Split SC from GA Completely

[Todd McCloud]

It's become clear to me over the past few months that we have to grant these two bodies separate entities. I believe the following should happen:

• Split GA from SC completely.
• Allow voting on either resolution proposed by either body to be unobstructed by each other. This basically means a SC resolution voting will not interfere with a GA resolution voting; the two can take place at the same time.
• Whichever resolution is voted in first has higher precidence on the WA page. (Changed from: If we are to vote on an SC and GA resolution at the same time, list the GA resolution *first*, then the SC one, in the World Assembly section. The GA's been around longer, and this is more or less their territory. They earned it.)
• Lower the queue for SC - I'd say around 30-40 - but somehow keep the queue larger for liberations. This gives it more of a chance to survive, while at the same time keeping the oft-used liberation proposals in check.

I believe option one needs to happen, regardless. Any venture over to the SC forum and reading some of the threads there makes it clear that there needs to be a division. Two is also needed - this keeps *both* the GA and SC happy, and ensure that none of the bodies are stepping on the toes of the other. Three is minor, but four can be debated - I just believe the SC needs a little help. Plus, there are delegates who do not like the SC and will not vote on them. This gives the body a little bit of help. I'm willing to keep it going - I'll do what I can, even trying to write some *good* C&Cs if it'll help things. But I really believe these things must happen in order to bring harmony back to the WA.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The SC would benefit tremendously from its own sidebar and separate page, actually. It would give it more exposure and attract other players to begin using it. Being all jumbled together with the GA just confuses things, and does not really advance the SC's agenda or purpose. Many, probably even most, voters think that SC categories are just regular WA proposals, recently added on. If more players knew that the SC had an aim and purpose distinct and separate from the GA, more might want to be involved. Moreover, I've seen many non-WA players on their RMBs and forums complaining about "wasting time" when SC proposals are at vote -- and you have to know some GPers and SCers are similarly annoyed by some GA resolutions. In the days of the UN, it was mostly grousing about all the repeals and how they were a "waste of time." None of this would be an issue if the GA and SC had their own separate pages and voting queues. Oh, and at times when there are a lot of proposals in queue, both bodies could get more accomplished in less time.

I wouldn't try lowering the quorum numbers -- SCers are worried about upholding "standards" as it is, and lowering the threshold for voting would only allow more of the worse ones to get to vote.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I should also point out that this idea is gaining support from players in both branches of the WA:

And you're right (and so is Todd), the sensible solution would be to separate the SC and GA entirely so that they don't interfere with one another in any way.

So long as they're both part of the WA (ie membership isn't separated), then that would be the best solution.

Moreover, I'll never understand the laissez-faire oversight to the development of the SC; indeed, the split between the GA and SC must happen.

[Sedgistan]

I'd agree with all of Todd's points, except for lowering thresholds (with my already mentioned proviso that membership of the WA stays as it is). I think we've had a reasonable number of C&C resolutions/repeals taken to vote, and considering there'd probably be more of them around if the SC/GA were split, then it'd be best to keep the current thresholds. If we find later that they need changing, that should be considered then, but I don't think its an issue now.

[The Blaatschapen]

What is exactly the current problem with the GA and SC? I know that the 2 groups don't mix, but is that the only problem and does that justify a split? Just yesterday there was nothing to vote on in the WA, so having an overflowing queue can't be the problem either.

Please, what are you trying to solve here?

[Topid]

Which ever resolution's voting ends first should be on top. In no way shape or form has the GA earned the right to be above the SC.

[Pythagosaurus]

Point of advice: if you want the admins to pay attention to you, at least attempt to hide that you're trying to get us to endorse your position that the GA is superior to the SC. And stop bringing up ideas that [violet] has already shot down unless you have a new argument or evidence. Suggesting that we do something even more extreme is not a sensible response.

"I know that you'd like it if you ate it with a goat."

Now go away.

[The Republic of Lanos]

the way the GA and SC resolutions are voted and the orders that they are presented in are too annoying.

good idea to split them off from each other.

