Don't create the advisory council. Separate WA/SC instead.

[Gruenberg]

OK.

When what later became known as the Security Council was first introduced, a lot of players - both GA players and SC players, roleplayers and gameplayers - wanted to "separate" the two completely. [violet] kept telling us this was mechanically impossible. But given so many of the problems with the WA stem from that decision, it's worth returning to.

At the time commendations were first introduced, some of us suggested they shouldn't be part of the normal WA voting procedure. Just set up a council of experienced gameplayers to decide who is worthy of being commended or condemned. (This was pre-liberations, but they could be folded into the same thing.) Again, we were told this wasn't going to happen.

But now, you are setting up a council of experienced players. So, instead of a GA rules council, which is a wholly unnecessary creation anyway, use this new council to replace the SC. Appoint six, or however many, experienced gameplayers, ensuring an R/D, GCR/UCR, whatever/whatever balance, if they wanna have elections feel free or if not just mod-appointed, and have them decide the outcome of SC discussions.

That way, the mechanical separation would finally be achieved. The WA would return to what worked best, an in-character legislative assembly, the gameplayers would still be able to commend and condemn each other, and the whole thing would work much more smoothly because there'd be no confusion between the WA and the SC!

[The Blaatschapen]

OK.

When what later became known as the Security Council was first introduced, a lot of players - both GA players and SC players, roleplayers and gameplayers - wanted to "separate" the two completely. [violet] kept telling us this was mechanically impossible. But given so many of the problems with the WA stem from that decision, it's worth returning to.

At the time commendations were first introduced, some of us suggested they shouldn't be part of the normal WA voting procedure. Just set up a council of experienced gameplayers to decide who is worthy of being commended or condemned. (This was pre-liberations, but they could be folded into the same thing.) Again, we were told this wasn't going to happen.

But now, you are setting up a council of experienced players. So, instead of a GA rules council, which is a wholly unnecessary creation anyway, use this new council to replace the SC. Appoint six, or however many, experienced gameplayers, ensuring an R/D, GCR/UCR, whatever/whatever balance, if they wanna have elections feel free or if not just mod-appointed, and have them decide the outcome of SC discussions.

That way, the mechanical separation would finally be achieved. The WA would return to what worked best, an in-character legislative assembly, the gameplayers would still be able to commend and condemn each other, and the whole thing would work much more smoothly because there'd be no confusion between the WA and the SC!

... That's a suggestion for the SC, not the GA

[Gruenberg]

... That's a suggestion for the SC, not the GA :p

I'm suggesting doing this instead of doing the Advisory Council thing. Sedgistan has mentioned before that the admins aren't going to make two big changes at once (hence my Resolution Editors idea is dust) so it's either one or the other.

[The Blaatschapen]

... That's a suggestion for the SC, not the GA

I'm suggesting doing this instead of doing the Advisory Council thing. Sedgistan has mentioned before that the admins aren't going to make two big changes at once (hence my Resolution Editors idea is dust) so it's either one or the other.

Probably best to discuss that one in the SC though and see how it goes over there.

Good luck

[Kryozerkia]

OK.

When what later became known as the Security Council was first introduced, a lot of players - both GA players and SC players, roleplayers and gameplayers - wanted to "separate" the two completely. [violet] kept telling us this was mechanically impossible. But given so many of the problems with the WA stem from that decision, it's worth returning to.

At the time commendations were first introduced, some of us suggested they shouldn't be part of the normal WA voting procedure. Just set up a council of experienced gameplayers to decide who is worthy of being commended or condemned. (This was pre-liberations, but they could be folded into the same thing.) Again, we were told this wasn't going to happen.

But now, you are setting up a council of experienced players. So, instead of a GA rules council, which is a wholly unnecessary creation anyway, use this new council to replace the SC. Appoint six, or however many, experienced gameplayers, ensuring an R/D, GCR/UCR, whatever/whatever balance, if they wanna have elections feel free or if not just mod-appointed, and have them decide the outcome of SC discussions.

That way, the mechanical separation would finally be achieved. The WA would return to what worked best, an in-character legislative assembly, the gameplayers would still be able to commend and condemn each other, and the whole thing would work much more smoothly because there'd be no confusion between the WA and the SC!

This. This is an interesting idea.

