NationStates Jolt Archive

This may be Technical, may be Moderation. Mods, please investigate.

Last night the Olympic Games proposal had reached Quorum and was in queue. A couple hours from the end, Sustainable Energy Sources joined it in queue. This morning, Sustainable is up for voting, and Olympic Games is nowhere to be seen.

Was this a moderator action or a technical glitch? Hersfold put a lot of thought into the timing of this - he won't have the Olympics on TV to help him out if he resubmits. Can somebody please check and make sure that Queued proposals don't get accidentally wiped out by the new server?

Here's the topic that discusses the plans for voting:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352120

This was a moderator action. I have just recieved this telegram:

From: NationStates Moderators
Recieved: 5 hours ago

Your proposal, "Olympic Games" was deleted for containing Game Mechanics requirements, specifically: "This committee shall be elected on the NationStates forums by nominational process. This vote shall be completed and a committee of 7 members will be elected two weeks following the passing of this proposal."


I fail to see how this is a Game Mechanics issue, since nothing is going to be coded into the games and this nominational process stated above was already taking place WITHOUT the use of any game coding. The IOC will be completely separate from NationStates itself, only using these forums to find volunteers for IOC posts and host nations, and for the actual role-playing aspects, which are already going on here without moderator intervention. For discussion and organization purposes, I had made it clear several times that I would set up an InvisionFree forum for the IOC, so that we would not have to use these Jolt forums. Please explain your actions. I am especially confused as to why action was not taken before this proposal reached quorum, when it had recieved approvals of over 170 delegates.

In the event that this is a mistake, I would greatly appreciate if this proposal was placed back in queue where it was at the time of deletion.

The IOC will be completely separate from NationStates itself

Then why did it need a UN resolution?

Here we go again.

I had a UN resoluton for this for the following reasons:

1) It made it a lot easier to make sure that players were not entering the games twice, since this would allow only UN members to enter. If a person was entering more than one nation, they could be accused of multying and be subject to mod penalties.

2) Doing it this way set a standard for time intervals between Olympics - 6 months. The problem with open RP is that more often than not, an Olympics or similar event is held whenever someone feels like hosting one. An event could finish, and then someone whodidn't notice the earlier thread could start up another immeadiately. Or, someone could completely forget the idea and there won't be another for years.

3) The forming of the IOC makes the load a lot easier on the host nations, and also spreads the blame if someone gets angry.

4) While I admit this is the lamest reason of all, the resolution makes it more "Official". It just makes more sense for NationStates to have an "Official" Olympic Games every 6 months than an "Unofficial" one, because that sounds like it's not really being allowed - Which apparently, this one isn't.

As I said before, I would greatly appreciate an explaination behind the reasoning for this deletion, especially since the election process has NOTHING to do with Game Mechanics. If that means we need to drag in the mod who did the deleting, then so be it. I've done it before...

It should absolutely be re-instated.

So many people interested, and then *BANG*

:confused:

UN Resolutions cannot affect things outside of the game itself. The forced creation of something in the forums violates game mechanics.

The UN cannot create a forum-based entity.

Then, under protest, I hereby withdraw my intent to follow with the PROPOSAL Olympic Games, and accept my warning.

HOWEVER - The United Federation of Hersfold will not rest. In protest against the moderators of NationStates, these games will continue! The IOC will be formed within a few weeks, and there will be an IOC-hosted Olympic Games sometime this year! And if you wish to stop me this time, then godspeed!

Isn't there a precedent? I admit I don't follow the efforts of the organisation closely, but wasn't a forum committee set up by the UN Sapce Consortium resolution, which then moved operations to off-site forums? Surely this is a fairly similar thing?

2) Doing it this way set a standard for time intervals between Olympics - 6 months. The problem with open RP is that more often than not, an Olympics or similar event is held whenever someone feels like hosting one. An event could finish, and then someone whodidn't notice the earlier thread could start up another immeadiately. Or, someone could completely forget the idea and there won't be another for years.

Also: a UN resolution cannot be used to prevent others from RPing their own Olympics.

Basically, have fun playing your Olympics as often and in whatever way you want, but it won't be enforced to be the only one allowed just by passing a UN resolution that would make it 'official'.

If as a consequence the admins or moderators of the NS system are expected to do anything at all, it's a game mechanics resolution.

Ballotonia

Was there? I don't know...

edit: I just looked through the "Before you make a proposal..." thread, and nowhere is it mentioned that the forums are off-limits. Can we clarify this?

Until further notice, I withdraw my withdrawal of intent for this proposal.

Isn't there a precedent? I admit I don't follow the efforts of the organisation closely, but wasn't a forum committee set up by the UN Sapce Consortium resolution, which then moved operations to off-site forums? Surely this is a fairly similar thing?

The "UN Space Consortium" resolution does not create a forum-based entity.

Note that different RP groups could respond to the resolution's passing in their own way. Some could simply presume it was done in some way and further ignore the details, others could have one player RP it, and yet others might decide to RP it fully. There is no entity officially recognized as the 'real one and only' UN Space Consortium. The Olympics proposal actually was trying to create such a unique status for one group of players.


As an added note, I do think that the UN Space Consortium resolution contains way too much detail on the organization of the Consortium itself and I think it would've been appropriate for a mod to rule it Game Mechanics for that reason. It might give the impression that the effect is that an actual organization will be created in the game, which isn't the case.

Ballotonia

Also: a UN resolution cannot be used to prevent others from RPing their own Olympics.

Basically, have fun playing your Olympics as often and in whatever way you want, but it won't be enforced to be the only one allowed just by passing a UN resolution that would make it 'official'.

If as a consequence the admins or moderators of the NS system are expected to do anything at all, it's a game mechanics resolution.

Ballotonia

This is not preventing others from RP'ing!?!?! Where in the proposal does it say that? I stand by my rebuttal above. If the proposal still does not get re-instated due to this "rule", I would appreciate it if the mods would remove my warning due to this unclarity. It can be done - it has been done before in my case, for this very reason.

HOWEVER - The United Federation of Hersfold will not rest. In protest against the moderators of NationStates, these games will continue! The IOC will be formed within a few weeks, and there will be an IOC-hosted Olympic Games sometime this year! And if you wish to stop me this time, then godspeed!

I don't think you get what the moderators are saying, Hersfold. You, by your own logic, have done exactly what others in this thread are trying to tell you could be done.

If the UN "created" an IOC, then, it would be illegal for anyone else to role-play out the Olympics, simply because the IOC would be in charge of it, right? Right. Thus, you are directly limiting the role-playing function of people who have already RPed Olympic games, are in the process of RPing Olympic games, or will RP Olympic games.

