Don't create the advisory council. Separate WA/SC instead.

[Topid]

What about the system is broken?

Something stopped being the way it was ten years ago.
AKA unthinkable horrors.

[Gruenberg]

Mods, seeing as this thread title is proving totally misleading, am I allowed to edit it to something more accurate?

[Eluvatar]

Mods, seeing as this thread title is proving totally misleading, am I allowed to edit it to something more accurate?

Go ahead.

[Gruenberg]

Thanks.

[Eluvatar]

I don't think the new title's any better.

You aren't really asking to separate the SC, you're asking to replace the SC with a small group of nations.

[Gruenberg]

Yes, that is an accurate summation. However, that was too long to fit into the title while still keeping the part about not creating the Advisory Council!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If it matters, the phrase

Don't create the GA Council. Turn the SC into one instead.

...has the same number of characters as the current title. Feel free to use, or if you've stopped caring by all means ignore.

[Topid]

I don't think the new title's any better.

You aren't really asking to separate the SC, you're asking to replace the SC with a small group of nations.

Which has no impact at all on GA Moderation or why some felt the GA Council was needed.

Instead the title now amounts to, let's not make the suggested changes to the structure of the GA because I don't want it, and on a totally unrelated note let's destroy the SC because all change is bad / I don't like it.

[Gruenberg]

If it matters, the phrase

Don't create the GA Council. Turn the SC into one instead.

...has the same number of characters as the current title. Feel free to use, or if you've stopped caring by all means ignore.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not sure that's really accurate. I'm not suggesting the mods should be able to override or simply ignore an impotent Recognition Committee, as is going to be the case with the Advisory Council: by all means, give the Recognition Committee actual powers to hand out commendations and liberations and whatever.

[Eluvatar]

Are you suggesting it would be fine for this Recognition Commitee to ignore the SC rules?

There are four rules for Security Council proposals:

• 1. You cannot commend or condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, II Mentors etc.) for actions taken as part of their role.
  
  
• 2. Proposals must contain a unique and relevant argument.
  That means:
  
  • (a) Don't plagiarise - that will get you expelled from the WA.
  • (b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region.
  • (c) Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions.
  • (d) Repeals should address the contents of the resolution they're repealing, and not by just stating the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.
• 3. Your proposal must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does, e.g. commends, condemns, liberates, or repeals. Commendations/Condemnation can only commend/condemn the nominee, Liberations can only liberate the targeted region, and Repeals can only repeal the targeted resolution. For example, your proposal cannot impose fines, sanctions or a boycott on a condemned nation.
  
  
• 4. Your proposal must read as representing the opinion of the World Assembly, and as targeting a Nation or Region.
  This means:
  
  • (a) You cannot reference the "real world" outside of NationStates.
  • (b) You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they".
  • (c) You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game.
  • (d) Your proposal must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly.

---

The primary responsibility for determining the standards of Security Council resolutions lies with delegates. Unless a proposal violates one of the above rules, it is unlikely to be deleted. If you don't like misspelled proposals, or proposals condemning raiders just because they're raiders, or proposals commending your region's bitterest enemies, or the way a group of nations has got together to push a particular line, it's up to you to do something about it. And the "something" is not "call the mods".

