NationStates

Merni wrote:I support giving the SG the ability to re-order the queue -- initially I thought it would allow them to indefinitely delay a Liberation, but actually it would only be possible if there was a continuous supply of proposals which have gained a quorum of approvals. All the same, it should also be limited somehow. Either with a limit on the number of times it can be used, or maybe a proposal would jump back to the top of queue if it had (say) twice as many approvals as the next.

As for impeachment/removal -- I don't agree with putting it in the hands of delegates alone like Tinhampton proposes. Making a removal just like a a regular SC proposal, needing delegate approvals then a vote, would be a fair way to do it. Although, should removal proposals be subject to re-ordering of the queue? That could cause some drama.

Agreed that the impeachment should just be a normal SC resolution. If it does become an issue, it can go to Tin's version, but simplicity is best. The WA SecGen isn't representing delegates, it is representing WA members.

Re limit on proposal reordering, not convinced on adding a limit to the number of times that they can reorder it. If the WA isn't happy with what they do, they can impeach and replace them. If it becomes a real issue for the game yet the players don't want to remove them, then limits should be looked at, but otherwise, simplicity is better.

Although, should they be able to reorder a proposal for their impeachment? On one hand, the straightforward answer is 'no', but on the other POV, it's kinda NS style for the WA SecGen to desperately cling to power for as long as possible before they're inevitably removed from office. I don't have any strong feelings either way.

Flanderlion wrote:

Merni wrote:I support giving the SG the ability to re-order the queue -- initially I thought it would allow them to indefinitely delay a Liberation, but actually it would only be possible if there was a continuous supply of proposals which have gained a quorum of approvals. All the same, it should also be limited somehow. Either with a limit on the number of times it can be used, or maybe a proposal would jump back to the top of queue if it had (say) twice as many approvals as the next.

As for impeachment/removal -- I don't agree with putting it in the hands of delegates alone like Tinhampton proposes. Making a removal just like a a regular SC proposal, needing delegate approvals then a vote, would be a fair way to do it. Although, should removal proposals be subject to re-ordering of the queue? That could cause some drama.

Agreed that the impeachment should just be a normal SC resolution. If it does become an issue, it can go to Tin's version, but simplicity is best. The WA SecGen isn't representing delegates, it is representing WA members.

Re limit on proposal reordering, not convinced on adding a limit to the number of times that they can reorder it. If the WA isn't happy with what they do, they can impeach and replace them. If it becomes a real issue for the game yet the players don't want to remove them, then limits should be looked at, but otherwise, simplicity is better.

Although, should they be able to reorder a proposal for their impeachment? On one hand, the straightforward answer is 'no', but on the other POV, it's kinda NS style for the WA SecGen to desperately cling to power for as long as possible before they're inevitably removed from office. I don't have any strong feelings either way.

I personally agree that impeachment/recall should be a normal SC resolution, in which all WA voters may vote. I am also of the opinion that the Secretary General (or whatever title used) should not be able to interfere in the process (whether by superdelegate soft veto vote, or by reordering the queue).

EDIT: As for limits on queue reordering, whether they would be needed (i.e. to prevent repeated attempts to stall Liberations), I can't say. However, I think it might be prudent if some kind of limits were present to prevent them being needed later on. I think having limits from the outset would cause less upheaval than potentially needing to introduce them later on.

Sedgistan wrote:The primary issue I'm having with re-ordering the proposal queue is visibility. Who looks at it? Dedicated WA players, and some Delegates - that's it. An S-G fiddling around with the queue is meaningless to most WA members, and barely noticeable. A veto is big, obnoxious and obvious. It'd be there on the WA page that the S-G overrode the democratic wishes of WA member to block a proposal. That's something that regular players will see, and will care about.

This assumption needs to be challenged. I don't think the game's culture actually allows for any amount of "caring about" that to matter. The moment something is written into the game code, it's legitimized and criticism of taking advantage of it is highly discouraged. This is aided and abetted by a mod and admin team that tend to take that view to the extreme. Why would "regular players" care? And more importantly, if they do, what would the consequences be?

