NationStates Jolt Archive

Full question: Have you ever voted for or against a UN proposal mainly because of the game mechanics behind it?

Explanation: 'game mechanics' are the effect the resolution will have on the statistics of your nation. For example, the current resolution stated to 'strongly' promote the cause of human rights will improve the Human Rights statistic of all UN member nations if it is passed.

Background:
This poll is the result of a discussion on motivations for voting by members of the NationStates United Nations. I would like to ask the UN members here to answer the question above to get an idea of ‘why people vote the way they do’

The idea GMC Military Arms had is that many people endorsed a previous proposal (that contradicted itself) either because they wanted the ‘stat boost’ or they didn't understand it. To take an example: myself. I temporarily rejoined the UN and endorsed this proposal, though I think it is insane. I want world benchmark human rights again. After that I will leave.

Given that the UN cannot approve any form of intervention for the current resolution because there's no game mechanic and given that most of UN Members don't care for RP, it might be a hypothesis that a significant part of the UN population votes for or against NSUN resolutions mainly because of the gameplay effect behind it.

I am aware the NSUN forum is not a representative sample, but it would seem to me that its better to get at least an idea of some preliminary idea of the proportions involved pending a more in-depth study that someone more involved with the UN should really do ;)

I, myself, never until you mentioned this thought of judging a proposal based on game mechanics. Either way, it goes against my personal code for me to do so, so it's not the sort of thing I'd plan on doing.

I generally vote on a proposal with two thoughts in mind - firstly, will it do my nation any good and would I like it to happen in my country, and secondly, which way has my delegate voted. A third option is how well it has been written, as I will not vote on a badly-written or phrased resolution

I have never given a thought to the game mechanics part of it. Mostly cause I usually can't figure out what the effect will be.

(OOC) Plus - to some degree - I am not that concerned about the future of my nation. The UN part, the debating part, is what I enjoy most.

Going to bed, will edit tomorrow some time when I almost but not quite spam an entire host of delegates for The Black New World.

I split my attention 4 ways on a percentage based point system.

33 % goes to Game Mechanics straight off. If you violate the rules and risk sending a host of " OMG I CAN INVADE JOO WITH THE U.N. " noobs my way, I fail your proposal. Quite frankly, if you don't know the rules, why did you bother ? There is mmore to law then a CALLS UPON and a majority vote of people who don't really know what they're doing on the grand scale. This also involves what catagory you've put it in too.

People who violate Game Mechanics or allow for interpretation of o-kay-ing violations will feel my text based wrath. For example,

I am damn sure the proposal at vote violates GM rules. So there.

But that is beside the point, just an example of the entire how I decide thing and why that one fails harder then a microsoft beta on booting up.

33 % goes to How Well Written your proposal is. If its set out correct, if it is for the most part devoid of gross spelling and grammar errors, if the format is okay, and it words it right then you get one more " aye " when I go to click. If it reads, for example, " OMG, GUNZ R B4D N STUFF SOOO I S4Y W3 B4N D3M 4LLZ ! " I'll auto " nay " you even if I was to agree with you ( which I don't in this case ) and quietly curse every fool who goes along with you and their yes vote. This also goes to well you expressed your intent of your proposal.

33 % To what it says and does. Content. Do I agree ? Then I click yes. If not, no.

*** If any of these three are failed, I'll vote no. ***

1 % ( Just to be complete ) goes to the effect on my nation. I reserve the right to be betrayed by this one percent when is later kicks my national ass with the category effects, etc, ;)

The 1 5 has almost no say in my vote how-ever, but it can on occasion be a deciding factor.

I tidy this up come day-light. I'll go to bed now, very angry that the local mall ran out of the last sets of the Lego Bank Van from 2004 the day before I got there and they're the last ones they'd have. Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks.

* The proposal at vote fails attention focus 1 and 3. It just passes two, and partially passes the 1 %.

As a UN Delegate, I call for a regional vote every time a resolution is on the floor. However, if I were able to just vote personally, I would say that the only category I specifically think of is economy.

I vote IC, which means I base my vote on the text, and that I always vote according to how I believe the government of the day in Pantocratoria would vote. As a result, I have frequently voted against my own conscience because that is how I thought the Pantocratorian government would vote. :)

(I think "game mechanics" is the wrong word here, Knootoss. I would prefer "effects caused by UN proposal category" as more accurate, but meh. It's fine.)

Frisbeeteria never considered the effect it would have had on our nation when voting for or against, but we did strongly consider whether or not the game effects were in line with what the proposal proposed to do. Consequently, we often voted against resolutions that might have otherwise been fine if their strength or direction had been more appropriate.

Recently, we decided that the general direction of UN decisions was so far from our desired path that Frisbeeteria chose to leave the UN. Regardless of that, we still follow with interest the debates in the UN forum.

OOC:
We abstain unless a proposal is

a) monumentally stupid and/or misleading ('Rights of people who already have them' being one)
b) written by someone in my region
c) Every member agrees.

A is based on content.

A mod has posted in my thread! *bows*

*chuckles slightly*

Anyway, yeah. The way you say it is probably better, but it is a bit elaborate. Hence the explanation. :/

I am not sure about your definition of game mechanics.

