Advertisement
by The United Providences of Perland » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:08 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:44 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:FWIW, GenSec really wants to keep moderation involved in the selection and OSRS oversight of GenSec.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:06 am
by Karaden » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:21 am
Gig em Aggies wrote:Look if you say it's a failure cause it doesn't do anything for your nation then by all means resign from the WA. Also as other players and even moderators and the GASEC himself stated this resolution is a mechanics violation of the GAR#1 it just won't happen.
by Gig em Aggies » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:25 am
Karaden wrote:Gig em Aggies wrote:Look if you say it's a failure cause it doesn't do anything for your nation then by all means resign from the WA. Also as other players and even moderators and the GASEC himself stated this resolution is a mechanics violation of the GAR#1 it just won't happen.
What I mean by "does nothing for my nation" I mean mechanics wise. The only thing that will happen is you will occasionally get an issue where you can leave the WA, but realistically if you are not following international law wouldn't the International body that wrote the laws have a better "enforcement", such as nations being kicked from the WA (or receiving warnings) on for the decisions you make in issues (specifically if they violate international law). I mean do you know how many new nations actually read through the resolutions and then ask questions about them only to be told, "Well the WA is more for show than anything, and doesn't actually affect your nation". Thats what I mean by the WA doing nothing for my nation, because it does nothing for any nation.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:32 am
Karaden wrote:Gig em Aggies wrote:Look if you say it's a failure cause it doesn't do anything for your nation then by all means resign from the WA. Also as other players and even moderators and the GASEC himself stated this resolution is a mechanics violation of the GAR#1 it just won't happen.
What I mean by "does nothing for my nation" I mean mechanics wise. The only thing that will happen is you will occasionally get an issue where you can leave the WA, but realistically if you are not following international law wouldn't the International body that wrote the laws have a better "enforcement", such as nations being kicked from the WA (or receiving warnings) on for the decisions you make in issues (specifically if they violate international law). I mean do you know how many new nations actually read through the resolutions and then ask questions about them only to be told, "Well the WA is more for show than anything, and doesn't actually affect your nation". Thats what I mean by the WA doing nothing for my nation, because it does nothing for any nation.
by Galiantus VII » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:03 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:However it is, it was my impression that replacements for members resigning or leaving would be selected by the moderators.
Most recently we held an internal vote, calculating the results multiple ways after a period of discussion. The mods were welcome to join in. We chose only from the pool of applicants proffered during the last two nomination periods, which limited our scope. Since we have to work together as a tight team, we think its better to keep the selection process as it currently stands rather than open it up to populist elections, which would allow people with no constructive knowledge of the WA to succeed. Given the technical nature of the subject matter, I believe we can agree that this is a bad choice for everybody.
Karaden wrote:Gig em Aggies wrote:Look if you say it's a failure cause it doesn't do anything for your nation then by all means resign from the WA. Also as other players and even moderators and the GASEC himself stated this resolution is a mechanics violation of the GAR#1 it just won't happen.
What I mean by "does nothing for my nation" I mean mechanics wise. The only thing that will happen is you will occasionally get an issue where you can leave the WA, but realistically if you are not following international law wouldn't the International body that wrote the laws have a better "enforcement", such as nations being kicked from the WA (or receiving warnings) on for the decisions you make in issues (specifically if they violate international law). I mean do you know how many new nations actually read through the resolutions and then ask questions about them only to be told, "Well the WA is more for show than anything, and doesn't actually affect your nation". Thats what I mean by the WA doing nothing for my nation, because it does nothing for any nation.
The side effects of hearing a view you disagree with can include confusion, nausea, and vomiting. Just try and listen to someone say anything politically incorrect without doing any of those things. Obviously, then, we have to consider the precious feelings of everyone we talk to. Some people don't want to be triggered, guys. It's their right as Americans.
by Solomons Land » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:08 am
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:57 am
Galiantus VII wrote:
I agree with the assessment the selection of Secretariat members should not just be a big populist election involving all WA members. But surely we can involve more people in the selection process. Perhaps allow Delegates some say, since a lot of them do participate in the process directly, or involve authors of passed GA resolutions, as they obviously have a minimum knowledge about how to write a legal text and are more likely than anyone else to have valid opinions within the scope of who would or would not make a good member of the Secretariat.
by Minoa » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:24 am
[violet] wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Well, if that's the case, why were decisions on who should replace Glen-Rhodes after his resignation conducted via a Secretariat internal poll?
Because that's the process we have now. It wouldn't be simple or easy to move to a different one, like some kind of election-based model, but that's what I'd like to see.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:43 am
Minoa wrote:[violet] wrote:Because that's the process we have now. It wouldn't be simple or easy to move to a different one, like some kind of election-based model, but that's what I'd like to see.
The nominations process would still have to be human reviewed because I believe being part of the GenSec is serious business.
It is the actual election that can be automated: the French Presidency-style two-round system of one member, one vote per round is the best I can think of (giving delegates additional votes in this case would cause a lot of controversy). Or there is the London Mayoral supplementary vote system where WA members choose their first and second choice in one go.
by Tinfect » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:55 am
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Minoa » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:07 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Minoa wrote:The nominations process would still have to be human reviewed because I believe being part of the GenSec is serious business.
It is the actual election that can be automated: the French Presidency-style two-round system of one member, one vote per round is the best I can think of (giving delegates additional votes in this case would cause a lot of controversy). Or there is the London Mayoral supplementary vote system where WA members choose their first and second choice in one go.
But GenSec members are the ones who have to work with the newcomer, so it makes sense that there be some choice at our level, even if it's limited to what the community provides.
For example, we aren't necessarily going to want to work with somebody who believes the WA should be destroyed, or who can't speak sufficiently fluent English to communicate their understanding to the rest of us. We or the mods ought to be the ones making that selection from what the community gives us. If the community says that's what they want, we're rather stuck with the lesser of evils. Basically a duplication of the Mod selection process.
by Galiantus VII » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:52 am
The side effects of hearing a view you disagree with can include confusion, nausea, and vomiting. Just try and listen to someone say anything politically incorrect without doing any of those things. Obviously, then, we have to consider the precious feelings of everyone we talk to. Some people don't want to be triggered, guys. It's their right as Americans.
by [violet] » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:55 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:People seem to think that GenSec is there as a method of adding depth to the game. We really aren't. We're interpreting a subset of the rules as they apply to the GA. This is not a question of participation and opportunity, its about enforcing a specialized ruleset, and should be divorced from the concept of "playing the game" as much as possible, just like Moderators and their powers.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:18 am
[violet] wrote:The GA is different. Its rules are its own. They weren't handed down by site admin; they came out of the GA itself and exist solely because they're what the GA wants in order to operate better.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Countriopia, Kractero, Luziyca, Mavenu, New Bootylaya, Shenny, The Plough Islands, Verska
Advertisement