NationStates

I would like to suggest creating an elected office of chancellor to be the leader of the WA with an assistant called the vice chancellor. Thoughts?

This has been suggested many times, from when the game was first created. In all that time, no one has ever been able to demonstrate any obvious benefit to it, which is probably why it's never been adopted.

What would the "Chancellor" do?

If it's simply a figurehead position, then such a person already exists: Catherine Gratwick, a roleplayed character who is in the NationStates in-character universe Secretary-General of the World Assembly.

If it has actual powers, then why are the powers not already exercised by delegates or moderators sufficient?

I see this post as being an elected moderator for WA business only. This person would be elected by WA members and have the ability to remove proposals from consideration and to promote proposals immediately if he/she sees it as necessary.

Palpatine1986 Reborn wrote:I see this post as being an elected moderator for WA business only. This person would be elected by WA members and have the ability to remove proposals from consideration and to promote proposals immediately if he/she sees it as necessary.

The first is already done by game mods in general, no extra position needed The second would be a massive circumvention of the current system. Can you please explain how the second option would benefit the WA? And what its drawbacks are?

Palpatine1986 Reborn wrote:I see this post as being an elected moderator for WA business only. This person would be elected by WA members and have the ability to remove proposals from consideration and to promote proposals immediately if he/she sees it as necessary.

And why is that any of that needed? The moderators are if anything overzealous in removing WA proposals; anyone can easily "promote" their proposal to quorum through the telegram system.

Thank you both for your insight and thoughts. As NationStates emulates more and more of the geopolitical world, I feel it needed to have a de-facto user leader. Of course the moderators and admins would be the final authority but this chancellor would represent the people of NationStates to the moderators and admins a NS form of popular sovereignty in a way. His/her ability to reject or promote proposals would be the great benefit of the position.

The Chancellor could act as a emissary between the community and the Staff. I could see that.

The Enclave Government wrote:The Chancellor could act as a emissary between the community and the Staff. I could see that.

Do we need someone for that? I doubt it, also, in such a case, I'd really prefer a couple of people because:

-availability of multiple people is more than that of just one
-more options for different view points in the community

Anyway, this would basically mean "WA mentors". An idea that has been shot down before for several reasons. I'll let others post those reasons.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

The Enclave Government wrote:The Chancellor could act as a emissary between the community and the Staff. I could see that.

Do we need someone for that?

No. Player comments in the WA forum are visible to staff already without any need for some special go-between.

The Blaatschapen wrote:Anyway, this would basically mean "WA mentors". An idea that has been shot down before for several reasons. I'll let others post those reasons.

See here, for example.

The delegates could elect the chancellor. Like endorsements on a new level.

Said person could have special powers like rushing a proposal to vote immediately by approving it.

Or, if a proposal is leading or failing by a massive margin (such as the "Repeal 'International Expositions Act'" at vote right now) and another proposal is up at quorum, they could terminate the voting prematurely?

Nephmir wrote:Said person could have special powers like rushing a proposal to vote immediately by approving it.

Kaboomlandia wrote:they could terminate the voting prematurely?

Why on earth would we want to give all that power to a single player, at the expense of the other 20,643 member nations and 1,468 Regional Delegates? There's a number of things about this game that aren't particularly democratic, but this one is flat out despotic.

Terrible idea. Awful, dreadful, lousy, pathetic, poor, terrible, wretched and abysmal. Atrocious, bad, dismal, ghastly, inadequate, inferior, miserable, second-rate, shoddy, slipshod, and worthless. Appalling, deplorable, gruesome, heinous, hideous, monstrous, nasty, putrid and woeful.

So no, I'm not for it.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Nephmir wrote:Said person could have special powers like rushing a proposal to vote immediately by approving it.

Kaboomlandia wrote:they could terminate the voting prematurely?