You are going to create an IOC, anyway - without a UN resolution backing you - and that's the way the game runs in the role-play world.

The mods aren't going to "stop you," as you say, becaue it is perfectly legal for you to do this; however, had your resolution passed, only the IOC could sanction who and where and when and what the Olympic games would be all about.

You aren't going to win any appeal or lose your warning because you refuse to see the error of your proposal.

I generally agree TH, but this seems a reasonable question: edit: I just looked through the "Before you make a proposal..." thread, and nowhere is it mentioned that the forums are off-limits. Can we clarify this?

I concur, THW, it is vague.

But, I would think, that trying to pass a resolution that involved the forums would be considered game mechanics by default, only because by forcing the UN into the forums, you are basically changing the way the UN affects the rest of the NS world.

Then fine, I give up. I do ask, however, that the FAQ is changed again to include this so that this sort of issue does not come up again.

May the UN not fall to lower standards.

May the UN not fall to lower standards.

How would the UN fall to lower standards because you submitted a bad proposal?

This is a very poor moderation decision, because it:

1) Is inconsistent with prior UN resolutions.
2) Is inconsistent with the treatment / moderation of other existing UN proposals that clearly violate Enodia's old UN moderation rules (which I believe are still in effect for the UN).
3) Because it incorrectly assumes that there is a forced game mechanics violation.

I see the decision as being short-sighted, and would like the entire moderation staff to talk this issue over, because I suspect the resolution was removed by a single moderator.

Now I'll explain my points raised above:

1) Prior UN resolutions


The IRCO
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Los chingados

Description:
This legislation would hereby implement the International Red Cross Organization, an organization whose sole duty is to provide support for all the nations under UN rule. It functions as a non-profit organization and is run purely on donations and grants to prevent the corruption of government from interfering with its main goal to provide food, shelter, and humanitarian aid to those in need. They would be the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens. May it be so that the interests of all the citizens in the free world be protected by such a humanitarian group such as the IRCO.

Votes For: 11835
Votes Against: 1600
Implemented: Mon Sep 1 2003


Basically this resolution set up an International Red Cross Organization under the games United Nations (first setence above). Many other resolutions have created organizations, so that alone isn't a sound justification for issuing a warning.


UN Space Consortium
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Rixtex

Description:
Whereas the nations of the world wish to unify their efforts at space exploration, and Whereas, no nation can claim title to the Moon, Let it be resolved, that an agency to be named the United Nations Space Consortium (hereafter referred to as “U.N.S.C.”) is hereby created. The purpose of the U.N.S.C. shall be to establish a permanent Lunar Base capable of furthering the exploration of space for knowledge and resources. The U.N.S.C. shall be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and entirely funded through the sale of stock to any desiring nation, regardless of their affiliation to the United Nations. Non-participating nations are free to pursue their own space objectives, but would not reap the rewards of the investors. No taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution. A Provisional Board of Directors (“Provisional Board”) shall be composed of a representative from each nation participating in the U.N.S.C. immediately following the passage of this resolution. The Provisional Board will then proceed to elect a permanent Board of Directors (“Board”). No sale of stock shall occur before the seating of the Board. Full operational control, design, development, priorities, and administration will be assigned to the Board whose service will remain subject to the will of the stockholders, as provided for in the Articles of Incorporation. Let the nations of the world move forward together to a new frontier.

Votes For: 13191
Votes Against: 5426
Implemented: Sun Feb 29 2004


The above is an example of how a UN resolution was used to start Roleplay ... roleplay that has continued. I don't have a link to the off-site forum, but recently Galdago asked for new members to consider applying to head the UNSC.

My point, it is wrong to assume that a group of very active NationStates players, like Hersfold, intend to not use a UN resolution as a spring board for open role play.

Next up:


Reduce Black Market Arms Sales
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Galdago

Description:
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

CONSIDERING that the illicit traffic in small arms impedes development, constitutes a threat to populations and security, and contributes to the destabilization of States;

RECOGNIZING the suffering caused by illicit trafficking in small arms and that States bear the obligation to bolster their efforts in developing practical ways of addressing the problem;

REAFFIRMING the right to individual or collective self-defense recognized within United Nations implying that States have the right to acquire arms for defense;

REITERATING the importance of the right of self-determination of all peoples, especially under alien domination or foreign occupation;

CONVINCED of the need for a thorough approach to control and reduce small arms and light weapons in a balanced manner to ensure international peace and security;

2. REQUESTS an independent council be formed to continue to consider the matter and report to it at its subsequent sessions on the implementation of this resolution and to seek and consider the views of all Member States on the objective, scope, agenda, dates and venue of an international conference on the illicit arms trade;

3. DECIDES to convene an international conference on all aspects of the illicit arms trade no later than 2005;

Votes For: 11239
Votes Against: 4287
Implemented: Wed May 12 2004


I trimmed the above, but my point is that Galdago has been working on an off-site web page (which looks great) where this international conference will be held.

Now I've limited my quotes to resolutions that have created active organizations. Plenty of UN resolutions create organizations that are LOST and never used again for the purposes of NationStates, the "Banning whaling" resolution is the latest example. I think bumping a resolution (not just a proposal) that can be used as start for roleplay adds to the quality of the game.


2) Proposals that also violate game mechanics but are still around:

You state Hersfold's proposal forces game mechanics, but having a comission ... then what about the following:


UN Member State Taxation Ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Vastiva

Description:
WHERAS We belive the wording of Resolution 4 (UN Taxation Ban) to be imprecise and incomplete in keeping with the original spirit of the resolution;
THEREFORE in keeping with this original intent and to prevent creation of an unchecked UN entity with earnings and monetary power beyond any individual member nation;
BE IT RESOLVED that the United Nations may not collect taxes, directly and/or indirectly, from any member nation and/or their citizens.


This is essentially a repeal of a prior UN resolution, because it states what the original intent of something was (though the author wasn't in the game til a month or two ago), but more important it limits all UN resolutions from having a game stats change in the economies of UN members.

You've removed Hersfold's resolution, but left this and many other proposals ... why?

3) Why This Doesn't LIMIT game mechanics

And just like there is a UNSC, this does not limit other players from having their own international space comissions. Nor would a NS Olympics prohibit other players from having there own. I did not see anything that outlawed other international games.


Bottom line, this is a moderation decision that seems like it should be justified. If you are going to bump this resolution, you (the moderators) need to also go and start bumping the numerous illegal UN proposals and issuing warnings to these nations as well. Personally, I suspect that one of you (not the group) acted without first examining what you as a team have already allowed to come to pass. Furthermore, as evidenced by his very open minded and friendly posts in the Technical, Moderation, and the United Nations forums I can see no single NationStates player that would be best suited for bringing players of all political opinions together for essentially what is a giant open roleplay.

