Secretary General Role Expansion

[Drasnia]

If we're going to give the SG any power (which I am against, btw), I would prefer if we voted in a new one when we now know what they're able to do before those powers go into effect.

Second paragraph of the OP.

Ah, I missed that somehow

[Mousebumples]

Mouse provided some examples of how this could have helped in the past from a GA history prospective

Her examples didn't show it would have "helped" at all. They simply pointed out examples of where one person submitted a resolution after another, and then hinted that for some reason allowing the system of submission first to be upset would have been "political" and thus good. There are (as usual) some fairly glaring defects in basic reasoning there.

but the SC has submission races far more often than the GA.

OK, so have an SG for the SC only.

I didn't say it was good. I merely pointed out examples of when it may have been used historically.

IF such a thing were to become reality (and I still remain unconvinced that they should), I would hope that they would be limited in their usage.

If anyone has this sort of power - whenever they want, as often as they want - I can see it ruining some of the fun of the game. However, I could see how adding limits could add some intrigue to the game, and another layer of political maneuvering.

I can also definitely see the arguments that it's not "fair" to whomever doesn't have the "preferred proposal" - when they play by the rules, and get their proposal submitted first/to quorum first ... why shouldn't they get to have their proposal go to vote first? It adds another layer of politics, which for some may be appealing, but I can also see it turning off some players as well.

I find it easier to examine possible changes if we look - historically - as when they might have been used rather than dealing in hypotheticals. I can see why some people would enjoy this change, but as I said at the start, I still remain unpersuaded that this would be a good change, or that such a change should even happen.

I'd rather change the Sec-Gen into a "Miss NationStates" type Beauty Pageant, similar to whatever issue number lets you crown Max Barry as your nation's beauty queen.

[Excidium Planetis]

Why should nobody have that kind of power?

Would you vote in your nation's elections if you knew that in the end, one single person would cast the deciding vote? That's what this would come down to. TNP is already ridiculously powerful, but at least every single vote their delegate gains means there is at least a nation that can also vote (potentially against their delegate). If we were to give a percentage of votes to the SG, the SG would have extra votes that did not represent voters who voted against them (Imagine all but two players were in TNP, and everyone in TNP was endorsing the delegate. Technically, the delegate's power does not outweigh the voters, as if the two people not in TNP and every voter in TNP all voted against TNP's delegate, they would win. This holds true no matter how many nations we add to TNP. But, now add the 1% of votes for the SG to TNP's Delegate. Now, even if everyone voted against, the delegate would still win, because they have [their vote + all but two people's vote + 1% of votes]. This would be true as long as there are at least 200 WA members.) Basically, while delegate votes come with a built in counter, the extra SG votes do not.

Not remove proposals, mods do that for SC, and I wasn't 100% on whether the council or mods did it for blatant illegalities. A player could just be a dick about it, and that wouldn't improve things for anyone. Reorder, so if proposal A, B and C attained quorum within a short timeframe, leading to proposal A being at vote. Proposal B is a worthy option, but not as urgent as Proposal C (such as the case of a SC liberation recently). Proposal B had to be withdrawn from the queue to get Proposal C to vote in time.

But while it could be good, it could be bad (for authors) if there are two repeals of the resolution. Bitely has re-enacted WSA 2.0 and it is winning slightly at vote. Repeal proposal A is in queue, and proposal B comes along with a slightly better repeal of WSA. The initial author could get shafted if the second proposal was moved in front of it.

Not just repeals. What if one person passes a repeal, and two people have replacements up that do very different things (for example, when Convention on Execution was repealed, we had a proposal that did almost the same thing but mandated proportional punishments, and a proposal that would ban the death penalty... a reordering of the queue would have allowed one to go up before the other, potentially passing and rendering the other illegal).

Regarding quorum, I was a bit worried about that as I wrote this (which reminds me, I'm not seeing whatever PMs etc. anyone has sent me about this unless they're a TG), exactly because of the rubbish proposal thing.

I thought about having the proposal to need to gain quorum to be enacted, but go immediately to vote, or need a certain number of votes (30/40%) or they lose the power.

Unless there is a resolution at vote, proposals which reach quorum go to vote immediately already.

