[Discussion] Branding Rule Changes

[Excidium Planetis]

There seems to be a good amount of support for a change to the Branding rule. Now, I remember the discussion on it back in the GA Rules Consortium, and it seemed then to be pretty hotly contested.

As it stands, the rules currently allow three co-authors to be listed, although apparently those may not be regional puppets. I haven't seen the limit of three be used much, if at all, since the rule change, but I don't have an issue with it.

I am in favor of allowing puppets such as "Region X GA Working Group" being the author or co-author of proposals. Of course, non-region working groups should be allowed too. You run into the problem of WA working groups such as WA Charter Working Group, but perhaps we could exclude only puppets that might appear, to the average user, to be an official GA, WA, or Moderation type group.

I don't think we need major code changes to allow multiple fields.

[Wallenburg]

I'm afraid I don't see any real benefit to this. If your concern is that, at some point in the distant future, a group of more than four authors will collaborate on writing a proposal, perhaps we could further raise the coauthor limit, or remove the limit entirely.

[Araraukar]

I'm afraid I don't see any real benefit to this.

Me neither.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think the best solution is to allow regional branding in the author or co-author names whilst returning the number of co-authors back to one. The problem there is then solved and we don't have the absurdity of an author 'cooperating' with practically everyone. The main reason that regions simply don't participate in the GA is because they can't get anything out of it. There isn't any reason to do something when there are no benefits. Allowing for regions to participate increases the incentives for regions to push GA participation, and therefore, increase activity in the chamber.

The lack of cohesion with the region-based game system is quite simply a large part of why there are so few people in the GA. There aren't any regions investing in the GA simply because they can't get any returns from it. Giving them a way to get those returns means more investment of time and resources in building up GA programmes and more activity writ large.

I know you guys want to oppose any changes because you need to bust your Old Guard chops but there are very clear benefits to having more regional involvement that would help the GA turn into something where cohesive politics can function, getting us more activity and players. It makes more RP sense too, because in the real UN, you do have to cooperate with strong political players. This simply parallels those politics.

[Separatist Peoples]

Even if you don't see the benefit, you gotta admit there's really no downside to outweigh it.

[Unibot III]

I'm in favour of working groups. They make for a good regional project and they're not in common. Preventing the acknowledgement of them is an old prejudice.

[Bananaistan]

I am utterly opposed to allowing any working groups or the use of the GA as a promotional tool for regions. Regions do not exist IC, offsite groups do not exist IC, I don't see how bringing in further confusion between IC and OOC and RP is supposed to help. Furthermore, this will only lead to further concentration of GA power and influence in the hands of a handful of superdelegates. Let's not forget that the anti-democratic pact against people communicating with others and the utterly disproportionate influence of the superdelegates are the two greatest barriers to GA activity. I'm incredibly suspicious of the motives of any signatory of that document who is also clamouring for further power and influence.

In fact I think co-authorship should be done away with altogether. Except perhaps as a sort of IC character seconder of a proposal.

And let's bring in one nation one vote while we're at it.

Or perhaps work on obviously broken rules such as the blocker rules first.

[Araraukar]

I think the best solution is to allow regional branding in the author or co-author names whilst returning the number of co-authors back to one.

That would only make room for regional dick-waving, which I really struggle to see as a positive thing.

The problem there is then solved and we don't have the absurdity of an author cooperating with practically everyone to get anything done.

What problem does it solve? And what does "cooperating ... to get anything done" have anything to do with coauthor naming?

The main reason that regions simply don't participate in the GA is because they can't get anything out of it. There isn't any reason to do something when there are no benefits.

And why should regions get anything out of individuals, even a group of individuals, doing all the work?

Allowing for regions to participate increases the incentives for regions to push GA participation, and therefore, increase activity in the chamber.

You're a regional delegate, you're participating just fine. Nothing's stopping people from your region doing the same, and I know you've encouraged some of them to do just that in the past. I don't really see the problem here.

The lack of cohesion with the region-based game system is quite simply a large part of why there are so few people in the GA.

Proof?

There aren't any regions investing in the GA simply because they can't get any returns from it. Giving them a way to get those returns means more investment of time and resources in building up GA programmes and more activity writ large.

Again, why should regions get anything out of work done by individuals, even a group of individuals? If I remember correctly something that (probably Fris) a game mod once said, the vast majority of people in NS never use the forums. So if regions were somehow magically all stoked up of having their members partake the proposal writing, it's most likely they'd do that on their own offsite forums, further drying up the GA forum.

I know you guys want to oppose any changes because you need to bust your Old Guard chops

When the "Old Guard" were around, it was still NSUN and I was mostly an NSG shark (I don't even have one of those bulwark numbers) so definitely not me. Sorry.

but there are very clear benefits to having more regional involvement

Such as?

that would help the GA turn into something where cohesive politics can function

...what? Honestly, what?

getting us more activity and players.

