NationStates Jolt Archive

Seemingly, the only proposals that ever get through to becoming a resolution are those which have a creator who has heavily bombarded fellow delegates with telegrams asking them to approve the proposal.

This needs to be addressed.

As a delegate myself, I don't particularly enjoy receiving numerous telegrams from various other delegates asking for me to approve their proposals. I browse through the proposals list on a daily basis, and approve any that I want to support. Unfortunately, I still receive the telegrams, and I don't want them.

However, this is not so much a personal issue of me not wanting my inbox being cluttered with these requests, but more as a criticism of the structure of the proposals system. In the past, the only proposals I have submitted have achieved nowhere near the required amount of approvals, because I haven't mass-telegrammed any and every delegate.

I have relatively few ideas on what can be done about this. I know it is a problem, but just cannot think of any good solutions.
One thing I would suggest is this: Having the most recent proposals displayed on the left-side-tab of a delegate's Nationstates screen, under where the latest forum posts are displayed. This would bring proposals to the attention of the many delegates who never bother to check the proposals page, and would thus lead to more worthy proposals making it through to the resolution stage. I'm sure this wouldn't be too hard for the staff to implement.

Your thoughts?

The problem is though 6% sounds like a decent number, in the 4-day window proposals have, easily less than 1,500 of the 2,200 UN Delegates don't even go on-line.

This is a guess, based on "spamming". I've looked at the recent UN activity of the UN Delegates.

One method to fix this would be to simply lower the percentage.

There are many friendly UN Delegates who endorse *anything* that they get a telegram for, because (and I quote): "I appreciate how hard it is to get endorsements, and figure anybody telegramming really cares about their proposal."

I've gotten that reply many times and myself planning on starting a region to fix this obvious flaw in the game.

I would *love* to focus on research and not have to telegram, but the problem is that only a small portion of UN Delegates *have* the chance to endorse a proposal.

BTW: Spam is when you get unwanted mail. The minute you become a UN Delegate, you *volunteer* to do a job ... and that job *includes* participating in the endorsement process for UN proposals. What you consider spam is what many of us consider your job. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head, you can always leave the UN and you will not get the telegrams or you can rotate in and out of the UN Delegacy with the other member(s) of your region.

I'd be just as happy to see the percentage dropped to around 3% - 4%.

It would seem to me, and the numbers agree, that there are a great many delegates who don't even vote on resolutions. It can be further assumed that there is also a great many delegates who, for one reason or another, don't check over the proposal lost either.
As a delegate, I also routinely look over the proposal list and approve the ones I like. I also routinely check out the UN forum. But all delegates do not.
I don't begrudge anyone sending me a telegram asking me to check out their proposal, they are only using the means at their disposal. My beef is with the delegates that don't do their jobs in the first place. If all the delegates looked at proposals in a timely fashion and voted, people wouldn't have to resort to mass telegramming.
In my opinion.

I addition to a Hostile Delegate list, UN delegates that do read the prosposals frequently could ask for a do not telegram list ... something that says, "We understand your need, and really do look through the proposals."

I don't recall agreeing to receive numerous telegrams when I joined the UN, or when I became a delegate...

Let's not argue semantics about the definition of spam, but let me just say this: Spam is unwanted mail, I don't want the telegrams, hence they are spam. It's not worth resigning from the UN for, and certainly not worth conceding my delegacy for.

Thanks for your input. I certainly agree with your proposal, Mikitivity, to reduce the percentage of delegate votes required to achieve quorom.

It's frustrating to consider that the larger regions of the Nationstates world may have many active UN members, yet can only have one delegate. Some regions may have three nations, and their delegate may never come online. Yet the delegate's existance increases the number of approvals to achieve quorom, and they will never even glance at the proposals list.

Perhaps larger regions should have more delegates? Something like one delegate for every multiple of 50 nations.

Well, if it isn't worth *not* being a UN Delegate, then perhaps the best response is to understand *why* it happens and killfilter nations that are actively engaged in telegramming (like my nation).

Short of us being able to convince the mods to change the 6% requirement to a more realistic figure -or- instead to lengthen the queue time for proposals, I do have two other suggestions.

(1) Add a filter to proposals. UN Delegates could search proposals based on just on time of expiration, but on number of current endorsements. If I were a UN Delegate, I'm certain that if I saw a proposal that was 10 endorsements short, that I'd help out the nation that wrote the proposal (unless I had very good reason not to -- but I'd still check for this a few times a week).

(2) Add a filter based on "type" of resolution / proposal. If I'm only interested in Social Justice or Environmental proposals, they may be the only ones I want to see.

Revisiting an old idea:

(3) Turn the Hostile Delegate list into a Do Not Call list ... but instead of making it a feature in the game, it would be something that UN Delegates would have to turn on and would then present an icon on their profile. In turn, they'd have to agree to the mods that they'd bear in mind that if a telegram still gets through, that they *should* just killfilter the telegram / sender.

