Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Glen-Rhodes]

It makes sense in theory, but in practice, it seems there is no correlation between a moderator's GA competence and their resolution writing history.

I would argue many non-sensical rulings and actions by the mods are partially because so few have actually played the game. Is it really a shocking requirement that mods have extensive experience in the game they're moderating? We've made the mistake once. It'd be a shame to make it again.

Ard never wrote any resolutions but was, in my opinion, generally an exemplary GA moderator.

In your opinion. In mine, Ard did many questionable things. Nostalgia is no reason to put a rose filter over the past.

There are players in this forum who have never written any resolutions that are significantly more knowledgeable about the GA than players that have written several resolutions.

No there aren't. There may be players who can form a legal argument, like The Cat Tribe excelled at. But the fact is you need to actually play the game to understand it. If you guys are settling on an opinion that that's an unimportant metric, then Jesus, there's no hope.

I think player nominations and mod selection may be the process that could be most easily implemented. I trust the moderators will at least make an effort to create a council with some type of intellectual diversity. For critics that think the mods will resort to cronyism or favoritism: I can't imagine how that would happen without creating a riot.

What leads you to this conclusion? What history leads you to that? There's nothing at all to suggest the biases that guided past decisions will not be the same ones that guide who they pick for a council. Cronyism and favoritism have been the foundation of the mod team for over a decade. There have been "riots"-- they've just all been subdued, because the only person who can remove them (Max) doesn't really care to get involved at that level. There was a ton of outcry when Mall was made a mod, for heaven's sake.

I think the AO-Moderator Conspiracy[TRADE MARK SIGN] theories are a little bit stale, too, frankly. Even if there was a vast conspiracy, I doubt there are enough contributors on the AO forums that are currently active in this part of the game to fill even half the council.

First, it's not a conspiracy, it's fact. In most other games, mods would be removed once somebody uncovered a trove of 40-page plus hate threads for the players they're supposed to moderate, complete with tracking down personal websites and making fun of the actual people behind the nations. But the team is so insulated from consequences, there was absolutely nothing stopping them from choosing people in the right in group. That's why you got Flib as a mod, and Mall and Mouse as mods, instead of people far more qualified and deserving who were nominated several times.

There's no doubt at all that the mod selection process is rife with cronyism and favoritism, rather than a meritocracy. The point of my bringing this up isn't to complain that future mods will come from this same biased process (they will), but to show that you *won't* get a fair and balanced council if it's all left up to mods picking mini-mods. The same process isn't going to lead to different results.

I could be wrong. Maybe continued lack of interest from the broader player base, combined with term limits, will mean mods *have* to pick people they would never dream to pick as full mods. Maybe that will be a net benefit. But for me, I'd rather let players have more say in their game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sciongrad]

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

Aggressive telegram campaigning.

If certain seats are elected, I think telegram campaigns should be prohibited for individuals that run. The last thing we need is for the rules to become a pay-to-play portion of the game.

[Hannasea]

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.

Could you give an example?

[Excidium Planetis]

@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.

I agree there, but
1) There are AFAIK no GA regulars who are completely uncredited as either authors or co-authors. Not even Araraukar.
2) I don't think anyone has argued that authorship should be a requirement for seats on the Council, just for elegibility in the elected seats.

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.

I could accept that, but
1) Two mods is too many mods, imo. There aren't two mods who are involved in the GA to the level that I would want in a mod on this council.
2) Seven players is rather large for the size of this community. That's like a third of us. I would prefer a 5 member council, two elected, two appointed, and one mod. But that's just me.

[Kryozerkia]

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.

Could you give an example?

GA posts aren't always objective because there is politicking and roleplaying. Objective would be (for example) an OOC post demonstrating applied knowledge even if it's criticism. Therefore a single direct question to a prospective candidate would be a possibility. They could be asked a question that requires more than a "yes" or "no" answer and more than one sentence; likely something that would be about a paragraph. It could be one question that has the person think and provide a thoughtful response. Either an "explain" or "why" question.

[Sciongrad]

What leads you to this conclusion? What history leads you to that? There's nothing at all to suggest the biases that guided past decisions will not be the same ones that guide who they pick for a council. Cronyism and favoritism have been the foundation of the mod team for over a decade. There have been "riots"-- they've just all been subdued, because the only person who can remove them (Max) doesn't really care to get involved at that level. There was a ton of outcry when Mall was made a mod, for heaven's sake.