---

Rules discussion here

---

(EDITED 26/07/09: accuracy in proposals -- Ard. 18/08/09: delegates' responsibility -- Ard. 28/12/09: links are okay if they're NS links -- Ard. Put an active clause in everything, even repeals. -- Ard, 29/03/10. Moved "not doing anything" to the kill zone -- Ard. 23/04/10: "Player behind" ruling withdrawn -- Ard. Wording re "player behind" amended. Expanded proposal references re non-WA nations 29/05/10 -- Ard. Self commendation added 30/05/10 -- Ard. "directly" added, 09/06/10 -- Ard. 4(b) added 11/06/10 -- Ard. 14/07/10: Fixed 4(c) because Hack is a grammar Nazi -- Ard. latest revision of R4 23/07/10 -- Ard. Repeals discussion added and Ideology amended, 19/10/10 -- Ard. Rephrased RW ideology, 20/11/10 -- Sedge. Added Rule 4 RW references, removed point 3 of 'Confusion', Ideology amended, 06/12/10 -- Sedge. Entirely re-written without Ard or Nerv so much as lifting a finger to help, 07/01/11 -- Sedge. Oh, yeah? So who wrote the blueprint? (Link to rules discussion added)-- Ard, 06/02/11. -- Added the latest edit to rule 4, because Sedge was too lazy to do it for me. CG 13/05/11. -- Edited Rule 2 (d) to allow multiple Liberations for one region. Sedge 28/10/11. Rules re-written, 27/09/13 -- Sedge

[Gruenberg]

I imagine that'd be something for the involved players to determine. I don't think many of the gameplayers advocating for such a committee were big fans of Rule 4, but few people would enjoy seeing plagiariazed commendations, for example.

[Cormactopia II]

I'm completely opposed to this. The Security Council a) is more open and welcoming to input from more players, b) has more in-game impact, and impact that actually makes sense. There is no reason it should essentially be eliminated in favor of an RP institution in which very few people actively participate.

If anything, I agree with the suggestion that we should do the reverse: We should keep the Security Council, and reduce the General Assembly to a smaller council of players who vote on RP legislation that has no in-game impact. The main reason most players join the World Assembly is for regional gameplay, not participation in the General Assembly. So it wouldn't make sense to divorce the institution that directly relates to regional gameplay from WA membership, but to keep the RP institution very few people participate in tied to WA membership.

[Gruenberg]

The Security Council a) is more open and welcoming to input from more players,

I would agree with this.

b) has more in-game impact, and impact that actually makes sense.

But not with this part. The WA has more in-game impact: as [violet] put it, "[f]or mine, the GA's ability to alter nation stats is more significant than the SC's ability to award a badge ... GA legislation can alter the fundamental nation type of every WA member in the game; a Liberation will affect at most a few hundred nations."

If anything, I agree with the suggestion that we should do the reverse: We should keep the Security Council, and reduce the General Assembly to a smaller council of players who vote on RP legislation that has no in-game impact.

Just want to be clear I'm not arguing against this suggestion, although it's not the topic of this thread. Anything to separate WA and SC would be worth it.

The main reason most players join the World Assembly is for regional gameplay, not participation in the General Assembly.

A minority of players participate in regional gameplay, so that's unlikely. It's more probable - though I don't have the stats to support this assumption - that the vast majority of players are neither SC gameplayers nor WA roleplayers, but simply casual "issue answerer" players who join up simply because it's there.

[Flanderlion]

What does the SC and GA actually share beyond voting etc? Obviously the GA has annoying players coming in from the SC and vice versa but bar that, I don't really think of them similar at all.

Separating the GA forum into RP forums and the SC into the gameplay/got issues is something I saw suggested a while back to make them seperate.

But I am with Cormac with most of what he said. I left the WA on my main not because of SC badges (although that was what took me away from answering issues) but because of GA influencing stats. The average nations stats changing is more of an impact on their nation than anything the SC does which usually has a more narrow scope.

[Cormactopia II]

The WA has more in-game impact: as [violet] put it, "[f]or mine, the GA's ability to alter nation stats is more significant than the SC's ability to award a badge ... GA legislation can alter the fundamental nation type of every WA member in the game; a Liberation will affect at most a few hundred nations."

Agreed with some of what you're saying. The Commendation and Condemnation badges are essentially worthless. Liberations, on the other hand, are fairly important, given that they were created to address the game-over situation that was occurring when raiders imposed an invisible password on a region and there was no means to remove it. Even if that only affects a few hundred nations, it's still important to retain as a solution to that issue, otherwise there will either be no solution or we would have to revert to some form of griefing rules, and it's been made clear the latter is off the table.