We're talking a lot here about impeachment or recalls, but again the premise needs to be challenged. Why are we assuming game culture would allow for an impeachment/recall based on political disagreement over how a Secretary General is using their powers? The SC already has a culture of discouraging pure politicks when assessing somebody's worthiness of C&Cs, for example.

I personally think a recall should be pretty easy to setup - but also subject as usual to a queue reordering power. If there’s a big push to remove them, you’ll see the queue emptied pretty quickly.

Impeachment being unusual is both boring, and liable to unconsciously up the behavior that will convince people it’s needed.

I'd like to note that a veto is likely to have a decrease in activity in the WA during certain months and would instead encourage activity during other months. As an author, I would be strongly incentivized to submit proposals right after a new Secretary-General is elected. I would be even more incentivized to not submit a proposal towards the end of the term if the SecGen has not used their veto yet. I'm not really a fan of having to wait months to submit a proposal if I'm worried about it being vetoed so I would much prefer a reordering of the queue.

Overall, while I don't like this dislike this idea, I'm not really a fan of it. I don't believe it will drive much engagement with NS as a whole compared to other recent improvements to NS like Cards or even N-Day. I have found Sec-Gen to be somewhat limiting in the potential for someone to be involved by nature, the event enforces this by limiting the number of candidates in subsequent rounds. If Sec-Gen was to become more of a serious event, I would argue that it would be even more limiting as those who are not candidates or leaders of major regions would have less ability memeing and supporting characters for fun as campaigns would be more policy focused. Furthermore, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs for The North Pacific, I personally think the politics would be rather boring and short-lived in determining who our region supports and/or getting other regions to support our candidate. I think having N-Day twice a year would engage more players than this (not that I am advocating for N-Day twice a year).

I would much prefer that the admins spend their time on improvements to the game that a wide variety of players can benefit from (of course how they choose to spend their time is up to them).

My idea behind making the recall function closer to a petition than a normal SC resolution was to try and hopefully save the admins from having to hard-code "the SecGen can veto anything except recalls..." but then they'd have to hard-code "All proposals require 6% approval except recalls"

If it is agreed that recall motions require well more than 50%+1 in favour, the mechanism for displaying an outright-defeated or a successful recall would presumably be the same as it would be for the proposal - but what about recalls that receive a majority but not a supermajority? Do we put the smaller number of supporters after the larger number of opponents, do we indicate how many votes were required for impeachment with the same number of votes as had actually been cast, or do we just display them as we would discarded proposals (see below)?

---

Praeceps wrote:I have found Sec-Gen to be somewhat limiting in the potential for someone to be involved by nature, the event enforces this by limiting the number of candidates in subsequent rounds.

Could the admins not just run a single-round election next time?

I would consider the idea of one-year terms with one veto per half-term.

This is because I was thinking of such elections taking place in mid-June, when the UNSC elections usually take place.

Alternatively, in mid-October, when the last UN Secretary General election took place (2016).

For the election method, I would consider the way the Mayor of London is elected (supplementary vote).

Okay, so here's where we are - these are the amendments to the original plan I'm thinking are relatively certain:

• Applies to Security Council only, not General Assembly (this is 100% confirmed).
• Secretary-General position re-named to "Security Council President" (and "Security Council Vice President"). I'm open to other names though (Chair?).
• Voting recommendation included, e.g. at some point on the SC page around the voting area, you get red/blue text saying something along the lines of "The Security Council President recommends a vote FOR/AGAINST this proposal". I would envisage this automatically triggers when the SCP votes for/against a proposal.
• Telegram type / filter to cover the elections.

