Secretary General Role Expansion

[Sciongrad]

Any change that would expand participation in the World Assembly to more WA nations is a change that should be embraced, regardless of what the few people in "the GA community" want. The World Assembly is supposed to be for all players, not just the few who dominate the General Assembly forum. At minimum, we should consider expanding the Secretary-General role to be more involved in voter education and outreach, such as the pinned dispatch at the top of the WA page that has been proposed. Another idea might be to allow the Secretary-General to wire campaign telegrams to all WA nations at no cost.

Even if that change destroys the current community? If it exacerbates problems that currently exist? If it contributes nothing to the game except a shallow victory for gameplayers who think they're entitled to change whatever they want whenever they want? You guys destroyed the WA community once, do you really need to do it again? And don't pontificate to me about the need for inclusion. There are few players more critical of the current GA culture than me. I've gone so far as to suggest WA resolutions adopt sunset clauses so that new players can tackle issues that were settled almost a decade ago. So I am not opposed to radical change. I am opposed to vapid suggestions from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Your most basic assumption - that somehow, including a more active SG will increase activity - fundamentally misunderstands how the GA community operates. You think giving a player the ability to rubber stamp resolutions will draw more players to the game? It won't. This is nothing but another reductive analysis of the GA's problems by players who don't know the first thing about the community. If you want to participate in the GA, by all means, please do. But don't try to tell us to change things when your best suggestion for reversing years of malaise is to create a superficial elected post (presumably for gameplayers to exploit).

[Gruenberg]

Part of the reason "the GA community" is so small and exclusive is because the few who have self-declared themselves part of that community have made it so small and exclusive. Go participate in the General Assembly forum as a new player and see how unwelcoming and unhelpful some of the people there can be, and you see why there is so little interest in the General Assembly.

Definitely agreed on this point. Tackling WA forum culture would be a much better use of the mod time than setting up some useless advisory council.

Any change that would expand participation in the World Assembly to more WA nations is a change that should be embraced

Yes, but there's not really any evidence that any SG-related changes would do this. If anything, the only nations likely to win an election are going to be prominent members of cliques able to muster large numbers of votes for their positions. Look at the final round of SG voting last time, all experienced players associated with big blocs. The SG isn't really a great way of getting new players involved at all.

I could support allowing the Secretary-General to move proposals up in the queue, but only if the proposal has more approvals than a proposal that is already ahead of it in the queue, so we aren't granting too much power to one person.

Approvals change all the time, so how could this possibly be enforced? Also, you're going to have to expand on how moving proposal order is not "too much power", but moving proposal order despite approval count somehow is!

[Cormactopia II]

Even if that change destroys the current community? If it exacerbates problems that currently exist? If it contributes nothing to the game except a shallow victory for gameplayers who think they're entitled to change whatever they want whenever they want? You guys destroyed the WA community once, do you really need to do it again?

The problem is none of you are explaining how or why such changes would destroy the current GA community, you're just insisting that it would. You criticize us for knowing nothing about the GA, but you also refuse to explain exactly how this would be so detrimental. How are we supposed to know if you don't explain it?

In regard to gameplayers supposedly destroying the WA community once already, I assume you're referring to the Security Council. I will point out to you that many gameplayers didn't want the Security Council either, and that more than a few people left gameplay behind due to both the creation of the Security Council and preceding changes that related to its creation. Gameplayers weren't consulted about the Security Council anymore than General Assembly players were, nor were gameplayers consulted about ridiculous requirements like Rule 4 that further blur the line between the RP nature of the GA and the GP nature of the SC, so the appropriate blame for that belongs with NationStates staff, not gameplayers. NationStates staff has a tendency to drop major changes on all players without much consultation, and blaming each other for that is counterproductive.

If you want to participate in the GA, by all means, please do. But don't try to tell us to change things when your best suggestion for reversing years of malaise is to create a superficial elected post (presumably for gameplayers to exploit).

This is the problem. I don't, and neither do most players. I don't want to participate in the GA because, having tried to participate in it in the past, I can think of better things to do than spend months working on a single proposal to make sure the nitpicky regulars in the GA forum are satisfied enough with it that it might have a chance of passing.

The problem with the GA is that it is too exclusive and too reliant on the opinion of the small community that revolves around the GA forum. The reason I think the Secretary-General having more outreach and educational powers, such as a pinned dispatch on the WA page or being able to send free campaign telegrams to all WA nations, is because it would break the stranglehold the small forum community has over how the GA operates and whether proposals can pass. It should be more open to all WA players, not just the few who frequent the GA forum. There may be better ways of doing that, but are we hearing any of them from the GA community, or are we just hearing suggestions that would improve the GA for the very small GA community?

I could support allowing the Secretary-General to move proposals up in the queue, but only if the proposal has more approvals than a proposal that is already ahead of it in the queue, so we aren't granting too much power to one person.

