NationStates

Sorry to bump, but I had an idea for this, though I want to get other people’s thoughts: my thought is that maybe the President can have free access to telegram Delegates and/or the WA? If this is considered too large of a power, perhaps they could be limited in how many they get per term? Though I think if it were being abused, a recall could happen.

Just a thought, to give the position a bit more oomf, y’know?

Morover wrote:Sorry to bump, but I had an idea for this, though I want to get other people’s thoughts: my thought is that maybe the President can have free access to telegram Delegates and/or the WA? If this is considered too large of a power, perhaps they could be limited in how many they get per term? Though I think if it were being abused, a recall could happen.

Just a thought, to give the position a bit more oomf, y’know?

I like this idea but I wonder if shoehorning that communication into the WA filter could inadvertently limit the use of the power for GP application.

For instance, if “Liberate X,” passes, the Secretary-General could put out a call to the WA to find troops to endorse the current delegate or an occupier or liberator, or something. It’s SC related, but not strictly aligned with the WA filter’s purpose.

They want to introduce a separate SG (not SG-1, sadly,) filter.

Morover wrote:Sorry to bump, but I had an idea for this, though I want to get other people’s thoughts: my thought is that maybe the President can have free access to telegram Delegates and/or the WA? If this is considered too large of a power, perhaps they could be limited in how many they get per term? Though I think if it were being abused, a recall could happen.

Just a thought, to give the position a bit more oomf, y’know?

That's an interesting idea, although it's rather incongruous with the goal of increasing stamp revenue.

Unibot III wrote:

Morover wrote:Sorry to bump, but I had an idea for this, though I want to get other people’s thoughts: my thought is that maybe the President can have free access to telegram Delegates and/or the WA? If this is considered too large of a power, perhaps they could be limited in how many they get per term? Though I think if it were being abused, a recall could happen.

Just a thought, to give the position a bit more oomf, y’know?

I like this idea but I wonder if shoehorning that communication into the WA filter could inadvertently limit the use of the power for GP application.

For instance, if “Liberate X,” passes, the Secretary-General could put out a call to the WA to find troops to endorse the current delegate or an occupier or liberator, or something. It’s SC related, but not strictly aligned with the WA filter’s purpose.

I think the point is that you then can't use this power to campaign for reelection, but I suppose you could put an explicit rule in place for that anyways. IC-ly it makes sense - if you're WA elected, you only have power over WA nations so you should only be able to send messages to the WA. Let me know if you disagree, though.

Wallenburg wrote:

Morover wrote:Sorry to bump, but I had an idea for this, though I want to get other people’s thoughts: my thought is that maybe the President can have free access to telegram Delegates and/or the WA? If this is considered too large of a power, perhaps they could be limited in how many they get per term? Though I think if it were being abused, a recall could happen.

Just a thought, to give the position a bit more oomf, y’know?

That's an interesting idea, although it's rather incongruous with the goal of increasing stamp revenue.

I think the amount that would be raised from campaigning to get elected would almost certainly outweigh the $200 loss max or so (probably closer to 100 still) that this would constitute. At least, that would be my wager if past elections are anything to go off of.

A thought I have on this, especially seeing that multiple rounds aren't preferred.

Would a system of election for the [insert new title for SecGen here] that allowed for multiple votes in the first round (and then eliminated all those under a certain quota: say...10%) and then allowed for a preference order in round 2 to find a "consensus" candidate be feasible?

I can elaborate on this if need be, but I think that's probably the simplest way of handling things.

Here's an idea for electing the SG:

On the first day of the election, a number of votes (let's say 10) are simultaneously distributed to each WA nation. Votes may be given to any other nation that is currently in the WA, in any number. Votes received by a nation simply add to the pool of votes they can give. At the end of two weeks, whoever holds the most votes wins and becomes the SG.

My reasoning is that this system is incredibly simple. At the outset, it promises to be fair and democratic. Yet at the same time, it leaves the door open for and practically invites crazy shenanigans throughout the whole election period, especially leading into the 11th hour of the election, when some nations will have large quantities of votes primed to swing the election one way or the other. It should be interesting to see the combination of campaigning and negotiation used to actually win using this system.

Galiantus III wrote:Here's an idea for electing the SG:

On the first day of the election, a number of votes (let's say 10) are simultaneously distributed to each WA nation. Votes may be given to any other nation that is currently in the WA, in any number. Votes received by a nation simply add to the pool of votes they can give. At the end of two weeks, whoever holds the most votes wins and becomes the SG.

My reasoning is that this system is incredibly simple. At the outset, it promises to be fair and democratic. Yet at the same time, it leaves the door open for and practically invites crazy shenanigans throughout the whole election period, especially leading into the 11th hour of the election, when some nations will have large quantities of votes primed to swing the election one way or the other. It should be interesting to see the combination of campaigning and negotiation used to actually win using this system.

