Repealing the World Assembly

[The United Providences of Perland]

I legitimately believe this is making a big deal out of nothing. Considering the WA is optional and has relatively small impacts on other game mechanics, I legitimately don't see why it should be repealed or reformed if it physically works.

[Imperium Anglorum]

FWIW, GenSec really wants to keep moderation involved in the selection and OSRS oversight of GenSec.

However it is, it was my impression that replacements for members resigning or leaving would be selected by the moderators.

[Separatist Peoples]

FWIW, GenSec really wants to keep moderation involved in the selection and OSRS oversight of GenSec.

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]

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.

[Gig em Aggies]

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.

In practice it is Justice for show no resolution is binding or forcing anything the WA and its previous incarnation as the NS version of the UN allows players to participate in international politics think of it as the prom king and Queen you get voted into those when in reality it's just their for the people to experience same goes for the WA.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

Theres no way to restrict issue selection as a result of WA resolutions. Its not possible.

[Galiantus VII]

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.

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.

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.

Yes, it as a problem the WA doesn't have enough power over its membership to make players care about it. If the WA was separate from regional politics (see this topic) then the stakes of WA membership could be raised significantly without affecting gameplay, and it would make for a much more compelling game.

As for the actual changes I would make: I don't think simply increasing the influence of resolutions on national statistics is the key here. Although that is part of what needs to happen, the stat effects of the WA on a given nation aren't actually visible enough to the player that they care about whether a given proposal passes. It should be possible for a nation to be in violation of given resolutions, and this ought to be something the player can see plainly - "This nation has been found in violation of 5 WA resolutions" and "Found in violation of Resolution #205, Resolution #296, ... etc.".

I don't know enough to thoroughly flesh the idea out, but I am envisioning a system where at the initial passage of a proposal, the stats of WA nations are affected so that they are "in compliance" with the resolution (this is not necessarily going to be the same for every single nation). Later on, via answering issues, WA members may be found in violation of said resolution. This is something the player would immediately see upon answering an issue resulting in a violation. The expectation is that every member of the WA will nearly always be in violation of a few resolutions, and that having too many violations would affect your nation in some negative way such that players would want to correct them. For example (given a WA separate from regional control) violations might count as negative endorsements, so it could affect the ability of a nation to be a delegate; or having too many WA violations could result in dismissal from the WA.

Since I don't actually play in the WA I'm sure there are better solutions someone else can come up with.

[Solomons Land]

It will surely be marked illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

Why do delegates have a better understanding of the Rules than the mods or GA regulars? Basically, all the seriously considered members were authors or experienced drafters to begin with.

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.

[Minoa]

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.

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

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.

[Tinfect]

On the subject of game mechanics, I must note that the passage of each resolution does actually affect one's stats, according to its category and strength/area of effect.

[Minoa]

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.

For clarity, a by-election would happen after the nominees and applicants are screened and assessed by the higher level according to what you say at the second paragraph. It would make no sense to have an election with a candidate that promises to destroy the WA or its successors or spin-offs.

[Galiantus VII]

From what I understand, the whole point of the GA Secretariat is to get the mods out of having to kill illegal proposals. It's basically a moderator position specific to the GA. However, I have also been under the impression that mods/admin want the system to be self-regulating, not requiring any input on their part. The only two groups it makes sense to give selection power to would be either existing Secretariat members (at smallest) or GA resolution authors (at largest), as they are the ones with the best set of knowledge for the position, and they have an interest in maintaining quality in the GA. So if mods/admin want to not involve themselves hardly ever again, they could hard-code a selection process for the case of resignation, CTE or impeachment of secretariat members involving these groups in some way.

[[violet]]

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.

To be sure, GenSec works today only because it has impartial, informed, and ethical members, and that's far easier to guarantee with mod selection (or, what actually happens now, mod approval of GenSec's own recommendation) than with some kind of election- or appointment-based system. It's easy to see potential corruption problems with that.

And I agree GenSec should be divorced from playing the game in that sense: they should be enforcing the rules, not playing politics.

But it's fully possible to participate in GenSec as a nation in a trans-national organization, enforcing the rules of that body. There's no requirement to step outside the game as must happen with site moderators, who need to act in ways that have no in-character or in-game equivalent, such as delving into IP addresses, and dealing with real people behind the site accounts.

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. There's no requirement from outside the GA that they be that way. GA mods drew them up and have been their custodian ever since, because there's no practical alternative, but that ruleset belongs to the GA, not mods or admin, and as far as I'm concerned you can change it.

I don't have any plans; this is just me rambling about ideals. But ultimately I would like to see more self-governance out of the GA, led by GenSec, rather than GenSec operating as if it's outside the GA.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

I don't entirely buy that argument. The GA rules were created and simply caveated into existence by moderator action. The ability for the GA itself to change its rules is little to non-existent, especially when we can create consensus out of corrections to typos that simply don't get applied and consensus decision-making is fundamentally flawed at producing changes that would strengthen the game.