How about, instead of automatically forwarding them on, the SG can have a number of approvals? Like, say, 10 approvals. That way, instead of needing 90 delegates or whatever it is these days to reach quorum, the SG can put 10 approvals right on there, and only 80 or whatever more are needed.

With the number of votes, that was my easy way of requiring less work but still giving the SG something. That was my meh option, because they'd just be a big delegate with a fancy title, but better than nothing.

Worse than nothing, actually. People with way more votes than other people are scary. And that's coming from someone with more voting power than your average WA voter.

Personally, I'd prefer the Approval Stamp and the proposal re-ordering. The re-ordering is actual unique power, the stamp is for the average WA nation to see that the office means something, and the prestige is in the name. But that said, if this happens at all, it'll be others more WA involved who sway the admins for or against.

Personally, I would prefer just the approval stamp, with or without corresponding approval count.

[-Mr Money-]

I don't mind extending the powers of the WA SG ever so slightly, but what powers if any do they actually have?

Edit: I just read the OP, I like the ideas being thrown out there, but I'm sceptical about the delegate voting power thing mentioned, giving the SG the voting power of Delegates. Doesn't seem right somewhow.

Also, I support annual SG Elections.

[Tinhampton]

...I'd rather change the Sec-Gen into a "Miss NationStates" type Beauty Pageant, similar to whatever issue number lets you crown Max Barry as your nation's beauty queen.

That'll be Issue #101 ("Tiara Sign Of Oppression, Declare Feminists"), Option 3, please. How do I know this? I did it with my previous nation.

---

Whilst I do agree that the Secretary-General needs specified powers (let alone gain extra ones), Caelapes promised to delegate SG power to the people. That said, they also promised a "One Nation, One Vote" system, but that hasn't happened yet, and the TIN Condemnation vote would be hanging in the balance if Plembobria cast their 1,220 votes for it. I support annual Secretary-General elections.

[Sciongrad]

OK, so have an SG for the SC only.

Seconded. If you guys want it so badly, make it your problem.

[Sedgistan]

The SG election was a big event that people cared about, and got involved in. It's definitely worth considering if the role can be retained + expanded, particularly as the code for the elections is already there, so it's not just another entry at the end of the lengthy admin to-do list.

Voting would have to be WA members to prevent puppetwanking, while a one-member one-vote system (rather than with delegates having extra power) would make the race much harder for big regions to dominate the way they can with WA proposal votes.

The SG idea I liked was for them to have a limited veto over legislation - one per X month term; potentially with one SC veto and another GA one. This would give them significant power within the WA, albeit one that they would have to use very carefully to maximise its impact. If it's used too early, they're powerless; save it too long and you may end up wasting it. Plus, using it to veto a popular vote could cost you in the next election.

Potentially they could pin a dispatch to the WA page with commentary on the at-vote proposal.

[Gruenberg]

Voting would have to be WA members to prevent puppetwanking, while a one-member one-vote system (rather than with delegates having extra power) would make the race much harder for big regions to dominate the way they can with WA proposal votes.

The SG idea I liked was for them to have a limited veto over legislation - one per X month term; potentially with one SC veto and another GA one. This would give them significant power within the WA, albeit one that they would have to use very carefully to maximise its impact. If it's used too early, they're powerless; save it too long and you may end up wasting it. Plus, using it to veto a popular vote could cost you in the next election.

Potentially they could pin a dispatch to the WA page with commentary on the at-vote proposal.

What problem the WA currently faces would this solve?

Also, if you really are going to do this, could it be limited to the SC only?

And if they did veto a resolution - I don't understand what would stop someone simply reproposing it. If it were going to pass by a large margin it would presumably do so a second time.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The SG election was a big event that people cared about, and got involved in. It's definitely worth considering if the role can be retained + expanded, particularly as the code for the elections is already there, so it's not just another entry at the end of the lengthy admin to-do list.

Voting would have to be WA members to prevent puppetwanking, while a one-member one-vote system (rather than with delegates having extra power) would make the race much harder for big regions to dominate the way they can with WA proposal votes.

The SG idea I liked was for them to have a limited veto over legislation - one per X month term; potentially with one SC veto and another GA one. This would give them significant power within the WA, albeit one that they would have to use very carefully to maximise its impact. If it's used too early, they're powerless; save it too long and you may end up wasting it. Plus, using it to veto a popular vote could cost you in the next election.

