General Assembly Q&A

[Sciongrad]

And with all due respect to Sedgistan, when did he become a GA mod?

Sedge can step into the GA when we're shorthanded, as we were much of last week. Similarly I or one of the other GA mods might step into the SC when they're shorthanded over there.

I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive, but do you guys know what might be more effective than having mods with no experience in a particular forum contribute to game changing rulings?

Adding more mods from that forum.

[Sciongrad]

Yet it's no longer considered a "fundamental rule of the game".

Yet, Fris also says that 'What you can say is "my nation chooses to break these rules" ', which would imply that a nation can break these rules. I don't see how compliance could be as wand-wavy as how you describe it.

Also, I think there is a fundamental difference in how people are describing compliance here. If we are to say that GA resolutions are role-play, then we must also accept the consequences of that role-play. And saying acknowledgement of non-compliance is somehow forced role-play, seems to me, ignorant of the fact that most people would tell you that this Wizard-did-it™ compliance is blatant god-modding.

No one in this thread is suggesting that mandatory compliance is magic compliance à la Mouse. In fact, not two posts ago did Gruen explain that compliance is not magic or automatic.

Fries also acknowledged that non-compliance can occur, but that it should not occur in the GA forums. Which is consistent with how most players understand non-compliance.

[Hannasea]

Yet, Fris also says that 'What you can say is "my nation chooses to break these rules" ', which would imply that a nation can break these rules. I don't see how compliance could be as wand-wavy as how you describe it.

That's not an accurate interpretation of his stance. No one that I've seen has said noncompliance roleplay is not permitted - in the Diplomacy forums, RMBs, Dispatches, Wiki articles, whatever. It's just:

Also pretty much this. What you're describing is roleplay, and should be played out in a roleplay environment with other players who don't care about your godmodding.

A WA resolution is not such an environment, unless you can somehow get all however many thousand WA members to consent to that roleplay.

While I do disagree with the ruling change

I'm just glad you guys bother to take some time to talk here in modly stance at all

I have to second this, thank you for at least engaging. I just wish it had come before the ruling change given we don't really know the reasoning that motivated it and it's now too late for the discussion to even have an impact, given it can't be appealed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yet, Fris also says that 'What you can say is "my nation chooses to break these rules" ', which would imply that a nation can break these rules. I don't see how compliance could be as wand-wavy as how you describe it.

Also, I think there is a fundamental difference in how people are describing compliance here. If we are to say that GA resolutions are role-play, then we must also accept the consequences of that role-play. And saying acknowledgement of non-compliance is somehow forced role-play, seems to me, ignorant of the fact that most people would tell you that this Wizard-did-it™ compliance is blatant god-modding.

No one in this thread is suggesting that mandatory compliance is magic compliance à la Mouse. In fact, not two posts ago did Gruen explain that compliance is not magic or automatic.

I see that as magic compliance. Returning to the carrots, if the resolution says carrots are banned, how exactly are laws going to be changed without the use of magic to effect such a ban?

[Araraukar]

Adding more mods from that forum.

Now that I remember... are you willing to be nominated to be one?

[Sedgistan]

If that line from the FAQ was completely an OOC one, it wouldn't say anything about obeying, and would instead explain how the game reacts to resolutions passing by changing national stats of WA nations.

The line in the FAQ can be rephrased to make clearer it's referring to game mechanics if needs be.

Sedge can step into the GA when we're shorthanded, as we were much of last week. Similarly I or one of the other GA mods might step into the SC when they're shorthanded over there.

I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive, but do you guys know what might be more effective than having mods with no experience in a particular forum contribute to game changing rulings?

Adding more mods from that forum.

That's not entirely fair. I might not be involved in the General Assembly, and I'd never claim to be an expert on it - but I do have some experience in the GA. I was contributing to rulings here before your previous nation was founded.

Look, we're well aware that moderation here isn't perfect. We've tried the "add more mods" approach in the past; it hasn't worked. The GA needs more people than we're prepared to add to the team, because players want a set of standards enforced here beyond the basic stripped-down type of ruleset the SC has. That's not laying the blame on players; you're allowed to want certain standards enforced. We're looking at other means of doing so, and in the next couple of days will post something up here. Note: that'll be a consultation with GAers - we're not going to force a new system on you, and it will be a discussion, not us dictating what happens.

