Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[North Nackie]

What about the aliens...?

[Araraukar]

We want to progress we this, we are going to progress with this, but there's some internal disagreement on how exactly we are going to do so. That's still being hammered out.

It definitely hasn't been forgotten, and it hasn't been dropped either.

Is there any chance that you guys could give us a date until which nothing drastic will happen? Like, say, Xmas? That'd give your side of the people involved time to discuss and for coders to try things out and so on, and for us normal people (I use the word "normal" only to imply non-mod-non-admin, not actually claiming any of us are normal ) the time to work on proposals and such, without having to fear waking up tomorrow to find that the thing you had spent ages researching and planning is now obsolete.

[Wrapper]

Rather not put a timeline on things. Just, please, be patient while we work this out.

[Luna Amore]

We want to progress we this, we are going to progress with this, but there's some internal disagreement on how exactly we are going to do so. That's still being hammered out.

It definitely hasn't been forgotten, and it hasn't been dropped either.

Is there any chance that you guys could give us a date until which nothing drastic will happen? Like, say, Xmas? That'd give your side of the people involved time to discuss and for coders to try things out and so on, and for us normal people (I use the word "normal" only to imply non-mod-non-admin, not actually claiming any of us are normal ) the time to work on proposals and such, without having to fear waking up tomorrow to find that the thing you had spent ages researching and planning is now obsolete.

It will definitely happen before an X-mas.

[Halloween Zombie Apocalypse]

It will definitely happen before an X-mas.

That sounds pretty much guaranteed, as long as all future X-mases are not canceled.

But will it happen before the next (official) birthday of my nation?

[Sedgistan]

We want to progress we this, we are going to progress with this, but there's some internal disagreement on how exactly we are going to do so. That's still being hammered out.

It definitely hasn't been forgotten, and it hasn't been dropped either.

What is the internal disagreement? The players ought to weigh in, provided it isn't a coding issue.

(I've been away the last week hence not replying earlier) The disagreement is between those that want to see a strict division between the mod team and Council develop (i.e. Council working independently, enforcing and deciding on its own rules, responsible for everything except certain rules reserved for the mod team) and those that prefer to have no division of the ruleset, with the mod team and Council sharing the burden and mods remaining involved in the Council long-term. The latter would allow those mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years to continue doing so; the former would limit them to enforcing certain rules (e.g. Games Mechanics violations).

[Separatist Peoples]

What is the internal disagreement? The players ought to weigh in, provided it isn't a coding issue.

(I've been away the last week hence not replying earlier) The disagreement is between those that want to see a strict division between the mod team and Council develop (i.e. Council working independently, enforcing and deciding on its own rules, responsible for everything except certain rules reserved for the mod team) and those that prefer to have no division of the ruleset, with the mod team and Council sharing the burden and mods remaining involved in the Council long-term. The latter would allow those mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years to continue doing so; the former would limit them to enforcing certain rules (e.g. Games Mechanics violations).

I, for one, would prefer the moderators remain involved. If the Council is going to be connected to any kind of authority, the moderators should be a part of it to ensure that the authority is appropriately utilized. Having some red names might also help balance out any perception of corruption. The mods have removed themselves from a lot of the politics in the game. Not all, but probably most. It would help to have a mod or two on the Council. /$.02.

[Krioval]

I, for one, would prefer the moderators remain involved. If the Council is going to be connected to any kind of authority, the moderators should be a part of it to ensure that the authority is appropriately utilized. Having some red names might also help balance out any perception of corruption. The mods have removed themselves from a lot of the politics in the game. Not all, but probably most. It would help to have a mod or two on the Council. /$.02.

I agree. I'm imagining the many ways that *I* could get into trouble, whether due to unconscious bias, mission creep, or something I can't envision right now. Having some moderator interaction would allow for someone who isn't part of the legality challenge mechanism to identify whether things were working as intended, and if not, to alert the higher-ups that there's a problem that needs to be fixed.

[Gruenberg]

booooooo

boooooooooooooooooooo

The "mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years" are the problem. Having them continuing to do so completely defeats (from the player perspective) the point of turning over rules moderation to people who actually understand the rules.

booooooooo

[Wallenburg]

booooooo

boooooooooooooooooooo

What a mature counterargument.

The "mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years" are the problem.

I didn't realize you considered enforcement of GA rules a problem.

Having them continuing to do so completely defeats (from the player perspective) the point of turning over rules moderation to people who actually understand the rules.

