Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Gruenberg]

Yes, Gruen, those are all things that have been discussed internally among the mods that we've decided that is best addressed by talking with and working with the first Councillors, to determine how things will/should work. Which is why there is no answer for you at this time, which is what I said in my post above.

No, that's flatly not what you said in your post and I think a really great way of avoiding "combat" would be to not spit lies in our faces? In your post you simply said they were "still to-be-determined during this initial trial period", and made no mention of what you're now revealing, which is that they won't be discussed with the actual stakeholders of the project - the WA players! - and will simply be limited to the councillors whose forum you have said will be private.

We're aiming for this project to be collaborative

OK, so let's resolve answers to these questions collaboratively. This thread is as good a place as any to start, but feel free to create a new one if you prefer.

[Mousebumples]

That's not unreasonable but what about the forum issue, IE whether it's publicly viewable or entirely private? Starting it off entirely private with the aim of seeing how it works out would seem to me to lock the rest of the GA regulars out of input into future decisions about the council. It's worth noting that the majority of posters wanted some form of public deliberation in their answers to Ara's questionnaire.

I'll be frank - I've been swamped with RL and work these past few weeks, so I haven't been keeping up with this thread. It's possible that the questions I thought Gruen was referring to was not the questions he was referring to (in my original post). I read back a few pages, but I haven't read the entirety of this since I just don't have as much free as I'd prefer right now.

Re: things being open - there are a number of ways to accomplish "public deliberation" that don't require the entire forum to be public. These can include disclosing the council vote tally, with anonymous comments from both sides (*provided there is a split in the arguments, re: legality), this can include moving the entire thread from the Council subforum to the GA after deliberations have concluded. Again - this is where I would like to collaborate with the first group of Councillors to see how they would like to progress moving forward - and, yes, making things entirely public is presumably up for discussion ... although as I don't have those forum admin powers, I certainly can't guarantee that it's an option. However, to start as entirely public straight off the bat ... how many Councillors do you think will feel public pressure to say, "This is great, let's keep it this way," even though they may feel more free to make their comments and queries and the like in private? I would hope that any Councillors that we pick for the First Council will be strong enough in their opinions to say what they feel and not worry about how they'd be perceived publicly, but - especially as we have zero Councillors to this point - getting worked up over the forum for them currently being private seems like making a mountain out of a molehill to me.

[Gruenberg]

so I haven't been keeping up with this thread...I haven't read the entirety of this

Then why did you butt in? There's no hurry here, and I'd have much rather waited days, weeks, however long, for a moderator who did have the foggiest clue what was going on to respond.

[Talkistan]

so I haven't been keeping up with this thread...I haven't read the entirety of this

Then why did you butt in? There's no hurry here, and I'd have much rather waited days, weeks, however long, for a moderator who did have the foggiest clue what was going on to respond.

I'll be honest, Gruen... I respect and admire the passion you bring with your arguments, but you seem to be way too confrontational at times. I distrust people's motives almost as much as you do, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt until they actually do something blatantly wrong.

No one can reasonably be expected to have read and analyzed every single post/argument on any thread, be they moderator, forum regular or casual player. That is precisely why the moderators want more eyes and heads to help with resolving proposal legality. Some points will need to be reemphasized in any argument, but implying someone is incompetent simply because they missed a point of contention or two is irrational.

Personally, I'm more than willing to see a Council/Secretariat formed at the earliest, so I can watch how it works and maybe try to game the system without breaking any rules. Because that is how any game (including an online political simulator) works; by an arbitrary set of rules that is enforced according to a specific interpretation. There might be a bit of sway in the interpretation of the rules based on the interpreters, but that is where the fun lies.

[Gruenberg]

No one can reasonably be expected to have read and analyzed every single post/argument on any thread, be they moderator, forum regular or casual player.

Of course not. But several moderators have been involved in this discussion, and Mouse has been totally absent from it, so it's surprising she felt the need to intervene. My post was originally a reply to Kryozerkia, who did her customary "disappear and leave the others to clear up my mess" act, and Sedgistan has also contributed a lot, I've seen Wrapper, even mods who don't post a lot in the WA like Blaat or NERVUN. And, as I said - what's the hurry? Why post before having read the thread?

Some points will need to be reemphasized in any argument, but implying someone is incompetent simply because they missed a point of contention or two is irrational.

I'd imagine anyone who did that would be, yes.

Personally, I'm more than willing to see a Council/Secretariat formed at the earliest, so I can watch how it works and maybe try to game the system without breaking any rules. Because that is how any game (including an online political simulator) works; by an arbitrary set of rules that is enforced according to a specific interpretation. There might be a bit of sway in the interpretation of the rules based on the interpreters, but that is where the fun lies.

