NATION

PASSWORD

Making the Secretary-General Meaningful

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 3030
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:21 pm

Quebecshire wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:There is no way this is going to get abused. Not at all.

An ideal or viable way to accomplish this would be comparable to the Secretariat, imo. Like I said, not set on it or committed to demanding it by any means.

Secretariat have to interpret and enforce the official rules. This panel is much much more based on opinion. They are not really comparable
she/her

Radiohead wrote:ICE AGE COMING ICE AGE COMING


The Clash wrote:The ice age is coming

User avatar
Galiantus III
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1046
Founded: Jan 23, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Galiantus III » Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:22 pm

Quebecshire wrote:Given the long consecutive line of absolutely shit-tier WA proposals at quorum in the SC, I'm gonna drop a hot take suggestion that I half agree with:

Letting the WASC President/SecGen appoint (maybe with a confirmation process by delegates) a panel of 3-5 nations to judge proposals and ensure they are not low effort (I use low effort as opposed to low quality because as Merlin noted on NSGP when using that term, quality is much more subjective).


Players already have options for fighting proposals they oppose. Counter campaigning and quorum raiding are both effective options for keeping low-effort proposals off the floor. At the moment, the main issue is organization: perhaps someone could form a committee of delegates, former issues authors, and/or other relevant parties, for the purpose of establishing standards for proposals, and opposing them with whatever methods they feel comfortable using. That would be far more interesting.
man noun : an adult male human
male noun : of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa
he pronoun : used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or identified

Frisbeeteria wrote:
For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:
Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21792
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Wallenburg » Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:20 pm

For once, I agree with Gal. Community standards are best enforced by the community, not by some resource-intensive gameplay gimmick.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 31014
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:46 am

Quebecshire wrote:Given the long consecutive line of absolutely shit-tier WA proposals at quorum in the SC, I'm gonna drop a hot take suggestion that I half agree with:

Letting the WASC President/SecGen appoint (maybe with a confirmation process by delegates) a panel of 3-5 nations to judge proposals and ensure they are not low effort (I use low effort as opposed to low quality because as Merlin noted on NSGP when using that term, quality is much more subjective).

There's already that quality review from Delegates. Poor quality proposals can still get to vote, but only occasionally, and a single counter-TG run tends to stop them in their tracks. I'm not seeing that as a worthwhile expansion to the SCP position.

There hasn't been quite as much feedback to my last summary post as hoped, so the next step for myself is to probably write up a full proposal for this change as I see it, which might get more of a reaction.

User avatar
Brilliantly
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 104
Founded: Mar 14, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Brilliantly » Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:16 pm

Though it is a good idea, it think this is kind-a com service for my taste. First of all, recently a flood of poor quality SC proposals coming in and even some entering vote. This is ridiculous because I really want a good debate in the forums nowadays and the proposals up for voting are always one sided, which means one side is of the debate is better just in common sense. Also one veto is way too less because out of all the poor quality proposals that needs to be seriously not on vote, there equally as bad and poor quality as each other. Only vetoing one of them won’t stop the others. Also veto can be abused to stop good quality proposals because they say bad words about the elected allies. This power will go too corrupted and after the elections, we see mass abuse. I suggest we take away veto and the other are generally fine if we have safe guard from corruption in this power.
Signed - president of brilliantly.
Brilliantly
Leaders of Brilliantly

User avatar
Great Algerstonia
Minister
 
Posts: 2233
Founded: Mar 21, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Great Algerstonia » Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:33 pm

Galiantus III wrote:
Quebecshire wrote:Given the long consecutive line of absolutely shit-tier WA proposals at quorum in the SC, I'm gonna drop a hot take suggestion that I half agree with:

Letting the WASC President/SecGen appoint (maybe with a confirmation process by delegates) a panel of 3-5 nations to judge proposals and ensure they are not low effort (I use low effort as opposed to low quality because as Merlin noted on NSGP when using that term, quality is much more subjective).


