Advertisement
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:34 am
by Western Evilly » Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:16 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:It seems that all the maths and formula-hacking people are doing here doesn't actually do anything other than pretend that nations live in regions which they don't actually live. That doesn't do 'democracy' any good. The Delegate, because most nations in a region don't actually vote, is given an extra vote to cast on those nations' behalf, so 1-endorsement-1-vote makes quite a lot of sense. The only modifier which would benefit that is if a Delegate were given added votes based on a running tally of active WA members in that region.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:19 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:It seems that all the maths and formula-hacking people are doing here doesn't actually do anything other than pretend that nations live in regions which they don't actually live. That doesn't do 'democracy' any good. The Delegate, because most nations in a region don't actually vote, is given an extra vote to cast on those nations' behalf, so 1-endorsement-1-vote makes quite a lot of sense. The only modifier which would benefit that is if a Delegate were given added votes based on a running tally of active WA members in that region.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:46 am
by The Blaatschapen » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:52 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
\Delegate Influence Cap
Keep current system but...
Delegate votes are worth a maximum of 100 votes.
Upsides:
You still get more influence as a powerful delegate.
The number of regional delegates that truly matter increases considerably: the top 100 or so delegates likely become global powerbrokers.
There's no real harm in fragmentation of regions, if they're fragmenting down to 100 WA nations.
Downsides:
Very artificial.
You get no more for being delegate of a very big region than a big region.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:14 am
by Flanderlion » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:34 pm
Western Evilly wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:It seems that all the maths and formula-hacking people are doing here doesn't actually do anything other than pretend that nations live in regions which they don't actually live. That doesn't do 'democracy' any good. The Delegate, because most nations in a region don't actually vote, is given an extra vote to cast on those nations' behalf, so 1-endorsement-1-vote makes quite a lot of sense. The only modifier which would benefit that is if a Delegate were given added votes based on a running tally of active WA members in that region.
Or have votes deducted for each nations that gets off their arse and actually clicks the button?
by Nilla Wayfarers » Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:08 pm
Flanderlion wrote:Western Evilly wrote:Or have votes deducted for each nations that gets off their arse and actually clicks the button?
Or the opposite, votes added for each nation that actually votes in the resolution. The issue seems to be the difference in WA nations endorsing a delegate rather than the actual delegate vote system. Adding votes to regions is just asking to be exploited, move a couple of nations into a new region, and your vote is multiplied.
Despite TNP having 1200 votes, I'd prefer the system to remain the same, or worst comes to worst, delegate votes = (1 +(n/2)) rounded up. N = nations endorsing the delegate. I think the voting tallies should be hidden and only your regions votes should be shown for the first X hours to reduce/mostly remove the impact of a big stack in the beginning.
The Greatest GA Resolution Author Ever wrote:Due to more of the Econmy using computers instead of Paper The Manufactoring for paper prducts shpuld decrease because were wasting rescources on paper ad more paper is being thrown in the trash
by Aclion » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:18 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:It seems that all the maths and formula-hacking people are doing here doesn't actually do anything other than pretend that nations live in regions which they don't actually live. That doesn't do 'democracy' any good. The Delegate, because most nations in a region don't actually vote, is given an extra vote to cast on those nations' behalf, so 1-endorsement-1-vote makes quite a lot of sense. The only modifier which would benefit that is if a Delegate were given added votes based on a running tally of active WA members in that region.
Well not necessarily. If delegates had a number of votes proportionate to their endorsements; say at a 1 to 2 ratio that would still curb the power of delegates relative to member nations and change the paradigm.Nilla Wayfarers wrote:Either we should use a system that makes endorsed votes have different weight based on the delegate's total endorsements, or we shouldn't change the system at all. Simply chopping at all endorsements with the same strictness does little to address the problem.
The problem isn't just that delegates have a lot of power as a whole. It's mostly that a select few delegates bear an extremely disproportionate weight in their vote.
by The Candy Of Bottles » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:06 pm
Tananat wrote:The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.
by Nilla Wayfarers » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:09 pm
Tananat wrote:The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.
The Greatest GA Resolution Author Ever wrote:Due to more of the Econmy using computers instead of Paper The Manufactoring for paper prducts shpuld decrease because were wasting rescources on paper ad more paper is being thrown in the trash
by Drasnia » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:11 pm
Nilla Wayfarers wrote:Tananat wrote:The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.
I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.
by Alkasia » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:05 pm
Soyuzistan wrote:Nah, Too electoral college-y.
Koth wrote:Alk resembles some sort of slime mold that asexually reproduces scum, as is standard for XKI natives
Cormactopia Prime wrote:You're silly. I miss the XKI veterans who knew how to appropriately deal with raiders.
Kanglia wrote:Can confirm lynching Alk is the most satisfying thing. :p
Sarakart wrote:What a time to be alive. Welcome to the legislative revolution, the liberation wars have begun.
Benevolent Thomas wrote:"Something you thought you'd never see for $3000, Alex."
by Aclion » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:21 pm
Drasnia wrote:Nilla Wayfarers wrote:I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.
