Making the Secretary-General Meaningful

[Refuge Isle]

Based on these facts, a requirement of at least two authorships over the period should be sufficient to ensure that candidates are the best without creating a barrier two high for newcomers. On average this would lead to seven eligible candidates

Part of the deal in politics is trying to appeal to voters and win an election, not engineering rules that produce a predictable winner. Constricting eligibility rules like this is problematic in myriad ways. If we wanted to so tightly control who among seven players in all of NationStates should be Secretary General, we'd probably just appoint them ourselves. That volume of eligible candidates is ridiculously tiny, especially when there is no guarantee that any in a given year would even want the job, let alone produce a compelling election.

Candidates can be elected to office without relevant experience in real life and so, too, can they in NationStates. Just as it is entirely reasonable to have elected officials that you disagree with, or that threaten a predictable power economy which has previously benefited you. That's the nature of the game.

[The Ice States]

Based on these facts, a requirement of at least two authorships over the period should be sufficient to ensure that candidates are the best without creating a barrier two high for newcomers. On average this would lead to seven eligible candidates

Part of the deal in politics is trying to appeal to voters and win an election, not engineering rules that produce a predictable winner. Constricting eligibility rules like this is problematic in myriad ways. If we wanted to so tightly control who among seven players in all of NationStates should be Secretary General, we'd probably just appoint them ourselves. That volume of eligible candidates is ridiculously tiny, especially when there is no guarantee that any in a given year would even want the job, let alone produce a compelling election.

Per the other paragraph in the post you replied to, how would "one positive authorship over the six months" work?

Candidates can be elected to office without relevant experience in real life and so, too, can they in NationStates. Just as it is entirely reasonable to have elected officials that you disagree with, or that threaten a predictable power economy which has previously benefited you. That's the nature of the game.

Does this not effectively imply that a system without this sort of controls would harm the GA community?

[Yelda]

Does this not effectively imply that a system without this sort of controls would harm the GA community?

"You may only vote for approved candidates, after all, we know what's best for you."

I disagree. Introducing a certain amount of uncertainty, chaos even, into a given system is often beneficial to the system. Especially if the system has become stale.

[The Ice States]

Does this not effectively imply that a system without this sort of controls would harm the GA community?

"You may only vote for approved candidates, after all, we know what's best for you."

I disagree. Introducing a certain amount of uncertainty, chaos even, into a given system is often beneficial to the system. Especially if the system has become stale.

This is a fair point -- consider the quoted section rescinded.

[Unibot III]

People who ignore the WA's IC character should be made DOS, not SG.

Countertrollpoint: instead of making people DOS, we should restrict their posting solely to the Strangers' Bar.

On a more serious note, I don't view Unibot's concept of consolidating further power into someone who is already effectively the most influential player within the GA as being beneficial.

I understand the desire that if this role is going to exist and apply to the GA (which it will on both counts) that the Sec-Gen have some experience within that chamber. I feel a better tree to bark up would be to suggest that GA authorship either provides more prominence/a leg up in the election stage, or is even a requirement for eligibility to run. I'm very wary of the latter, because it requiring GA + SC authorship is a requirement to run, then the pool of eligible candidates may shrink too far, but it would be a driver of participation, and ensure that whoever is elected has an interest in both halves.

Regarding timing, there is no chance of this being implemented in time for April 1st.

Just one counterpoint I will raise Sedge, and I think it’s the reason there so little agreement in this thread between GA and Gameplay, is.., GA authors don’t have all that much influence over their own game — and they view it as such. The votes lie with the major regions. What influence that GA authors have is basically sycophancy with major regions and voting blocs.

I feel very strongly that Simone Republic (currently someone who would be a frontrunner for GA Chair) is not the most influential person in the GA, for instance, because they don’t command the votes.

In this discussion thread, the two communities are largely talking at each other because they both view each other differently: GP regards the GA community as cloistered and monkish; the GA community views GP as a source of political hazard and interference … like shareholders or venue capital … people who give you 0.5% of their time and interest, but determine 90% of your success.