How would the UN fall to lower standards because you submitted a bad proposal?

Tuesday Heights, if this is a bad proposal, look at the queue. There are plenty that violate game mechanics. Others that constantly seek to shut down the UN in the game. And yet others that show no forethought whatsoever.

You of anybody here, know that I've been scouring over and analyzing all of the old resolutions. Hersfold's resolution is consistent with many of the resolutions already passed by the game.

Personally, I suspect that this decision was made by a moderator on a knee-jerk reaction basis. I think they owe the United Nations players more than a one line statement explaining why this resolution was singled out when others have created off-site roleplay before and were allowed to run the distance.

Also, if the moderators are going to start improving the UN, and working to prevent these sorts of things, I really think they need to start going through the proposal queue again.

Personally, I liked it back when Enodia constantly keep the UN cleaned up. I think the game does need a new game moderator, so that one of the staff can spend more time in the UN. While I have no objections to multiple mods watching over the UN, having at least one part-time mod overseeing things there and paying attention to current and future decisions will at least make for consistent game policy.

Mik... misconstruing my words... I meant "bad" as in the moderation staff ruled it "bad," not that I necessarily see it as being bad.

I think it was a well-thought out and intentioned proposal and would've made a good addition to the UN resolution pool; however, I do agree with the mods that this proposal, after closer inspection, conflicts with game mechanics.

Mik... misconstruing my words... I meant "bad" as in the moderation staff ruled it "bad," not that I necessarily see it as being bad.

I think it was a well-thought out and intentioned proposal and would've made a good addition to the UN resolution pool; however, I do agree with the mods that this proposal, after closer inspection, conflicts with game mechanics.

Ah! That is a very important difference. My apologies! :)

If the mods decide that this proposal conflicts with game mechanics, I'd ask that Hersfold's request that it be made clear why so that this doesn't continue be honored. Even a long explanation would be fine in my book, because I know that you and I will be able to archive the ruling and point others to it.

I also would hope that since the mods are happy with rejecting resolutions, that they also consider rejecting proposals on similar grounds. I think inconsistent policing invites misunderstandings.

I'd like to join the calls for this to be reinstated, or at the very least discussed by all the Moderators. As Mikitivity's already explained, it does nothing that the UNSC resolution didn't do. I think it would be very damaging to the game to prevent UN resolutions from creating external RPs - it's cutting off a major source of fun and creativity, which is kinda supposed to be the point of this whole NS affair.

Also: a UN resolution cannot be used to prevent others from RPing their own Olympics.

Basically, have fun playing your Olympics as often and in whatever way you want, but it won't be enforced to be the only one allowed just by passing a UN resolution that would make it 'official'.

If as a consequence the admins or moderators of the NS system are expected to do anything at all, it's a game mechanics resolution.

Ballotonia

Yep, that's basically it. If they have to do anything, then it's shot. Ruined. Against the rules. Regardless of the fact that precedents were there, and no rules were against it.

Also, I might add that someone said this would mean only one Olympics, everyone else told they can't, etc. However, you'll note that nowhere does it say in the proposal there has to be only one set of Olympics, or IOC. That's what people were going to do, but only because it would be hard to find 200 nations dedicated to roleplaying it.

This site is so poorly run. I mean, it's great if all you want to do is make a nation and do issues, but if you want to do anything that might possibly require more work for the admin, may god have mercy on you.

This site is so poorly run. I mean, it's great if all you want to do is make a nation and do issues, but if you want to do anything that might possibly require more work for the admin, may god have mercy on you.
Criticizing volunteers earns you no brownie points, Svet. Cut it out. They do what they can, and they DO listen to rational arguments.

Criticizing volunteers earns you no brownie points, Svet. Cut it out. They do what they can, and they DO listen to rational arguments.

How does being a volunteer make a person incapable of allow the UN to endorse a forum-based event? Hm? They do what they can? Is there some sort of complicated coding that goes into saying, "Sure, what the hell, go and do that Olympic thing. Consider it blessed by the UN." (Obviously after vote, but you know what I mean.) I mean, they're so concerned with nothing can change gameplay that they don't change, or expand, or grow.

Svet, for someone who hasn't been here that long, I'm surprised you'd try to be a martyr and change the way things work around here the way that you're going about it.

If you knew anything, you'd know that NS II is going to come out with more ability to allow proposals/resolutions like this to actually have validity and an affect on the way a player plays this game.

Instead of attacking the moderation staff for enforcing the rules, how about reading the entire thread and the rules for UN proposal submission?

This resolution, in-of-itself, is suggesting that only the IOC has control over the Olympics. Therefore, it limits game mechanics within the forums by reducing the control of the "Olympics" to only those on the IOC - not to all role-players -, as outlined within the proposal, and as such, is a violation of game mechanics.

Also, I might add that someone said this would mean only one Olympics, everyone else told they can't, etc. However, you'll note that nowhere does it say in the proposal there has to be only one set of Olympics, or IOC. That's what people were going to do, but only because it would be hard to find 200 nations dedicated to roleplaying it.

Yes, it would limit who can role-play the Olympics and who couldn't, simply because by making it UN law, it would only apply to UN nations which would mean that only UN nations could be part of, and run, the Olympics through the IOC in NS.

Also, I might add that someone said this would mean only one Olympics, everyone else told they can't, etc. However, you'll note that nowhere does it say in the proposal there has to be only one set of Olympics, or IOC. That's what people were going to do, but only because it would be hard to find 200 nations dedicated to roleplaying it.

Let me put it this way. I'm not in the UN. Would I be allowed to participate in these Olympics?

Let me put it this way. I'm not in the UN. Would I be allowed to participate in these Olympics?

That is a hard question honestly.

Here is the problem. Some non-UN nations are simply puppets for players. What would exist to prevent a player from packing an event with 20 of his various nations and roleplaying such that these other nations throw the matches?

While I recognize that there actually is some value to roleplaying that way, the idea behind limiting the games to only UN members is to enforce some crude elements of fairness and equality that the real IOC strives for. One player, one eligible Olympic nation.

And yes, I know that Tawian and Puerto Rico both participate in the games, and aren't ~exactly~ considered to be sovereign nations by all other nations in the world.

All this said, if my nation were on the IOC, it would work to see that any nation "in good standing" could participate in the games / events so long as it agrees to the principles of the games.

Svet, for someone who hasn't been here that long, I'm surprised you'd try to be a martyr and change the way things work around here the way that you're going about it.

If you knew anything, you'd know that NS II is going to come out with more ability to allow proposals/resolutions like this to actually have validity and an affect on the way a player plays this game.

