Making the Secretary-General Meaningful

[Leutria]

Have we considered just having a banner over whatever is up for vote "The Secretary-General recommends voting For"? It isn't a hand power, but the influence of having that recommendation right on the page *could* sway a vote, but as it is just a recommendation and doesn't do anything, could be freely allowed throughout their term.

[Varanius]

I think you're being a bit too one dimensional with your thinking here.

Gonna be honest, the hypotheticals you’re describing are just not things that happen in NS.

Firstly, ordering a queue does not guarantee or stop a liberation/injunction - that's on voters.

I mean, sure, but you missed the point about what I was saying. I don’t think a liberation for a contested region (one which raiders are holding and defenders are trying to liberate) has been voted down after getting to vote in literal years. But even if that wasn’t the case, it’s also not what I’m talking about. Liberations and injunctions are often time sensitive. A matter of a few days (or weeks in case of 2+ resolutions) can have serious effects on the ability of raiders to fully take the region (either via refound or the new ability to just appoint yourself Governor after two weeks). As we’ve seen before, getting these to vote immediately is a very imperfect science, and resolutions in the queue before the lib/Injunct often involves having to try to get authors to withdraw their SC proposals, authors which may not exactly be defender friendly. There’s also the possibility of queue-stuffing, though that’s currently less of a problem right now because those sent to be easier to detect and need to be set up beforehand. A player being able to reorganize the queue would just change all of this. A defender friendly or lib-side SecGen would be able to fast-track any liberation or injunction to vote upon acquiring the necessary approvals (which, let’s face it, is cakewalk for any experienced WAer). It would also mean a SecGen more towards the raider side of the aisle, or even just on a specific occupation, could have the queue flooded with any SC proposal they can get to hit quorum, and they can submit all of these after the fact and simply move ahead of the liberation. Both of these just kinda suck as potential ways for the SC to work.

Second, reordering a queue relies on there being a lot of resolutions that have reached quorum being in queue, otherwise there is no reordering.

Sure, but again that’s not really what I’m talking about. I frankly think the idea sucks both when used to fast-track libjuncts or to send them to purgatory, but what you’re missing here is that it would be possible to simply create a lot of resolutions in queue. As we saw last year (or was it the year before?) with one of those big BoM raids queue stuffed with “Liberate Ukraine” and the like, it’s incredibly easy to just get any random thing to vote. I have gotten some truly incoherent proposals to vote before. What this would do is mean that raiders wouldn’t even have to submit them beforehand. If some resolution is at vote, and raiders raid a region, and a defender submits a libjunct, raiders could just submit any old resolution, and move it ahead once it reaches queue. Even with defender countercampaigning, all raiders would have to do is get one proposal in, and boom. Another 4 days to think of a new one. As a method of supporting raids the mechanic is horribly oppressive, and as a method of opposing them removes the tiniest bit of difficulty defenders face in SC libjuncts, in that they might have to ask a few people to withdraw their proposals.

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.

I mean, it’s not really about “bad actors” though. It’s about this ability as a political tool. The extent of my position is that it, as a political tool, is unfair to provide to any party, regardless of whether or not they’re good or bad actors.

[Ostrovskiy]

Will this be happening this year, now that F/S has gone live?

If the elections won't be happening in a changed version this year, will it run a la 2020, since it's another presidential election year in the US?

[Varanius]

Will this be happening this year, now that F/S has gone live?

If the elections won't be happening in a changed version this year, will it run a la 2020, since it's another presidential election year in the US?

Also very curious about this. Similarly curios about what the mods think about the suggestions from myself or Leutria?

[Sedgistan]

It's next in my list of "big gameplay changes" I'd like to see happen. I'd held off on progressing anything until I had an understanding from Violet of what time she has for coding, as it's likely a project that would need her to do most the work (the WA code being particularly tricky to work with in many cases). The coding priority for Violet's time this year is likely to be related to Accounts, but she has indicated it may be possible to implement Sec-Gen changes this year, though not guaranteed.

We are likely to run one Sec-Gen election this year regardless, to tie in with the US election cycle, as seems to have become our habit. Ideally, this would be with its new powers, whatever those are.

My preference remains to keep whatever power(s) the role has to be simple, which is why the queue reordering or veto appealed. At present, I am leaning more towards a more modest power of voting recommendation, as Leutria has most recently suggested. I think with the "lemming effect", this would still be a significant power, without being too domineering. I feel Varanius's suggestions are too complex and niche to interest most players. Queue mechanics in particular aren't of interest to, or visible to, most non-Delegates.