Approvals change all the time, so how could this possibly be enforced? Also, you're going to have to expand on how moving proposal order is not "too much power", but moving proposal order despite approval count somehow is!

Implementation would perhaps be difficult. I suppose it would require some form of coded automation, so that the game tracks the number of approvals and won't allow a proposal with fewer approvals to be pushed ahead of a proposal with more approvals, and would automatically reorder proposals if the number of approvals changes. I don't have any idea how difficult that might be to code. It may be simpler to just have proposals go to vote based on their number of approvals and not based on their submission time, without making proposal promotion a power of the Secretary-General.

My feeling was that restraining the Secretary-General's power based on number of approvals would introduce a democratic check on the Secretary-General's power, by ensuring no proposal could be pushed ahead of any proposal that has greater approval from WA Delegates. It's more balanced than just unchecked promotion of proposals up the queue.

[Gruenberg]

The problem is none of you are explaining how or why such changes would destroy the current GA community, you're just insisting that it would. You criticize us for knowing nothing about the GA, but you also refuse to explain exactly how this would be so detrimental. How are we supposed to know if you don't explain it?

Not speaking for Sciongrad, but from my perspective:

The WA and SC are fundamentally incompatible - or, in the Kuhnian sense incommensurate - institutions. A single Secretary General presiding over both is an impossibility, because one is a roleplay community and one a gameplay community. This is why I'm not so much arguing against the SG, as against the SG having any power or authority in the WA side of the game. If they're strictly limited to the SC side, I'm no longer opposed (nor supportive; I just don't care).

You also repeatedly point out how small the number of active WA players is. You are absolutely right. It follows it's very unlikely any WA player could ever win an SG election: it's much more likely a gameplayer would, as they are so much more numerous. Just one faction of the gameplay game, such as invaders, is much bigger than the entire community of active WA players. In the SG election, the only candidate who was really a WA player in that sense was Auralia, who didn't make it to the final round, and the players who did were really more gameplayers. The only WA player who could possibly win such an election is Mousebumples, but I'm not even sure to what extent she can be said to be an active WA player anymore. So the SG is an institution that's just inherently never going to represent a part of the community it would be presiding over.

Gameplayers weren't consulted about the Security Council anymore than General Assembly players were,

Well, that's just not true. There was a discussion involving [violet] and gameplayers; unfortunately, no WA players noticed it (as it was happening in the Gampelay forum).

Please understand, this is why WA players now swarm threads like these. It may seem our intervention is unwanted, and we're pooh-poohing an idea that might be fun for a different part of game. But through ashen-bitter experience, we have learned that things having huge impacts on our part of the game may spring from unlikely sources, so we have to try to keep on top of them.

As you say below:

NationStates staff has a tendency to drop major changes on all players without much consultation

Just look at the process here. A player who didn't understand the April Fool's Joke derailed a discussion on WA rules moderation to bring up the SG, and suddenly we have multiple mods posting at least semi-seriously on the idea.

This is the problem. I don't, and neither do most players. I don't want to participate in the GA because, having tried to participate in it in the past, I can think of better things to do than spend months working on a single proposal to make sure the nitpicky regulars in the GA forum are satisfied enough with it that it might have a chance of passing.
...
The problem with the GA is that it is too exclusive and too reliant on the opinion of the small community that revolves around the GA forum.

That's a bit of a misapprehension. The WA forum has no real impact on vote outcomes: if you want to just pass a resolution, I'd recommend skipping the forum and concentrating on getting the big delegates to stack early in the vote. A few gameplayers decide the outcome. Forum debates are virtually immaterial. The only caution is that a proposal not drafted on the forum is likely to draw umbrage and, thus, a repeal.

There may be better ways of doing that, but are we hearing any of them from the GA community,

I posted a list of suggestions in the WA forum, and others have proposed ideas, yes. That's not to say any of them are good ideas - but there are plenty of them, none of them involving anointing one individual to broadcast their personal opinions. (As you might see from the reaction to the WAIF.)

It may be simpler to just have proposals go to vote based on their number of approvals and not based on their submission time, without making proposal promotion a power of the Secretary-General.

I still don't see the justification for this change. What's wrong with the current system?

My feeling was that restraining the Secretary-General's power based on number of approvals would introduce a democratic check on the Secretary-General's power, by ensuring no proposal could be pushed ahead of any proposal that has greater approval from WA Delegates. It's more balanced than just unchecked promotion of proposals up the queue.

It's "more balanced" only in the sense that having massively tilted the scales to one player, you are marginally inching them back. Much more "balanced" is simply not tilting the scales in the first place.

[Sciongrad]

The problem is none of you are explaining how or why such changes would destroy the current GA community, you're just insisting that it would. You criticize us for knowing nothing about the GA, but you also refuse to explain exactly how this would be so detrimental. How are we supposed to know if you don't explain it?

This misapprehends my argument on several levels. For clarity, I will number them.

