NationStates Jolt Archive

Frisbeeteria, while new to the position of Delegate, is nonetheless very diligent in reviewing the UN proposals. However, its diligence is not noticeable due to the fact that only about three proposals in the last month have been worthy of an approval ... and at least one of those was a frivolous vote, on a proposal that stood no chance of acceptance.
... is approved by at least 6% of UN Regional Delegates.
Instead of kvetching about the low quality of UN Proposals, let us instead propose a change in game mechanics. In addition to the 6% approval rating, let's add a 6% rule to permanently table the silly ones. (I'm not married to the 6% - make it 10% or even 20% if you want) Those of us who wade through the junkers could then actively participate by clearing the decks for worthy proposals.

Why should the decision lie exclusively in the hands of one or two moderators? Let the Delegates perform their duty, and keep the garbage out of the UN. Once a proposal has gotten 6% pro OR 6% con, it is automatically removed from contention. I guarantee you'll see more participation from the regional delegates.

The UN has become a dumping ground for silliness. Let's do something about it.

That is impressive, I just posted on this topic in the UN forum, and told him to bring it here, and he's one step ahead!

Also, as a UN delegate, I think this is brilliant, and should be implemented ASAP. It would be sorta like the Veto in the real UN. Letting delegates Veto proposals they think are bad.

count me in on this one, it seems like the front page is always clogged up with proposals that only 10 or 20 people (tops) agree with, and they keep the real issues from being seen.

...ok, so im not a delegate. but i do agree with you, still.

I think that a vote to EDIT or AMEND proposals would be cool. But I don't quite see the advantage to this one. Could someone explain?

If you find a UN proposal that should not be there, report it to the Getting Help (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=help) Page.

Spoffin, once a resolution is Tabled, it disappears from the List Proposals view. If enough regional delegates think it's a dumb idea, then it doesn't get foisted on the rest of the NationStates community. The current system acts as a sort of Pocket Veto, killing the proposal if it isn't approved in 4 or 5 days. This proposal makes that Veto active and trackable.

If Joe Nation doesn't get approved under the current system, he seems to say, "Damn lazy Regional Delegates. Obviously nobody saw my wonderful proposal. I'll just resubmit it until it gets approved." Under my proposal, Joe Nation could look at the list and see that 400 Regional Delegates read it and DIDN'T like it. Maybe he'll rethink it or reword it before posting it again.

If you find a UN proposal that should not be there, report it to the Getting Help (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=help) Page.
I have done so on several occasions. That doesn't help with the dozen or so proposals making either guns or marijuana mandatory, or others that want to make their chosen style of government or economics required for all UN members.

I don't want to wade through the same 22 pages of inanity every couple of days. If we collectively had the ability to clear them from the lists, you can bet that the poorly spelled and frivolous proposals would quickly be relegated to the dustbin. Maybe some of the silly people propsoing them could take their silliness to General, where it is not only tolerated but encouraged. Maybe some of us who are capable of putting one word after another might be inspired to post REAL UN proposals without worrying that they would be lost in the drivel.

Sirocco, I appreciate that nobody like to code changes, but the current mechanism doesn't seem to be enough. Enodia was handling a lot of the UN stuff, and now she's on leave. Who among the mods is next to be exiled to UN maintenance?

I think it's mostly GMC and Steph who deal with the UN proposals. It does seem like an interesting idea, I don't know how easy the coding will be though... but do remember that UN proposals that break the rules should be reported. I suppose under the system you're proposing, the simply 'bad' proposals will get 'conned' and the rulebreaking ones will be reported?

I'll look into this.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

The coding should be a breeze. You simply take the existing coding for Approvals and copy them to Rejections. Instead of Proposals being queued to the UN, they get queued to some hidden table or deleted. Mods could actually search that table to see if the same people spam the UN over and over again. But I'm getting ahead of myself ...

I'd be in favor of leaving the Getting Help system intact for people who abuse the Proposals. Nothing like being rejected by your peers AND being warned by the mods.

This idea has been around before I was founded, originally known as "The Power of Deletion". It hasn't been seen lately, but it seems it has resurfaced.

My position on this has never changed: strong support.

Ok, let's play with this.

How would you propose to do this? And I want numbers.

Given that it takes 6% of UN Delegates to approve, I think it would be fair to require 10% or 12% to table. We all know that there haven't been many UN proposals lately, so we don't want too much of an impediment to creating new ones. Even if the proposal ends up expiring due to time, you'll be able to have a very real vote showing how many delegates think it's worthwhile, versus how many object.