You're also not taking into account other game changes that are still to be implemented, such as the Custodian SC proposal, and the Reformation SC proposal which is on hold but not cancelled. Without the Security Council, there would be no way to implement these changes. I recognize that you're not proposing elimination of the Security Council with no replacement, but what you are proposing is that these decisions regarding important aspects of regional gameplay -- which would literally affect the future existence of some regions -- be left to a handful of gameplayers. I'm not sure that is at all a viable proposal in terms of fairness.

Would merging both institutions into one World Assembly without two separate branches -- eliminating Commendations and Condemnations, but retaining Liberations and later Custodian and Reformation -- resolve the issue as well?

If anything, I agree with the suggestion that we should do the reverse: We should keep the Security Council, and reduce the General Assembly to a smaller council of players who vote on RP legislation that has no in-game impact.

Just want to be clear I'm not arguing against this suggestion, although it's not the topic of this thread. Anything to separate WA and SC would be worth it.

Can you explain, to those of us who aren't General Assembly regulars, exactly how the Security Council interferes with the General Assembly in such a way that separation is so vital? That would perhaps help those of us who don't really see a pressing issue be more supportive of some kind of separation.

The main reason most players join the World Assembly is for regional gameplay, not participation in the General Assembly.

A minority of players participate in regional gameplay, so that's unlikely. It's more probable - though I don't have the stats to support this assumption - that the vast majority of players are neither SC gameplayers nor WA roleplayers, but simply casual "issue answerer" players who join up simply because it's there.

That's fair, you're probably right. But there is still the issue of the World Assembly having important regional gameplay functions, and players being required to be in the World Assembly in order to use those functions. Why shouldn't those players also have an institution for their area of the game? The issue answering players are equally likely, or unlikely, to get involved in one as they are the other.

[Gruenberg]

Liberations, on the other hand, are fairly important

Not advocating getting rid of them. But there's nothing inherent to them requiring a vote by the WA. So long as liberations happen, it doesn't matter whether they're effected by a committee of the whole, or a recognition committee.

I recognize that you're not proposing elimination of the Security Council with no replacement, but what you are proposing is that these decisions regarding important aspects of regional gameplay -- which would literally affect the future existence of some regions -- be left to a handful of gameplayers. I'm not sure that is at all a viable proposal in terms of fairness.

Why not, though? There honestly are only a handful of gameplayers who are ever going to understand the specifics of the situation. Whether or not to Liberate Belgium is something that at most a few hundred (and Belgium was a really exceptional case, even I'd heard of it) players can weigh in on in a meaningful sense. Whether or not to ban torture is something every player can form a personal opinion on.

Would merging both institutions into one World Assembly without two separate branches -- eliminating Commendations and Condemnations, but retaining Liberations and later Custodian and Reformation -- resolve the issue as well?

That would be even worse. You'd be bringing out of character gameplay resolutions back into the WA, undoing the semi-separation we have now!

Can you explain, to those of us who aren't General Assembly regulars, exactly how the Security Council interferes with the General Assembly in such a way that separation is so vital? That would perhaps help those of us who don't really see a pressing issue be more supportive of some kind of separation.

It's notable that Sedgistan, who's previously advocated for the deletion of the WA entirely, recently revoked [violet]'s rule separating the two. It was always [violet]'s aim to eventually do away with the WA and have it become a gameplay arbitration council instead - she mocked us for having "already discussed pretty much every issue" - and that ruling is just the latest step in that. Soon it will be "why can't Furtherment of Democracy resolutions encourage regions to have democratic elections?", and so forth. That is the ultimate agenda, and while I recognize players will be powerless to stop it, we can at least point it out.

That's not counting the sheer amount of confusion the situation generates, mainly for newer or casual players. Every week there are roleplay threads in the SC forum or gameplay threads in the WA that have to be locked or moved, or moderation complaints arising from players not understanding the difference between the two - which, especially give Rule 4 applies (so far as I'm aware) to C&Cs but not Liberations, and that some players roleplay or gameplay-roleplay in the SC but some don't - really is quite complex.