Yes, I'm aware of that; I wrote an article for The Rejected Times about the value of rules to games. It's a little strange to see the same people who ridiculed my suggestion then of more player involvement in rules now claiming to be deeply invested in seeing that happen, but I'll take whatever small victories I can get.

[Araraukar]

My post was originally a reply to Kryozerkia, who did her customary "disappear and leave the others to clear up my mess" act

Kryo's actually been partaking GA forum quite a bit recently. Just because she's not personally answering you doesn't mean she's disappeared entirely.

[Kryozerkia]

My post was originally a reply to Kryozerkia, who did her customary "disappear and leave the others to clear up my mess" act

Kryo's actually been partaking GA forum quite a bit recently. Just because she's not personally answering you doesn't mean she's disappeared entirely.

I also haven't answered because a lot of specific answers are (a) left to the council to determine and/or (b) it's something I will be drafting specifically for the council members - such as when a proposal is a clear violation (I think the current Illegal Proposal thread has numerous examples) and when council input will be sought. I don't have specific details but I am working on a draft for members. The minute details will be reviewed and discussed with council members. Just as the code of conduct, procedural rules, and areas of coverage outside of legality challenges will be. Right now, it is coming down to we have general ideas but the small, fine details will be ironed out at the council level when members are announced.

[Tzorsland]

But now the initials are GAS.

I may be the only one here, but I like GAS.

"I regret to inform you, but your proposal has been GASSED."

And the forum would be the GAS ... (on second thought, never mind) GAS STATION, I meant GAS STATION.

[Tzorsland]

I also haven't answered because a lot of specific answers are (a) left to the council to determine and/or (b) it's something I will be drafting specifically for the council members ...

As someone who is currently in the role of third level development support, I know that there is a strange fuzzy line between too many responses and not enough responses. You don't want to constantly respond when you don't have a definitive answer and "we're working on it" can be spammy at times. But you have the other problem of people thinking that there is no one reading the problems in the first place. Probably there is no happy medium here. Knowing that you are reading is far more important than answering all questions when the answers aren't exactly known at this point.

[Bananaistan]

Is there any particular reason why GA regulars in general will be cut out of future input? What is so wrong with general consultation? Why can't we all see this secondary hidden rule set?

[Kryozerkia]

Is there any particular reason why GA regulars in general will be cut out of future input? What is so wrong with general consultation? Why can't we all see this secondary hidden rule set?

There is no decision on that. The immediate future is between the mods and council members. We want them to build a foundation. They will be responsible for general consultation once the dust has settled.

As someone who is currently in the role of third level development support, I know that there is a strange fuzzy line between too many responses and not enough responses. You don't want to constantly respond when you don't have a definitive answer and "we're working on it" can be spammy at times. But you have the other problem of people thinking that there is no one reading the problems in the first place. Probably there is no happy medium here. Knowing that you are reading is far more important than answering all questions when the answers aren't exactly known at this point.

You're right. It's tricky to strike a balance. Thanks for your understanding.

[Gruenberg]

I also haven't answered because a lot of specific answers are (a) left to the council to determine and/or (b) it's something I will be drafting specifically for the council members - such as when a proposal is a clear violation (I think the current Illegal Proposal thread has numerous examples) and when council input will be sought.

This, yet again, seems to suggest that a lot of the time moderators will continue removing proposals without any consultation, and that the only time the Council will be sought out is when the moderators themselves agree to that. Given the number of times you have wrongly removed proposals, that's fairly worrying, as if you were capable of recognizing your own mistakes we wouldn't even be in this mess to begin with.

I don't have specific details but I am working on a draft for members. The minute details will be reviewed and discussed with council members. Just as the code of conduct, procedural rules, and areas of coverage outside of legality challenges will be. Right now, it is coming down to we have general ideas but the small, fine details will be ironed out at the council level when members are announced.

You haven't answered Bananaistan's question, you've just repeated your response in a circular fashion. Why is all of this to be determined by council members, and not discussed by the WA regulars as a whole? In fact, how can we even nominate players to the council when we know nothing about its operation or functions?

[Kryozerkia]

I also haven't answered because a lot of specific answers are (a) left to the council to determine and/or (b) it's something I will be drafting specifically for the council members - such as when a proposal is a clear violation (I think the current Illegal Proposal thread has numerous examples) and when council input will be sought.

