Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Kryozerkia]

For those who argue that one doesn't need to be a resolution author to rule on legality, that's true. But Ard was a mod, not part of a mod-appointed council of players. And we have to look at this realistically: who is likely going to be on this council, anyways? GA regulars, undoubtedly. And the vast majority of them are resolution authors anyways (the exceptions are, I believe, Araraukar and then puppets like GR's puppet whose name I can never spell and Hannasea. I don't know if Hannasea could bring back Gruen or DSR to participate in such an election, but I know Glen-Rhodes is still available, so for one of those at least there is an option.)

That is true, but having a non-author community regular would help to bring a diversity of opinion and impartiality. Having a resolution shouldn't be a caveat for membership.

[Separatist Peoples]

Regarding IA's argument that the council will be inherently conservative: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. If you are suggesting that the council members will only enforce the status quo as of right now, then I don't think you're correct. There are many players that are currently active who have a fairly liberal attitude towards the rules, including Gruen, GR, myself, and others. If you're suggesting that several years down the line, we'll run into another problem where a new generation of players will agitate against future interpretations of the rules which at this point might be considered liberal, then a council with term limits should theoretically resolve that. If a particular interpretation becomes unpopular and a large portion of future regulars think change is necessary, it is likely one of them will be appointed to serve on the council. If the moderators are dispassionate supervisors only, then they will appoint regulars based on their merit and contributions, not on their views toward the rules. And this entire line of argumentation doesn't address why player self-direction is bad for the game now.

But isn't precedent something we want to encourage? The council may be conservative in that it won't be throwing itself into new ideas as readily, but that would be, at least in part, because of the belief that what came before should determine what comes next. The GA, both OOC as a question of a compilation of rules and IC as a legislative organization, is a collection of laws, and law, as a system, evolves incrementally. I don't see conservatism as a hindrance to such a council except as an excuse for blatant obstructionism and appeals to tradition. Neither is terribly likely to go unchallenged, term limits or not.

Question to those who argue that WA wide elections would allow Gameplayers to take control: Would 1 nation, 1 vote, eliminating the power of delegates, negate this concern? Gameplayers by no means make up enough WA votes to influence the outcome of elections, and there would be no stacking in favor of a candidate.

The population of players who join so they can either secure their nation against raiding or to participate in raiding themselves is easily larger than those who pay attention to the GA. Any one of the popular raiders likely have a roster that exceeds the number of GA regulars playing at any one time, and a compilation of all regional armies, raiding organizations, and citizens involved in regional governments probably dwarfs the GA regulars despite the most favorable estimates. They probably are outnumbered only by the uninformed voters who involve themselves insofar as it's fun to click the voting button. Neither group boasts a meaningful grasp on the issues the forum faces. Remember, these are the folks that voted in the WSA.

I'm actually starting to like Sedgistan's idea of a mod-appointed council with exactly one seat elected by a 1 WA nation, 1 vote system. It helps relieve the concern of having a mod-cronyism thing, and the nightmare of uninformed voters electing people with no GA experience.

And I agree it could be the Sec Gen if it were made clear that this is what the Sec Gen would be, if he held new elections not on April 1, and if resolution authorship were a requirement. I would say that to be fair, we could open up the elections to all resolution authors, even non-WA members.

[/quote]

If the term "Secretary-General were not used, I could find this palatable, but I really struggle to see the value of somebody serving on the council that has absolutely no background in the subject beyond dispelling the concern for "elitism". At best, their vote will be routinely outweighed by the regulars, thus supporting the illusion that the GA regulars wish to squeeze out the common man. At worst, they'll skew tight votes with uninformed positions, though if the vote is that close, there is no guarantee that another, informed voter wouldn't have voted that way on their own. Either way, I doubt it'll help.

[Excidium Planetis]

Question to those who argue that WA wide elections would allow Gameplayers to take control: Would 1 nation, 1 vote, eliminating the power of delegates, negate this concern? Gameplayers by no means make up enough WA votes to influence the outcome of elections, and there would be no stacking in favor of a candidate.