[Imperium Anglorum]

wouldn’t that mean that under this new ruling it would now be legal to try repealing just about any previous resolution – except for those that are themselves Repeals, of course — on the grounds that its lack of an enforcement mechanism makes it useless?

One could have already done that for the vast majority of resolutions with: 'Noting that nothing in this resolution requires that member nations actually prosecute or punish offenders for violations thereof'. I don't see how anything has changed.

[Araraukar]

Note: that'll be a consultation with GAers - we're not going to force a new system on you, and it will be a discussion, not us dictating what happens.

Thank you.

Returning to the carrots, if the resolution says carrots are banned, how exactly are laws going to be changed without the use of magic to effect such a ban?

Same way as the UNmentionable organization works in real life; when you sign up, you agree to follow its resolutions and to change your national laws to fit the resolutions, and as new resolutions pass, you either resign (which, admittedly, probably wouldn't happen in RL, but then that world's much more restricted than our multiverse ) or agree to stick to the original pact you made with the organization and thus change your laws to fit the new, passed resolution.

I honestly don't get what's so magically hand-wavy about that. Nobody's forcing nations to stay in the WA! (Note: my anger about this is not directed at IA nor the mods nor any one person around here. This whole suddenly problematic noncompliance issue that never was an issue before, is what's making me grind my teeth.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

you either resign (which, admittedly, probably wouldn't happen in RL, but then that world's much more restricted than our multiverse :p) or agree to stick to the original pact you made with the organization and thus change your laws to fit the new, passed resolution.

Well, if we take the voluntary approach towards compliance, i.e. that nations change their laws because they joined, what happens when a nation doesn't change their laws then? If we are to take a voluntary approach towards the manner in which carrots are banned, then we must also accept that non-compliance exists, otherwise, we would have to invoke magic to explain why nations which do not want to change their laws do so.

[Araraukar]

Well, if we take the voluntary approach towards compliance, i.e. that nations change their laws because they joined, what happens when a nation doesn't change their laws then?

If we were allowed to roleplay it that way, they'd naturally be kicked out of the WA. But since trying to do that in a resolution counts as metagaming (while saying nations can ignore things they can't gamewise ignore somehow isn't), you can't. Thus, recursively, you can't not change your laws. It either works both ways or it doesn't work at all.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, if we take the voluntary approach towards compliance, i.e. that nations change their laws because they joined, what happens when a nation doesn't change their laws then?

If we were allowed to roleplay it that way, they'd naturally be kicked out of the WA. But since trying to do that in a resolution counts as metagaming (while saying nations can ignore things they can't gamewise ignore somehow isn't), you can't. Thus, recursively, you can't not change your laws. It either works both ways or it doesn't work at all.

But they aren't and people do role-play it that way.

---

Also pretty much this. What you're describing is roleplay, and should be played out in a roleplay environment with other players who don't care about your godmodding.

A WA resolution is not such an environment, unless you can somehow get all however many thousand WA members to consent to that roleplay.

Considering how strongly the WA populace supports national sovereigntist proposals, I bet if a great poll was done of the many thousand WA members, they would say mandatory compliance doesn't exist.

[Araraukar]

But they aren't and people do role-play it that way.

...what?

Ok, simplifying a step further...

Meet Bob.

Bob has a club. The club has rules you need to follow, but it's got a nice place to hang out and talk with people while playing silly games.

Meet John.

John thinks Bob's club sounds like a nice place and he'd like to join.

Bob tells John that he can join the club, but only if John promises to follow all the club's rules, both current and future, but John gets to suggest new rules and also vote on suggested rules.

Time passes, some new rules are added, John's happy in the club.

Then, one day, there's a new rule suggested; that you're not allowed to wear hats indoors where the club hangs out at.

John doesn't like this new rule, since he prefers to keep his hat on. Maybe he has started to go grey or bald, or has a skin disease, or maybe his head just gets really cold without the hat on. Whatever the reason is, it's his own reason and doesn't concern the others.

John has two real choices: he can either not wear his hat indoors when he hangs out at the club's hang-out place, or he can leave the club, keep wearing his hat, and see if the club lets him hang around them at the hang-out place even though he's not in the club.