1. I did not "insist" that this particular change would destroy the community. You suggested that the WA should adopt "[a]ny change that would expand participation in the World Assembly to more WA nations." The only qualifier is expanding the community, and therefore, this would include ideas that destroy the current community. The SG idea is awful, but (depending on how it's implemented), it would not destroy the community. If we went down the road Sedge has proposed, it would certainly exacerbate existing problems. Currently, the moderators arbitrarily remove legal proposals (with relative frequency). This has, obviously, incited resentment among regulars. Creating a position whose sole purpose would be to arbitrarily fiddle with which resolutions get to vote would absolutely intensify GA regulars' anger without contributing anything to the game. You would know that, of course, if you knew something about the GA.

2. I am not criticizing you for not knowing anything about the GA. There are thousands of players that don't know anything about the GA and I have no problem with them at all. I am criticizing you for trying to identify problems and propose solutions when you don't know what you're talking about. The GA community is stagnant and is cultivating an environment that is not conducive to recruitment. Awesome, well done. That is the most basic problem the GA faces. But you have not (and obviously cannot) explain why those things are happening, and that is evidenced by the fact that you think creating some elected position that can reorder the queue will somehow address the underlying issue. Because I'm sure letting someone veto a repeal would certainly change the GA culture in such a way that makes it more welcoming to new players. You are proposing a solution that does not address any problem.

3. I (and others) have explained our issue with the SG proposal. This is not the first time I've made this argument, and this is not the first time Gruen has made his argument.

Gameplayers weren't consulted about the Security Council anymore than General Assembly players were

That is laughably false.

This is the problem. I don't, and neither do most players. I don't want to participate in the GA because, having tried to participate in it in the past, I can think of better things to do than spend months working on a single proposal to make sure the nitpicky regulars in the GA forum are satisfied enough with it that it might have a chance of passing.

Right, because appointing a SG that can reorder the queue will absolutely: 1. make the drafting process shorter, 2. make regulars less needlessly nitpicky, 3. improve your proposal's chances of passing. Additionally, the regulars have absolutely no influence on votes. All of those problems you cited - which absolutely do exist, I agree - do not influence your proposal's chances of passing.

the stranglehold the small forum community has over how the GA operates and whether proposals can pass.

?? We're talking about the same forum, right? The one where gameplayers have thousands of votes, compared to the ~50 votes the GA regulars have, combined? I have a feeling your conception of the GA is some caricature or fantasy you've come to based on literally the barest interaction with the GA. The regulars have no power, at all. I'm actually shocked that you - a GCR delegate - have somehow come to the conclusion that you're the one without power.

[Flanderlion]

The small number of GA regulars generally have a significant impact on the direction of the GA. From passing the majority of resolutions (should be obvious if you flip through the passed resolutions), to rubbishing non regulars resolutions and making them leave (some of theirs are crap, but they don't deserve it no matter how many similar terrible resolutions you GA regulars have seen).

Most major regions care more about the SC than the GA. The delegate/player in charge of WA bases their vote mostly off either the regions gameside vote, offsite forum vote, or the NS forum thread. Unless something major sticks out (like an author who is disliked), most regions base their decision on the GA thread in one way or another, which is dominated by the small number of GA regulars. Most regions do this, because the GA forums have the most knowledgeable players about the GA, and ignoring them would be dumb.

The small number of GA regulars wield a disproportionate amount of power over the direction of GA votes. Not through their individual votes (although that does have an impact) but through the at vote threads etc.

Now the GA regulars have an imminent council interpreting the rules of proposals (and even potentially deciding GA rules) made nearly entirely of people from the same small group on the forums. Obviously they aren't one exclusive hivemind, but saying they have no power is not true by any means. Even vote wise, several are delegates of small to larger regions. Large delegates do influence proposals, but GA regulars influence delegates to greater effect. Also IA I would count as a regular, and he has a few more than 50 votes.

The SG isn't meant to fix the GA. The reorder proposals was more meant to be a help, and the badge is similar rather than something that would turn around the GA (or SC) completely. This is for the event to come back and for different groups to be interested/invested in it, not for a magic bullet to solve all the WA's problems, nor something that ruins it.

The SC will likely be involved with whatever major region/GP feature is rolled out. Both annexation etc. and the more recently discussed recruitment things involved the SC. The SC could have an option for a recall vote on the SG to remove ones who aren't up to the task (if the SG had veto power, that might be a problem, but veto would have so many other issues that it wouldn't be noticed).

The GA hopefully will be partially helped with the council. But culture wise, it's a problem for a good number (not all), but I'm not really sure that any tech feature can fix the issues with that. You can't code something that makes players nicer to new players proposals. I think the GA has improved, and players do try every so often when reminded, but not by enough by any means. Rules wise etc. The council hopefully will be able to work through those issues as well.

Elu's thing (not sure if his was originally or was [V]'s a while back) to improve voter information hopefully would allow voters, who want to know more but don't know much about the proposals, able to vote less with the crowd and more for their own nation. That should help some proposals, and hinder others. The SC I'm expecting to benefit most from it, but the GA a bit as well. Just tying it to one player, even if they are elected, and do a good job, will end badly if they lose interest/get bored or become inactive.

