Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Kryozerkia]

I have the same concern which Wallenburg has regarding a hold function. A maximum of two or three days ought be imposed.

I agree. I think a maximum of a few days is acceptable.

Precisely. It's an extension tool. Legality challenges have been known to be 'last minute'. Ideally, an extension of a few days.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

But really the delay would be four days, because the proposal sitting in queue behind it would presumably be bumped up to vote before it.

[Excidium Planetis]

But really the delay would be four days, because the proposal sitting in queue behind it would presumably be bumped up to vote before it.

But then what happens if there is a legality challenge on that proposal? Can the mods deal with an ongoing legality challenge and a legality challenge for the resolution at vote?

I'm in favor of a 4 day period, but only to maintain the consistency of 4 day periods in WA affairs. I think the queue should just be frozen for 4 days.

[Separatist Peoples]

But really the delay would be four days, because the proposal sitting in queue behind it would presumably be bumped up to vote before it.

But then what happens if there is a legality challenge on that proposal? Can the mods deal with an ongoing legality challenge and a legality challenge for the resolution at vote?

I'm in favor of a 4 day period, but only to maintain the consistency of 4 day periods in WA affairs. I think the queue should just be frozen for 4 days.

I'd have to agree. As interesting as it would be to add a tool that lets the queue be rearranged strategically, we're definitely looking to reduce the use of procedural tools as tactical ones, which is what current GHRs are often used for.

[Imperium Anglorum]

we're definitely looking to reduce the use of procedural tools as tactical ones, which is what current GHRs are often always used for.

I think this is more accurate, to be honest.

[Separatist Peoples]

we're definitely looking to reduce the use of procedural tools as tactical ones, which is what current GHRs are often always used for.

I think this is more accurate, to be honest.

Not really. Intent matters. I submit GHRs for submitted proposals because there is an illegality, not to snipe them at the last moment.While the end result may be indistinguishable, it reflects poorly on those of us who act out of a sense of procedure rather than ego to group them together.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I agree with the four-day time limit for the proposed 'Hold' function. I still want 'Discard' to be an option, but only as a very last resort since it's been shown to shatter people's faith in the WA even more than usual. Consider it punishment for not figuring out whether a proposal is legal or not within four days.

[Hirota]

I do hope feedback is still welcome. If not, my apologies, I'm not as active in the GA as I used to be.

Do you support the idea of a Secretariat's Council?

Given moderators have taken into account the opinions of member states in the past, it would be useful to formalise this list of member states.

If not, what alternative suggestion do you have, bearing in mind that "appoint more Moderators" is not an option on the table?

I'm assuming that has changed?

How should members of the Council be selected in the long-run?

Election, with approval from moderation before being allowed to stand for election. As you noted they should have a reasonably clear record of moderation action against them, and the only people who can really prove that are the moderators.

What, if any, checks should exist against the Council's behaviour? Consider the potential for corruption, cronyism, laziness, and mission creep.

Transparency of all discussions and decisions. Perhaps a sub forum where anyone can read it, but only moderators and council members can post. If there is a potential conflict of interest, council members should be obligated to disclose at the risk of being ejected if they do not.

Which of the current rules should the Council have responsibility for enforcing?

Honest mistake, duplication, contradiction, Plagarism and meta-gaming.
Things like Amendments, new legislation in repeals, Game mechanics are normally visible from a million miles away, so I don't see them worthy of council consideration.

Should Council members act as "Mentors" too?

I wouldn't see it as compulsory, but would see it as beneficial. If they are going to make decisions on submitted proposals that don't pass muster, then it would benefit the GA as a whole if the players submitting these proposals understood why they were marked.

[Araraukar]

If not, what alternative suggestion do you have, bearing in mind that "appoint more Moderators" is not an option on the table?

I'm assuming that has changed?

That's for a NSG mod, not NSGA mod. The difference between General and General Assembly.

Would you like to fill out an dditional checklist about this whole council business, and a shorter one for how the councilors should be chosen?

EDIT: Updated Louisistan's answers (in the post below) to the original checklist and changed the appropriate numbers in the totals.

[Louisistan]

It occurs to me, I filled out the second checklist, but not the first one. oops.


1. GA Council existence
- For

2. Council being advisory only
- Against

3. Councilors selected by mods
- For

4. Term lengths for councilors
- Against, but not vehemently.

5. Limit on consequtive terms
- Against, but not vehemently

6. Councilor impartiality: no delegates
- I think Delegates should very much be allowed to sit on the council. Frankly, I don't see how being a Delegate somehow magically disqualifies you from making legality rulings.

7. Councilor impartiality: recusing yourself on your own
- Yes, I would expect them to do this.

8. Councilor impartiality: no submitting proposals themselves
- I think councillors should be allowed to submit proposals (and recuse themselves from ruling on them).

