Review implications of the "WA Accord on Campaign Spam" on self-governance

Kondratev

Kondratev

TNPer
In May, the RA ratified the World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam by a wide margin. I like the document too, but it has been inappropriately invoked by the delegate to justify his use of executive privilege on WA votes.

The concern stems from his comments in the thread for this recent vote:


plembobria:
Eluvatar:
plembobria:
Considering Funkadelia decided to send a tag:wa campaign out for this resolution I have every intention of continuing voting against in accordance with the World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that even if a majority were to vote in favor, you would continue voting against?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...

I called the citation of the spam treaty a "flimsy justification" for flouting the democratic process:

Kondratev:
The resolution itself has been stomped pretty hard in opposition to the spam, and the citizens who have voted thus far agree with your position by a 2:1 margin at the time of this post. I see no emergency which would necessitate taking a hardline stance on this resolution, your first vote in office.
Click to expand...

This became a long debate in Discord, with Flemingovia and myself opposed to this move, and r3naissanc3r and Plembobria in support.

While both sides agreed that the treaty was nonbinding and contains language explicitly protecting regional sovereignty, r3n and Plemb continued to stand by the idea that the treaty was a sufficient reason to override a democratic majority on the basis that not doing so would render the treaty pointless:

r3naissanc3r:
The treaty is indeed not binding in those recommendations, and I did not claim it is. However, if we never enforce its recommendations, then the treaty will never achieve its intended objective of reducing WA spam. This is an objective that the RA has agreed is worthy and agreed to support by ratifying the treaty.

The treaty provides very solid justification for the Delegate to continue voting against if the poll tally changes. It is a justification that the RA itself has authorized, when voting for the treaty.
Click to expand...

I remain unconvinced that this simple nonbinding treaty is a good enough reason for the delegate to cast his vote against a majority opinion of members. I'm making this thread so we can discuss what is the appropriate course in such situations, and whether Plembobria's interpretation of the treaty is overly broad and problematic.
 
There was once a clause in the legal code which was removed by Eluvatar's executive officer amendment act which guaranteed the Delegate's right to vote as they wish in the WA using any criteria or justification that they wished, with it being noted as "redundant".

Sadly, it is that the lack of that clause which has triggered this.
 
No, it isn't. If that statute were still law, then it'd just be part of the debate, too. Said statute certainly didn't prevent debate of WA voting in the past.

I believe that we should follow one of two paths:

A) We establish a policy that we enforce WAACS in every case.

B) We establish a policy that the decision on whether or not to enforce WAACS in a particular case should be up to some representative group (of more than one person) such as the voters in the forum topic.
 
the problem with giving the RA the decision on whether to enforce the WACS treaty, or indeed what to vote in a WA resolution, is that he bloody peasants might decide WRONG.

that is why the whole idea of having a WA voting thread at all is silly.

Far better to keep the decision in the hands of their betters.

dcea128aa32a9dd6a094c8a66c0feda6752a2d640bbbc2c6cc34801fa1cca39b.jpg
 
flemingovia:
the problem with giving the RA the decision on whether to enforce the WACS treaty, or indeed what to vote in a WA resolution, is that he bloody peasants might decide WRONG.

that is why the whole idea of having a WA voting thread at all is silly.

Far better to keep the decision in the hands of their betters.

dcea128aa32a9dd6a094c8a66c0feda6752a2d640bbbc2c6cc34801fa1cca39b.jpg
Click to expand...

I am certain you have argued the exact opposite in the case where Delegate Blue Wolf II did not vote according to the forum vote. I don't recall you referring to voters as peasants in that situation.

As long as the policy is clearly stated, I don't see what the issue is. Plembobria has voted according to long standing Delegate policy. Should he wish to outline his voting policy in more detail, he is free to do so.

Eluvatar:
No, it isn't. If that statute were still law, then it'd just be part of the debate, too. Said statute certainly didn't prevent debate of WA voting in the past.

I believe that we should follow one of two paths:

A) We establish a policy that we enforce WAACS in every case.

B) We establish a policy that the decision on whether or not to enforce WAACS in a particular case should be up to some representative group (of more than one person) such as the voters in the forum topic.
Click to expand...