This, yet again, seems to suggest that a lot of the time moderators will continue removing proposals without any consultation, and that the only time the Council will be sought out is when the moderators themselves agree to that. Given the number of times you have wrongly removed proposals, that's fairly worrying, as if you were capable of recognizing your own mistakes we wouldn't even be in this mess to begin with.

There are times when we will continue to do that; other times will be based on what's been agreed upon in council. Since it's in the process of developing, I cannot give a specific answer. The outline I'm drafting will be shared with the council and be discussed. As I don't have specifics, I will not give specifics.

I don't have specific details but I am working on a draft for members. The minute details will be reviewed and discussed with council members. Just as the code of conduct, procedural rules, and areas of coverage outside of legality challenges will be. Right now, it is coming down to we have general ideas but the small, fine details will be ironed out at the council level when members are announced.

You haven't answered Bananaistan's question, you've just repeated your response in a circular fashion. Why is all of this to be determined by council members, and not discussed by the WA regulars as a whole? In fact, how can we even nominate players to the council when we know nothing about its operation or functions?

Max wants the council to have some self-determination. We're leaving some issues open for discussion between members and moderation during the set-up phase. Max also wants the council members to mostly determine its operation. This includes procedural practices. The mods will continue to be present for this. As stuff is decided, we will encourage the council to share.

[Gruenberg]

Max wants the council to have some self-determination. ... Max also wants the council members to mostly determine its operation.

It's his game, so what he wants he gets. Thanks for at least (finally) mentioning this, up until now I don't believe there'd been any indication he was even involved in the discussion, so hopefully you can forgive us not being aware of it?

I just hope we remember what happened last time he decided to intervene in so direct a fashion.

[Kryozerkia]

Max wants the council to have some self-determination. ... Max also wants the council members to mostly determine its operation.

It's his game, so what he wants he gets. Thanks for at least (finally) mentioning this, up until now I don't believe there'd been any indication he was even involved in the discussion, so hopefully you can forgive us not being aware of it?

I just hope we remember what happened last time he decided to intervene in so direct a fashion.

Don't look at me. I'm no fan of it. But he wanted to do it and it is his game.

[Tzorsland]

You haven't answered Bananaistan's question, you've just repeated your response in a circular fashion. Why is all of this to be determined by council members, and not discussed by the WA regulars as a whole? In fact, how can we even nominate players to the council when we know nothing about its operation or functions?

Then I'll answer it. For the same reason that legislation is generally drafted by a committee and not the committee of the whole. It's a true fact that the US Constitution was drafted IN SECRET. It's another true fact that state legislatures all voted for the first Senators before the rules of the Senate were known because those rules were written by the first Senators themselves.

I think you now know a lot about the criteria for nominating members; they have to be familiar not only with passed resolutions, resolution requirements but also be able to participate in the process of formulating rules for the council. That's a pretty good requirement list by itself.

[Christian Democrats]

General Assembly Review Board, maybe?

I second.

I was about to make this suggestion before I read your post.

But now the initials are GAS.

I may be the only one here, but I like GAS.

"I regret to inform you, but your proposal has been GASSED."

Sounds anti-Semitic.

(Not an unusual characteristic of the UNnameable organization on which this Assembly is based.)

[Christian Democrats]

Crazy idea

At present, custom makes it a breach of the "fourth wall" to refer to moderators and moderation decisions. Perhaps, after the new council is established, we should adjust this unwritten rule and make it legal for players to refer to council decisions in their proposals. For example, a nation seeking a repeal could cite a council decision that authoritatively interprets a target resolution to require something undesirable.

Understanding that the Internet Freedom Act, according to a recent ruling of the General Assembly Review Board, prevents member states from blocking access to pornography on elementary school computers.

[Excidium Planetis]

Crazy idea

At present, custom makes it a breach of the "fourth wall" to refer to moderators and moderation decisions. Perhaps, after the new council is established, we should adjust this unwritten rule and make it legal for players to refer to council decisions in their proposals. For example, a nation seeking a repeal could cite a council decision that authoritatively interprets a target resolution to require something undesirable.

Understanding that the Internet Freedom Act, according to a recent ruling of the General Assembly Review Board, prevents member states from blocking access to pornography on elementary school computers.

I agree that this should be the case, as long as it is done in an IC manner. (However, I don't like GA Review Board. It needs the word Council in its name. Tbh I just really like the word Council.)

[Gruenberg]

Then I'll answer it. For the same reason that legislation is generally drafted by a committee and not the committee of the whole. It's a true fact that the US Constitution was drafted IN SECRET. It's another true fact that state legislatures all voted for the first Senators before the rules of the Senate were known because those rules were written by the first Senators themselves.