Except that isn't the common goal here. Your argument is circular in that you are insisting that we must eliminate moderator involvement in rule enforcement because doing otherwise fails to keep moderators from enforcing the rules.

[Sciongrad]

I didn't realize you considered enforcement of GA rules a problem.

Um, not only is that a problem, but it's the problem. This entire project is a direct result of player frustration with how moderators have been enforcing the rules. Like, this thread wouldn't exist if enforcement of GA rules wasn't a problem. This project was devised with the assumption that players would generally be better prepared to rule on legality. That moderators would be significantly less involved in the meat and potatoes of actually legality rulings is literally the bedrock of this idea. I know several moderators think that they should be able to have some type of veto power or retain some significant degree of authority over legality rulings, but that is totally inconsistent with the reason this whole idea was developed.

Except that isn't the common goal here. Your argument is circular in that you are insisting that we must eliminate moderator involvement in rule enforcement because doing otherwise fails to keep moderators from enforcing the rules.

That is not what anyone is saying and you obviously know that.

[Separatist Peoples]

booooooo

boooooooooooooooooooo

The "mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years" are the problem. Having them continuing to do so completely defeats (from the player perspective) the point of turning over rules moderation to people who actually understand the rules.

booooooooo

I'm not saying the mods need to be in complete control, but they should be a part of it. If there isn't a bridge between the two groups, there isn't likely to be any improvement.

[Gruenberg]

There's already a pretty great bridge; it's called the WA forum.

[Tzorsland]

I'm not saying the mods need to be in complete control, but they should be a part of it. If there isn't a bridge between the two groups, there isn't likely to be any improvement.

And the counter argument is that they should not be a part of it. They have specific function, focus and speciality. They have, unfortunately, been called to decide on subjects outside of that speciality and often with mixed and confusing results. Since there are a number of topics that simply do not impact the day to day function of the game (such as proposal X may or may not conflict with proposal Y if you look at it from the left) they should not be required to stray from the areas of expertise which is absolutely necessary in order to keep this game running smoothly.

Of course I believe that the decisions of the Secretariat's Council must be documented in order to create a stare decisis. Moderation has to always be done in secret and this secrecy has led to accusations of inconsistency. This leads to all sorts of conspiracy theories as well as the peasants becoming revolting. (In fact it is happening in this thread already.) This is NationStates, not Paranoia.

[Flanderlion]

booooooo

boooooooooooooooooooo

The "mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years" are the problem. Having them continuing to do so completely defeats (from the player perspective) the point of turning over rules moderation to people who actually understand the rules.

booooooooo

I'm not saying the mods need to be in complete control, but they should be a part of it. If there isn't a bridge between the two groups, there isn't likely to be any improvement.

Bridges between the mods and the council, and bridges between the players and the council would preferably make up two of the seats of the council. If they were able to remove proposals from the queue for illegalities, would individual members be able to do it by themselves, or would it have to reviewed by another member or the whole council? Also, how will the individual council members be kept active/replaced?

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not saying the mods need to be in complete control, but they should be a part of it. If there isn't a bridge between the two groups, there isn't likely to be any improvement.

Bridges between the mods and the council, and bridges between the players and the council would preferably make up two of the seats of the council. If they were able to remove proposals from the queue for illegalities, would individual members be able to do it by themselves, or would it have to reviewed by another member or the whole council? Also, how will the individual council members be kept active/replaced?

An elected position of any kind is quite unpopular. That has been established. Mod appointment is the only generally accepted way of appointing members.

[Flanderlion]

Bridges between the mods and the council, and bridges between the players and the council would preferably make up two of the seats of the council. If they were able to remove proposals from the queue for illegalities, would individual members be able to do it by themselves, or would it have to reviewed by another member or the whole council? Also, how will the individual council members be kept active/replaced?

An elected position of any kind is quite unpopular. That has been established. Mod appointment is the only generally accepted way of appointing members.

Not exactly. Even in this thread it has had controversy, where people have the most incentive to have the pool of candidates limited to a few people. The actual WA itself has not been consulted at all.

[Wallenburg]

I didn't realize you considered enforcement of GA rules a problem.