Any kind of an election, because of where the votes are, is going to consolidate power with the people who already have it in the GA: top regions, like WALL. The proposal is effectively taking TNP’s existing vote recommendations and slapping them on the GA’s main page. From the standpoint of the WA SC, it’s interesting, because there’s a big GP element to the WASC, whereas it’s an annoyance in the WA GA, because the institution’s regular content isn’t relevant to GP.

I hope what I’ve said makes sense, but I think this disagreement is at the heart of the discussion.

I’m personally not a fan of a “managed” election (where candidates are short-listed) because I think the idea would add to the image of the GA being elitist — an acclamation of the top author is a challenge and by definition, open to anyone: pass more resolutions than anyone else and you get the honour. Regardless, I do think you should consider splitting the chair roles by chamber and consider the selection process closely.

I disagree with Refuge Isle about their “the deal in politics…” comment, selection processes based on acclamations, rotations, short lists and what not *are* part and parcel of the “the deal in politics” in the RL international political world. When we’re balancing different spheres of power, these arrangements are just how the sausage is made. Not everything is a straight vote and for good reason — accommodation is one of the key ingredients of multilateral diplomacy.

[The Ice States]

Just one counterpoint I will raise Sedge, and I think it’s the reason there so little agreement in this thread between GA and Gameplay, is.., GA authors don’t have all that much influence over their own game — and they view it as such. The votes lie with the major regions. What influence that GA authors have is basically sycophancy with major regions and voting blocs.

I feel very strongly that Simone Republic (currently someone who would be a frontrunner for GA Chair) is not the most influential person in the GA, for instance, because they don’t command the votes.

In this discussion thread, the two communities are largely talking at each other because they both view each other differently: GP regards the GA community as cloistered and monkish; the GA community views GP as a source of political hazard and interference … like shareholders or venue capital … people who give you 0.5% of their time and interest, but determine 90% of your success.

Any kind of an election, because of where the votes are, is going to consolidate power with the people who already have it in the GA: top regions, like WALL. The proposal is effectively taking TNP’s existing vote recommendations and slapping them on the GA’s main page. From the standpoint of the WA SC, it’s interesting, because there’s a big GP element to the WASC, whereas it’s an annoyance in the WA GA, because the institution’s regular content isn’t relevant to GP.

I hope what I’ve said makes sense, but I think this disagreement is at the heart of the discussion.

This is broadly an accurate assessment of the situation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I was a bit disappointed that Sedge's position in this thread had largely been one of unassailability, largely since it seems as though arguments are made and quickly pass through the other ear with a blithe "I hear what you say". I think this proposal is not entirely there yet. With the greatest respect I would suggest instead simply dropping it as far as it pertains to the General Assembly; I believe the entire GA community on this matter is unanimous.

[Tsardom of Alaska]

I like Sedge's original idea - it will lead to fun, chaotic elections, with the potential for some random surprise candidate to come in out of nowhere to win it all. The position is after all mostly symbolic, and players will just see this as a fun event and a popularity contest, usually without knowing who these people are. I think the Sec-Gen being able to recommend votes (maybe only on SC proposals since the GA community doesn't seem keen on the idea) is a good proposal, technically giving them weight without too much real power. I also think having two elections a year is just the right timing for making things interesting.

[Shattered Relic Hunter T1]

I like Sedge's original idea - it will lead to fun, chaotic elections, with the potential for some random surprise candidate to come in out of nowhere to win it all. The position is after all mostly symbolic, and players will just see this as a fun event and a popularity contest, usually without knowing who these people are. I think the Sec-Gen being able to recommend votes (maybe only on SC proposals since the GA community doesn't seem keen on the idea) is a good proposal, technically giving them weight without too much real power. I also think having two elections a year is just the right timing for making things interesting.

Yeah it's going to help increase user engagement and both onsite and NS-related offsite activity. Hopefully it'll happen before April next year, going to be entertaining to watch for WA casuals

[Fachumonn]

Here it is!