Potentially they could pin a dispatch to the WA page with commentary on the at-vote proposal.

So, the plan is to give the SG power, but only to piss everybody off once/twice a month? The mods already do a good enough job at that on their own - just make one of them the SG! You won't even have to make any changes with the code, since it's essentially the same as the Discard (you know, except for the part where discards theoretically carry a constructive purpose like upholding the rules).

[Sciongrad]

-snip-

I think it's generally good policy to leave things alone unless they're broken. If the GA community decides that we're just not being screwed over quite enough as it is and comes running to the moderators and admins asking for yet another way our proposals can be removed arbitrarily and capriciously, then we can consider this. This recent habit of coming up with novel ideas and forcing them on the GA because you guys think it would be neat is really wearing away at whatever is left of the community.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

At the very least, I would hope that automatic stamp refunds would apply should a player decide to kill another player's resolution just to be a jerk. Then we can go through the whole process of getting the same shit passed all over again before the SG's monthly visitor returns - I mean, how fucking stupid would it be if both branches had to start submitting emergency duplicates of the same proposal, just to get it passed again in case of veto?

[Gruenberg]

I love the incredible stupidity of this idea.

I've vetoed your resolution! Now at vote...oh, you resubmitted your resolution. So we get to spend another week voting on exactly the same issue.

Or even better, new rule, once a resolution's been vetoed, it can't be resubmitted. So that resolution that turns out to have a massive flaw can't ever be repealed, because I vetoed the repeal! We're stuck with it!

It's just what the WA game has been crying out for, clearly.

[-Mr Money-]

Or even better, new rule, once a resolution's been vetoed, it can't be resubmitted. So that resolution that turns out to have a massive flaw can't ever be repealed, because I vetoed the repeal! We're stuck with it!

It's just what the WA game has been crying out for, clearly.

I agree with this.

[Flanderlion]

Not convinced on the veto either. Good thing to have if you're the SG, or a minority against a resolution, but if I was an author, gave Ale a commendation supported by vast majority of the game, then somehow someone like the current Laz delegate was SG and vetoed it. Would suck for author, would suck for the nominee. Voters wise, they might be a bit irritated but I'm suspecting most would be apathic.

Or if Bitely (sorry for reusing, but he is a good example) was SG and vetoed repealing WSA. The veto isn't the plan atm. @Gruen, just what Sedge personally liked.

I talked about the dispatch offsite a while back before posting, but wasn't sure on how the system in general would be implemented, if it was at all.

@Gruen I suggested it for both, because the role was leader of the WA, not SC. GA seems to have just as much need to reorder proposals as the SC does. SC has more time critical resolutions, while GA seems to have more resolutions in general. I suggested this as a way to make the SG election an event again rather than a particular desire to change the GA, so I wouldn't be distraught if the GA missed out.

[Christian Democrats]

The SG election was a big event that people cared about, and got involved in. It's definitely worth considering if the role can be retained + expanded, particularly as the code for the elections is already there, so it's not just another entry at the end of the lengthy admin to-do list.

Do you have stats on how many players started blocking WA campaign telegrams because of the SG election?

[Imperium Anglorum]

The SG election was a big event that people cared about, and got involved in. It's definitely worth considering if the role can be retained + expanded, particularly as the code for the elections is already there, so it's not just another entry at the end of the lengthy admin to-do list.

Do you have stats on how many players started blocking WA campaign telegrams because of the SG election?

Oh yea, this. There were an utterly enormous number of telegrams flying around the site around that time. SG election was certainly a money maker, if anything...

[Excidium Planetis]

Do you have stats on how many players started blocking WA campaign telegrams because of the SG election?

Oh yea, this. There were an utterly enormous number of telegrams flying around the site around that time. SG election was certainly a money maker, if anything...

New Conspiracy: Sedgistan has been backing these SG ideas because Max Barry told the mods to do so. Cui Bono?

[Enfaru]

The SG election was a big event that people cared about, and got involved in. It's definitely worth considering if the role can be retained + expanded, particularly as the code for the elections is already there, so it's not just another entry at the end of the lengthy admin to-do list.

Voting would have to be WA members to prevent puppetwanking, while a one-member one-vote system (rather than with delegates having extra power) would make the race much harder for big regions to dominate the way they can with WA proposal votes.