Something we can do:

(4) Build our own Do Not Call list, but again, to prevent abuse and encourage nations to actually respect it, I'd say any nation (Delegate or not) that appears on the list that sends rude telegrams even when they get a telegram, should be removed from the list -- my thinking is, being polite is the best way to encourage responsible telegramming *and* Delegating.

I will say this, for every rude UN Delegate, there are easily two that are positive and friendly. I actually *enjoy* talking to UN Delegates that I may not have had the chance to meet otherwise. For example, I'm talking about the Netherlands with one delegate -- beautiful country BTW.

What I don't understand though, is why a nation would want the extra UN votes or ability to ban / eject nations, and not understand that when you are in a high profile / high responsbility position (like being a UN Delegate) that you will get telegrams.

Here is a question for UN Delegates ... how do you feel when *resolution* (not proposal) backers ask you to post something for them on your regional board / forum?

Bear in mind that at the point when a proposal reaches the UN floor that the author(s) have invested a *lot* of time into the game and sincerely would like to get a chance for others to *understand* their reasoning / motivation / purpose of their resolution.

I'd add that having been in that position, I found all of the Delegates I contacted and simply asked them to forward something were receptive. But I also looked for nations that I felt had a common political outlook (based on game stats).

Here is a question for UN Delegates ... how do you feel when *resolution* (not proposal) backers ask you to post something for them on your regional board / forum?

Bear in mind that at the point when a proposal reaches the UN floor that the author(s) have invested a *lot* of time into the game and sincerely would like to get a chance for others to *understand* their reasoning / motivation / purpose of their resolution.
I think I said this before on the old forums, but it may bear repeating. I do understand that for some nations, UN proposals/resolutions are where the game is at. But I think they're in the minority.

The NP may have given you some notion of what a responsible UN Delegate has to do to keep their region secure. There's a lot of communications needed to build relationships both within a region, and with allied regions.

Despite all that, I do usually support those who telegram me, and try and skim through proposals when I have time to spare after doing all that. Those 15 pages make depressing reading! Knock out the carbon copies of daily issues, restatements (or attempted revocations) of earlier resolutions, the sub-literate and the meaning-free*, and there'd be about 2 or 3 pages to actually consider. Maybe a little more filtering would be the answer?

Would I post something from a resolution author on our regional forum? Probably not. We do post each resolution in full with a poll on our boards; I or anyone else can add comments there, and my vote goes according to the region's wishes (and sometimes against my own). I really feel it's up to the author to put whatever they need to say into the proposal itself; it's all that most individual voters - or delegates of regions without their own boards - will see, and we have to judge it on its merits as it stands.



*You want an example? Here:
World of Rock!
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
*
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Eunucide

Description: Undiscovered Ocean is a region of Rock! By endorsing this proposal, you endorse conversion of the world into a world of rock!

Approvals: 4 (True-wisdom, Atlantic Quays, Great Bight, Styrland)
And look which delegate of a huge feeder region has endorsed it ...

1) Have a "no contact list" for any promotional telegrams

2) To solve the 6% problem, make that 6% of all active delegates. An "active" delegate would be one that reguarly checks proposals. Maybe something like you have to check it at least every 3 days to be considered "active". What might also help is a little bonus for active delegates to encourage delegates to check the proposals, say one extra vote on resolutions?

One method to fix this would be to simply lower the percentage.

i'm not sure that merely lowering the number of approvals required would really work to discourage the spammy nature of un proposal passing. it would just make you have to spam slightly fewer nations in order to get the job done. it lowers the bar a bit, but your proposal would still be much more likely to get to the floor if you telegrammed a bunch of delegates than if you just let it sit there. really, lowering the required amount of approvals ultimately just winds up allowing more proposals to make it to a vote, and lowering it to the point where spamming becomes unnecessary would result in a huge waiting list of resolutions.

the only way i've thought of to 'fix' the un would be to change the process to include another step. lower the number of approvals needed to some relatively low amount - maybe set it at 50 or 75 approvals. this would cut down the sheer volume of un spam that gets sent. then have the approved proposals go to a special vote for un delegates - this would reward delegates for being active in un affairs by giving them more say over what proposals make it to a vote in front of the entire un. only after making it through that would it finally be voted on by everybody. however, this would take a fairly large amount of game reprogramming - i would assume, anyway. and therefore isn't likely to happen.

so the spamming stays. viva la spam!

I don't recall agreeing to receive numerous telegrams when I joined the UN, or when I became a delegate...
I'd suggest that you didn't know what you were signing up for, on the basis that you have only been about for a couple of months...Most nations who give themselves time to learn the in's and out's, and do go on to delegate tend to know what they are letting themselves in for.

Thanks for your input. I certainly agree with your proposal, Mikitivity, to reduce the percentage of delegate votes required to achieve quorom.