Why on earth would we want to give all that power to a single player, at the expense of the other 20,643 member nations and 1,468 Regional Delegates? There's a number of things about this game that aren't particularly democratic, but this one is flat out despotic.

Terrible idea. Awful, dreadful, lousy, pathetic, poor, terrible, wretched and abysmal. Atrocious, bad, dismal, ghastly, inadequate, inferior, miserable, second-rate, shoddy, slipshod, and worthless. Appalling, deplorable, gruesome, heinous, hideous, monstrous, nasty, putrid and woeful.

So no, I'm not for it.

Maybe there could be some sort of a "Senior WA Committee" that could have those powers? It would only be open to delegates with a certain number of endorsements?

Kaboomlandia wrote:Maybe there could be some sort of a "Senior WA Committee" that could have those powers?

We have one. It's called "The Moderators". And unlike elected officials, we're answerable to the site administrator.

What part of that previous post was unclear about it being a bad idea?

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Nephmir wrote:Said person could have special powers like rushing a proposal to vote immediately by approving it.

Kaboomlandia wrote:they could terminate the voting prematurely?

Why on earth would we want to give all that power to a single player, at the expense of the other 20,643 member nations and 1,468 Regional Delegates? There's a number of things about this game that aren't particularly democratic, but this one is flat out despotic.

Terrible idea. Awful, dreadful, lousy, pathetic, poor, terrible, wretched and abysmal. Atrocious, bad, dismal, ghastly, inadequate, inferior, miserable, second-rate, shoddy, slipshod, and worthless. Appalling, deplorable, gruesome, heinous, hideous, monstrous, nasty, putrid and woeful.

So no, I'm not for it.

Well of course it'd be a terrible idea without restrictions. But that's what they said about giving power to the WA Delegates when the idea was first coined, wasn't it?

It'd give something for people to strive for. Term limits could easily be placed and delegates can vote on new ones every (let's say month), like proposals.

Nephmir wrote:Well of course it'd be a terrible idea without restrictions. But that's what they said about giving power to the WA Delegates when the idea was first coined, wasn't it?

It'd give something for people to strive for. Term limits could easily be placed and delegates can vote on new ones every (let's say month), like proposals.

WA Delegates have always had power. Founders were added later, and I doubt there was much outcry, except perhaps from the farkers.

Add me to the list of people who think this is a terrible idea.

Mousebumples wrote:

Nephmir wrote:Well of course it'd be a terrible idea without restrictions. But that's what they said about giving power to the WA Delegates when the idea was first coined, wasn't it?

It'd give something for people to strive for. Term limits could easily be placed and delegates can vote on new ones every (let's say month), like proposals.

WA Delegates have always had power. Founders were added later, and I doubt there was much outcry, except perhaps from the farkers.

Add me to the list of people who think this is a terrible idea.

Eh, fine, people are scared of too much change. I guess it isn't broken anyway.

WA delegates had unlimited power before founders and influence were introduced. And raiding was a big problem before then because a newly elected delegate had the power to level a region with no technical limits.

Nephmir wrote:

Mousebumples wrote:WA Delegates have always had power. Founders were added later, and I doubt there was much outcry, except perhaps from the farkers.

Add me to the list of people who think this is a terrible idea.

Eh, fine, people are scared of too much change. I guess it isn't broken anyway.

WA delegates had unlimited power before founders and influence were introduced. And raiding was a big problem before then because a newly elected delegate had the power to level a region with no technical limits.

Yes, but that's how it was _to start_. I doubt people were saying "no, don't give power to WA Delegates!" Because it wasn't a change. It was the default state of the game. At least, no one in my region (*raided twice by the farkers) ever said that. :-P

And, yes, if it's not broken, there's nothing to fix. The techies have enough to do without inventing solutions to non existent problems.

Nephmir wrote:

Mousebumples wrote:WA Delegates have always had power. Founders were added later, and I doubt there was much outcry, except perhaps from the farkers.

Add me to the list of people who think this is a terrible idea.