The SG idea I liked was for them to have a limited veto over legislation - one per X month term; potentially with one SC veto and another GA one. This would give them significant power within the WA, albeit one that they would have to use very carefully to maximise its impact. If it's used too early, they're powerless; save it too long and you may end up wasting it. Plus, using it to veto a popular vote could cost you in the next election.

Potentially they could pin a dispatch to the WA page with commentary on the at-vote proposal.

Glad someone agrees. I also support the limited veto idea, traditionally I'd be against any vetos but this suggestion counters my concerns so...

-snip-

I think it's generally good policy to leave things alone unless they're broken. If the GA community decides that we're just not being screwed over quite enough as it is and comes running to the moderators and admins asking for yet another way our proposals can be removed arbitrarily and capriciously, then we can consider this. This recent habit of coming up with novel ideas and forcing them on the GA because you guys think it would be neat is really wearing away at whatever is left of the community.

Since when was the GA community the be all and end all of the World Assembly? (Maybe this should actually be put to a WA vote if the techies do decide to implement this).

At the very least, I would hope that automatic stamp refunds would apply should a player decide to kill another player's resolution just to be a jerk. Then we can go through the whole process of getting the same shit passed all over again before the SG's monthly visitor returns - I mean, how fucking stupid would it be if both branches had to start submitting emergency duplicates of the same proposal, just to get it passed again in case of veto?

Remember this is a person that is elected, you have the opportunity to remove them from office. If the community feels that strongly about it then they'll submit another resolution, on the other hand... if they don't really care, they won't. I don't think Stamps should be refunded given Sedge's proposal. There's always the chance that the "emergency" duplicate will roll over into the next session and I'm not sure the mods will take kindly to multiple (as in 5+) resolutions being submitted that are exactly the same.

I love the incredible stupidity of this idea.

I've vetoed your resolution! Now at vote...oh, you resubmitted your resolution. So we get to spend another week voting on exactly the same issue.

Or even better, new rule, once a resolution's been vetoed, it can't be resubmitted. So that resolution that turns out to have a massive flaw can't ever be repealed, because I vetoed the repeal! We're stuck with it!

It's just what the WA game has been crying out for, clearly.

You can take things to the extreme sure, feel free. Reality plays out differently. There doesn't have to be one or the other here it's not black and white, we're not answering one of Max's issues.

[Gruenberg]

Since when was the GA community the be all and end all of the World Assembly?

Since 2002. That ended in 2009, I guess. But given the GA is at least part of the WA, it would be nice to at least consider the impact of this proposal on the GA. Or even better, exclude it entirely and limit it solely to the SC.

I'm not sure the mods will take kindly to multiple (as in 5+) resolutions being submitted that are exactly the same.

Why wouldn't they? It has happened before, and they did nothing about it (quite rightly).

You can take things to the extreme sure, feel free. Reality plays out differently. There doesn't have to be one or the other here it's not black and white, we're not answering one of Max's issues.

What is the "shade of grey" here? "I've vetoed your resolution but only a little bit"?

[Enfaru]

We will consider the impact of the this proposal on the GA. ^-^.

As for the mods apparently taking many resolutions with exactly the same wording at the same time... I am honestly surprised. I had heard rumours that such a thing was frowned up on and would be merged into one resolution instead (which would stop time being wasted). Unless we're talking about multiple resolutions with slightly different wordings...which is a different matter entirely.

"I've vetoed your resolution, but now I can't veto any more resolutions until next month" is the shade of grey. Someone's resolution being vetoed because it is a bad idea or because the SG just doesn't like you isn't in itself a bad thing in fact it can be good to shake things up and add to the political scene. Being able to veto the proposal every time is a bad thing and that's why I agreed with Sedge's limitations. Sure, you might have just spent $20 on stamps just to get your resolution through, but really, we don't care how effective your stamps are, you got to use them after all.

That's really what you're complaining about, the fact that you wasted your stamps thinking that money will get your resolution through if you just spend enough, which is why you demanded automatic "compensation". I had no idea that Stamps had become such a pay to win system. Maybe the SG is needed with veto powers specifically to offset the advantages conferred by stamps.

[Gruenberg]

We will consider the impact of the this proposal on the GA.