This sounds like a riot. I love it.

It also means entirely re-coding the election methodology. That's not an option.

Galiantus III wrote:Here's an idea for electing the SG:

On the first day of the election, a number of votes (let's say 10) are simultaneously distributed to each WA nation. Votes may be given to any other nation that is currently in the WA, in any number. Votes received by a nation simply add to the pool of votes they can give. At the end of two weeks, whoever holds the most votes wins and becomes the SG.

My reasoning is that this system is incredibly simple. At the outset, it promises to be fair and democratic. Yet at the same time, it leaves the door open for and practically invites crazy shenanigans throughout the whole election period, especially leading into the 11th hour of the election, when some nations will have large quantities of votes primed to swing the election one way or the other. It should be interesting to see the combination of campaigning and negotiation used to actually win using this system.

This sounds pretty similar to the NS IPO...

Sedgistan wrote:It also means entirely re-coding the election methodology. That's not an option.

can this be made a long-term goal? because galiantus' idea sounds like absolute gold.

Sedgistan wrote:It also means entirely re-coding the election methodology. That's not an option.

In that case, I have two proposals that utilize existing code, with some minor tweaks. They are both intended to encourage (though do not guarantee) the selection of a candidate with majority support.

Proposal A - Approval Voting


Proposal B - Asset Voting

---

Additional thoughts:

- Both proposals assume the existing system allows votes to be withdrawn. If this is not already in place, I think it is a QOL change that is basically a must now that the SC President will hold real power.

- A natural length of time for each round would be the same as proposals spend on the floor of the WA.

- It would be nice if candidates could declare themselves in the week prior to an election.

Apologies if this could/should go elsewhere, thought this was the most appropriate forum. Since according to the calendar shared by Chingis, the Secretary-General election is 2 weeks from Saturday, are there any updates about new powers the next holder will have, etc.?

S-G election is 99% not happening when scheduled this year - I was over-optimistic on getting changes to it, particularly given that F/S is getting worked on at present instead.

Sedgistan wrote:S-G election is 99% not happening when scheduled this year - I was over-optimistic on getting changes to it, particularly given that F/S is getting worked on at present instead.

Ah, that's a touch disappointing. Is there anything like a revised timeline or even a guesstimate?

I intend to revisit this after Frontiers go live and is bedded in. It'll be the next relatively big project I want to see happen under the "GP/SC tech development" area. That means it's likely to be probably Spring/Summer that details start getting hammered out on it, and I've no idea when after that admin would have time to code things. I feel we need changes made before we can run another election.

Sedgistan wrote:S-G election is 99% not happening when scheduled this year - I was over-optimistic on getting changes to it, particularly given that F/S is getting worked on at present instead.

Is there a reason not to run it without changes? I don't remember it being particularly problematic like the best nation.

The mass TG campaigning is disruptive to WA authors, as it causes lots of people to opt-out of WA Campaign TGs, making it much harder for subsequent WA proposal approval campaigns.

Hulldom wrote:

Sedgistan wrote:S-G election is 99% not happening when scheduled this year - I was over-optimistic on getting changes to it, particularly given that F/S is getting worked on at present instead.

Ah, that's a touch disappointing. Is there anything like a revised timeline or even a guesstimate?

It is a shame but understable. At least we have Feb N-day to settle international affairs.

The good news that site staff apparently aren't looking to run this minigame again at the expense of SC/GA is welcome. Better luck next year, I imagine someone will find the time to complete it by then.

After mulling this over in VC with a few people I wanted to propose that instead of a once per term absolute veto, the SG would get a suspensive veto that could be used more than once per term. This would work in one of two ways
1. The SG raises a veto within X hours of a proposal coming to vote - that vote now requires a 2/3rds majority to pass
2. The SG vetos a proposal within, say, 12 hours of passing, the proposal now goes back to the SC at the top of the queue and requires a 2/3rds majority to pass.

Either of the above would balance the veto in such a way that it could be used more than once per term; this would hopefully allow the SG to be more than a zero-sum election over an ability they get to use once. It would also hopefully encourage the role to be used for more profound high politics than simply killing one injuction/commend/condemn/liberation that they don't like and then the SG is irrelevant for the rest of their term.

Wymondham wrote:After mulling this over in VC with a few people I wanted to propose that instead of a once per term absolute veto, the SG would get a suspensive veto that could be used more than once per term. This would work in one of two ways
1. The SG raises a veto within X hours of a proposal coming to vote - that vote now requires a 2/3rds majority to pass
2. The SG vetos a proposal within, say, 12 hours of passing, the proposal now goes back to the SC at the top of the queue and requires a 2/3rds majority to pass.

