Founders Approve Proposals?
I think that we should allow region founders approve proposals. I have noticed that it there are often times that there are absolutely no proposals to vote, on, so I believe that if we allow region founders approve proposals, we can speed up the process. I do not believe that founders should propose ideas to the UN, since this will only add to the proposals to sift through. The reason that I propose region founders should be allowed to aprove proposals, instead of suggesting that we simply lower the percentage of approvals required because although founders are often the major leaders of a region, along with regional delegate, but founders have almost no abilities beyond kicking people out of their region. This might be biased since I'm the founder of my region, but not the regional delegate, but I still think that we need to give the founders some additional say in the UN.
My first thought upon reading this was that this sounds like a game mechanics proposal.
I however must disagree with this idea simply because it wouldn't help proposals reach the floor because it would mean that the proposals would need more approvals in order to reach the floor.
Also, any one can submit a proposal whether their a delegate or just a plain old member, as long as they have at least two endorsements form other UN members in their region.
An interesting idea, but I'd have to speak against it. Founder status is, as the game is currently designed, more or less irrelevant to the NSUN. The process in which one becomes a Founder could hardly be considered democratic; why create leaders in the NSUN by such non-democratic means?
Further, while there was a recent gap in resolutions, the current system requiring approval by 6% of the Delegates has performed well in that it regularly has one proposal in the queue to become a resolution -- too many, the NSUN becomes backlogged; too few, the NSUN could be said to cease its functions. If lack of resolutions becomes a problem, we must ask ourselves whether it is more desirable to lower our standards or to simply write better proposals.
There are also some particulars which Flibbleites touched on. How would adding Founders to the de facto endorsement committee alter NSUN function? Would the new number of required endorsements be equal to 6% of the number of Delegates and Founders, or only the Delegates? Should the 6% requirement be lowered or increased, as part of this plan or another one? Such discussion is, indeed, speaking of game mechanics, which falls outside of the NSUN's jurisdiction and generally takes place in the Technical forum.
This idea might work in smaller regions (like yours, Kleptonis), but what about those in the Pacific? It would impose quite an administrative burden on those delegates.
wouldn't this just lead to more people starting up thier own regions to gain more political power?
I might approve of UN members who are founders of regions without delegates automatically becoming delegates, but that's a game mechanics issue.
Hmm, yes, I see your point. Well, I guess that it most likely would make more sense to make the founder the delegate automatically. And it would make it even more difficult to pass proposals too :oops: . And I guess that this is a game mechanics post, but I simply wanted to get the idea written down :oops: .
Effect: someone creates 500 founder puppets in newly created regions, and starts pushing through ones own legislation. Then others start doing this too... the final result is that the biggest puppet masters will control what gets to the UN floor, leaving UN Delegates without any say in the matter.
You should at least limit it to those founders who are UN members as well. Then it's still open to abuse, as each UN member could obtain these powers merely by starting ones own region (and perhaps keeping said region alive with a non-UN puppet). So, you could add the additional qualifier of having to reside in the region of which one is a founder... This means the puppet would be UN and the main nation would sit in the home region. How to plug that loophole... I don't know.
Lower the % needed, or say that whichever proposal with the MOST approvals gets put to vote. Then there'd always be a proposal lined up.
I can pretty much guarantee that this change will not be made. Otherwise, what's the point of delegates?
i wouldn't exactly say that not having a UN resolution to vote on all the time is a bad thing.
however, the way the un is currently run does lead to something i consider a problem. the number of delegates needed to get a proposal to the floor pretty much ensures that the main criteria for moving things forward is the ability of author to send pleasant sounding telegrams to as many delegates as they can find. in other words, it rewards spam more than it rewards good proposals. lowering the percent of delegates needed would mainly lower the threshold of telegrams you need to send, without necessarily doing anything to increase the quality of those that get through.
unfortunately, all the ways i can think of to really fix it involve some fairly significant changes in game mechanics that i doubt anyone would care to do at this point. for example, i would lower the number of approvals needed, probably to a fixed number around 50. and then i would add another layer to the approval process in which regional delegates vote on proposals that got the necessary approvals in the first round. proposals that survived that would get to go before everybody.
but as i said, i doubt anyone would make changes like that now; unless programing that would be much easier than i think it would be. a lesser option might be to slightly lower the percent of delegates needed, set an upper limit on how high the number required can go (maybe 100 or so), and setup an automated telegram that goes out whenever somebody becomes a regional delegate that informs/reminds them of their duties.