How? Any proposal activity of the kind done by regions would be done on their own forums, not here.

It makes more RP sense too

Except for everyone whose RP doesn't include regional RP, if such even exists.

because in the real UN, you do have to cooperate with strong political players. This simply parallels those politics.

...you already do. They're called superdelegates. Like you.

---

*snip*

Also what he said. Except possibly the doing away with coauthors entirely.

[Aclion]

I'm in favor of it. It's true that we haven't seen working groups much but we've no idea how much of that is due to them being excluded by the branding rule.

[Araraukar]

I'm in favor of it. It's true that we haven't seen working groups much but we've no idea how much of that is due to them being excluded by the branding rule.

You're also a regional delegate. Tell me, if your region started supporting such a writing program, would you do it here or on some offsite forum?

[Sciongrad]

I am utterly opposed to allowing any working groups or the use of the GA as a promotional tool for regions. Regions do not exist IC, offsite groups do not exist IC, I don't see how bringing in further confusion between IC and OOC and RP is supposed to help. Furthermore, this will only lead to further concentration of GA power and influence in the hands of a handful of superdelegates. Let's not forget that the anti-democratic pact against people communicating with others and the utterly disproportionate influence of the superdelegates are the two greatest barriers to GA activity. I'm incredibly suspicious of the motives of any signatory of that document who is also clamouring for further power and influence.

In the past, I may have warmed up to the idea of regional working groups as co-authors, but I've returned to steadfast opposition. It merely encourages big regions to export the GA game to off-site forums.

In fact I think co-authorship should be done away with altogether. Except perhaps as a sort of IC character seconder of a proposal.

Hear, hear. Co-authorship (and even having the author listed) cultivates egoism and I don't think it's healthy for a game that's supposed to place a premium on policy and roleplay.

[Araraukar]

Hear, hear. Co-authorship (and even having the author listed) cultivates egoism and I don't think it's healthy for a game that's supposed to place a premium on policy and roleplay.

*looks at your forum siggy*

EDIT: Yes, I have mine in my siggy, but then I never made the claim Scion just did...

[States of Glory WA Office]

In fact I think co-authorship should be done away with altogether. Except perhaps as a sort of IC character seconder of a proposal.

Hear, hear. Co-authorship (and even having the author listed) cultivates egoism and I don't think it's healthy for a game that's supposed to place a premium on policy and roleplay.

In that case, we might as well do away with titles to force people to read the resolution.

Or we could decide not to make mountains out of molehills.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Hear, hear. Co-authorship (and even having the author listed) cultivates egoism and I don't think it's healthy for a game that's supposed to place a premium on policy and roleplay.

It also removes large portions of the incentives which would get more people to participate in the GA. The ability to say that 'I have passed 13 GA resolutions' certainly helps in regional politics. Similarly, the ability to have a GA department which actually can be seen to promote the good of the region certainly helps in promoting GA activity. One of the reasons why Europeia has such a strong GA programme is because of how Mouse has cultivated that programme over time.

With the establishment of GenSec (there really is no elegant way of referring to it, is there?), it is impossible for discussion not to be centred on the NS forums, simply because GenSec operates out of those forums. There are two other major considerations: (1) whether or not the NS forum ought be the centre of drafting and (2) whether drafting actually works on off-site forums.

You and I have both noted the massive inability of this forum to actually do any drafting. I don't recall the last time I saw any constructive criticism on this forum. This forum spends most of its time fermenting legality challenges rather than actually drafting anything. I certainly agree with Gruenberg. He was right when he said that drafting doesn't happen here. Drafting though, does happen on off-site forums. This is because here, players do not have incentives to offer constructive feedback. In regional communities, because there is a shared bond, there is significantly more incentive to offer helpful feedback that actually makes proposals better.

Drafting, however, isn't something that can simply be done on off-site forums. This is because whilst there is encouragement and support from those off-site communities (certainly, we Noggers have benefited in the past from the UNOG forums), those off-site communities don't have the same kind of legal scrutiny which we do.

Writ large, I don't see a world where the GA's legal arguments are moved out of the GA. Nor do I see a world where the meagre amount of drafting done in the GA would ever actually entirely leave or be dominated by off-site forums, simply because the GA forum is still the main repository of GA knowledge.

---

Banana, was it not you who said that 'IMO the idea of courting the vote of the likes of TNP simply enhances the RP element of seeking support for your ideas from the strongest world leaders'? The existence of delegates, regions, etc. is something which cannot be divorced from the game writ large. Pretending that some 45 per cent of votes cast simply don't exist is ridiculous. Regions are the dominating element of NationStates. Practically everything revolves around them simply because of the fact that they are communities. Allowing those communities to interact with the General Assembly benefits that Assembly by having those communities invest time into it. About the conspiracy to destroy democracy, I am not and Europe is not a signatory to the World Assembly Legislative League, which acts to create a voting bloc and coordinate votes. There is no coordination mechanism built into the Spam Accords, which were created mostly to prevent a repeat of Bitely's pay-to-win tactics.