Setting aside the question of whether parallels to one country's system of government are really apt here, the US Congress is restrained by the Constitution, judicial review of federal courts, and the electorate. The Council has no such factors. That said, it is pointless to debate this, because this is something the game's creator has decided. So if you'd like, sure, you can say you have won the argument, congrats.

At present, custom makes it a breach of the "fourth wall" to refer to moderators and moderation decisions. Perhaps, after the new council is established, we should adjust this unwritten rule and make it legal for players to refer to council decisions in their proposals. For example, a nation seeking a repeal could cite a council decision that authoritatively interprets a target resolution to require something undesirable.

Given the most basic questions about the council cannot be answered and will be determined solely by the moderators, possibly but possibly not with the assistance of the moderator-picked councillors, through a process as yet unannounced, I don't see how a matter like this could be resolved here.

[Talkistan]

Given the most basic questions about the council cannot be answered and will be determined solely by the moderators, possibly but possibly not with the assistance of the moderator-picked councillors, through a process as yet unannounced, I don't see how a matter like this could be resolved here.

Resolved? Almost certainly not, by the look of things.
Brought to the attention of those that have the authority to resolve things? Possibly.

If Max has as much personal interest in this issue as we are being led to believe, and if the moderators are going to be devolving as much power to the Council/GAS/GARB as Kryo suggests, Council members will effectively have the power to reinterpret (or maybe even rewrite, we don't know) the rules on legality. A lot of GA regulars don't like uncertainty in the rules because they have months-long plans for proposals, but uncertainty does make the game interesting.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Crazy idea

At present, custom makes it a breach of the "fourth wall" to refer to moderators and moderation decisions. Perhaps, after the new council is established, we should adjust this unwritten rule and make it legal for players to refer to council decisions in their proposals. For example, a nation seeking a repeal could cite a council decision that authoritatively interprets a target resolution to require something undesirable.

Understanding that the Internet Freedom Act, according to a recent ruling of the General Assembly Review Board, prevents member states from blocking access to pornography on elementary school computers.

It's still metagaming and I would be unalterably opposed to such a change. Besides which, laws are only interpreted by mods/council for the sake of determining a proposal's legality, not as a means of forcing nations to read said laws a certain way. If a nation wants to say that IFA doesn't actually do what the council says it does, it is within their rights to say so.

[Tzorsland]

Understanding that the Internet Freedom Act, according to a recent ruling of the General Assembly Review Board, prevents member states from blocking access to pornography on elementary school computers.

It's still metagaming and I would be unalterably opposed to such a change.

I'm not sure it is "metagaming" but I can't see how it can be used without some variation of the house of cards violation. The quoted example is a house of cards violation as is. The interpretation of a resolution assumes the resolution is in effect, does it not? More importantly, even if there is a spot in the forms for rulings, we are not going to have a place in the system proper for rulings, as is the case for passed resolutions.

Speaking of Metagaming ... do we need to "RULE WA1" the Secretariat's Council? (By "RULE WA1" I mean to create a special "Housekeeping" / "Sweeping" resolution that authorizes the Secretariat's Council just as WA 1 authorized the World Assembly in the first place.) Leaving aside all matters of storage of the council's decisions, it would therefore move the body out of the Metagaming sphere.

[Gruenberg]

It's still metagaming

They pretty much abolished the metagaming rules with the SC/compliance rulings, so that's probably not a concern anymore.

[Excidium Planetis]

It's still metagaming and I would be unalterably opposed to such a change.

That's not metagaming. It doesn't attempt to force actions outside the game and does not refer to the game as a game. It refers to events that exist OOCly, but that isn't metagaming... resolutions can refer to telegram campaigns, after all, as long as they do so in an IC manner.

I'm not sure it is "metagaming" but I can't see how it can be used without some variation of the house of cards violation. The quoted example is a house of cards violation as is. The interpretation of a resolution assumes the resolution is in effect, does it not?

No? You can interpret repealed resolutions. Besides, the example was an example of a repeal... how can a repeal fall under the House of Cards violation?

Honestly, the only problem I saw was "recent ruling", which no longer makes sense years afterwards, but that doesn't make it illegal, just silly.

Speaking of Metagaming ... do we need to "RULE WA1" the Secretariat's Council? (By "RULE WA1" I mean to create a special "Housekeeping" / "Sweeping" resolution that authorizes the Secretariat's Council just as WA 1 authorized the World Assembly in the first place.) Leaving aside all matters of storage of the council's decisions, it would therefore move the body out of the Metagaming sphere.

That would be cool. I'm all for it. We just need Max Barry to draft it, or maybe nominate one of the first council members to do it?