Making the Secretary-General Meaningful

[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.

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.

I agree that the actual non-abbreviated words are quite distinguishable and fit the WA mantra very well. I'm just concerned that newcomers who don't understand the difference will be confused when they see these two WA related NS terms.

[Unibot III]

I mean, if we’re basing it on the RL UN, Security Council President is closer to the real deal than Secretary-General. SC President is often just accredited to the presiding nation - they chair the SC. The S-G is an individual, a CAO to the whole of the UN, nominated by the SC and rubber-stamped by the GA. What’s being contemplated for the SC is most similar to the RL GA President in my mind.

https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/presidency

[Haganham]

I mean, if we’re basing it on the RL UN, Security Council President is closer to the real deal than Secretary-General. SC President is often just accredited to the presiding nation - they chair the SC. The S-G is an individual, a CAO to the whole of the UN, nominated by the SC and rubber-stamped by the GA. What’s being contemplated for the SC is most similar to the RL GA President in my mind.

https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/presidency

I would be very cautious of having the tile changed to president. People will expect that to be more like the president of a nation, as it's what they're most familiar with.

[Sedgistan]

Here is where I am with the Secretary-General project:

• Position is called Secretary General. This has the potential to cause some confusion with the General Assembly Secretariat, but I feel it is by far the most appropriate and best name; it's also the established name for the role. We haven't had a decent alternative suggested (despite briefly settling on "SC President" a few years ago, that name is lame).
• The position is a World Assembly-wide one, not just the Security Council.
• The S-G can provide prominent voting advice on the WA pages, for each at-vote proposal. This is significantly watered down from the original veto plan, but remains a strong way of influencing the WA without completely dominating it.
• The S-G (along with their Deputy S-G running mate) is elected every 6 months. This reduces the risk of the holder going inactive, without having non-stop elections.
• The Deputy S-G assumes office if the S-G ceases to exist. No further deputy deputy exists beyond that point. The Deputy S-G is otherwise powerless.
• New "Events" telegram filter introduced. This avoids previous problems where Delegates + WA members block WA Campaign TGs en masse due to the amount of S-G election TGs being sent, which makes it hard for WA authors to get their proposals to vote.
• Existing requirements to run remain the same. i.e. WA membership, 5 endorsements, Campaign Bulletin.
• Only WA members can vote. Same as the last time we ran it, and nations under 30 million population cannot (same as before, prevents excessive foundings).
• Regions can boost for a candidate. As before.
• The holder remains in office until a replacement is elected. Rather than vacating when a new election starts.

I'm less sure about these details, but these are my current thoughts:

• Three rounds of elections, each lasting 24 hours. Four is too many. After the first round, only the top 25 get through, after the second, only the top 5 get through to the final round. In both 2nd and 3rd round, candidates are listed in order of votes received in the previous round. Previously nations could re-enter after being dropped; I'd prefer not to have this.
• What happens if the S-G/Deputy S-G both cease to exist. I'm inclined to lean towards leaving the role vacant (until/unless they refound), as that keeps us with two set times of year when the elections are held, which we can schedule around other events. Otherwise we might have an election running during N-Day or something, which would get crazy.
• The merits of a SC "Recall" category. This would add some fun to things, and I think would get used (or attempted at least). However, we'd have to lose the set elections schedule, and I don't think it's worth that.

Feedback on the above?

[Ostrovskiy]

-snip-[/list]
Feedback on the above?

If I'm being honest, I don't think that a voting recommendation is a strong enough of a power. Voters who actually give a damn and the delegates of major regions will probably come to their own conclusion, and lemmings would probably go in whatever direction the vote was going, not the SG-s advice. Imho, the queue power (possibly SC only) would be better, and it could at least be tacked onto this.

[Minoa]

I would consider using a single transferable vote (STV) followed by a two-candidate run-off, instead of multiple first-past-the-post rounds. You won't regret using STV, because it will reduce polarisation and cut down the problem of wasted votes.

Please don't repeat the problems with our electoral system in the real-world UK.

[Altasund]

I would wonder if, as part of the "prominent voting advice", it might be worth displaying how the SG is voting next to where it shows how your region's delegate is voting? In case that hasn't been considered yet.

