Advertisement
by Lenlyvit » Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:02 pm
by Galiantus III » Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:06 pm
The Ice States wrote:Comfed wrote:So? That's the point of campaign telegrams.Refuge Isle wrote: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.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Refuge Isle » Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:17 pm
The Ice States wrote:Refuge Isle wrote: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.
by WayNeacTia » Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:37 pm
Lenlyvit wrote: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.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Haganham » Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:35 am
The Ice States wrote:Comfed wrote:So? That's the point of campaign telegrams.Refuge Isle wrote: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.
by Sedgistan » Mon Jan 29, 2024 4:52 am
by Simone Republic » Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:33 am
Sedgistan wrote: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?
by The Ambis » Fri Feb 09, 2024 9:37 am
Simone Republic wrote: 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.
by Wallenburg » Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:03 pm
by Ostrovskiy » Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:34 pm
Wallenburg wrote:I don't think that TGs should be embedded with links that automatically have game effects.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Youtube Inc
Advertisement