That's a really exciting prospect, given you have never once posted in the GA forum. Clearly, the right sort of person to be deciding major changes to our part of the game. (And, no, that's not sarcasm: you really were exactly the sort of person whose opinion was listened when deciding to introduce C&Cs, rather than any actual WA players.)

As for the mods apparently taking many resolutions with exactly the same wording at the same time... I am honestly surprised. I had heard rumours that such a thing was frowned up on and would be merged into one resolution instead (which would stop time being wasted).

Those "rumours" were wrong.

"I've vetoed your resolution, but now I can't veto any more resolutions until next month" is the shade of grey. Someone's resolution being vetoed because it is a bad idea or because the SG just doesn't like you isn't in itself a bad thing in fact it can be good to shake things up and add to the political scene. Being able to veto the proposal every time is a bad thing and that's why I agreed with Sedge's limitations. Sure, you might have just spent $20 on stamps just to get your resolution through, but really, we don't care how effective your stamps are, you got to use them after all.

But, as I pointed out in the post you're replying to, a player can simply resubmit their resolution. That there are no other vetoes until next month is irrelevant to that. So, again, where is the shade of grey?

That's really what you're complaining about,

I'm confident it's not.

the fact that you wasted your stamps thinking that money will get your resolution through if you just spend enough, which is why you demanded automatic "compensation".

That was a different player, so again, no.

I had no idea that Stamps had become such a pay to win system. Maybe the SG is needed with veto powers specifically to offset the advantages conferred by stamps.

What advantages? Stamps can help anyone get a proposal to quorum, they do nothing to help pass the resolution. Unless you spend a hundred quid TGing every person in the entire game - but, from experience, even then the mods will magic up a pretext to discard your repeal.

This is all completely insane. A player with no GA involvement took far too seriously an April Fool's joke and threadjacked a discussion on GA rules moderation to bring up the SG role being expanded, and now here we are, with mods actually considering going forward on it.

[The Blaatschapen]

This is all completely insane. A player with no GA involvement took far too seriously an April Fool's joke and threadjacked a discussion on GA rules moderation to bring up the SG role being expanded, and now here we are, with mods actually considering going forward on it.

This might take a while.

Personally, I'd not be in favour of expanding the SG role right now (at least for the GA) while we're still discussing and possibly implementing the council. 1 big change at a time, to see what its effects are.

[Enfaru]

We will consider the impact of the this proposal on the GA.

That's a really exciting prospect, given you have never once posted in the GA forum. Clearly, the right sort of person to be deciding major changes to our part of the game. (And, no, that's not sarcasm: you really were exactly the sort of person whose opinion was listened when deciding to introduce C&Cs, rather than any actual WA players.)

As for the mods apparently taking many resolutions with exactly the same wording at the same time... I am honestly surprised. I had heard rumours that such a thing was frowned up on and would be merged into one resolution instead (which would stop time being wasted).

Those "rumours" were wrong.

"I've vetoed your resolution, but now I can't veto any more resolutions until next month" is the shade of grey. Someone's resolution being vetoed because it is a bad idea or because the SG just doesn't like you isn't in itself a bad thing in fact it can be good to shake things up and add to the political scene. Being able to veto the proposal every time is a bad thing and that's why I agreed with Sedge's limitations. Sure, you might have just spent $20 on stamps just to get your resolution through, but really, we don't care how effective your stamps are, you got to use them after all.

But, as I pointed out in the post you're replying to, a player can simply resubmit their resolution. That there are no other vetoes until next month is irrelevant to that. So, again, where is the shade of grey?

That's really what you're complaining about,

I'm confident it's not.

the fact that you wasted your stamps thinking that money will get your resolution through if you just spend enough, which is why you demanded automatic "compensation".

That was a different player, so again, no.

I had no idea that Stamps had become such a pay to win system. Maybe the SG is needed with veto powers specifically to offset the advantages conferred by stamps.

What advantages? Stamps can help anyone get a proposal to quorum, they do nothing to help pass the resolution. Unless you spend a hundred quid TGing every person in the entire game - but, from experience, even then the mods will magic up a pretext to discard your repeal.

This is all completely insane. A player with no GA involvement took far too seriously an April Fool's joke and threadjacked a discussion on GA rules moderation to bring up the SG role being expanded, and now here we are, with mods actually considering going forward on it.

