Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Tinhampton]

If a proposal is about to be discussed in the council, is it in the GAS-o-line?

For now. They have plans to change the GAS acronym, causing support amongst some and outcry amongst others (I'm in the latter group).

[Tzorsland]

Shouldn't the current Secretary General be an honorary member of the Secretariat?

No. Just no.
What's next? Having the annual Zombie Apocalypse actually impact the nation's population numbers?

[Wallenburg]

Shouldn't the current Secretary General be an honorary member of the Secretariat?

No. Just no.
What's next? Having the annual Zombie Apocalypse actually impact the nation's population numbers?

That would still be infinitely less destructive than giving the Secretary General real power.

[Excidium Planetis]

No. Just no.
What's next? Having the annual Zombie Apocalypse actually impact the nation's population numbers?

That would still be infinitely less destructive than giving the Secretary General real power.

Yeah, but it would suck if players worked against you to decimate your nice 5 billion population, and then you only have one year to build back up to 2 billion or whatever before the next apocalypse hits.

But it would be kinda cool, honestly.

[Gruenberg]

Shouldn't the current Secretary General be an honorary member of the Secretariat?

No. Just no.
What's next? Having the annual Zombie Apocalypse actually impact the nation's population numbers?

Damn, that's actually the perfect metaphor here! You should post that in the Technical thread on "expanding" the SG's role.

[Tzorsland]

Yeah, but it would suck if players worked against you to decimate your nice 5 billion population, and then you only have one year to build back up to 2 billion or whatever before the next apocalypse hits.

There is only one thing that increases population ... time. You can't even stat wank it up.

But it would be kinda cool, honestly.

The insane population creep is the only part of the game that breaks all models and I've known strong stat players who flat out ignore it because it just makes no sense, so mechanisms that adjust it would actually be kinda cool.

[Araraukar]

There is only one thing that increases population ... time. You can't even stat wank it up.

I keep selecting things to slow down population growth in the issues just for fun, though. (And it's part of the IC reality for the nation.)

The insane population creep is the only part of the game that breaks all models and I've known strong stat players who flat out ignore it because it just makes no sense, so mechanisms that adjust it would actually be kinda cool.

Only if you were allowed to opt out of them - the first time the zombie thing was on H'ween, I managed to miss it, and logged in to having zero people, alive or undead. Also considering many achievements (customization of many national info fields) are tied to population number, I don't think it'd be all that easy to code it in.

...not sure this is the right place for this discussion, mind you.

[Christian Democrats]

No. Just no.
What's next? Having the annual Zombie Apocalypse actually impact the nation's population numbers?

That would still be infinitely less destructive than giving the Secretary General real power.

I agree.

[Knootoss]

Well. F***.

I didn't think this would go anywhere but apparently it has. And looking at some of the members in this Council I guess my only question would be if appeal to the moderators is still permissible, given the obvious bias and history of feuds with large segments of the General Assembly community that is present among certain of those chosen.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well. F***.

I didn't think this would go anywhere but apparently it has. And looking at some of the members in this Council I guess my only question would be if appeal to the moderators is still permissible, given the obvious bias and history of feuds with large segments of the General Assembly community that is present among certain of those chosen.

Who, exactly, are you referring to? G-R?

[Knootoss]

I wasn't going to name any names but I don't think it would be very surprising to draw that conclusion.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You'd be hard pressed to find very many people in this game who haven't feuded with each other. Half of us have fought with the mods for years.

Regardless, our past interactions have generally been about policy and political ideology, not rules. Besides, disagreements about the rules are exactly why a few of us were chosen.

[Separatist Peoples]

I wasn't going to name any names but I don't think it would be very surprising to draw that conclusion.

If you're going to insinuate bias and generally discredit a member, have the decency to be open and direct about it. G-R has been nothing but professional thus far in the Council's setup. Can we not afford him the same treatment?

[Sciongrad]

I wasn't going to name any names but I don't think it would be very surprising to draw that conclusion.

Presumably, those with whom he feuded would also be disqualified, because they would themselves be biased against G-R's views, right? And seeing as you noted that the debate involved large portions of the GA community, that doesn't really leave us with anyone on the council, does it?

GR has been nothing but professional so far and in my opinion, he has done nothing to suggest he will ever be anything but just that. You might not like his views or how heated the discussions have gotten in the past, but this council was chosen in such a way that deliberately draws from many different viewpoints. This is not meant to become an echo chamber. If you have a personal issue with GR, fine, but that's not something any of us are concerned about.

[Excidium Planetis]

Can we ask the Secretariat members questions about rules going forward?

Unlike many players here, I generally agreed with mod rulings (the honest mistake rule was an exception). I would like to know the likelihood that the Council will revisit some of these decisions and possibly reverse them.

[Sciongrad]

Can we ask the Secretariat members questions about rules going forward?

Unlike many players here, I generally agreed with mod rulings (the honest mistake rule was an exception). I would like to know the likelihood that the Council will revisit some of these decisions and possibly reverse them.

That is still being discussed. The consensus seems to be that we'll use previous rulings for non-binding instruction, but most previous precedent will not bind us. Take that with a grain of salt for two reasons: 1. this is not set in stone yet, and we might not end up going down that road and 2. if we do go down that road, radically departing from precedent is probably not terribly likely in most cases. When we have reached a final conclusion about how we plan on treating past rulings, we'll let you all know.

[Excidium Planetis]

Can we ask the Secretariat members questions about rules going forward?

Unlike many players here, I generally agreed with mod rulings (the honest mistake rule was an exception). I would like to know the likelihood that the Council will revisit some of these decisions and possibly reverse them.

