NationStates Jolt Archive

...when a proposal has reached quorum and there are a couple of minor issues with it (title, say, or some small legalistic difficulties) wouldn't it be better to have a moderator and the proposal's author collaborate to edit the proposal where necessary, instead of cancelling it, re-submitting it, and telegramming everyone again?

Alternatively, if this isn't possible within the game code, shouldn't the fact that 200+ people have taken time out to give their support to a proposal be more important than an ultra-literal interpretation of the rules in what is, as Ecopoeia pointed out earlier, a game?

I think alterations aren't made because then it isn't the proposal people voted for. If they edit out the point you really liked, you'd be annoyed after having supported it, and being "betrayed". It would be impossible to moderate to the happiness of everyone, and so the harsh seeming rule exists.

The mods do not have the ability to edit proposals. The only things they can do are let it pass, or delete it. Additionally, they are unable to do anything to a proposal once it has reached a general vote. After that point, only the admins ([violet] and Salusa, plus Max) can do a thing.

The thing is, the mods have to use the rules. That's what they are there for. If something is illegal, then it doesn't matter whether it's been in the list 5 seconds, or has 300 endorsements - it's still illegal*.

*Although I do recall at least one mod saying once that if something is only mildly illegal (ie not worthy of warning) and is about to pass out of the list without reaching quorum, then it may just be allowed to pass into oblivion, with no special action.

[edit] Also, you have to consider it from the mods' point of view - why should they have to sit down and work through something that should have been worked out long before it was submitted? The mods have enough work already, what with the forums, game bugs, Getting Help requests, resurrections, issues, invasions (and much, much more) in addition to the Proposal list. Plus they have to somehow fit in time to do that Real Life thing.

Bless you, BG - that's probably my first citation! Regrettably, I think Enn's right. It's a game for the mods as well.

I can see your points. I think at the time I was a bit annoyed because a couple of proposals at quorum that I quite liked got tanked, for seemingly very minor things. I think that proposals that get to quorum have something going for them - beyond a person simply having a couple of hours to telegram people - but more than that, I think they're representative of some kind of zeitgeist of the site in general, which is in itself a microcosm of the world at large and are representative of the desires of people on here. If people consider clean drinking water a basic human right then I feel it should be presented as such, rather than a 'social justice' measure, and if people want a bioweapons ban, I think they should be able to have it... but I can see the counter-argument too. I just think it would be nice for NS to provide a democratically-led model which can act as something which we'd wish the world at large to be like.

In other words, the clean water thing should have gone through (in my opinion) as human rights because a) people wanted it to and b) I believe it should be considered a basic human right in the outside world.

I may elaborate on this and some things I've observed about the action of the site in general at some other point when I'm less tired.

I can see your points. I think at the time I was a bit annoyed because a couple of proposals at quorum that I quite liked got tanked, for seemingly very minor things. I think that proposals that get to quorum have something going for them - beyond a person simply having a couple of hours to telegram people - but more than that, I think they're representative of some kind of zeitgeist of the site in general, which is in itself a microcosm of the world at large and are representative of the desires of people on here. If people consider clean drinking water a basic human right then I feel it should be presented as such, rather than a 'social justice' measure, and if people want a bioweapons ban, I think they should be able to have it... but I can see the counter-argument too. I just think it would be nice for NS to provide a democratically-led model which can act as something which we'd wish the world at large to be like.

In other words, the clean water thing should have gone through (in my opinion) as human rights because a) people wanted it to and b) I believe it should be considered a basic human right in the outside world.

I may elaborate on this and some things I've observed about the action of the site in general at some other point when I'm less tired.

For the most part, I think if a resolution gets deleted while in-quarom and it wasn't due to mod laziness (but rather mod oversight), they don't warn the person - especially for something minor like that. That way, the person can resubmit and push for it again (in fact, both are now back in quarom).

Yeah I realised that my point was mitigated somewhat by the fact that the two went back up almost straight away. I think if it was me and I'd already done a telegram campaign to get it to quorum just to have it torpedoed then I probably wouldn't bother re-submitting it (or submitting anything else, probably). I admire the devotion of the people in question, but the point remains that it's an hour or two of your life down the drain. I'll also admit that if a proposal at quorum for, say, placing restrictions on abortion was modded out of existence, I probably wouldn't have mourned its passing in this way.

I think it's quite interesting how far human rights legislation, which I see as apolitical, outnumbers social justice legislation, which I associate with things like labour unions, minimum wages, generally traditional left-wing positions, which are probably balanced out by free trade legislation. Whereas human rights far outnumbers moral decency (are there any of these at all??). It's a consensus I support - I'm pretty economically centrist in general, but I think that everyone should have a right to live in peace, have shelter, medical care, education, clean food and water, etc., with this as first priority, and then the greatest amount of free trade, lowest taxes etc. on top of that.