Leave the other rules intact. The Pocket Veto works after what, 4 days? You've got a visible list of those choosing to support the proposal. Below that, you've got an equally visible list of those wishing to Table the motion. Format it like so:Approve: 3 (Pravo Golossa, Most High Kingperson, Stoll)

Table: 4 (SalusaSecondus, Frisbeeteria, Goobergunchia, The Anti-Commi Clan)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 136 more votes to approve or 210 more votes to table)

Voting Ends: Tue Jan 13 2004

The Allied States of Frisbeeteria has voted to table this proposal. [Withdraw Vote, Approve]It would be nice to include a link to an official topic for discussing this issue, but I don't think that's technically feasible to automate, so we'll just have to trust delegates to find their way to the UN Forum on their own, as always. I assume you already have ideas on how to code this, so I'm not sure what else you would be looking for.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Thoughts on percentages? Additiions? Subtractions?

Maybe another name for tabling it (like "Reject"), so that people who don't know what tabling means wouldn't get confused. And no matter how many places you tell them, there will be people who still don't know (note that there are still threads asking how to get images into posts despite the fact that it's in the tech sticky, tech faq, and bbcode faq, the last of which is linked to on the "Post a message" page).

Approve => Approvals
Deny => Denials
Withhold = Abstain = Don't Vote

I thought about using Denial from the very start, but didn't want it to soound so negative. Denial is still nicer that rejection, though.

What if almost 6% of the delegates have approved it? Do we want to require a multiple of the number of people supporting it?

What if almost 6% of the delegates have approved it? Do we want to require a multiple of the number of people supporting it?
If we require 12% to table / deny / reject, then it will always take at minimum a multiple of 2 to reject it. I don't see a need to make it more complicated than that.

If somebody has put together a proposal that 140 delegates liked well enough to endorse but 280 opposed for whatever reason, there is sure to be an extensive Forum discussion about the merits and flaws of the proposal. If the proposal loses in a squeaker of a vote, surely someone will correct some of those flaws and resubmit it.

Thic could be the best way to edit bills by committee. One author tosses it out, then the delegates have their say. We could get far better proposals this way, if people use and understand the system.

Not too many UN proposals?

Are you kidding!?!

Not too many good UN proposals, but still way too many period.

I joined the capture of LUE primarily because it gave me a way to resign my delegacy without looking bad, and all because of the number of propsals, and the telegrams that I recieved to endorse them.

Perhaps 6% to approve proposals, and 2% more denials than approvals to pull it?

THis seems more fair to the poor delegates.

Not too many worthwhile UN proposals?
Geeze, leave off a single word ...

I don't see the number being relative. It needs to be absolute. The approval rate is fixed at 6%. Qaaolchoura seems to be proposing 8%. I proposed 12%. I don't see any way to pre-judge the amount of responses we'll see from UNRDs until the plan is implemented. Given that they will go away on their own if we do NOTHING, I think it's better to err on the high side.

If SalusaSecondus codes it at 12% and no proposals ever get voted down, then we need to reduce the number to 10% or 8%. If he puts it in at 12% and nothing ever makes it to the approved stage, then the number needs to go up to 15% or 20%. Trial and error, lads. It's a new idea. You've got to test it to see how it works.

Not too many worthwhile UN proposals?
Geeze, leave off a single word ...

I don't see the number being relative. It needs to be absolute. The approval rate is fixed at 6%. Qaaolchoura seems to be proposing 8%. I proposed 12%. I don't see any way to pre-judge the amount of responses we'll see from UNRDs until the plan is implemented. Given that they will go away on their own if we do NOTHING, I think it's better to err on the high side.

If SalusaSecondus codes it at 12% and no proposals ever get voted down, then we need to reduce the number to 10% or 8%. If he puts it in at 12% and nothing ever makes it to the approved stage, then the number needs to go up to 15% or 20%. Trial and error, lads. It's a new idea. You've got to test it to see how it works.
Oh sorry.

And no, not 8%, 2% more rejections than it has approvals. Now we are even.

I'd say 10%, it is a compromise for u 2, and it works well. Besides, if about 250 delegates have the time to reject a proposal, it must be bad.
10% is also such an easy number, 8% sounds too close to the 6% and a little unfair, and 12% is too hard to get...

I like both the idea of having denials and abstentions.

This hasn't been mentioned, however I believe that if TPTB (The Powers That Be) decide it is possible someone needs to write the proposal and see if the delegates will forward the proposal to the general membership and than if we will make it a law.