Assuming a regular system of nation-based most prolific author from April 1 of that year to April 1 of the previous, not counting co-authors, and counting 2024 as April 1 2023 - present, we get the following GA Secgens,

2016 - Imperium Anglorum / Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Minskiev / Tinhampton
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5
2024 - Simone Republic

This supports the idea that historically there would have been some monopolisation, with one winner from 2016 - 2019, although since 2020 this does not appear to be much of an issue.
-----
Counting co-authorships breaks the 2017 tie in favour of Sep, 2020 one in favour of IA, and 2022 one in favour of Tin, with a tie instead created in 2023.

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Tinhampton
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5 / Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
If we exempt repeals, not counting co-authorships, we get the same as above except with the 2023 tie broken in favour of Simone and Minskiev instead of Tin winning 2022,

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Minskiev
2023 - Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
Counting co-authorships but not repeals, we seem to get similar results as above except with a tie in 2019, Kenmoria in the 2020 tie, and Tin as 2022's winner.

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum / Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Kenmoria / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Tinhampton
2023 - Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
Counting co-authorships but not repeals or repealed resolutions (as of the relevant April 1st) introduces Hulldom as 2022 victor, while creating two-way ties for 2020 and 2023.

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Kenmoria
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Hulldom
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5 / Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
Excluding both co-authorships and repealed resolutions,

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum / Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum
2021 - Cretox State / Imperium Anglorum
2022 - Tinhampton
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5
2024 - Simone Republic

Based on these facts, I would support any of these systems except the third and sixth ones, as the former seems to make the sample size too small and the latter seems too prone to monopolisation. My support is conditional on there being a tie-breaking mechanism; does the proposer have any suggestions? Perhaps something along the lines of "against (or for?) previous/incumbent Secgens -> most active (positive & unrepealed) resolutions -> most primary authorships -> most recent primary authorship"?

For reference, my preferred system so far is "co-authors but not repeals or repealed resolutions", along with the above tiebreaking mechanism.

In light of the recent news, I would just like to say I support this. I hope Sedge listens to this actual good idea.

[Separatist Peoples]

Here it is!

Assuming a regular system of nation-based most prolific author from April 1 of that year to April 1 of the previous, not counting co-authors, and counting 2024 as April 1 2023 - present, we get the following GA Secgens,

2016 - Imperium Anglorum / Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Minskiev / Tinhampton
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5
2024 - Simone Republic

This supports the idea that historically there would have been some monopolisation, with one winner from 2016 - 2019, although since 2020 this does not appear to be much of an issue.
-----
Counting co-authorships breaks the 2017 tie in favour of Sep, 2020 one in favour of IA, and 2022 one in favour of Tin, with a tie instead created in 2023.

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Tinhampton
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5 / Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
If we exempt repeals, not counting co-authorships, we get the same as above except with the 2023 tie broken in favour of Simone and Minskiev instead of Tin winning 2022,

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Minskiev
2023 - Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
Counting co-authorships but not repeals, we seem to get similar results as above except with a tie in 2019, Kenmoria in the 2020 tie, and Tin as 2022's winner.

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum / Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Kenmoria / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Tinhampton
2023 - Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
Counting co-authorships but not repeals or repealed resolutions (as of the relevant April 1st) introduces Hulldom as 2022 victor, while creating two-way ties for 2020 and 2023.

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Kenmoria
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Hulldom
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5 / Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
Excluding both co-authorships and repealed resolutions,

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum / Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum
2021 - Cretox State / Imperium Anglorum
2022 - Tinhampton
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5
2024 - Simone Republic

Based on these facts, I would support any of these systems except the third and sixth ones, as the former seems to make the sample size too small and the latter seems too prone to monopolisation. My support is conditional on there being a tie-breaking mechanism; does the proposer have any suggestions? Perhaps something along the lines of "against (or for?) previous/incumbent Secgens -> most active (positive & unrepealed) resolutions -> most primary authorships -> most recent primary authorship"?