Had that part of the act remained in place, anyone who was to look would have been able to see what the Delegate's role was more clearly. Also Eluvatar, the last time WA voting was raised in this context I believe it was in response to the bill of rights. It went to court and was appropriately thrown out.

I don't like either of your suggestions. The first is just unnecessarily removing whatever power the in-game Delegate has left (unsurprising) and the second is just unnecessary bureaucracy, and would seem completely unworkable. These decisions are best left to the Delegate as our elected representative and his designee (i.e. the WA Minister).

We already severely limit the Delegate's authority particularly when it comes to simple game mechanics. We should be able to take into consideration that the Delegate we elect will vote according to their own WA voting policy. Whether they choose to state this clearly or not in a public directive is up to them. This is exactly the type of issue that should be raised in elections. Further, I might add, that should a Delegate continue to go against prevailing public opinion the Delegate may be recalled from office.

In my view there may be certain circumstances where the Delegate will wish to vote according to their own foreign policy goals or other security interests. We should remain flexible in this regard. I would also raise the fact that we have very rarely had a Delegate override a forum vote. It would be my preference that we maintain allowing the Delegate the greatest flexibility in determining what method/procedure they use to determine their World Assembly vote.
 
Clue: Irony does not mean "containing a lot of the element Fe." You might also wish to mention that during my two terms in office I followed the RA's will on every UN vote, as far as I can remember. Contrary bastard aren't I?

So McM is suggesting giving the peasants a say unless the delegate disagrees with that say, in which case the delegate trumps all?
 
flemingovia:
Clue: Irony does not mean "containing a lot of the element Fe." You might also wish to mention that during my two terms in office I followed the RA's will on every UN vote, as far as I can remember. Contrary bastard aren't I?

So McM is suggesting giving the peasants a say unless the delegate disagrees with that say, in which case the delegate trumps all?
Click to expand...
I was not here for your terms in office, so I cannot comment on what you did. I cannot recall a situation where I did not vote according to the forum on WA matters, but it is nonetheless a possibility. After a while the WA votes all kind of merge together into a single blur.

My view is that we continue to follow the long standing policy. That is the Delegate follows the will of the forum vote on WA matters, except where extenuating circumstances exist. Which as the past couple of years has shown is extremely rare. If we absolutely refuse to allow our Delegates to use their discretion on WA votes where there are foreign policy or security implications, that seems pretty ridiculous in my view. :duh:

That said though, when a controversial proposal is coming up, generally people are aware of it. In such a case, it would be prudent to first state how the Delegate intends to vote and why. But that is down to individual leaders, I guess. :shifty:
 
I am pretty happy with that. It was the brusqueness of Plemboria's response - and the fact that it was his very first WA proposal - that made me personally uneasy.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Eluvatar:
I believe that we should follow one of two paths:

A) We establish a policy that we enforce WAACS in every case.

B) We establish a policy that the decision on whether or not to enforce WAACS in a particular case should be up to some representative group (of more than one person) such as the voters in the forum topic.
Click to expand...

I don't like either of your suggestions. The first is just unnecessarily removing whatever power the in-game Delegate has left (unsurprising) and the second is just unnecessary bureaucracy, and would seem completely unworkable. These decisions are best left to the Delegate as our elected representative and his designee (i.e. the WA Minister).

We already severely limit the Delegate's authority particularly when it comes to simple game mechanics. We should be able to take into consideration that the Delegate we elect will vote according to their own WA voting policy. Whether they choose to state this clearly or not in a public directive is up to them. This is exactly the type of issue that should be raised in elections. Further, I might add, that should a Delegate continue to go against prevailing public opinion the Delegate may be recalled from office.
Click to expand...

Sir, yes, sir! :npa1:

More seriously, your argument appears to be fully generalizable.

mcmasterdonia:
In my view there may be certain circumstances where the Delegate will wish to vote according to their own foreign policy goals or other security interests. We should remain flexible in this regard. I would also raise the fact that we have very rarely had a Delegate override a forum vote. It would be my preference that we maintain allowing the Delegate the greatest flexibility in determining what method/procedure they use to determine their World Assembly vote.
Click to expand...

