NationStates Jolt Archive

This is adressed to the game, and UN managers in particular. There is a major problem with the current proposal approval system. As we have a surplus of new nations, and therefore regions as well, the number of delegates has grown to over 1770. This requires a total of 107 delegates to constitute the 6% necessary to pass a proposal. This is a huge amount. As for the time of the posting of this thread, no proposal, including those deadlined for this very day, has over 45 approvals. Yes, this might be because the past few hundreds of proposals were all terrible and none were even worth consideration to a vote by all UN members, but I don't believe so. The problem is those delegates who sit idly and are not involved in nation states not to mention the UN. As a delegate myself, I view a certain responsibility in holding this position, that many many are currently ignoring completely. There needs to be some kind of correction to this problem. What is the UN without resolutions to vote on. I believe the original 6% requirement was to prevent silly proposals from coming to general vote, I may be wrong. But if it is so, I don't think it is necessary in such a harsh form. A few possible suggestions for a fix:

-Lower the percent necessary
-Remove UN delegates from their position after a maximum of idleness, say for example, 20 days.
-Create some other form of approval of resolutions, for example perhaps a certain percent of approvals from ANY UN member.
-Maybe even delete the proposal system completely and just have simultanious voting on several resolutions. Have each resolution pass through a group of appointed moderators to check for illegality and/or sillyness/bad language and so on...

This is truly getting aggravating. The UN is dying down and becoming pointless. It is possible that all the resolutions in place make for a perfect world for UN members, but I highly doubt that. It is truly a sign of a problem when a proposal cannot even be passed to become a resolution for THIS long. It is not as if it is meant to be ridiculously difficult to bring a resolution to be voted upon, I mean, that's what the UN is for! I may be wrong, so please point out to me any such matters. Please, something must be done. Any other suggestions from nations how to improve on the current system? And, any replies, game managers/moderators?

I am one of the UN nations who are guilty of not being active. My UN nation, Biblebelievers, isn't active in the UN because I lack the time. But my puppet is not a delegate.

I really don't know to say to address this problem. I think delegates should assume some type of responsibility when it comes to being active in their region and the UN, since that's what their position is there for. But I don't think they can be forced into doing something they don't want to. After all, they are endorsed by the UN nations of their region, and only the nations of their region can decide to remove them from their position.

what i meant was that the moderators do this just like they eject non-active users of over 60 days. I have no problem at all with you being a once-in-a-whiler, on the contrary, I respect you for taking time every once in a while to update and even participate in forums. But I think delegates should be more serious. I'm not talking about forcing them to do anyhting, only hanging the rules a little.

107 is nothing.


what i meant was that the moderators do this just like they eject non-active users of over 60 days.We do nothing of the sort. That's hard coded into the game.

But I think delegates should be more serious. I'm not talking about forcing them to do anyhting, only hanging the rules a little.Delegates exist for more than endorsing Proposals.

Then why haven't any proposals been passed for so long?

perhaps we haven't had any resolutions recently that delegates (who do check) could have agreed was worth the UN general assembly's time to be voted upon?

That, and we've had many occurrences that saw no resolution at vote for at least a week many times before.

Then why haven't any proposals been passed for so long?Well, damn. How can I argue this?

Clearly we should drop the requirement so gems like this can make it in:The legalisation of child gamb

A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.


Category: Gambling


Legalize/Outlaw: Legalize


Proposed by: King Harrold V

Description: As a young boy, I should understand more than anyone the injustice of child gambling being illeagal. I have never enjoyed much more than a great game of poker and with my money I wish I could enjoy the thrill of gambling. My proposals are:-
1.To allow children as young as 10 in to casinos, with guarunteed permission from their parent(s)and proper funds,
2.To make available a separate table and casino floor for the use of children only, so that they are able to gamble on a lower stakes, less skill, safer environment
3.For casinos to make children's facilities available as well as adult facilities so that children can enjoy themselves while there.

Just because people don't like your Proposal, doesn't mean the system's broken. It might be because people don't like your Proposal. Shocking concept, I know.

First off, Intelligenstan, quit your bitching about needing 107 approvals, back when wrote Nuclear Armaments I needed 147 approvals, you only need 73% of what I needed.