I like both the idea of having denials and abstentions.

This hasn't been mentioned, however I believe that if TPTB (The Powers That Be) decide it is possible someone needs to write the proposal and see if the delegates will forward the proposal to the general membership and than if we will make it a law.

We don't need abstentions, because that is the same as not voting pro or con. We don't need to write a proposal for it, because to change game mechanics you do it in Moderation, or sometimes technical if it may require coding issues (like this one).

We feel that even though it is possible to implement a proposal that changes the working structure of the United Nations without the approval of the UN members themselves those changes should not be implemented by any outside force. We recognize the dedication and hard working nature of the Nation States staff and affirm the requirement of their approval for any meta-rule proposal. [A meta-rule is any rule that changes the structure of the rules themselves.]

We feel that it is imperative to adhere to the existing traditions and requirements of our august body. Why should an idea settled by the incredibly small percentage of us in the topic area be forced upon the general membership? We reiterate that after a proposal has been determined to be possible to implement it should still be required to proposed and adopted according the rule of law.

Indigo
Master of the Indigo Islands

We reiterate that after a proposal has been determined to be possible to implement it should still be required to proposed and adopted according the rule of law.
Can't argue with the sentiment, but the logic doesn't quite work. Since we by definition can't propose changes to game mechanics in the UN, how is it that we are set up this proposal?

The rules of the Forums say to come to Technical for "Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work." The UN FAQ states "The UN is not there to request new game features." I think that's clear enough. Which is why I brought it up here.

I would assume that SalusaSecondus would investigate to see if the coding is feasible, then take the idea up with [ violet ] and other moderation staff before implementing it. It's not really a fundamental change in the way the game is played - it just turns the Veto from passive to active. A small group of Regional Delegates has always (in the short time I've been playing, at least) controlled whether issues reach the UN floor, via the Approval process. Nothing new has been added, except to make rejection a bit more vehement.

If anything, this feature should increase UN Delegate activity. Seems to me that's a good thing, both for the players and for the game.

Sometime ago I suggested a simpler way; limit the number of proposals allowed at any one time to 10/20 and give Delegate's 2 weeks to vote.

You'd have less proposals to wade through thus finding the good one's plus you'd have more time for it reach quorum thus giving us more time to debate an individual proposals merit in full.

limit the number of proposals allowed at any one time to 10/20
The problem with this approach is that you have to be lucky enough to find an open slot to make your Proposal. Rather than seeing only good propositions, some spammer with nothing but time on his hands will be more likely to propose something dumb in the only slot open today.

Only UN members can get endorsements, only UN members with two endorsements can write proposals, and nobody should have more than one UN member nation. Almost anyone can get two endorsements somewhere, so everyone has an equal shot at participating. There are certain democratic processes necessary to make the game enjoyable. Limiting the total isn't the solution.

We reiterate that after a proposal has been determined to be possible to implement it should still be required to proposed and adopted according the rule of law.
Can't argue with the sentiment, but the logic doesn't quite work. Since we by definition can't propose changes to game mechanics in the UN, how is it that we are set up this proposal?

The rules of the Forums say to come to Technical for "Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work." The UN FAQ states "The UN is not there to request new game features." I think that's clear enough. Which is why I brought it up here.

We believe that since this proposal is a change in the game mechanics of the United Nations and not a change in Nation States itself it should be approved under the United Nations rules of order. We propose that TPTB (The Powers That Be) clarify the situation.

Indigo
Master of the Indigo Islands

a change in the game mechanics of the United Nations and not a change in Nation States itself
I don't get you there. It would require a change in the underlying game code if implemented, and that's a change in NS pretty much any way you look at it.

What the heck, I'm still anxiously awaiting Salusa's feedback on our suggestions. A bit of additional clarification couldn't hurt.

It would be against the rules for any player to submit this proposal to the UN.

It would be against the rules for any player to submit this proposal to the UN.
But not against the rules to promote the concept in the UN Forums, I hope. I'm not trying to fob umpteen mentions at them, but I would like to see more comments here.

Have I commented? Well, even if I haven't, I've been following this thread and I like the idea, though I have yet to become a delegate... anywhere... and the proposal list has always been low on my priorities. *shrugs*

I'll look into this.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

When you looked at this, did you find out if it can be done? Or if it will?

I'm following this, but this probably won't happen for a bit. Game changes are slowing down in the near future.

Awesome, and congrats to Freesbeteria on a good idea!

