Split SC from GA Completely

[Gauntleted Fist]

That looks fine to me.

Same here.

I expected to come back in the morning and find my 3:00 am proposals torn to shreds by my valiant SC/GA fellows, and, to my complete shock (Shock, I tell you.), find that two seem to think my ideas hold some small semblance of usefulness.

Thanks for the support, people.

Now, is there anything in it them you think could be improved? (Improvements that would make it easier on the administrators are especially appreciated.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

Since [violet] wants specifics, this is what I think is a fair solution: (We'll call it The Unibot Model. )

1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"

2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.

3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions separated by Security Council/General Assembly types.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the separation of the Security Council/General Assembly.

4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current General Assembly proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.

5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current Security Council proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.

--
Feel free to modify as you wish, fellow posters. I'm sure there are many a problem with this.

(Also, terribly sorry if I've misunderstood the desires of other posters.)

This is pretty agreeable. But, we should mention that it's fine for the GA and SC to have the same proposal queue pages (where delegates approve of proposals), like we do now. I don't think that's been made clear enough. :\

[Gauntleted Fist]

This is pretty agreeable. But, we should mention that it's fine for the GA and SC to have the same proposal queue pages (where delegates approve of proposals), like we do now. I don't think that's been made clear enough. :\

So, something like this?

1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"

2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.

3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions separated by Security Council/General Assembly types.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the separation of the Security Council/General Assembly.
e) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Since [violet] wants specifics, this is what I think is a fair solution: (We'll call it The Unibot Model. )

1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"

2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.

3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions separated by Security Council/General Assembly types.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the separation of the Security Council/General Assembly.

4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current General Assembly proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.

5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to the current Security Council proposals that are attempting to reach quorum.

--
Feel free to modify as you wish, fellow posters. I'm sure there are many a problem with this.

(Also, terribly sorry if I've misunderstood the desires of other posters.)

That's what I had in mind.

See the diagram from one of the previous pages for a visual representation of the Sidebar.

Also:
Though each SC & GA page should be blessed with a little blurb about themselves and their mission statement or whatnot, something in the FAQ mentioning the SC would be a good addition as well -- while we're on the subject.

[Antavre]

This is pretty agreeable. But, we should mention that it's fine for the GA and SC to have the same proposal queue pages (where delegates approve of proposals), like we do now. I don't think that's been made clear enough. :\

So, something like this?

1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"

2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.

3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions separated by Security Council/General Assembly types.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the separation of the Security Council/General Assembly.
e) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

To clarify my earlier post, I could go for a solution along these lines. It would be easier to just keep one registration for the WA, but keep the GA and SC as separate branches. I would prefer also seeing two separate queues so that we don't keep the problem of having GA stuff delaying SC stuff and vice-versa.

EDIT: Oops, this is the same guy as the one behind the Altani Federation, just logged into the wrong nation at the time.

[Gauntleted Fist]

To clarify my earlier post, I could go for a solution along these lines. It would be easier to just keep one registration for the WA, but keep the GA and SC as separate branches. I would prefer also seeing two separate queues so that we don't keep the problem of having GA stuff delaying SC stuff and vice-versa.

Would it be possible to have one queue for both the SC and GA, but have the ability for a proposal from both the GA and SC reach quorum at the same time so both could be voted on in the different voting floors?

EDIT: Oops, this is the same guy as the one behind the Altani Federation, just logged into the wrong nation at the time.

Heh.

[Glen-Rhodes]

To clarify my earlier post, I could go for a solution along these lines. It would be easier to just keep one registration for the WA, but keep the GA and SC as separate branches. I would prefer also seeing two separate queues so that we don't keep the problem of having GA stuff delaying SC stuff and vice-versa.

You mean voting floors. The proposal queue is this thing, and there's no problem there, when it comes to each chamber delaying the other.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

For the record, I am in agreement with the Gauntleted Fist Model, which is basically the same as the Unibot Model.

Something tells me this market research [violet] seeks might have been useful before the Security Council was implemented.

[edit: oh, and if it would save time on coding, I would favor keeping the same sortable list of Passed Resolutions as well as the shared queue. Concurrent voting must happen though.]

[Sedgistan]

I'm in complete agreement with the model laid out by Gauntleted Fist.

[Gauntleted Fist]

For the record, this is the current model:

1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"

2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.

3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions separated by Security Council/General Assembly types.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the separation of the Security Council/General Assembly.
e) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

Revised for single queue and concurrent voting.