And finally, because they're linked, suggestions for one impact the other. A change that might be really great for the SC - like the Secretary General - would also apply to the WA, where it might not be such a good fit. The telegram filter blocks all WA telegrams: I use it because I don't want to receive SC telegrams, but that means I lose out on WA telegrams I might be interested in. I'm sure there are gameplayers for whom the inverse is true. When one side of the game does something - like Liberate Haven - it leads people to be angry at "the WA", even though the other side had nothing to do with it, or similarly, when the WA constantly passes repeals or votes on different versions of the same resolution, it bores some people even though they might find what's going on in the SC more interesting.

Why shouldn't those players also have an institution for their area of the game?

So give them one. I'm not saying "abolish Liberations", I recognize why they were introduced. I'm just saying that grafting them onto the WA is unhelpful.

[Cormactopia II]

Liberations, on the other hand, are fairly important

Not advocating getting rid of them. But there's nothing inherent to them requiring a vote by the WA. So long as liberations happen, it doesn't matter whether they're effected by a committee of the whole, or a recognition committee.

But the same could be said for General Assembly resolutions, and you've acknowledged elsewhere that gameplayers are more numerous. So shouldn't the more numerous group have their proposals decided by the World Assembly instead of a committee comprised of a few people, and the smaller, niche group of RPers have their proposals decided by a committee?

I recognize that you're not proposing elimination of the Security Council with no replacement, but what you are proposing is that these decisions regarding important aspects of regional gameplay -- which would literally affect the future existence of some regions -- be left to a handful of gameplayers. I'm not sure that is at all a viable proposal in terms of fairness.

Why not, though? There honestly are only a handful of gameplayers who are ever going to understand the specifics of the situation. Whether or not to Liberate Belgium is something that at most a few hundred (and Belgium was a really exceptional case, even I'd heard of it) players can weigh in on in a meaningful sense. Whether or not to ban torture is something every player can form a personal opinion on.

There are at least dozens of gameplayers, spread out across dozens of regions, who can understand the specifics of gameplay situations. You're arguing that decisions for those dozens of people should be made by a few gameplayers, who may not even be elected but could instead be selected by Moderation.

Aside from that, I think you're wrong that General Assembly resolutions are easier to understand than Security Council resolutions. Sure, anyone can understand torture, but can anyone understand that a clause is worded the way it is because the author had to be sensitive to concerns about sapient rather than human rights, or because an RP species in some nation may not reproduce the same way human beings do, or because a particular religion that exists in the real world may not exist in the NationStates world, or because wording it a different way may have conflicted with or duplicated a previous resolution, etc.? It's not the subject matter of the General Assembly that most players can't understand, it's the arcane legalism.

Can you explain, to those of us who aren't General Assembly regulars, exactly how the Security Council interferes with the General Assembly in such a way that separation is so vital? That would perhaps help those of us who don't really see a pressing issue be more supportive of some kind of separation.

It's notable that Sedgistan, who's previously advocated for the deletion of the WA entirely, recently revoked [violet]'s rule separating the two. It was always [violet]'s aim to eventually do away with the WA and have it become a gameplay arbitration council instead - she mocked us for having "already discussed pretty much every issue" - and that ruling is just the latest step in that. Soon it will be "why can't Furtherment of Democracy resolutions encourage regions to have democratic elections?", and so forth. That is the ultimate agenda, and while I recognize players will be powerless to stop it, we can at least point it out.

Would that be so bad? Haven't you discussed pretty much every issue in the General Assembly? I don't see very many new issues come up these days. Shouldn't the World Assembly, one of the two primary components of this game, involve more people and have broader appeal? It doesn't make sense for the World Assembly's legislative component to continue catering to a small niche community, while the World Assembly as a gameplay component is comprised of and affects more than 26,000 individual players.