One problem I have with this is that I can't see any proposals getting deleted for it. Getting 8 or 10 or 12 % of delegates would take a massive forum effort and several days, and by then it would almost be deleted anyway. All you've done is give the spammer loads of publicity. Add to this that there are dozens of useless proposals at any one time and it won't solve the problem in the slightest.

If it were to be implemented, something like 2% of delegates or double the number of approvals which ever is highest would be far more effective. If the object is to keep the proposals list clean, there is no point at all in implementing a system that makes it so hard to get rid of a proposal that it never happens.

Another problem I have with this, is that once you have for and against votes, you degrade the roll of the general vote by UN members. The object of the proposal system is not to vote for or against a motion, but to show your support for putting it to a vote. This idea would effectively create a two-tier UN vote, which isn’t how the game was designed.

A “report this proposal to moderators” link in the proposal list and a more advanced search would, in my opinion be more worthwhile in making the UN more effective and user friendly.

Views?

Several excellent points there, IM.
Getting 8 or 10 or 12 % of delegates would take a massive forum effort and several days
I don't think anyone knows how many Delegates scan the UN Proposals on a regular basis. I know that I do so frequently, but rarely do I find a proposal that I want to click the Approve on. Every time, though, there are dozens that I would gladly vote Deny. In the wake of the Euthansia uproar, I think we have at least 10% of the UNRDs actively visiting the proposals and/or Forums regularly. I could of course be wrong.

Given that this hasn't been tried before, I frankly picked numbers out of a hat. We have to start somewhere, and double the approval rating seemed a fair place to start.
2% of delegates or double the number of approvals which ever is highest would be far more effective
Double the number as measured when, IM? This is why I'm pushing for an absolute percentage rather than a relative percentage. If there is one approval and then three folks deny it, does it mathematically go away? There has to be a target number or target date. We're using target dates now. I think target numbers would be more fair.
This idea would effectively create a two-tier UN vote
I think we already have a two-tier vote, IM. No proposal hits the floor until it's been vetted by the RDs. The system is weighted so that only approval is a consideration. I'm actually trying to offer balance to that system.
A “report this proposal to moderators” link in the proposal list
This would clearly be easier to use than the current "Getting Help" page, but that's just a modification of page layout. I'd rather see a "Getting Help" button up top alongside the http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_faq.gif FAQ and http://www.nationstates.net/forum/templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_search.gif Search buttons for convenience, but that's just me.

Having Moderators clean the UN is also a two-tier system - some individual decides that a given proposal is inappropriate, and then a mod has to chase it down and decide for him/herself whether they agree. That's even less democratic than the system I'm proposing.

By adding this feature, we could take the decision load off of a single moderator and spread it among the RDs. Representative Democracy in action, pal!

Thanks for the reasoned feedback, Infinite Monkeys. Looking forward to more.

Frisbeeteria, while new to the position of Delegate, is nonetheless very diligent in reviewing the UN proposals.


No offense but I’m always weary of those who refer to themselves in the third person. -)




However, its diligence is not noticeable due to the fact that only about three proposals in the last month have been worthy of an approval ... and at least one of those was a frivolous vote, on a proposal that stood no chance of acceptance.

Yeah, things really seemed to go downhill after the Hippo proposal failed….


... is approved by at least 6% of UN Regional Delegates.


Instead of kvetching about the low quality of UN Proposals, let us instead propose a change in game mechanics. In addition to the 6% approval rating, let's add a 6% rule to permanently table the silly ones. (I'm not married to the 6% - make it 10% or even 20% if you want) Those of us who wade through the junkers could then actively participate by clearing the decks for worthy proposals.


Very interesting idea. Immediately I don’t like it, but I need to work through it to figure what the negatives would be. As a positive, I like the idea of a democracy in vote, one way or the other.


Why should the decision lie exclusively in the hands of one or two moderators? Let the Delegates perform their duty, and keep the garbage out of the UN. Once a proposal has gotten 6% pro OR 6% con, it is automatically removed from contention. I guarantee you'll see more participation from the regional delegates.


If the mods wants the responsibility, I gladly give it to them in this regard. The Mods are reliable.

But, the better point to me is if they do not want to wade through all that, then putting more responsibility on the group in this way is great in that it would yield more ownership from the community of Ns as a whole. It would be great to hand over some reigns of self-government to the NS community.


The UN has become a dumping ground for silliness. Let's do something about it.

This is a personal opinion against silliness that offends me. Sir/Mad’am, silliness is a way of life and as such should always be allowed to be considered, if it meets the other criteria for a legal UN proposal. I believe silliness deserves a chance.

