Adding Approving Etc Button To Campaigns

[The Ice States]

Currently, when one sends a campaign telegram to, for example, approve a proposal, one is effectively required to link the proposal and have the delegate click the Approve button near the bottom of the page. This makes it harder to garner approvals, such as from delegates who are apathetic enough to be unwilling to open the link, or newer delegates who are unaware of how to approve proposals.

I therefore believe that, similarly to recruitment telegrams, campaign telegrams should allow a button to be automatically appended to approve/withdraw approvals on/vote for/vote against the proposals being campaigned on. These should be sufficiently customisable to allow options for campaigning, countercampaigning, and at vote campaigning, for one or more selected proposals.



If this is done, it would have a number of benefits, some of which I will list below,

• This would also make the campaigning process more accessible to newer or less experienced delegates. Many would be unaware of how to otherwise approve a proposal; so such a feature would allow them to quickly approve a proposal per a campaign telegram, without receiving telegrams they might otherwise not understand. This leads into my next point.
  
  
• This would make campaigning and countercampaigning more effective, as delegates or other targeted nations would have a speedy way of approving etc a proposal, even if they are otherwise apathetic enough not to want to have to open a link and find the "Approve" button at the bottom of the page; or ignorant of the approval system, per my previous point. This would therefore discourage other tactics, such as quorum raiding, due to (1) being less necessary and (2) indeed less effective than in the status quo, due to this increasing the ability of proposals to quickly gather quorum. This also leads into my final point, regarding accessibility to newer authors.
  
  
• By virtue of making campaigning more effective in gathering approvals, including such a feature would make the campaigning process more accessible to newer authors. While the campaigning process is already relatively complex (such that it would still keep the barrier sufficiently high to require authors to care enough to get an API key or stamps), it would help authors garner approvals for their proposals without as much experience required on sending a proper or effective campaign telegrams. Sending "Please approve my proposal" tends to be more effective than a lengthy explanation for why one should approve the proposal; such a feature would allow newer authors to not have to worry as much about whether their campaign is effective, thereby encouraging the latter over the former.

Post edited to fix typoes. Discuss.
------------
Addendum. Some people in this thread have suggested that the proposal's text, or a link to the proposal, be also added to the telegram to minimise any "rubber-stamping" effect. I am not opposed to this; it would yield the same benefits listed above without letting poorer proposals through the quorum requirement. That said, I am personally unconvinced by the need for it; most proposals which are campaigned for fail quorum not due to their quality, but rather external factors such as countercampaigns or the campaign telegram itself, and poor proposals already get through the requirement relatively often; as do quality proposals fall from quorum.

If this were to be done, we should consider the clutter this would create in campaign telegrams -- in terms of having both an "Approve" (or "Withdraw Approval" etc) button, and a spoiler for the full text of the proposal. I don't think this would necessarily be a problem, but it is certainly something to consider. My idea is to have the buttons side-by-side, for example as follows,



Discuss.

[Hulldom]

Certainly speaking as someone who did quite a lot of WA campaigning for some time, this would be useful. Would certainly make things a touch easier in terms of garnering approvals. However, I would caution against having it be something like the current Move button, and instead have it simply link to the approval space for the proposal on the WA page so someone interested (and not a rubber stamp, i.e. me) could read the proposal before considering an approval.

[The Ice States]

Certainly speaking as someone who did quite a lot of WA campaigning for some time, this would be useful. Would certainly make things a touch easier in terms of garnering approvals. However, I would caution against having it be something like the current Move button, and instead have it simply link to the approval space for the proposal on the WA page so someone interested (and not a rubber stamp, i.e. me) could read the proposal before considering an approval.

This certainly be an improvement over the status quo, but still not be particularly substantial over simply linking your proposal in the telegram. I think that if someone is that interested they can still find the proposal from the telegram if it is linked there; and if it is not they can find the proposal from the listing.

[Hulldom]

Certainly speaking as someone who did quite a lot of WA campaigning for some time, this would be useful. Would certainly make things a touch easier in terms of garnering approvals. However, I would caution against having it be something like the current Move button, and instead have it simply link to the approval space for the proposal on the WA page so someone interested (and not a rubber stamp, i.e. me) could read the proposal before considering an approval.