No... I said we'll consider its effects on the GA... I didn't say I was going to go anywhere near that... (when I think of an appropriate word I'll fix this)... you seem to think that the SG will *only* affect the GA, it won't and therefore not just the GA should be considered. I am a member of the World Assembly, therefore I have a legitimate stake in having a say. So you can tone down the passive aggressive attitude, it might be okay in the GA but this is technical. We are reasonable folk here.

Obviously the rumours were wrong, ho hum and since I don't write resolutions, I really really don't care about how they are written or approved. I do on the other hand, care about having a Secretary General with slightly more power than it currently has.

Since they can resubmit their resolution, what have they lost honestly? The resolution wasn't permanently vetoed so it can be done over and over again. So what if you lost your gamble on a few stamps. You stated that it's either a permanent veto or the veto is completely in effective. Yet as you suggested, the same issue will arise again if it is suitably important, if it isn't then the community will move on. However it is unlikely to be a permanent veto (which is where the shade of grey comes in), with the limitations that Sedge proposed they would be restricted to the number of times that they could veto something and therefore with persistence and community willing the SG can be over-ridden. The same process works well in a number of countries around the world and it's a good process.

That player with no GA involvement by the way, is not me. Though I have raised the issue (I think in technical) that the SG should have more powers prior, it's something I do support and think it is silly that the SG elected with such a turn out has no powers at all, not even ceremonial ones.

Still, not a pressing issue for me. If Blaat thinks there's another more important proposal on the table that might be more useful then I'm not going to argue the matter even more than I have already. I look forwards to the next time this is brought up .

[Gruenberg]

you seem to think that the SG will *only* affect the GA

No, I don't. That's simply the only part I'm concerned about. If the SG only affects the SC, that would be absolutely fine with me and I'd have nothing further to contribute on the discussion. I've already suggested that it only affect the SC, in fact.

since I don't write resolutions, I really really don't care about how they are written or approved.

Yet another exciting sign that you should be the one deciding changes to our part of the game.

Since they can resubmit their resolution, what have they lost honestly?

Nothing, so the whole endeavour was completely pointless.

The same process works well in a number of countries around the world and it's a good process.

That player with no GA involvement by the way, is not me.

No, it's not. It was Ryanimus.

[Flanderlion]

This is all completely insane. A player with no GA involvement took far too seriously an April Fool's joke and threadjacked a discussion on GA rules moderation to bring up the SG role being expanded, and now here we are, with mods actually considering going forward on it.

This might take a while.

Personally, I'd not be in favour of expanding the SG role right now (at least for the GA) while we're still discussing and possibly implementing the council. 1 big change at a time, to see what its effects are.

I'm not exactly expecting to see the SG implemented tomorrow. Was a cool event, and I'd like to see it repeated, but firstly people/admins need to decide what changes (if any) will happen to the event and the process.

Most seem to agree that the SG should be re-enacted after any changes happen so Misley doesn't get to mess with the WA (unless he is re-elected, which no offence to the guy, but I would prefer someone else there). A significant portion think the SG should have some token power, but there is little consensus on what powers they should have, and who it should effect.

Additionally the GA is trying to seperate itself further from the WA, so a feature that would tie them in wouldn't be so well received, judging by the posts here.

And no GA involvement at all is untrue. I tried and failed with a proposal one time (under a puppet), commented a few times in GA forums (with deservedly hostile response) and have campaigned for a GA proposal or two. And I wasn't the only, nor first player to bring up the elected member of the council, nor was that a threadjack. Unless you actually mean Ryanimus, who isn't me. Only nation I posted with in that thread was this one. In fact, only nations I had had more than a few words with prior to the thread was Mouse and IA.

The Secretary General thing was considered long before I posted this thread. It's been said before that the code is there (obviously a bit of adaption needed), the event was popular, and people wished (and I'm fairly sure still wish) to redo the event.

Halloween was another successful April Fool's event, and our region is hyping up for it even now. Same with the challenge game (that was for 10th anniversary) and cards against Nationstates, both of which were events for a specific day and stuck around afterwards. Liberal and conservative themes also came along. Even the WA itself was an April Fool's thing. Not sure why an April Fool's event can't be part of the game, has happened prior, and most likely will happen again (even if it isn't this event specifically).