I'll have more on this in the relatively (in NS development terms) near future.

[Ostrovskiy]

Thanks, Sedge!

[August Imperium]

My preference remains to keep whatever power(s) the role has to be simple, which is why the queue reordering or veto appealed. At present, I am leaning more towards a more modest power of voting recommendation, as Leutria has most recently suggested. I think with the "lemming effect", this would still be a significant power, without being too domineering. I feel Varanius's suggestions are too complex and niche to interest most players. Queue mechanics in particular aren't of interest to, or visible to, most non-Delegates.

Considering the fact that most opposition to a GA SG was based around the veto, would this recommendation power apply to just the SC? This wouldn't intrude too much into the GA community, and it wouldn't hurt for the SG to have some influence over the GA.

[Unibot III]

I’ll just chime in say I think the recommendation power will be surprisingly influential/valuable - and it’ll be sought after.

(I do wonder if there is no hard powers (veto/queue ordering), just a soft power (recommendations) whether there might be renewed interest from GA regulars in extending this to the GA?)

[Varanius]

It's next in my list of "big gameplay changes" I'd like to see happen. I'd held off on progressing anything until I had an understanding from Violet of what time she has for coding, as it's likely a project that would need her to do most the work (the WA code being particularly tricky to work with in many cases). The coding priority for Violet's time this year is likely to be related to Accounts, but she has indicated it may be possible to implement Sec-Gen changes this year, though not guaranteed.

We are likely to run one Sec-Gen election this year regardless, to tie in with the US election cycle, as seems to have become our habit. Ideally, this would be with its new powers, whatever those are.

My preference remains to keep whatever power(s) the role has to be simple, which is why the queue reordering or veto appealed. At present, I am leaning more towards a more modest power of voting recommendation, as Leutria has most recently suggested. I think with the "lemming effect", this would still be a significant power, without being too domineering. I feel Varanius's suggestions are too complex and niche to interest most players. Queue mechanics in particular aren't of interest to, or visible to, most non-Delegates.

I'll have more on this in the relatively (in NS development terms) near future.

Thanks Sedge!

[Wallenburg]

Glad to see new bells and whistles added to the SC game, I know GP appreciated the last set.

Considering the fact that most opposition to a GA SG was based around the veto,

It wasn't.

This wouldn't intrude too much into the GA community, and it wouldn't hurt for the SG to have some influence over the GA.

It would, and it would.

[August Imperium]

Glad to see new bells and whistles added to the SC game, I know GP appreciated the last set.

Considering the fact that most opposition to a GA SG was based around the veto,

It wasn't.

This wouldn't intrude too much into the GA community, and it wouldn't hurt for the SG to have some influence over the GA.

It would, and it would.

Practically, would a recommendation be any different to the current strategy of simply voting early and tactically to sway the vote? Except this time, the SG/SCP won't actually have any substansive influence over the vote (other than their current endorsement count), so a recommendation won't on its own change anything.

[Wallenburg]

Practically, would a recommendation be any different to the current strategy of simply voting early and tactically to sway the vote? Except this time, the SG/SCP won't actually have any substansive influence over the vote (other than their current endorsement count), so a recommendation won't on its own change anything.

I expressed this earlier in this thread: if the effect of such a recommendation weren't significant, the mod team wouldn't be interested in coding it into the game.

[Reventus Koth]

Have we considered just having a banner over whatever is up for vote "The Secretary-General recommends voting For"? It isn't a hand power, but the influence of having that recommendation right on the page *could* sway a vote, but as it is just a recommendation and doesn't do anything, could be freely allowed throughout their term.

This is the best suggestion I've seen throughout the entire thread. I originally did not support this thread's concept at all, but this is very simple, intuitive, works well with existing NationStates mechanics and culture and, most importantly, I can't imagine it would take a herculean coding effort to implement. Never underestimate the soft power of a figurehead's approval.

[Tinhampton]

I proposed Leutria's idea literally three years ago (and stand by it).

[Waterfall State]

What about contingencies in the event of the Sec-Gen CTE'ing for a long time? Are we really gonna wait 4 years to elect a new on assuming no existing vice sec-gen to take the helm?

[Sedgistan]

What about contingencies in the event of the Sec-Gen CTE'ing for a long time? Are we really gonna wait 4 years to elect a new on assuming no existing vice sec-gen to take the helm?

Don't just ask questions, say what you think should be the case!