That said, I still find something interesting in the suggestion of being able to vote “No” in that way that you have suggested.


Given that it takes 6% of UN Delegates to approve, I think it would be fair to require 10% or 12% to table. We all know that there haven't been many UN proposals lately, so we don't want too much of an impediment to creating new ones. Even if the proposal ends up expiring due to time, you'll be able to have a very real vote showing how many delegates think it's worthwhile, versus how many object.


I would strongly disagree with the suggestion of 6-12%. This is too small a number, and opens up the door for griefers. It might be possible to keep out 6-12% if a large enough group worked together. This would be an effect tool for shutting out groups or ideas opposed by the most active, again assuming they could amass a group of 6-12%.


I would suggest that it have to be a 33% vote to close out submitted proposals, if we were to go that route.


I do fear, this could attract even more of an elitist attitude to the game though, which would not be great.


Regardless, great suggestion.

33% to close a proposal? That’s 773 delegates to close one proposal (at time of writing), It’s simply not going to happen.

I think this is one of the most interesting suggestions to come up in tech for a long time, but I think there is some ambiguity in what this system would be trying to achieve. It should be purely a spam control measure, to weed out proposals which should never have been submitted in the first place, in which case it should be set at a level where something like 50% of all pointless proposals would be weeded out by the delegates. I accept that we don’t know what this would take, but I am very sceptical that it’s going to happen if it takes more than a hundred at the maximum to delete it.

When I suggested “2% of delegates or double the number of approvals which ever is highest would be far more effective” I was thinking about deletion in real time, but I realise that that isn’t how the game works, so it would have to be taken at the update. Open to abuse I know, but then the update is used to get the delegate position in the first place, and I can’t see a hundred people timing votes to beat the update for a single proposal.

Perhaps something along the lines of a certain level of support, which would then prevent a proposal from being deleted, for example 6% to go to vote, 3% to protect from deletion would prevent abuse of the feature. What I can guarantee is that less that 33% of the delegates in the game are active (I know I’m not with my delegate nation) and that less than 100% of those would vote on any proposal. To set the figure too high will just be a waste of salusa’s time in implementing it.

I am worried though by some of the talk suggesting that this is a vote on the issues in the proposals.

I still find something interesting in the suggestion of being able to vote “No” in that way that you have suggested.

Delegates already have huge power in the main vote. If they oppose the issues raised, then that is the time to vote against it, not in the proposal list. The option should not be to vote “No”, but to vote “This proposal is spam”. A fixed point at which a proposal becomes safe from deletion will prevent this to some extent, so no majority can delete a proposal once enough think it is worthwhile even if it doesn’t yet have the support to go to vote. If the proposal list turns into effectively, the lower house of the UN however, deciding on all the issues then only passing them to the upper house of the general vote to be summarily put into law, then that is a corruption of the system which I would oppose.

I do of course support moderator powers to manage the UN; a two - or should that be three - tier system to that extent is necessary. I don’t think anyone has a problem with moderators having more power than ordinary players.

I think the magic number here would be about half of the active delegates.

We just had a heavily telegrammed campaign about euthanasia, and the net outcome was in the neighborhood of 21000 total votes. Not 21000 participants, mind you - the RDs from the huge regions were among those voting. If someone has a quick way to count the delegates voting, I'd be glad to see it, but I suspect it was in the neighborhood of 400-500 tops.

am worried though by some of the talk suggesting that this is a vote on the issues in the proposals.
No matter how we phrase it, some of the members are going to treat it as a vote. There are delegates who go through and Approve spam proposals every day because it amuses them for some reason. We'll have the same thing happen on the other side, regardless of how and why we set it up. I just accept that and move on. The ideal here is that we as delegates are approving or rejecting issues that SHOULD come before the General Assembly, regardless of how we would vote.
No offense but I?m always weary of those who refer to themselves in the third person. -)
Gimme a break, Ackbar -). This was a straight cut-n-paste job from the UN Forum, which IS supposed to be in-character. And I was effectively brand new to the etiquette of these forums.

I'm not against silliness, I'm against the UN Proposals being used as a dump for silly spam when we have General for that. What prompted this whole thing was a proposal from an 11-year-old complaining that her pie was too big. I'm not the only one visibly annoyed at the dumb stuff that gets entered over and over again. There is a difference between silliness and stupidity, and I used 'silly' rather than 'stupid' in a mild attempt at diplomacy. I don't mind voting the occasional Hippo issue. I just don't want to be buried in Hippos.
This is too small a number, and opens up the door for griefers.
I'm missing something here. I can see a region being griefed by a bunch of UN members, but are there really that many griefing regions that have ongoing UN delegates? Even the (four?) Pacifics and the RR could account for a total of only 5 votes here. Who has 100 Regioinal Delegates hanging on their beck and call? At 33% or total delegates, this is pointless. At 33% of ACTIVE delegates, I'd agree with you. The difficulty is defining 'active'.