I remember the reaction to Mall - I was part of the reaction to Mall. But even I - and I am, by all accounts, a vocal critic of the moderators - do not think they'd be so foolish as to only appoint their friends now, after years of sustained protest that has forced them not only to reconsider the rules (and then to re-reconsider the rules when the protests amplified), but to develop this entire project in the first place. I believe in the past, the moderators have made poor choices in selecting new moderators and developing rulings, but to believe they would stack an entire council with their friends even now, after enduring months of particularly harsh scrutiny, assumes either stupidity on their part or a genuine desire to destroy this part of the game. I don't think they possess either of those things. And again, there simply aren't enough active players in AO to stack the council so this whole line of reasoning is moot. And the moderators that you claim perpetrated the conspiracy are no longer active either!

For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to a half and half solution, where half are appointed and half are elected.

[Sciongrad]

1) Two mods is too many mods, imo. There aren't two mods who are involved in the GA to the level that I would want in a mod on this council.

As sad as this might seem, I sort of agree. Unless the moderators possessed only a supervisory role (i.e. keeping council members in line, enforcing the code of conduct, etc.)

2) Seven players is rather large for the size of this community. That's like a third of us. I would prefer a 5 member council, two elected, two appointed, and one mod. But that's just me.

I think seven is ideal. Small though our community is, I don't know if only 4 council members would capture the full range of mainstream views on the rules.

[Hannasea]

GA posts aren't always objective because there is politicking and roleplaying. Objective would be (for example) an OOC post demonstrating applied knowledge even if it's criticism. Therefore a single direct question to a prospective candidate would be a possibility. They could be asked a question that requires more than a "yes" or "no" answer and more than one sentence; likely something that would be about a paragraph. It could be one question that has the person think and provide a thoughtful response. Either an "explain" or "why" question.

I'll take that as a "no", you're not prepared to give an example of the question they'll be posed. Meaning I don't really see how you can expect players to support or oppose such a "test", given they won't know what it'll consist of.

[Kryozerkia]

GA posts aren't always objective because there is politicking and roleplaying. Objective would be (for example) an OOC post demonstrating applied knowledge even if it's criticism. Therefore a single direct question to a prospective candidate would be a possibility. They could be asked a question that requires more than a "yes" or "no" answer and more than one sentence; likely something that would be about a paragraph. It could be one question that has the person think and provide a thoughtful response. Either an "explain" or "why" question.

I'll take that as a "no", you're not prepared to give an example of the question they'll be posed. Meaning I don't really see how you can expect players to support or oppose such a "test", given they won't know what it'll consist of.

Because I don't have an example. It's merely a suggestion. Nothing is final.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to a half and half solution, where half are appointed and half are elected.

If you look at ara's last checklist update, we already have a near-unanimous consensus that the council be appointed. Making such a big concession on elections for one dissenter who isn't even active here anymore is not wise negotiating.

[Reploid Productions]

Although this thread is not within the Moderation forum, it is a discussion involving moderation matters, and as such [violet]'s instructions regarding bad faith posting will be enforced moving forward with this thread, as I am seeing a few users in the discussion who appear to be posting for no other purpose than to make cheap "points-scoring" posts, snide and otherwise non-constructive commentary and other such unhelpful antics.

Going forward, should such posts continue, they will be removed from the thread so as not to bog down constructive discussion or derail the thread. As per protocol, any such posts will be moved to the evidence locker, so that [violet] can make sure that her directive is not being abused.

Thank you, carry on.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Admin
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Ryanimus]

For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to a half and half solution, where half are appointed and half are elected.

If you look at ara's last checklist update, we already have a near-unanimous consensus that the council be appointed. Making such a big concession on elections for one dissenter who isn't even active here anymore is not wise negotiating.

We're negotiating now? I thought this was a constructive conversation.

I'm still for an elected Council, and I'll settle for a "half & half" situation where some members are appointed as necessary. I agree with the number of Representatives being seven but i would like too suggest making the number variable according the the number of WA nations.

Also, if we're taking tally now for a game feature and we're making a final decision based upon the voices of only two dozen people compared to 20k people, something's not right.

[Hannasea]

Someone earlier complained that the WA gets too hung up discussing minor legalities instead of debating the broader issue. And just look at this discussion: there's all this haggling over minor details - five or seven members? elected or appointed? public forum or private forum? - without any sign of what the council will actually be empowered to do.