[Sedgistan]

I would consider using a single transferable vote (STV) followed by a two-candidate run-off, instead of multiple first-past-the-post rounds. You won't regret using STV, because it will reduce polarisation and cut down the problem of wasted votes.

Please don't repeat the problems with our electoral system in the real-world UK.

I disagree with everything you have said in this post. I'm not interested in replacing an existing, coded voting system that's simple and effective, with one that reduces a desirable outcome, namely "polarisation".

I would wonder if, as part of the "prominent voting advice", it might be worth displaying how the SG is voting next to where it shows how your region's delegate is voting? In case that hasn't been considered yet.

Yes, that seems reasonable.

[Wallenburg]

The position is a World Assembly-wide one, not just the Security Council.

Explain this, because in no uncertain terms you promised the GA community otherwise.

[Tinhampton]

I continue to support the use of "President" as a title. Secretary-General would OOCly cause confusion (as you've acknowledged) and ICly lead to claims that Catherine Gratwick is being usurped again again again, again.

Not a dealbreaker by any means but if you're going to do regional boosting, then please (try to) make boosts visible in Century theme! Z-Day has this issue too but this isn't the Z-Day thread, right?

Sec-Gen is advertised as a WA-wide power. Is the only proposed power of the Sec-Gen under this plan to issue voting recommendations on at-vote proposals?

-----

Sedge said, while rejecting Minoa's STV proposal: "I'm not interested in replacing an existing, coded voting system that's simple and effective, with one that reduces a desirable outcome, namely "polarisation"." I agree and would add that the rounds system is an adequate check on polarisation already: witness what happened to Jocospor, and the anti-Jocospor voting block, in the 2020 election.

[Minoa]

I would consider using a single transferable vote (STV) followed by a two-candidate run-off, instead of multiple first-past-the-post rounds. You won't regret using STV, because it will reduce polarisation and cut down the problem of wasted votes.

Please don't repeat the problems with our electoral system in the real-world UK.

I disagree with everything you have said in this post. I'm not interested in replacing an existing, coded voting system that's simple and effective, with one that reduces a desirable outcome, namely "polarisation".

I thought it would also shorten the election time, but okay.

[Second Sovereignty]

[snip]

A ludicrous plan; if absolutely nothing else, the last thing the GA needs is more massive weights on the voting system. A voting recommendation sitting on, or even a short sight away from the vote page itself is an utterly unheard of amount of power.
If the position actually goes from a meaningless event position, to a role with actual power, this is going to convert a 'fun' event, into another field for brutal gameplayer strategizing and the further stratification of power in the SC, and more pressingly, frankly, the subordination of the GA to, whatever GP agenda is presently in power; given the way a lot of GP powers already interact with the GA, I'm not exactly looking forward to SecGen Vote Recommendations that consist mostly of 'They're An Evil Raider/Feeder Delegate/Algerstonia Puppet So Vote Against This Essential Human Rights Law Lmao'.

[Separatist Peoples]

Wasn't the GA supposed to be immune to this crap when the idea was floated years ago? Why the hell is this getting foisted back on us?

[Gruenberg]

The position is a World Assembly-wide one, not just the Security Council.

Why. What has changed since the arguments that previously convinced you it shouldn't be?

[The Ice States]

Likewise, I think this should be limited just to the SC.

[Eternal Algerstonia]

If this gets implemented, I'm going to run on a platform of absolutely doing nothing with the office. I'll beat you. Algerheaven 5- Sedgistan 1.

