Tone down the "Global Disarmament" subtitle

[Umeria]

So currently, there are these two categories for GA resolutions, International Security and Global Disarmament, which respectively increases and decreases spending on the police and military. Interational Security reads:

International Security - A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

While Global Disarmament reads:

Global Disarmament - A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

The Global Disarmament subtitle is framed much more harshly. International Security's subtitle provides a reason for the spending ("improve world security") and uses the word "boost", which has a generally positive connotation and can be interpreted to mean only a minor increase (as is the case with the "Mild" strength). Global disarmament's subtitle gives no reason for the spending decrease and uses the word "slash", which has a generally negative connotation and doesn't really fit with a Mild strength resolution ("mildly slash worldwide spending" does not make sense).

I think this is part of the reason for why there are 21 active International Security resolutions and only 7 active Global Disarmament resolutions. People such as the one quoted below look at the subtitle and conclude that the proposal would cripple their military.

This is global disarmament with the express purpose of “Slashing military spending worldwide.” Global disarmament is not the same as allowing countries to lie defenseless.

So it would be really helpful if the subtitle were changed to something like "A resolution to reduce military expenditures".

[Umeria]

Bump.

[Umeria]

Bump.

[Frisbeeteria]

You may consider the total lack of response from other players an indication that maybe this isn't all that interesting to others.

Bump.

Please stop doing that. Maybe once a month if an admin still hasn't responded.

[Trotterdam]

I think it's a valid point. I just don't care that much and don't have much to add. And I'm not the one who actually has the authority to make such a change.

I suppose that, besides just the perceived relative strength of "reduce" versus "slash", the Global Disarmament description could also stand to include an actual reason ("to promote world peace" or whatever) to go with International Security already having one ("to improve world security").

[The united American-Isreali empire]

i do not not think disarmament is a good idea, far from. give up your arms you loose your ability to defend yourself.

[Sedgistan]

i do not not think disarmament is a good idea, far from. give up your arms you loose your ability to defend yourself.

You haven't read what this thread is actually about.

[Umeria]

Please stop doing that. Maybe once a month if an admin still hasn't responded.

I thought it was when it got to page 2. Sorry about that.

I think it's a valid point. I just don't care that much and don't have much to add. And I'm not the one who actually has the authority to make such a change.

I suppose that, besides just the perceived relative strength of "reduce" versus "slash", the Global Disarmament description could also stand to include an actual reason ("to promote world peace" or whatever) to go with International Security already having one ("to improve world security").

There's two other pairs of categories that have a similar structure; Civil Rights/Moral Decency and Furtherment of Democracy/Political Stability. Moral decency has a reason provided ("in the interest of moral decency") because "restricting civil freedoms" sounds bad, while Civil Rights doesn't need a reason because "improve worldwide human and civil rights" sounds good. Political Stability has a reason provided ("in the interest of law and order") because "restrict political freedoms" sounds bad, while Furtherment of Democracy doesn't need a reason because "increase democratic freedoms" sounds good. When they wrote the subtitles for the International Security/Global Disarmament categories, they might have been thinking that "slash worldwide military spending" sounded generally good because most WA voters oppose war, when in reality there is a sizable amount of pro-military people in the WA who view slashing spending without any justification as a threat to their security.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

i do not not think disarmament is a good idea, far from. give up your arms you loose your ability to defend yourself.

You haven't read what this thread is actually about.

my bad. (was at the doctor at the moment). i will state this, if one has both increase and limiting weaponry is quite a bit confusing. just saying,

[Imperium Anglorum]

I support Umeria's proposal. The two sides to the category topic seem very unbalanced.

[Umeria]

Bump.

[Recuecn]

I would support this as well.

[Bears Armed]

I would also support this.

[Marxist Germany]

I also would support this change.

[Umeria]

Bump.

[Warzone Codger]

I support this as well.

If I understand this only requires a wording change and no coding?

[Gorundu]

Sounds reasonable. I support.

[Umeria]

Bump.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

I think it would be best if it was the opposite of its opposite. For example:

"Global Disarmament - A resolution in order to take steps towards peace and maintain cordial relations in the international community."

[Zentata]

Yeah, I think it needs to be changed.

[Umeria]

Bump.