Instead of attacking the moderation staff for enforcing the rules, how about reading the entire thread and the rules for UN proposal submission?

This resolution, in-of-itself, is suggesting that only the IOC has control over the Olympics. Therefore, it limits game mechanics within the forums by reducing the control of the "Olympics" to only those on the IOC - not to all role-players -, as outlined within the proposal, and as such, is a violation of game mechanics.



Yes, it would limit who can role-play the Olympics and who couldn't, simply because by making it UN law, it would only apply to UN nations which would mean that only UN nations could be part of, and run, the Olympics through the IOC in NS.

It wouldn't limit anyone outside of the UN. Yes, it would mean that the officially sanctioned Olympics would've been members only, but non-member nations are *never* affected by what the UN does. If they had wanted to start an Olympics thread, they could do so. It's not like the UN would've tried to stop them. This was a light proposal, it was simply a way for it to be recognized, they weren't asking for the UN to do anything complicated.

As for the, "You haven't been on this site long, so you can't criticize anything we/they do. Go away," I know online MMORPGs fairly well. The majority, free or not, will make simple changes if members want it. If you have something that's desired, rules can be changed. The fact that they have a rule doesn't mean that they're now incapable of making it more enjoyable for people to use, whether they've been here for two years or two days.

I know online MMORPGs fairly well. The majority, free or not, will make simple changes if members want it. If you have something that's desired, rules can be changed. The fact that they have a rule doesn't mean that they're now incapable of making it more enjoyable for people to use, whether they've been here for two years or two days.

Well, this MMORPG is a lot different than other ones, for starters, it's about 10x bigger than anyone out there and the moderators and admins changed something everytime someone complained, then, that's all that would ever be happening around here.

The code for this game is a lot more complex than anyone on here ever gives credit for, hence, why game mechanics proposals - like this one - cannot be implemented.

As for the, "You haven't been on this site long, so you can't criticize anything we/they do. Go away," I know online MMORPGs fairly well.
What you don't know, without doing a fair amount of research, is the battles we've fought and the reason for the successes and failures. You're welcome to criticize if you do so intelligently.

We just went through a major move of the site. Admins are busy with anticipated and unforeseen problems relating to the move. We're comfortable being patient with them while they deal with the aftermath, because technical things are running so much better than they were a couple of months ago. When they're done, I'm sure they'll take time to work on enhancements.

Nothing you have suggested is new to any of the long-time players. We hear it all repeatedly, and we usually anwer it politely. It's the repetition of explanations, combined with constant thread hijacking like this, that annoys us. Go scope out the Technical forum and read back a few months. You'll see some good suggestions and lots more stupid ones. Be patient, and let them work through them.

From what I see the resolution was deleted mainly for breaking the forth wall of game play. Similar resolutions passed because these international organizations were never intended to be created, just their effects on member nations. Groups who saw that these organizations were a good idea to RP created on or off-site forum groups but were never officially recognized by nationstates.

What I would do is resubmit, pretending that the “IOC” is an in game magical group that only causes effects one time and has no real player connection. Then after such proposal passes, form the group IOC, making it clear that it has no connection with the nationstates created group, and the RP the Olympics as you would if this never happened.

I for one would like issues to deal with in game groups and offsite RP single issue groups, but understand that the mods need to make it legally clear anything organized purely through players is not officially sanctioned by nationstates. This gets into RL legal issues, not a mods grudge against a player or a proposal.

Mikitivity, none of the proposals you mentioned reqired events on the forums. There is a difference between "A comittee is created" and "A comittee will be created on the forums and member nations will vote".

Is it a fine line? Yes.
Did this proposal cross that line? Yes.

If you are going to bump this resolution, you (the moderators) need to also go and start bumping the numerous illegal UN proposals and issuing warnings to these nations as well. Thank you for explaining the job I've been doing for the past year to me. I am well aware that illegal proposals need to be removed from the list. And they are. Every now and then I have other things to do. Of course, in the past few months, there have been around 780 UN Proposals deleted. I'd say we're doing a passable job staying on top of the list.


HOWEVER - The United Federation of Hersfold will not rest. In protest against the moderators of NationStates, these games will continue! The IOC will be formed within a few weeks, and there will be an IOC-hosted Olympic Games sometime this year! And if you wish to stop me this time, then godspeed! Go for it. There is no problem with a forum-based IOC. The problem was with the UN creating a forum-based IOC.


This site is so poorly run. I mean, it's great if all you want to do is make a nation and do issues, but if you want to do anything that might possibly require more work for the admin, may god have mercy on you.This site was created to sell a book. The forums were an afterthought. The primary purpose of this site is still to sell a book. Our two Admins (now think about that a moment... 2 Admins, roughly 30,000 unique players) are very busy people, and have lives outside of NS.