Players already have options for fighting proposals they oppose. Counter campaigning and quorum raiding are both effective options for keeping low-effort proposals off the floor. At the moment, the main issue is organization: perhaps someone could form a committee of delegates, former issues authors, and/or other relevant parties, for the purpose of establishing standards for proposals, and opposing them with whatever methods they feel comfortable using. That would be far more interesting.

Agreed, having unofficial solution would be far better than coded solution unless it's raising the amount of delegates required to make quorum or something simple like that
The unideal past would [ironically] be cisalienistist, emptily manualed, ghetto, straight, wasteland-totalitarian capitalism

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1054
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:58 pm

I know I'm really late to this party, by about 8 months, but I do have some ideas in regard to this. I think making the S-G position a permanent political position within the SC is a great idea, because it will bring more politics into the WA body than it usually enjoys. My ideas might be half-baked, and might not make much sense, but I'll try my best to express myself from the position of the current S-G and prolific SC author.

To me the idea of possibly rearranging the queue order as a permanent power the S-G can use is very interesting. While the normal NS player won't see it, GP and SC focused people/groups will. These authors and/or groups could advocate to the S-G (or whatever it ends up being called) for getting their proposal pushed ahead, or having them push one further behind. It definitely makes a difference on who gets elected as well, because that will influence how they use the power and how they use it in a R/D capacity.

As for a one-time every 6 months veto? I'm not really sure about that. How often would it really be used? It's not very often that there are proposals or resolutions that will be opposed to that degree I think. Off the top of my head I can think of maybe two within the last year that may have had a veto held over them, and that's only depending on whether a defender or a raider held the position. Raiders would definitely hold it over liberation proposals though, there's no doubt about that.

As for an idea more that I had, I wanted to explore the possibility of an S-G (or whatever) being able to freeze a proposals approvals. It adds a little politicing that I think would be great. They could freeze it before it reaches queue to force the author to make changes, or freeze it after queue in order to prevent quorum raiding the proposal to lose approvals. I'm not really sure how it would work, but it's an interesting idea I just wanted to bring up.

The length of a term would probably be best to be a year long, instead of six months, because six months seems to short in order to effect change or politics and because we can go months without viable proposals. Overall, I would like to see this come to fruition at some point.
Former three time Delegate of 10000 Islands

I've been commended by the Security Council. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Flanderlion
Minister
 
Posts: 2056
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:51 pm

Lenlyvit wrote:To me the idea of possibly rearranging the queue order as a permanent power the S-G can use is very interesting. While the normal NS player won't see it, GP and SC focused people/groups will. These authors and/or groups could advocate to the S-G (or whatever it ends up being called) for getting their proposal pushed ahead, or having them push one further behind. It definitely makes a difference on who gets elected as well, because that will influence how they use the power and how they use it in a R/D capacity.

Fully agreed.

Lenlyvit wrote:The length of a term would probably be best to be a year long, instead of six months, because six months seems to short in order to effect change or politics and because we can go months without viable proposals. Overall, I would like to see this come to fruition at some point.

Could they not just be reelected if they want longer terms? More frequent elections brings more events into NS, and stops inactive players from holding the role too long.
As always, I'm representing myself.
Information
Wishlist

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1054
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:39 pm

Flanderlion wrote:
Lenlyvit wrote:The length of a term would probably be best to be a year long, instead of six months, because six months seems to short in order to effect change or politics and because we can go months without viable proposals. Overall, I would like to see this come to fruition at some point.

Could they not just be reelected if they want longer terms? More frequent elections brings more events into NS, and stops inactive players from holding the role too long.

Well, yes. However, at that point you really do run into the possibility of someone holding the position indefinitely like others have said. On the flip side of that though is that they can get pushed out by an up-and-coming player who may be more influential than them. It's kind of a dynamic that nobody can really predict until it happens though. My question is, would it be possible to try it out for 6 month terms right off the bat, and then change the term length down the road? And, if it doesn't work out, implement term limits down the road as well?