While I can't speak on the mechanical feasibility, I have previously suggested to [violet] that we create separate pages for proposal submission, so we can have a greater level of information right that new authors can readily see. I'm not sure if this what you are aiming for but it may be along the same lines. I imagine you're referring to 100% separation in that there is no evidence of the other's existence when you vote on a proposal?

What would setting up a SC council to decide who should be commended or condemned and direct SC discussion achieve?

[Gruenberg]

While I can't speak on the mechanical feasibility, I have previously suggested to [violet] that we create separate pages for proposal submission, so we can have a greater level of information right that new authors can readily see. I'm not sure if this what you are aiming for but it may be along the same lines. I imagine you're referring to 100% separation in that there is no evidence of the other's existence when you vote on a proposal?

What would setting up a SC council to decide who should be commended or condemned and direct SC discussion achieve?

It seems like you're interpreting this as proposals would still be submitted and voted on by the SC, which wouldn't be part of my suggestion - so in answer to what it would achieve, nothing, because if you keep the SC as a voting arm of the arm, it's pointless. And if that's the red line, then as I said before, fair enough, I didn't expect the idea to get anywhere anyway.

[Kryozerkia]

While I can't speak on the mechanical feasibility, I have previously suggested to [violet] that we create separate pages for proposal submission, so we can have a greater level of information right that new authors can readily see. I'm not sure if this what you are aiming for but it may be along the same lines. I imagine you're referring to 100% separation in that there is no evidence of the other's existence when you vote on a proposal?

What would setting up a SC council to decide who should be commended or condemned and direct SC discussion achieve?

It seems like you're interpreting this as proposals would still be submitted and voted on by the SC, which wouldn't be part of my suggestion - so in answer to what it would achieve, nothing, because if you keep the SC as a voting arm of the arm, it's pointless. And if that's the red line, then as I said before, fair enough, I didn't expect the idea to get anywhere anyway.

All right then. So, the SC wouldn't have a proposal vote? Just making sure I understand. So, if there is no vote how would this ideally work?

[Sedgistan]

This does nothing to solve the issues with GA moderation - while the SC isn't popular in this community, I'm relatively certain that you are alone in thinking that divorcing the SC is going to solve all the GA's problems.

That aside, I haven't heard any demand in the SC to have this sort of change foisted upon them. Most people seem content with the current method of voting.

[Gruenberg]

The council just decides. 4-2 in favor of Bobistan being commended, 5-1 against Bethtopia being condemned, 3-3 on Region of Bob and Beth being liberated, maybe the moderator breaks the tie, or they could elect their Secretary General to do it, or whatever.

When commendations were first introduced, we suggested it just go to a panel of experienced players to decide, but were told such a thing wouldn't be set up. What's being set up now (for the GA) seems awfully similar to that, though. And it makes sense because SC matters are something only a very few players can even weigh in on anyway. Most NSers can have an opinion on slavery or biological weapons or free trade, but only a tiny percentage of the total NS population are active gameplayers and really have the knowledge to understand whether a commendation is deserved or a liberation needed.

This does nothing to solve the issues with GA moderation

Thus far, nothing you've told us about the Advisory Council assures that it will, either. So there's no net loss.

I'm relatively certain that you are alone in thinking that divorcing the SC is going to solve all the GA's problems.

I wouldn't say I'm the only one. Funnily enough, all three of us players who remember the WA before the SC came along.

[Excidium Planetis]

OK.

When what later became known as the Security Council was first introduced, a lot of players - both GA players and SC players, roleplayers and gameplayers - wanted to "separate" the two completely. [violet] kept telling us this was mechanically impossible. But given so many of the problems with the WA stem from that decision, it's worth returning to.

Indeed it is... but not in the way you are proposing.

At the time commendations were first introduced, some of us suggested they shouldn't be part of the normal WA voting procedure. Just set up a council of experienced gameplayers to decide who is worthy of being commended or condemned. (This was pre-liberations, but they could be folded into the same thing.) Again, we were told this wasn't going to happen.

But now, you are setting up a council of experienced players. So, instead of a GA rules council, which is a wholly unnecessary creation anyway, use this new council to replace the SC. Appoint six, or however many, experienced gameplayers, ensuring an R/D, GCR/UCR, whatever/whatever balance, if they wanna have elections feel free or if not just mod-appointed, and have them decide the outcome of SC discussions.