In my view, it would be better to have a Furtherment of Democracy proposal that encourages regions to have democratic elections, and to have a spirited gameplay debate about that of the kind that attracts a range of player input in the Security Council, than to have the long spells we see more and more often in the General Assembly these days in which there is no resolution at vote at all. Why continue having one of the primary components of the game cater to a niche community of RPers who want to RP legislate? You can RP legislate without the World Assembly, but there is much that can't be done by average players without World Assembly membership. Given that players have to be members of the World Assembly to participate in many aspects of the game, the legislative component of the World Assembly should have broader appeal and should not be dominated by a niche RP community.

That's not counting the sheer amount of confusion the situation generates, mainly for newer or casual players. Every week there are roleplay threads in the SC forum or gameplay threads in the WA that have to be locked or moved, or moderation complaints arising from players not understanding the difference between the two - which, especially give Rule 4 applies (so far as I'm aware) to C&Cs but not Liberations, and that some players roleplay or gameplay-roleplay in the SC but some don't - really is quite complex.

Agreed that this is problematic. Rule 4 does apply to Liberations, as well, and Rule 4 makes it very challenging, to say the least, to write certain resolutions about certain gameplay topics. If anything, Rule 4 just makes it harder for players to understand what is going on in the Security Council by forbidding us from spelling it out in plain and easily understandable language, forcing us to instead use RP language that most players don't understand and don't really care about. How many players find their game experience enriched by Moderation forcing Security Council resolutions not to use the word "Feeder," or would have a negative game experience if Moderation allowed it? But I digress.

And finally, because they're linked, suggestions for one impact the other. A change that might be really great for the SC - like the Secretary General - would also apply to the WA, where it might not be such a good fit. The telegram filter blocks all WA telegrams: I use it because I don't want to receive SC telegrams, but that means I lose out on WA telegrams I might be interested in. I'm sure there are gameplayers for whom the inverse is true. When one side of the game does something - like Liberate Haven - it leads people to be angry at "the WA", even though the other side had nothing to do with it, or similarly, when the WA constantly passes repeals or votes on different versions of the same resolution, it bores some people even though they might find what's going on in the SC more interesting.

This is a good point, but goes back to my question of why we shouldn't divorce the RP legislation from the World Assembly instead. Having a more powerful Secretary-General and more regular elections for the office isn't just a change that might be good for "the SC," it would be a change that might be good for the game overall, because it would generate political interest and establish regular game-wide elections instead of limiting game politics to regions. So why should we not make a change that would generate game-wide activity and enthusiasm because it might negatively impact a niche community that doesn't actually need the World Assembly in order to RP legislate?

Why shouldn't those players also have an institution for their area of the game?

So give them one. I'm not saying "abolish Liberations", I recognize why they were introduced. I'm just saying that grafting them onto the WA is unhelpful.

I think you have me sold on the idea that the two institutions should be split and only one of them should remain as the World Assembly, it's just that I'm now convinced that the rest of the game should keep the World Assembly, and the RP community that comprises the General Assembly core community should have the alternative institution. That makes infinitely more sense given that the needs of the RP community in the General Assembly are holding us back from changes to the World Assembly that would be more interesting to the broader game and generate more game-wide activity and enthusiasm.

[Excidium Planetis]

Would that be so bad? Haven't you discussed pretty much every issue in the General Assembly? I don't see very many new issues come up these days.

No, we haven't. A newcomer to the GA is currently working on a resolution about Affirmative Action, which hasn't been addressed. The WA Army rule was sorta recently removed for the first time in the history of the WA, so I am currently working on a WA Peacekeepers series of resolutions, which were illegal until now. And there are more besides.

We haven't even assumed total control over nations' economies and governments, establishing the New WA Order and proclaiming that Resolution 666 shall make the Incorruptible Gnome Committee the Supreme authority in all Nation-States and arbiter of justice.

Shouldn't the World Assembly, one of the two primary components of this game, involve more people and have broader appeal? It doesn't make sense for the World Assembly's legislative component to continue catering to a small niche community, while the World Assembly as a gameplay component is comprised of and affects more than 26,000 individual players.

