Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Wallenburg]

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'd be in support of that, save the issue of a change of opinion within the Council.

[Kryozerkia]

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No? You can interpret repealed resolutions.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?

But the council wouldn't exist until the proposal is drafted and voted on, so wouldn't it be logical for it to be Max?

[Excidium Planetis]

But the council wouldn't exist until the proposal is drafted and voted on, so wouldn't it be logical for it to be Max?

Right. An excellent point.

[Separatist Peoples]

Voting in a Bookeeping resolution is great and all, but what if the voters turn it down? Unless it's just magically going to be passed as a fait accompli, you're begging for delays and issues.

[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.

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.

I suppose, but let's imagine that Nation A passes the Internet Freedom Act. Nation B, at a later date, tries to pass the Save Our Children Act. Nation C challenges the Save Our Children Act on the grounds that it violates the Internet Freedom Act. Ruling on the validity of the Save Our Children Act, the council says that the Internet Freedom Act, indeed, protects children's freedom to access internet porn while at school. Consequently, Nation B seeks a repeal of the Internet Freedom Act, citing the council's ruling.

[Tinfect]

I suppose, but let's imagine that Nation A passes the Internet Freedom Act. Nation B, at a later date, tries to pass the Save Our Children Act. Nation C challenges the Save Our Children Act on the grounds that it violates the Internet Freedom Act. Ruling on the validity of the Save Our Children Act, the council says that the Internet Freedom Act, indeed, protects children's freedom to access internet porn while at school. Consequently, Nation B seeks a repeal of the Internet Freedom Act, citing the council's ruling.

They can easily do that without directly referencing the Council, if it's the accepted interpretation, it won't be illegal, and it'd be something of a irrelevancy to point out that the Council ruled in that direction.

[Christian Democrats]

I suppose, but let's imagine that Nation A passes the Internet Freedom Act. Nation B, at a later date, tries to pass the Save Our Children Act. Nation C challenges the Save Our Children Act on the grounds that it violates the Internet Freedom Act. Ruling on the validity of the Save Our Children Act, the council says that the Internet Freedom Act, indeed, protects children's freedom to access internet porn while at school. Consequently, Nation B seeks a repeal of the Internet Freedom Act, citing the council's ruling.

They can easily do that without directly referencing the Council, if it's the accepted interpretation, it won't be illegal, and it'd be something of a irrelevancy to point out that the Council ruled in that direction.

I disagree. If Nation B were pursuing a repeal of the Internet Freedom Act on the understanding that it protects children's right to access internet pornography during school, this nation would certainly get a lot of "sez who?" responses.

[Tinfect]

I disagree. If Nation B were pursuing a repeal of the Internet Freedom Act on the understanding that it protects children's right to access internet pornography during school, this nation would certainly get a lot of "sez who?" responses.

And then Nation B could explain the interpretation to them on the same grounds that the Council used ICly, and then direct them to the Council Ruling OOC. It'd be no different than the current situation with the IC-Secretariat/OOC-Moderation thing we've got going on now.

[Reploid Productions]

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?

Hmm.... ah hell, lemme take a completely shitty shot at it. I've only been playing for just north of 13 years and never actually attempted to write a proposal.

The Secretariat's Council
Category: Bookkeeping | Strength: Strong

RECOGNIZING that there is not enough coffee in the multiverse to enable the Secretariat alone to continue handling legality challenges as this Assembly continues to grow and delve deeper into the finer points of international legislation.

CONCEDING that the guidelines and regulations regarding legislative proposals have their basis in archaic procedures and sometimes ancient precedents that are long overdue for an in-depth examination and review.

ACKNOWLEDGING that there is a wealth of knowledge and experience within this Assembly that has yet to be utilized to its greatest potential.

HEREBY establishes the Secretariat's Council to assist the Secretariat in these endeavors and help guide this Assembly and its esteemed members into streamlining and improving upon the workings of this Assembly.