There is already a big enough problem that roleplayers rarely get Condemned or Commended... what you are proposing would be even worse. A small council of 6 gameplayers with that power could repeal Kenny's Condemnation, SP's Commendation, and others, simply because they aren't connected to gameplay. And they would likely never pass any C&C of roleplayers. That would be terrible.

That way, the mechanical separation would finally be achieved. The WA would return to what worked best, an in-character legislative assembly, the gameplayers would still be able to commend and condemn each other, and the whole thing would work much more smoothly because there'd be no confusion between the WA and the SC!

The problem is that the Delegate system remains in place. It is integral to R/D, and yet delegates are the ones with the voting power in the GA, the ones required to approve GA proposals. You are still leaving gameplayers largely in control of the GA.

What I have proposed before, and still do, is to separate WA membership into GA and SC membership, and make SC membership required for voting in the SC and endorsing Delegates (the GP portions), and GA membership for endorsing a GA Regional Officer (basically just an officer with the WA power that the delegate currently has) and voting in the GA. This would evenly divide the power, GPers could drop out of the GA entirely, and Delegates would not control GA voting... the GA ROs would take their place, and would have nothing to do with GP.

[Gruenberg]

There is already a big enough problem that roleplayers rarely get Condemned or Commended

I agree it's a problem that sometimes people propose commendations of roleplayers, but for now all we can do is take a firm line against them and hope that in most cases gameplayers will vote them down. Over time, people might learn to just give up.

And they would likely never pass any C&C of roleplayers. That would be terrible.

Actually, that would be my dream scenario.

The problem is that the Delegate system remains in place.

That, I agree with you on. And the suggestion you offer has merit. But I have never ever seen any indication the admins are even remotely open to reworking the voting system, so I just don't see much point going down that road. By all means, make the suggestion, and I will support it wholeheartedly, but I don't see there being an audience for it among the admins.

[Excidium Planetis]

There is already a big enough problem that roleplayers rarely get Condemned or Commended

I agree it's a problem that sometimes people propose commendations of roleplayers, but for now all we can do is take a firm line against them and hope that in most cases gameplayers will vote them down. Over time, people might learn to just give up.

And they would likely never pass any C&C of roleplayers. That would be terrible.

Actually, that would be my dream scenario.

Why are you opposed to roleplayers being commended? Separatist Peoples definitely deserved his Commendation, and he was Commended for his involvement in the GA, no less. And from what I remember, the whole GA at the time was behind it.

The problem is that the Delegate system remains in place.

That, I agree with you on. And the suggestion you offer has merit. But I have never ever seen any indication the admins are even remotely open to reworking the voting system, so I just don't see much point going down that road. By all means, make the suggestion, and I will support it wholeheartedly, but I don't see there being an audience for it among the admins.

Oh my gosh. Are you sure you are really Gruenberg?

[Gruenberg]

Why are you opposed to roleplayers being commended? Separatist Peoples definitely deserved his Commendation, and he was Commended for his involvement in the GA, no less. And from what I remember, the whole GA at the time was behind it.

Because the SC should be for gameplay only. That's what it was created for - to address (a) a specific problem, of Macedon invading some region (Belgium, I think?) and then sitting on, making use of the Influence system and refounding and whatever other gameplay stuff was involved and (b) when presented with commendations, the refusal of the gameplayers to abide by existing WA rules.

And restoring that hard separation makes it much easier for us to argue for complete separation. I can see how gameplayers could easily take umbrage at separating the two yet having roleplayers continue to be commended.

For what it's worth it's nothing personal on the individuals involved.

[Excidium Planetis]

Why are you opposed to roleplayers being commended? Separatist Peoples definitely deserved his Commendation, and he was Commended for his involvement in the GA, no less. And from what I remember, the whole GA at the time was behind it.

Because the SC should be for gameplay only. That's what it was created for - to address (a) a specific problem, of Macedon invading some region (Belgium, I think?) and then sitting on, making use of the Influence system and refounding and whatever other gameplay stuff was involved and

That may be true, but the first player ever Condemned was Kenny, and that was entirely for roleplay "accomplishments". Condemnations are not expressly for GP.