Not to mention that the feeders get nations automatically why UCRs have to work for each recruit. Sure, some of the feeders like TNP have a good retention program but it is in no way equal to even the largest UCRs.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:26 pm
Nilla Wayfarers wrote:Tananat wrote:The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.
I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.
by Nilla Wayfarers » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:31 pm
The Greatest GA Resolution Author Ever wrote:Due to more of the Econmy using computers instead of Paper The Manufactoring for paper prducts shpuld decrease because were wasting rescources on paper ad more paper is being thrown in the trash
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:50 pm
Nilla Wayfarers wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:They aren't arguing that some regions are more equal than others. They are arguing that regions aren't equal and ought not be treated as if they were.
Except the World Assembly is designed to provide an aspect of democracy to international negotiation, and with regional delegates, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's intended to democratize inter-regional relations. The whole idea of democracy is that those within it are equal.
by Nilla Wayfarers » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:56 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Nilla Wayfarers wrote:Except the World Assembly is designed to provide an aspect of democracy to international negotiation, and with regional delegates, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's intended to democratize inter-regional relations. The whole idea of democracy is that those within it are equal.
It isn't though. The point of the World Assembly is to simulate the hierarchical structures of power inherent to international diplomacy. That is what it does and why it is set up that way. The solution to this entire issue with endorsements and what-not is to build bigger regions. This is part of why I have quite a lot of respect for Vancouvia. His region, The Western Isles, when it was a year old, had 170 endorsements and more voting power than most of the sinkers.
I agree that this would be a really big problem ... if it were impossible to build large regions. It very obviously isn't. And the regions which have succeeded have been run exceptionally well. When I ascended to the Delegacy, Europe was in a contraction. There were around 150 endorsements. I've worked hard over the last year to expand the region. The reason why 10000 Islands, The Communist Bloc, and Europeia are so powerful is not because they have inherited that growth. They are constantly sustaining it with huge efforts. Why is Mikeswill still delegate of NationStates after a decade running? That is one hell of a huge effort. It is very much in the power of regional leaders to take the fate of their own regions into their own hands and expand their regions.
The Greatest GA Resolution Author Ever wrote:Due to more of the Econmy using computers instead of Paper The Manufactoring for paper prducts shpuld decrease because were wasting rescources on paper ad more paper is being thrown in the trash
by Tananat » Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:54 pm
Nilla Wayfarers wrote:Tananat wrote:The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.
I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.
by Frisbeeteria » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:38 pm
Tananat wrote:It's not 'some regions are more equal than others' argument, its a 'some regions are better than others' argument.
Tananat wrote:To 'level the playing field' for some regions who are too lazy or incompetent to grow and prosper?
by Canton Empire » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:04 pm
Tananat wrote:Nilla Wayfarers wrote:I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.
It's not 'some regions are more equal than others' argument, its a 'some regions are better than others' argument. Feeders like TNP and especially large UCRs with high numbers of endorsements on their delegates didn't get that way magically. It took months and years of hard work and that hard work is rewarded in reality by having delegates with high numbers of endorsements who can use those in the World Assembly. That's not a problem and shouldn't be seen as one.
Some of the suggestions here would wipe out those years of hard work and for what? To 'level the playing field' for some regions who are too lazy or incompetent to grow and prosper? To let WA authors off the hook for bad proposals and leave the WA entirely at the will of the lemming effect? Gimme a break.
by Nilla Wayfarers » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:40 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:Tananat wrote:It's not 'some regions are more equal than others' argument, its a 'some regions are better than others' argument.
You're both wrong. It's a matter of "the system is inherently unequal, and players have adjusted to that inequality".
It's not a democracy, where each player gets one vote. What this thread is talking about it changing that inequality to a different inequality. Let's not get sidetracked into "better or worse".
The Greatest GA Resolution Author Ever wrote:Due to more of the Econmy using computers instead of Paper The Manufactoring for paper prducts shpuld decrease because were wasting rescources on paper ad more paper is being thrown in the trash
by Environmental Support » Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:06 am
Tananat wrote:The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.
Tananat wrote:Nilla Wayfarers wrote:I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.
It's not 'some regions are more equal than others' argument, its a 'some regions are better than others' argument. Feeders like TNP and especially large UCRs with high numbers of endorsements on their delegates didn't get that way magically. It took months and years of hard work and that hard work is rewarded in reality by having delegates with high numbers of endorsements who can use those in the World Assembly. That's not a problem and shouldn't be seen as one.
Some of the suggestions here would wipe out those years of hard work and for what? To 'level the playing field' for some regions who are too lazy or incompetent to grow and prosper? To let WA authors off the hook for bad proposals and leave the WA entirely at the will of the lemming effect? Gimme a break.
------------------------- My political beliefs are more irrational than √3. --------------------------
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:15 am
Environmental Support wrote:Since as it stands, 10 nations basically decide the outcome of every WA proposal.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: La Familia Cardona
Advertisement