While some things have changed, I would direct you to previous discussions, where terms were intended to be 6 months, and with the VSG taking over the role if the SG ceases to exist. There remains a risk that both CTE. I do not have an opinion on whether the term would end then and there, with a new election held, or if it would continue with the office vacant, and would welcome suggestions.

[The Ambis]

I do not have an opinion on whether the term would end then and there, with a new election held, or if it would continue with the office vacant, and would welcome suggestions.

IMHO, I believe that a snap should be held. It makes it more nerve racking as you watch the clock tick down to the date of CTE, knowing that we could loose a good SG

[The Blaatschapen]

I do not have an opinion on whether the term would end then and there, with a new election held, or if it would continue with the office vacant, and would welcome suggestions.

IMHO, I believe that a snap should be held. It makes it more nerve racking as you watch the clock tick down to the date of CTE, knowing that we could loose a good SG

Or, in a rare case, us deating the person.

Which means that we need a way to reinstate from the modside, in case we deat but the deat gets overturned.

[Waterfall State]

-snip-

Well now that you mention it, there should be atleast some time before new sec-gen elections to serve either a new 6-month term (should be simpler to implement) or serve the rest of the 4 year term assuming there is more that a year into the term left. I think a month from the holder of the position cte'ing and no other vice sec-gen holding the position is plenty enough for someone to come back if the cte was just a case of them forgetting to login rather than other circumstances, but 1-2 weeks bare minimum is also good for making prospective office holders think twice before putting their name in the ballot.

As for other things; The Sec-Gen should still have a Vice Position and treated similar to the successor mechanics we currently have for strongholds without the option of the CTE'd Sec-Gen getting their office back without an election.

I am also against the veto option. While I take more interest in the SC, there is already a significant voting bloc that acts as an effective unofficial veto on certain proposals and they should not be strengthened further with the most likely winner being a member of the same bloc, assuming a FPTP system which I think would be most likely and easiest to implement voting method, though I do not remember the specifics of how the last Sec-Gen Election was held at the time of posting.

My two cents

[Comfed]

None of the Secretary-General's powers actually need to be used for the WA to work - indeed, it would just mean that the WA operates the way it does now - so I do not think it is really a big deal if there is no SecGen.

[Lord Dominator]

This is partially a joke, but if the SG does have the power of voting recommendations, then having no SG could result in a purely random recommendation on any given proposal.

More seriously, I would hope a human SG is given the ability to include more in their recommendation than just an up or down, even if that’s only a couple sentences or a dispatch.

[Makko Oko]

Lol. If this is already happening why is the WA so much worse now? And you really think the missing ingredient in getting people involved in the WA is the absence of a feature to have their inbox filled with campaign junk every six months?

Worth noting here that the most recent election has already made things more difficult for WA players with how many delegates blocked campaign TGs when it was already the case that it's impossible to get a proposal to vote without campaigning delegates.

That is a huge issue and I'm hoping it is one that the admins could develop a feature to help address (maybe even this idea could help).

On the actual topic at hand, full support. To be honest I think SecGen could become a civilian oversight position on GenSec because GenSec members are not publicly elected. SecGen members are. I think they could help hold GenSec accountable, ensure the flow of information to the public and also become a significant voice on GenSec rulings (which you may want to rename to Secretary rulings should you agree to this proposal). They would get a vote on GenSec rulings (or maybe a strong behind-the-scenes non-voting ability to speak).

[Sedgistan]

Worth noting here that the most recent election has already made things more difficult for WA players with how many delegates blocked campaign TGs when it was already the case that it's impossible to get a proposal to vote without campaigning delegates.

That is a huge issue and I'm hoping it is one that the admins could develop a feature to help address (maybe even this idea could help).[/quote]
My intent remains to have a new "Events" TG label/filter that the Sec-Gen election uses, instead of the WA Campaign TG label/filter that it has previously used.

[Free Social Conservatives]

If we do get the recommendation power for Sec-Gen, might we change the name so as to not to simply be the word 'GenSec' switched? There are much less confusing names that don't correspond with things like GenSec, as people have pointed out on this thread.

[Wallenburg]

If we do get the recommendation power for Sec-Gen, might we change the name so as to not to simply be the word 'GenSec' switched? There are much less confusing names that don't correspond with things like GenSec, as people have pointed out on this thread.

Well, these are both abbreviations of longer, less similar names. GenSec means General Assembly Secretariat. The position here would be Security Council Secretary-General. I know that the name has been in a state of flux multiple times, but honestly the alternatives I've heard aren't very inspiring. If we have to have this role, I don't think "SC President", for instance, sounds very interesting at all. It certainly isn't in keeping with the WA culture.