1. Will the Council be able to overturn rulings previously made by moderators? Could it retroactively declare "legal" proposals illegal, or permit submission of previously "illegal" proposals?
2. Is the Council's role to interpret the rules as they are now, including the myriad precedents informing them - excluding the fairly substantial number dating from the NSUN era, even ones like Olympic Games that are integral to understanding the MetaGaming rules, yet which are now off-limits - or to propose changes to the rules?
3. It's been said moderators will retain responsibility for clearing out the queue of "noob" proposals. What if the Council believes one of these was removed incorrectly?
4. The Council will not have power to enforce its decisions by deleting proposals. What mechanism will be in place to ensure time-sensitive matters - such as deleting a proposal heading for quorum, or Discarding a proposal at vote - are acted on, on their behalf?
5. If the rules discussions become a player responsibility, won't moderators take even less notice of the WA forum and hence the gulf between the players' and mods' understanding of the game widen?

[Kryozerkia]

Nothing has been decided yet. There's still opinions on our side too as we consider the merit of the suggestions here and alter our own views.

Someone earlier complained that the WA gets too hung up discussing minor legalities instead of debating the broader issue. And just look at this discussion: there's all this haggling over minor details - five or seven members? elected or appointed? public forum or private forum? - without any sign of what the council will actually be empowered to do.

Personally? I'd like to see the council as a simple representation of the GA that can work with the mods to make balanced rulings. These members would ideally create guides, similar to those used in various RP subforums, to help shape the community in a positive way.

The following opinions expressed are mine.

Will the Council be able to overturn rulings previously made by moderators? Could it retroactively declare "legal" proposals illegal, or permit submission of previously "illegal" proposals?

They could if they could reasonably demonstrate through rules and precedent (or in some cases it is something that made sense at the time but no longer makes sense - such as the original ruling which stated that proposals couldn't be submitted by "groups").

Is the Council's role to interpret the rules as they are now, including the myriad precedents informing them - excluding the fairly substantial number dating from the NSUN era, even ones like Olympic Games that are integral to understanding the MetaGaming rules, yet which are now off-limits - or to propose changes to the rules?

They would interpret as they stand, including the precedents. However, discussion for how they can be interpreted are encouraged. If during the course of the discussion, it's shown that change is merited, the council would vote to make the change. For the change to be public, it would need mod sign off, since the official ruleset can only be changed by a mod (my name be on the thread but any of the other mods can make edits to the post)...

It's been said moderators will retain responsibility for clearing out the queue of "noob" proposals. What if the Council believes one of these was removed incorrectly?

The mod would apologize to the player and inform them that they can reupload their proposal.

The Council will not have power to enforce its decisions by deleting proposals. What mechanism will be in place to ensure time-sensitive matters - such as deleting a proposal heading for quorum, or Discarding a proposal at vote - are acted on, on their behalf?

A "hold" button. It would knock the proposal to the back of the queue. The same button would be used to move it back to its rightful spot once the outstanding challenge have been resolved.

I'm not sure about "discard" because of the implications it carries. I'm reluctant to use it. I think a "hold button" would still be here as well. It would either freeze time or simply remove it back to queue. It would depend on what is coded.

[*]If the rules discussions become a player responsibility, won't moderators take even less notice of the WA forum and hence the gulf between the players' and mods' understanding of the game widen?[/list]

Not if it's a cooperative effort. This is why we'd want impartial, well rounded players with a diversity of opinions. It should be a group effort.

[Excidium Planetis]

For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to a half and half solution, where half are appointed and half are elected.

If you look at ara's last checklist update, we already have a near-unanimous consensus that the council be appointed. Making such a big concession on elections for one dissenter who isn't even active here anymore is not wise negotiating.

Well, to be fair, I would support a half elected / half appointed system over an all appointed system. I just didn't support an all-elected system.

I think that a 1 nation, 1 vote scheme, with a resolution authorship requirement, eliminates most of the concerns with elections. Unfortunately, it also prevents non-authors from being members, and leaves much up to chance, so we would still need several appointed members.