I am opposing the Humanitarian Intervention proposal primarily because I see its use of the Pretenama Panel as an invitation to abuse. I would call this a game mechanics issue, even if it doesn't affect my nation's statistics. But that objection applies as a character in the game and as a player of the game - Pretenama takes a major decisive power out of the hands of the UN and puts it into the hands of an ad hoc cabal.

I opposed the HIV act because of the inappropriately and inflexibly huge bureaucracy it imposed on every UN nation. And - hey, presto! - once it passed it had a major negative effect on my country's economy. You could still get a debate here about whether my arguments on that one were IC or OOC.

My arguments, more than my votes, on the drafts of the Tsunami Warning System and the Global Library contained a balance of cost analysis, effectiveness, and consideration of the content (the stated goals of the resolutions). But is cost analysis only a game mechanics issue?

My votes on the various legalized prostitution resolutions, otoh, were completely independent of game mechanics.

I usually go with the actual resolution text, and have been known to change my vote depending on the arguments laid out in threads. Statistics are the least of my worries in this game.

I usually go with the actual resolution text, and have been known to change my vote depending on the arguments laid out in threads. Statistics are the least of my worries in this game.

I agree.

I'd like to go a step further. I feel the question as laid out in this poll is a bit (unintentionally) misleading.

On the IRC forums, it is not unheard of for non-UN members to promote the idea of tech wanking, which is to suggest that nations vote based on the game classificiation ans statistic of a resolution.

When I responded to this poll I was largely voting on that basis. I do in fact read resolutions first, and I'm not afraid to vote in favour of a moral decency or social justice resolution just because of some irrational fear of "labels".

However, I will at times vote for or against proposals when I feel their game text goes opposite of the direction of the game classification. For example, if somebody wanted to promote Free Trade by classification, but designed a resolution that in fact represented a significant restriction on capitalism, I'd consider that a mismatch and actively vote against such a resolution. To extend this, if I see a _proposed_ resolution that is in the wrong category, I will flag it to the attention of the moderators ... so usually (but not always) resolutions that have reached the floor have been screened by moderators like The Most Glorious Hack or Myrth, in addition to other players.

Hersfold lately has been updating the North Pacific and Adam Island frequently runs proposals by the IDU, which leads me to believe that issues concerning proposals matching categories are better dealt with before a resolution reaches the floor. Once it is there, I am in fact more willing to give the author a bit of a break. ;)

Before I was named delegate I went by the text of the resolution, now I go by how the region wants.

I guess I get a little technical when I'm reading through proposals (as a regional delegate). For example, I find many proposals make liberal use of the "strong" and "significant" qualifiers when I'm unconvinced that the effects of said proposals are either strong or significant. For example, a proposal that basically reinforces an earlier resolution (like the resolution that makes education mandatory under age 18 passing after a resolution that makes education mandatory under age 16) doesn't strike me as a "strong" push in a given direction, considering that we're pretty much there already. "Mild" would be the category in which I'd place such a replicate or modifying (in the legal UN sense) resolution.

Second, I admit to being a "spelling and grammar Nazi", though I make occasional exceptions for otherwise well-written proposals. But more often than not, I'm going to pass over proposals that have no capitalization, bad punctuation and sentence structure, and tons of misspellings. It just rubs me the wrong way that the UN could potentially approve a resolution that has such flaws in writing.

Third, I base my decisions on how my country runs and how I'd roleplay the debate. If Krioval has been drifting rightward over the past several days (it has), I'm going to force myself to act a bit more reluctant about strong human rights propsals than I might otherwise do. In that case, it's less about the technical design of the proposal and more about how it affects me (and, if I'm in a generous mood, my region).

Finally, if a proposal is exceptionally well-written, I'll consider pushing it toward quorum even if I despise outright the intent, if only so that I can heavily debate it on the opposing side. But it had better be perfect or very nearly so.

I always vote on the content of the resolution in theory, but also taking into account the quality of writing. But I'm going to talk about the exceptions to that rule.

The only time "game mechanics" would come into it, is when the issue doesn't really bother me much.

For example, there was a proposal for "banning single hulled tankers" I think. I couldn't care less to be honest, no matter how well written it was. So then I would look to the category to see how it would actually effect me. And I would not be willing to damage my economy, for example, for something that is not important to me. Whilst technically you may call that voting on game mechanics, I would argue that it is still IC. It's always a balancing act between doing a good thing or doing something that will benefit you, that's how it is in the real world, that's how it is here.

Gwenstefani... yeah, its In Character but that is not the point. The point is that, at that moment, you did not just let content (= the text of the resolution) speak but instead the game effect made the decision. There is nothing wrong with that (unlike what some imply) but it kinda corrupts the poll if you claim that you NEVER do it and only look at the content (text) because, in fact, you are looking at the game effect.

I'm not sure that's right, because I don't think you can ignore the category as part of the text. After all, the category is the main aim of the proposal, the text merely defining how exactly it is going to achieve this aim.