And, I'd say they've done a little bit of work, especially since the bulk of this was done by [violet]:
NationStates
~~~~~~~~~~~~
(c) Max Barry 2002-2004

HISTORY

v1.8 (28-Jun-04)
----------------
Nations created since opening: 804,903
Changes implemented over many weeks
- Many changes (esp. forum-related) for move to Jolt hosting
- Cosmetic overhaul
- Added ability for school classes to auto-register
- Added documentation for educators
- Regional Factbook entries can now use BBcode! [SalusaSecondus]
- Mods can search the ejection log
- Mods can search the admin log
- Mods can auto-send UN warnings
- Better tracking of mod activity
- Warzones! Ban lists are auto-cleared twice daily (idea by
Reploid Productions)
- UN Delegate tenure is recorded.
- Longest-serving Delegate is recorded (but only displayed in Warzones)
- Regional posts containing extremely long words are blocked to prevent
window-breaking spam.
- Fixed bug in "Check Name" javascript (affected Mozilla browsers)

v1.7 (9-Dec-03)
---------------
Nations created since opening: 519,027
Changes implemented over many weeks.
- Added Ignore List for telegrams
- Added a checkbox to toggle all telegrams as selected/unselected
- Nation pages show where they're ranked in that day's UN report
- Prohibited region names with "sneaky" spaces (used to impersonate
legitimate regions)
- Added RSS news feed for news aggregators
- Fixed bug that left regions unmanageable if the Founder died
and left the Delegate unable to access Regional Control
- Added Issue Editor for moderators
- Error message for posting excessively large messages now explains
itself better
- Better error messages if the NS server isn't running
- Flood control to restrict spamming
- Security checks to prevent malicious HTML redirects
- School classes can now register nations so that their members
do not interact with nations outside their own region, and are not
caught by UN cheat checks
- Fixed bug that caused some nations to display a blank major industry
- Nations with 500 million popuations can specify their own nation type
- Fixed bug that caused many nations to not be affected by some passed
UN resolutions
- Fixed bug that allowed nations to receive issues in Vacation mode
- Prevented censored words from showing up in "Latest Topics" sidebar;
also prevented macro use in same
- Tweaked HTML to better display in non-IE browsers
- Many minor content tweaks (typos, bugettes)

v1.6 (15-Jul-03)
----------------
Nations created since opening: 367,907
- Added facility for players to submit Daily Issues
- Blocked potential exploits of nation type and motto
- Everyone can now see a nation's endorsements (not just other
UN nations)
- Fixed bug that prevented Netscape Navigator users from creating
new regions
- Fixed bug that prevented Netscape Navigator users from enabling
password protection in Regional Control
- Fixed silent failure of overly long UN proposals
- Replaced "enormous" descriptor with "huge" to correct grammatical
issue
- Replaced talk of "dollars" in a dilemma with @@CURRENCY@@.
- Fixed run-on hyperlink in UN invitation e-mail.
- Moved several slightly-dynamic pages into /pages dir to remove
unnecessary server load (faq, about, welcome, banner).
- Added "[Back to Telegrams]" link after sending message.
- Upgraded forum to MySQL v4.0 (from v3.23).
- Several minor bug fixes

v1.5 (11-Jun-03)
----------------
Nations created since opening: 335,000.
Changes implemented over several weeks:
- Replaced 'pin=12345678' session management system with cookies,
due to the large number of players who post URLS publicly
(which allowed others to hijack their nations).
- Moderator functions! We have in-game moderators, at last.
- Added "Getting Help" page for players to report naughty
behaviour to mods.
- Implemented ForumMgr persistent server to prevent so many database
queries about latest forum topics
- Added anti-hacking code to prevent sad gits from brute-forcing
regional passwords
- Added 'regiondata.cgi' XML data feed
- Enhanced 'nationdata.cgi' XML data feed
- Switched to Apache::DBI module, for what it's worth
- Bug fix: some nations previously couldn't log in to the forum
- Bug fix: "Erroneous characters "
- Many minor bug fixes

v1.4 (29-Apr-03)
----------------
Nations created since opening: 285,000.
Many changes implemented over the last few months:
- Regional Control! Now spammers, grief players and other undesirables
can be dealt with by UN Delegates and region Founders.
- Better, automated cheatscan to handle UN violations
- Improved password security (previously used crypt() algorithm)
- Added anti-hack security, to defeat brute-force type password
cracking attempts
- Added search ability to UN proposals
- Nations now need 2 endorsements before submitting a UN proposal
- Added three new UN proposal types: Moral Decency, Political Stability,
and Gun Control
- Fixed major forum/MySQL problem that was choking the site (hooray)
- Added "NationStates 2" and "International Incidents" forums
- Forum now has moderators
- Added "News" page
- Added "Known Problems" page
- Added XML nation data feed (/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi)
- Back to 21 days before inactive nations are purged
- Fixed notorious "0" e-mail bug in "Settings"
- Fixed notorious "Bad Request" HTML bug
- Many other minor bug fixes & improvements
- There are now several default Pacific regions for new players

v1.3 (10-Dec-02)
----------------
Nations created since opening: 7,500.
- Moved to dedicated server
- Converted code to run under mod_perl with Apache::Registry
for speed increase
- Session management is now a persistent process
- So is the UN
- Better error messages for login & flag upload failure

v1.2 (27-Nov-02)
----------------
Nations created since opening: 3,200.
Many mostly internal changes to decrease server load, to prevent it
from killing us all under the weight of exponential playerbase growth:
- No more e-mailed daily nation updates! :(
- Endorsements are now "verified" rather than dynamic. Previously,
the game had to verify your endorsements every time someone checked
the UN page, to make sure they were all still there. Now they are
checked by the UN twice per day, and that's how many votes you have
for the next 12 hours.
- The "< 1 2 3 ..." thingy doesn't list page numbers for all four
hundred pages any more
- Added FAQ question dealing with how to make a hyperlink to your nation
- Optimized standard flag graphics
- 6KB limit on custom flags (down from 12KB)
- No more listing of "who's online"
- Slightly improved session management; more work to be done (file locking)
- Inactive nations purged after 14 days of no-login

v1.1 (20-Nov-02)
----------------
Nations created since opening: 280.
- The game now attempts to detect bogus UN members and reports them
to admin
- Auto-login doesn't try to log in deleted nations
- The 'world' page shows who's online (or was recently)
- Imposed 10-telegram limit
- Inactive nations will be purged after 21 days, not 30. Inactive nations
in vacation mode will be purged in 60 days, not 90.
- Bug fix: leaving the UN now removes your votes from the resolution
- Bug fix: losing UN Delegate status removes your approvals from proposals
- Added handy admin tools to track, review, and delete naughty nations >:->
- Obvious profanity is now blocked from mottos
- Regions have their own little message boards
- Improved timestamp format
- Telegrams now have timestamps
- Fixed "frame within frame" problem generated by inactivity
- Decreased UN resolution voting time to 5 days (from 7)
- Imposed 1-endorsement minimum on UN Delegates
- Added "unsubscribe" link in emails to nations
- Added "None" as an option in issue frequency
- Separated mailing functions from update script, to improve speed
- Recorded failed resolutions
- Nations get telegrams to confirm passed UN resolutions that affect
them
- Various other minor bug fixes & changes


v1.0 (13-Nov-02)
----------------
Site goes live!
- Emails are now multipart (kinda)
- Fixed major effect bug that wasn't implementing decisions properly
- Added dryrun and nomail options to daily update for admin
- new Home page
- Verbose error messages
- No more dilemma repeats until you've cycled through the lot
- Added ability to email people who forget their password
- Added "Most Recent Government Activity" thingo
- Added "< 1 2 3 >" thingy for UN lists
- NOFRAMES page is nicer to avoid scaring off search engines
- Added links to break out of frameless pages, for people who enter the
site via weird means.
- Some fixes for stupid Netscape 4

v0.9 beta (04-Nov-02)
---------------------
- Added graphics! The site no longer looks butt-ugly.
- Added United Nations. The UN will hopefully provide some player