[Ryanimus]

1. Will the Council be able to overturn rulings previously made by moderators? Could it retroactively declare "legal" proposals illegal, or permit submission of previously "illegal" proposals?
   I support the new Secretariat's Council having the ability to overturn rulings made by moderators, and retroactively declare "legal" proposals illegal, or permit submission of previously "illegal" proposals provided the council itself has democratically elected members.
2. Is the Council's role to interpret the rules as they are now, including the myriad precedents informing them - excluding the fairly substantial number dating from the NSUN era, even ones like Olympic Games that are integral to understanding the MetaGaming rules, yet which are now off-limits - or to propose changes to the rules?
   I support the new Secretariat's Council being able to propose changes to the rules provided the council itself has democratically elected members. I do not support the council having the ability to interpret the rules, since they are not supposed to be moderators themselves.
3. It's been said moderators will retain responsibility for clearing out the queue of "noob" proposals. What if the Council believes one of these was removed incorrectly?
   I think the answer to this would depend on how your first question is answered.
4. The Council will not have power to enforce its decisions by deleting proposals. What mechanism will be in place to ensure time-sensitive matters - such as deleting a proposal heading for quorum, or Discarding a proposal at vote - are acted on, on their behalf?
   If the players are elected by the, why wouldn't they have the power to veto any proposals?
5. If the rules discussions become a player responsibility, won't moderators take even less notice of the WA forum and hence the gulf between the players' and mods' understanding of the game widen?
   You're asking something that nobody can know for certain.

[Sciongrad]

Will the Council be able to overturn rulings previously made by moderators? Could it retroactively declare "legal" proposals illegal, or permit submission of previously "illegal" proposals?

I think that the council should have this power. If the moderators intend on giving the players more discretion over running this forum, I don't think it would make any sense to limit their role to simply confirming the moderators' previous reading of the rules. Unless, of course, you mean whether or not the council can do more than just rule on present proposals and revise past rulings, in which case, I also believe the council should have that power.

Is the Council's role to interpret the rules as they are now, including the myriad precedents informing them - excluding the fairly substantial number dating from the NSUN era, even ones like Olympic Games that are integral to understanding the MetaGaming rules, yet which are now off-limits - or to propose changes to the rules?

I think the council should be limited to interpreting the rules and precedent, not forming new rules. If there are any changes to the rules, I think that should necessarily involve a discussion that includes all players. I hate it when moderators change rules without consulting players, and even though a council made up of players may be more informed in making such decisions, I think allowing a small group to fundamentally alter the game is a bad idea.

It's been said moderators will retain responsibility for clearing out the queue of "noob" proposals. What if the Council believes one of these was removed incorrectly?

That would be a result of moderator negligence - there's not really anything a council could do about moderators that exercise their power poorly. If that does happen, the council could explain to the moderator why the decision was wrong and telegram the author.

The Council will not have power to enforce its decisions by deleting proposals. What mechanism will be in place to ensure time-sensitive matters - such as deleting a proposal heading for quorum, or Discarding a proposal at vote - are acted on, on their behalf?

I still think the best solution would be a hold function, although that would require technical changes.

If the rules discussions become a player responsibility, won't moderators take even less notice of the WA forum and hence the gulf between the players' and mods' understanding of the game widen?

Even though only one moderator will chair the group, I think it would be prudent to require all GA moderators to participate regularly in the council proceedings, in a non-voting capacity. I also don't see why creating a council and encouraging more moderator activity in the forum are mutually exclusive. Transferring some responsibility to players should not allow moderators to evacuate responsibility for ensuring this forum functions.

[Ryanimus]

This is horrifying! We cannot have an all mod-appointed council! It'll be largely made up of GA regulars. They nitpick and tear apart every proposal down to the letter! It'll be nigh impossible for any newcomer or average player to submit a proposal that's not catering to the views of a select few people. The world assembly would be ruled by an oligarchy!

[Kryozerkia]

This is horrifying! We cannot have an all mod-appointed council! It'll be largely made up of GA regulars. They nitpick and tear apart every proposal down to the letter! It'll be nigh impossible for any newcomer or average player to submit a proposal that's not catering to the views of a select few people. The world assembly would be ruled by an oligarchy!

All valid concerns. This is why even though members are expected to be knowledgable in rules, we aim to balance with diverse opinions and impartiality.

[Sciongrad]

This is horrifying! We cannot have an all mod-appointed council! It'll be largely made up of GA regulars. They nitpick and tear apart every proposal down to the letter! It'll be nigh impossible for any newcomer or average player to submit a proposal that's not catering to the views of a select few people. The world assembly would be ruled by an oligarchy!

The council necessarily needs to include GA regulars. Does that sound sort of elitist? Maybe, but we don't pick issues editors by a gamewide vote, or roleplay mentors. This is a part of the game, like any other, that requires a lot of experience to fully understand. No one likes elitism, but we also don't like our game being run by people who have no idea what they're doing. I believe the council should be diverse and inclusive, but I don't believe it should be open to absolutely anyone.

