NationStates Jolt Archive

In the case that some proposals are eliminated because they are categorized improperly, why not make, allow or permit the United Nations member nations to determine what they believe would be the appropriate category - rather than elminating the proposal?

True, some proposals might better be categorized in another, but eliminating them does not serve the purposes of the game, and neither broadens involvement.

That silly proposals should be eliminated is not the question. It is rather, that good ones are not given an opportunity to be discussed or voted upon because of an inerreant oversight or honest misunderstanding, and is eliminated by a select few opinions, rather than modified by a broad based consensus - which is the purpose of the United Nations.

You can bring any proposal to the UN forum for discussion prior to submitting.

There is a link to the rules (Before you make a proposal) in the Submit a Proposal window. It contains the category rules as well.

There is ample opportunity for a player to fix the category prior to submitting it. I don't think your complaint has merit.

You can bring any proposal to the UN forum for discussion prior to submitting.

There is a link to the rules (Before you make a proposal) in the Submit a Proposal window. It contains the category rules as well.

There is ample opportunity for a player to fix the category prior to submitting it. I don't think your complaint has merit.

There are a few (and I honestly mean just a few) exceptions to this generalization ...

When I submitted my International Disaster Assistance (later the Good Samartian Laws) proposal a second time, it was deleted on the grounds that it was in the wrong category. The draft proposal was discussed here in this forum and the members here felt it could fit into several categories, including Political Stability. The mod who deleted it never told me what category it should be, but Cog felt that it actually represented *two* resolutions and hence two categories, something not even the mod who deleted it felt.

My point is that as our resolutions get more and more complex, I can see situations were even asking for help isn't going to help.

My suggestion though is nations shouldn't get warnings *if* they asked for help and can put forward a legitimate case that they were acting on a group consensus, but while annoying to loose 100+ endorsements (which I did at the time), you can always resubmit any proposal.

Isn't this a suggestion to change the game mechanics?

I may be wrong :-)

I think it is just a general comment that perfectly good and decent proposals are deleted because of one single tiny thing - being in the wrong category.

It should also be noted that neither Mods not players have the ability to change a category once a proposal has been submitted.

Players should review their posts prior to posting, as there is no second chance. Mods have a Delete button, and the option to issue a warning if they so choose. That's pretty much it.

I feel any nation should have the option to "Withdraw" a proposal they posted, such as they have the power to withdraw an endorsment. I know this would be changing game mechanics, but still it might be a good idea. And yes, sometimes it is difficult to decide which category a resolution should be in, since sometimes none of them seems to fit exactly. So a proposing nation should also not get a warning for an error as this, rather maybe the mod should also have a "change category" button, so he can do this instead of deleting a good proposal which was either accidentally, or by the difficulty to fit it to any particular category, categorized wrongly (in the mod's estimation)

I feel any nation should have the option to "Withdraw" a proposal they posted, such as they have the power to withdraw an endorsment.

maybe the mod should also have a "change category" button
Both reasonable ideas, both unlikely to be implemented, but I don't recall anyone raising either of them lately. Go post your suggestion in the Technical forum, and be sure to summarize your case before posting. Salusa usually listens to well-presented cases, even if he doesn't always have time or ability to code them.

Both reasonable ideas, both unlikely to be implemented, but I don't recall anyone raising either of them lately. Go post your suggestion in the Technical forum, and be sure to summarize your case before posting. Salusa usually listens to well-presented cases, even if he doesn't always have time or ability to code them.

I'll try that when I have enough time (which unfortunately isn't the case right now)

Don't you think the options in the poll are a little . . . biased? :rolleyes:

Just a little.

Yay, sour grapes.

Just a little.

Yay, sour grapes.

Well, having gotten a warning through the system and reading that the mod could have just deleted my proposal, which was cleared here by several long-standing nations, I can understand why somebody would be upset if their proposal was deleted for a misunderstand *and* they were rewarded with a black mark.