Edit - To ensure that I understand (Yeah, I know, I worry about stuff like this.):

1) People want a list of all proposals attempting to reach quorum.
2) Once a proposal reaches quorum, it goes to the appropriate voting floor. No waiting on a proposal from the opposite part of the WA to finish being voted on.

So, one Security Council proposal can be up for vote, and one General Assembly proposal can be up for vote, at the same time.

3) Once one part of the WA finishes voting, it can immediately (Immediate being relative.) receive its next specific proposal without having to wait on the other part of the WA.

Is this correct?

Next Edit - Since no one has posted with a 'nay', I will assume this is correct. (Though it could be that people are just busy, or have other things to do.)

[The Republic of Lanos]

seems over 100% better than the current proposals i see and over 9000!% better than the current method used.

this should be a priority.

[[violet]]

Thank you! This is good. And it's a lot smaller in scope than I thought was being proposed.

Separate voting floors will take some code, because there are a bunch of places that assume there's just one. But it shall be done.

In the meantime, it'd be nifty if someone could whip up a couple of emblems: one for the GA and one for the WA SC. Ideally each would be a distinctive variation of the WA logo. (Maybe start a new thread for that.)

It doesn't really continue all by itself though, it continues because you want it to. A situation you precipitated continues because you see no good reason to go to the doubtless very great effort of changing it.

I have had a good reason for opposing separate voting floors: I think it adds clutter and confusion for new players. Separate sub-pages within the WA will help, though.

The point you still seem to be missing is that the argument "This is worse than it could be, therefore you should fix it" can be and is applied to a gazillion parts of the game. I hear that a lot, from many players about many things, and the fact that I agree with most of them doesn't mean I can just clap my hands and make it so. I have to choose which ones to prioritize. To give you what you want, I don't need to just agree it's a good idea, I need to look at Unibot's requested feature list and decide it's a better idea than every other thing there.

Something tells me this market research [violet] seeks might have been useful before the Security Council was implemented.

It's not easy to get something 100% right the first time. The urgency at the time was to implement some kind of separation. I don't think anyone wanted to delay that.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

In the meantime, it'd be nifty if someone could whip up a couple of emblems: one for the GA and one for the WA. Ideally each would be a distinctive variation of the WA logo. (Maybe start a new thread for that.)

I'll whip up something, and see where I get!

YAH! Happy-time!

[Gauntleted Fist]

Thank you! This is good. And it's a lot smaller in scope than I thought was being proposed.

Glad I could help. (Assuming you're talking to me. )

In the meantime, it'd be nifty if someone could whip up a couple of emblems: one for the GA and one for the WA. Ideally each would be a distinctive variation of the WA logo. (Maybe start a new thread for that.)

One for the SC, also?

[[violet]]

In the meantime, it'd be nifty if someone could whip up a couple of emblems: one for the GA and one for the WA. Ideally each would be a distinctive variation of the WA logo. (Maybe start a new thread for that.)

One for the SC, also?

Shut up, you know what I mean.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Okay, so I was thinking.

What if the two blades or curvy things on the WA flag represented the two branches of the WA?


See what I mean?

Then, each flag for the GA and the SC would incorporate one blade, or curvy thing.

So, I've done up a rough sketch of what my first impression is of a possible WASC emblem or flag.

or, the earlier composition ..

It incorporates the scales of the justice from, errr.. the bureau that is not to be named.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Like [violet] said, start a new thread.

And just so I don't sound like an ungrateful punk, thank you [violet] for agreeing to work on this. It is very encouraging news.

[Gauntleted Fist]

In the meantime, it'd be nifty if someone could whip up a couple of emblems: one for the GA and one for the WA. Ideally each would be a distinctive variation of the WA logo. (Maybe start a new thread for that.)

One for the SC, also?

Shut up, you know what I mean.

;)

Wilco.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

In the meantime, it'd be nifty if someone could whip up a couple of emblems: one for the GA and one for the WA. Ideally each would be a distinctive variation of the WA logo. (Maybe start a new thread for that.)

One for the SC, also?

Shut up, you know what I mean.

;)

Wilco.

NOTHING... NOTHING...NOTHING... NOTHING.... oh yeah, sorry... Wilco.. the procedure phrase, yeah, totally missed you on that one.

I'm designing a GA flag as of this moment, my feeling is the color scheme should include yellow. Why?
Blue+Yellow = Green, hehehehe....