It's frustrating to consider that the larger regions of the Nationstates world may have many active UN members, yet can only have one delegate. Some regions may have three nations, and their delegate may never come online. Yet the delegate's existance increases the number of approvals to achieve quorom, and they will never even glance at the proposals list.
I'd argue the reverse. There should be less regions with delegate powers. Lets extend the example you suggested and say that regions with three nations, or a similarly small amount should not have a delegate vote for approvals. Their multiple vote at the resolution stage would continue to stand.

I'd suggest no proposal approval for any delegate of any region with less than 20 members.

With less delegates to gain the approval from, there would be less votes needed, and less delegates would get hassled in the proposal stage.

This makes me think that there almost could be a "Two" House system.

One for UN Votes, and another for UN Endorsements.

Bear with me ... the UN Delegate, highest endorsement getting, would be able to vote and endorse if he/she has over 20 endorsements (though I'd lower the number to 10 ... I can explain later today if you like).

The UN Vice-Delegate would be able to only endorse and only exists in regions with a certain number of nations. The UN Vice-Delegate would be the runner up in the endorsement count.

So in a region of: 30, if one nation had 22 endorsements and the other 20, the runner up would still be able to be active in the endorsement game.

We'd basically be increasing the number of endorsement getters.

Hmmm ... I think the idea could be explored more, but looking at it now, it *is* kinda confusing. (Which is naturally part of the fun.)

^ I think that's a bit too confusing ;).

Looking at all the suggestions so far, I like the idea of smaller regions having no delegate. Leave the figure at 6%, but you can only become a delegate if your region has 20 nations, and you have 10 endorsements. Or something like that.
This would drastically reduce the number of delegates - down to a few hundred.
This would work in two ways; firstly the number of approvals required would be far lower and more realistically achievable, and secondly the only nations that would now have delegacy would be much more likely to be active, and thus wouldn't need telegramming.

There are some delegates that look at the proposals list without being asked to. The problem is that there are too few of this type.

The problem with taking away the delegat from smaller regions is they actually:

(1) are usually pro-UN (can't play the invader game in a small region),
(2) provide a bit of stability to the game ... i.e. the griefing rules are easier to maintain

I like the small regions.

I think the easiest solution might be to lengthen the time in the queue and add better *sorting* features.

Sort by:
Name
Category
Author
Time Left
Number of Endorsements

Authors can still only have 1-3 proposals in the queue at a time. Personally I think 1 is more than enough for one nation. If you have two resolutions that need to hit the floor so closely, *give* one to an ally or newbie and let them have fun with it.

I don't agree with small regions losing the right to delegacy (because even the small regions deserve a voice), but I agree with the "active" delegate rule and stronger filtering. I- among others- simply do not have the time to leaf through 24 pages of proposals, and if they were organized by time of submission they would be easier to track (that way I'd only have to look at the first two or three pages instead of 24). Also, if 6% of the active delegates (i.e., they have at least logged in and checked proposals at least that week) could vote, that would help proposals immensely. I don't think bigger regions should get a stronger voice because it would not be fair to the smaller regions who have needs too, but I do think only those who participate should get a chance to voice their opinions.

Milkivity: I'd be happy to help in that region you were planning to create.

I've been part of several small region, all hugely pro-UN, and all active, so I really don't feel that I could support removing delegate powers from those regions. And as far as I am aware, the proposals are sorted (to a certain degree) with the newer ones at the back. But yes, further sorting would be very good.

Mikitivity: My current region hasn't been as interesting as I had thought it would be. I've been here awhile, and although there are UN standards like Komokom and Black New World, there are others who don't seem to do much. I'd be interested in helping build a new region.

Just butting in momentarily :

Enn : Silence traitor ! :sniper:

;)

Actually, I've been thinking as you have, suffice to say the winds of change are blowing towards our region. Some significant ... policy changes are going into effect soon . Telegrams to be posted to you and some others presently. They will explain. I apologise for what our region has become, the blame is mostly mine.

OOC:
Trock: duh you're the only one with any control over the place.

Enn: Aww you called me a UN standard.

OOC:
Trock: duh you're the only one with any control over the place.

Enn: Aww you called me a UN standard.

1) Well, thats true to a degree, but I'm not going to go into the history.

( I make good dictator, no ? :D )

2) Look out Enn, you could make a friend for life with those comments, ;)

Update : Screw policy change, I'm just going to flex my founder muscle, I'm all sick feeling ( And TAFE starts up again t'moz, grrr :headbang: ) and quite frankly couldn't be bothered writing out a big "Why I'm shifting your butt" statement on the message board.

Now regarding an "active delegate" policy, that could be effective, but I would think perhaps limiting who could actually submit a proposal would help too, like putting an age limit on member nations, nothing too long, just long enough to increase how likely it is they have read the rules and FAQ's and such. You could probably run it on population, depending on how much of a stable increasing figure that is. ( I've heard several different interpretations of the population figure so I can't really be sure, consider it just an example )

... More to come when I can think straight. Errr, I mean clearly. Bloody cold.