These certain circumstances seem to have become much more frequent of late.
 
First, I am strongly in favor of leaving the power in the hands of the Delegate.

Second, any change contemplated has to consider the possible effect of extra-regional influences on a forum vote, as well as the consequences for a Delegate who fails to comply with said vote.
 
I would rather see the Delegate cast the region's vote in accordance with the wishes of the WA voters in the region (or the RA, or whatever mechanism we choose) than have them cast our vote in accordance with some international treaty or their personal whim.

I am a bit old fashioned like that.
 
flemingovia:
I am pretty happy with that. It was the brusqueness of Plemboria's response - and the fact that it was his very first WA proposal - that made me personally uneasy.
Click to expand...
What is so special about the fact that it was hist first vote? It is absolutely irrelevant to the entire discussion.

It's not the delegate's fault that his first vote happened to be one where the author of the proposal decided to spam the world about it.

As for the "brusqueness" of the response, the delegate stated all that had to be said: Funkadelia spammed, and in response the delegate decided to enforce the World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam, and vote against regardless of the outcome of the poll.

This is a perfectly appropriate and perfectly justified response. There is nothing "brusque" about it. What more did you expect the delegate to do? Take you by the hand and console you about the fact that there are spammers in the world?

Eluvatar:
mcmasterdonia:
In my view there may be certain circumstances where the Delegate will wish to vote according to their own foreign policy goals or other security interests. We should remain flexible in this regard. I would also raise the fact that we have very rarely had a Delegate override a forum vote. It would be my preference that we maintain allowing the Delegate the greatest flexibility in determining what method/procedure they use to determine their World Assembly vote.
Click to expand...

These certain circumstances seem to have become much more frequent of late.
Click to expand...
There have only been two in the past 8 months, one in the last attempt to repeal Condemn The Pacific, and another in Commend Separatist Peoples.

I am against any legislation that removes the delegate's ability to vote in their discretion.
 
I prefer to leave the delegate discretionary authority in WA matters with an RA vote considered only advisory. Always following the RA vote would in my opinion result in overly rigid policy and votes not fitting in with overall foreign policy
 
Barbarossistan:
I prefer to leave the delegate discretionary authority in WA matters with an RA vote considered only advisory. Always following the RA vote would in my opinion result in overly rigid policy and votes not fitting in with overall foreign policy
Click to expand...
^Agree
 
McMasterdonia:
I don't like either of your suggestions. The first is just unnecessarily removing whatever power the in-game Delegate has left (unsurprising) and the second is just unnecessary bureaucracy, and would seem completely unworkable. These decisions are best left to the Delegate as our elected representative and his designee (i.e. the WA Minister).
Click to expand...
Why is it better for the Delegate and WA Minister to make these decisions?

McMasterdonia:
We already severely limit the Delegate's authority particularly when it comes to simple game mechanics.
Click to expand...
That's true, but mass WA telegrams are also a part of game mechanics if I'm not mistaken. The treaty seeks to nullify this by calling any counter-campaigning 'propaganda', and then punishes it by using the WA votes each Delegate has amassed to try and block it's passage. It also mandates a 'blacklist' of repeat offenders. Hardly democratic imo. I'd also consider that these actions could be a BoR violation here if it was a TNP nation engaging in this so-called propaganda, in that TNP citizens are protected by:

Bill of Rights:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

McMasterdonia:
In my view there may be certain circumstances where the Delegate will wish to vote according to their own foreign policy goals or other security interests.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the reason for this debate was a commendation for Benevolent Thomas. I don't see how that is a security risk. The only foreign policy goal I can see is sticking it to defenders, and placating the signatories of the treaty. Calling it WA spam and invoking the treaty was just an excuse. A petty one at that. Hell, I consider all tgs from the WA minister spam.

McMasterdonia:
It would be my preference that we maintain allowing the Delegate the greatest flexibility in determining what method/procedure they use to determine their World Assembly vote.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Those who have endorsed the Delegate (the source of the Delegate's voting power in the WA) should have a say in the matter. After all:

Bill of Rights:
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.
Click to expand...
 