9. Identifiers for councilor status
- couldn't give a fuck even if I tried.

10. Councilors as mentors
- indetermined

11. Mentors in general
- yes

12. Council subforum
- probably, yeah.

13. Council subforum: completely private
- against

14. Council subforum: publicly Read Only
- against, but I can live with it

15. Council subforum: completely public
- yup.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I agree with the four-day time limit for the proposed 'Hold' function. I still want 'Discard' to be an option, but only as a very last resort since it's been shown to shatter people's faith in the WA even more than usual. Consider it punishment for not figuring out whether a proposal is legal or not within four days.

The punishment should be on the mods, not the players. If four days pass and the mods still do nothing, it should go to vote regardless of anyone's opinion on legality.

Discards should only be there in case something blatantly illegal somehow sneaks in past the mods (and the geniuses in the silly/illegal thread) and makes it to vote before it even can be put it on hold.

But really the delay would be four days, because the proposal sitting in queue behind it would presumably be bumped up to vote before it.

But then what happens if there is a legality challenge on that proposal? Can the mods deal with an ongoing legality challenge and a legality challenge for the resolution at vote?

Rather than indulging hypothetical doomsday scenarios, let's posit the question of what if the next proposal in queue is not subject to a contentious legality question or has already been cleared for vote? It should be able to proceed to vote without the mods holding everything up for four days because one proposal may or may not be off.

[Hirota]

Would you like to fill out an dditional checklist about this whole council business, and a shorter one for how the councilors should be chosen?

Go on then, I'm bored at work today.

Checklist for "GA Council" opinions, for and against

1. GA Council existence - Yes

2. Council being advisory only - No

3. Councilors selected by mods - No

4. Term lengths for councilors - Yes

5. Limit on consequtive terms - No

6. Councilor impartiality: no delegates - Provided they disclosed any rulings they made on nations in their region, I see no issue with delegate participation.

7. Councilor impartiality: recusing yourself on your own - Absolutely. I'd also expect councilors to recuse themselves if they feel they could have a bias for or against the proposer, or at the very least disclose that conflict of interest.

8. Councilor impartiality: no submitting proposals themselves - I'd be comfortable with doing that, but not sure I'd expect everyone.

9. Identifiers for councilor status - it would be nice, but it's a minor thing

10. Councilors as mentors - optional

11. Mentors in general - yes, but shouldn't be compulsory for councilors.

12. Council subforum - yes

13. Council subforum: completely private - no

14. Council subforum: publicly Read Only - yes

15. Council subforum: completely public - yes

I'm not motivated to argue for one path or the other in the other subset of questions. I think it's better if they are moderator sanctioned, but I think member states should get the final say.

[Excidium Planetis]

But then what happens if there is a legality challenge on that proposal? Can the mods deal with an ongoing legality challenge and a legality challenge for the resolution at vote?

Rather than indulging hypothetical doomsday scenarios, let's posit the question of what if the next proposal in queue is not subject to a contentious legality question or has already been cleared for vote? It should be able to proceed to vote without the mods holding everything up for four days because one proposal may or may not be off.

So now we expect mods to figure whether or not the next proposal in queue is likely to receive a last minute legality challenge before using the hold function?

[Hirota]

Rather than indulging hypothetical doomsday scenarios, let's posit the question of what if the next proposal in queue is not subject to a contentious legality question or has already been cleared for vote? It should be able to proceed to vote without the mods holding everything up for four days because one proposal may or may not be off.

Guess it's time to draft up the most borderline proposal we can imagine in advance of a test run right?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Rather than indulging hypothetical doomsday scenarios, let's posit the question of what if the next proposal in queue is not subject to a contentious legality question or has already been cleared for vote? It should be able to proceed to vote without the mods holding everything up for four days because one proposal may or may not be off.

So now we expect mods to figure whether or not the next proposal in queue is likely to receive a last minute legality challenge before using the hold function?

And the only remedy is to completely halt the queue for half a week?

Why not a 24-hour gap before new proposals come to vote, which used to exist before? Actually before it was more like an 18-hour gap, but any time buffer to ensure there are fewer surprises than necessary would be better than halting all GA business while the mods review a hold on a single proposal. A 24-hour gap would effectively extend the delay to five days, but given the choice of extending logjams by five days or one, people would reasonably choose the latter.

[Excidium Planetis]

So now we expect mods to figure whether or not the next proposal in queue is likely to receive a last minute legality challenge before using the hold function?

And the only remedy is to completely halt the queue for half a week?

Why not a 24-hour gap before new proposals come to vote, which used to exist before? Actually before it was more like an 18-hour gap, but any time buffer to ensure there are fewer surprises than necessary would be better than halting all GA business while the mods review a hold on a single proposal. A 24-hour gap would effectively extend the delay to five days, but given the choice of extending logjams by five days or one, people would reasonably choose the latter.

Alright, how about this: the next proposal is legal, but it would make the held proposal illegal if it passes. The author of the proposal that is behind files a GHR against the first proposal, waits for it to be held, and then their own proposal goes to vote first.

I can't think of too many times this sort of thing could happen, closest I recall was Sierra Lyricalia submitting AI Coexistence Protocol just prior to my submission of Rights of Sapient Species, where arguably if my resolution had been submitted first the former would have been duplication. Not sure if such a challenge would have held up, but this was an example that such a thing could have happened.