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If anything the GA flag should be blue (to signify the old UN). At any rate, yellow is a perfectly awful color for a flag and I wouldn't wish such horror on anyone, not even the Security Council.

[The Republic of Lanos]

If anything the GA flag should be blue (to signify the old UN). At any rate, yellow is a perfectly awful color for a flag and I wouldn't wish such horror on anyone, not even the Security Council.

then the RLUN will make NS implode in a colossal fireball of extra-dimensional inanity.
don't.

[Krioval]

I also would like to thank [violet] for listening to us, especially given the initial confusion. I can't wait to see the changes.

[Naivetry]

1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"

2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.

3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions separated by Security Council/General Assembly types.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the separation of the Security Council/General Assembly.
e) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum.

Looks good to me. Just for some clarification - on 3) c, were you thinking that each list would be completely separated (so three options, with GA or SC, and then all resolutions passed before the voting floors were separated), or with three options (All passed resolutions, GA resolutions, SC resolutions) the way it is now?

It doesn't particularly matter to me either way, but I think keeping the current set-up would be the easiest and most elegant.

In other words, these two pages wouldn't change at all:
1) http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions
2) http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal

And would each of them would be linked from the separate GA and SC voting floors (#4 and #5 in your proposal, respectively), or would there only be a link to the proposal queue? As written, the WA main page (#3) is the only place to access resolution history, but I would think the "past resolutions" links would fit on the separate GA and SC voting floors, too.

So, with very minor tweaks to reflect that (and adding in the forum debate links), this is what you'd have:

1) The "World Assembly" link in the side-bar will have two separate options.
a) The "General Assembly"
b) The "Security Council"

2) These General Assembly and the Security Council both remain under the umbrella of the World Assembly in its entirety.
a) This means that there will be no registration with both the Security Council and the General Assembly, only the World Assembly as a whole.

3) For the World Assembly Page: (If you simply click "World Assembly" without specifying which part of the World Assembly you want.)
a) A short description of the World Assembly as a whole.
b) The most recent proposals passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly. (Separated by some form of page-break.)
c) A link to passed resolutions, sortable by "All resolutions", "General Assembly", and "Security Council" as at present, and defaulting to the main page: http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions.
d) A link to resolutions that were passed before the NSUN was replaced by the WA.
e) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum, defaulting to the main page: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal
f) The usual application and forum links, WA happenings information, etc.

4) For the General Assembly page:
a) A short description of the General Assembly and what its powers are.
b) The current General Assembly proposal that is up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum, defaulting to this page: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/council=1
d) A link to passed resolutions, sortable by "All resolutions", "General Assembly", and "Security Council" as at present, and defaulting to this page: http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... /council=1.
e) A link to the General Assembly subforum.

5) For the Security Council page:
a) A short description of the Security Council and what its powers are.
b) The current Security Council proposal up for vote. (If there is one.)
c) A link to all proposals attempting to reach quorum, defaulting to this page: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/council=2
d) A link to passed resolutions, sortable by "All resolutions", "General Assembly", and "Security Council" as at present, and defaulting to this page: http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... /council=2.
e) A link to the Security Council subforum.

That's probably a lot of completely unnecessary detail I just added in there. >_>

Also, I can't help but notice a couple of those pages still say "UN"...

[Gauntleted Fist]

That's probably a lot of completely unnecessary detail I just added in there. >_>

Also, I can't help but notice a couple of those pages still say "UN"...

I was doing my best to minimize the amount of work the administrators would have to do. Anything extra on the list is more work, which, while nice to have, is not necessary (to me).

As written, the WA main page (#3) is the only place to access resolution history, but I would think the "past resolutions" links would fit on the separate GA and SC voting floors, too.

It'd be nice to have, but, again, (At risk of sounding like a broken record), not really necessary (to me).

Just for some clarification - on 3) c, were you thinking that each list would be completely separated (so three options, with GA or SC, and then all resolutions passed before the voting floors were separated), or with three options (All passed resolutions, GA resolutions, SC resolutions) the way it is now?

The way it is now. No point in "fixing" something that isn't broken.

Though the links to the subforum are a nice touch that could prove very useful.

[The Blaatschapen]

Hmm, I don't know if it is a lot of work, but if we're rehauling the design anyway: Is it possible to perhaps direct link to the debate of a current resolution on the proposal floor. Basically after the proposal, the votes for, the votes against and the link to delegates votes, also have a link to the debate This would perhaps draw more attention the forum sides of the GA&SC?