By the by, when I mention "policy" I don't necessarily mean legislation. The Delegate following a consistent practice would fit what I meant just fine.
 
falapatorius:
Bill of Rights:
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.
Click to expand...

So you are free to unendorse the delegate if you believe the delegate (and his policies) unworthy of your endorsement, in addition, the delegate is elected and subject to a recall vote if things get really ugly. There are then in my opinion plenty of ways to influence policy from the RA. I do think the RA as a slow-moving deliberative body with many members who aren't very active shouldn't have the first and final say on matters of foreign policy. The delegate, who is expected to be very active, is better positioned for the day-to-day running of things including WA votes.
Click to expand...
 
I believe, as I have always believed, that the Delegate should be able to exercise their discretion within the world assembly. They are elected based on a platform, which may or may not contain plans for the world assembly. What is important is communication and presenting their feelings in the extenuating circumstances that they feel that it is necessary for them to vote differently to the community.

As we allow them the freedom of choice for their ministers, to control foreign policy, present and negotiate treaties, I see no difference to WA votes.

If you wish to remove the last vestiges of an executive delegate, then by all means strip their right to vote in the WA according to their own foreign policy plan (I call BS about GA proposals not involving foreign policy, have you seen the amount of politics in that part of the WA?) and then perhaps you can start dismantling the need for us to elect our head of state/government at all since those demanding the Delegate become little better than their echo chamber will most likely only be happy with that end result.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
I believe, as I have always believed, that the Delegate should be able to exercise their discretion within the world assembly. They are elected based on a platform, which may or may not contain plans for the world assembly. What is important is communication and presenting their feelings in the extenuating circumstances that they feel that it is necessary for them to vote differently to the community.

As we allow them the freedom of choice for their ministers, to control foreign policy, present and negotiate treaties, I see no difference to WA votes.

If you wish to remove the last vestiges of an executive delegate, then by all means strip their right to vote in the WA according to their own foreign policy plan (I call BS about GA proposals not involving foreign policy, have you seen the amount of politics in that part of the WA?) and then perhaps you can start dismantling the need for us to elect our head of state/government at all since those demanding the Delegate become little better than their echo chamber will most likely only be happy with that end result.
Click to expand...
This sums up the common sense that should permeate in this discussion.
 
I did point out during my campaign my opinion on WA voting policy.

As mentioned by Raven and others, the Delegate is elected to discharge the duties of head of state, and this involves the foreign policy of TNP.

To say that a treaty which has been signed and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the RA (who are presumed to understand its implications) ought to be overruled on an ad hoc basis by simple majorities not actually representative of the RA is absurd. Our foreign policy should not be fickle. We should not, as a region, imply that we intend to meet our interregional obligations only when not too inconvenient.
 
Nowhere have I suggested that the delegate should not have the power to take executive action when needed. Where we seem to be having a debate is around what qualifies an appropriate use of executive privilege.

plembobria:
To say that a treaty which has been signed and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the RA (who are presumed to understand its implications) ought to be overruled on an ad hoc basis by simple majorities not actually representative of the RA is absurd. Our foreign policy should not be fickle. We should not, as a region, imply that we intend to meet our interregional obligations only when not too inconvenient.
Click to expand...
I agree that the RA understood the implications of the treaty when it was ratified. The treaty is very explicit about its nonbinding nature. You talk about "interregional obligations." What obligations are attached to this treaty?

I fear it is you who is reading the document incorrectly in this case. You talk of fickle foreign policy, but I think it's frankly more fickle to potentially have important foreign policy initiatives undone because someone sent out a telegram. Would you be prepared to vote against TNP's interests in enforcement of this nonbinding treaty?
 
Balancing a wish to "punish"spammers with possible other foreign policy objectives seems properly a job for the delegate as far as I'm concerned. The decicison made by Plembobria in this case does not seem facially unreasonable so within the delegate's remit.
 
Ravenclaw:
If you wish to remove the last vestiges of an executive delegate, then by all means strip their right to vote in the WA according to their own foreign policy plan (I call BS about GA proposals not involving foreign policy, have you seen the amount of politics in that part of the WA?) and then perhaps you can start dismantling the need for us to elect our head of state/government at all since those demanding the Delegate become little better than their echo chamber will most likely only be happy with that end result.
Click to expand...
You may see it that way. I see it as not allowing foreign interests to influence TNP WA voting under some bogus treaty intended to allow the signatories significant influence over WA proposals (as well as effectively silencing opposition).