Also, probably controversial, and I'm not for or against it, just suggesting, but possibly make the SG need to be WA, and possibly also unable to be a delegate. This wouldn't remove GPers by any means, but would likely disincentivise the worst, as most are wary about losing their WA for a year.

I swear this thread brings out the worst of the text wall in all of us (although it might just be mobile making it look bad) so I'll stop there.

[Excidium Planetis]

Part of the reason "the GA community" is so small and exclusive is because the few who have self-declared themselves part of that community have made it so small and exclusive. Go participate in the General Assembly forum as a new player and see how unwelcoming and unhelpful some of the people there can be, and you see why there is so little interest in the General Assembly.

Wow. That sounds like a great idea for a thread.

Any change that would expand participation in the World Assembly to more WA nations is a change that should be embraced, regardless of what the few people in "the GA community" want. The World Assembly is supposed to be for all players, not just the few who dominate the General Assembly forum.

I disagree. We should work on making more players part of the group that participates on the GA forums, not on making the GA a thing for players who don't even visit the GA forums. In my opinion, it is all about what the GA community wants ... I just believe that the GA community needs to be expanded.

At minimum, we should consider expanding the Secretary-General role to be more involved in voter education and outreach, such as the pinned dispatch at the top of the WA page that has been proposed. Another idea might be to allow the Secretary-General to wire campaign telegrams to all WA nations at no cost.

While these powers are pretty concerning, I would be okay with giving them a trial period. At least they can potentially improve the game.

I do agree that the Secretary-General's powers shouldn't be expanded in ways that are obstructive (e.g., veto, removing proposals). That doesn't increase participation, it would probably reduce it. I could support allowing the Secretary-General to move proposals up in the queue, but only if the proposal has more approvals than a proposal that is already ahead of it in the queue, so we aren't granting too much power to one person.

Agreed.

I also agree that a new election should be conducted using a one-vote-per-WA-nation standard before any new powers go into effect.

Agreed.

[Eluvatar]

In terms of information-sharing, even a stamp of approval/disapproval of a proposal would be a form of information-sharing.

What I think might make more sense would be a special category of dispatches for each proposal. The dispatch selected by the SG, or failing that the dispatch with the most votes, would be displayed alongside the proposal / resolution at vote. Or, would be at the top of the list of these dispatches which would be linked to from the proposal / resolution at vote. Whatever makes sense.

What I'm doing here, by the way, is brainstorming. Absolutely no guarantee that this change, or any change, will be implemented, whatsoever.

[Flanderlion]

In terms of information-sharing, even a stamp of approval/disapproval of a proposal would be a form of information-sharing.

What I think might make more sense would be a special category of dispatches for each proposal. The dispatch selected by the SG, or failing that the dispatch with the most votes, would be displayed alongside the proposal / resolution at vote. Or, would be at the top of the list of these dispatches which would be linked to from the proposal / resolution at vote. Whatever makes sense.

What I'm doing here, by the way, is brainstorming. Absolutely no guarantee that this change, or any change, will be implemented, whatsoever.

Not sure if SG should get a disapproval stamp, a lot more negative to an author than someone approving of a resolution.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=386479 the thread I keep thinking of whenever I hear the idea. Issue with that is the one that is most upvoted (or the one the SG selects) is likely to biased to the extreme rather than neutral. Is it really better a nation getting an biased version of events than having to decide with their region (who hopefully would have less of a stake in the outcome of the resolution, and therefore less biased)?

I'd kind of hope for a viewpoints tab instead, that links to the page of special dispatches, rather than a specific opinion. SG pins one on top, the rest are ordered by upvotes (no downvotes allowed). Each one of the dispatches has one of 5 symbols beside them. Thumbs up, thumbs kind of up, thumbs sidewise, thumbs partially down, and thumbs down, which would be picked by the author. Thumbs up for full support, down for hate, sideways for neutral, and diagonally up or down for slightly for or against.

One thing about the upvotes system is that upvotes squads might upvote their side and downvotes opposed viewpoints like what happens with the dispatch system. Europeia has the best upvote squad imho but it isn't hard to start one up like other regions do on a less official basis, usually case by case rather than an actual group.

Unrelated ish, resolutions should require author to post a thread to submit, and the resolution is linked to the at vote thread/proposal thread. Might shut out authors who are forum banned though. Then next to viewpoints there could be a forum thread link. Might be a nightmare for the GA having OOC natives posting in the forum though.

And threads asking for moderation to disband etc. often have senior mods etc. commenting in them, so posting in a thread doesn't mean much beyond something that made people click (in this case admins, but usually it's mods or issue editors).

[Gruenberg]

most regions base their decision on the GA thread in one way or another

It would be really interesting to see some evidence for this, because it runs counter to everything I've ever experienced in the WA, which is that the forum debate is of no consequence to the actual vote.