Eh, fine, people are scared of too much change. I guess it isn't broken anyway. :p

The WA is absolutely broken, and needs change.

This is just a terrible idea.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Nephmir wrote:Said person could have special powers like rushing a proposal to vote immediately by approving it.

Kaboomlandia wrote:they could terminate the voting prematurely?

Why on earth would we want to give all that power to a single player, at the expense of the other 20,643 member nations and 1,468 Regional Delegates? There's a number of things about this game that aren't particularly democratic, but this one is flat out despotic.

Terrible idea. Awful, dreadful, lousy, pathetic, poor, terrible, wretched and abysmal. Atrocious, bad, dismal, ghastly, inadequate, inferior, miserable, second-rate, shoddy, slipshod, and worthless. Appalling, deplorable, gruesome, heinous, hideous, monstrous, nasty, putrid and woeful.

So no, I'm not for it.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Kaboomlandia wrote:Maybe there could be some sort of a "Senior WA Committee" that could have those powers?

We have one. It's called "The Moderators". And unlike elected officials, we're answerable to the site administrator.

What part of that previous post was unclear about it being a bad idea?

Because. Democratic yeah!

This 'might' be a terrible idea but it's better than someone with no accountability to the electorate (not even a republic, never mind a democracy) gets to oversee the process. I'd sooner have people maintaining the system that I can elect or dismiss after periods of time if I feel they're not doing a good enough job than having the will of the unaccountable imposed on us.

Down with the aristocracy! *cough cough*

Edit. I support Kaboomlandia's Elected Committee idea. But I also think that having a WA Chancellor has some weight as well (perhaps they would be the 'Chair' of the Committee).

Enfaru wrote:Because. Democratic yeah!

The WA once voted to ban steel. With how screwed up the WA voting system is, putting rules enforcement into "democratic" hands is completely misguided.

Enfaru wrote:This 'might' be a terrible idea but it's better than someone with no accountability to the electorate (not even a republic, never mind a democracy) gets to oversee the process.

Your attempt to shoehorn this into a political analogy is way off base. In many democratic countries, electoral oversight boards are purposefully non-partisan. To use the USA as an example, if the FEC were to be made "democratic", whichever party had more support would simply change all the electoral rules to suit themselves. I suppose one check on such power would be the Supreme Court. Another non-democratic body!

Enfaru wrote:I'd sooner have people maintaining the system that I can elect or dismiss after periods of time if I feel they're not doing a good enough job than having the will of the unaccountable imposed on us.

If you don't think the WA mods are doing a good enough job, suggest a new one, though it's a bit surprising that you are so invested in this topic given a cursory survey of your posting history suggests you have never posted once in the WA forum.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:The WA is absolutely broken, and needs change.

This is just a terrible idea.

A terrible idea it is not. If you choose not to see its merits then so be it but I do not wish for you to simply throw my idea into the wind.

You don't seem aware of the damage that has been done in the past to the WA from suggestions for change being taken up without consideration of other viewpoints. Obviously, I have no authority to dismiss your suggestion: I am simply trying to make a clear counterpoint to the idea that this in any way addresses any of the problems with WA moderation or would otherwise benefit the WA. If only we'd had the chance to do likewise in May 2009!

Edit: not that I'm endorsing this view:

Valloria wrote:The current system works just fine as-is.

Kaboomlandia wrote:It would only be open to delegates with a certain number of endorsements?

This is not a good idea because a) it would unfairly favor GCRs as their delegates have the most endorsements and b) because this is a terrible idea. The current system works just fine as-is.

Valloria wrote:

Kaboomlandia wrote:It would only be open to delegates with a certain number of endorsements?

This is not a good idea because a) it would unfairly favor GCRs as their delegates have the most endorsements and b) because this is a terrible idea. The current system works just fine as-is.

10KI, Europeia, and TCB are all UCRs with massive amounts of endorsements for the delegates.