Plembobria:
To say that a treaty which has been signed and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the RA (who are presumed to understand its implications) ought to be overruled on an ad hoc basis by simple majorities not actually representative of the RA is absurd.
Click to expand...
It is absurd to presume that the majority of the RA understand the implications of most legislation. The citizen turnover rate is appalling. That said, why bother with the pretense of opening a WA voting thread? It's obvious that the votes only count if they line up with the Delegate's (and their handlers) inclinations anyway.
 
Lord dreyman:
The fact is that, plembobria has to follow the will of all RA members, you can't keep deciding on your own.
Click to expand...
That would work if we didn't ignore the fact that one has to be a WA member in TNP for their vote to count.

Citizenship (which includes membership of the RA) does not equal WA in TNP. The voters in the WA threads aren't guaranteed to be citizens, since that thread is open to residents, citizens and dignitaries.

The Delegate of The North Pacific is accountable to all nations in the region, not just the select few who have citizenship: The Bill of Rights is clear on that.
 
I am willing to follow Delegate vote based on reasons (mostly legal, strategic, or TNP benefit, for example). I would also like to express my opinion. Although I was 'wrong'.

I understand that a simple majority vote not determine Delegate vote but can provide guidance. In some cases.
 
Lord Emmanuel:
The fact is that, plembobria has to follow the will of all RA members, you can't keep deciding on your own.
Click to expand...
False. This was made clear by the court. And to say I "can't keep deciding on my own" implies I regularly do it and I don't.

falapatorius:
Plembobria:
To say that a treaty which has been signed and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the RA (who are presumed to understand its implications) ought to be overruled on an ad hoc basis by simple majorities not actually representative of the RA is absurd.
Click to expand...
It is absurd to presume that the majority of the RA understand the implications of most legislation. The citizen turnover rate is appalling. That said, why bother with the pretense of opening a WA voting thread? It's obvious that the votes only count if they line up with the Delegate's (and their handlers) inclinations anyway.
Click to expand...
That is false. The votes count unless the Delegate thinks considers the foreign policy implications to be more important than following the poll. If you don't believe me you can go through the archives and see that in several voting threads the opinion of the delegate was overruled in the poll and ratified accordingly. You can, in fact, check the current resolution at vote's poll.

Perhaps you may disagree with the treaty, but the majority begs to differ, as indicated by its passage.

And to other who think my interpretation of the treaty is too broad, I say that despite the clauses of the treaty clarifying that it is non-binding, it is still an important guideline that must be taken into consideration by the government. If the treaty was meant to be ignored wherever convenient, it would not have been made in the first place. It is, by virtue of its existence, intended to produce a coordinated, timely, and unified response to campaign spam. If the Delegate, as the OP seems to believe ought to open a poll and wait until the end of the vote to see if the WA residents who just happen to vote are willing to enforce the treaty this time 'round that would render the treaty useless.
 
I had my objections against the WA spam accord at the time but didn't find the time to utter them.

I don't see WA campaign TGs per se as spam. I like to know different view points, and not only the TNP government's recommendation. I might not get full or correct information, but I am fully entitled to vote stupidly. It has been said that the treaty limits the right of free speech, but more importantly for me it limits the right of free information. Although probably well intended (there is a hint of WA Delegates feeling passed by), in its execution the treaty places information under government control.

Also, the treaty has been ratified by the RA, whose members are not necessarily WA nations. I have no problem with the Delegate going against the majority opinion in the WA subforum, as long as it is reasoned (and personally, I don't see reason in voting against submissions on the basis of faulty grammar or not having submitted a draft on the forum). But, by submitting the treaty to RA approval, non-WA RA members had a say in determining WA voting policy while non-RA WA members had not. In practice, the treaties even give 'foreigners' powers WA members have not (especially the early vote stacking part). It doesn't go against the constitution or the rules for our institutions, but it is illogical.
 
plembobria:
Because it is relevant to this discussion, I'm going to just leave a link to the standing World Assembly Voting Policy.
Click to expand...
^This.