interactivity, which a few people commented seemed to be missing.
Nations can join the UN, jockey for the position of Regional Delegate,
and vote on UN Resolutions that affect all member nations. You can
also endorse other nations, which is just kinda nice even if you don't
use it for anything special.
- Added lots of new issues (there are now 30).
- You can now receive daily nation updates via e-mail.
- Many bugfixes and minor improvements.

v0.2.2 beta (02-Oct-02)
----------------------
- Replaced sidebar background with cityscape picture.

v0.2.1 beta (29-Sep-02)
----------------------
- Removed frame borders and coloured background of sidebar blue.

v0.2 beta (21-Aug-02)
---------------------
- Nation descriptions are now fully dynamic. (Previously most of the
description was fixed no matter what sort of country you had.)
- No more incongruous issues (e.g. you won't have gambling problems
if you've outlawed gambling).
- Nation logins carry over to the forum. That is, if you log in a nation,
then visit the forum, your posts will come from your nation.
- Autologin: when you return to the site, you're automatically logged in
(assuming you've created a nation). You can turn this off in "Settings."
- Added FAQ.
- Added "About" page.
- You choose your own password.
- You can select how many issues you get per day.
- Nations have a national flag. You can also design your own flag and
upload it.
- Daily updates happen automatically (at 1AM Los Angeles time, and at 1PM if
you request two updates per day).

v0.1 beta (07-Aug-02)
---------------------
- Original version

Some non-UN nations are simply puppets for players.

And some players use puppets to be in the UN, as they don't want the effects of this said body to affect their nation.

Okay. -now realizes much, much more to site than thought- I'll just go back to the political side of this forum, and stop putting my foot in my mouth. (or at least do so on different subjects. :D ) Well, keep up the good work then. Sorry, it's just been sort of miffing to have something like this happen. I still would like to know though, what is the reason that the UN can't endorse a forum-based event? I heard everything from legal reasons to it would then prevent non-member nations from doing things.

Edit: Oh, I don't know if this has already been done, but I think that the warning against hersford should be removed, as like you said it's a fine line.

Edit: Oh, I don't know if this has already been done, but I think that the warning against hersford should be removed, as like you said it's a fine line.

No.

Isn't there a precedent? I admit I don't follow the efforts of the organisation closely, but wasn't a forum committee set up by the UN Sapce Consortium resolution, which then moved operations to off-site forums? Surely this is a fairly similar thing?Yes, there was, but I think it was an off-site forum, as was another example I can certainly mention.Mikitivity, none of the proposals you mentioned reqired events on the forums. There is a difference between "A comittee is created" and "A comittee will be created on the forums and member nations will vote".So, if this was changed to " A comittee is created " ... ?

Mikitivity, none of the proposals you mentioned reqired events on the forums. There is a difference between "A comittee is created" and "A comittee will be created on the forums and member nations will vote".So, if this was changed to " A comittee is created " ... ?

Potentially that would be fine, based on the Space proposal. The problem with the original was that it was using the UN to force the forums to do something, a task which it cannot do.

Ah, I see your point. And yet, I thought as was the intent of Hersfold it seemed, that the committee was to be drawn together on the U.N. Forum as it was, as the committee's drawn together in other resolutions have been initially ... But yeah, I see your point. I'm sure with some minor adaption to wording, Hersfold could continue with this splendid idea of theirs, and yet maintain its intent.

Thanks.

And some players use puppets to be in the UN, as they don't want the effects of this said body to affect their nation.

The point here is:

One player per one UN nation,
One player per one Olympic nation.

Potentially that would be fine, based on the Space proposal. The problem with the original was that it was using the UN to force the forums to do something, a task which it cannot do.

How?
And why wasn't this caught when this was a proposal?

I think one way to prevent another proposal / resolution like Hersfold's from having to be bumped after it gets into the resolution queue, would be to have better policing of the rejected proposals, even if the moderation team has already zapped hundreds of them.

Another way to reduce the number of illegal proposals would be to specifically highlight the clause in the resolution that was considered illegal and add it to Cog's thread which is a study in deleted proposals. I've read the thread, and I'm not sure that this resolution really was FORCING the game to do anything.

It would be best for the game if the moderator that made the decision to bump this resolution would have:

1) Done so while the idea was a proposal, and
2) Highlight the resolution text that was ruled illegal.

Personally, I'm still convinced that the ruling was really inconsistent with prior moderation of the UN ... by hey, maybe I've missed where the mod team has highlighted the offensive text. If so, I would love to review the text.

No.

How long does the warning stay?

And why wasn't this caught when this was a proposal?It was caught as a proposal. Had it not been a proposal, I couldn't have deleted it. "in queue" simply means a proposal has enough votes. If a resolution received enough votes on its first day, it would sit for a week (or is it two?) saying that it was "in queue". Until a proposal is actually on the floor for a vote, it's just a proposal. In queue or not.

I've read the thread, and I'm not sure that this resolution really was FORCING the game to do anything.Once again.

The text of the proposal mandates that an election be held, on the forums, within two weeks of the proposal's passage. That is a UN Resolution trying to force an effect on the forums.

1) Done so while the idea was a proposal, andI did.

2) Highlight the resolution text that was ruled illegal. I did.

hey, maybe I've missed where the mod team has highlighted the offensive text. If so, I would love to review the text. You did. Second post:

From: NationStates Moderators
Recieved: 5 hours ago

Your proposal, "Olympic Games" was deleted for containing Game Mechanics requirements, specifically: "This committee shall be elected on the NationStates forums by nominational process. This vote shall be completed and a committee of 7 members will be elected two weeks following the passing of this proposal."See? Highlighted text.

As I've said numerous times on this thread, by forcing the forums to hold a vote, this resolution was forcing the UN to do something it cannot do. It does not have the authority for this, nor does it have the coded ability.

edit: I just looked through the "Before you make a proposal..." thread, and nowhere is it mentioned that the forums are off-limits. Can we clarify this?
Done.

It is now explicitly stated in the proposal rules that no UN proposal may impose mandates or limitations on forum activity.

How long does the warning stay?
Official warnings are permanent.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Hack,

I think you are missing one of my points ... Cog has a thread which is a case study of deleted proposals.

It would be helpful to all in the future if the original text of this resolution, especially the material you quoted above were added to the case study of deleted proposals.

Since the team is treating this as a proposal, I think having this example up there will hopefully reduce the chances of this happening again.



Also, what is the justification for permanent warning marks? Please bear in mind that Hersfold had run his resolution past many of us, and being that nobody had been PUBLICALLY warned for this in the recent past (i.e. past 8 months) a number of us weren't able to predict that you (the moderation team) would delete and warn on this proposal, but allow that proposal that would prevent the UN from changing nation's economies (the UN Taxation Ban proposal) to continue its course.

It is just that I don't feel a permanent justification for something that was done in goodfaith and out in the open should be treated them as an many of the other violations, which focus on players being absuvie of other players (take the racist issued warnings).