(b) when presented with commendations, the refusal of the gameplayers to abide by existing WA rules.

What? Please explain.

And restoring that hard separation makes it much easier for us to argue for complete separation. I can see how gameplayers could easily take umbrage at separating the two yet having roleplayers continue to be commended.

But they would also still be able to muddle in the GA if they wanted, even after separating the two, so it would be fair. I don't advocate the two becoming mutually exclusive bastions of RP and GP respectively, simply that they have less influence on each other than they currently do by having a shared voting system and WA votes tied to a GP leadership position.

[Gruenberg]

That may be true, but the first player ever Condemned was Kenny, and that was entirely for roleplay "accomplishments". Condemnations are not expressly for GP.

I know they're not. I'm saying - they should be.

(b) when presented with commendations, the refusal of the gameplayers to abide by existing WA rules.

What? Please explain.

None of this mess would have even happened had they simply abided by the metagaming rules, but they were much too special for that.

I don't advocate the two becoming mutually exclusive bastions of RP and GP respectively

*shrug* I do. That's the only way this works.

[Kryozerkia]

Because the SC should be for gameplay only. That's what it was created for - to address (a) a specific problem, of Macedon invading some region (Belgium, I think?) and then sitting on, making use of the Influence system and refounding and whatever other gameplay stuff was involved and (b) when presented with commendations, the refusal of the gameplayers to abide by existing WA rules.

And restoring that hard separation makes it much easier for us to argue for complete separation. I can see how gameplayers could easily take umbrage at separating the two yet having roleplayers continue to be commended.

For what it's worth it's nothing personal on the individuals involved.

It's rare that we see eye to eye on anything but this makes sense to me. They are treated as separate entities at the proposal level and to a degree at the game level. It would be nice to see a full separation.

If C&Cs were reserved for GP rather than RP, how would it be ideally enforced? By the same council you've already mentioned?

[Sedgistan]

I've moved the thread to the Technical forum, as it's discussing a significant technical change to the site, which affects areas beyond just the GA.

[Topid]

I somewhat like this idea because I think it is dumb I have to open my nation up to stat changes by the GA just because I have to be in the WA to endorse folks so my region can be administered (no founder). If the ability to endorse someone for regional admin purposes was tied to SC membership, and GA membership was totally optional it'd make more sense.

But in order to have delegate votes in both bodies still, we'd need two delegate positions since a delegate might not be a member of both. Regions having two delegates would make much less sense than the rest of the proposal here. And having two seperate sets of endorsements, those for who is GA delegate and those for who is SC delegate would be terrible. That's where I'm getting tied up.

Edit: fixin auto corrects

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

What I have proposed before, and still do, is to separate WA membership into GA and SC membership, and make SC membership required for voting in the SC and endorsing Delegates (the GP portions), and GA membership for endorsing a GA Regional Officer (basically just an officer with the WA power that the delegate currently has) and voting in the GA. This would evenly divide the power, GPers could drop out of the GA entirely, and Delegates would not control GA voting... the GA ROs would take their place, and would have nothing to do with GP.

Depending on implementation, that'd likely make native regions far more open to raids. If the native delegate is elected on GA endorsements, raiders would 100% just sleep using GA membership to gain some native endos, and hit it with those. If a region's members are split between which body they join, I.e. Some choose SC and some close GA, the endorsement count of the delegate/GA officer will drop, making the region more apt to be raided. If you're suggesting a region can have both types of elected office at once, well, if you can join both bodies nothing changes and we just get two delegates, if you can only join one, see last point - you're lowering the endorsements on either one (if we don't mind things getting messy and only taking one) and not effecting the total endorsement count in the region. Perhaps an interesting effect of the "one body only" scenario would be raiders splitting bodies to try and get both seats while defenders focus on getting just one office, resulting in drawn out, messy, delegate v. Delegate battles...which'd be interesting for us, sure, but I can't imagine very helpful to the natives. Or, again depending on implementation of powers, it works too well, and raiders lose almost every single operation.

Tl;dr as long as that form of membership is tied to regional powers, GP'ers would not stop using GA membership. If membership is one body at a time, native regions probably suffer. If both power positions can exist at once, that opens up a massive change to the root landscape of R/D. These are all implications whose effects would need to be explored.