Where I think things are a bit less certain are on the "main" power of the position - e.g. Veto vs Queue reordering. Both are technically feasible; the Veto is easier for admin to code but "not by much". Some thoughts on both:

• Veto:
  
  • A simple, visible power.
  • Creates a challenge both for authors and the SCP on timings, whether that be submission or when to veto.
  • Easy to adjust for balance, e.g. if we find that 2 vetoes per term are preferable.
  • Can lead to a "lame duck" and the role being irrelevant if veto used early in term.
  • Potential for clear, distinct policies for candidates. Use of the power is sure to create controversy.
  • Question as to whether the veto blocks a proposal of the same type (e.g. "Condemn Sedgistan") from being resubmitted that term.
  • Questions around when a veto is deployed, and how (if) it is displayed when at vote. Does it take effect immediately or at end of voting? Also what happens if the vetoed proposal fails at vote.
• Queue reordering:
  
  • Not yet clearly defined - is this actual "reordering", which could lead to a proposal being indefinitely delayed as new ones get submitted and bumped up? Or a more basic ability to temporarily delay a proposal by +3 (or some other value) of days, which allows for an element of reordering without indefinitely blocking a proposal.
  • Change is less visible. Most regular players do not look at the proposal queue. Additional coding to make this more prominent.
  • Generally more constructive power than a veto, but can be used destructively.
  • "Constant" power that can be excercised throughout the SCP's term. This is a mostly good thing as it keeps the position and its associated politicking active, but for those authors/side that the SCP "opposes" this could dissuade activity from them.
  • Constant nature of this power makes a "Recall" proposal category more important to launch alongside this change; additional coding for admin.

Other stuff that's uncertain:

• Number of rounds in the election, and how long they last. I do not think we want 4. I'm leaning towards 1 or 2. I quite liked the suggestion of hiding the leaderboard for the first round, but that may be too complicated.
• If the incumbent's term continues until the new SCP is elected (as was done with Caelapes) or if their is a period during the campaign without an incumbent. I'm leaning towards the former, not least because it's the current situation.
• If a "Recall" category is necessary from the start, or something to consider for later, and if there are any different requirements for this compared to a normal proposal (e.g. quorum or voting percentages). Also how the SCP's powers interact with this (relevant mainly if their power revolves around reordering the queue).

Stuff I've mostly dismissed:

• "Extra votes" for SCP position; non-intuitive quasi-veto.
• Term limits. If someone keeps getting elected, why deny voters?
• Increased term lengths. Kuriko, one of the most active players around 12 months ago, is effectively retired now. People's activity waxes and wanes. 6 months is a good balance between excessive, constant election campaigning, and dwindling activity from overly-long terms.
• Getting rid of the "Vice" SCP. Code exists already; it's good backup in case the SCP disappears.

I've probably missed something or other from this.

Sedgistan wrote:

• Applies to Security Council only, not General Assembly (this is 100% confirmed).
• Secretary-General position re-named to "Security Council President" (and "Security Council Vice President"). I'm open to other names though (Chair?).

Let me propose a crazy idea here. Feel free to tell me that this idea is completely unworkable and that I'm a moron.

What if we had both a Secretary-General (but probably no Vice SG) and a Security Council President and VP?

The SC President and VP would be elected by everyone and would have the powers discussed in this thread - veto, etc.

Separately, the GA Secretariat would have the ability to designate one of their members as the Secretary-General. This person wouldn't have any additional power; it would just identify them as a senior member of the GA Secretariat. Most of the other staff groups have senior members (Senior Game/Forum Mod, Senior Issues Editor, Senior Mentor), but not the GA Secretariat. I assume that you have all wanted to be equals, but the other staff groups with senior members also generally work together as an association of equals. Additionally, it's helpful to know which staff members are more experienced - and "Secretary-General" would be an apt title for a long-serving member of the GA Secretariat.

There's no use for a senior seat in GenSec. They don't just "want" to be equals, they are so. Legality decisions are reached by a consensus.

Pogaria wrote:Separately, the GA Secretariat would have the ability to designate one of their members as the Secretary-General.

Given Sedge just confirmed this SG thing was "100% confirmed" to be limited to the SC, why are you trying to drag the WA back into the mix.

No.