That's why you get multiple UN Warnings. Of course, Hersfeld currently has 2 (if memory serves), so he might want to specifically ask about future proposals as a third would likely result in UN ejection.

Furthermore, just because the thread was in the UN forum doesn't necessarily mean a Mod saw it. I looked at the proposal because it was brought specifically to my attention that it may be in violation of UN rules. I took a look, got a second opinion, and then deleted it. Nothing particularly unusual there.

Finally, warnings have always been permanent.

That's why you get multiple UN Warnings. Of course, Hersfeld currently has 2 (if memory serves), so he might want to specifically ask about future proposals as a third would likely result in UN ejection.

Furthermore, just because the thread was in the UN forum doesn't necessarily mean a Mod saw it. I looked at the proposal because it was brought specifically to my attention that it may be in violation of UN rules. I took a look, got a second opinion, and then deleted it. Nothing particularly unusual there.

Finally, warnings have always been permanent.

Please check on how many he has, because Hersfold (not Hersfeld) had a warning from Stephanistan, but it was removed. Basically she deleted his UNEC Amendment proposal on the grounds that the name was an amendment, but a number of us managed to convince her that the actual text of the UN proposal was not an amendment, but instead just revisited and further defined the UNEC.

The name of the proposal was poorly choosen for "NationStates" and its absolute rules, but the proposal itself was IMHO pretty good.

Hersfold may have gotten another warning that I wasn't aware of, but somehow I think you are thinking of that earlier event. I can find the thread here in Moderation if you like, but at the time Stephanistan did say that she'd remove the mark against Hersfold.

I'm under the impression that warnings have been removed in the past. Perhaps we could talk to Stephanistan about that, because I don't believe they are permanent like you are suggesting.


As for the idea of permanent warnings, I think that is a bad policy for the reason you've already suggested: players are going to constantly be coming here looking for moderator feedback since apparently only the few of you have the ability to remove an active player from the UN.

I believe there is a fine line in being a moderator from falling into the trap of becoming more of a game "enforcer". To blindly follow policies without examining what should be done in the future, permanent warnings are one example, may actually cause more problems in the future.

You risk alienating your well meaning long-term players and actually encourage a game culture / environment where players are constantly second guessing themselves and coming to moderation for rulings. As you've already pointed out, many posts in the UN forum are ignored and the moderators are actually listening to player complaints on a case-by-case situation and only then checking into the "legality" or "illegality" of a proposal. When that is the method used to "screen" proposals, then it is __players__ that are the ones that are actively moderating each other, and the moderators that respond by issuing only a final judgement.

If the game moderators aren't going to respond to every "Since your rulings are difficult to predict, I'd like your team to pre-approve this resolution", how can players PLAY the game in good faith without basically eventually getting themselves bumped from the UN?

I think you are missing one of my points ... Cog has a thread which is a case study of deleted proposals.
Just a side note: It's really only a semi-official thread, as I'm the only one who bothers talking about the proposals I delete.

The other Mods are welcome to post examples to the same thread, it's just that most simply don't have the time to do anything more than delete the proposal and issue a brief explanation and warning. I, myself, haven't patrolled the proposal list much, recently, because of real-life time constraints.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Just a side note: It's really only a semi-official thread, as I'm the only one who bothers talking about the proposals I delete.

The other Mods are welcome to post examples to the same thread, it's just that most simply don't have the time to do anything more than delete the proposal and issue a brief explanation and warning. I, myself, haven't patrolled the proposal list much, recently, because of real-life time constraints.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I've found it a useful tool, and think that it begins to build a case for consistency in decision making. Since any mod can issue a warning, I certainly hope that the others would add to your thread! :)

(Especially in this case ... as the reason Hersfold added the text about using the forums is clear for anybody whom has ever participated in a NationStates UN debate when a resolution creating any sort of committee has come to the floor. The question, "So who will be on this committee?" is always raised. I know always is a big word to use in a situation like this, but I think most of you will agree. Hersfold wasn't trying to take over the game or cut players out of the game, but honestly was interested in heading off this question in the way he best knew how ... by describing a PUBLIC and DEMOCRATIC process for getting players into his proposal's committee. This is why I feel the warning shouldn't be permanent. Maybe temporary, as in 6 months, but permanent? I think that is being way to extreme for what was an honest mistake made and a type of mistake that hasn't been documented before.)

I couldn't agree more. The idea that a proposal like Hersfeld's that violated an admittedly minor and hard-to-find point would get a warning just as severe as one that was something like, "This prosl wnts to kil eveyone who disgres wit me," or, like something that was still up last time I checked, "To make my region the supreme ruler of the world. MUHUHAWHAWHAW!" Something like that. The idea that all of these would get a permenant warning is ludicious.

Mikit is absolutely right. Mods shouldn't just be enforcing the rules, they should be looking at them and questioning them. If the reason is, like many of them have said, time constraints, then find more people. I'm sure that out of the 30,000 players they could find three or so more to help them.

Just a side note: It's really only a semi-official thread, as I'm the only one who bothers talking about the proposals I delete.

It may be a semi-official thread, but it's a very important semi-official thread.

In effect writing proposals for UN resolutions is like walking in a mine field, you make the wrong step three times and you're out. It would be nice if people knew where those mines were, so we could avoid them. Otherwise you will find fewer and fewer people wanting to go into the mine field, and the only thing the mine field will kill are the children ... er I mean the anoying people who never read the forums, and who make resolutions that violate every single rule multiple times.

(Especially in this case ... as the reason Hersfold added the text about using the forums is clear for anybody whom has ever participated in a NationStates UN debate when a resolution creating any sort of committee has come to the floor. The question, "So who will be on this committee?" is always raised.
Keep in mind this is strictly a roleplay question. As far as the in-game United Nations and UN proposals are concerned, the people who sit on "committees" don't hail from any nationstate, but rather magically pop out of the ground as fully-formed, mature adults loyal only to the United Nations. Nations cannot be allowed to sit on "committees" because it's a game mechanics violation; UN resolutions may not have specific effects on specific named nations (such as appointing "Cogitation" to the "Ways and Means committee") nor transfer specific effects to other specific nations (such as appointing a new nation to the "Way and Means committee" every 3 months).

In roleplay, you may pretend that nations sit on committees, but this has no bearing on the UN proposal that "created" the committee.

As a parallel to most other roleplays; if a 5 million population tries to roleplay itself as a superpower, then the nation is called a "godmodder". But that doesn't mean that valid roleplays have any bearing whatsoever on the numerical statistics of the nation in question. Similar deal here: You can roleplay that the "committees" "created" by UN resolutions are staffed by UN member nations, but those roleplays have no bearing on the UN resolution, itself, or any of its effects on numerical statistics.