[Sedgistan]

Point of advice: if you want the admins to pay attention to you, at least attempt to hide that you're trying to get us to endorse your position that the GA is superior to the SC.

I'm pretty sure that for Todd and me, at least, that is not the case. I don't view the GA as superior - the SC is the body I'm mainly interested in, but I view them as equal.

[Todd McCloud]

Point of advice: if you want the admins to pay attention to you, at least attempt to hide that you're trying to get us to endorse your position that the GA is superior to the SC. And stop bringing up ideas that [violet] has already shot down unless you have a new argument or evidence. Suggesting that we do something even more extreme is not a sensible response.

"I know that you'd like it if you ate it with a goat."

Now go away.

Umm..? If anything I've been trying to push the SC's agenda. Ask around.

I don't want to start an argument, so I'll cut to the quick. I said point three was minor. I was only trying to compromise and find a way that works for both sides. Of course, I've seen that point didn't really work, so it can be omitted. I do like the idea of whatever's first goes first, but again, this is why we post here - to get ideas together and work on the best solution. Now, it is clear most people believe there should be a split between the SC and GA, so that part is pretty much ready to go. But I do believe other people here might help with the other parts.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

And stop bringing up ideas that [violet] has already shot down unless you have a new argument or evidence.

New argument: The SC has not been able to function as an independent body and very little input from new players is coming in because most players consider the SC "just another part of the WA" and don't want to bother with that festering snakepit. If the SC had more exposure and accessibility via its own sidebar link (or maybe even its own section in the FAQ, which doesn't mention the SC at all), non-WA players could learn more about what the SC's purpose is (completely different from the traditional WA) and be more encouraged to participate.

New evidence: We have voted on NAZI EUROPE three times already since the SC was implemented, and we're about to hold a third vote on 10000 Islands; to the untrained eye this would suggest that it's because the same clique has been dominating SC business since its formation, and that new blood is needed to bring new issues to the fore. For more info on getting that new blood, see "New argument."

As for the GA being "superior," Todd is the one who suggested it go on top, and he's not a GA regular at all.

[Topid]

I'm one of the most hardcore anti-GA pro-SC players out there. I've boycotted the GA for a long long time (before SC was ever an idea in Max's head ) but even I think they need to be split...

I actually think it would be better to give them different pages, and different memberships. Give the GAD (General Assembly Delegate) the ability to approve GA proposals. Make the GAD the player with the most GA Endorsements (there would be two lists of endorsements on each nation page). Remove GAD's power to access regional adminsitration page. Give the SCD (Security Council Delegate), the player with the most SC endorsements the ability to approve SC proposals AND access Regional Administration page. Only players with membership to the WAGA would have their stats destroyed by the resolutions. Only one nation per player with membership to each (one nation can be in both, of course).

This way, the many people who choose not to have WA membership (currently) because they don't want their stats messed up, or they just find the GA annoying, can have a voice in their regional government (SCD), where as now only the people who don't care about their stats (like myself) can choose who in their region governs them.

But, I'm just an Anti-Ga radical. I imagine no one else (especially the GA nut-jobs) would like this idea, so simply spliting their voting (letting them vote at once), or maybe even splitting the page (please! lol) would be enough to calm me down.

[Kandarin]

I'm one of the most hardcore anti-GA pro-SC players out there. I've boycotted the GA for a long long time (before SC was ever an idea in Max's head ) but even I think they need to be split...

I actually think it would be better to give them different pages, and different memberships. Give the GAD (General Assembly Delegate) the ability to approve GA proposals. Make the GAD the player with the most GA Endorsements (there would be two lists of endorsements on each nation page). Remove GAD's power to access regional adminsitration page. Give the SCD (Security Council Delegate), the player with the most SC endorsements the ability to approve SC proposals AND access Regional Administration page. Only players with membership to the WAGA would have their stats destroyed by the resolutions. Only one nation per player with membership to each (one nation can be in both, of course).