Sedgistan wrote:
Where I think things are a bit less certain are on the "main" power of the position - e.g. Veto vs Queue reordering. Both are technically feasible; the Veto is easier for admin to code but "not by much". Some thoughts on both:

• Veto:
  
  • A simple, visible power.
  • Creates a challenge both for authors and the SCP on timings, whether that be submission or when to veto.
  • Easy to adjust for balance, e.g. if we find that 2 vetoes per term are preferable.
  • Can lead to a "lame duck" and the role being irrelevant if veto used early in term.
  • Potential for clear, distinct policies for candidates. Use of the power is sure to create controversy.
  • Question as to whether the veto blocks a proposal of the same type (e.g. "Condemn Sedgistan") from being resubmitted that term.
  • Questions around when a veto is deployed, and how (if) it is displayed when at vote. Does it take effect immediately or at end of voting? Also what happens if the vetoed proposal fails at vote.

How hard would both be? I think the voting recommendation fills some of the 'simple, visible power' part for the general WA, but the bit I like about veto is whenever it is used, there will be significant salt from various factions/conflict, which is the drama that GP thrives upon.

Sedgistan wrote:

Queue reordering:

• Not yet clearly defined - is this actual "reordering", which could lead to a proposal being indefinitely delayed as new ones get submitted and bumped up? Or a more basic ability to temporarily delay a proposal by +3 (or some other value) of days, which allows for an element of reordering without indefinitely blocking a proposal.
• Change is less visible. Most regular players do not look at the proposal queue. Additional coding to make this more prominent.
• Generally more constructive power than a veto, but can be used destructively.
• "Constant" power that can be excercised throughout the SCP's term. This is a mostly good thing as it keeps the position and its associated politicking active, but for those authors/side that the SCP "opposes" this could dissuade activity from them.
• Constant nature of this power makes a "Recall" proposal category more important to launch alongside this change; additional coding for admin.

Actual reordering - like reordering embassies etc. A proposal could technically be delayed forever, but that would be reliant on an active motivated SecGen, with a non-stop continuous flood of legal proposals reaching quorum and being voted upon. Given that hasn't yet happened in the SC, I don't think that is much of a threat.

Agreed on the change being less visible for normal players, but the proposal reordering is less for them, and more for SC authors/GPers/adding value to the position. I don't know what the right medium for the visibility of reordering, probably just a line on the proposal status stating that either the proposal is 'In quorum', 'In quorum: this proposal has been prioritised by the Office of the SecGen' or 'In quorum: this proposal has been chosen for additional scrutiny by the Office of the SecGen'. The aim is for the SecGen to be able to put specific proposals to the front or back of the queue - the way how is more up to whatever is easier coding wise. As being able to promote 10 proposals to the front of the queue, has the same effect as pushing the 11th proposal to the back of the queue.

The constructive tool that can be used destructively is very NS, where players are given tools and it is up to them how to use them. Yes, might be an issue for players who the SecGen opposes, but that will just result in them waiting in queue for longer, or submitting in lulls in SC activity (which would stop it being a lull), as the SecGen's proposal reordering only has power when there are other proposals in queue, which there are often not. Right now, there are 0 proposals in the queue.

I don't actually think there needs to be a recall proposal with roll out of the feature. At some point yes, and if it becomes a problem definitely yes, but I don't think that's any different to veto. I actually see more issues with overuse of the proposal than not having one, but I think that'd be fixable by changing the quorum requirements for that proposal if it does become an issue.

Sedgistan wrote:Other stuff that's uncertain:

• Number of rounds in the election, and how long they last. I do not think we want 4. I'm leaning towards 1 or 2. I quite liked the suggestion of hiding the leaderboard for the first round, but that may be too complicated.
• If the incumbent's term continues until the new SCP is elected (as was done with Caelapes) or if their is a period during the campaign without an incumbent. I'm leaning towards the former, not least because it's the current situation.
• If a "Recall" category is necessary from the start, or something to consider for later, and if there are any different requirements for this compared to a normal proposal (e.g. quorum or voting percentages). Also how the SCP's powers interact with this (relevant mainly if their power revolves around reordering the queue).