Now the GA regulars have an imminent council interpreting the rules of proposals (and even potentially deciding GA rules) made nearly entirely of people from the same small group on the forums. Obviously they aren't one exclusive hivemind, but saying they have no power is not true by any means.

Sigh. This is exactly what I feared about the advisory council: that it will be seen as a concession to the WA players.

The reorder proposals was more meant to be a help,

But how? You are replacing a system that works perfectly fine - proposals are processed in the order in which they are submitted - with one allowing one individual subjective judgment over which proposals go to vote when!

The GA hopefully will be partially helped with the council. But culture wise, it's a problem for a good number (not all), but I'm not really sure that any tech feature can fix the issues with that. You can't code something that makes players nicer to new players proposals. I think the GA has improved, and players do try every so often when reminded, but not by enough by any means. Rules wise etc. The council hopefully will be able to work through those issues as well.

I'm bewildered as to how this is going to be the case. The advisory council is going to be a group of players, with no power, who can be overruled at will by the moderators, discussing in secret. How is that going to help the toxic forum atmosphere at all?

Elu's thing (not sure if his was originally or was [V]'s a while back) to improve voter information hopefully would allow voters, who want to know more but don't know much about the proposals, able to vote less with the crowd and more for their own nation. That should help some proposals, and hinder others. The SC I'm expecting to benefit most from it, but the GA a bit as well.

The link to the forum included on the voting page doesn't appear to have had any such effect. Why would a link to a dispatch?

Just tying it to one player, even if they are elected, and do a good job, will end badly if they lose interest/get bored or become inactive.

Which is exactly what you're proposing...

In terms of information-sharing, even a stamp of approval/disapproval of a proposal would be a form of information-sharing.

What I think might make more sense would be a special category of dispatches for each proposal. The dispatch selected by the SG, or failing that the dispatch with the most votes, would be displayed alongside the proposal / resolution at vote. Or, would be at the top of the list of these dispatches which would be linked to from the proposal / resolution at vote. Whatever makes sense.

At some point beyond "brainstorming" you guys are going to explain why this is needed, right? Because otherwise you're just giving the Europeia WA Office more free publicity.

Unrelated ish, resolutions should require author to post a thread to submit, and the resolution is linked to the at vote thread/proposal thread. Might shut out authors who are forum banned though. Then next to viewpoints there could be a forum thread link. Might be a nightmare for the GA having OOC natives posting in the forum though.

I would be completely opposed to this. The WA game has never required participation in the forum. Why are we now forcing players to do so?

[Christian Democrats]

As long as the SG just gets the ability to rubberstamp proposals, it's all good. That should be considered, at least.

It wouldn't fix any problems, so I definitely don't think it needs to be a priority, but it would be kinda sorta cool.

I'm not saying that I think this is a good idea, but the other possibility I saw mentioned that might not be terrible would be a Presidential-like veto. (i.e. requiring 67% to pass versus 50%)

Why on earth would we give military gameplayers a veto over the GA? GA players would inevitably not be the winners of SG elections.

[Flanderlion]

most regions base their decision on the GA thread in one way or another

It would be really interesting to see some evidence for this, because it runs counter to everything I've ever experienced in the WA, which is that the forum debate is of no consequence to the actual vote.

Now the GA regulars have an imminent council interpreting the rules of proposals (and even potentially deciding GA rules) made nearly entirely of people from the same small group on the forums. Obviously they aren't one exclusive hivemind, but saying they have no power is not true by any means.

Sigh. This is exactly what I feared about the advisory council: that it will be seen as a concession to the WA players.

The reorder proposals was more meant to be a help,

But how? You are replacing a system that works perfectly fine - proposals are processed in the order in which they are submitted - with one allowing one individual subjective judgment over which proposals go to vote when!

The GA hopefully will be partially helped with the council. But culture wise, it's a problem for a good number (not all), but I'm not really sure that any tech feature can fix the issues with that. You can't code something that makes players nicer to new players proposals. I think the GA has improved, and players do try every so often when reminded, but not by enough by any means. Rules wise etc. The council hopefully will be able to work through those issues as well.

I'm bewildered as to how this is going to be the case. The advisory council is going to be a group of players, with no power, who can be overruled at will by the moderators, discussing in secret. How is that going to help the toxic forum atmosphere at all?

Elu's thing (not sure if his was originally or was [V]'s a while back) to improve voter information hopefully would allow voters, who want to know more but don't know much about the proposals, able to vote less with the crowd and more for their own nation. That should help some proposals, and hinder others. The SC I'm expecting to benefit most from it, but the GA a bit as well.

The link to the forum included on the voting page doesn't appear to have had any such effect. Why would a link to a dispatch?

Just tying it to one player, even if they are elected, and do a good job, will end badly if they lose interest/get bored or become inactive.

Which is exactly what you're proposing...