I've never personally been affected by the SC. But the GA affects my nation's stats, so I would say the GA has greater impact.

In my view, it would be better to have a Furtherment of Democracy proposal that encourages regions to have democratic elections, and to have a spirited gameplay debate about that of the kind that attracts a range of player input in the Security Council, than to have the long spells we see more and more often in the General Assembly these days in which there is no resolution at vote at all.

Well... I can't argue with you there.

Why continue having one of the primary components of the game cater to a niche community of RPers who want to RP legislate? You can RP legislate without the World Assembly, but there is much that can't be done by average players without World Assembly membership.

Because without the WA, we lose several components of our RP legislation game:

1. Recruitment pool of every player in the game that involves no effort on our part.
2. Moderator policing of proposal legality
3. Thousands of players adding to a voting simulation.
4. Shiny badges
5. Stat changes

Given that players have to be members of the World Assembly to participate in many aspects of the game, the legislative component of the World Assembly should have broader appeal and should not be dominated by a niche RP community.

This is a good point, but goes back to my question of why we shouldn't divorce the RP legislation from the World Assembly instead.

Why don't we just divorce SC membership and GA membership? It makes sense for there to be membership for the GA, because that's how it was created. And it makes sense for the SC too, as you pointed out. But why should both require the same membership: WA membership? Why not have GA membership and SC membership, both of which can be opted into by players and allows voting in the respective branches of the game. If you don't want the GA stat changes but want to participate in regional gameplay and R/D, join only the SC.

I think you have me sold on the idea that the two institutions should be split and only one of them should remain as the World Assembly, it's just that I'm now convinced that the rest of the game should keep the World Assembly, and the RP community that comprises the General Assembly core community should have the alternative institution. That makes infinitely more sense given that the needs of the RP community in the General Assembly are holding us back from changes to the World Assembly that would be more interesting to the broader game and generate more game-wide activity and enthusiasm.

Since neither of out sides seem to want a small council of players to decide all our fates, and both want to keep the system we are currently using while still separating the other half, why don't we just go for the obvious compromise and make a GA WA and an SC WA. Everyone gets to vote, but now the two are totally separate.

[Gruenberg]

But the same could be said for General Assembly resolutions, and you've acknowledged elsewhere that gameplayers are more numerous. So shouldn't the more numerous group have their proposals decided by the World Assembly instead of a committee comprised of a few people, and the smaller, niche group of RPers have their proposals decided by a committee?

As I also said before, I'm not arguing against that. In my view the SC would work better as a recognition committee because the WA has more history and a wider impact, but so long as they're separated, it's fine.

There are at least dozens of gameplayers, spread out across dozens of regions, who can understand the specifics of gameplay situations. You're arguing that decisions for those dozens of people should be made by a few gameplayers, who may not even be elected but could instead be selected by Moderation.

Let's not get caught up on specifics. The recognition committee could be quite large, and it could absolutely be elected if you like, or half-elected half-appointed, or whatever. I'm not suggesting using the exact model of the Advisory Council.

Aside from that, I think you're wrong that General Assembly resolutions are easier to understand than Security Council resolutions. Sure, anyone can understand torture, but can anyone understand that a clause is worded the way it is because the author had to be sensitive to concerns about sapient rather than human rights, or because an RP species in some nation may not reproduce the same way human beings do, or because a particular religion that exists in the real world may not exist in the NationStates world, or because wording it a different way may have conflicted with or duplicated a previous resolution, etc.? It's not the subject matter of the General Assembly that most players can't understand, it's the arcane legalism.

As I already said, the forum debates are irrelevant, it's the delegate voting that decides everything. As for the proliferation of awful tech-/species-wank in the WA, you'd have to ask someone who thinks that's a good thing. I don't, and the WA was much better when it was mostly free of such distractions. Personally I'd like if a dozen new players turned up and said IDGAF to someone whining about the word "human" (in an organization that specifically has a Human Rights category).