For reference, my preferred system so far is "co-authors but not repeals or repealed resolutions", along with the above tiebreaking mechanism.

In light of the recent news, I would just like to say I support this. I hope Sedge listens to this actual good idea.

2016 was my year. Never did get that Big Chimp Energy back.

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

Here it is!

Assuming a regular system of nation-based most prolific author from April 1 of that year to April 1 of the previous, not counting co-authors, and counting 2024 as April 1 2023 - present, we get the following GA Secgens,

2016 - Imperium Anglorum / Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Minskiev / Tinhampton
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5
2024 - Simone Republic

This supports the idea that historically there would have been some monopolisation, with one winner from 2016 - 2019, although since 2020 this does not appear to be much of an issue.
-----
Counting co-authorships breaks the 2017 tie in favour of Sep, 2020 one in favour of IA, and 2022 one in favour of Tin, with a tie instead created in 2023.

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Tinhampton
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5 / Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
If we exempt repeals, not counting co-authorships, we get the same as above except with the 2023 tie broken in favour of Simone and Minskiev instead of Tin winning 2022,

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Minskiev
2023 - Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
Counting co-authorships but not repeals, we seem to get similar results as above except with a tie in 2019, Kenmoria in the 2020 tie, and Tin as 2022's winner.

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum / Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Kenmoria / Marxist Germany
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Tinhampton
2023 - Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
Counting co-authorships but not repeals or repealed resolutions (as of the relevant April 1st) introduces Hulldom as 2022 victor, while creating two-way ties for 2020 and 2023.

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum / Kenmoria
2021 - Cretox State
2022 - Hulldom
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5 / Simone Republic
2024 - Simone Republic
-----
Excluding both co-authorships and repealed resolutions,

2016 - Separatist Peoples
2017 - Imperium Anglorum
2018 - Imperium Anglorum
2019 - Imperium Anglorum / Separatist Peoples
2020 - Imperium Anglorum
2021 - Cretox State / Imperium Anglorum
2022 - Tinhampton
2023 - Magecastle Embassy Building A5
2024 - Simone Republic

Based on these facts, I would support any of these systems except the third and sixth ones, as the former seems to make the sample size too small and the latter seems too prone to monopolisation. My support is conditional on there being a tie-breaking mechanism; does the proposer have any suggestions? Perhaps something along the lines of "against (or for?) previous/incumbent Secgens -> most active (positive & unrepealed) resolutions -> most primary authorships -> most recent primary authorship"?

For reference, my preferred system so far is "co-authors but not repeals or repealed resolutions", along with the above tiebreaking mechanism.

In light of the recent news, I would just like to say I support this. I hope Sedge listens to this actual good idea.

Disagree. It places emphasis on the quantity, not quality, of resolutions. Giving large unelected power and influence to a nation who clearly already has a wealth of it by virtue of passing the most resolutions doesn't sound particularly appealing anyways.

If this proposal goes ahead with the GA being dragged along for the ride, they should receive equal treatment.

[Unibot III]

In light of the recent news, I would just like to say I support this. I hope Sedge listens to this actual good idea.

Disagree. It places emphasis on the quantity, not quality, of resolutions. Giving large unelected power and influence to a nation who clearly already has a wealth of it by virtue of passing the most resolutions doesn't sound particularly appealing anyways.

If this proposal goes ahead with the GA being dragged along for the ride, they should receive equal treatment.

And how does one author dozens of resolutions in a year? With the support and approval of tens of thousands of votes in the World Assembly throughout the year.

I’m not sure how someone can conclude that the World Assembly’s own plenary floor, which votes on resolutions every week, doesn’t convey some democratic legitimacy, but a special election would?

The difference between an election and selecting the top author is it would ensure the GA Chair is a player that is actually invested in the General Assembly and not simply a mouthpiece/surrogate for a top GP region or GP voting bloc.

