiki timeline. Players could still apply "categories" to proposals themselves, even if they weren't formally coded as such.

*shrugs* They're still good to have, at least in the symbolic sense. The badges the game hands out are mostly symbolic, too - but players still seem to like them.

Besides, let's say a resolution states: "Slavery shall be a capital crime in all WA nations. All slave traders and slaveholders shall be punished severely if convicted." Do you think the Editors would code that mostly on the personal freedoms side, or the law and order side? Honestly I couldn't tell you. So gleaning stat effects based on the text alone is not always going to be as simple as it seems.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Fixed broken quote tag, sorry.

Oh. I was assuming the coding would happen before it went to vote. Maybe go back to my previous suggestion to leave the categories there for proposers to choose when they submit, but let the Editors code the actual stat effects based on the text while it's at vote.

That seems to eliminate several of the benefits of the system. I don't think it's worth making all the changes if the category system is going to be kept anyway.

*shrugs* They're still good to have, at least in the symbolic sense. The badges the game hands out are mostly symbolic, too - but players still seem to like them.

I thought you routinely advocated getting rid of the badges.

Besides, let's say a resolution states: "Slavery shall be a capital crime in all WA nations. All slave traders and slaveholders shall be punished severely if convicted." Do you think the Editors would code that mostly on the personal freedoms side, or the law and order side? Honestly I couldn't tell you. So gleaning stat effects based on the text alone is not always going to be as simple as it seems.

Speaking purely from a WA perspective, depends how it's written. If that single line were added in to Ban Slavery and Trafficking, then on the personal freedoms side. If it were a wholly separate resolution just dealing with punishment for slavery, then on the law and order side.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Fixed broken quote tag, sorry.

Oh. I was assuming the coding would happen before it went to vote. Maybe go back to my previous suggestion to leave the categories there for proposers to choose when they submit, but let the Editors code the actual stat effects based on the text while it's at vote.

That seems to eliminate several of the benefits of the system. I don't think it's worth making all the changes if the category system is going to be kept anyway.

Oh no, that wasn't what I was suggesting at all. I was only suggesting keeping categories only as a way of marking the proposal either as Human Rights, Social Justice, Global Disarmament, or whatever. The actual statistical effects would still be worked out by the resolution-coding. (I think I explained myself more clearly in this post.) But if it's going to be too complicated to implement - and it does seem to be shaping up that way, unfortunately - we may as well drop it.

Speaking purely from a WA perspective, depends how it's written. If that single line were added in to Ban Slavery and Trafficking, then on the personal freedoms side. If it were a wholly separate resolution just dealing with punishment for slavery, then on the law and order side.

One could question why we are considering dropping the categories anyway, if the statistical effects are still mostly going to run either one way or the other. Frankly I preferred the suggestion of simply allowing the mods to adjust category/strength post-submission.

I thought you routinely advocated getting rid of the badges.

No - I was trying to convince [v] to reduce them, because handing out badges to nearly 15,000 nations (10%) on every World Census ranking was a little much. But that's neither here nor there.

[Old Hope]

[...]

Besides, let's say a resolution states: "Slavery shall be a capital crime in all WA nations. All slave traders and slaveholders shall be punished severely if convicted." Do you think the Editors would code that mostly on the personal freedoms side, or the law and order side? Honestly I couldn't tell you. So gleaning stat effects based on the text alone is not always going to be as simple as it seems.

Speaking purely from a WA perspective, depends how it's written. If that single line were added in to Ban Slavery and Trafficking, then on the personal freedoms side. If it were a wholly separate resolution just dealing with punishment for slavery, then on the law and order side.

(under the new system)It would depend on some factors, actually:
If your nation already has banned slavery(issues), and already has harsh punishment in general... not much would change.
If your nation has banned slavery but uses very light punishment, then this increases law enforcement, and decreases civil rights
If your nation has legalized slavery and uses harsh punishment for crimes, then civil rights may increase, and political freedoms will increase.
If your nation has legalized slavery and uses light punishment, then.... civil rights might increase by a very small amount, and law enforcement would increase, as well as political freedoms.
And in both cases where you had to illegalize slavery, your economy gets a hit, depending on how much your economic viability depends on slavery.
If you are mainly a nation of slave traders according to the stats, your economy will implode.
If you don't depend on slavery that much, the impact might be less severe.
Also, economic freedoms may decrease by some amount if a nation has to ban slavery

[The Dark Star Republic]

One could question why we are considering dropping the categories anyway, if the statistical effects are still mostly going to run either one way or the other.

That's not what I said. You were the one who chose the specific example: in many other cases, it seems unlikely the stats would map exactly to existing categories quite so neatly. Why should they? The existing category set is horribly restrictive, not representative of the topics people write international laws about, and doesn't even reflect the game stats particularly well.

(under the new system)It would depend on some factors, actually

Not how NS stats work, actually.

[Old Hope]

One could question why we are considering dropping the categories anyway, if the statistical effects are still mostly going to run either one way or the other.

That's not what I said. You were the one who chose the specific example: in many other cases, it seems unlikely the stats would map exactly to existing categories quite so neatly. Why should they? The existing category set is horribly restrictive, not representative of the topics people write international laws about, and doesn't even reflect the game stats particularly well.

(under the new system)It would depend on some factors, actually

Not how NS stats work, actually.