In terms of information-sharing, even a stamp of approval/disapproval of a proposal would be a form of information-sharing.

What I think might make more sense would be a special category of dispatches for each proposal. The dispatch selected by the SG, or failing that the dispatch with the most votes, would be displayed alongside the proposal / resolution at vote. Or, would be at the top of the list of these dispatches which would be linked to from the proposal / resolution at vote. Whatever makes sense.

At some point beyond "brainstorming" you guys are going to explain why this is needed, right? Because otherwise you're just giving the Europeia WA Office more free publicity.

Unrelated ish, resolutions should require author to post a thread to submit, and the resolution is linked to the at vote thread/proposal thread. Might shut out authors who are forum banned though. Then next to viewpoints there could be a forum thread link. Might be a nightmare for the GA having OOC natives posting in the forum though.

I would be completely opposed to this. The WA game has never required participation in the forum. Why are we now forcing players to do so?

Evidence wise, it'll have to wait until I'm back down and have forum access rather than just a phone. Also, I'd kind of have to get permission from players to allow me to quote them, but I'm guessing most'll be fine with it.

And tech features are meant to go around in turns. Obviously that doesn't happen exactly because features are needed urgently/are easy/impact not just one part of NS, but that was the general idea last I heard. I thought the consensus was the opposite where it would take over in time. But I've steered clear of the thread since.

GA isn't toxic, it isn't friendly, and new nations often have something approaching toxic, but it isn't that bad. It's bad, don't get me wrong. But I wouldn't go as far as toxic. Some new players are treated well, others averagely. Just it's the ones that are treated terribly is why the GA gets and deserves its bad rep. But I was more meaning, if the people in charge of the GA are the ones most invested, hopefully they'd be the ones to try and fix things. No one's coming in to sort the GA culture, that comes from within.

Viewpoints would likely be big compared to forums, and possibly a notification of some kind that that they click on, or an animation. Whatever grabs their attention, the forum link doesn't for most and doesn't seem part of the resolution itself, more of the background stuff like past resolutions, or delegate votes. Or the viewpoints tab could hold the world votes graph and total votes (reducing following the crowd slightly).

And if a nation had to be WA (and maybe couldn't be a delegate either) I can't think of many mil gameplayers who would choose to voluntarily lose their WA for a year. The odd one goes out and does a period as a delegate. There is a reason Predator got the WA bans. Unless the SG got powers that were too good, but that is what this thread is trying to avoid (figure out the balance where people are invested, but not too invested that it becomes game changing/ruining for any group).

A veto I don't think could be balanced, too final, and even if it wasn't, it'd just be repeating the same thing twice.

Proposal reordering likely wouldn't matter unless there are multiple proposals in queue. The GA/SC have 0 proposals in the queue, and it can't prevent resolutions from going to vote first, just allows the SG to put proposals first in the queue after the current resolution at vote (or at next update if there is nothing at vote). But that is just what I personally would prefer, there is no consensus with it.

I'm proposing having the event and getting as many groups into it. I don't want some player to have some god mode because most likely the SG won't love my region at some point of existence, and it wouldn't be fun to touch the WA if they veto anything pro NPO, and make the campaigning useless.

Forum wise, I saw someone elsewhere jokingly say every resolution must have the author post it so others don't have to. I thought I'd throw it into the pot.

[Mousebumples]

I'm not saying that I think this is a good idea, but the other possibility I saw mentioned that might not be terrible would be a Presidential-like veto. (i.e. requiring 67% to pass versus 50%)

Why on earth would we give military gameplayers a veto over the GA? GA players would inevitably not be the winners of SG elections.

Under the previous format, probably not. However, I don't see why we couldn't possibly have 2 separate SGs if we wanted - similar to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader (in US Congress terms). Additionally, as others have indicated above, other requirements could be placed on the SG nation - i.e. must continuously hold WA status for their term, etc., that could make it less appealing to gameplayers.

I'm not saying that the veto is the best idea in the history of the world, but I'd rather you (and others) consider arguments on their merits rather than deducting that Gameplayers will inherently win everything and ruin everything because they can.

[Gruenberg]

Under the previous format, probably not. However, I don't see why we couldn't possibly have 2 separate SGs if we wanted

If the SG role really can be separated like that - then could it be considered to just have the SC one? I've asked this several times and I assumed the lack of response was because splitting it was a technical impossibility, but you seem to be implying it wouldn't be.

similar to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader (in US Congress terms).

VPOTUS is the President of the Senate

I'm not saying that the veto is the best idea in the history of the world, but I'd rather you (and others) consider arguments on their merits rather than deducting that Gameplayers will inherently win everything and ruin everything because they can.

Perhaps it would help us if you propounded some "merits" for the veto?

[Mousebumples]

Under the previous format, probably not. However, I don't see why we couldn't possibly have 2 separate SGs if we wanted

If the SG role really can be separated like that - then could it be considered to just have the SC one? I've asked this several times and I assumed the lack of response was because splitting it was a technical impossibility, but you seem to be implying it wouldn't be.