Um, not only is that a problem, but it's the problem. This entire project is a direct result of player frustration with how moderators have been enforcing the rules. Like, this thread wouldn't exist if enforcement of GA rules wasn't a problem. This project was devised with the assumption that players would generally be better prepared to rule on legality. That moderators would be significantly less involved in the meat and potatoes of actually legality rulings is literally the bedrock of this idea. I know several moderators think that they should be able to have some type of veto power or retain some significant degree of authority over legality rulings, but that is totally inconsistent with the reason this whole idea was developed.

I never thought I'd see you support total disregard of GA rules.

Except that isn't the common goal here. Your argument is circular in that you are insisting that we must eliminate moderator involvement in rule enforcement because doing otherwise fails to keep moderators from enforcing the rules.

That is not what anyone is saying and you obviously know that.

It really is what Gruen is saying. It's quite obvious.

[Separatist Peoples]

An elected position of any kind is quite unpopular. That has been established. Mod appointment is the only generally accepted way of appointing members.

Not exactly. Even in this thread it has had controversy, where people have the most incentive to have the pool of candidates limited to a few people. The actual WA itself has not been consulted at all.

This is the thread that contains the lions share of regular active participants. The WA as a whole do not make up the GA community in the same way, and this is most certainly focused towards the GA community first and foremost.

[Sciongrad]

I never thought I'd see you support total disregard of GA rules.

Please, that isn't what I said. I said enforcement of the rules by the moderators is currently problematic, not that the rules shouldn't be enforced. You'll recall that I believe the honest mistake rule should be interpreted and enforced strictly and that violators should not only be DOS but should also be sent to bed without dinner. What I said was that if we plan on going down this road (that is, creating a council of players to rule on legality), then we must necessarily accept moderator enforcement is inadequate. Therefore, players should make the decisions on most legality issues, not moderators. I won't speak for Gruen, but I personally think that moderators should only have influence over technical legality issues or violations of the OSRS. The players should enforce the game for themselves and moderators should only be permitted to carry out the council's rulings. They shouldn't have a veto and they shouldn't be able to reverse council rulings. At most, a single moderator should be given a single vote, but the majority of the decision making discretion should lie with the players.

It really is what Gruen is saying. It's quite obvious.

It's not, unless you read what he wrote in the most literal way possible and without contextualizing it with the broader argument. He's clearly not saying what you claim he's saying.

Not exactly. Even in this thread it has had controversy, where people have the most incentive to have the pool of candidates limited to a few people. The actual WA itself has not been consulted at all.

What does that even mean, though? Why should the WA at large be given a say? The GA game is played by the GA regulars (and anyone else that cares to participate), not the WA at large. Our opinions count for much more than any other player's. Consider the following: gameplay is about to adopt some new function that would change the raider/defender game. Should moderators give preference to a) gameplayers or b) every single person in the game, seeing as they could all potentially be impacted by the change. The obvious answer is a, because players should be given preference over non-players. And, in my opinion, this is even truer for the GA game, which is significantly less important to most players than gameplay. If regulars want an elected council, fine, that's our choice (although the consensus is currently overwhelming for appointments). But we shouldn't be encumbered by the demands of the thousands of players that don't even participate in the GA.

[Talkistan]

What does that even mean, though? Why should the WA at large be given a say? The GA game is played by the GA regulars (and anyone else that cares to participate), not the WA at large. Our opinions count for much more than any other player's. Consider the following: gameplay is about to adopt some new function that would change the raider/defender game. Should moderators give preference to a) gameplayers or b) every single person in the game, seeing as they could all potentially be impacted by the change. The obvious answer is a, because players should be given preference over non-players. And, in my opinion, this is even truer for the GA game, which is significantly less important to most players than gameplay. If regulars want an elected council, fine, that's our choice (although the consensus is currently overwhelming for appointments). But we shouldn't be encumbered by the demands of the thousands of players that don't even participate in the GA.

"The political game is played by the politburo of our little party and the few other participants that are not easily repelled by our petty arguments, why should the entire electorate be allowed to weigh in? Our opinions matter more than the plebians'. Should the Supreme Court give more preference to the ruling party, or to every potential voter? The answer is A, because career politicians should be given preference over the rest. We should not be burdened by the demands of the plebians."

If you ever wondered why 90% of the WA members don't get involved in the GA, that attitude might just be part of the problem. But, I wouldn't really know, I'm mostly an outsider.

[Wallenburg]

I never thought I'd see you support total disregard of GA rules.

Please, that isn't what I said.

That is exactly what you said. You said that actually enforcing rules is not only "a problem, but it's the problem". There is no other way to interpret that.