That is still being discussed. The consensus seems to be that we'll use previous rulings for non-binding instruction, but most previous precedent will not bind us. Take that with a grain of salt for two reasons: 1. this is not set in stone yet, and we might not end up going down that road and 2. if we do go down that road, radically departing from precedent is probably not terribly likely in most cases. When we have reached a final conclusion about how we plan on treating past rulings, we'll let you all know.

Alright. Well, when you guys have decided, let us know. There are a few positions that Secretariat members held positions on that contradicted the mods and my own position.

[Knootoss]

I didn't want to make this personal and thought the decent thing would be to avoid talking about individuals, but I can if members of the council want me to. I'm not afraid to talk about it, just worried that it may not be productive. The fact that y'all are rushing to Glen-Rhodes' side to say just what a fine bloke he is actually does the opposite of reassuring me that his influence won't be pernicious. Of course he'll be constructive. This gives him the power he has always wanted to have over others.

This isn't about having disagreements on policy either. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt on that from me because I know you're all passionately committed to the General Assembly and probably committed to some kind of neutrality.

I disagree with Glen-Rhodes' characterisation of our past interactions as being about policy and therein lies the rub. What I remember most of all is the incessant floating of conspiracy theories about other players, the reflexive opposition to anything that perceived 'enemies' might propose and the favouring of arcane litigation on the 'honest mistake' rule over the use of substantive policy arguments. I've got half a dozen threads in moderation related to Glen-Rhodes' behaviour, including pimping his proposals in my thread, excessive personal attacks and responding IC to OOC posts. Beyond that, there is plenty of stuff off-site to make me believe that there is a personal element to this that transcends differences on policy.

Speaking just for myself, I don't trust that a GHR (or whatever might come in the place of GHRs) filed by me or a rule proposal suggested by me would be judged fairly by a player with whom I have such a long history of litigation about interpretation of the rules. The temptation on his part to settle a score would just be too great, to be honest. If Glen-Rhodes was honest with himself I don't think he'd deny this either.

[Christian Democrats]

That is still being discussed. The consensus seems to be that we'll use previous rulings for non-binding instruction, but most previous precedent will not bind us. Take that with a grain of salt for two reasons: 1. this is not set in stone yet, and we might not end up going down that road and 2. if we do go down that road, radically departing from precedent is probably not terribly likely in most cases. When we have reached a final conclusion about how we plan on treating past rulings, we'll let you all know.

Alright. Well, when you guys have decided, let us know. There are a few positions that Secretariat members held positions on that contradicted the mods and my own position.

I'll confirm Sciongrad's statement. It seems that all past rulings are going to be considered persuasive precedent.

Also, in my own opinion, the current council's rulings should not be binding on future councils, especially if they're narrow.

a GHR (or whatever might come in the place of GHRs)

We're discussing this matter with [violet] right now. It appears that she's going to code a GHR-like system solely for GA challenges.

[Gruenberg]

We're discussing this matter with [violet] right now. It appears that she's going to code a GHR-like system solely for GA challenges.

Is this an issue players will receive the opportunity to comment on, given the immensely deleterious effect on the WA that encouraging private legality challenges has had?

[Knootoss]

Agreed with Gruenberg. And my original question about being able to appeal to the 'real' mods remains.

[Christian Democrats]

We're discussing this matter with [violet] right now. It appears that she's going to code a GHR-like system solely for GA challenges.

Is this an issue players will receive the opportunity to comment on, given the immensely deleterious effect on the WA that encouraging private legality challenges has had?

Nothing is set in stone yet, but here's how things might look:

• WA member submits a GA challenge. If he wants, he can check a box to keep his name anonymous.
• Council receives the challenge and immediately posts it to the drafting thread for discussion.
• At the same time, a private thread is opened for councilors to discuss the challenge.
• As soon as a decision is reached, majority and dissenting opinions are published.
• After some amount of time, the private discussion threads are deposited into a public archive.

EDIT: To answer your question, aren't we discussing it right now?

[Sciongrad]

Agreed with Gruenberg. And my original question about being able to appeal to the 'real' mods remains.

The goal of this project is to reduce the role of moderators. While moderators will add their thoughts to certain issues, it is unlikely they will have any significant influence over decisions (at least on the day-to-day level). While the GenSec currently require moderator sign-offs for their decisions, this is temporary. In the future, the GenSec will independently rule on issues. To my knowledge, there will not be a review process except perhaps under the most extraordinary circumstances because the structure of this new system doesn't include any group to appeal to.

We're discussing this matter with [violet] right now. It appears that she's going to code a GHR-like system solely for GA challenges.

Is this an issue players will receive the opportunity to comment on, given the immensely deleterious effect on the WA that encouraging private legality challenges has had?

Like CD said, the new system will absolutely not be a continuation of the GHR method. All challenges will be posted publicly. We're acutely aware of the issue that GHRs have presented in the past, and we're not going to keep the current system. Would publicly posting all challenges ameliorate any of your concerns?

[Christian Democrats]

In an extraordinary case, I suppose someone could file a Final Appeal.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=16394954#appeals

[Knootoss]

CD: All I've gotten is reassurance that such a thing will not be necessary because of how awesome Glen-Rhodes is, and that the newly appointed Counselors do not care that one in their midst has been pursuing personal legalistic vendettas with other players for years. If Sciongrad truly does speak for all of you in saying that "that's not something any of us are concerned about", I am keenly interested in learning what the mechanism for appeals will be, since my confidence in getting a fair hearing from this group will be zero.

So unless moderators are willing to look into accusations of animus in decision-making I guess that means I will have to be making more use of the Final Appeal option. This is kind-of sad, since I would trust any of the mods (singular) to do the job just as well.