Secondly, every time there's a break in the resolutions being voted on someone decides to act like Chicken Little and claim that the sky is falling and the UN is dieing. Well guess what, it's not. You want proof? Check out this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12736771&postcount=7) by Fris from the last time someone started complaining about this so-called problem.

The stone cold truth is this, passing good resolutions takes time, it's a marathon, not a sprint. Anyone can write a piece of crap, carry out a telegram campaign for it, get it to quorum and get it passed. Just look at Right to Divorce (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394675&postcount=136), which was so bad that the very next resolution was it's it's repeal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394694&postcount=137), or Promotion of Solar Panels (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692882&postcount=123) which was so bad that we managed to convince the author to vote against their own creation and would also have been repealed by the very next resolution if there hadn't already been another proposal in the queue.

Oh, and before I forget, in response to your question about why it's been so long since the last resolution passed, all I can say is: it hasn't even been a week since Protection of Historical Sites passed. That's not a long period of time.

And you can see, that everytime a good written proposal comes up (like Repeal: Historical Sites, Uneccessary Animal Cruelty, etc.) the number of approvals exeed 107 by far.

For example our proposal (Protection of Historical Sites) was very controversial (see Forum discussion) - nevertheless it gained the needed 103 approvals a whole day before the period ended. Because it then was in queue, the final number of 150+ Approvals are probably a bit more than it qould have gained if no other resolution had been at vote.

But: It's possible to get a proposal passed within the system.

(btw: The system doesn't fail, because of the 6% approval rate - it fails because there aren't enough categories - or to do it the other way round: it fails because the categories don't cover enough...)

As I said, I might be wrong. I was just noticing a few things. There are 83709 nations and 1760 delegates. That means 1 delegate for about 50 nations. As I noticed, there are around 700 nations active at every given time. Let's just assume that each nation is online for an average of 20 minutes and only visits the site once every three days (large underestimation). Then 14 delegates are active at a given time, and if none visit over once a day, then 1092 visit a day. Lets generously assume that half of these visit the proposals page and scan through, enough to read the ones they want to approve in these 20 minutes. With 3 days deadline, this gives just about all the delegates a chance to look at them, right? Well no, because many nations visit much more often than once a day and for much longer than 20 minutes in 3 days. Also, delegates are usually assumed to be the ones more active in forums and such and so that takes up even more time. All these lower the number of delegates that even have a chance to look at proposals to under 1000. That is over 10% of approvals. This is assuming they actually read through. I guarantee that most of them only read the first page, and even scan that one for ones that sound good to them. Only those they read and choose to approve or not. The main problem I see is not necessarily the lack of approvals, but the lack ofdiversity of delegates. Just a few days ago, there was around a total of 200 delegates approving ANY proposal, obviously many overlapping. This is bothersome. Furthermore, A proposal I approved of reached deadline recently, a few approvals short of the required 107, and then the exact same proposal posted a few days later with very minor grammatical changes got LESS approvals than the first one. By A LOT too. Explain this to me. Yes I'm not saying the system is bad, I understand that many of you think I'm very wrong, but perhaps a consideration to lengthen the deadline period? I mean, I'm sure most UN members enjoy voting on resolutions anyways, even if they will be eventually voted out. No?

It's obvious why: The UN doesn't want to be disturbed. If a proposal is denied, it will be denied once again - and delegates, who approved it the frist time, do not the second time, because they are annoyed, that the same proposal comes up again...

I think ... ;)

i don't knw who this story end...bat something must be done...i mean i'm a UN Member and i don't speak about this resolution but about other good resolution...very well-done,approved by the control team,and waiting for approvals...NO ONE OF THIS RESOLUTION after "Protection of Historical Sites" has broke the barrier of 100 approvals...neither 90 approvals...max 78-79 but no one more...and i see many and many member who discutes about this resolution and at the end...puff...the day limit arrived and the proposal will be canceled...we need to do something...or many good ideas wil be lose for the lazy of UN Delegates...

<numbers>Way too many assumptions to be useful there. The fact that Proposals hit the queue means that Delegates are paying attention. The fact that it all but requires a telegram campaign means its a substantial but not insurmountable task. This is a good thing.