[Varanius]

Here is where I am with the Secretary-General project:

• Position is called Secretary General. This has the potential to cause some confusion with the General Assembly Secretariat, but I feel it is by far the most appropriate and best name; it's also the established name for the role. We haven't had a decent alternative suggested (despite briefly settling on "SC President" a few years ago, that name is lame).
• The position is a World Assembly-wide one, not just the Security Council.
• The S-G can provide prominent voting advice on the WA pages, for each at-vote proposal. This is significantly watered down from the original veto plan, but remains a strong way of influencing the WA without completely dominating it.
• The S-G (along with their Deputy S-G running mate) is elected every 6 months. This reduces the risk of the holder going inactive, without having non-stop elections.
• The Deputy S-G assumes office if the S-G ceases to exist. No further deputy deputy exists beyond that point. The Deputy S-G is otherwise powerless.
• New "Events" telegram filter introduced. This avoids previous problems where Delegates + WA members block WA Campaign TGs en masse due to the amount of S-G election TGs being sent, which makes it hard for WA authors to get their proposals to vote.
• Existing requirements to run remain the same. i.e. WA membership, 5 endorsements, Campaign Bulletin.
• Only WA members can vote. Same as the last time we ran it, and nations under 30 million population cannot (same as before, prevents excessive foundings).
• Regions can boost for a candidate. As before.
• The holder remains in office until a replacement is elected. Rather than vacating when a new election starts.

I'm less sure about these details, but these are my current thoughts:

• Three rounds of elections, each lasting 24 hours. Four is too many. After the first round, only the top 25 get through, after the second, only the top 5 get through to the final round. In both 2nd and 3rd round, candidates are listed in order of votes received in the previous round. Previously nations could re-enter after being dropped; I'd prefer not to have this.
• What happens if the S-G/Deputy S-G both cease to exist. I'm inclined to lean towards leaving the role vacant (until/unless they refound), as that keeps us with two set times of year when the elections are held, which we can schedule around other events. Otherwise we might have an election running during N-Day or something, which would get crazy.
• The merits of a SC "Recall" category. This would add some fun to things, and I think would get used (or attempted at least). However, we'd have to lose the set elections schedule, and I don't think it's worth that.

Feedback on the above?

I think the idea is solid around. I think the idea of a Recall mechanism is interesting. Not likely to be used very often, but not harmful to have.

I’ll also be honest, certain people here are also massively exaggerating to say the least. The “GP influence over the GA” that many have been touting as a primary concern both here and in the WA discord server (in a community vs community respect that I don’t think is remarkably useful to analyze the situation or exceptionally helpful) already exists in the most extreme manner possible, it’s the “GP” delegates of places like TNP and TSP that pass all the proposals. This would not be a status quo change in that regard. It would be a new feature, but not anymore of a boon for the “GP” aspect over the GA than the fact that delegates can vote.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The position is a World Assembly-wide one, not just the Security Council.

Why. What has changed since the arguments that previously convinced you it shouldn't be?

I hadn't got the impression that he was convinced it shouldn't be, per se; only that it shouldn't be at that time. The answer, then, is "That was then, this is now."

My question is "What would be the benefit for the General Assembly game to become even further imprisoned to the mercy of Gameplay?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

The position is a World Assembly-wide one, not just the Security Council.

Explain this, because in no uncertain terms you promised the GA community otherwise.

Yes. Let's start here.

[Gruenberg]

Why. What has changed since the arguments that previously convinced you it shouldn't be?

I hadn't got the impression that he was convinced it shouldn't be, per se; only that it shouldn't be at that time. The answer, then, is "That was then, this is now."

Yeah, so I'm asking, what has changed about the WA/SC since then.

[Bormiar]

If the GA community doesn’t want it, why have it?

[Sedgistan]

I reject the narrative that the Secretary-General position would see the General Assembly "further imprisoned to the mercy of Gameplay". The General Assembly is a core site gameplay mechanic, and it is by far and away the most significant way that NationStates players can impose their will on other site users. The General Assembly community extends beyond those that participate on the forums, and includes the roughly 20,000 World Assembly member nations that have their stats affected by each resolution it passes, and the thousands of nations that cast votes on proposals. The Secretary-General is directly elected by those member nations, in a more democratic fashion than the Delegate-dominated proposal voting mechanism.

I consider it a benefit to both chambers to engage more players with WA politics, ideologies and legislative plans as would come about through election campaigns.

Not a dealbreaker by any means but if you're going to do regional boosting, then please (try to) make boosts visible in Century theme! Z-Day has this issue too but this isn't the Z-Day thread, right?