---

In that case, we might as well do away with titles to force people to read the resolution.

Writ large, to practically all arguments which have to do with forcing people to read resolutions... it will never happen. You cannot force anyone to do anything from across a computer screen. I do not understand the source of these arguments when it is clear that the apathy of WA voters means that practically no matter what you do, they won't read the resolutions. It is absurd to expect that people who do not care and are unwilling to care will suddenly make a heel-face turn and gobble up GA resolutions. They'll simply not read the page.

[Araraukar]

I don't recall the last time I saw any constructive criticism on this forum.

You really don't read a lot threads, then. Some examples of constructive criticism from the first two pages of the forum. Not including nearly all, just 1 or 2 per thread.
viewtopic.php?p=31125351#p31125351
viewtopic.php?p=31168089#p31168089
viewtopic.php?p=31148464#p31148464
viewtopic.php?p=31169890#p31169890
viewtopic.php?p=31170127#p31170127
viewtopic.php?p=30879163#p30879163
viewtopic.php?p=31113431#p31113431
viewtopic.php?p=31120886#p31120886
viewtopic.php?p=31057978#p31057978
viewtopic.php?p=31087692#p31087692
viewtopic.php?p=31073204#p31073204
...and actually most of Tinfect's in-character proposal dissections.

Examples of not so constructive criticism:
viewtopic.php?p=30881731#p30881731
viewtopic.php?p=31130272#p31130272
viewtopic.php?p=31058953#p31058953
viewtopic.php?p=31003843#p31003843

There are many many many many many more examples of both, as just simply pointing out that a proposal contradicts X or duplicates Y is constructive criticism, whereas anything devolving into a legal argument usually involving EP and the GA council members tends to not be...

[Aclion]

I'm in favor of it. It's true that we haven't seen working groups much but we've no idea how much of that is due to them being excluded by the branding rule.

You're also a regional delegate. Tell me, if your region started supporting such a writing program, would you do it here or on some offsite forum?

I'm not sure how that's relevant, I don't think my region ever be in the business of writing proposals. I think that the real beneficiary to this change would be in the cross-regional alliances that seem to have become popular. Such groups could have a dedicated region for collaboration on a proposal.

Edit I just realized by "here" you mean in the GA forum as oppose to on this website; absolutely not. The GA forum is useful for posting drafts for a trial by fire, not for collaboration. Drafting would probobly be done in a google doc or similar, with suggestions and debate happening offsite or in the RMB.

In the past, I may have warmed up to the idea of regional working groups as co-authors, but I've returned to steadfast opposition. It merely encourages big regions to export the GA game to off-site forums.

Have you ever though that maybe you're the reason people avoid the forum?

[Araraukar]

Drafting would probobly be done in a google doc or similar, with suggestions and debate happening offsite or in the RMB.

Thus supporting my point that getting regions more involved in proposal writing would not help the GA forum.

[Aclion]

Drafting would probobly be done in a google doc or similar, with suggestions and debate happening offsite or in the RMB.

Thus supporting my point that getting regions more involved in proposal writing would not help the GA forum.

No, drafting is already being done offsite because not getting credited is still better then dealing with you. If you want to help the GA forum stop being an ass and start collaborating.

[Sciongrad]

Have you ever though that maybe you're the reason people avoid the forum?

Cute, but no. I don't presume to have that much influence over people. I think the problems with the forum are systemic and well documented -- elitism, skepticism of new players, and asymptotically approaching the point where most issues are no longer accessible to the average player.

Thus supporting my point that getting regions more involved in proposal writing would not help the GA forum.

No, drafting is already being done offsite because not getting credited is still better then dealing with you. If you want to help the GA forum stop being an ass and start collaborating.

Ooh, you're spicy. I agree, though. If the forum culture improves, hopefully we'll have a better yield rate. Collaboration, however, can happen on this forum. Exporting the drafting to other forums ruins the game.

[Excidium Planetis]

whereas anything devolving into a legal argument usually involving EP and the GA council members tends to not be...

I don't offer constructive criticism on such controversial legal matters. Notice how the proposal actually submitted by a new player, I submitted the legality challenge and then largely stayed out of the discussion.

And the other new player proposal I recently commented on, I kept it mostly IC and didn't discuss the rules at all. I only rules lawyer with old timers.

[Sciongrad]

And the other new player proposal I recently commented on, I kept it mostly IC and didn't discuss the rules at all. I only rules lawyer with old timers.

I actually appreciate this. I'd rather veterans intercede on behalf of new players about legality than berate new players for not reading the rules. I think the forum has become excessively legalistic recently, but as long as that's confined and between veterans, it's acceptable. It's when new players are forced to deal with petty legal arguments that the game starts to break down.