The population of players who join so they can either secure their nation against raiding or to participate in raiding themselves is easily larger than those who pay attention to the GA. Any one of the popular raiders likely have a roster that exceeds the number of GA regulars playing at any one time, and a compilation of all regional armies, raiding organizations, and citizens involved in regional governments probably dwarfs the GA regulars despite the most favorable estimates. They probably are outnumbered only by the uninformed voters who involve themselves insofar as it's fun to click the voting button. Neither group boasts a meaningful grasp on the issues the forum faces. Remember, these are the folks that voted in the WSA.

It is worth noting that WSA would have failed if not for 10K Islands changing their vote last minute. That was a delegate thing, and would not have happened in a 1 WA nation, 1 vote system.

Also, 1) resolution authorship prevents WA members from voting in just anyone. 2) People who join to secure their region against raiders are not necessarily Gameplayers. They can be roleplayers as well.

I'm actually starting to like Sedgistan's idea of a mod-appointed council with exactly one seat elected by a 1 WA nation, 1 vote system. It helps relieve the concern of having a mod-cronyism thing, and the nightmare of uninformed voters electing people with no GA experience.

And I agree it could be the Sec Gen if it were made clear that this is what the Sec Gen would be, if he held new elections not on April 1, and if resolution authorship were a requirement. I would say that to be fair, we could open up the elections to all resolution authors, even non-WA members.

If the term "Secretary-General were not used, I could find this palatable, but I really struggle to see the value of somebody serving on the council that has absolutely no background in the subject beyond dispelling the concern for "elitism". At best, their vote will be routinely outweighed by the regulars, thus supporting the illusion that the GA regulars wish to squeeze out the common man. At worst, they'll skew tight votes with uninformed positions, though if the vote is that close, there is no guarantee that another, informed voter wouldn't have voted that way on their own. Either way, I doubt it'll help.

Why the dislike for the term Secretary General? Also, if someone is a resolution author, how can they be just another uninformed voter?

For those who argue that one doesn't need to be a resolution author to rule on legality, that's true. But Ard was a mod, not part of a mod-appointed council of players. And we have to look at this realistically: who is likely going to be on this council, anyways? GA regulars, undoubtedly. And the vast majority of them are resolution authors anyways (the exceptions are, I believe, Araraukar and then puppets like GR's puppet whose name I can never spell and Hannasea. I don't know if Hannasea could bring back Gruen or DSR to participate in such an election, but I know Glen-Rhodes is still available, so for one of those at least there is an option.)

That is true, but having a non-author community regular would help to bring a diversity of opinion and impartiality. Having a resolution shouldn't be a caveat for membership.

It's just one seat on the Council. People without badges can get mod-appointed to one of the other seats.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We've talked behind the scenes over the last 5 months about doing something with the Secretary-General code, as it's sitting there ready to use, and the event seemed popular. That doesn't mean it has to be used, but if there's an area it could benefit, it's worth exploring that idea.

I'm not keen on having a fully elected Council, as the Council is meant to work for the GA community, which is not the same thing as the WA membership.

There's potential that the SG position could work to bring an elected element into the Council - but not as it is at present (elected by all nations - regardless of WA, no requirements to run, incumbent elected as an April Fools' joke, duties not known at time of election). If it were to work, an election would need to be run again, voting would need to be limited to WA members, there would need to be an eligibility requirement to ensure candidates were involved in the GA - authoring a resolution would be the simplest technical measure, and the duties would need to be clear beforehand).

This may be a counter to the concerns about a solely mod-appointed Council or one which appoints its replacement, both of which still run some risk of becoming a clique/falling foul of cronyism.

Electing someone to the council, to serve alongside mod-appointed members, is fine. Calling him or her the "Secretary General" is not. It implies a lot more authority than this one person would actually have.

[Excidium Planetis]

Electing someone to the council, to serve alongside mod-appointed members, is fine. Calling him or her the "Secretary General" is not. It implies a lot more authority than this one person would actually have.

What would you suggest we call them?

[Araraukar]

Question to those who argue that WA wide elections would allow Gameplayers to take control: Would 1 nation, 1 vote, eliminating the power of delegates, negate this concern?