Also, delegates are usually assumed to be the ones more active in forumsReally? Could have fooled me. This assumption has no basis in reality.

lack ofdiversity of delegates.What does this even mean?

Screw this. Let's go back to the way it used to be: 15% required. Then we could have even more complaints, and thus "lower" it back down to 6% and have everyone think we're great.

or many good ideas wil be lose for the lazy of UN Delegates...Most good ideas get to the floor eventually. Most of the stuff that doesn't is crap, as witnessed by the Silly Proposals Thread, which only contains a fraction of the junk that gets deleted on a daily basis.

The problem isn't lazy Delegates; it's lazy authors. Did Enn whine about lazy Delegates when it took fifteen attempts to bring Habeus Corpus to the floor? No. He kept working on it until it finally reached quorum.

I respectfully disagree. I personally think that it is better to let the general public decide. We delegates aren't gods, and the masses are not necessarily incapable of making their own decisions. I see tens of good ideas being thrown away just because a telegram campaign is necessary for any proposal to pass. Especially with the purposefull minimum 10 second delay between wiring of telegrams to 'prevent spam'. Why is this such a critical issue? what would happen if god forbid more resolutions will be simply voted out instead of not even reaching quorum. What would a legthening of the deadline do? Disrupt the entire system? definitely not. Delegates would simply have more time to look over and approve of proposals. Why make it THAT difficult to pass one? As you said, Enn needed 15 times to post the same proposal to have it pass, and it did pass, which means that it was good enough and should have passed the very first time. It should not be a matter of luck, whether enough of the right delegates decide to look over page 4 or 5 of the proposals the very day you have it proposed. If an idea is good, we must give it a chance. Also, dear Hack, why is it that you are rather hostile towards suggestions to perhaps improve on matters. They are only ideas.

I respectfully disagree. I personally think that it is better to let the general public decide. We delegates aren't gods, and the masses are not necessarily incapable of making their own decisions.That's what the general vote is for. Quorum is a vetting process.

I see tens of good ideas being thrown away just because a telegram campaign is necessary for any proposal to pass.Gee... sounds like the authors are being lazy here...

Why is this such a critical issue? what would happen if god forbid more resolutions will be simply voted out instead of not even reaching quorum.Oh yes. Lets vote on these gems:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/DUMB.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/twofer.jpg

As you said, Enn needed 15 times to post the same proposal to have it pass, and it did pass, which means that it was good enough and should have passed the very first time.I like how you're ignoring the part where Enn didn't whine in the forums because his awesomely wonderful bit of awesomeness didn't hit quorum.

It should not be a matter of luck, whether enough of the right delegates decide to look over page 4 or 5 of the proposals the very day you have it proposed.It's not luck. It takes work.

Also, dear Hack, why is it that you are rather hostile towards suggestions to perhaps improve on matters. They are only ideas.I'm hostile to pointless whining.

I personally think that it is better to let the general public decide.Personally, I'm more concerned by the growing number of delegates who endorse anything and everything in the mistaken idea that just because someone found the submit button they've written something worthy of reaching quorum.

I see tens of good ideas being thrown away just because a telegram campaign is necessary for any proposal to pass.A good proposal is far more than just a good idea. Unless the author has understood the topic and all the implications of his "good" idea, and successfully captured those in words, it's still just a not-ready-for-primetime proposal that needs more work.

What would happen if god forbid more resolutions will be simply voted out instead of not even reaching quorum.Aren't you assuming that those crap proposals are going to be voted out? That's not necessarily a true assumption. It's the delegates' job to serve as a gateway to proposals. That's the system and the system basically works.

What would a legthening of the deadline do? Disrupt the entire system? definitely not. Delegates would simply have more time to look over and approve of proposals.You're assuming delegates are refusing to endorse because they haven't seen a proposal. As a delegate, I rarely see more than two, maybe three, proposals out of a batch that even come close to earning an endorsement. And even among that small group, I'll still occasionally notice spelling or grammar problems, possible illegalities, and statements that I just can't support. Delegates don't need more time to review the submitted proposals. Those delegates that are going to review submitted proposals already do so; those that don't still won't whether they have three days or ten.

ok...you say the system is good...so:

Proposal:Environmental Science

Status: Lacking Support (requires 16 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jul 15 2007


in my opinion...if this GOOD proposal is accepted by the rules and became resoution,you have right...if this proposal can'find 16 APPROVALS in 1 DAY probably you have wrong..in my opinion...

in my opinion...if this GOOD proposal is accepted by the rules and became resoution,you have right...if this proposal can'find 16 APPROVALS in 1 DAY probably you have wrong..in my opinion...