[Excidium Planetis]

What I have proposed before, and still do, is to separate WA membership into GA and SC membership, and make SC membership required for voting in the SC and endorsing Delegates (the GP portions), and GA membership for endorsing a GA Regional Officer (basically just an officer with the WA power that the delegate currently has) and voting in the GA. This would evenly divide the power, GPers could drop out of the GA entirely, and Delegates would not control GA voting... the GA ROs would take their place, and would have nothing to do with GP.

Depending on implementation, that'd likely make native regions far more open to raids. If the native delegate is elected on GA endorsements, raiders would 100% just sleep using GA membership to gain some native endos, and hit it with those. If a region's members are split between which body they join, I.e. Some choose SC and some close GA, the endorsement count of the delegate/GA officer will drop, making the region more apt to be raided. If you're suggesting a region can have both types of elected office at once, well, if you can join both bodies nothing changes and we just get two delegates, if you can only join one, see last point - you're lowering the endorsements on either one (if we don't mind things getting messy and only taking one) and not effecting the total endorsement count in the region. Perhaps an interesting effect of the "one body only" scenario would be raiders splitting bodies to try and get both seats while defenders focus on getting just one office, resulting in drawn out, messy, delegate v. Delegate battles...which'd be interesting for us, sure, but I can't imagine very helpful to the natives. Or, again depending on implementation of powers, it works too well, and raiders lose almost every single operation.

Tl;dr as long as that form of membership is tied to regional powers, GP'ers would not stop using GA membership. If membership is one body at a time, native regions probably suffer. If both power positions can exist at once, that opens up a massive change to the root landscape of R/D. These are all implications whose effects would need to be explored.

I was imagining two officers, and the potential for dual membership. The regional Delegate, the one with executive powers in founderless regions, could only be endorsed by SC members (like how WA membership is required now). A separate non-executive officer with the WA voting and approving powers could be endorsed only by GA members. Players could be members of both the GA and the SC at once.

Regional defense would still operate as it is now, but with SC membership instead of WA membership... Raiders and Defenders would use SC membership to endorse the Delegate and take control of regions. The GA membership could not influence who had executive power.

That said, I kinda like the idea of two separate delegates warring it out... it seems fun, but not at all what I was suggesting.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

So turn in that proposal, the relevant fact is that you'd see some people being GA members only, SC endorsement numbers drop, and regions more likely to get raided.

[Gruenberg]

Honestly, most of you now seem to be proposing something vastly more complex than I was (and exactly the kind of mechanical separation that [violet] ruled as out of the question at the time). That the mods gave my thread this misleading title when splitting it is unhelpful, but, whatever.

[Topid]

So turn in that proposal, the relevant fact is that you'd see some people being GA members only, SC endorsement numbers drop, and regions more likely to get raided.

I have a feeling almost everyone would be an SC member under that scenario, and far fewer GA members. I cannot fathom a reason why I would open up my nation to changes by some massive bureaucracy other than I want to give or receive endorsements. I have a strong suspicion that if the ability to endorse and receive endorsements was separated from membership in the voting part of both bodies even we'd see a huge collapse of people interested in voting.

Raiders aren't the only people that force their style of play on the others in NS. GA stat changes implied ICness is forced on everyone that wants to give or receive endorsements for regional community reasons.

[Gruenberg]

Yeah, I don't really see why anyone would voluntarily be in the GA in that scenario, other than the dozen or so players who enjoy playing that side of the game. It would be about as popular as any of the other RP alliances/organizations on the forums, which at best muster 20 active players, tops?

[Topid]

Honestly, most of you now seem to be proposing something vastly more complex than I was (and exactly the kind of mechanical separation that [violet] ruled as out of the question at the time). That the mods gave my thread this misleading title when splitting it is unhelpful, but, whatever.

I can safely predict that taking away the ability to vote on C&C's and Libs from everyone that wants to vote on them isn't going to happen. Flip it and pretend we were outsourcing voting on GA proposals directly to some 10 body panel. You, as a GAer would not like that.

Implied in your suggestion is anti-SC bias that has come from old GAers since day 0 of the SC.

If membership in GA stopped meaning membership in SC, membership in SC only would have to exist for everyone. And if delegates are going to vote in both then there must be seperate delegates for each region from both bodies. That means seperate endorsements.

This is why it would be very hard to implement.