This way, the many people who choose not to have WA membership (currently) because they don't want their stats messed up, or they just find the GA annoying, can have a voice in their regional government (SCD), where as now only the people who don't care about their stats (like myself) can choose who in their region governs them.

But, I'm just an Anti-Ga radical. I imagine no one else (especially the GA nut-jobs) would like this idea, so simply spliting their voting (letting them vote at once), or maybe even splitting the page (please! lol) would be enough to calm me down.

Who gets to keep their current endorsements? Who gets to eject, etc.? Which one are invaders and defenders supposed to choose? You're basically suggesting a complete rewrite of the entire Gameplay system right down to the bilges because some folks want their thing up for a vote more often.

[Todd McCloud]

Yeah... might be too extreme there. Split them in the WA, but don't split the entire game.

[Topid]

snip.

Who gets to keep their current endorsements? Who gets to eject, etc.? Which one are invaders and defenders supposed to choose? You're basically suggesting a complete rewrite of the entire Gameplay system right down to the bilges because some folks want their thing up for a vote more often.

Only The SCD would have those powers.

Actually, this has nothing to do with the at-vote thing. It has to do with the fact that only people who allow their nations to be destoyed stat-wise by the GA can choose the WAD currently. There have been calls for a new body/organization to choose the leader of a region for longer than I've been playing the game. I just think the SC could be that body.

But like I said, I know it's extreme and a total re-write, I'm just saying I think that would be the best solution (though I know no one else will). But I'd settle for what Todd proposes (minus the GA on top part! ).

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Who gets to keep their current endorsements? Who gets to eject, etc.? Which one are invaders and defenders supposed to choose? You're basically suggesting a complete rewrite of the entire Gameplay system right down to the bilges because some folks want their thing up for a vote more often.

And besides, the whole point the WA is that it's supposed to be a "double-edged sword." You get the powers and privileges that WA membership affords, but at the same time, you have to follow all the screwy laws it passes. Giving one branch all the powers with no risks or consequences whatsoever is not a double-edged sword at all. In fact, there would be very little point or incentive to even joining the GA -- except for puppets with no other purpose than voting.

[Topid]

And besides, the whole point the WA is that it's supposed to be a "double-edged sword." You get the powers and privileges that WA membership affords, but at the same time, you have to follow the laws it passes. Giving one branch all the powers with no risks whatsoever is not a double-edged sword at all. In fact, there would be very little point or incentive to even joining the GA -- except for puppets with no other purpose than voting.

Exactly. The only reason people put up with the GA and let it destroy their nations stats is because they are forced to in order to endorse people for delegate. I don't think they should have to...

What was it that people always bit... complain about: (just using the most memorable example, that I knew where to find. People shout this all the time):

BULLSHIT! People shouldn't be forced to play the 'invader'/'defender' aspect of NS if they'd rather concentrate on other aspects of the game instead.

People shouldn't be forced to play the GAer aspect of NS if they'd rather concentrate on other aspects of the game instead, like regional politics.

EDIT: But I think I've gotten us far enough off topic. Go back! The topic I brought up has been beaten to death in the past.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... And stop bringing up ideas that [violet] has already shot down unless you have a new argument or evidence.

I think the fact that both sides are now asking for the same thing is good enough reason alone to start demanding again that this pretty reasonable solution to be implemented. .. And good enough reason for [violet] to start considering our thoughts on the subject. The only reason [violet] wouldn't even consider splitting the two, is because it was only the GA asking, and she automatically assumed that we were all just being selfish elitists.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Exactly. The only reason people put up with the GA and let it destroy their nations stats is because they are forced to in order to endorse people for delegate. I don't think they should have to...

A system of all perks and no penalties wouldn't even be a "game," just an extension of your ePenis.

But anyway, back on topic: segregation be good! (Particularly if we can confine all those creepy Bigtopians to the other branch.)

[Kandarin]

... And stop bringing up ideas that [violet] has already shot down unless you have a new argument or evidence.

