NationStates Jolt Archive

While I was typing in my response to a suggestion in a different thread, I just had this idea... What if endorsements would expire?

Here's why I think this would be a good idea:

After looking at how delegates get chosen in both mediumsized and large regions, I've noticed the status quo most often floats on a base of endorsements by lesser active members who at some point in the past gave their endorsement and then only occasionally log in again. It's those players who end up locking in delegates' positions all the time, despite the fact that they're not really actively playing the game! The same happened to my own position when I was delegate of my home region. After a while I had collected so many of these type of endorsements that all the active players in the region could've revolted against me and I still would've remained delegate (even without booting anyone), purely because I had collected all these 'inactive' endorsements. It didn't even require me trying anymore, nor did anyone bother to 'run' against me. While it's surely nice to have such an entrenched position, I do find it somewhat odd to have major decisions in the game being made over time by the least active players. Eventually, I even got bored with being delegate, as I no longer had to do anything for it! It wasn't an 'active' position anymore, requiring zero amount of politicking to maintain it. And that's actually a bad thing, for a political game.

So, in order to reduce the power of the status quo, and essentially to give a 'stronger' vote to active players, I'm hereby suggesting that endorsements should expire.


How it would function:

Each endorsement would have a timecode attached to it, and after say 2 or 3 weeks or so ('expiry time') it would be removed by the server update. The action of 'renewing' an endorsement would be the same as withdrawing it and giving it again.


Other effects:

In order for nations to maintain their status in endorsements, they'd have to convince others to periodically renew their support, instead of simply relying on a 'let it ride' strategy. Hopefully this will add a more dynamic feel to the game, but it will be more work for those who want to have and maintain power.

I would expect the average endorsement level of delegates to drop. This would make things a bit easier for invaders. While I work against invaders in this game myself, from a game design perspective I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. I've been on the winning side a lot lately anyway ;)

Comments?

Ballotonia


EDIT: made a couple of clarifications to my argumentation above.

I think it would have a very interesting effect of creating a lot more electioeering. Would alos potentially make the region less stable-- not a powerful hub constantly moving forward, always having to get votes.

Interesting idea, that is for sure.

The problem is that the boards in the Region would be overflowed with political messages, which would be highly annoying and making less room for idle talking due to the limited space aviable.

Still, its an intersting thought none the least and would probably work well in small to medium regions.

The problem is that the boards in the Region would be overflowed with political messages, which would be highly annoying and making less room for idle talking due to the limited space aviable.


Technically that is why we're here though. It sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be too hard to code either (he says with the patronising smugness of someone who isn't going to be coding it in any regard).

I must not agree.

coding would be a tad nasty.

coding would be a tad nasty.

How about removing all endorsements from nations that have not logged in for 14 days or more? That would probably be easier than putting a timestamp on every single endorsement.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder of The Realm of Ambrosia

No, I don't like it.

The problem is that the boards in the Region would be overflowed with political messages, which would be highly annoying and making less room for idle talking due to the limited space aviable.


Technically that is why we're here though.

Does that mean that players who don't join the UN aren't really playing the game? No, not quite.


It is a very interesting idea. I am not sure if the constat politking and instibiliatiy of a leader is good or bad though.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] 1 duplicate post deleted. [/modedit]

I actually like this idea, it would be more election like

How about removing all endorsements from nations that have not logged in for 14 days or more? That would probably be easier than putting a timestamp on every single endorsement.

(reading the above as "... endorsement BY nations ..." )

It wouldn't be quite the same, as what I am looking for is a specific user action that endorses the nation. Doing so makes the support granted much more specific than something that was done once and forgotten about.

But, your suggestion should be a lot easier to implement I think.

Ballotonia

I agree with Cogitation. An inactive user penalty would be better than a universal penalty. What about those of us who still want to play the game without have huge amounts of powere? Those who just want to vote for or against UN proposals, or make proposals themselves, for example? The problem with making ALL endorsements time limited is that it mainly punishes people who want to still play the game but don't necessarily feel the need to take on a mjor role, or who otherwise don't have time to take on a major role. These types of players make up the majority of NS players. While it is a fairly good idea, I think it would needs some modification before being implemented

I think the would be better (if implemented) if we only applied it to the feaders and RR. There are many many small regions where the delegate only gets one or two endorsements and nobody considers changing the delegate (like the one I'm in for example, delegate with 3 endorsements). All that would happen there would be people forgetting to re-endorse the delegate and then invasions become much easier.