But seeing as it's your poll, if you would like me to change my vote then I will. Even though I think my current choice best reflects my voting patterns.

Well... I'm asking you to view it as 'aside' from the text for a moment. Is the text just a means to a goal for you in your judgement?

Well... I'm asking you to view it as 'aside' from the text for a moment. Is the text just a means to a goal for you in your judgement?

No, I wouldn't say so. Whole generally I would say, yes, civil rights a re a great thing. However, for arguments sake, if two proposals both promoted civil rights, and one wanted to legalise prostitution and one wanted to allow public nudity, I would vote in favour of the former and against the latter, regardless of their effects. Because while I want to see the promotion of civil rights, I only want to see the promotion of one's I agree with. So while the goal matters, the means is just as important.

Hmmm... maybe the formulation of the question wasn't clear and I should have opted for a list of factors people thing more important or less important. :(

Bugger. I misunderstood the question and thought you meant 'game mechanics' in the sense Fris and others put forward.

Regarding the stats, I do have an aim in mind (Excessive-Struggling-Excessive), though not because I want a dream nation, simply one that reflects how I roleplay, i.e. a debatably overly free society with a (very) slowly developing economy. Imagine a stable African state run by anarchists. To that end, I admit to having quit the UN when I feared a Moral Decency resolution would give my CRs a good kicking, but I've never voted for a resolution for the stats boost.

To that end, I admit to having quit the UN when I feared a Moral Decency resolution would give my CRs a good kicking, but I've never voted for a resolution for the stats boost.

:(

I guess half stat wanking is better than complete stat wanking.

In the real world there are daily examples of a trade off on our "civil freedoms". Most nations call these people "police", and two of the three moral decency resolutions really revolved around public safety.

But yeah, it wasn't clear to me if this survey was about stat wanking or violations of game mechanics. In theory, the mods should screen for that, which is why I originally thought it was about voting just for a boost to ones stats. Which is INSANE, with daily issues we have a moderate ability to steer our nations where we want to sit.

Edit: Sorry I had to run to catch my bus to work. :) I wanted to point out that players have argued about stat wanking and its influence on UN resolutions / voting patterns for some time, but I've yet to see any formal description with any statistical evidence of the trends. That is why I wrote the United Nations Association White paper 2005-01:

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/una-200501.pdf

I think players do look to game stats, but I also think many of them do exactly what you've hinted at and at times ignore game stats changes. My main conclusion was that looking at stats might be the primary reason why we've seen some 34% of the UN resolutions be Human Rights (increases to civil freedoms), but voters have actually shown that when a Moral Deceny resolution hits the floor, that they are in fact *more* willing to support it. I'd argue that the more challenging resolution categories force players to come up with stronger arguments for their ideas.

In any event, you might want to look over my draft paper. Grosseschaunzer found a grammar mistake that I'll correct tonight and Hersfold has looked it over. But I think that is about it to my knowledge.

I want to also add that I've always had the greatest respect for Ecopoeia! :)

Well... not really. Voting for a boost to ones stats happens. In competition for ranks, every added advantage is something. There is a great and gaping lack of resolutions that improve Civil Rights (especially without $terrible_insanity as a drawback).

My Civil Rights have, thus, annoyingly been at superb because apparently you need to answer pro-CR issues about six times (no kidding) for an upgrade whereas one new resolution with unknown effects (pensions for the elderly are a civil right, apparently :confused: ) knocks it down a level. Right now I'm at World Benchmark again, which is how I RP it. Thank you, insane intervention resolution.

No worries, Mik. I didn't say I was proud of my actions. I was actually compensating for hitting the wrong option on an issue that torpedoed my CRs and then got sick of waiting for the appropriate 'rescue' issues to come up. besides, the resolution inquestion (no marriage under 15, I think) was one I would have voted against and got shot down anyway. I was suitably chastened...

No worries, Mik. I didn't say I was proud of my actions. I was actually compensating for hitting the wrong option on an issue that torpedoed my CRs and then got sick of waiting for the appropriate 'rescue' issues to come up. besides, the resolution inquestion (no marriage under 15, I think) was one I would have voted against and got shot down anyway. I was suitably chastened...

I voted against that one too, but honestly feel there is enough of an idea that the resolution / topic could be carefully revisited and improved upon ... I've just never been sure if I wanted to. There have always been too many fun ideas that should get their time on the UN Floor.

It is funny that you call them rescue issues, because that is EXACTLY what I think of them as. I've choosen to have *two* issues sent to Mikitivity a day with the hopes that I can steer my nation down a path I like.

While I talk about stat wanking in the UN, I neglect to point out that *most* of us do this on a daily basis with respect to the daily issues. But in the case of the daily issues, we really have very little say in the *text* of those issues, while with a few exceptions, most UN resolution authors are more than happy to listen to friendly advise on their draft proposals and will make changes.

There are a few exceptions, but I do wish that the daily issues could be customized a bit ... perhaps another wish item for NS2. For NS2 I'd very much like to roleplay as Mikitivity being in 1935, focusing on not international issues, but regional ones. I want to lay a rail and build a stock market, but I suspect I'll be moving into a more realistic focused roleplay environment.