Either of the above would balance the veto in such a way that it could be used more than once per term; this would hopefully allow the SG to be more than a zero-sum election over an ability they get to use once. It would also hopefully encourage the role to be used for more profound high politics than simply killing one injuction/commend/condemn/liberation that they don't like and then the SG is irrelevant for the rest of their term.

Personally I think we should stick to one of the variants there, mostly for consistency. I tend to prefer the latter version since it’s closer to a traditional veto, although possibly without it being at the top of the queue afterwards.

More generally, while I think such an idea would be alright without any limits on use, I think there is a good case for some kind of limit. While a time-based one is fine I did just realize we could link it to total proposals voted on. In this form the SG would start their term with say 2 vetoes and get a new one every 4 proposals voted on say. The numbers are adjustable of course, but I think linking it to actual voting provides a certain flexibility of power so that any given SG has the same relative ability to affect things regardless of the specific activity of their term.

One of the big balancing acts with this project is making it worth Admin's time (Violet in particular). The WA code is amongst the oldest in the game, and tricky to modify. Any change benefits from the S-G election code existing already, but suffers if we're introducing complex power mechanics for the role. When I checked a few years ago, Violet was of the view that either a veto power or reshuffling the queue were feasible, and roughly of equal complexity. So my view is it's either one of the two unless someone comes up with a compelling alternative that Violet confirms is not tricky. I don't think either of Wymondham's suggestions pass that test, particularly the second - returning a passed resolution to vote is almost certainly miles past the point of feasibility.

Alright. I’ll be honest, I think we’re looking at this wrong. Specifically, I don’t think either of the currently presented ideas are actually all that interesting. Restructuring the queue is somehow both too overpowered and too useless. It would essentially either guarantee or completely prohibit liberations and injunctions depending on who had the seat, and also be entirely pointless for anything outside of that. I’m also not a fan of the idea that the position should boil down to a once per term veto. I understand that the whole point is that it’s supposed to have that intrigue about not wanting to waste it too early and not wanting to wait so long in the term that it’s useless, but that just kinda sucks. I don’t want that. Electing someone to a 6 month therm where they can do one thing and are otherwise entirely useless just doesn’t sound fun. Especially because, with the exception of time-sensitive liberations and injunctions, the author can just resubmit the resolution and no one can stop them. Even with those liberations, defenders could just submit two at once, and a raider which vetoes one simply had the next go to vote, delaying the time it takes by a whole 4 days. This still could be useful in certain edge cases, but it would rarely ever be occupation making. I think what would be better is a more “toolbox” approach, with the SecGen having a variety of weaker but still useful tools they can use a couple of times. My suggestions would be along the lines of:
- Being able to slightly lower or raise the bar for quorum for a proposal (maybe by something in the range of 5-10 approvals)
- Being able to slightly increase or decrease the time during which a resolution has to acquire the necessary number of approvals (by say, one update)
- Being able to slightly increase or decrease the time at which a resolution is at vote (by say, a day)
- Maybe still a once per term veto, but one which would make the vetoed proposal illegal for the duration of the term. This wouldn’t need to be coded in. The mods could simply have a blurb in the rules including the banned proposal, and mark any proposal by that name illegal. This would only work in the SC, but it has the advantage of actually giving it some meaning. The proposal couldn’t just be resubmitted the next day (or in the case of libs/injunctions, have two submitted at once), but it also would allow for it to have actual purpose when it comes to C/Cs too.

Again, not really suggesting that all of these be incorporated, just that the idea would be more engaging and genuine, as neither of the currently outlined possibilities lead to a scenario in which the SecGen is not absurdly overpowered but still has some teeth. These ideas (which should also have a low but not 1 limit per term) would actually give the SecGen a variety of ways to still be meaningful, but not oppressive. A sufficiently popular proposal would sail through any of these listed impediments (with the exception of the veto), and a sufficiently unpopular proposal would fail regardless too.

Varanius wrote:Alright. I’ll be honest, I think we’re looking at this wrong. Specifically, I don’t think either of the currently presented ideas are actually all that interesting. Restructuring the queue is somehow both too overpowered and too useless. It would essentially either guarantee or completely prohibit liberations and injunctions depending on who had the seat, and also be entirely pointless for anything outside of that.

I think you're being a bit too one dimensional with your thinking here. Firstly, ordering a queue does not guarantee or stop a liberation/injunction - that's on voters. Second, reordering a queue relies on there being a lot of resolutions that have reached quorum being in queue, otherwise there is no reordering. If a bad actor has the position and is not popular, between quorum raiding, asking players to withdraw approval, and other measures can be taken to totally neuter them, and if they're unpopular enough, they can be impeached and replaced. And if they're popular, then odds are their POV will reflect what the SC will pass, so them having the power doesn't make much of a difference.

Unlike other suggestions, it's a constructive power that can (like all NS features) be used for bad as well as good, and it's a relatively simple concept.