I support the Delegate's judgment on this matter. He followed the Constibillocode. I understand the need for discussion on this issue, but I'm saving my fire for something that matters more to me.
 
I am in favour of allowing the Delegate to vote on WA proposals as they please.

However, I do believe that the power in exceptional circumstances. I believe that non-compliance with WAACS, unless extraordinary, is not such a circumstance.

The Delegate should exercise their discretion when a vote would be clearly contrary to TNP interests, public policy or welfare, and so on. Ultimately, the Delegate is representative of the entire citizenry -- they are granted power, and indeed the obligation, to enact policies for the benefit of the citizenry, which is why strict adherence to a poll of some citizens would not always makes sense, especially when it might contradict longstanding policy. But again, ordinarily, I see no reason why the WAD should not follow the forumside vote.

(I recognise that only TNP WAers votes are counted, and I think that makes sense -- ultimately, the Del's extra votes are only derived from those.)

If the standing WA voting policy is not accordingly amended, I think a "sense of the RA" resolution on this matter should be considered.
 
Well, this is suddenly relevant again.

I'd be irked if we were to vote for this despite so many of our WA members opposing it, just because somebody cared enough about their home region and this resolution's mark on it to write and send a tag:wa telegram about it.
 
I think that this is a good discussion to have, and one option that I'm personally considering (with regards to my own vote in Europeia) is to give WA spam telegrams a "vote value," so to speak - i.e. it's worth (pulling a number out of thin air) 5 votes or whatever. If the region is strongly voting one way or another (i.e. 10-2 or 2-10 or whatever), that value won't be enough to sway the vote. However, if it's close (i.e. 5-7 or 7-5), it is given enough weight to have a level of importance. I'm not saying that's the "right answer," but that would give the Delegate of TNP (and other signatories) more latitude there, depending on regional FA interests and general opinion within the region overall.
 
I'd personally prefer WAACS enforcement to simply be an argument to put forward in the WA voting topic, but 'artificial votes' may be a good compromise.

I'd be interested in hearing the Delegate's perspective.
 
Another thing to consider in future incidents where this is relevant (it's not relevant right now) but individuals may choose to run a campaign knowing that it will violate this treaty and hoping that the Delegates will vote the way they really want.
 
Shouldn't there also be a distinction between such a telegram sent by interested parties in cases like this (natives trying to combat a competing, inaccurate narrative) and one sent by the author of the proposal? Not to mention a liberation has different stakes than a commendation/condemnation, or just any old GA resolution. If you want to assign point values, I think you would want to consider this nuance as well.
 
Pallaith:
Shouldn't there also be a distinction between such a telegram sent by interested parties in cases like this (natives trying to combat a competing, inaccurate narrative) and one sent by the author of the proposal? Not to mention a liberation has different stakes than a commendation/condemnation, or just any old GA resolution. If you want to assign point values, I think you would want to consider this nuance as well.
Click to expand...
My thinking with "point values" is that in the event that there is a vested interest to support the side of the spam campaign, there would likely be sufficient regional votes to counteract the "point values" of the spam TG.
 
Firstly, I chose not to use enforce the WAACS on the ongoing resolution because, as a liberation, it is a very sensitive matter, and it is my opinion that the interests of the natives is most important. More so than the WAACS. As Pallaith pointed out, liberations are very different from commendations.

Secondly I am opposed to adding a fixed point value to the Accord. This is a very nuanced matter. GA bills, for instance, are of much less importance than SC bills. A community telegramming the whole of the WA membership on matters crucial to their regional interest is quite distinct from some newb trying to make recognition for himself in getting their frivolous GA bill passed, or a player trying to get themselves or one of their buddies commended.

Thirdly I am absolutely opposed to making the WAACS nothing more than an argument in the polls. The most important weapon in the Accord's arsenal is stomping or stacking. While we endeavor to make sure polls are posted before resolutions go to vote, WA spam is seldom sent out until the exact moment the resolution goes to vote. Thus by making it a poll argument, we render the entire concept neutered.

I will update the WA voting policy shortly to reflect these views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top