I think the would be better (if implemented) if we only applied it to the feaders and RR. There are many many small regions where the delegate only gets one or two endorsements and nobody considers changing the delegate (like the one I'm in for example, delegate with 3 endorsements). All that would happen there would be people forgetting to re-endorse the delegate and then invasions become much easier.

Your region has 40 nations in it, and while not in the top 100, it isn't among the small regions in the game by far.

Regions can easily make themselves immune from invasion by having the founder not allowing delegate access to region controls. Your region has a founder, and truly small regions should have no problem in getting the few members they have to leave so the region can be recreated and thus have a founder.

But yes, my proposal would basically require delegates to be more active in politicking or they'd probably lose their position. I file that under the positive effects myself...

Ballotonia

Does that mean that players who don't join the UN aren't really playing the game? No, not quite.

Not at all, only that the purpose of this game is politics.

Whether it be Agarian Communists arguing with Arnarcho-syndicalists or Harry Potter fans arguing which is the best book; this game is built around the combative and competitive discussion of issues and tastes etc.

You don't have to join the UN to argue, and just beacuse your in the UN doesn't mean you're going to be more argumentative.

I don't think this idea hurts anyone (except whoever has to implement it), the expiry on endorsements by inactive nations is part of the way there and an improvement. However I think the time expiry on all endorsements is quite appealing, and that's from a player who was delegate of a region of over eighty.

Not at all, only that the purpose of this game is politics.

[snip]

I don't think this idea hurts anyone (except whoever has to implement it), the expiry on endorsements by inactive nations is part of the way there and an improvement. However I think the time expiry on all endorsements is quite appealing, and that's from a player who was delegate of a region of over eighty.

I agree with this, to a degree. Of course there is already an expiration date for non-active nations... it's linked to deletion. Those who are active in the game, and keep their endorsements the same, likely still want the UN DEL without having to remember hen to re-vote.


Really, I am not so much against this idea as that posts seems, just weighing the present with the proposal.

I've been a delegate based on about 30% non-active nations "legacy" endorsements. It just takes time and swapping. The proposal is not a massive change as it only really affects a few regions.

It does though cut out the issue created by a high turnover of nations who's endorsement swapping is the key to many delegates position (especially in regions of forty or bigger), having to reaffirm endorsements (or removing those granted by inactive nations sooner then their automatic deletion) might inject some more impetus into game politics.

I think it's a great idea. :twisted:

How will nations that only occasionally log on know that their endorsements have expired?

Also, I go on vacation a lot, sometimes for two weeks or more, and what if regional members were to think that I had withdrawn my endorsements?

How will nations that only occasionally log on know that their endorsements have expired?

The way I'd imagine it to work is that a delegate (or the competition) would ask for the endorsement again once it expired. Then it hopefully becomes an actual decision on whether or not to grant it, instead of giving it once and leaving it that way.

Please note there's an opposite to your question: How will nations that only occasionally log on know that their endorsements are still there?

They can check either way. If they care, that is. What changes is the default in case people don't care: from an endorsement staying indefinite, it is removed. It requires a minimum of effort to renew it. If the player feels giving the endorsement isn't worth the effort of a mouseclick once every two weeks... should the system value this as 'political support' ? I know I wouldn't.

Also, I go on vacation a lot, sometimes for two weeks or more, and what if regional members were to think that I had withdrawn my endorsements?

When things change, people are informed of the change. If you fear your delegate or supporters may not know about this, you can inform them.

Ballotonia

Your region has 40 nations in it, and while not in the top 100, it isn't among the small regions in the game by far.
Ok, fine, we aren't a small region, but still I only have 3 endorsements and I am not at all confident that they are non-apathetic enough to renew those once every few weeks.