This certainly be an improvement over the status quo, but still not be particularly substantial over simply linking your proposal in the telegram. I think that if someone is that interested they can still find the proposal from the telegram if it is linked there; and if it is not they can find the proposal from the listing.

Perhaps the smart move there is just for the onus to be on the campaigner to link it anyways.

[Chipoli]

A button linked to the approval thread is no different than putting in a little bit of effort hyperlinking the proposal. I guess if you want to have a button that allows delegates to directly approve proposals, you'll have to put the proposal's full contents in your TG.

[Honeydewistania]

All this does is encourage approving without reading the campaign telegram or the proposal. Also, given the current state of the queue in both chambers, it doesn't seem to be that difficult to get a proposal to queue via normal campaigning.

[The Ice States]

A button linked to the approval thread is no different than putting in a little bit of effort hyperlinking the proposal. I guess if you want to have a button that allows delegates to directly approve proposals, you'll have to put the proposal's full contents in your TG.

I would not necessarily be opposed to having the proposal's full contents be appended as well as an Approve button, preferably in a spoiler; or if a link to the proposal itself was appended as well. That said, I'm not sure if this would make campaign telegrams too cluttered, if the game added both a link to the proposal and an Approve button?

All this does is encourage approving without reading the campaign telegram or the proposal. Also, given the current state of the queue in both chambers, it doesn't seem to be that difficult to get a proposal to queue via normal campaigning.

Two proposals in the GA which would otherwise be in queue right now were knocked out, and one of the quorate proposals in the SC is indeed a resubmission of an inquorate proposal.

[Comfed]

If we're just going to make it as easy as possible for telegrams to garner approvals, what's the point of requiring approvals in the first place?

[The Ice States]

If we're just going to make it as easy as possible for telegrams to garner approvals, what's the point of requiring approvals in the first place?

People still have to put in the effort to set up an API campaign, manually telegram all delegates, or get stamps. The average noob who submits a one-line, barely legal proposal would not be bothered to do so; as shown by how rare it is for such proposals to get to queue or get campaigned for.

[United Calanworie]

I'm not confident that adding *more* buttons to telegrams that do things is entirely ah... a good idea.

[The Serendipitous]

This would be an acceptable proposal provided that the threshold for proposals to reach queue is upped to, say, 10%.

[Sedgistan]

I like this.

[Simone Republic]

I like this.

Great to hear that you like this idea, since nothing can be approved unless you support it.

If we're just going to make it as easy as possible for telegrams to garner approvals, what's the point of requiring approvals in the first place?

I don't necessarily agree with this. We also have automatic endotarting tools - it's just a slightly easier step in terms of administrative work (for delegates in this case). It's just like writing an VBA macro to automate a five minute task that you have to do everyday in Excel, for example.

[Giovanniland]

All this does is encourage approving without reading the campaign telegram or the proposal. Also, given the current state of the queue in both chambers, it doesn't seem to be that difficult to get a proposal to queue via normal campaigning.

Opposed due to this exact reason. For what it's worth, it's fair to assume that not everyone reads a proposal they approve, but this would really encourage this behavior and make campaigning basically glorified rubber stamping.

[The Ice States]

All this does is encourage approving without reading the campaign telegram or the proposal. Also, given the current state of the queue in both chambers, it doesn't seem to be that difficult to get a proposal to queue via normal campaigning.

Opposed due to this exact reason. For what it's worth, it's fair to assume that not everyone reads a proposal they approve, but this would really encourage this behavior and make campaigning basically glorified rubber stamping.

I don't think this would make the quorum requirement much worse in eliminating poor-quality proposals. Proposals tend to miss quorum less because of their quality and more because of external factors such as countercampaigns or campaign quality. The last instances I can find of a proposal being campaigned for and missing quorum were Psychiatric Care Act and ISDS Ban (which missed quorum due to GA quorum raiding on a different proposal); Repeal "WA Development Foundation" (which I admit I am not informed on the reasons for its missing quorum); Fairness for Victims of Crime (which missed quorum due to an error); and Commend Atlantian Oceania (which was inquorate a few days ago, yet is currently passing in the SC after being resubmitted with identical text).