Bob says John can continue to hang out with them, but he can't be in the club if he doesn't agree to the rules.

John doesn't want to leave the club. Maybe he's bragged about being in the club to coworkers and being kicked out because of his personal dislike at taking his hat off would feel humiliating. Whatever the reason is, it's a personal one and doesn't concern the others.

The club convenes at their hang-out place, but John insists on wearing the hat and saying he's part of the club. What can the others do? They can completely ignore John's existence and if someone asks them if John is in the club, they can show that person how the club rules say that if you wear your hat indoors at the club's hang-out place, you're not in the club.

Thus, John is not in the club, even if he continues to claim he is.

Are we on the same page yet?

Now, if the only single way the new ruling will allow the above to apply to the GA forum and resolution writing, then we as an RP community will be forced to completely ignore anyone who won't even deign to call their noncompliance "creative compliance", if we want to continue to take our RP seriously.

I don't like that solution. I'd prefer that John just left the club but continued to hang out with the club members, as that's obviously (using myself as an example here) possible and acceptable to the rest of the club.

Considering how strongly the WA populace supports national sovereigntist proposals, I bet if a great poll was done of the many thousand WA members, they would say mandatory compliance doesn't exist.

That would only be fair if you restricted the poll to the people who actually frequent this forum and are thus aware of the IC aspect of this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Now, if the only single way the new ruling will allow the above to apply to the GA forum and resolution writing, then we as an RP community will be forced to completely ignore anyone who won't even deign to call their noncompliance "creative compliance", if we want to continue to take our RP seriously.

I don't like that solution. I'd prefer that John just left the club but continued to hang out with the club members, as that's obviously (using myself as an example here) possible and acceptable to the rest of the club.

Nor do I. I'd also prefer that WA non-compliance was ejected... but that isn't possible, will probably never happen, and doesn't happen. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts of how the World Assembly works, as quite simply, the WA does not eject people for non-compliance. Note that when I speak of the WA, I am speaking of it in a role-play sense.

Also, such a sentiment loses none of its veracity in the new world we have here. One could just as easily say, 'Then leave the WA if you hate it so much' and 'You joined voluntarily, which means you should follow the rules. If you don't want to, leave'.

Considering how strongly the WA populace supports national sovereigntist proposals, I bet if a great poll was done of the many thousand WA members, they would say mandatory compliance doesn't exist.

That would only be fair if you restricted the poll to the people who actually frequent this forum and are thus aware of the IC aspect of this.

Well, he said many thousands. There's only 10 or so active regulars and maybe ~150 players have ever authored a resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Sedge can step into the GA when we're shorthanded, as we were much of last week. Similarly I or one of the other GA mods might step into the SC when they're shorthanded over there.

I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive, but do you guys know what might be more effective than having mods with no experience in a particular forum contribute to game changing rulings?

Adding more mods from that forum.

Its a shame there isn't a way for forum regulars to weigh in on mod proceedings regarding GA policy without having to be modded. If the team isn't prepared to add moderators to the team at this time, that would fill the gap. Unfortunately, that would also interfere with their participation in the forum, and further remove individuals who are experienced from the process in order to eliminate any conflicts of interest.

Blegh.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive, but do you guys know what might be more effective than having mods with no experience in a particular forum contribute to game changing rulings?

Adding more mods from that forum.

Its a shame there isn't a way for forum regulars to weigh in on mod proceedings regarding GA policy without having to be modded. If the team isn't prepared to add moderators to the team at this time, that would fill the gap. Unfortunately, that would also interfere with their participation in the forum, and further remove individuals who are experienced from the process in order to eliminate any conflicts of interest.

It seems to me that this has moved away from 'discuss the issue' and into 'we need to stack the court'. Since that's basically when adding more mods (especially the mods which agree with me) sounds like.

[Araraukar]

Also, such a statement loses none of its veracity in the new world we have here. One could just as easily say, 'Then leave the WA if you hate it so much' and 'You joined voluntarily, which means you should follow the rules. If you don't want to, leave'.