I think the fact that both sides are now asking for the same thing is good enough reason alone to start demanding again that this pretty reasonable solution to be implemented. .. And good enough reason for [violet] to start considering our thoughts on the subject. The only reason [violet] wouldn't even consider splitting the two, is because it was only the GA asking, and she automatically assumed that we were all just being selfish elitists.

I don't recall both sides calling for the establishment of two seperate bodies from which players must be forced to pick one. Much of this thread seems to be founded on the presumption that players want to - or are supposed to - pick only one aspect of NS and play it to the deliberate exclusion of others. I realize that some of you play that way, but not everyone does. Not everyone in RP shuns Gameplay; not everyone in Gameplay shuns RP. I come across plenty of people who like playing and ebating both aspects and regularly go back and forth between them, often with the same nations. Why must segregation be handed down to them from on high? Why must they be forced by the game to choose?

[The Blaatschapen]

It seems I was ignored: What is the current problem? Is it just that the two groups do not mingle well, or is it more?

[Topid]

... And stop bringing up ideas that [violet] has already shot down unless you have a new argument or evidence.

I think the fact that both sides are now asking for the same thing is good enough reason alone to start demanding again that this pretty reasonable solution to be implemented.

For real, an extreme SCer like me agrees with OMGTKK, something needs to be done.

[sarcasm]I feel like after all this time, I should be punished for agreeing with him now. [/saracsm]

It seems I was ignored: What is the current problem? Is it just that the two groups do not mingle well, or is it more?

GAers don't like waiting four days while the SC votes on repeal Condemn Nazi Europe version II when they could be passing socialist resoluttions.

SCers (like myself) don't want to have to watch 4 days of Rip-off-an-Old-UN-resolution / summarize-a-real-life-law version ten thousand, when I could be voting to commend Unibolt.

SC resolutions might be able to get more approvals when they aren't going to cause a delegate (who likes the GA) to wait 4 days before getting back to GA business.

I know I refused to approve GA resolutions when I was delegate because I wanted to get SC things to vote.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It seems I was ignored: What is the current problem? Is it just that the two groups do not mingle well, or is it more?

edit: eh, Topid's summary is better. But there's also the issue of the SC not developing or attracting new participants because it's always considered just an offshoot of the WA, and not its own body with its own purpose. Few players outside the forums understand the SC/GA distinction.

[sarcasm]I feel like after all this time, I should be punished for agreeing with him now. [/saracsm]

Ardchoille could do it; she punishes herself for agreeing with me all the time!

[The Blaatschapen]

It seems I was ignored: What is the current problem? Is it just that the two groups do not mingle well, or is it more?

Read the thread.

I did, and I see the following things:

*lots of suggestions on how to split SC from GA, etc.
*as the one argument for this: the other part is wasting time with repeals, etc. (which to me only says that one group finds itself superior to the other and vice versa)

And at last, the argument that the SC needs new blood, which does merit some thought. However, is splitting it the only way to get new blood in the SC? It is a lot of effort and personally I'm wondering about the effect since it *is* mostly for the Gameplay people already out there. Defender/Invader game has been played now for years and I highly doubt that some fresh blood would suddenly create a whole new set of ideas and dogma regarding that. Thus I doubt that new blood would seriously change the way SC would play. If RPers/NSGers/Forum 7ers/others really were bothered to write a proposal to commend certain famous RP/NSG/Forum 7/other regions/nations they would've done so and gathered enough support to get one through. But as it is, I've seen perhaps only one or two different proposals(various repeals of the same thing are not really different) on vote that have nothing to do with Defender/Invader/Gameplay and only the one of Nazi Europe getting through (and I'd rather not touch that one).

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Point of advice: if you want the admins to pay attention to you, at least attempt to hide that you're trying to get us to endorse your position that the GA is superior to the SC.

I'm about 1000% certain that neither Todd McCloud nor Sedgistan consider the GA superior to the SC.

Now go away.

Was this statement even called for? What, in Todd's opening post, made you think it merited a reply like that? For that matter what in any of the posts after that made you think it was merited? Are you able to interact with players without resorting to snarkiness?