Yet, we still have poorly-written proposals routinely get to vote, eg Watermelon's Condemn TCB or the Hippopotamus declaration. I don't think the effect of making it easier to get to quorum would result in many more poorly written proposals getting to vote than already do.

Edit. As I replied to Chipoli, I am not opposed to having the proposal's full contents be appended as well as an Approve button, preferably in a spoiler; though the clutter would have to be considered.

Edit 2. Updated OP accordingly.

[Heidgaudr]

All this does is encourage approving without reading the campaign telegram or the proposal. Also, given the current state of the queue in both chambers, it doesn't seem to be that difficult to get a proposal to queue via normal campaigning.

Opposed due to this exact reason. For what it's worth, it's fair to assume that not everyone reads a proposal they approve, but this would really encourage this behavior and make campaigning basically glorified rubber stamping.

Agreed. An approval button with nothing else seems like a bad idea.

That said, I think it would be interesting if there were a way to embed the proposal - text, button, and all - in a telegram. That way you reduce the number of clicks needed for approval while still operating similarly to the present system.

[United Calanworie]

If there's a relatively generalized approval from the community that this could be a good idea, and you can all come up with a list of conditionals etc that should apply, I'll take a look at implementing it -- no guarantees though.

Right now though I'm seeing some concerns -- could they get worked out? Is that feasible?

[Fort Concord]

I really like this idea, and appreciate the specifics included (such as campaign types, the images, etc). I think it would be a nice QoL improvement to SC campaigning.

All this does is encourage approving without reading the campaign telegram or the proposal. Also, given the current state of the queue in both chambers, it doesn't seem to be that difficult to get a proposal to queue via normal campaigning.

Opposed due to this exact reason. For what it's worth, it's fair to assume that not everyone reads a proposal they approve, but this would really encourage this behavior and make campaigning basically glorified rubber stamping.

I disagree. For one, I'm not convinced people read them anyway in much detail as it stands. Plenty of delegates do, especially more dedicated ones... but those would read it under this too.

To grab the telegram I used for Liberate England,

Hello Delegate %NATION%, please take a moment to read this emergency campaign!

England has been taken by raiders! To help kick them out, approve the proposal to "Liberate England" now!

England is a historic region and has been taken by a number of raider militaries who have immediately vandalized the region and intend to cause as much damage as possible. We ask all Delegates to take a stand against this senseless aggression by approving the proposal, which will help ensure that the region cannot be permanently damaged by invaders.

APPROVE THE PROPOSAL TO LIBERATE ENGLAND HERE: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1678773550

- Felix Legion I (aka Quebecshire) and Westinor

Is there really a fundamental difference in reader engagement where much more is required to click what I've snipped out below, than what would be required to click a button in the demonstration? Both are rather prominent in the telegram, one (The Ice States' proposal) is just mechanically simpler.

APPROVE THE PROPOSAL TO LIBERATE ENGLAND HERE: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1678773550

My campaign for Commend A Lead on the Wind included something similar before the sign-off:

Please approve at this link: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1675490456

I understand the concern but I'm not convinced that adding a button would have a particularly detrimental impact on what gets read by recipients to campaign telegrams. In my view it's already well established that campaigns should be fairly concise (since the proposal should stand decently on its own merits).

Additionally I'd like to think the inclusion of a "view proposal" button shown first in the side-by-side image example of the OP would balance this out well, regardless.

EDIT:

However, I would caution against having it be something like the current Move button, and instead have it simply link to the approval space for the proposal on the WA page so someone interested (and not a rubber stamp, i.e. me) could read the proposal before considering an approval.

If there is too much skepicism for an integrated approval button, I think it would at least be useful/nice to have the "View Proposal" button as included in the above. That's just a little shortcut, same as a normal link.

[Refuge Isle]

All this does is encourage approving without reading the campaign telegram or the proposal. Also, given the current state of the queue in both chambers, it doesn't seem to be that difficult to get a proposal to queue via normal campaigning.

Same position, it will just increase rubber stamping.

I thought you guys were bitching just a few months ago that the queue was overstuffed? It's currently no object to get a proposal to quorum. What is the problem that this is addressing?