I see one way around someone using proxy nations to get around it, and that is to implement a system that will check IP or previous nations emails on the admin side to prevent it. And I'll also add in, I like Tinhamptons examples of what it could look like on the WA side for S-G powers.
Former three time Delegate of 10000 Islands

I've been commended by the Security Council. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 31014
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:49 am

I'm fairly certain on 6 month terms, and no limits on re-election. Committing yourself to 6 months of activity on an online game is a big thing, and unexpected stuff (RL, burnout) comes up. Even with a deputy position in place, I'd rather err on the side of more frequent elections than long terms that drag on and become meaningless by the end.

This post remains the most comprehensive summary of where things stand. The main thing that has changed since then is Frontiers/Strongholds going on the to-code list, which comes with a meaningful new SC Category. That makes re-ordering the queue a more significant power, so I'm more open to it than I was before, either as an alternative to or addition to veto powers. I do still feel that reordering the queue is not a particularly prominent power and is meaningless to the majority of players - which is why the veto is still attractive.

What I'd like to hear more of is how a "queue reordering" mechanic would work. What's the goal here? If it's prioritising certain proposal types, then you want to be able to bump something up to #1 in the queue. But I want to avoid a system where endless bumping can stop something ever reaching vote. There's the alternative of having the power to delay each proposal once by up to X days, which means they'll still get their chance to go to vote, and allows prioritising to an extent if carefully managed.

As ever, I don't want to overcomplicate this idea - part of its appeal is that it uses existing code, and the more stuff we add to it, then more months we'll wait before it's implemented.

User avatar
Doge Land
Envoy
 
Posts: 279
Founded: Feb 15, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Doge Land » Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:50 pm

I like this idea.

6 month terms seem good and a "Recall" proposal for the SC also does (for when the SecGen gets elected and does absolutely nothing or they abuse their power).
its about drive its about power

delegate

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1054
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:40 pm

Sedgistan wrote:I'm fairly certain on 6 month terms, and no limits on re-election. Committing yourself to 6 months of activity on an online game is a big thing, and unexpected stuff (RL, burnout) comes up. Even with a deputy position in place, I'd rather err on the side of more frequent elections than long terms that drag on and become meaningless by the end.

This post remains the most comprehensive summary of where things stand. The main thing that has changed since then is Frontiers/Strongholds going on the to-code list, which comes with a meaningful new SC Category. That makes re-ordering the queue a more significant power, so I'm more open to it than I was before, either as an alternative to or addition to veto powers. I do still feel that reordering the queue is not a particularly prominent power and is meaningless to the majority of players - which is why the veto is still attractive.

What I'd like to hear more of is how a "queue reordering" mechanic would work. What's the goal here? If it's prioritising certain proposal types, then you want to be able to bump something up to #1 in the queue. But I want to avoid a system where endless bumping can stop something ever reaching vote. There's the alternative of having the power to delay each proposal once by up to X days, which means they'll still get their chance to go to vote, and allows prioritising to an extent if carefully managed.

As ever, I don't want to overcomplicate this idea - part of its appeal is that it uses existing code, and the more stuff we add to it, then more months we'll wait before it's implemented.

6 month terms sounds okay to me, and I understand your reasoning on it now. As to the queue re-ordering, I'm thinking that we should keep both that and the veto for the powers of the Security Council President. While the queue re-ordering seems like a less "flashy" power to give, it allows politicking to a degree for authors and various organizations that would surpass politicking regularly seen during the approval phase. Bumping a proposal to the #1 spot seems to make the most sense to me because technically the code already exists due to the ability to bump regional officers or embassies and dispatches. There has to be a limit though, and that limit should be that a proposal can only be bumped if there's an X amount of proposals in the queue. Not if there's only two or three, but probably 4 or 5.
Former three time Delegate of 10000 Islands

I've been commended by the Security Council. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 20502
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:16 pm

Lenlyvit wrote:[As to the queue re-ordering, I'm thinking that we should keep both that and the veto for the powers of the Security Council President. While the queue re-ordering seems like a less "flashy" power to give, it allows politicking to a degree for authors and various organizations that would surpass politicking regularly seen during the approval phase. Bumping a proposal to the #1 spot seems to make the most sense to me because technically the code already exists due to the ability to bump regional officers or embassies and dispatches. There has to be a limit though, and that limit should be that a proposal can only be bumped if there's an X amount of proposals in the queue. Not if there's only two or three, but probably 4 or 5.
Bumping a proposal to #1 also gives people who don't like one of the other proposals that it's bumped past longer to quorum-raid against that...
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474.