[Flanderlion]

I personally (as a GA irregular, who campaigns for the odd GA proposal) think the council should be made of one chairperson (the elected WA lead who is currently Misley), a mod or two, then the other 2 or 3 seats filled with mod appointed seasoned GA vets. A mod to give a moderation perspective obviously, the SG so that normal WA nations can get a say on the council itself, and to give the whole WA a voice in appointing the council. The other GA vets would give a more knowledgeable opinion obviously, but having an outsider (hopefully) elected to the position would prevent the council from becoming an echo chamber.

Also having an event like that (where delegates can't stack the vote, and individual votes reign supreme) would be a great event. The mod representative and the GA regulars would be appointed and removed by the moderation team when they went inactive, while the Secretary General would be elected by the body of the WA.

[Reploid Productions]

Just a quick note re: Secretary-General:

If we did decide to incorporate it as an elected council position, we would first establish qualifications for running, and run a WA-only vote for the position, rather than just throw our April Fools' winner to the wolves all unexpected. So Misley's qualifications are a non-issue on that score.

Speaking only for myself, in my general opinion on the concept, I've long been of the mindset that the less moderation has to be involved in legality rulings, the better. Much of the reason moderators first got involved in proposal quality assurance back in the Enodian protocol days was because otherwise the queue was flooded with inane and utter garbage proposals to the point it was impossible for players to navigate the thing to find the proposals they wanted to endorse. Unfortunately this still holds true barring some overhaul to the proposal queue to make it easier to sift through, so mods just simply going totally hands-off on proposal legality won't work either, thus the council idea.

Personally, I'm leaning in favor of a mostly mod-appointed council, with a couple of WA-elected seats to help keep fresh faces cycling in but not leaving it in a position where pure popularity contests and cronyism can render the entire council a farce. In my imagined scenario, the council is mod-managed insomuch that mods just make sure things are functioning, telling members to put their sabers away and stop throwing chairs, that sort of thing; and otherwise working as a seldom-used Supreme Court of sorts. (To prevent everyone appealing every legality ruling to the mods and thus rendering the entire point of the council moot, said 'Supreme Court', much like its real world counterpart, would have the option to not hear cases and/or kick them back down to the lower court- that is, the council.)

As for the rules the council would be responsible for, ideally anything that falls under community standards, leaving only the OSRS-related issues for the mods. Things like duplication, honest mistake, house of cards, that sort of thing that really have nothing to do with the actual site rules, whereas proposals that are trolling/flaming/spam would still fall under moderation purview. Rather than deleting proposals from the queue entirely the way mods can, I think some sort of "hold" function would work best; putting a proposal on hold would eliminate the time crunch element of legality rulings by being able to put it on pause until the legality challenge is resolved.

[Ryanimus]

This is horrifying! We cannot have an all mod-appointed council! It'll be largely made up of GA regulars. They nitpick and tear apart every proposal down to the letter! It'll be nigh impossible for any newcomer or average player to submit a proposal that's not catering to the views of a select few people. The world assembly would be ruled by an oligarchy!

The council necessarily needs to include GA regulars. Does that sound sort of elitist? Maybe, but we don't pick issues editors by a gamewide vote, or roleplay mentors. This is a part of the game, like any other, that requires a lot of experience to fully understand. No one likes elitism, but we also don't like our game being run by people who have no idea what they're doing. I believe the council should be diverse and inclusive, but I don't believe it should be open to absolutely anyone.

That would be cronyism though! (wouldn't it be hypocritical too since some people in this thread have said they don't want an elected council for fears of cronyism?)

If GA regulars wish to be on the Secretariat's council they should earn the position with popular support through elections, not being hand-picked by somebody that is a part of a group accused of bias in the first place!It is elitist, so why can't we break the mold and make a change to the way something would function!?

[Sciongrad]

I personally (as a GA irregular, who campaigns for the odd GA proposal) think the council should be made of one chairperson (the elected WA lead who is currently Misley)

I am vehemently, flatly opposed to making a GA outsider who was elected in a joke election by a franchise that included non-member nations and puppets to run a part of the game they are unfamiliar with and whose responsibilities would not have been clear at the time of their election. And as Banana said, a single elected outsider would be nothing more than a token position.

[Excidium Planetis]

Maybe, but we don't pick issues editors by a gamewide vote, or roleplay mentors.

Well, to be fair, neither of those things involve gamewide votes to begin with. The GA, on the other hand, revolves around gamewide votes.