Thanks for the feedback!

Somebody just gravedug this in the UN Forum:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71974

From Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:58 am
I'm in favor of a more technical solution.

Provide two buttons. One is "APPROVE" one is "DISAPPROVE".

To reach quorum,
APPROVE > DISAPPROVE
(APPROVE + DISAPPROVE) > 5%

This way, inactive Delegates are left out of the process.

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

"That which is old shall become new again." There is also a discussion of active versus inactive delegates, as well as delegate Forum readers. Obviously, this isn't a new problem.

Somebody just gravedug this in the UN Forum:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71974

From Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:58 am
I'm in favor of a more technical solution.

Provide two buttons. One is "APPROVE" one is "DISAPPROVE".

To reach quorum,
APPROVE > DISAPPROVE
(APPROVE + DISAPPROVE) > 5%

This way, inactive Delegates are left out of the process.

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

"That which is old shall become new again." There is also a discussion of active versus inactive delegates, as well as delegate Forum readers. Obviously, this isn't a new problem.

Heheheh. :lol: I remember that. :)

No, this isn't a new problem.

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

The UN is really weird with it's views, so I'm not in it. They always wreck my economy.

Somebody just gravedug this in the UN Forum:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71974

From Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:58 am
I'm in favor of a more technical solution.

Provide two buttons. One is "APPROVE" one is "DISAPPROVE".

To reach quorum,
APPROVE > DISAPPROVE
(APPROVE + DISAPPROVE) > 5%

This way, inactive Delegates are left out of the process.

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

"That which is old shall become new again." There is also a discussion of active versus inactive delegates, as well as delegate Forum readers. Obviously, this isn't a new problem.

Heheheh. :lol: I remember that. :)

No, this isn't a new problem.

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

<---- wishes that the old RP-ish thread involving Westrogocadae [I can never spell that right], Stubby, and Ziobia on this topic hadn't been purged

And no, not 8%, 2% more rejections than it has approvals. Now we are even.

Problem is that one person could reject it before anyone else votes on it. I'd say leave it a fixed rate based on total number of delegates.

No offense but I’m always weary of those who refer to themselves in the third person. -)

you forget that our 'nicks' arn't our personal names, they are our countries. While OOC they are used as our names, whne IC they are actually reffering to our country and therefore we have to speak in third person as representatives.
This is an OOC thread though.

No offense but I’m always weary of those who refer to themselves in the third person. -)

you forget that our 'nicks' arn't our personal names, they are our countries. While OOC they are used as our names, whne IC they are actually reffering to our country and therefore we have to speak in third person as representatives.
This is an OOC thread though.


Yes, I assure you that I was joking in that regard (tho in RL, it is true I don't trust those who use 3rd person to describe themselves).

I still say the % sugested it too small, and coul dleave to griefing. All a gorup woul dneed to do would be to mobablize, and vote no on all proposals always.

I still say the % sugested it too small, and coul dleave to griefing. All a gorup woul dneed to do would be to mobablize, and vote no on all proposals always.
I still don't see this happening, Ackbar. I understand that region crashers are UN members and travel in packs, but are there really a significant number of UN delegates who participate in griefing? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Only delegates have the right to approve or table a measure. Members don't get a chance until it's in the General Assembly (quorum).

Hmm. Curiousity forces me to ask another question. If a region has a change in UN delegate either naturally or via crashing or griefing, does their vote disappear from the Approvals process, remain attached to their name (since they WERE the legitimate authority) or carry over to the newly appointed Delegate?

Not that it's likely to matter much - crashers probably don't pay a lot of attention to the UN. :)

I still don't see this happening, Ackbar. I understand that region crashers are UN members and travel in packs, but are there really a significant number of UN delegates who participate in griefing? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it would be interesting if legal invaders took a look at the United Nation, to see what the options there were.

From the UN Forum (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2641387)
Sorry, but I'm opposed to national sovereignty proposals. They would take a lot of fun and intrigue out of the UN, whose purpose is precisely to be a game of national sovereignty limitations, if passed.
I appreciate your statement, and understand fully if you chose to not support it. Still, as a United Nations Regional Delegate, I'd still like your approval so that the rest of your Region (and others) could have the opportunity to vote.