I said enforcement of the rules by the moderators is currently problematic, not that the rules shouldn't be enforced. You'll recall that I believe the honest mistake rule should be interpreted and enforced strictly and that violators should not only be DOS but should also be sent to bed without dinner. What I said was that if we plan on going down this road (that is, creating a council of players to rule on legality), then we must necessarily accept moderator enforcement is inadequate. Therefore, players should make the decisions on most legality issues, not moderators. I won't speak for Gruen, but I personally think that moderators should only have influence over technical legality issues or violations of the OSRS. The players should enforce the game for themselves and moderators should only be permitted to carry out the council's rulings. They shouldn't have a veto and they shouldn't be able to reverse council rulings. At most, a single moderator should be given a single vote, but the majority of the decision making discretion should lie with the players.

That's far more reasonable. Maybe if you had actually said that, I would have known what you thought about enforcement.

It really is what Gruen is saying. It's quite obvious.

It's not, unless you read what he wrote in the most literal way possible and without contextualizing it with the broader argument. He's clearly not saying what you claim he's saying.

There hardly was any other aspect of the argument to broaden with, unless you count "booooooooooo" as an argument. Gruen said that moderators enforcing the rules is a problem. There's really no other way to interpret that, given the nature of NationStates, than as an opposition to any enforcement of the rules.

[Sciongrad]

If you ever wondered why 90% of the WA members don't get involved in the GA, that attitude might just be part of the problem. But, I wouldn't really know, I'm mostly an outsider.

Stop being dramatic, you'll grow hair on your palms.

Anyone is welcome to join this part of the game. There isn't some barrier that prevents you or anyone from participating. My point was that people who aren't part of this game - the overwhelming majority of NS players - don't get to tell the actual players how we should play. If you want to change how this game works, join us. I've never, ever, ever been opposed to welcoming new players. But you're not entitled to a say in the GA by virtue of having an account on this website.

ETA: I will admit that the GA has a cultural problem, especially regarding new players, and that does need to change, but it is not a prohibitive barrier, and certainly not a compelling reason to let literally every single person in the game contribute to fundamentally changing how a dozen players roleplay on this forum.

Should the Supreme Court give more preference to the ruling party, or to every potential voter? The answer is A, because career politicians should be given preference over the rest. We should not be burdened by the demands of the plebians."

That is not an appropriate analogy. It would be more accurate say "should the Supreme Court give more preference to the parties of the case than to every potential voter." Anyone is welcome to contribute to the process of reforming the GA, just like anyone is entitled to submit an amicus curiae brief to the court. But ultimately, the court's ruling must necessarily prioritize the parties to the case, not the voters and interest groups that offered their input.

[Talkistan]

Hey, if you can't be a bit dramatic in the GA subforum, what's the use?

That is not an appropriate analogy. It would be more accurate say "should the Supreme Court give more preference to the parties of the case than to every potential voter." Anyone is welcome to contribute to the process of reforming the GA, just like anyone is entitled to submit an amicus curiae brief to the court. But ultimately, the court's ruling must necessarily prioritize the parties to the case, not the voters and interest groups that offered their input.

And therein lies the issue. My opinion is based on what kind of team the Council will be.

A. If they are going to have proposal takedown powers, that is fundamentally changing an aspect of gameplay, which affects a lot more than the dozen people on the GA subforum. In this case, I would argue that all WA nations (especially those that post proposals) are a party to the case at hand.

B. If they are merely going to be a team that debates legality and the mods still have final say (including the ability to overrule a takedown request from the Council if needed), it doesn't change game mechanics, so it wouldn't really need input from the broader player base.

[Gruenberg]

"The political game is played by the politburo of our little party and the few other participants that are not easily repelled by our petty arguments, why should the entire electorate be allowed to weigh in? Our opinions matter more than the plebians'. Should the Supreme Court give more preference to the ruling party, or to every potential voter? The answer is A, because career politicians should be given preference over the rest. We should not be burdened by the demands of the plebians."

If you ever wondered why 90% of the WA members don't get involved in the GA, that attitude might just be part of the problem. But, I wouldn't really know, I'm mostly an outsider.

90% of WA members never touch the forum, so someone saying something a bit sniffy on the forum isn't a realistic explanation for their not being more involved.

But the precise reason that rules moderation exists is that a full vote of the entire WA would not be capable of staying within the bounds of the rules. Before any proposal rules existed, most of the resolutions that passed were Game Mechanics violations.