Not really, no. People who are active in the gameplay part can probably fairly easily get their friends/allies/acquaintaces to vote the way they want (or antagonize enemies deliberately to vote opposite of their perceived favourite). I can think of several ways of people being underhanded with an election via the gameside stuff, even though I've no interest nor intention to be involved in it.

(EDIT: SP explained it better than I could.)

Gameplayers by no means make up enough WA votes to influence the outcome of elections, and there would be no stacking in favor of a candidate.

I think the gameplayers vastly outnumber GA-players, even if we assumed that only something like 10% of people interested in GA ever posted here.

I'm actually starting to like Sedgistan's idea of a mod-appointed council with exactly one seat elected by a 1 WA nation, 1 vote system.

One seat out of how many then becomes the question. And whether the councilors would all be equal, or if there was a "chairperson" (that wasn't a mod) or something like that.

I would say that to be fair, we could open up the elections to all resolution authors, even non-WA members.

Funny, I never even considered that WA status could be a requirement for the council seat. Guess I'm too used to the fact that the forum doesn't require it for participation.

I would honestly prefer opening it up to co-authors too, but I don't see how that would work from a technical standing.

Co-authors are listed in the resolution text itself, even with our 300+ resolutions, it wouldn't be tooooo big of a job to dig them out.

the exceptions are, I believe, Araraukar and then puppets

Well, I'm officially at least a co-author.

Electing someone to the council, to serve alongside mod-appointed members, is fine. Calling him or her the "Secretary General" is not. It implies a lot more authority than this one person would actually have.

This.

What would you suggest we call them?

Nothing you wouldn't call the other councilors.

[Excidium Planetis]

Question to those who argue that WA wide elections would allow Gameplayers to take control: Would 1 nation, 1 vote, eliminating the power of delegates, negate this concern?

Not really, no. People who are active in the gameplay part can probably fairly easily get their friends/allies/acquaintaces to vote the way they want (or antagonize enemies deliberately to vote opposite of their perceived favourite). I can think of several ways of people being underhanded with an election via the gameside stuff, even though I've no interest nor intention to be involved in it.

(EDIT: SP explained it better than I could.)

But in the absence of stacking, how could they make up enough votes to influence the election?

Gameplayers by no means make up enough WA votes to influence the outcome of elections, and there would be no stacking in favor of a candidate.

I think the gameplayers vastly outnumber GA-players, even if we assumed that only something like 10% of people interested in GA ever posted here.

But the group of "neither of those" is way larger than both combined.

I'm actually starting to like Sedgistan's idea of a mod-appointed council with exactly one seat elected by a 1 WA nation, 1 vote system.

One seat out of how many then becomes the question. And whether the councilors would all be equal, or if there was a "chairperson" (that wasn't a mod) or something like that.

If there is a chairperson, it should be an actual mod in an appointed seat on the Council. Not an elected chair.

What would you suggest we call them?

Nothing you wouldn't call the other councilors.

So even though the method of becoming a Council member is totally different, it should just be the same?

How would this work with the current game code for Sec Gen elections being used?

[Kryozerkia]

Not really, no. People who are active in the gameplay part can probably fairly easily get their friends/allies/acquaintaces to vote the way they want (or antagonize enemies deliberately to vote opposite of their perceived favourite). I can think of several ways of people being underhanded with an election via the gameside stuff, even though I've no interest nor intention to be involved in it.

(EDIT: SP explained it better than I could.)

But in the absence of stacking, how could they make up enough votes to influence the election?

Aggressive telegram campaigning.

[Excidium Planetis]

But in the absence of stacking, how could they make up enough votes to influence the election?

Aggressive telegram campaigning.

We can do that too. And have more of a personal stake in doing so.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I really struggle to see the value of somebody serving on the council that has absolutely no background in the subject beyond dispelling the concern for "elitism". At best, their vote will be routinely outweighed by the regulars, thus supporting the illusion that the GA regulars wish to squeeze out the common man. At worst, they'll skew tight votes with uninformed positions, though if the vote is that close, there is no guarantee that another, informed voter wouldn't have voted that way on their own. Either way, I doubt it'll help.

The elected post as suggested by sedge wouldn't be open to just anyone; they'd have to meet a minimum requirement for GA knowledge and expertise.