I've taken the position that I'll approve well-written proposals even if I personally oppose them, as the approval process isn't voting on the merits of the bill, but rather of the merits of *debating* the bill.
Just a thought to add to this proposal. I like to recommend that when (not if!) the server issues are resolved and we can seriously think about adding this concept, that language like (the bold portion above) be added somewhere on the Approval screen of the List Proposals view. That might help with those who (quite reasonably) oppose the idea of two-tier voting.

Also, [bump]

Thanks, some good points. And your right, we will look at this after the server's been dealt with.

Thanks, some good points. And your right, we will look at this after the server's been dealt with.

/me smirks.

"...dealt with...." If you (mis)read that properly, it sounds almost sinister! :lol: "...after the server's been dealt with." :lol:

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

The way the server's been acting lately (worse than usual even), I wouldn't mind giving it a good dealing.

:twisted:

I still don't see this happening, Ackbar. I understand that region crashers are UN members and travel in packs, but are there really a significant number of UN delegates who participate in griefing? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


I think it would be interesting if legal invaders took a look at the United Nation, to see what the options there were.


Also, I hate when I hit "Edit" V "Quote."


darned bad luck

Well if it would get rid of all the proposals that don't quite merit deletion, this is one delegate ready to wield this new power.

Well if it would get rid of all the proposals that don't quite merit deletion, this is one delegate ready to wield this new power.

After being directed here by Frisbeeteria (from the UN forum) and then looking over all of the current proposals, I [i]think[\i] I'm in favor of the idea of tabling proposals.

Though I'd like to think that if a proposal is tabled that a nice form letter encouraging them to create and debate a draft version in the forums and try again later would be in order.

How many proposals are posted in draft form for comments before going into the queue of no return?

How many proposals are posted in draft form for comments before going into the queue of no return?
Since I've been active ... maybe 5-10. Compare that to the 10-15 proposals submitted daily, and it's a bit of a disparity.

By the way, I recently found out that the American English "table" means to bury, hide, put under the table ... but in British English it means to bring it to the table for a vote.

We'd better table 'table'.

How many proposals are posted in draft form for comments before going into the queue of no return?
Since I've been active ... maybe 5-10. Compare that to the 10-15 proposals submitted daily, and it's a bit of a disparity.


By the way, I recently found out that the American English "table" means to bury, hide, put under the table ... but in British English it means to bring it to the table for a vote.

We'd better table 'table'.

By that are speaking the Queen's English or this side of the pond's?

That is better than I thought (i.e. the ratio of blind proposals vs. feedback based proposals).

As for American English "tabling", well, I'm going to respectifully disagree. In a system like Robert's I *believe* that the intent of tabling something wasn't to sink or remove business, but to delay business. Though that does sound like putting something under the table, I think it meant to literally take something off the debate floor and set it on the table to wait til later.

Interestingly enough, a motion to move the question is to put something to a vote! :D

That is better than I thought (i.e. the ratio of blind proposals vs. feedback based proposals).
I think you misunderstood.

5-10 proposals brought out in committee in TWO MONTHS.
10-15 blinds submitted DAILY.

Interesting Idea, I wonder however is it spam for folks to constantly TM a delegate or anyone about their votes, Everytime I vote in any way I get a inbox full of messages threats, suggestions and whatnot about how I voted, this is why I rarely vote. it gets me on the spammer lists.
I reserve the final vote for myself however if I have no opinion I let my people vote on teh Ep offsite board to decide how I should vote,
I have other policies on UN voting, but now is not the time.

Interesting Idea, I wonder however is it spam for folks to constantly TM a delegate or anyone about their votes
Loop, can I just give you a rousing "Huh?"

I'm guessing you thought you were answering a different topic, because I can't find a single thing in this one that relates to this response.

Thanks, some good points. And you're right, we will look at this after the server's been dealt with.
Apologies for some serious gravedigging, but I wanted to bring this back up.

The server's been dealt with (mostly). Can we look at this idea again?

Please? *pouty look*

It would be a really good way to sort through the slush pile.