I think I suggested the hiding leaderboard, so I'm for it. Ideally would function as what was suggested with the WA voting, where it'd be hidden for the first day or so then be visible for rest once organic leaders had been formed rather than lemming, and the TZ advantage had been negated. But the aim is to negate the TZ advantage, so whatever way is implementable would be fine.

Rounds/incumbent while campaigning, don't have any strong thoughts.

As I said earlier in this post, don't think it's necessary to have recall from the start, and re differences from a normal proposal, should just change things if they become an issue. Probably should figure out what is 'an issue' to catalyst change in the quorum/passing percentage before implementation though.

Sedgistan wrote:Stuff I've mostly dismissed:

• "Extra votes" for SCP position; non-intuitive quasi-veto.
• Term limits. If someone keeps getting elected, why deny voters?
• Increased term lengths. Kuriko, one of the most active players around 12 months ago, is effectively retired now. People's activity waxes and wanes. 6 months is a good balance between excessive, constant election campaigning, and dwindling activity from overly-long terms.
• Getting rid of the "Vice" SCP. Code exists already; it's good backup in case the SCP disappears.

I've probably missed something or other from this.

So what would the 'Vice' actually do? Would they have equal powers, powers when the SecGen was inactive for 7 days, or powers only when the SecGen was impeached? What would happen with impeachment, would the Vice be removed as well and a new election be held, or would the Vice assume power? And if the vice assumed power, would they appoint their own Vice, or what would happen if the original Vice was impeached after the SecGen was impeached? Would there just be no one until the next election?

Pogaria wrote:...Separately, the GA Secretariat would have the ability to designate one of their members as the Secretary-General. This person wouldn't have any additional power; it would just identify them as a senior member of the GA Secretariat. Most of the other staff groups have senior members (Senior Game/Forum Mod, Senior Issues Editor, Senior Mentor), but not the GA Secretariat.

I appreciate the notion of being able to give one of our number a nice title, but practically the effect of this would be to funnel all the "bUt my ReSoLutiOn iS LeGaL!!;!!!!11" telegrams we all get from time to time all to just one person, most likely. I don't despise any of my colleagues badly enough to vote them into that position.

Symmetry isn't always useful or desirable - c.f. the noble and tasty flounder.

Sedgistan wrote:Secretary-General position re-named to "Security Council President" (and "Security Council Vice President")

N3at0 burr1t0. Would Caelapes, Kuriko and The Salaxalans have their (emeritus) SecGen/VSG badges retrospectively changed to reflect this?

Sedgistan wrote:Voting recommendation included, e.g. at some point on the SC page around the voting area, you get red/blue text saying something along the lines of "The Security Council President recommends a vote FOR/AGAINST this proposal". I would envisage this automatically triggers when the SCP votes for/against a proposal.

Twinning the "recommendations" to the President's actual vote may be a good idea. I detest the 2016 page=un interface as much as anyone but it does provide for some interesting possibilities - of course you'd have to find a way to indicate when the President opposes a proposal so strongly that they end up vetoing it...

Sedgistan wrote:I've mostly dismissed... Term limits. If someone keeps getting elected, why deny voters?

Good. I don't see what would be stopping a term-limited President from running for re-election with a puppet in the first place (but then none of us can see how the game detects WA cheats anyway )

Sedgistan wrote:Other stuff that's uncertain:

• Number of rounds in the election, and how long they last. I do not think we want 4. I'm leaning towards 1 or 2. I quite liked the suggestion of hiding the leaderboard for the first round, but that may be too complicated.
• If the incumbent's term continues until the new SCP is elected (as was done with Caelapes) or if their is a period during the campaign without an incumbent. I'm leaning towards the former, not least because it's the current situation.
• If a "Recall" category is necessary from the start, or something to consider for later, and if there are any different requirements for this compared to a normal proposal (e.g. quorum or voting percentages). Also how the SCP's powers interact with this (relevant mainly if their power revolves around reordering the queue).