The only way I can think to make sure the candidates are qualified is to subject their candidacy to approval by the appointed members. They can approve anyone who is qualified and WA members can then elect one of them. Might still smack of "elitism," but this is not a People Power movement. We have to make sure the people charged with enforcing the rules know what they are doing.

[Kryozerkia]

The only way I can think to make sure the candidates are qualified is to subject their candidacy to approval by the appointed members. They can approve anyone who is qualified and WA members can then elect one of them. Might still smack of "elitism," but this is not a People Power movement. We have to make sure the people charged with enforcing the rules know what they are doing.

Not unreasonable at all. However, there would need to be criteria outlined for this. Perhaps a test of knowledge? Beyond that, what personal qualities would be considered and should appointed members be required/expected to entertain the possibility of a qualified candidate who meets all requirements but isn't popular?

[Tzorsland]

I agree only partially. If a new proposal is "gray," it should be left alone. If a repeal proposal is "gray," it should be removed. A presumption in favor of the authors of original legislation should obtain. Repeals are important, but they aren't the lifeblood here.

I would like to make the following technical observation. A bad resolution can be struck out. A bad repeal can never be struck out. Bad repeals can become the criteria for other bad repeals. But repealed resolutions are not always the basis for new resolutions.

[Excidium Planetis]

I agree only partially. If a new proposal is "gray," it should be left alone. If a repeal proposal is "gray," it should be removed. A presumption in favor of the authors of original legislation should obtain. Repeals are important, but they aren't the lifeblood here.

I would like to make the following technical observation. A bad resolution can be struck out. A bad repeal can never be struck out. Bad repeals can become the criteria for other bad repeals. But repealed resolutions are not always the basis for new resolutions.

An excellent point.

[Tzorsland]

What's with the Us versus Them mentality? Can't a player be a gameplayer and a roleplayer?

I would like to say "yes" but it's like the proverbial fence sitter in the middle of a feud, you get shot at by both sides.

[Araraukar]

Aggressive telegram campaigning.

We can do that too. And have more of a personal stake in doing so.

And personally I think anyone who did that, should be removed from the vote options.

It's the whole "those who want power for the sake of power, should never have power" thing. I know none of us are perfect, but ideally we should have a legality council that consisted of individuals who didn't get anything out of being on the council other than the warm feeling of helping out the community (and the mods to a lesser degree).

Also, because I apparently don't value my sanity today...

GA resolution co-authors

Abacathea
Ainocra
A mean old man
Araraukar
Bears Armed
Caracasus
Cardoness
Ceni
Charlotte Ryberg
Chester Pearson
Christian Democrats
Cievan
Cobdenia
Connopolis
Cormac A Stark
Cool egg sandwich
Excidium Planetis
Gatchina
Glen-Rhodes
Grobladonia
Hirota
Icamera
Individuality-ness
Intellect and the arts
Knootoss
Lestaria and neuchies
Libertytopia
Mallorea and Riva
Manticore reborn
Meekinos
Mikitivity
Mousebumples
Nebulantis
Oliver the Mediocre
Oppe Ruiver
Ossitania
Phartan
Quadrimmina
Quelesh
Rehochipe
Renaissancistic People
Robert Hawkins
Separatist Peoples
St Edmund
The coyote coalition
The Dourian Embassy
The last homely house
Unibot
Unibot II
Venico
Wachichi
Wrapper
Wolfish
Yelda

Didn't bother to remove or mark CTE'd or banned or even DOS'd names, and of course several of the names on that list are also full authors of their own right, but anyway. A list. Yeay.

[Bananaistan]

I could see the merits of having an even split between mod appointed and elected councillors but a single elected councillor seems like pure tokenism to me. And if the same qualification requirements are applied to the candidates as are applied to the mod appointed councillors, then it's just a sop to the handful of people who the mods thought weren't deserving of being appointed.

Aside from a few generalities about candidates/nominees, we still haven't discussed any quantifiable qualifications which will be needed regardless of whether they're appointed or elected. Will they have to have been active for x number of years? WIll they have to be a passed author? If so, how many resolutions? What about co-authors? How many forum posts? Will there be an exam on the rules? I would think that for the project to work, we'd need something more than a vague "we thought s/he would be a good fit".