User avatar
Flanderlion
Minister
 
Posts: 2056
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:02 pm

Sedgistan wrote:I'm fairly certain on 6 month terms, and no limits on re-election. Committing yourself to 6 months of activity on an online game is a big thing, and unexpected stuff (RL, burnout) comes up. Even with a deputy position in place, I'd rather err on the side of more frequent elections than long terms that drag on and become meaningless by the end.

This post remains the most comprehensive summary of where things stand. The main thing that has changed since then is Frontiers/Strongholds going on the to-code list, which comes with a meaningful new SC Category. That makes re-ordering the queue a more significant power, so I'm more open to it than I was before, either as an alternative to or addition to veto powers. I do still feel that reordering the queue is not a particularly prominent power and is meaningless to the majority of players - which is why the veto is still attractive.

What I'd like to hear more of is how a "queue reordering" mechanic would work. What's the goal here? If it's prioritising certain proposal types, then you want to be able to bump something up to #1 in the queue. But I want to avoid a system where endless bumping can stop something ever reaching vote. There's the alternative of having the power to delay each proposal once by up to X days, which means they'll still get their chance to go to vote, and allows prioritising to an extent if carefully managed.

I think a proposal should be able to be delayed 'indefinitely'. That's the destructive part of the constructive power. There is no way that there will be non stop legal proposals that have reached quorum for an indefinite period of time. Even if there were, the Sec Gen would have to continously keep the undesired proposal at the bottom of the queue. And at that point, they're still limited by their term etc.

Why is a proposal being endlessly delayed an undesirable proposal? It implies that there will never be a lull in the SC. It has been 2 weeks and counting since the last SC resolution, and that's not a particularly abnormal gap. If the conditions for an indefinite delay are met, it means the SC is super active consistently with an engaged motivated SecGen who is receiving consistent support from the electorate. Sounds like a success to me.

Veto wise, I don't see it as an either or - I would be happy with both as long as veto was appropriate. Veto is the big flashy controversial one that makes headlines, reordering is the constructive improvement allowing the WA to rush proposals to vote/delay them so the WA gains more context for the resolution.

Lenlyvit wrote:Bumping a proposal to the #1 spot seems to make the most sense to me because technically the code already exists due to the ability to bump regional officers or embassies and dispatches. There has to be a limit though, and that limit should be that a proposal can only be bumped if there's an X amount of proposals in the queue. Not if there's only two or three, but probably 4 or 5.

Agreed. Whatever is easier for implementation.

Why a limit, and if a limit why 4/5 proposals in queue? I don't see the need, and I don't see how if there 4/5 proposals in queue rather than 2/3 it changes anything more than the time in queue skipped.
As always, I'm representing myself.
Information
Wishlist

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6430
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:50 pm

Could you reorder a Recall resolution? :p
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
Apatosaurus
Envoy
 
Posts: 275
Founded: Jul 17, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Apatosaurus » Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:52 pm

Doge Land wrote:I like this idea.

6 month terms seem good and a "Recall" proposal for the SC also does (for when the SecGen gets elected and does absolutely nothing or they abuse their power).

Yes, I support a Recall resolution because there will eventually be an inactive/corrupt SG.
Card farmer, fenda and filthy cosmo|WA Ambassador: Ambrose Scott|Go admire my factbook and upvote! He or they pronouns.
fenda nations always deserve banjection - Evil Cub
I wish i could be quoted in a forum sig v_v - Alfonzo
The difference between an invader and an imperialist is that...the imperialist will write several paragraphs about how the region's poll officer's cousin's friend's soccer coach once arranged his fridge magnets to spell out FRA and this is therefore a great leap forward in their war effort. - Altmoras
Diagrams of urine were not what I expected to find in NSGP today, but perhaps my expectations were too high - Refuge Isle
SEASON T*REE!