Regions can easily make themselves immune from invasion by having the founder not allowing delegate access to region controls. Your region has a founder, and truly small regions should have no problem in getting the few members they have to leave so the region can be recreated and thus have a founder.
We had no delegate access for a while. But more recently, Blue Viper has been away for extended periods, so I get access now. We do have a password, though.

But yes, my proposal would basically require delegates to be more active in politicking or they'd probably lose their position. I file that under the positive effects myself...
That's why I recomend it for just the feeders. No other regions even come close to the feeders, and it is there that the delegates are most helped by endorsement swaping. Medium-to-small regions aren't about politicking.
:idea: Idea! How about make it an option the founder can turn on or off? That way if a region wants to have this kind of political stuff going on (if it is RP for example), then they can, and regions that don't don't have to. On by default in the Pacifics/RR.

Ok, fine, we aren't a small region, but still I only have 3 endorsements and I am not at all confident that they are non-apathetic enough to renew those once every few weeks.

***

That's why I recomend it for just the feeders. No other regions even come close to the feeders, and it is there that the delegates are most helped by endorsement swaping. Medium-to-small regions aren't about politicking.

:idea: Idea! How about make it an option the founder can turn on or off? That way if a region wants to have this kind of political stuff going on (if it is RP for example), then they can, and regions that don't don't have to. On by default in the Pacifics/RR.
Well said. I only have five endorsements at the moment, and two of them are in jepordy. (Not from this idea, although it would make them even more so.)

Again, well said.

Yes, I like that a lot better.

:idea: Idea! How about make it an option the founder can turn on or off? That way if a region wants to have this kind of political stuff going on (if it is RP for example), then they can, and regions that don't don't have to. On by default in the Pacifics/RR.

Me likey.

:idea: Idea! How about make it an option the founder can turn on or off? That way if a region wants to have this kind of political stuff going on (if it is RP for example), then they can, and regions that don't don't have to. On by default in the Pacifics/RR.

Me likey.

How about being default-off in the Pacifics and RR? A whole fourth of Nationstates is crammed into those six regions, and as such, when there's a government change, things get REALLY messy. Do you want that to happen every week?

How about being default-off in the Pacifics and RR? A whole fourth of Nationstates is crammed into those six regions, and as such, when there's a government change, things get REALLY messy. Do you want that to happen every week?
Well, the thing is that this was proposed to get rid of delegates who live off of one-time endorsements from people who never log on. That happens most frequently in the pacifics. Besides, if it happens more often then maybe everyone will get used to it and we wont have the kinds of problems a change liek what happend in The Pacifc caused.

How about being default-off in the Pacifics and RR? A whole fourth of Nationstates is crammed into those six regions, and as such, when there's a government change, things get REALLY messy. Do you want that to happen every week?
Well, the thing is that this was proposed to get rid of delegates who live off of one-time endorsements from people who never log on. That happens most frequently in the pacifics. Besides, if it happens more often then maybe everyone will get used to it and we wont have the kinds of problems a change liek what happend in The Pacifc caused.

#1: Nobody fits that description. Any Delegate who has any intention of keeping their position continually campaigns for endorsements.

#2: That system has put good leaders like Ladyrebels and the Twoslit Experiment into power, as well as bad leaders like Francos Spain. It works both ways.

I am opposed to this idea, partially due to the difficulty in implementing this. Plus, I cannot find sufficient arguments for change

#1: Nobody fits that description. Any Delegate who has any intention of keeping their position continually campaigns for endorsements.

#2: That system has put good leaders like Ladyrebels and the Twoslit Experiment into power, as well as bad leaders like Francos Spain. It works both ways.

#1: perhaps that's the way in the RR and/or in the feeder regions, but it is my impression that in most OTHER regions there's often no need for politicking at all.

#2: It's not an issue of 'good vs bad' leaders. It's whether or not those leaders have a sufficient amount of support versus maintaining status quo on endorsements by idlers.

Please note my suggestion wasn't in relation to people who don't log in at all! Their nation will die eventually and things wil resolve themselves. It's the ones who only occasionally log in and pay no attention to the political situation ('the idlers') who end up determining (and maintaining) the status quo.

Ballotonia

Has any action been taking about this subject?

No, and there won't be any action taken.

Please don't reopen 3-year-dead threads. It's called gravedigging.