Not exactly like I mentioned it, but I know that answering issues with other previous stats leads to different results
There was an example about an issue dropping all govt subsidies. One nation had all their industrial strenght relating to subsidies and got from 100 to 0 economic strength. Another nation had few subsidies, but economic stats depending on other measures
The economy dropped by some points for them. So the effects can depend on some factors. More precisely: On those changable factors coded into the game(and we don't know them all)

[Bears Armed]

Considering the fact that the active proposal writers are most likely those who can sustain those limitations

But we were all new once...

[Old Hope]

Considering the fact that the active proposal writers are most likely those who can sustain those limitations

But we were all new once...

And what does that have to do with my argument? I just pointed out that a lot of those who got scared off by the limitations problems aren't here to discuss because they, well, left, or went elsewhere.

[Christian Democrats]

As I've said elsewhere, I favor a custom proposal coding system. The category system is too clunky.

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'm sorry, but this comment left me scratching my head. What's the connection between gay marriage and political freedom?

Real-world experience has shown that higher political freedom correlates with less gay marriage. In the United States, I believe gay marriage has been rejected 30-some times in referenda while it's been supported only about half-a-dozen times. The "tightly locked down dictatorship" could be more supportive of gay marriage than the "highly democratic nation" if it has a socially liberal judiciary like the United States.

I believe we have nation categories called "conservative democracy" and "libertarian police state" among others.

[Sedgistan]

Just to head off the threadjack before it continues:

I'm sorry, but this comment left me scratching my head. What's the connection between gay marriage and political freedom?

None. In NS, marriage would come under civil rights (personal freedoms). I think Fris was stereotyping democratic nations as having high civil rights, and dictatorships as having low civil rights.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Agreed it was a poor example, but the basic point stands: custom stats could much better reflect how NS codes things like that.

[Christian Democrats]

Agreed it was a poor example, but the basic point stands: custom stats could much better reflect how NS codes things like that.

Assuming that the coders don't make counterfactual assumptions like "more democracy = gay marriage."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Agreed it was a poor example, but the basic point stands: custom stats could much better reflect how NS codes things like that.

Assuming that the coders don't make counterfactual assumptions like "more democracy = gay marriage."

They won't. In fact it would be impossible to make that assumption, because as Sedge already mentioned, those are controlled by two completely different stats! There are many libertarian police states/benevolent dictatorships in NS (although oddly, the other end of the spectrum, conservative democracies/tyrannies by majority, seem to be less common: I guess a lot of NS players fancy themselves as "enlightened despots"!).

[Christian Democrats]

I guess a lot of NS players fancy themselves as "enlightened despots"!

Isn't that the whole point of this game?

"NationStates is a nation simulation game. Create a nation according to your political ideals and care for its people. Or deliberately oppress them. It's up to you."

[Mousebumples]

If we go ahead with this sort of process, how would we like to see the Proposal Submission form change?

We obviously wouldn't have any set "categories" to submit to if we are using Resolution Editors instead of categories. So would it just be two text boxes? (Resolution Name & Description, as they are currently named) Should there be any new additions to the proposal submission page with regards to the change in Process? I know a few players mentioned wanting to have some sort of "description;" however, as Fris mentioned, giving mods more custom fields to have to police is something we'd just as soon do without. Other thoughts?

[The Dark Star Republic]

If the category system is removed, the category drop down box and description line should be removed. That's it.

[Old Hope]

Council selection is, of course, needed.
Categories and their descriptions should be removed/replaced by a strikeout if removal isn't possible
Resolution name should be kept. Edit: Or maybe not, as we don't need more misleading things like this. The title stays- even in a repeal, and I'm sure it makes a difference if someone sees "The Right to Bear Arms" or "General Assembly Resolution Proposal"- it makes the description less official(you still could put one in the normal description field), and since the description can be entirely misleading, and some delegates/voters vote like that quite regularly(which is bad for others). And it encourages looking into the proposal(and seeing things like "World Assemble", misrepresentations or other things.
Description should be changed into proposed law,
and strength should be removed entirely.

[Christian Democrats]

If the category system is removed, the category drop down box and description line should be removed. That's it.

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 ___________________________.

For example, on my most recent resolution, the Disabled Voters Act, I could have put "A resolution to promote equal voting rights."

In my view, if we abolish the categories, there should be a new rule prohibiting authors from legislating on more than one subject at a time. The rule could require that all proposal text fit the title and the description.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In my view, if we abolish the categories, there should be a new rule prohibiting authors from legislating on more than one subject at a time. The rule could require that all proposal text fit the title and the description.

Come to think about that — I think that should be a rule under the current regime (my bold).

[Frisbeeteria]

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?

[Christian Democrats]

In my view, if we abolish the categories, there should be a new rule prohibiting authors from legislating on more than one subject at a time. The rule could require that all proposal text fit the title and the description.

Come to think about that — I think that should be a rule under the current regime (my bold).

In my opinion, the worst violator right now would be Reproductive Freedoms, which gives people a legal right not to reproduce. In Right to Life, I actually saw one player vote for the resolution because he thought it created an international right to procreate without government interference. Subsequently, I explained to him that he ought to read the proposal text each and every time he votes.

[Christian Democrats]

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?

Remove. The proposal text, the title, and the description must fit together as one coherent whole.

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