I've been considering trying to get a moral decency one through, along the lines of legislation illegalising incitement to racial or religious hatred, firstly just to see whether I can do it, and secondly because there's been a disturbing trend towards Islamophobia in some sections of Britain recently, and it's the sort of law I'd like to see exist at this time. Obviously, given what's been said in this thread, I won't do it if the category would be wrong, or if it's already covered, because I don't want to waste the effort. Would it work as moral decency? Does it need a specific new law, or do existing ones cover it? Comments would be appreciated.

Yeah I realised that my point was mitigated somewhat by the fact that the two went back up almost straight away. I think if it was me and I'd already done a telegram campaign to get it to quorum just to have it torpedoed then I probably wouldn't bother re-submitting it (or submitting anything else, probably).

Actually, the guy that was doing third-world water sanitation, he said he couldn't send it again due to time restrictions - so through the UN board, he found someone to campaign for him, resubmitted and the other guy campaigned. It worked quite nicely.

I admire the devotion of the people in question, but the point remains that it's an hour or two of your life down the drain.

Heh - you aren't one of those people that works through an extensive review process, are you? Most of the major proposals that make it these days have gone through WEEKS of work (I shudder to think of the amount of time Reformatia must've spent on his proposals) so to lose an hour or two in the process....it would've been a greater shame to trash the entire proposal when it was a minor change that needed to be made.

I'll also admit that if a proposal at quorum for, say, placing restrictions on abortion was modded out of existence, I probably wouldn't have mourned its passing in this way.

That's personal preference really.....

I think it's quite interesting how far human rights legislation, which I see as apolitical, outnumbers social justice legislation, which I associate with things like labour unions, minimum wages, generally traditional left-wing positions, which are probably balanced out by free trade legislation. Whereas human rights far outnumbers moral decency (are there any of these at all??). It's a consensus I support - I'm pretty economically centrist in general, but I think that everyone should have a right to live in peace, have shelter, medical care, education, clean food and water, etc., with this as first priority, and then the greatest amount of free trade, lowest taxes etc. on top of that.

With exception to guarantees of basic needs (which may be dealt with by one of the minimum wage laws - actually, I like the one that's circulating the boards right now), we are pretty much at that point. On the flip side, human rights is a fairly consistently evolving area - plus you have things like the huge set of gay, womens and minority rights resolutions. Moral Decency, however, has mostly been rather extremist in nature or involving censorship (at least at the proposal level)

I've been considering trying to get a moral decency one through, along the lines of legislation illegalising incitement to racial or religious hatred, firstly just to see whether I can do it, and secondly because there's been a disturbing trend towards Islamophobia in some sections of Britain recently, and it's the sort of law I'd like to see exist at this time. Obviously, given what's been said in this thread, I won't do it if the category would be wrong, or if it's already covered, because I don't want to waste the effort. Would it work as moral decency? Does it need a specific new law, or do existing ones cover it? Comments would be appreciated.

I think it has been, but I need to check again. If it isn't, I'd personally consider it a failing of the massive mess of resolutions - and I'd be concerned of whether it would be considered an amendment....

Actually, the guy that was doing third-world water sanitation, he said he couldn't send it again due to time restrictions - so through the UN board, he found someone to campaign for him, resubmitted and the other guy campaigned. It worked quite nicely.

The system in general does seem to work pretty well - much better than it appears at first glance. It's a bit slow and time-consuming, but it tends to get there in the end, and the degree of collaboration is admirable.

Heh - you aren't one of those people that works through an extensive review process, are you? Most of the major proposals that make it these days have gone through WEEKS of work (I shudder to think of the amount of time Reformatia must've spent on his proposals) so to lose an hour or two in the process....it would've been a greater shame to trash the entire proposal when it was a minor change that needed to be made.

I got a resolution up (as a different avatar, with a different set of priorites) with a combined total of about 2-3 hours' work. If you were doing one in full legalese it would doubtless take longer. TBH though I think conciseness and brevity are a bit undervalued here at the moment. If I try for another one it'll be closer in style to my previous resolution than some of the stuff going through at the moment (hopefully without the loopholes, but still clear enough to be easily understood by a casual player of NS voting on it).

That's personal preference really.....

Yeah that was my point - that my reaction (and support for proposals in general) isn't entirely based on logic. (It's probably not even mainly based on logic.)