[Haganham]

All this does is encourage approving without reading the campaign telegram or the proposal. Also, given the current state of the queue in both chambers, it doesn't seem to be that difficult to get a proposal to queue via normal campaigning.

Opposed due to this exact reason. For what it's worth, it's fair to assume that not everyone reads a proposal they approve, but this would really encourage this behavior and make campaigning basically glorified rubber stamping.

Yes. We have quite enough of a problem with lack of engagement as it is. The last thing we should be doing is encouraging it.

[Galiantus III]

It's unavoidable that some delegates are far more focused on their own region than playing the WA game. All shortcutting the process for lukewarm, uninterested delegates does is invite the participation of parties with even less of a stake in the outcome than currently. The only people who benefit from this are the authors of proposals that currently fail quorum; and even then, the benefits are marginal, because it is unlikely a proposal with too little support in the current system has much chance of passing with the addition of a mechanic designed to artificially push those proposals to the floor. This is just asking for low-quality proposals to clog up queue and waste the time of a large segment of players who are active and involved in the WA, in order to get marginal benefits for a small group of outsiders. Not good.

[The Ice States]

It's unavoidable that some delegates are far more focused on their own region than playing the WA game. All shortcutting the process for lukewarm, uninterested delegates does is invite the participation of parties with even less of a stake in the outcome than currently. The only people who benefit from this are the authors of proposals that currently fail quorum; and even then, the benefits are marginal, because it is unlikely a proposal with too little support in the current system has much chance of passing with the addition of a mechanic designed to artificially push those proposals to the floor. This is just asking for low-quality proposals to clog up queue and waste the time of a large segment of players who are active and involved in the WA, in order to get marginal benefits for a small group of outsiders. Not good.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, all of the last five proposals to be campaigned for yet fail to make quorum are by established authors, rather than "outsiders"; and proposals tend to fail quorum more so due to factors such as campaign quality and countercampaigns than the proposal's actual quality. Making it easier for campaigns to yield approvals -- as well as making it easier for countercampaigns to remove approvals -- will not result in any substantive amount of low-quality proposals to make quorum where they would not already under the status quo.

[Refuge Isle]

We have obviously seen campaigns composed of nothing more than the proposal URL get to vote. So it's still not clear what problem this is solving. The approval process is effectively a bicameral "lower house" check for the WA. If a proposal fails to garner those approvals, it fails that check. It means the proposal wasn't good enough, was an unpopular idea, or failed to appeal to minor delegates. In an era where major voting blocks steamroll things through the WA, a proposal failing to make quorum is the best way for smaller regions to exercise their voice.

It is not an indication that the system is failing or that delegates are disengaged merely because popular politicians do not get everything they write to quorum.

[Comfed]

proposals tend to fail quorum more so due to factors such as campaign quality and countercampaigns than the proposal's actual quality

So? That's the point of campaign telegrams.

[The Ice States]

proposals tend to fail quorum more so due to factors such as campaign quality and countercampaigns than the proposal's actual quality

So? That's the point of campaign telegrams.

We have obviously seen campaigns composed of nothing more than the proposal URL get to vote. So it's still not clear what problem this is solving. The approval process is effectively a bicameral "lower house" check for the WA. If a proposal fails to garner those approvals, it fails that check. It means the proposal wasn't good enough, was an unpopular idea, or failed to appeal to minor delegates. In an era where major voting blocks steamroll things through the WA, a proposal failing to make quorum is the best way for smaller regions to exercise their voice.

It is not an indication that the system is failing or that delegates are disengaged merely because popular politicians do not get everything they write to quorum.

Low-quality proposals can make quorum, and high-quality proposals can fail it; so quorum is already not a good quality check. The proposal currently passing in the SC with a supermajority is a verbatim resubmission of an inquorate proposal; meanwhile the various Condemn TCB proposals, for instance, have still managed to make quorum despite getting about 10 - 20% support at vote.

The more relevant check is whether an author cares enough, or is knowledgeable enough, to send a campaign telegram to all delegates, and get an API key or stamps to do so. An experienced author would naturally do so; a noob who submits a barely legal, one-liner or two-liner, proposal rarely would. Making campaigns more effective where they occur would not result in a relevant or significant amount of low-quality proposals making quorum where they would not already.