We already tell that to people, and then we ignore the people, because to have any effect on the RP side of this forum, you have to abide by the resolutions or at the very least come up with clever excuses why you don't, because why the fuck would you want people here that don't care about the RP at all? And why the fuck (I wish English had a more incendiary swear word that wasn't offensive to half the RL religions) would those people want to do anything to the RP side of the WA?

The majority of WA nations who aren't in it just for the nice badge, are in it for Gameplay, aka SC. SC is not and can not be pure RP with minor gameside effects. It's more pure OOC (gameside) stuff with minor RP gilding.

I for one refuse to believe that the Mods would be so cruel as to take away the only side of WA that works in IC. And if so, I'd really like an Admin to weigh in on such a decision.

I'll wait to see what Sedge hinted at before, and I hope as hell that it's not something that's geared towards making GA more like SC.

Well, he said many thousands. There's only 10 or so active regulars and maybe ~150 players have ever authored a resolution.

And you're now actively campaigning to get even the 10 or so active regulars to leave this aspect of WA to die? I really don't get your reasoning here.

EDIT: I haven't slept anywhere near enough in the past 48 hours, and I know I'm probably too emotionally vested in this issue, since GA RP and resolution debates - not this behind the scenes arguing - are pretty much the only reason I even log onto NS anymore. I'm going to ignore this particular issue and related arguments and just presume compliance is mandatory in IC responses, until Sedge & co. post their new suggestion thingy, and/or until I've had minimum of 12 hours of sleep, whichever comes first.

[Sedgistan]

I'll wait to see what Sedge hinted at before, and I hope as hell that it's not something that's geared towards making GA more like SC.

I believe we tried that with the Honest Mistake rule change, and saw just how well it went down.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, he said many thousands. There's only 10 or so active regulars and maybe ~150 players have ever authored a resolution.

And you're now actively campaigning to get even the 10 or so active regulars to leave this aspect of WA to die? I really don't get your reasoning here.

I'm actively campaigning for something? My reasoning is that if the consent of WA members is required to have non-compliance, then it can almost certainly be got. My response to your 'then limit it to the regulars' is that Gruen didn't say that. He said many thousands.

And in response to the other part – I'd say nothing has changed. We can still do all the things you say we can or cannot do. Also, I think that more fundamental here is a divide between what kind of RP we want in the GA. I, for one, would like to see a WA that is more like a real world UN, which acts realistically and does not resort to gnomes, hand-waving, wizards, or magic anywhere.

[Kelssek]

I, for one, would like to see a WA that is more like a real world UN, which acts realistically and does not resort to gnomes, hand-waving, wizards, or magic anywhere.

That's a very odd statement given you're pushing for enforcement of compliance, which is exactly what the real world UN has no capability to do.

[Christian Democrats]

Look, we're well aware that moderation here isn't perfect.

That's an understatement.

We've tried the "add more mods" approach in the past; it hasn't worked.

Perhaps, you guys could start by not disqualifying everyone who has "baggage" -- i.e., almost all GA authors.

The GA needs more people than we're prepared to add to the team, because players want a set of standards enforced here beyond the basic stripped-down type of ruleset the SC has. That's not laying the blame on players; you're allowed to want certain standards enforced. We're looking at other means of doing so, and in the next couple of days will post something up here.

I'll repeat what I've suggested elsewhere in the past. The GA Rules should be enforced by a mixture of moderators and GA judges, who would be similar to RP Mentors and whose proceedings would be conducted in public and with a clear appeals process.

EDIT: I'm thinking of something similar to the lay judge system that is used in several civil law nations.

[Bears Armed]

I, for one, would like to see a WA that is more like a real world UN, which acts realistically and does not resort to gnomes, hand-waving, wizards, or magic anywhere.

Show urrs a 'legal' way to get this altered WA a membership that includes anywhere near as high a proportion of the nations around [and of the 'powers' around] as the RL-UN has... Without that, relying on peer pressure to encourage compliance -- which you suggested recently -- would be pretty hopeless.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I, for one, would like to see a WA that is more like a real world UN, which acts realistically and does not resort to gnomes, hand-waving, wizards, or magic anywhere.

That's a very odd statement given you're pushing for enforcement of compliance, which is exactly what the real world UN has no capability to do.