ESTABLISHES the following guidelines pertaining to the initial selection and operation of this Council, while remaining aware that these apply to the first Council and are subject to change as the situation warrants:

• Members of this Assembly may nominate candidates for a position of the Council. The Secretariat will review these nominations and select the most promising in terms of experience, knowledge, and capacity to collaborate with their fellow ambassadors.
• The first Council will establish the basic framework regarding the Council's operation, responsibilities, goals, and guidelines for the retiring or removal of a Councilor from office.
• Members of the Council will assist the Secretariat in addressing legality challenges brought before this Assembly, with the ultimate goal of reducing the Secretariat's workload to reasonable levels.

REITERATES that the specifics of the Council's operation can be modified as needs and the situation dictate per ongoing discussion between the Secretariat, the Council, and the members of this Assembly, including but not limited to: the selection process, the number of Council seats, the requirements to hold a Council seat, and the specific operational protocols of the Council.

Go ahead, rip it to shreds. I freely admit to being a complete and utter stupid n00b at WA proposal writing. The WA legalese has been way too intimidating for me since way back when it was still the UN! And if one of my esteemed colleagues thinks this should be split off into its own drafting thread for a proper shredding, I defer to their judgment.

EDIT TO ADD: Also, throwing this together while overtired probably didn't help anything, I wager.

[The Blaatschapen]

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.


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.


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?

But the council wouldn't exist until the proposal is drafted and voted on, so wouldn't it be logical for it to be Max?

And then someone manages to campaign successfully for a repeal later on. And then what?

[World Dissembly]

But the council wouldn't exist until the proposal is drafted and voted on, so wouldn't it be logical for it to be Max?

And then someone manages to campaign successfully for a repeal later on. And then what?

Can "Bookkeeping" proposals be repealed?

[Excidium Planetis]

But the council wouldn't exist until the proposal is drafted and voted on, so wouldn't it be logical for it to be Max?

And then someone manages to campaign successfully for a repeal later on. And then what?

Something prevents GA #1 from being repealed. Can't that be used for this as well?

Voting in a Bookeeping resolution is great and all, but what if the voters turn it down? Unless it's just magically going to be passed as a fait accompli, you're begging for delays and issues.

That would be proof that the Council is a terrible idea.

But I highly doubt it would happen.

Besides, what would have happened had GA#1 not been passed?

[Tinfect]

And then someone manages to campaign successfully for a repeal later on. And then what?

Can "Bookkeeping" proposals be repealed?

It doesn't have to do with the category. I remember something about there being a complete lack of coding that would make repealing GA1 possible. As far as the game is concerned I don't think GA1 even exists as a resolution, evidenced by the fact that the URL for any particular resolution in the actual passed resolutions bit for the GA is incremented at one below the actual resolution number. For example, start=1, gets you to Rights and Duties, not The World Assembly. I wouldn't be suprised if it is impossible to make something unrepealable without redesigning the system from scratch.

[Gruenberg]

I don't agree with trying to pass an in-character resolution establishing the council. The rules don't exist from an in-character point of view and breaking the fourth wall to try to acknowledge them is unnecessary. We don't pass resolutions every time the rules change or a new moderator is appointed.

HEREBY establishes the Secretariat's Council to assist the Secretariat in these endeavors and help guide this Assembly and its esteemed members into streamlining and improving upon the workings of this Assembly.

That said, this clause is great. Because "assist" and "help guide" make it even clearer that what's being set up here is just a toothless Advisory Council. Thank you for at least being more explicit about it.

But seriously, please, please don't do this? Please. I beg you. Some of us are trying desperately to keep this a roleplaying game, and it's increasingly difficult - especially given the basic inability of so many WA players to roleplay, and moderator rulings tearing down the separation from the Security Council that [violet] had established for us - and cramming more metagamed, fourth wall breaking crap into the proposal queue helps no one.