I have no idea about the techncial possibilities. But, at minimum, I figure it would be less complicated than trying to have separate GA and SC memberships. But again - not a techie - so I might be way off base on that.

similar to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader (in US Congress terms).

VPOTUS is the President of the Senate

Point.

I'm not saying that the veto is the best idea in the history of the world, but I'd rather you (and others) consider arguments on their merits rather than deducting that Gameplayers will inherently win everything and ruin everything because they can.

Perhaps it would help us if you propounded some "merits" for the veto?

I guess for me, it's less about "this is great" versus "this is less bad than some things." I've heard from [v] (and others) that they think that the SecGen is an interesting wrinkle that could lead to greater interest and involvement in WA affairs overall, within the NS community. If some sort of power is inevitable, I'd rather we try to identify (and optimally agree upon) what the "least bad" option would be. I'm fairly convinced (personally) that the re-ordering of the queue (in the GA at least) is not a good idea. Possible potentially less-bad options could include the following:

1. "Veto" power, which would require a 67% vote in favor for passage.
2. Bonus approvals (i.e. the SG's approval on a submitted proposal would be worth 10 approvals versus only a single approval)
3. The ability to extend the approval period for a piece of legislation (i.e. a proposal is within 5 approvals of quorum and will be expiring in 3 hours - give that proposal an extra 12 or 24 hours)
4. The ability to extend the voting period for a resolution at vote (i.e. 5 days versus the standard 4)
5. A multiplier on their vote (for average players, this could definitely be interesting; however, if say the WAD of TNP were SG, that could completely decimate the chances of the other side)
6. The ability to pin relevant dispatches in support/opposition of a given proposal at vote (I see you made a reference to my region above, but we haven't really done much with this in dispatches recently. However, if this were a thing, I would figure that more players (and regions) would want the notoriety and attention that could come from having their dispatch pinned - in addition to helping their side. I could see this helping to potentially inform the voters - depending on the content of the dispatches - and also maybe bring more eyes to the WA.)
7. The ability to post News articles regarding updates from the Secretary General periodically.
8. The ability to send periodic "Message from the Secretary General" memos to all Delegates periodically - i.e. "free stamps" for tag:delegates telegrams.

The veto one was mentioned above mostly because it was kinda referenced by someone else and was the first one to pop into my head. Some of these listed above I don't even really love - notably #5 seems good on the surface but problematic, overall. Granted that I have no idea how feasible any of this is to code. (especially since I seem to recall reading/hearing somewhere that the WA coding is a mess and a half)

If I had my vote, I think that 2-4 and possibly 6 & 7 would be the best. 7 could perhaps be exercised on every vote, but I would think limits can/should be placed on the use of the other options, if implemented.

(I can go into greater detail about why any of these are worth considering if there's interest, but this post is getting long enough already, and I need to run off for a bit.)

[Petrolheadia]

I remember the election and I gotta remind that the SG's powerlessness is the whole joke

[Enfaru]

I remember the election and I gotta remind that the SG's powerlessness is the whole joke

We recognize that the April Fools thing was a joke. However, like a lot of April Fools "Jokes" a lot of people want to see a real application. The call for a Secretary General has long preceded the April Fools joke and if it could be done as a joke, why not more seriously?

What we're considering is a none-joke SG. Something that would encourage WA activity.

[Excidium Planetis]

Possible less bad options include the following:

1. "Veto" power, which would require a 67% vote in favor for passage.
2. Bonus approvals (i.e. the SG's approval on a submitted proposal would be worth 10 approvals versus only a single approval)
3. The ability to extend the approval period for a piece of legislation (i.e. a proposal is within 5 approvals of quorum and will be expiring in 3 hours - give that proposal an extra 12 or 24 hours)
4. The ability to extend the voting period for a resolution at vote (i.e. 5 days versus the standard 4)
5. A multiplier on their vote (for average players, this could definitely be interesting; however, if say the WAD of TNP were SG, that could completely decimate the chances of the other side)
6. The ability to pin relevant dispatches in support/opposition of a given proposal at vote (I see you made a reference to my region above, but we haven't really done much with this in dispatches recently. However, if this were a thing, I would figure that more players (and regions) would want the notoriety and attention that could come from having their dispatch pinned - in addition to helping their side. I could see this helping to potentially inform the voters - depending on the content of the dispatches - and also maybe bring more eyes to the WA.)
7. The ability to post News articles regarding updates from the Secretary General periodically.
8. The ability to send periodic "Message from the Secretary General" memos to all Delegates periodically - i.e. "free stamps" for tag:delegates telegrams.

I'm not a fan of the veto, but one that merely bumps the requirement to 67% instead of discarding the resolution at vote would be bearable. Most resolutions pass with a supermajority, so the only resolutions it would impact would be the more controversial, close vote ones. This could potentially improve the game.