This is a question for the admins as to why that's not the case. My guess (not an official position) is that it's a legacy theme that isn't the focus of development, so may miss out on aspects of new features because it's not worth the development time for a little-used theme. Antiquity is a little different, as I think that's the one best optimised to screen readers.

Sec-Gen is advertised as a WA-wide power. Is the only proposed power of the Sec-Gen under this plan to issue voting recommendations on at-vote proposals?

Correct. I'm open to ideas on how that voting recommendation is presented; for example it could include a (short) reasoning that encourages players to think about the proposal and its merits.

If the GA community doesn’t want it, why have it?

I think it's worth noting here that I was also told that the Gameplay community did not want the Frontiers project - and there was even a significant petition to that effect. A negative reaction to a potential change does not preclude it from having positive effects.

[Bormiar]

A negative reaction to a potential change does not preclude it from having positive effects.

Then let's discuss the "positive effects".

We all know the kind of person that Misley is, and frankly, we know that McMasterdonia and Kuriko would've been only moderately better with regards to "stomping on the positive usage of the GA". It might be that conflict generates interest and activity, but in claiming that - and I assume from your stance you are doing so implicitly - you're really forwarding no different a thesis than that of Westwind, Evil Wolf, and Todd McCloud on raiderism, coup d'etats, and their effects on activity. This thesis is already dubious when applied to NSGP; it's not applicable at all to the GA, where activity comes from the trust that a worthy proposal, well-written, and with few enough holes, is likely to pass.

This change risks threatening the implicit trust in the GA community that a worthy proposal is likely to pass. Who would be willing to write, campaign for, argue for, and ultimately pass a proposal knowing it could be ruined by the arbitrary whims of whoever managed to buy the most votes in the recent SecGen election?

I think to ensure that making the SecGen meaningful does have a positive effect, we should either dampen its power, restrict its reach to the SC alone, or change the mechanics for electing the SecGen. By the latter, I mean that the SecGen shouldn't be elected with a pay-to-win system.

[Wallenburg]

I reject the narrative that the Secretary-General position would see the General Assembly "further imprisoned to the mercy of Gameplay". The General Assembly is a core site gameplay mechanic, and it is by far and away the most significant way that NationStates players can impose their will on other site users. The General Assembly community extends beyond those that participate on the forums, and includes the roughly 20,000 World Assembly member nations that have their stats affected by each resolution it passes, and the thousands of nations that cast votes on proposals. The Secretary-General is directly elected by those member nations, in a more democratic fashion than the Delegate-dominated proposal voting mechanism.

This is not reflective of reality. The GA is fundamentally an RP medium, with no actual effects on how people play the game except by their consent to participate in that RP. This change compels the community despite its unanimous lack of interest to participate even further in Gameplay, when the record shows that we tend to prefer less Gameplay.

I consider it a benefit to both chambers to engage more players with WA politics, ideologies and legislative plans as would come about through election campaigns.

That's quite an optimistic idea (although I wouldn't want it, either, I just think it's better than what we'd actually get), but we all know that what will actually happen is that some GP delegate, probably out of a GCR, will grab the title themselves or coronate a subordinate with it, with little or no concern for a legislative agenda, much less some set of ideological principles by which to guide the WA.

If the GA community doesn’t want it, why have it?

I think it's worth noting here that I was also told that the Gameplay community did not want the Frontiers project - and there was even a significant petition to that effect. A negative reaction to a potential change does not preclude it from having positive effects.

Ah, nicely done. Unfortunately, you forget that, after you sic'd your colleague on me back then for criticizing the way you conducted the public development, I clarified that the issue wasn't that you were putting forward ideas for changes, but that you were not taking player input seriously. That critique was offered on page 11 of a now 66-page thread. Since you care about Gameplay, you ended up taking some player input to heart, and the result after all that work was something GP could get behind. The GA is never going to get behind this. Are you arguing, then, that you do not need to take player input seriously for parts of the game you don't care about?

[Bormiar]

There's a wide gap between people who want to contribute positively to the GA's real body of legislation, and people who would like to use the SecGen position as a badge, a vanity project. The latter are likely to hurt the GA; some here would say they already have.