Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Bananaistan]

Given that the council is only an advisory body to the mods during the trial period, I wouldn't be inclined to be concerned about the numbers. After all, even a 6-0 decision to remove won't be applied if the mods disagree.

@ Sedge, thanks for your answers to some of my queries listed above.

In relation to the 3 or 4 points that haven't since been replied to or discussed (1: entirely private forum, 2: do passed rulings form binding precedent or, at best, persuasive precedent, 3: blanket legality checks, and 4: independence of councillors regarding co-authored proposals or proposals where they made significant contributions), would it be fair to assume given the lack of replies, that these matters are still open?

[Tzorsland]

Why 4-2 to remove and not 4-2 to keep? Why not an odd number and a simple majority required either way?

If a proposal has been submitted to the council, it will still require a mod operation to remove. Thus the positive action would be for the council to suggest that it be removed. The default action would be to let it continue to vote. Therefore the majority vote would be required to remove, not to keep.

This is a trial period. I'm not really worried about a 3-3 split. Like the Supreme Court, this would then, in theory hand the decision to the mods with the understanding that this is a complex issue in the first place. Ideally, this should be allowed to continue to a vote and let the member nations decide it. In the past resolutions have gone to the floor and people were able to convince the majority not to pass them.

Let us first of all recall, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." We don't want a "perfect" system ... this is the trial period. We just want a good one. I'm hoping that we can get a lot of 5-1 decisions and the occasional 4-2. If we start getting a lot of 3-3 decisions, there are a lot more things to think about the council than just adding one more member.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why 4-2 to remove and not 4-2 to keep? Why not an odd number and a simple majority required either way?

If a proposal has been submitted to the council, it will still require a mod operation to remove. Thus the positive action would be for the council to suggest that it be removed. The default action would be to let it continue to vote. Therefore the majority vote would be required to remove, not to keep.

This is a trial period. I'm not really worried about a 3-3 split. Like the Supreme Court, this would then, in theory hand the decision to the mods with the understanding that this is a complex issue in the first place. Ideally, this should be allowed to continue to a vote and let the member nations decide it. In the past resolutions have gone to the floor and people were able to convince the majority not to pass them.

Let us first of all recall, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." We don't want a "perfect" system ... this is the trial period. We just want a good one. I'm hoping that we can get a lot of 5-1 decisions and the occasional 4-2. If we start getting a lot of 3-3 decisions, there are a lot more things to think about the council than just adding one more member.

Certainly this is irrelevant for the trial period. That said, the only benefit to allowing a tie automatically declaring something "legal" is that it gives an inherent advantage to the "Legal" side and a disadvantage to the "Illegal" side. In order to declare something illegal, there must be a minimum of 4 votes, but in order to declare something legal, it need only acquire 3. That isn't fair.

I'd be happy if the mods added an extra seat now, but I would really have to insist on the mods making an odd number of seats by the time the trial period is over.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yes. 6 members seems like a bad idea in the case of a tie.

[Wallenburg]

Yes. 6 members seems like a bad idea in the case of a tie.

Also, 6 is a very low number given that council members will not always have time to participate. A total vote count of 5 would be quite common, and votes by only 4 council members would still happen on occasion. Raising the number to 7 would reduce the issue of an easily swayed vote.

[Tinhampton]

For telegrams, there are already tags where telegrams, campaign or otherwise, can be sent to all WA members (tag:WA) or just the delegates (tag:Delegates). Are there any plans for a similar tag for Secretariat members (perhaps tag:Secretariat or tag:Council)? Justify your decision if possible.

[Wallenburg]

For telegrams, there are already tags where telegrams, campaign or otherwise, can be sent to all WA members (tag:WA) or just the delegates (tag:Delegates). Are there any plans for a similar tag for Secretariat members (perhaps tag:Secretariat or tag:Council)? Justify your decision if possible.

I don't think such a tag would be necessary. There will only be 6-7 members on the Council, as it currently looks, and you can message that many people in a single group TG.

[Talkistan]

For telegrams, there are already tags where telegrams, campaign or otherwise, can be sent to all WA members (tag:WA) or just the delegates (tag:Delegates). Are there any plans for a similar tag for Secretariat members (perhaps tag:Secretariat or tag:Council)? Justify your decision if possible.

Interesting, because the sending of TGs to Councilors for discussion purposes should probably not be encouraged. We really don't want people thinking that it might be more effective to telegram the Councilors than conduct a tag:Delegates or tag:WA campaign against a proposal.

[Mousebumples]

For telegrams, there are already tags where telegrams, campaign or otherwise, can be sent to all WA members (tag:WA) or just the delegates (tag:Delegates). Are there any plans for a similar tag for Secretariat members (perhaps tag:Secretariat or tag:Council)? Justify your decision if possible.

Interesting, because the sending of TGs to Councilors for discussion purposes should probably not be encouraged. We really don't want people thinking that it might be more effective to telegram the Councilors than conduct a tag:Delegates or tag:WA campaign against a proposal.

Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.

[Araraukar]

Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.

Maybe setting it as a rule that the Council members can't be bugged about Council stuff via TGs, just like the mods can't be bugged about mod stuff?

[Bears Armed]

Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.

Maybe setting it as a rule that the Council members can't be bugged about Council stuff via TGs, just like the mods can't be bugged about mod stuff?

Seconded.

[Kryozerkia]

Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.

Maybe setting it as a rule that the Council members can't be bugged about Council stuff via TGs, just like the mods can't be bugged about mod stuff?

This is an excellent idea.