If every "good" (good by whose opinion?) proposal somehow was guaranteed to make quorum, and get passed, there really wouldn't be much of a need for a proposal queue at all.

If every strike a pitcher threw was called a strike, there really wouldn't be much of a need for an umpire at all.

If every "good" candidate was placed at a position, there really wouldn't be much of a need for an election at all.

Point is, some good proposals, good pitches, and good candidates don't always make it through the voting period, umpire's decision, and election as well as they may have wanted or deserved. There's nothing wrong with the procedure of getting proposals to quorum, the UN is just in a short drought. There have been plenty of good proposals to fall short of quorum, it's part of the game. Forcing members to work a little to get quorum adds to it all.

You're assuming delegates are refusing to endorse because they haven't seen a proposal. As a delegate, I rarely see more than two, maybe three, proposals out of a batch that even come close to earning an endorsement. And even among that small group, I'll still occasionally notice spelling or grammar problems, possible illegalities, and statements that I just can't support. Delegates don't need more time to review the submitted proposals. Those delegates that are going to review submitted proposals already do so; those that don't still won't whether they have three days or ten.

Exactly, lately I've been more likely to find a proposal that qualifies for the Silly Proposals thread then one that I'll give an approval to.

As fun and enlightening as "Omigod! My Proposal Didn't Make Quorum! Obviously the System Is Broken!! YEEEEAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!" n00b Whinefest #36783B has been, it's time to get back to voting (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=environmental), folks.

ok...you say the system is good...so:

in my opinion...if this GOOD proposal [ed. note: Environmental Science] is accepted by the rules and became resoution,you have right...if this proposal can'find 16 APPROVALS in 1 DAY probably you have wrong..in my opinion...Neener, neener, neener:
Environmental Science

A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

....

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!
Ahem. *readjusts decorum* Even if this proposal hadn't made queue, coming within 16 endorsements of quorum with zero lobbying and almost no public notice (other than its existence on the list), would indicate that nothing is broken about the system and good proposals do receive adequate delegate attention.

As fun and enlightening as "Omigod! My Proposal Didn't Make Quorum! Obviously the System Is Broken!! YEEEEAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!" n00b Whinefest #36783B has been, it's time to get back to voting (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=environmental), folks.Woohoo! Bring out your dead! Vote early and often. :D

I agree with the idea.
I think UN delegates should be replaced by by their closest rival if they:
1) Don't vote on a resolution.
2) Don't support a proposal at least once every ten days (they will be sent a warning letter at days 5 and 9).
3) Have an inactive account for 5 days.

Eh?

1) Don't vote on a resolution.Don't believe in abstaining, huh?

2) Don't support a proposal at least once every ten days (they will be sent a warning letter at days 5 and 9).Even if there's nothing but garbage for ten days?

3) Have an inactive account for 5 days.Guess they aren't allowed to go on vacation.

Never mind the fact that this stuff is a kick in the teeth to Founderless regions (some still exist), and a major kick to everyone involved in the invasion game. There's more to the UN than just voting on Resolutions and approving Proposals, people.

By the way, the Environmental Science proposal just goes to show what silliness this all is: the number of approvals needed is so low that a proposal can reach quorum without a telegram campaign; that hasn't been the case for a long while. I'm starting to get seriously jumpy about delegate activity, actually.

Don't believe in abstaining, huh?

Probably a Swiss...

Even if there's nothing but garbage for ten days?

Garbage? In proposals? Come on! They are all fine! Especially those proposed by said Swiss. (Note: This is irony!!)

Guess they aren't allowed to go on vacation.

Vacation? What is that? No job, no friends, no dog - what do you need other than NationStates? (Note: This is irony, too :p )

OOC: These are the rules of the UN, they are the rules you submitted to when you joined. If you don't like them there is a little button named "Resign" click it and all your troubles will be gone. I swear.