I suggested the bonus approvals, so obviously I like that idea.

I really like the approval period extension. It's like a softer version of the bonus approvals, because it will still help resolutions get to vote that might otherwise fail by a few approvals, but none of the power is directly in the hands of the SG: delegates still need to make those last few approvals. On top of that, the time extension doesn't really mess with anything else.

I do not, however, like extending the vote to 5 days. Most people who are going to vote will have voted within 4 days, and the outcome of the vote is usually quite clear. The only resolution in my memory that an extra day of voting might have made a difference is World Space Administration, because the vote was decided in the last few minutes, and an extra day may have allowed us to bring it back to AGAINST. That isn't to say that this option would have limited applicability, however. It wouldn't decide votes, but it could be used in the SC to delay liberations by a whole day. Heck, if it could be used multiple times, liberations could potentially be delayed two or three days, by lengthening the votes before them on top of the Liberation vote. Maybe SC players will comment on this, but I don't personally see this as a good idea.

Vote multiplier is an absolute no. The winner of the SG is potentially a super-delegate, and no one should be able to singlehandedly decide a vote.

The dispatch pin may affect the votes too much... but, really, it would at least make voters more informed, which is better than the current amount of information they get, which is the resolution text and the vote count for most voters.

News articles would be kinda cool. As long as they can pull off humor at least up to Max Barry level, I'm cool with it.

I'm on the fence for free campaigns. Campaigns are powerful stuff, and coming from the SG they might be even more influential. However, as far as the recommended powers go, this is not too bad. If it were limited to maybe 3000 free stamps per term, or something, that would be bearable.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I guess for me, it's less about "this is great" versus "this is less bad than some things." I've heard from [v] (and others) that they think that the SecGen is an interesting wrinkle that could lead to greater interest and involvement in WA affairs overall, within the NS community. If some sort of power is inevitable, I'd rather we try to identify (and optimally agree upon) what the "least bad" option would be.

So, so depressing that the admins care so little about the GA, the only viable option for us is to limit the damage of potential changes - as opposed to weighing options that might actually improve the game for us.

[Topid]

I guess for me, it's less about "this is great" versus "this is less bad than some things." I've heard from [v] (and others) that they think that the SecGen is an interesting wrinkle that could lead to greater interest and involvement in WA affairs overall, within the NS community. If some sort of power is inevitable, I'd rather we try to identify (and optimally agree upon) what the "least bad" option would be.

So, so depressing that the admins care so little about the GA, the only viable option for us is to limit the damage of potential changes - as opposed to weighing options that might actually improve the game for us.

They care so little they're trying to boost your profile and expand your community.

The bastards.

[Sciongrad]

So, so depressing that the admins care so little about the GA, the only viable option for us is to limit the damage of potential changes - as opposed to weighing options that might actually improve the game for us.

They care so little they're trying to boost your profile and expand your community.

The bastards.

Oh, they are? We didn't realize. It's a good thing you and Cormac are here to interpret for us, with all your expertise, otherwise, we'd be totally lost.

[Topid]

They care so little they're trying to boost your profile and expand your community.

The bastards.

Oh, they are? We didn't realize. It's a good thing you and Cormac are here to interpret for us, with all your expertise, otherwise, we'd be totally lost.

I do not understand the purpose of your post.

But you are welcome I guess.

[Gruenberg]

There's something missing in this process. It's confusing how we've so quickly jumped to "least worst" options!

People liked the SG election, so the admins are thinking about doing it again. Much like other popular events have recurred, e.g. the zombies. But making the zombies an annual thing rather than a one-off didn't involve fundamentally recoding an unrelated part of the game.

If people enjoyed the SG election, just hold it again, make it a regular event, annual like the zombies or whatever. Why does it have to extend to changing other bits of the game.

[Drasnia]

There's something missing in this process. It's confusing how we've so quickly jumped to "least worst" options!

People liked the SG election, so the admins are thinking about doing it again. Much like other popular events have recurred, e.g. the zombies. But making the zombies an annual thing rather than a one-off didn't involve fundamentally recoding an unrelated part of the game.

If people enjoyed the SG election, just hold it again, make it a regular event, annual like the zombies or whatever. Why does it have to extend to changing other bits of the game.

Very much this. If the elections were held regularly (say every 3-4 months) and each election was given a significant amount of attention by site staff through news posts, etc., I would bet that it would make a lot more people interested in the GA. That is far more preferable to giving someone actual admin-type privileges in the WA just because they were elected.

[Sciongrad]

Oh, they are? We didn't realize. It's a good thing you and Cormac are here to interpret for us, with all your expertise, otherwise, we'd be totally lost.

I do not understand the purpose of your post.

But you are welcome I guess.

You did understand, obviously, but I'm sure you feel really cool acting coy.

I also agree with Gruen. The process for making changes to the game has become illogical. "We can make this change. It won't be good for the game, but it also won't be that bad. So let's add it!" We're basically asking for dysfunction with that type of process.