[The Blaatschapen]

Interesting, because the sending of TGs to Councilors for discussion purposes should probably not be encouraged. We really don't want people thinking that it might be more effective to telegram the Councilors than conduct a tag:Delegates or tag:WA campaign against a proposal.

Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.

Mentors and Mods get Postmaster-General accounts. We have to talk to the boss, but giving them to Councillors (do Editors have them? I dunno) is perhaps not out of the quesiton.

Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.

Maybe setting it as a rule that the Council members can't be bugged about Council stuff via TGs, just like the mods can't be bugged about mod stuff?

People can. I mean, it's not strictly against the rules, we (generally) just don't respond, or block, or tell you to go to GHR/Moderation forum. For we simply do not moderate per TG. Warnings are unlikely unless you TG past block with a puppet after which it becomes harassment.

...

So while we could implement the rule, and perhaps even start warning people for TGing councillors on council matters, it would be post-fact and TGs would still be forced out of their inboxes.

So personally, I'd go for PG accounts regardless of how we come down in the end on TG operations with regards to councillors.

Just to be on the safe side.

[Araraukar]

Mentors and Mods get Postmaster-General accounts. We have to talk to the boss, but giving them to Councillors (do Editors have them? I dunno) is perhaps not out of the quesiton.

I couldn't function without that enhancement, so if that's possible to give to the Councilors, it would definitely help them a lot!

For we simply do not moderate per TG.

That's what I meant. It would also help Councilors not getting warned for posting something on the forums that a forumbanned person TG'd them.

[Excidium Planetis]

Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.

Mentors and Mods get Postmaster-General accounts. We have to talk to the boss, but giving them to Councillors (do Editors have them? I dunno) is perhaps not out of the quesiton.

You mean I could have saved $10 if I just worked towards becoming a Mentor? I feel cheated.

[Mousebumples]

Mentors and Mods get Postmaster-General accounts. We have to talk to the boss, but giving them to Councillors (do Editors have them? I dunno) is perhaps not out of the quesiton.

You mean I could have saved $10 if I just worked towards becoming a Mentor? I feel cheated.

Welcome to the club. I noted after being modded that my "site supporter" badge disappeared ... but that's because the Moderator badge overrides it. Not sure if the same happens for other groups, provided larger mailboxes are given out to them too ...

... But we're getting off-topic.

[Maljaratas]

Apologies for butting in (and being off-topic)

Mentors and Mods get Postmaster-General accounts. We have to talk to the boss, but giving them to Councillors (do Editors have them? I dunno) is perhaps not out of the quesiton.

You mean I could have saved $10 if I just worked towards becoming a Mentor? I feel cheated.

Welcome to the club. I noted after being modded that my "site supporter" badge disappeared ... but that's because the Moderator badge overrides it. Not sure if the same happens for other groups, provided larger mailboxes are given out to them too ...

... But we're getting off-topic.

I looked through all of the non-modly, non-CTEd Issue Editors. Two of them have Postmaster, and two have PG. There appears to be no badge for being an Editor. I can't tell if they just all happened to purchase one, or if Postmaster is given for free to Editors.

[Sedgistan]

IEs have Postmaster status. There's no reason that Secretariat members wouldn't also.

[States of Glory WA Office]

IEs have Postmaster status. There's no reason that Secretariat members wouldn't also.

Now I'm going to be confused whenever someone says that the Secretariat has ruled their proposal to be (il)legal.

[Araraukar]

IEs have Postmaster status. There's no reason that Secretariat members wouldn't also.

Now I'm going to be confused whenever someone says that the Secretariat has ruled their proposal to be (il)legal.

I'm still hoping it'll be named as something that does not shorten to SC. I think that's why most of us are talking about Council and councilors.

[Separatist Peoples]

Now I'm going to be confused whenever someone says that the Secretariat has ruled their proposal to be (il)legal.

I'm still hoping it'll be named as something that does not shorten to SC. I think that's why most of us are talking about Council and councilors.

Appellate Board.

[Araraukar]

I'm still hoping it'll be named as something that does not shorten to SC. I think that's why most of us are talking about Council and councilors.

Appellate Board.

Or just GA Council.

[Separatist Peoples]

Appellate Board.

Or just GA Council.

Nope. The term Appellate should be in there. It sounds neat.

[Araraukar]

Nope. The term Appellate should be in there. It sounds neat.

It sounds alien. "Appeal" would be better; yes, it means the same thing, but "appeal" is normal English.

Altough the way the council would work, it wouldn't be handling appeals, but rather legality requests/concerns/submissions, and presumably their decisions might be appealable (I say might, because I don't know how the mod team hopes to deal with it on their end).

EDIT: An appellate court rules on decisions made by other courts. The council would be the first court to make the decision, not the second.

[Separatist Peoples]

Nope. The term Appellate should be in there. It sounds neat.

It sounds alien. "Appeal" would be better; yes, it means the same thing, but "appeal" is normal English.

Altough the way the council would work, it wouldn't be handling appeals, but rather legality requests/concerns/submissions, and presumably their decisions might be appealable (I say might, because I don't know how the mod team hopes to deal with it on their end).

EDIT: An appellate court rules on decisions made by other courts. The council would be the first court to make the decision, not the second.

I'm acutely aware of the job of an appellate court. However, the Council is functioning more like an appellate court than as a trial court, which would be the court of original complaint. There is no question of fact, only of law. There are not multiple parties, in the general way of things, simply a single question. It is, essentially, like a court that hands out declaratory justice.

And, of course, it won't deal solely with new law, but existing rulings that it must overturn. A trial court can't overturn anything. And a trial court has but one judge. The council, to extend the metaphor, will have six. Ish. I think.

Appellate is normal English. It is the adjective mood of Appeal.