EDIT:
It just occurs to me that this could be intentionally used after a repeal, in which there are multiple competing replacements. Submit your own right after the first replacement, file a legality challenge, and when the hold happens, your own resolution goes to vote first.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

And the only remedy is to completely halt the queue for half a week?

Why not a 24-hour gap before new proposals come to vote, which used to exist before? Actually before it was more like an 18-hour gap, but any time buffer to ensure there are fewer surprises than necessary would be better than halting all GA business while the mods review a hold on a single proposal. A 24-hour gap would effectively extend the delay to five days, but given the choice of extending logjams by five days or one, people would reasonably choose the latter.

Alright, how about this: the next proposal is legal, but it would make the held proposal illegal if it passes. The author of the proposal that is behind files a GHR against the first proposal, waits for it to be held, and then their own proposal goes to vote first.

I can't think of too many times this sort of thing could happen, closest I recall was Sierra Lyricalia submitting AI Coexistence Protocol just prior to my submission of Rights of Sapient Species, where arguably if my resolution had been submitted first the former would have been duplication. Not sure if such a challenge would have held up, but this was an example that such a thing could have happened.

EDIT:
It just occurs to me that this could be intentionally used after a repeal, in which there are multiple competing replacements. Submit your own right after the first replacement, file a legality challenge, and when the hold happens, your own resolution goes to vote first.

Would giving the Legality Council the ability to allot warning points help with this? Like when you submit a proposal that's pulled by the mods for being straight-up obviously illegal, if you do that two more times you get kicked out the WA. If the LC determines a challenge is frivolous or somehow ill-conceived or designed to procedure-kill rather than on the merits... then they can notify moderation, who can put one of those warning points on the challenging nation.

I don't know if it's technically feasible to put that warning as a manual button instead of an automatic trigger, and I don't think it would prevent 100% of these bad challenges, but I'm guessing the threat would be the simplest way to prevent most of them.

Or is this a little too "mini-mod" power-enabling to be at all on the table?

[The Blaatschapen]

EDIT:
It just occurs to me that this could be intentionally used after a repeal, in which there are multiple competing replacements. Submit your own right after the first replacement, file a legality challenge, and when the hold happens, your own resolution goes to vote first.

Can't we just hold such proposals as well?

Simply by filing say a "similarity complaint" and the mods/council put a hold on said proposal as well, to ensure that no shenanigans happen?


Simply put, when a hold happens all similar/overlapping proposals etc. will also be held. That way truely unrelated proposals can still go forward.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If the primary concern is about competing proposals on the same subject getting an unfair advantage even though they were submitted later, then fine. I have no problem with holding both. But just as blaat said, unrelated items should be allowed to proceed.

[Separatist Peoples]

Isn't this no different than pushing a similar, competing proposal to quorum faster than the first? If the proposal submitted second makes quorum one update before the first and passes, then the proposal submitted first is removed without penalty. Simple.

I question the number of times that an actual illegality will be missed until the eleventh hour, and also be strategically situated. I just think that those scenarios will be too few and far between to be an issue, at least on the onset. If it becomes an issue later, it should be addressed then. The convoluted What-If?s are starting to seem obstructionist, not helpful.

[Hannasea]

OK, so obviously we're waiting to hear back on the hold.

Maybe in the meantime we should steer conversation back to some of the basics of the Council?

[Talkistan]

I have a feeling this will be shot down as soon as I suggest it, but I'll throw it in just for the sake of adding options to the table.

How about a Council with a mix of administrative and political appointees?

1. The administrative appointees will be mod-selected and ensure illegal proposals do not get to the queue vote.

2. The political appointees will be elected by WA nations and will have the power to raise or lower the threshold for quorum for each proposal(by say, 2%).

3. Both administrative and political appointees may weigh in on all council discussions, but administrative appointees will have the vote on legal matters and political appointees will have the vote on political matters.

[Louisistan]

2. The political appointees will be elected by WA nations and will have the power to raise or lower the threshold for quorum for each proposal(by say, 2%).

Why?

[Wallenburg]

1. The administrative appointees will be mod-selected and ensure illegal proposals do not get to the queue.

Impossible. You cannot remove a proposal from the queue before it even gets there.

2. The political appointees will be elected by WA nations and will have the power to raise or lower the threshold for quorum for each proposal(by say, 2%).

Why should they be elected, and why should we have them touch the quorum requirement? I don't think code even exists yet to let anyone do that.

3. Both administrative and political appointees may weigh in on all council discussions, but administrative appointees will have the vote on legal matters and political appointees will have the vote on political matters.

What exactly are "political matters"?

[Christian Democrats]

I think the council, though having binding authority, should have it's decisions officially delivered through the moderators. They should be unedited and unaltered, but the community should consolidate the executive authority of actually executing legality rulings to the mods. That will leave no call for either party to overturn the rulings of another without specifically reversing an interpretive holding.

I agree. The moderators should also deliver dissents, unedited and unaltered with names withdrawn, as well.