I would take issue with the idea that a successful author has an overwhelming influence over the GA, but the very delegates and voting blocs they’re catering to for the passage of their resolutions have relatively less influence. We shouldn’t confuse authors’ personal interest and commitment to the GA with actual *influence* — influence in the GA requires votes, which requires endorsements.

[Wallenburg]

If Admin wants what is best for this community, it'll drop the GA bit again and for good. It'll certainly not hand yet more power over non-GP affairs to GP militaries. It's conceivable that some sort of office vaguely like this could work in the GA, but as it has been previous Sec-Gen elections were a poison on the WA and that's without any of the injury that meaningful gameside powers threaten. When feedback is simply ignored because people on this project are stuck in their ways, there's no hope for a good outcome short of dropping the project.

[Stalin as a DEAT]

If Admin wants what is best for this community, it'll drop the GA bit again and for good. It'll certainly not hand yet more power over non-GP affairs to GP militaries. It's conceivable that some sort of office vaguely like this could work in the GA, but as it has been previous Sec-Gen elections were a poison on the WA and that's without any of the injury that meaningful gameside powers threaten. When feedback is simply ignored because people on this project are stuck in their ways, there's no hope for a good outcome short of dropping the project.

I agree with you, Wall, while I am not a member of the GA community, I think GP needs to stay in its zone, and I don’t like recommendations that are like “VOTE AGAINST [insert good proposal] CUZ THE AUTHOR IS A RAIDER” or something, and to give an elected person this much power, might give GP too much power, from what I have heard, it should stay in the SC

[Bears Armed]

If Admin wants what is best for this community, it'll drop the GA bit again and for good. It'll certainly not hand yet more power over non-GP affairs to GP militaries. It's conceivable that some sort of office vaguely like this could work in the GA

Maybe the best way to try ensuring electoral candidates for this already have adequate levels of engagement with the GA would be to say that only the current and previous members of GenSec are eligible?
[/semi-serious suggestion]

[Wallenburg]

If Admin wants what is best for this community, it'll drop the GA bit again and for good. It'll certainly not hand yet more power over non-GP affairs to GP militaries. It's conceivable that some sort of office vaguely like this could work in the GA

Maybe the best way to try ensuring electoral candidates for this already have adequate levels of engagement with the GA would be to say that only the current and previous members of GenSec are eligible?
[/semi-serious suggestion]

Ehh...I'd really rather not. GenSec ought not be treated as some position of privilege. I imagine that it's impossible to totally avoid that, but it's well within our ability not to attach game mechanics advantages to being pink. The role is a service position, not a leadership one.

[Cessarea]

Maybe the best way to try ensuring electoral candidates for this already have adequate levels of engagement with the GA would be to say that only the current and previous members of GenSec are eligible?
[/semi-serious suggestion]

Ehh...I'd really rather not. GenSec ought not be treated as some position of privilege. I imagine that it's impossible to totally avoid that, but it's well within our ability not to attach game mechanics advantages to being pink. The role is a service position, not a leadership one.

Agreed, and I agree with your earlier post as well. This idea seems dead on arrival to me. The pink people are fine. They work, they have their role, and they have some prestige by virtue of being part of a limited group of elected fellows. Keep it boring, I'm perfectly fine with it. Same goes for GA proceedures: Keep. It. Boring. Things are fine, and there's no real need to add this - especially considering the... the people it would attract. The unspeakables, the unnamed. The other chamber.

You seem to know a lot about Gensec, Wally! Have you considered running for it? I heard a position's just been opened.

EDIT: If the veto becomes SC-exclusively, my objections disappear. I'm more than happy to provide GP with a bigger circus fire. i'd just rather not burn myself in it.

[Unibot III]

Some I was giving it some thought. If there was a GA Chair (that was acclaimed based on who authored the most GA resolutions the past year) and a SC Chair (based on an election) ... there could also be an elected WA Secretary-General too.

My thinking is, the GA/SC Chairs would have the power of applying recommendations to the resolutions-at-vote pages directly, but the WA Secretary-General could have a similar but different power... the power to release their own dispatches hosted on the main WA page.