Would that be so bad? Haven't you discussed pretty much every issue in the General Assembly? I don't see very many new issues come up these days. Shouldn't the World Assembly, one of the two primary components of this game, involve more people and have broader appeal? It doesn't make sense for the World Assembly's legislative component to continue catering to a small niche community, while the World Assembly as a gameplay component is comprised of and affects more than 26,000 individual players.

I am sure that this is the way they will go, yes. It's what [violet] wanted, and gameplayer mods fiercely defend their charges' interests while WA mods totally abdicate any responsibility to speak up for their part of the game. Compare Sedgistan's defence of gameplay and the SC to Ardchoille's retreat on just about everything when C&Cs came along.

Agreed that this is problematic. Rule 4 does apply to Liberations, as well, and Rule 4 makes it very challenging, to say the least, to write certain resolutions about certain gameplay topics. If anything, Rule 4 just makes it harder for players to understand what is going on in the Security Council by forbidding us from spelling it out in plain and easily understandable language, forcing us to instead use RP language that most players don't understand and don't really care about. How many players find their game experience enriched by Moderation forcing Security Council resolutions not to use the word "Feeder," or would have a negative game experience if Moderation allowed it? But I digress.

If there's ever a move to get rid of Rule 4 I'll support it, it was a ridiculous thing to introduce months after the SC had been established, but it is a bit of a digression, yes.

This is a good point, but goes back to my question of why we shouldn't divorce the RP legislation from the World Assembly instead.

I'd argue, because the WA is linked to the stats impact of categories. But again, I'll sign on to any "divorce" plan, no matter which parent ends up getting the kids.

I think you have me sold on the idea that the two institutions should be split and only one of them should remain as the World Assembly, it's just that I'm now convinced that the rest of the game should keep the World Assembly, and the RP community that comprises the General Assembly core community should have the alternative institution. That makes infinitely more sense given that the needs of the RP community in the General Assembly are holding us back from changes to the World Assembly that would be more interesting to the broader game and generate more game-wide activity and enthusiasm.

Broadly, I'd be fine with that. It's what [violet] wanted, it was always the plan, it's clearly where the balance of support lies on the moderation team, and I'd frankly they were honest about wanting to kill off our game instead of keeping up the ludicrous pretence of tolerating it while making it grindingly worse every day.

[Flanderlion]

New World Order, damn someone is onto our master plan.

Gruen did make a good point about splitting up WA TGs between SC, GA and other if there becomes a need for an other category.

Confusion wise, splitting the forums might help, but is it worth moving around the forums and all the work entailed to only slightly seperate the two bits of the WA?

And I'm pretty sure [V] doesn't want to kill off the GA. Not sure if many understands the GA tbh. judging by your reactions to tech stuff that people who haven't touched the GA like I would think is good. If admins wanted to kill off your game it'd be gone.

Focus on individual problems rather than going for a big likely unpopular change impacting every WA nation. The GA/SC are gigantic content things giving nations stuff to vote on. Cutting out half of it wouldn't exactly be desirable unless it fixed a bigger problem than it caused.

[Gruenberg]

Confusion wise, splitting the forums might help, but is it worth moving around the forums and all the work entailed to only slightly seperate the two bits of the WA?

The reason I suggested that was that the mods recently reordered the forums and said that doing so was not a lot of work.

And I'm pretty sure [V] doesn't want to kill off the GA.

[violet]: "I would like to understand the scope of this feeling, because here is the scoop: the C&C resolutions are actually just the tip of the iceberg. They are intended as the first step in a much broader ramping up of World Assembly's power over gameplay. It is hoped that this will reinvigorate the WA and introduce new purpose to an organization that has, over six and a half years, already debated pretty much every kind of legislation there is. I can't reveal details, but there are proposals for committees and the election of WA officers, for example, and a resolution type that could break a regional password-lock."