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't agree with trying to pass an in-character resolution establishing the council. The rules don't exist from an in-character point of view and breaking the fourth wall to try to acknowledge them is unnecessary. We don't pass resolutions every time the rules change or a new moderator is appointed.

No, but rule changes and moderation appointments are very different. It's like a committee: we don't pass resolutions declaring that new staff have been hired for X committee, nor do we passed ones declaring that the Sharks of Calladan are now an endangered species and thus protected, but we do pass a resolution each time a new committee or subcommittee is formed. That's what this is: not new staff, not a rule change, a whole subcommittee being added.

But seriously, please, please don't do this? Please. I beg you. Some of us are trying desperately to keep this a roleplaying game,

And those who advocate for roleplaying the creation of the Council are not?

and it's increasingly difficult - especially given the basic inability of so many WA players to roleplay

So many? Not really. The only regulars I can think of (right now) that don't roleplay to at least some degree are CD and Glen-Rhodes. Many, many others are accomplished roleplayers. I don't know where you see this huge lack of RP.

and cramming more metagamed, fourth wall breaking crap into the proposal queue helps no one.

We've had fourth wall breaking crap since GA#1. This is really nothing new.

[Gruenberg]

No, but rule changes and moderation appointments are very different. It's like a committee: we don't pass resolutions declaring that new staff have been hired for X committee, nor do we passed ones declaring that the Sharks of Calladan are now an endangered species and thus protected, but we do pass a resolution each time a new committee or subcommittee is formed. That's what this is: not new staff, not a rule change, a whole subcommittee being added.

The two aren't remotely comparable. Committees are functions of in-character legislation, to exercise in-character functions, and staffed by in-character "gnomes". This is an out of character Advisory Council to exercise out-of-character functions and staffed by out-of-character players.

And those who advocate for roleplaying the creation of the Council are not?

Yes, I agree.

So many? Not really. The only regulars I can think of (right now) that don't roleplay to at least some degree are CD and Glen-Rhodes. Many, many others are accomplished roleplayers. I don't know where you see this huge lack of RP.

I think the difference between us probably comes in that "to at least some degree" qualification. It has been a long time since I've been able to RP in the WA without within the very first page of the thread someone breaking the fourth wall.

We've had fourth wall breaking crap since GA#1. This is really nothing new.

Which was a totally exceptional resolution.

[Araraukar]

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.

Yeah, but the Council would be ruling OOCly, like the mods now do, even though the reasons why might have to do with IC things.

[Louisistan]

The rules don't exist from an in-character point of view and breaking the fourth wall to try to acknowledge them is unnecessary.

This is something I've disagreed with for quite some time. Sure, rules like Metagaming can't be referred to from an IC perspective. But a some of the rules, such as House of Cards or optionality, can very well be referred to ICly and I do think we should do so. Legality discussions make up a large portion of debates. Any part of them that can be handled ICly, should be handled ICly. There is absolutely no problem with having one's character point out that a proposal is illegal for optionality. Recognising that there is a set of "rules" or "conventions" that govern how resolutions of the WA should be written from an IC perspective is not detrimental to RP.

But I'm unsure whether the Council should be recognised from an IC standpoint in the way CD proposed. I'll have to think about that for a bit. Let's not kid ourselves it will be referred to ICly in debates whether you like it or not. Just like the mods (the ominous "Secretariat") are being mentioned ICly whether you like it or not. So for me, the question is whether we should allow them being referenced in resolutions. I'm leaning towards "no" for now, but that may just be my conservative side acting up.

[Gruenberg]

This is something I've disagreed with for quite some time. Sure, rules like Metagaming can't be referred to from an IC perspective. But a some of the rules, such as House of Cards or optionality, can very well be referred to ICly and I do think we should do so. ... Any part of them that can be handled ICly, should be handled ICly. There is absolutely no problem with having one's character point out that a proposal is illegal for optionality. Recognising that there is a set of "rules" or "conventions" that govern how resolutions of the WA should be written from an IC perspective is not detrimental to RP.