Just spit-balling here; what if we just treat electing the SCP like electing a regional delegate, but only delegates get to endorse/vote? Basically, a parliamentary system. Obviously, potential elections would have to take place on much longer intervals than the regular update (I'm thinking once a month), but this would remove concerns about over-campaigning while also allowing more flexibility in the term. Plus terms would be short enough that a "Recall" category would be unnecessary.

I do t think the Vice position is needed - if the passage to the Vice is conditional on CTE, the frequency of use is probably extremely low (as those elected are presumably active, most people are unlikely to go from active to CTE inside of 6 months, and if either of those aren’t true, that’s probably on the voters).

Tinhampton wrote:

Sedgistan wrote:Secretary-General position re-named to "Security Council President" (and "Security Council Vice President")

N3at0 burr1t0. Would Caelapes, Kuriko and The Salaxalans have their (emeritus) SecGen/VSG badges retrospectively changed to reflect this?

Probably. It's a minor point so I hadn't given it any thought.

Galiantus III wrote:Just spit-balling here; what if we just treat electing the SCP like electing a regional delegate, but only delegates get to endorse/vote? Basically, a parliamentary system. Obviously, potential elections would have to take place on much longer intervals than the regular update (I'm thinking once a month), but this would remove concerns about over-campaigning while also allowing more flexibility in the term. Plus terms would be short enough that a "Recall" category would be unnecessary.

One of the key things about this feature is it makes use of existing code for the Secretary-General elections, which makes it a simpler job to implement. If we completely change the election mechanics, that advantage is lost.

Also I like the idea of this position acting as a sort of balance to "superdelegates", in that the SCP is entirely elected by WA members - Delegates have no influence over it (regions can at best pin something to say they're supporting a certain candidate, but regions are actually in the background of elections), and the power (whatever it may be) could be used as a kind of counter to the influence of big delegates.

Lord Dominator wrote:I do t think the Vice position is needed - if the passage to the Vice is conditional on CTE, the frequency of use is probably extremely low (as those elected are presumably active, most people are unlikely to go from active to CTE inside of 6 months, and if either of those aren’t true, that’s probably on the voters).

The Vice position is in the plan because it already exists. And there is a chance someone could disappear within 6 months - no-one can be certain of their RL plans, and plenty of NS "retirements" are unexpected. But mostly the position will be meaningless, yes.

Sedgistan wrote:

Galiantus III wrote:Just spit-balling here; what if we just treat electing the SCP like electing a regional delegate, but only delegates get to endorse/vote? Basically, a parliamentary system. Obviously, potential elections would have to take place on much longer intervals than the regular update (I'm thinking once a month), but this would remove concerns about over-campaigning while also allowing more flexibility in the term. Plus terms would be short enough that a "Recall" category would be unnecessary.

One of the key things about this feature is it makes use of existing code for the Secretary-General elections, which makes it a simpler job to implement. If we completely change the election mechanics, that advantage is lost.

Also I like the idea of this position acting as a sort of balance to "superdelegates", in that the SCP is entirely elected by WA members - Delegates have no influence over it (regions can at best pin something to say they're supporting a certain candidate, but regions are actually in the background of elections), and the power (whatever it may be) could be used as a kind of counter to the influence of big delegates.

As a note, if I'm not mistaken, last election, [v] added a feature which permitted regions to explicitly choose a candidate that their region was supporting. I forget the details but I'm quite confident that it existed.

Flanderlion wrote:How hard would both be? I think the voting recommendation fills some of the 'simple, visible power' part for the general WA, but the bit I like about veto is whenever it is used, there will be significant salt from various factions/conflict, which is the drama that GP thrives upon.

Not sure, but it's easier to add powers than take them away if we find the role is too powerful.

Flanderlion wrote:Actual reordering - like reordering embassies etc. A proposal could technically be delayed forever, but that would be reliant on an active motivated SecGen, with a non-stop continuous flood of legal proposals reaching quorum and being voted upon. Given that hasn't yet happened in the SC, I don't think that is much of a threat.