User avatar
Comfed
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1368
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:54 pm

Well I don’t see the problem, game mechanics-wise, with a corrupt SG.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, everybody dies.
Lord Dominator wrote:
10000 Islands Foreign Affairs wrote:~The population of 10000 Islands suffered a huge increase
I mean, if it’s that terrible I’m sure someone else will take them…

Frenchy: grub would be so proud knowing his descendants are the best raiders of their time and they’re queer

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1054
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:06 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
Lenlyvit wrote:[As to the queue re-ordering, I'm thinking that we should keep both that and the veto for the powers of the Security Council President. While the queue re-ordering seems like a less "flashy" power to give, it allows politicking to a degree for authors and various organizations that would surpass politicking regularly seen during the approval phase. Bumping a proposal to the #1 spot seems to make the most sense to me because technically the code already exists due to the ability to bump regional officers or embassies and dispatches. There has to be a limit though, and that limit should be that a proposal can only be bumped if there's an X amount of proposals in the queue. Not if there's only two or three, but probably 4 or 5.
Bumping a proposal to #1 also gives people who don't like one of the other proposals that it's bumped past longer to quorum-raid against that...

Unless there's a possibility a Security Council President can freeze a proposals queue process, stopping it from gaining or losing approvals. It's an interesting idea towards a possible power, which could possibly be counteracted by a resolution type to stop that power or unfreeze the proposal. But that might be too complicated....

Flanderlion wrote:
Sedgistan wrote:I'm fairly certain on 6 month terms, and no limits on re-election. Committing yourself to 6 months of activity on an online game is a big thing, and unexpected stuff (RL, burnout) comes up. Even with a deputy position in place, I'd rather err on the side of more frequent elections than long terms that drag on and become meaningless by the end.

This post remains the most comprehensive summary of where things stand. The main thing that has changed since then is Frontiers/Strongholds going on the to-code list, which comes with a meaningful new SC Category. That makes re-ordering the queue a more significant power, so I'm more open to it than I was before, either as an alternative to or addition to veto powers. I do still feel that reordering the queue is not a particularly prominent power and is meaningless to the majority of players - which is why the veto is still attractive.

What I'd like to hear more of is how a "queue reordering" mechanic would work. What's the goal here? If it's prioritising certain proposal types, then you want to be able to bump something up to #1 in the queue. But I want to avoid a system where endless bumping can stop something ever reaching vote. There's the alternative of having the power to delay each proposal once by up to X days, which means they'll still get their chance to go to vote, and allows prioritising to an extent if carefully managed.

I think a proposal should be able to be delayed 'indefinitely'. That's the destructive part of the constructive power. There is no way that there will be non stop legal proposals that have reached quorum for an indefinite period of time. Even if there were, the Sec Gen would have to continously keep the undesired proposal at the bottom of the queue. And at that point, they're still limited by their term etc.

Why is a proposal being endlessly delayed an undesirable proposal? It implies that there will never be a lull in the SC. It has been 2 weeks and counting since the last SC resolution, and that's not a particularly abnormal gap. If the conditions for an indefinite delay are met, it means the SC is super active consistently with an engaged motivated SecGen who is receiving consistent support from the electorate. Sounds like a success to me.

Veto wise, I don't see it as an either or - I would be happy with both as long as veto was appropriate. Veto is the big flashy controversial one that makes headlines, reordering is the constructive improvement allowing the WA to rush proposals to vote/delay them so the WA gains more context for the resolution.

Lenlyvit wrote:Bumping a proposal to the #1 spot seems to make the most sense to me because technically the code already exists due to the ability to bump regional officers or embassies and dispatches. There has to be a limit though, and that limit should be that a proposal can only be bumped if there's an X amount of proposals in the queue. Not if there's only two or three, but probably 4 or 5.