Some of the rules make sense IC, some don't. You seem to be saying we should therefore recognize those that do IC, which is a reasonable and defensible position; it just happens to be one I viscerally disagree with. I believe in an absolute separation of IC and OOC, and because some of the rules can only be interpreted OOC, all of them should be. This was the way it was for years (the fiction of "the Secretariat" is, in relative terms, a recent invention) and things ran much more smoothly and less litigiously.

Legality discussions make up a large portion of debates.

They shouldn't. There was a time we actually discussed policy and engaged in roleplays! Recognizing rules IC is only going to lead us further down this path of dreary legalistic sludge.

But I'm unsure whether the Council should be recognised from an IC standpoint in the way CD proposed. I'll have to think about that for a bit. Let's not kid ourselves it will be referred to ICly in debates whether you like it or not. Just like the mods (the ominous "Secretariat") are being mentioned ICly whether you like it or not. So for me, the question is whether we should allow them being referenced in resolutions. I'm leaning towards "no" for now, but that may just be my conservative side acting up.

I don't see (a) how banning resolutions from mentioning the Advisory Council can reasonably be justified given the SC ruling effectively abolished the metagaming rule and (b) how we can have any useful discussion of this here given it's yet another thing to be decided on in secret and without player involvement by the mods and those they select to serve on their Advisory Council.

[Araraukar]

They shouldn't. There was a time we actually discussed policy and engaged in roleplays! Recognizing rules IC is only going to lead us further down this path of dreary legalistic sludge.

So engage in RP! Don't just complain about the lack of it. Many of us actually do RP on this forum, and debating legality in IC is roleplaying, whether you like it or not. It tends to be only when we can't agree on legality in IC that OOC gets dragged in, whether in the form of mods or, in future, the Council.

So for me, the question is whether we should allow them being referenced in resolutions.

Can mods and mod decisions be? If not, then neither the Council and its decisions. It'll serve similar function of OOCly decisions that impact IC things, so it should be treated similarly when it comes to mentions in resolutions.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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.

Link to the ruling then. I'd like to read it.

[Sciongrad]

[...] resolutions can refer to telegram campaigns, after all, as long as they do so in an IC manner.

I'm going to say that's incorrect, based on my understanding of the rules. That might be true for the SC, but I don't recall any ruling allowing GA resolutions to recognize telegram campaigns. Or the forum, or the rules, or any OOC construction really.

[Excidium Planetis]

[...] resolutions can refer to telegram campaigns, after all, as long as they do so in an IC manner.

I'm going to say that's incorrect, based on my understanding of the rules. That might be true for the SC, but I don't recall any ruling allowing GA resolutions to recognize telegram campaigns. Or the forum, or the rules, or any OOC construction really.

How does SC's Rule 4 vary substantially from our Real World and Metagaming rules?

Link to the ruling then. I'd like to read it.

viewtopic.php?p=25331723#p25331723

It is an SC ruling, but you have to consider what Sedgistan actually said:

I've looked at it, and do not consider it a violation. It doesn't reference the "real world" outside of NS - it's referring to a part of the game, so definitely doesn't violation Rule 4a.

So, by this reasoning, it would most likely escape the Real World rule in the GA.

As for metagaming:

As for Rule 4c, the key part is that it doesn't refer to it "as part of a game".

I can't recall any GA examples right now, but I believe that this is the case here too. For a metagaming violation to take place, there has to be some kind of reference to the game itself.

[Gruenberg]

The SC has nothing to do with the WA. Its rules and rulings don't apply here. And given how strenuously SC players resisted playing by WA rules when it was first introduced, it would be at best unseemly for them now to force their stuff on us.

[Sciongrad]

How does SC's Rule 4 vary substantially from our Real World and Metagaming rules?

Are you actually trying to argue that SC rules have any value in the GA? Like, is this a joke? The GA's rules on metagaming are significantly stricter than the SC's.