It hasn't yet but there hasn't been the same incentive, because as soon as someone gets their proposal in, the maximum you can delay it is limited by whatever's already been submitted. This would incentivise different behaviour - proposal you (and the SCP) don't like in the queue? Submit 10 low quality ones, throw out some Campaign TGs, and you can delay it for weeks and weeks.

Flanderlion wrote:So what would the 'Vice' actually do? Would they have equal powers, powers when the SecGen was inactive for 7 days, or powers only when the SecGen was impeached? What would happen with impeachment, would the Vice be removed as well and a new election be held, or would the Vice assume power? And if the vice assumed power, would they appoint their own Vice, or what would happen if the original Vice was impeached after the SecGen was impeached? Would there just be no one until the next election?

The odds are they wouldn't do much. I'm not 100% on how to work it, but I would prefer not to have an endless chain of appointments in the event of people disappearing. If the SCP / Vice both go, that's the position left empty for the term. I'm leaning towards working it so if the SCP ceases to exist, the Vice gets their power, but not their position. If the SCP returns, they re-assume their role. I think it's important the SCP can choose to resign from office if they know they are going to go inactive, which again would see the Vice assume the powerAn impeachment would remove the pairing from office and trigger a new election - but I view Impeach as a "stage 2" part of the plan so don't think we necessarily need to go into details of that now.

Praeceps wrote:

Sedgistan wrote:Also I like the idea of this position acting as a sort of balance to "superdelegates", in that the SCP is entirely elected by WA members - Delegates have no influence over it (regions can at best pin something to say they're supporting a certain candidate, but regions are actually in the background of elections), and the power (whatever it may be) could be used as a kind of counter to the influence of big delegates.

As a note, if I'm not mistaken, last election, [v] added a feature which permitted regions to explicitly choose a candidate that their region was supporting. I forget the details but I'm quite confident that it existed.

Yes, I think there's something similar for N-Day factions too; regions can indicate who they're supporting. But I feel the TG campaigning direct to WA members is more significant at deciding votes than regions.

Galiantus III wrote:

Sedgistan wrote:Other stuff that's uncertain:

• Number of rounds in the election, and how long they last. I do not think we want 4. I'm leaning towards 1 or 2. I quite liked the suggestion of hiding the leaderboard for the first round, but that may be too complicated.
• If the incumbent's term continues until the new SCP is elected (as was done with Caelapes) or if their is a period during the campaign without an incumbent. I'm leaning towards the former, not least because it's the current situation.
• If a "Recall" category is necessary from the start, or something to consider for later, and if there are any different requirements for this compared to a normal proposal (e.g. quorum or voting percentages). Also how the SCP's powers interact with this (relevant mainly if their power revolves around reordering the queue).

Just spit-balling here; what if we just treat electing the SCP like electing a regional delegate, but only delegates get to endorse/vote? Basically, a parliamentary system. Obviously, potential elections would have to take place on much longer intervals than the regular update (I'm thinking once a month), but this would remove concerns about over-campaigning while also allowing more flexibility in the term. Plus terms would be short enough that a "Recall" category would be unnecessary.

Presumably, the point of this addition is to promote activity. You don't promote activity by locking this off from 95% of WA players.

Sedgistan";p="38457077”]

[quote="Lord Dominator wrote:I do t think the Vice position is needed - if the passage to the Vice is conditional on CTE, the frequency of use is probably extremely low (as those elected are presumably active, most people are unlikely to go from active to CTE inside of 6 months, and if either of those aren’t true, that’s probably on the voters).

The Vice position is in the plan because it already exists. And there is a chance someone could disappear within 6 months - no-one can be certain of their RL plans, and plenty of NS "retirements" are unexpected. But mostly the position will be meaningless, yes.[/quote]
It’s certainly possible, I’m just raising the idea that giving the position actual power doesn’t jive with keeping on the vice position when it would have approximately equal meaning as it does now.

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).

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 is no way this is going to get abused. Not at all.

Honeydewistania 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).

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.