That'd be very odd, if I had meant that. I mean that the WA should end its invocation of magic for any reason. If we can write resolutions which patch out the magic, we ought do it for the sake of cohesion. The part of compliance enforcement (or really, here, policing,) has to do with solving part of the issue that the UN faces itself.

We've tried the "add more mods" approach in the past; it hasn't worked.

Perhaps, you guys could start by not disqualifying everyone who has "baggage" -- i.e., almost all GA authors.

Well, if we did that, then we would have to adopt a system in which anyone who becomes a mod must also become a mod opposite a person with opposing political views. So, if (as stated somewhere in this thread) Sciongrad were to be a GA mod, then a NatSov should also be raised to the position to maintain balance. Otherwise, it's just stacking the Court in one direction.

[Hannasea]

I don't see how adding more moderators is going to help anything. It didn't last time, nor the time before.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't see how adding more moderators is going to help anything. It didn't last time, nor the time before.

I have to agree with this. But rather, because adding moderators will do nothing except move our discussions and disagreements to a different forum. I don't see how it would solve any of our long-standing disagreements or problems — it would just mean we vote on them after a very similar discussion instead.

EDIT: Also, it would mean that half the players would further be unable to play. Moderators passing resolutions and pursuing a political agenda as most regulars do would look very bad indeed and be the perfect thing for the next generation of players to saddle with abuse claims. Any unfavourable ruling, given a moderator who is also politically active, would be interpreted not as a ruling, but rather, as a politically motivated attempt by some established players to shut down newer players attempts at change.

[Sciongrad]

That's not entirely fair. I might not be involved in the General Assembly, and I'd never claim to be an expert on it - but I do have some experience in the GA. I was contributing to rulings here before your previous nation was founded.

Look, we're well aware that moderation here isn't perfect. We've tried the "add more mods" approach in the past; it hasn't worked. The GA needs more people than we're prepared to add to the team, because players want a set of standards enforced here beyond the basic stripped-down type of ruleset the SC has. That's not laying the blame on players; you're allowed to want certain standards enforced. We're looking at other means of doing so, and in the next couple of days will post something up here. Note: that'll be a consultation with GAers - we're not going to force a new system on you, and it will be a discussion, not us dictating what happens.

You're right, that was more dismissive than intended for it to be. Of course I acknowledge that you, and other non-GA moderators have been participating in this forum for a while, but at the same time, it would probably be wise for you guys to recognize that there is an asymmetry of knowledge between regulars and moderators - and I don't mean that in a rude way, seriously. I seriously think that players, right now, know more about this particular aspect of the game than the moderators. That's what happens when the moderators don't actively participate in this forum. Some say adding more moderators is a poor idea because it hasn't worked in the past, but I think that argument is incomplete. The only recent moderator additions were unsuccessful because they either added players who were out of touch with the GA (Mouse and Mall), or they only added a single moderator who couldn't possibly seriously influence moderator decisions (Wrapper). You guys have admitted yourselves many times that the GA moderators don't engage with the community anywhere near often enough, and that you're so understaffed that you need to enlist help from moderators from other forums. I know some players think appointing new moderators won't do anything, but that's only because the moderators themselves have not made a real effort to recruit an adequate amount of players. And I don't necessarily think adding moderators is the only solution. CD's idea of GA mentors who would actively contribute to rulings is equally as effective, in my opinion.

Arguments that advocating for more moderators is somehow the equivalent of court stacking are misguided. The GA players are really not that divided about the meta game. Most recent moderator decisions have garnered universal scorn rather than having incited partisan bickering.

I don't see how adding more moderators is going to help anything. It didn't last time, nor the time before.

I have to agree with this. But rather, because adding moderators will do nothing except move our discussions and disagreements to a different forum. I don't see how it would solve any of our long-standing disagreements or problems — it would just mean we vote on them after a very similar discussion instead.

Disagreements? Was there disagreement over the moderator reinterpretation of the Honest Mistake rule? Was there player disagreement when the moderators removed Bananaistan's resolution from the queue for no reason a couple of months ago? Was there player disagreement when you (no offense) misinterpreted the English language in your repeal of GAR#325? Is there even real player disagreement now over the new interpretation of the non-compliance rule? The players are largely in agreement most of the time. The real divide in opinion is not amongst players, but between players and moderators.