*suddenly realizes that he's been supporting this for over a year now*

I'm pretty late into this thread, but I do agree with the idea of being able to reject a proposal... but, if this has been addressed before - please, let me know where in the thread, I did skim over the four pages but certainly not thoroughly - if the power to reject proposals is coded/granted to Delegates, does that mean that the Moderators will no longer sift through them for the inappropriate and illegal ones?

does that mean that the Moderators will no longer sift through them for the inappropriate and illegal ones?From somewhere on page one, in response to a similar question by sirocco
The coding should be a breeze. You simply take the existing coding for Approvals and copy them to Rejections. Instead of Proposals being queued to the UN, they get queued to some hidden table or deleted. Mods could actually search that table to see if the same people spam the UN over and over again. But I'm getting ahead of myself ...

I'd be in favor of leaving the Getting Help system intact for people who abuse the Proposals. Nothing like being rejected by your peers AND being warned by the mods.

What if almost 6% of the delegates have approved it? Do we want to require a multiple of the number of people supporting it?
A simple solution, as I see it, would be to have the system favour letting proposals go to the floor, by saying that after (for example) 5% of delegates approve, the proposal gets protected from being removed, even if it gets the required number of disapprovals.

I like this idea.

6% is a good number to table it. It should be made clear however, that tabling is only for spam proposals and proposals that aren't worthy of consideration, not proposals that are well written but you don't agree iwth.

I would also suggest that if this proposal is emplemtned, that the time for a proposal to get approvals be increased, to say 10 days. In that time most of the worthless proposals would have been weeded out so they don't clog up the list, while good proposals would have enough time to gain support.

I agree completly with this idea and hope to see it implemented in the near future.

I'd like it too! This seems great! And the moderators would still delete the ones that are profane or Insulting.

I'd like it too! This seems great! And the moderators would still delete the ones that are profane or Insulting.

I agree. The moderators should still police the submissions.

Though I think the number necessary to remove a proposal should be more than the 6% required on the basis that there *are* UN members who will be brutally honest and admit that they play the game just to vote down good proposals and vote in favour of anything they consider a joke. (Personally I think they are spending time in the wrong game.)

This would be a great help - it would help move the good proposals up front, where they are easier to find, and you won't have to worry about having your proposal shadowed over this really stupid one.


But on other hand, this would mean less entries for my Hall of Shame... (suddenly shocked) What am I talking about?!? Good riddance!

the one problem i can see with this system is that it might lead to an increase in the spammy nature of UN proposal making. imagine a controversial proposal moving close to quorum - now instead of just its supporters contacting every delegate who looks like they may even vaguely support it, you'll have its opponents in on the act too. personally - as a person who has done most of the leg work behind the most controversial UN resolution in history and one that used to be - i'd like to see the UN changed to both give delegates a no vote before it goes to the floor and reduce the sheer amount of telegramming necessary to do anything in the UN.

the one problem i can see with this system is that it might lead to an increase in the spammy nature of UN proposal making. imagine a controversial proposal moving close to quorum - now instead of just its supporters contacting every delegate who looks like they may even vaguely support it, you'll have its opponents in on the act too. personally - as a person who has done most of the leg work behind the most controversial UN resolution in history and one that used to be - i'd like to see the UN changed to both give delegates a no vote before it goes to the floor and reduce the sheer amount of telegramming necessary to do anything in the UN.

Only for the short-term.

All players have the ability to add nations to their ignore list. The only players that would *constantly* telegram UN Delegates via spam campaigns to ask for them to "reject" a proposal (not a resolution) would quickly find themselves blocked by pro- and anti-UN Delegates alike.

It takes a fair amount of time to read 10 to 15 pages of proposals twice a week. To then telegram for something you don't believe in ... I think we are talking about only a few people who would really do that.

Usually people work hard (including aggressive telegram campaigns) for things they actually feel strongly about. When people don't like something, they are much more likely to just fire off a nasty telegram to a few people than to hundreds.

the one problem i can see with this system is that it might lead to an increase in the spammy nature of UN proposal making. imagine a controversial proposal moving close to quorum - now instead of just its supporters contacting every delegate who looks like they may even vaguely support it, you'll have its opponents in on the act too.
You still get spammed when as a delegate you vote FOR a resolution someone wants you to vote against... this might expand the problem to spamming people against proposals as well as resolutions, but I can't see that really as a downfall.... if you are willing to work hard enough at something to telegram that many people, kudos to you.

I thought that I mentioned this a while ago, must not have.

We have no plans of changing the resolution process at this point in time. I've taken note of the debate here, and when we decide to continue it, will review it. Until then, must this thread continue in Tech taking up screen space?

Until then, must this thread continue in Tech taking up screen space?
Reckon you could lock it. I asked for an answer, I got an answer. Thanks.

Then I shall do that. Remember, this thread is not for nought.

You've given me lots to think on and work with.