Mikit is absolutely right. Mods shouldn't just be enforcing the rules, they should be looking at them and questioning them. If the reason is, like many of them have said, time constraints, then find more people. I'm sure that out of the 30,000 players they could find three or so more to help them.
[Emphasis mine.]

This goes back to the older issue of "Who do we trust to make a Moderator?". There is nothing that a Game Moderator can do that can't be undone by other Moderators or detected by Admin. However, if a Moderator turns renegade, then an Admin has to get around to removing Mod powers (thus requiring that Max, [violet], or Salusa show up to handle the problem) and then the rest of the Mod team has to go and clean up the resulting mess. That can be a very lengthy process and involve a LOT of damage control.

As this applies to the United Nations: We don't want a Moderator who thinks that a UN proposal is bad merely because the Moderator has a very dim view of the political agenda advanced in the proposal. All the current Game Moderators (myself included) hold our positions because we are trusted not to let our political/religious/personal beliefs influence our judgement when enforcing the rules.



--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

This is an excellent discussion, worthy of keeping. As topic originator, I request that it be archived when everyone is done.

Probably out to be retitled, though. "Discussion on Roleplay in UN resolutions" would work. Mod's choice, if you want to do it.

Keep in mind this is strictly a roleplay question. As far as the in-game United Nations and UN proposals are concerned, the people who sit on "committees" don't hail from any nationstate, but rather magically pop out of the ground as fully-formed, mature adults loyal only to the United Nations. Nations cannot be allowed to sit on "committees" because it's a game mechanics violation; UN resolutions may not have specific effects on specific named nations (such as appointing "Cogitation" to the "Ways and Means committee") nor transfer specific effects to other specific nations (such as appointing a new nation to the "Way and Means committee" every 3 months).

In roleplay, you may pretend that nations sit on committees, but this has no bearing on the UN proposal that "created" the committee.

As a parallel to most other roleplays; if a 5 million population tries to roleplay itself as a superpower, then the nation is called a "godmodder". But that doesn't mean that valid roleplays have any bearing whatsoever on the numerical statistics of the nation in question. Similar deal here: You can roleplay that the "committees" "created" by UN resolutions are staffed by UN member nations, but those roleplays have no bearing on the UN resolution, itself, or any of its effects on numerical statistics.



[Emphasis mine.]

This goes back to the older issue of "Who do we trust to make a Moderator?". There is nothing that a Game Moderator can do that can't be undone by other Moderators or detected by Admin. However, if a Moderator turns renegade, then an Admin has to get around to removing Mod powers (thus requiring that Max, [violet], or Salusa show up to handle the problem) and then the rest of the Mod team has to go and clean up the resulting mess. That can be a very lengthy process and involve a LOT of damage control.

As this applies to the United Nations: We don't want a Moderator who thinks that a UN proposal is bad merely because the Moderator has a very dim view of the political agenda advanced in the proposal. All the current Game Moderators (myself included) hold our positions because we are trusted not to let our political/religious/personal beliefs influence our judgement when enforcing the rules.



--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

So how can anyone be trusted to become a moderator then

(off-topic post)

This goes back to the older issue of "Who do we trust to make a Moderator?". There is nothing that a Game Moderator can do that can't be undone by other Moderators or detected by Admin. However, if a Moderator turns renegade, then an Admin has to get around to removing Mod powers (thus requiring that Max, [violet], or Salusa show up to handle the problem) and then the rest of the Mod team has to go and clean up the resulting mess. That can be a very lengthy process and involve a LOT of damage control.

As this applies to the United Nations: We don't want a Moderator who thinks that a UN proposal is bad merely because the Moderator has a very dim view of the political agenda advanced in the proposal. All the current Game Moderators (myself included) hold our positions because we are trusted not to let our political/religious/personal beliefs influence our judgement when enforcing the rules.

[/edit]

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Well, then create a new class of mods. Like, probationary mods. I mean, I understand, that this couldn't be done until NS2, but it seems like this could be better done by having prob mods who could mark a proposal as that they think it should be reviewed, thus saving the mod's time by having it flagged. If there's a prob mod that you agreed with often, then they could be promoted to a higher class of mod.

Or, perhaps all UN proposals would have to be approved before being allowed to be endorsed by the UN Delegates. I mean, yeah, it'd be a lot of work, but, perhaps the admin could pick someone to be that "mod" and that be their specific and only duty within NS Moderation.

Or, perhaps all UN proposals would have to be approved before being allowed to be endorsed by the UN Delegates. I mean, yeah, it'd be a lot of work, but, perhaps the admin could pick someone to be that "mod" and that be their specific and only duty within NS Moderation.

Actually I like that idea, but I'd say pass that work along to a group of players both within and outside of the UN. An approval can be passed by any one of these players.

My concern is I don't think this should be viewed as a real position ... i.e. it would be better if it weren't active proposal / resolution writers, as they do have a bias / stake involved. It also shouldn't include any player that has publically said, "I vote everything down the UN, I hate it."

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. :p

If you allow "players," per se who can't be regulated in doing this job, they will play favoritism towards all well-thought out proposals instead of some of the lesser ones that are not as well-thought out - but are legal - will be disposed of without a second thought.

It has to be a Moderation position, that the admin picks, and that is regulated with strict guidelines and consequences for breaking those regulations.

Oh, just let the players decide like we've been doing. We've had what, two failures in the last year? I'm thinking of Anward's UN Lottery and Hersfold's Olympics, both pulled from quorum at the cusp of going to vote. We had two pissed-off players, one of whom quickly got over it.

Yes, we have to wade through a lot of chaff if we like doing the Approval thing. So what? We're here to kill time, aren't we?

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

Well, then create a new class of mods. Like, probationary mods. I mean, I understand, that this couldn't be done until NS2, but it seems like this could be better done by having prob mods who could mark a proposal as that they think it should be reviewed, thus saving the mod's time by having it flagged. If there's a prob mod that you agreed with often, then they could be promoted to a higher class of mod.

How is this different than players alerting the mods to problem proposals?

Oh, just let the players decide like we've been doing. We've had what, two failures in the last year? I'm thinking of Anward's UN Lottery and Hersfold's Olympics, both pulled from quorum at the cusp of going to vote. We had two pissed-off players, one of whom quickly got over it.

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

These may be the poster cases for better screening, but Tuesday Heights regularly filters through all 9 to 15 pages of proposals. As do many other UN Delegates. They also regularly endorse those they like. If the queue were smaller, say even by removing the "Let me talk over the wurld!" proposals, it makes their ability to get more active in providing feedback to other players easier.

This isn't about making the mods job easier, but hopefully raising the standard for all proposals.

How is this different than players alerting the mods to problem proposals?

This would be a small step up from player status, so more weight would be given to it. If you consistently were fair and balanced, then the mods could promote you.