[Araraukar]

whereas anything devolving into a legal argument usually involving EP and the GA council members tends to not be...

And the other new player proposal I recently commented on, I kept it mostly IC and didn't discuss the rules at all. I only rules lawyer with old timers.

It's hard to have a legal argument on your own, so I'm not blaming you alone, don't worry.

I think the forum has become excessively legalistic recently, but as long as that's confined and between veterans, it's acceptable.

Strange, I know I'm not the only "veteran" who finds that tiresome and off-putting. And please realize I don't mean the legality challenge threads, I mean the actual drafting threads. Excessive arguing in legality threads after ruling is also annoying, but at least it's confined there.

[Bears Armed]

I favour allowing two authors, and maybe three, but preferably only if there is actual evidence for their contributions posted in this forum. This means that if proposals initially drafted offsite are brought here with any co-authors already credited then I'd like to see the entire drafting discussions -- rather than just the actual drafts themselves -- posted here, so that we can see what went into them.

I am utterly opposed to allowing any working groups or the use of the GA as a promotional tool for regions. Regions do not exist IC, offsite groups do not exist IC, I don't see how bringing in further confusion between IC and OOC and RP is supposed to help.

"Regions do not exist IC"
Mentioning them in resolutions currently counts as Meta-gaming, it is true, and explaining them without breaching that rule might be tricky. However if anybody can come up with a viable definition that doesn't break the fourth wall then -- as the existence of regions and their delegates has always been widely acknowledged in GA roleplay anyway -- I would be open to changing that rule.

"offsite groups do not exist IC"
Groups such as ACCEL, the National Sovereignty Organisation, and whatever the 'defence/security' proposal-drafting think-tank that existed back in NSUN times was called (I was a member, but have forgotten the name...), have also been mentioned in [NS-UN] RP. If we do change the rules on branding then, even if regions (and therefore regional working groups) are still excluded, I would be willing to consider allowing groups like those to be listed as co-authors or even to consider allowing spokes-puppets for those groups to be used as authors. One condition that I'd like to see in that case, though, would be openness of their drafting threads to public view [even if non-members were barred from commenting there).

[Bananaistan]

Banana, was it not you who said that 'IMO the idea of courting the vote of the likes of TNP simply enhances the RP element of seeking support for your ideas from the strongest world leaders'?

Nice quote mining there. That was two and a half years ago. Unsurprisingly my opinion has totally changed since then. In fact it changed very shortly afterwards due to conversations I had with Gruenberg and Araraukar.

The existence of delegates, regions, etc. is something which cannot be divorced from the game writ large. Pretending that some 45 per cent of votes cast simply don't exist is ridiculous. Regions are the dominating element of NationStates. Practically everything revolves around them simply because of the fact that they are communities. Allowing those communities to interact with the General Assembly benefits that Assembly by having those communities invest time into it. About the conspiracy to destroy democracy, I am not and Europe is not a signatory to the World Assembly Legislative League, which acts to create a voting bloc and coordinate votes. There is no coordination mechanism built into the Spam Accords, which were created mostly to prevent a repeat of Bitely's pay-to-win tactics.

Well I have stated my preference for completely removing that 45%.

The World Assembly Legislative League is not something I have heard of before so I have no idea what it does or doesn't do. However, I am familiar with your "antispam" pact. You can dress it up all you like or attempt to explain the reasons behind it, there is no doubt that it was treated with utter contempt by almost all GA regulars when they heard of it as they can see through it for exactly what it is: a power grab by a handful of superdelegates who already wield far too much influence and power over the GA.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The World Assembly Legislative League is not something I have heard of before so I have no idea what it does or doesn't do. However, I am familiar with your "antispam" pact. You can dress it up all you like or attempt to explain the reasons behind it, there is no doubt that it was treated with utter contempt by almost all GA regulars when they heard of it as they can see through it for exactly what it is: a power grab by a handful of superdelegates who already wield far too much influence and power over the GA.

It consistently seems that people don't actually read regional legislation, especially the parts that go against their strange conception of how regions are some kind of inscrutable monolith devoted to the destruction of all freedom. But this is what the Accord actually says:

3. Regional Sovereignty
a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this treaty, the signatories reserve their sovereign right to determine the final vote of their respective World Assembly Delegates on all World Assembly resolutions according to their internal laws and regulations.
b) Signatory regions shall not pressure or coerce a cosigning region to take a particular action or actions under the framework of this document.

And about the World Assembly Legislative League. Ho, ho, ho. You really should take a look at that if you're this worked up about the Spam Accords. And after that, the IDU-TNP treaty might also be some nice reading as well, especially if you agree with Gruenberg, who is famous in TNP for reminding them of their treaty obligations.