I'm thinking something simple like this, but maybe with a logo banner on the dispatch. Might need a directory at the top of the WA page that lists who is Secretary General, GA Chair, and SC Chair -- similar to how a region lists a Founder, Delegate, Governor etc.

The special value of the GA/SC Chairs would be having the banner on the at-vote page, linking readers to their recommendation ... for maximum impact/influence on the resolution at hand.

But there would be value in the WA Secretary-General's special dispatch power, because it's not limited to, or structured around a specific resolution - it'd be free communications tool to legitimize any message that the S-G wanted to get across on important issues/events to the rest of NS.

[Yelda]

I just don't like the notion that the GA belongs to the dozen or so (at best) active authors and that only they should be considered eligible, or worthy, to be Secretary-General. The GA is more than just the GA forum and the handful of people who frequent it.

[The Ice States]

I just don't like the notion that the GA belongs to the dozen or so (at best) active authors and that only they should be considered eligible, or worthy, to be Secretary-General. The GA is more than just the GA forum and the handful of people who frequent it.

Frankly, I'd agree if making the position completely open didn't mean that the position would instantly go to Gameplay.

[Yelda]

I just don't like the notion that the GA belongs to the dozen or so (at best) active authors and that only they should be considered eligible, or worthy, to be Secretary-General. The GA is more than just the GA forum and the handful of people who frequent it.

Frankly, I'd agree if making the position completely open didn't mean that the position would instantly go to Gameplay.

Being away from the game for the better part of a decade changes your perspective. I no longer feel like a GAer or a GA insider, or GA elite, or anything like that. Your comment sounds like you consider gameplay "other", or "not one of us". "We can't let one of them have it".

I'm just rambling. Headed to bed. I might have more thoughts on this later or I might just step out of the way and see what happens.

[The Ice States]

Frankly, I'd agree if making the position completely open didn't mean that the position would instantly go to Gameplay.

Being away from the game for the better part of a decade changes your perspective. I no longer feel like a GAer or a GA insider, or GA elite, or anything like that. Your comment sounds like you consider gameplay "other", or "not one of us". "We can't let one of them have it".

I'm just rambling. Headed to bed. I might have more thoughts on this later or I might just step out of the way and see what happens.

Gameplay's history of poor faith engagement with the GA -- whether it be repealing or countercampaigning perfectly fine resolutions simply because the author is from a region in an opposing Gameplay bloc, quorum raiding just for the sake of it, or celebrating the departure of respected GA players as "a great service" to "anti-GA action" -- means that I have absolutely no faith in them to hold such a powerful position as to the GA. If that weren't the case, perhaps I could get behind this change, but as-is it actively encourages this sort of behaviour. This is especially the case when the nature of the Secgen election system means that large regions coordinating campaigns with each other -- ie Gameplay -- determines the outcome of the vote, with the GA itself having minimal ability to fight back.

[Wallenburg]

I just don't like the notion that the GA belongs to the dozen or so (at best) active authors and that only they should be considered eligible, or worthy, to be Secretary-General. The GA is more than just the GA forum and the handful of people who frequent it.

Nor do I, but I certainly don't like the notion that the GA belongs to the dozen or so (at best) major GP commanders.

[Separatist Peoples]

Frankly, I'd agree if making the position completely open didn't mean that the position would instantly go to Gameplay.

Being away from the game for the better part of a decade changes your perspective. I no longer feel like a GAer or a GA insider, or GA elite, or anything like that. Your comment sounds like you consider gameplay "other", or "not one of us". "We can't let one of them have it".

I'm just rambling. Headed to bed. I might have more thoughts on this later or I might just step out of the way and see what happens.

Gameplay is the "other". No matter how many players and staff may believe otherwise. The GA has always tried to isolate its community to preserve the unique GA character and GP has often interjected despite that. With the GA generally on the chopping block, it's critical to cede no ground less we lessen what stays the axe.