And the term Secretary General is irreparably damaged IMO due to its current joke status. As I took absolutely no notice of it whatsoever, I was not even aware that Comrade Misley was elected to the position.

[Hannasea]

But in the absence of stacking, how could they make up enough votes to influence the election?

I want to reiterate that I misinterpreted Sedgistan's original suggestion. I thought he was suggesting a normal WA vote - like, say, a resolution being put on the docket, listing a slate of candidates, something like that. I didn't understand he was suggesting one nation, one vote.

As I've never seen such a vote conducted in NS, I have no basis on which to speculate how it would go.

Perhaps a test of knowledge?

You guys want to cut down the moderator workload - and to do this, you're going to set a bunch of players an exam on WA knowledge and mark them? This is getting to be like Alexander trying to untie the Gordian Knot by tying an even complex knot around it.

[Araraukar]

I didn't understand he was suggesting one nation, one vote.

As I've never seen such a vote conducted in NS, I have no basis on which to speculate how it would go.

Wasn't the April Fools election just that? I didn't pay much attention to it, I think I just voted in the early stages for someone whose name was familiar from this forum.

[Excidium Planetis]

I didn't understand he was suggesting one nation, one vote.

As I've never seen such a vote conducted in NS, I have no basis on which to speculate how it would go.

Wasn't the April Fools election just that? I didn't pay much attention to it, I think I just voted in the early stages for someone whose name was familiar from this forum.

No, puppet's were allowed to vote in the April Fool's election, so Raiders and Defenders who usually have a crap ton of puppets had the advantage.

[Kryozerkia]

You guys want to cut down the moderator workload - and to do this, you're going to set a bunch of players an exam on WA knowledge and mark them? This is getting to be like Alexander trying to untie the Gordian Knot by tying an even complex knot around it.

I could have asked "how would it be determined?" but I chose another means of asking. It doesn't mean there would be a test though there should be an objective means of gauging knowledge.

[Excidium Planetis]

We can do that too. And have more of a personal stake in doing so.

And personally I think anyone who did that, should be removed from the vote options.

It's the whole "those who want power for the sake of power, should never have power" thing. I know none of us are perfect, but ideally we should have a legality council that consisted of individuals who didn't get anything out of being on the council other than the warm feeling of helping out the community (and the mods to a lesser degree).

So people who campaign for other people should never be allowed to hold that position?

Or people who get campaigned for should not be allowed to hold a position?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Wasn't the April Fools election just that? I didn't pay much attention to it, I think I just voted in the early stages for someone whose name was familiar from this forum.

No, puppet's were allowed to vote in the April Fool's election, so Raiders and Defenders who usually have a crap ton of puppets had the advantage.

Only in the first few rounds were puppets allowed to vote. The last round was WA members only.


@ara: I also co-authored one or two resolutions but was never listed because as a general rule I do not accept co-author credit.

[Araraukar]

So people who campaign for other people should never be allowed to hold that position?

I was thinking more "people who campaign for themselves".

But now I'm really logging out of here. Got dentist in the morning... eek.

[Kryozerkia]

@ara: I also co-authored one or two resolutions but was never listed because as a general rule I do not accept co-author credit.

This is why I consider it a good idea not to automatically exclude players based on whether they've authored a proposal. Co-authors, even uncredited ones deserve the same chance to be on the council.

[Wrapper]

I could see the merits of having an even split between mod appointed and elected councillors but a single elected councillor seems like pure tokenism to me. And if the same qualification requirements are applied to the candidates as are applied to the mod appointed councillors, then it's just a sop to the handful of people who the mods thought weren't deserving of being appointed.

I've been thinking about this (and to clarify, this is just my own personal opinion). At the outset, I think we need a relatively small group, but with an odd number to prevent ties. We'd need two moderators, so that the council isn't bogged down waiting for a mod to remove a proposal if necessary. If we go with two elected positions, two moderators, and three player-nominated, mod-approved positions, for a total of seven, that seems about right to me.

GA resolution co-authors

Wait, I co-authored something? (Slight pause while I look it up.) Huh. Forgot about that, though Chester was getting the co-author credit on that one.