That said, the two suggestions above:

Moderators changing the categories and delegates withdrawing their endorsements are kinda good ideas.

The first one is wonderful. Though I can't read minds, I can say that when I submit a proposal it isn't the category that I care about, but the text of the resolution. The categories are a secondary thing to me, and if the text will be OK with only a category change, cool.

The second issue sounds good, but might be problematic. First, I've never been a delegate so how does this work? Can you only endorse and not change your mind?

Assuming that is the case then ...

If delegates could withdraw endorsements we'd start to see negative telegramming increase. When a proposal reached 100 endorsements, the delegates that endorsed might be hit with more telegrams, but now telegrams asking them to unendorse a proposal.

Not having been a delegate I can only guess how many nations do this for resolutions, but I know that Loop told me that he voted for Tracking Near Earth Objects not because he liked it, but because somebody yelled at him why he HAD to vote against it. (I'm sure Loop was really just waiting for feedback from the East Pacific, but I can understand him voting for something after somebody yelled at them to do the opposite.)

While negative campaigning would be interesting to watch, it would likely create more flash points and make the forums a "little" bit more tense.

The counter argument is "how many delegates don't endorse proposals because they are afraid they can't withdraw their support".

If you can change your mind, then ... well does negative campaigning happen?

Endorsement swapping certainly does, as delegates have asked me (a proposal author) to look over their ideas when my proposal was in the queue. This is *rare* though, happening only a few times total to me, and I've had proposals in the queues for a moderate amount of time when I was testing the idea of a "no telegram campaign". (This idea failed horribly.)

The second issue sounds good, but might be problematic. First, I've never been a delegate so how does this work? Can you only endorse and not change your mind?

Delegates can withdraw their endorsements, however what is being suggested is allowing the author of the proposal to ability to withdraw the proposal from the list.

Delegates can withdraw their endorsements, however what is being suggested is allowing the author of the proposal to ability to withdraw the proposal from the list.

Yeah, that is EXACTLY what I meant (and to clarify, by withdrawing an endorsment I did mean the endorsment a nation can give another in it's region, since -never having been a delegate myself, I do not know if it is possible to withdraw an approvment for a resolution. I know, however, that it is possible to change a vote for or against a resolution that is already on the floor)

That sounds like a good proposal, though it might be hard to implement. Not recieving 'black marks' for having a proposal deleted due to a technical issue (such as the wrong category, which I think most people can agree is often open for interpretation) is also a very good idea, and might be a fairly easy adjustment to make as well. I can see it if the proposal is flagrantly erroneous, or appears to be deliberatly misplaced, but recieving a strike against you for an honest mistake does seem a little extreme.

I voted for the moderators to make the call, simply because they understand far better than we do how a proposal will work in a given category when it comes to being implemented.

Moderators changing the categories (is a) good idea.

Though I can't read minds, I can say that when I submit a proposal it isn't the category that I care about, but the text of the resolution. The categories are a secondary thing to me, and if the text will be OK with only a category change, cool.
It's not the Mod's job to second-guess the player's intent, only what was placed for review. If a Game Mod wants to post to a forum topic about a proposal with category suggestions, I'd welcome them and try to incorporate those suggestions. I DO NOT want anyone fiddling with something I've posted as one thing and turning it into another. If I say it's Human Rights, then it's my job to make the case in the text of the proposal that it's a Human Rights issue. The mods aren't supposed to be High Court Judges over our content, they're cops enforcing the laws of the game.

Also, to many players, the text is totally irrelevant and the category is the only thing that matters. Having someone reverse the total meaning of a proposal (changing from Human Rights to Moral Decency, an easy one to imagine), would most certainly change whether I approved a proposal or not.

Once it hits the queue, it should remain the same as the player posted or be deleted. Having a voluntary "Author's Withdraw" button would not affect this balance, but Mods should not be tasked with changing categories. It's not fair to them, and it's not fair to us.