Adding Approving Etc Button To Campaigns

[Lenlyvit]

Like Sedge, I kind of like this idea. However, I have to majorly agree with the "no" camp on this one. This is a solution to fix a problem that doesn't exist as of now, as others have said, because it's so easy to get things to quorum at this time as evidenced by the GA queue. One of the major reasons I see as to why any proposal in a queue like this may slide out of queue is because it's in the queue for so long, which means approving delegates losing their delegacies and new delegates coming in or no replacement delegate at all coming in.

[Galiantus III]

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. Making campaigns more effective would therefore not result in a relevant or significant amount of low-quality proposals making quorum where they would not already.

"The system has noise, so lowering the median won't change anything."

Yes. We know low quality proposals sometimes make it through quorum, and high quality proposals sometimes don't. But it's fine: there's more to the entire system than just quality. Also, as we are having this conversation, the GA queue is backed up about a month out. Proposals are not having trouble getting to quorum. This isn't fixing a problem.

[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.

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.

I never said that it was quality check. I said it was a lower house check. You can wish for that to work however you want it to, but while you're complaining about "established authors" not being able to get certain proposals to quorum, what you're really complaining about is not understanding the approval criteria of minor delegates -- blaming it on disengagement. Rather than bother to self-assess if what you're selling is really what they want, you're asking for a system to expedite rubber stamping.

[WayNeacTia]

Like Sedge, I kind of like this idea. However, I have to majorly agree with the "no" camp on this one. This is a solution to fix a problem that doesn't exist as of now, as others have said, because it's so easy to get things to quorum at this time as evidenced by the GA queue. One of the major reasons I see as to why any proposal in a queue like this may slide out of queue is because it's in the queue for so long, which means approving delegates losing their delegacies and new delegates coming in or no replacement delegate at all coming in.

I agree. This was a problem created by the OP and a couple of others. The idea looks good on the surface, but will do little to actually solve the problem and will inevitably back the queue up even further. If this is done, perhaps admin should look at raising quorum to 15% to at least bring it within shouting distance of being in line with most legislatures?

[Haganham]

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.

I don't think there's any problem with the quorum. The issue is unavoidable so long as WA voting is tied to regional administration. It is inevitable WA delegates will have much higher priorities then tracking the WA.

[Sedgistan]

Bumping this thread up out of the grave for further consideration. I continue to feel this is a sensible QoL addition. If it were already implemented, I can't imagine anyone would argue it would be beneficial to inconvenience players by removing the buttons, to encourage they read the proposal text first.

I'm open to different thoughts on how the information is presented, to encourage more than just blind button clicking. e.g. do people think it would be strong beneficial to include the proposal text in the telegram? spoilered?

[Simone Republic]

Bumping this thread up out of the grave for further consideration. I continue to feel this is a sensible QoL addition. If it were already implemented, I can't imagine anyone would argue it would be beneficial to inconvenience players by removing the buttons, to encourage they read the proposal text first.

I'm open to different thoughts on how the information is presented, to encourage more than just blind button clicking. e.g. do people think it would be strong beneficial to include the proposal text in the telegram? spoilered?

What do you think, Sedge? You've been on the receiving end of my campaign TGs, and I assume you read the actual proposal that I submitted. Do you click through on the link to the text, or read it off the queue? (I assume that you do actually read it in compliance with GA 122). And the same for the other folks here who are delegates. I've never been a delegate myself and I suspect I won't read TGs like a "typical" delegate.

[The Ambis]

And the same for the other folks here who are delegates. I've never been a delegate myself and I suspect I won't read TGs like a "typical" delegate.

Not a current delegate, but when I was, I honestly didn't read many telegrams. Most of them just got deleted. However, if I had a button, more might be actually read and approved.

[Wallenburg]

I don't think that TGs should be embedded with links that automatically have game effects.

[Ostrovskiy]

I don't think that TGs should be embedded with links that automatically have game effects.

I mean, they already have move buttons