Agreed. Whatever is easier for implementation.

Why a limit, and if a limit why 4/5 proposals in queue? I don't see the need, and I don't see how if there 4/5 proposals in queue rather than 2/3 it changes anything more than the time in queue skipped.

I was just throwing out numbers, I have no particular numbers in mind. Permanently freezing a proposal from vote though seems a little extreme doesn't it? Although, it does give fodder for a recall vote if implemented.

Unibot III wrote:Could you reorder a Recall resolution? :p

I think they should be able to, because that just adds more reason to either recall them or to vote them out in the next election :p.

Apatosaurus wrote:
Doge Land wrote:I like this idea.

6 month terms seem good and a "Recall" proposal for the SC also does (for when the SecGen gets elected and does absolutely nothing or they abuse their power).

Yes, I support a Recall resolution because there will eventually be an inactive/corrupt SG.

Just want to make it known that I also support the idea of a recall vote to add more politicking to the SC areas.
Former three time Delegate of 10000 Islands

I've been commended by the Security Council. Author of 17 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Minister
 
Posts: 2170
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Corporate Bordello

Postby Marxist Germany » Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:34 am

If the Sec-Gen elections are held every six months, then a cycle of January-July or December-June would help with the absence of events between April and September, and vice versa.

As for the recall resolution, it should require a supermajority to pass, to avoid having to replace the Sec-Gen constantly. I suggest that the mechanism by which the Sec-Gen would be recalled is to have a nominee, as the target of the resolution, to replace the Sec-Gen temporarily, until the next election cycle arrives. Having full elections every time a recall succeeds would harm WA authors, as more people will start blocking WA telegrams, thereby making campaigning more difficult.
Author of GA#461, GA#470, GA#477, GA#481, GA#486 (co-author), and SC#295

Former delegate of The United Federations; citizen and former Senior Senator of 10000 Islands; 113th Knight of TITO

User avatar
Comfed
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1368
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:19 am

If we have regular Sec-Gen elections then I think we need a separate TG category for election campaigns.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, everybody dies.
Lord Dominator wrote:
10000 Islands Foreign Affairs wrote:~The population of 10000 Islands suffered a huge increase
I mean, if it’s that terrible I’m sure someone else will take them…

Frenchy: grub would be so proud knowing his descendants are the best raiders of their time and they’re queer

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21792
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:11 am

Comfed wrote:If we have regular Sec-Gen elections then I think we need a separate TG category for election campaigns.

Absolutely. Keeping it as part of the WA TG system will render the WA extinct within, at most, 2 years, as authors would be incapable of collecting approvals.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 31014
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:24 am

That's already intended to be part of implementing this.

Someone is going to tell me to update the OP soon. I will. Soon.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9399
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:28 am

Regional telegrams are associated with the Influence icon.
Recruitment telegrams are associated with a stylised person.
WA campaign telegrams are associated with the WA logo.

Perhaps - given that SecGen is likely to be the SC President in reality - SecGen election campaign telegrams should be associated with a sword, the main part of the SC's logo? :P
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading National Populism by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin

User avatar
Haganham
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 408
Founded: Aug 17, 2021
Father Knows Best State

Postby Haganham » Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:32 am

would these campaign telegrams include endo campaigns, or would they stay under wa campaigns and the election campaign tele just be for the SG election campaigns?
I'd prefer the former, seems easier to filter what you don't want, and would be more institutive.
Last edited by Haganham on Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 31014
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:16 am

Haganham wrote:would these campaign telegrams include endo campaigns, or would they stay under wa campaigns and the election campaign tele just be for the SG election campaigns?
I'd prefer the former, seems easier to filter what you don't want, and would be more institutive.

Open to ideas, but the main thought behind it is that SG elections have been very TG spammy in the past, and we don't want them to cause people to filter stuff they might otherwise be okay with.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads