Making the Secretary-General Meaningful

[Bananaistan]

Question. What's the point of the discussion? If it is to finetune an idea that's going to be implemented over the unanimous opposition of GAers, there's little point in continuing to engage.

1) deciding if an idea should be implemented, 2) working out the details of it.

When I put an idea forward, it's with the belief that it should be implemented, and that the way I have outlined it is the best way for that to happen. But the point of the discussion is that neither of those beliefs may be correct, and that therefore it may be sensible not to implement the feature, or for details of it to change.

There are already things that have been brought up in the thread that are likely to change details - e.g. the issue with election TG spam causing players to block WA campaign TGs, the potentially excessive rounds of voting, and the naming confusion with the Secretariat. The biggest one is obviously whether the veto power affects the General Assembly. I would prefer it to, but that doesn't mean that my preference cannot change or that my preference should necessarily take precedence. Posts like Unibot's could change my mind. Posts like "My taxi driver told me this is a bad idea." won't.

Well you can take from the taxi driver post that it's one more GAer who opposes the idea of this being imposed on the GA. I don't believe it should be necessary for each one of us to write an essay for our opposition to be noted.

[Graintfjall]

It's a bit rich to be sniffy about the manner in which people express their opposition when this thread has yet to produce any quality arguments in favour of the change.

It adds a level of politicking to the game -- GPers will always win such politicking. And the "maybe WA players should get involved in GP" amounts to telling them to play a different part of the game they have no interest in just so they can play their own. It would be like putting GPers in charge of elections in the Land of the Free roleplay or for the World Cup Committee presidency, or telling people they can only post in II or General once they've reached a certain Influence level in a feeder.

6 month cycle -- There have been 2 elections in 5 years. Now suddenly "balance" is to have 2 of them every year. No evidence produced to demonstrate why such a sharp increase in frequency is justified or desirable.

The veto power is a significant power -- No, it's not. It is trivially easy to pass resolutions and has been ever since automated telegram campaigning was legalised. If your proposal is vetoed, just submit it again. If a bad resolution can't be vetoed, just repeal it.

Vice S-G -- Vanishingly unlikely this would ever even be used.

Provide some structured arguments in favour of this applying to the WA, not just the SC. Then maybe you'll get a higher quality of response. Until then, why would you expect anything but hostility from those who remember that you personally have very explicitly advocated gameplayers vetoing all WA proposals just to "wreck" (your word) that part of the game?

[Wallenburg]

Sedge, I'm going to muster every bit of friendliness I can possibly bring to bear and I'm not going to do it again afterward. Your behavior in this thread, coupled with your authority and capacity to cause harm to others on this site, is functionally identical to bait. My patience is limited and is simply not something I think you have earned, from how little you think of so many of your detractors here and how you have approached genuine fears and concerns. I do, nevertheless, have just enough patience to explore the whole issue once without snark.

The current relationship between GP and the WA is that of an abuser and their victim, respectively. GP has, for years, manipulated the WA and forced its community to do things it does not want to do. It has stripped away RP, it has imposed delegate blocs and superdelegates on the WA to force votes one way or another, it has raided the proposal queues, it has stomped resolutions for the sole reason that their authors dared campaign for their bill. In the process it has caused WA membership and participation to decline, and has concentrated power in a handful of heavily GP-focused regions, such that your only hope of passing a resolution isn't to write something of quality but to be in the good graces of the GP community. By now, the GA is half-dead and the SC is little more than a combination circus and popularity contest. I'm sure I'm missing dozens more violations of the WA community, but my history on this site only goes back so far and some things I have become so conditioned to that I can't imagine life without GP shoving things down my throat.

For the whole duration of this trend, the WA community has been told that there isn't actually a problem, or that GP actually cares a lot about the WA and that we just don't see it, or that GP does a little bit of harm but that we're getting way too worked up about it, or that we are being selfish and ungrateful by not sharing everything we have with GP. Sometimes, these lies are told so convincingly that we forget they are lies at all. Other times, we can see through the gaslight and protest the harm GP has done to the WA.

What you have done in this thread is as follows:
- propose a change which objectively does harm to the GA, as anyone with any familiarity with the GA has and will continue to tell you
- tell those who have concerns about this harm that the harm doesn't exist, or that if it does it's not anything worth actually addressing
- essentially tell the community to hurry up and die and migrate to NS if it wants to do anything other than GP
- call the community belligerent and divisive for becoming defensive at a threat of more suffering
- ignore the obvious consensus that this is not a good idea, and insist that this harmful change should be implemented against the wishes of the community it affects

In this abusive relationship, you are at best a third-party enabler and at worst a component of the abusive party. Everything you have done and said in this thread and elsewhere suggests that you don't give a damn about the WA community, and would sooner destroy it entirely than do something that might help it, or at least reduce harm. Your concerns, based on your behavior here, are not for the wellbeing of the WA community but for how many toys GP has to play with. This community has enough experience being handled like a plaything by people who do not respect us or our wishes. It has had enough experience with the last two Sec-Gen elections to know exactly how this event manifests harm. It has had enough experience with GP to know how they would use this empowered Sec-Gen. It has no desire for that sort of experience, much less for that experience to be a constant, regular source of harm.

If you had taken the defensiveness and indignant attitude of WA regulars seriously, or if you had shown any indication that you want to make this idea one that the WA community would enjoy, the responses here would be entirely different. But you have not taken our concerns seriously, and have demonized multiple players for presenting facts in a way which you do not consider friendly or charitable enough. You are indistinguishable from the GP community in the manner which it approaches the WA, and that is quite frankly terrifying. It is terrifying that someone with the authority you possess would treat an entire community of people as a plaything for others or as a prize to be won in semiannual competitions. It is terrifying that whenever we express the harm done to this community, site staff seem indifferent or even frustrated that we dare bring it up, and whenever we express ways to help this community we are met with silence. The best thing admin has done for the WA since I joined this website was to save themselves work by making regular players moderate the GA queue. Our experience is that GP can only be relied upon to harm the WA, and that admin can only be relied upon to do whatever makes their job easiest when matters of improving the WA come up. You have managed to meet both these expected behaviors perfectly, and as should be expected you have upset people in the process.

I urge you to try treating the WA community as something worth supporting, if not to the same degree as GP or cards or P2TM, then at least to a degree where it need not surrender what little it has left to other communities with long patterns of abusive behavior toward it. There is no reason why GP can't have a toy that doesn't harm this community, and there is no reason we should stand for further harm simply because this is the first idea that came to mind.

[Crazy girl]

Sedge, I'm going to muster every bit of friendliness I can possibly bring to bear and I'm not going to do it again afterward. Your behavior in this thread, coupled with your authority and capacity to cause harm to others on this site, is functionally identical to bait. My patience is limited and is simply not something I think you have earned, from how little you think of so many of your detractors here and how you have approached genuine fears and concerns. I do, nevertheless, have just enough patience to explore the whole issue once without snark.

The current relationship between GP and the WA is that of an abuser and their victim, respectively. GP has, for years, manipulated the WA and forced its community to do things it does not want to do. It has stripped away RP, it has imposed delegate blocs and superdelegates on the WA to force votes one way or another, it has raided the proposal queues, it has stomped resolutions for the sole reason that their authors dared campaign for their bill. In the process it has caused WA membership and participation to decline, and has concentrated power in a handful of heavily GP-focused regions, such that your only hope of passing a resolution isn't to write something of quality but to be in the good graces of the GP community. By now, the GA is half-dead and the SC is little more than a combination circus and popularity contest. I'm sure I'm missing dozens more violations of the WA community, but my history on this site only goes back so far and some things I have become so conditioned to that I can't imagine life without GP shoving things down my throat.

For the whole duration of this trend, the WA community has been told that there isn't actually a problem, or that GP actually cares a lot about the WA and that we just don't see it, or that GP does a little bit of harm but that we're getting way too worked up about it, or that we are being selfish and ungrateful by not sharing everything we have with GP. Sometimes, these lies are told so convincingly that we forget they are lies at all. Other times, we can see through the gaslight and protest the harm GP has done to the WA.

What you have done in this thread is as follows:
- propose a change which objectively does harm to the GA, as anyone with any familiarity with the GA has and will continue to tell you
- tell those who have concerns about this harm that the harm doesn't exist, or that if it does it's not anything worth actually addressing
- essentially tell the community to hurry up and die and migrate to NS if it wants to do anything other than GP
- call the community belligerent and divisive for becoming defensive at a threat of more suffering
- ignore the obvious consensus that this is not a good idea, and insist that this harmful change should be implemented against the wishes of the community it affects

In this abusive relationship, you are at best a third-party enabler and at worst a component of the abusive party. Everything you have done and said in this thread and elsewhere suggests that you don't give a damn about the WA community, and would sooner destroy it entirely than do something that might help it, or at least reduce harm. Your concerns, based on your behavior here, are not for the wellbeing of the WA community but for how many toys GP has to play with. This community has enough experience being handled like a plaything by people who do not respect us or our wishes. It has had enough experience with the last two Sec-Gen elections to know exactly how this event manifests harm. It has had enough experience with GP to know how they would use this empowered Sec-Gen. It has no desire for that sort of experience, much less for that experience to be a constant, regular source of harm.

If you had taken the defensiveness and indignant attitude of WA regulars seriously, or if you had shown any indication that you want to make this idea one that the WA community would enjoy, the responses here would be entirely different. But you have not taken our concerns seriously, and have demonized multiple players for presenting facts in a way which you do not consider friendly or charitable enough. You are indistinguishable from the GP community in the manner which it approaches the WA, and that is quite frankly terrifying. It is terrifying that someone with the authority you possess would treat an entire community of people as a plaything for others or as a prize to be won in semiannual competitions. It is terrifying that whenever we express the harm done to this community, site staff seem indifferent or even frustrated that we dare bring it up, and whenever we express ways to help this community we are met with silence. The best thing admin has done for the WA since I joined this website was to save themselves work by making regular players moderate the GA queue. Our experience is that GP can only be relied upon to harm the WA, and that admin can only be relied upon to do whatever makes their job easiest when matters of improving the WA come up. You have managed to meet both these expected behaviors perfectly, and as should be expected you have upset people in the process.

I urge you to try treating the WA community as something worth supporting, if not to the same degree as GP or cards or P2TM, then at least to a degree where it need not surrender what little it has left to other communities with long patterns of abusive behavior toward it. There is no reason why GP can't have a toy that doesn't harm this community, and there is no reason we should stand for further harm simply because this is the first idea that came to mind.

Wallenburg:

*** Warned for trolling ***

Comparing a whole group of players to an abuser in an abusive relationship is not acceptable.

[Wallenburg]

Sedge, I'm going to muster every bit of friendliness I can possibly bring to bear and I'm not going to do it again afterward. Your behavior in this thread, coupled with your authority and capacity to cause harm to others on this site, is functionally identical to bait. My patience is limited and is simply not something I think you have earned, from how little you think of so many of your detractors here and how you have approached genuine fears and concerns. I do, nevertheless, have just enough patience to explore the whole issue once without snark.

The current relationship between GP and the WA is that of an abuser and their victim, respectively. GP has, for years, manipulated the WA and forced its community to do things it does not want to do. It has stripped away RP, it has imposed delegate blocs and superdelegates on the WA to force votes one way or another, it has raided the proposal queues, it has stomped resolutions for the sole reason that their authors dared campaign for their bill. In the process it has caused WA membership and participation to decline, and has concentrated power in a handful of heavily GP-focused regions, such that your only hope of passing a resolution isn't to write something of quality but to be in the good graces of the GP community. By now, the GA is half-dead and the SC is little more than a combination circus and popularity contest. I'm sure I'm missing dozens more violations of the WA community, but my history on this site only goes back so far and some things I have become so conditioned to that I can't imagine life without GP shoving things down my throat.

For the whole duration of this trend, the WA community has been told that there isn't actually a problem, or that GP actually cares a lot about the WA and that we just don't see it, or that GP does a little bit of harm but that we're getting way too worked up about it, or that we are being selfish and ungrateful by not sharing everything we have with GP. Sometimes, these lies are told so convincingly that we forget they are lies at all. Other times, we can see through the gaslight and protest the harm GP has done to the WA.

What you have done in this thread is as follows:
- propose a change which objectively does harm to the GA, as anyone with any familiarity with the GA has and will continue to tell you
- tell those who have concerns about this harm that the harm doesn't exist, or that if it does it's not anything worth actually addressing
- essentially tell the community to hurry up and die and migrate to NS if it wants to do anything other than GP
- call the community belligerent and divisive for becoming defensive at a threat of more suffering
- ignore the obvious consensus that this is not a good idea, and insist that this harmful change should be implemented against the wishes of the community it affects

In this abusive relationship, you are at best a third-party enabler and at worst a component of the abusive party. Everything you have done and said in this thread and elsewhere suggests that you don't give a damn about the WA community, and would sooner destroy it entirely than do something that might help it, or at least reduce harm. Your concerns, based on your behavior here, are not for the wellbeing of the WA community but for how many toys GP has to play with. This community has enough experience being handled like a plaything by people who do not respect us or our wishes. It has had enough experience with the last two Sec-Gen elections to know exactly how this event manifests harm. It has had enough experience with GP to know how they would use this empowered Sec-Gen. It has no desire for that sort of experience, much less for that experience to be a constant, regular source of harm.

If you had taken the defensiveness and indignant attitude of WA regulars seriously, or if you had shown any indication that you want to make this idea one that the WA community would enjoy, the responses here would be entirely different. But you have not taken our concerns seriously, and have demonized multiple players for presenting facts in a way which you do not consider friendly or charitable enough. You are indistinguishable from the GP community in the manner which it approaches the WA, and that is quite frankly terrifying. It is terrifying that someone with the authority you possess would treat an entire community of people as a plaything for others or as a prize to be won in semiannual competitions. It is terrifying that whenever we express the harm done to this community, site staff seem indifferent or even frustrated that we dare bring it up, and whenever we express ways to help this community we are met with silence. The best thing admin has done for the WA since I joined this website was to save themselves work by making regular players moderate the GA queue. Our experience is that GP can only be relied upon to harm the WA, and that admin can only be relied upon to do whatever makes their job easiest when matters of improving the WA come up. You have managed to meet both these expected behaviors perfectly, and as should be expected you have upset people in the process.

I urge you to try treating the WA community as something worth supporting, if not to the same degree as GP or cards or P2TM, then at least to a degree where it need not surrender what little it has left to other communities with long patterns of abusive behavior toward it. There is no reason why GP can't have a toy that doesn't harm this community, and there is no reason we should stand for further harm simply because this is the first idea that came to mind.

Wallenburg:

*** Warned for trolling ***

Comparing a whole group of players to an abuser in an abusive relationship is not acceptable.

Excuse me, but what the fuck. I don't even have the words to describe how inappropriate this is, let alone the clear difference between the dynamics of two communities and the individuals they consist of.

[The Free Joy State]

Wallenburg:

*** Warned for trolling ***

Comparing a whole group of players to an abuser in an abusive relationship is not acceptable.

Excuse me, but what the fuck. I don't even have the words to describe how inappropriate this is, let alone the clear difference between the dynamics of two communities and the individuals they consist of.

It's probably better to appeal in the Moderation subforum, to make sure it's seen [/notamod]

[Wallenburg]

Excuse me, but what the fuck. I don't even have the words to describe how inappropriate this is, let alone the clear difference between the dynamics of two communities and the individuals they consist of.

It's probably better to appeal in the Moderation subforum, to make sure it's seen [/notamod]

Yes, I'll just appeal a mod decision to back up another mod in a matter which concerns admin plans. No, I know the game works. I'm taking a break so I don't say anything actually actionable.

[Separatist Peoples]

GenSec/Trading Cards came with dev time that could've instead been used of the long planned forum upgrade, so yeah, both did take away. I personally agree with the dev choices of pushing back the forum upgrade though.

Lost opportunity cost is not a harm. By this logic, literally any act by any admin is a harm to the rest of the game. Bad argument bad.

I actually don't think the GA would get many vetoes, dependent on who won the election/it being implemented exactly as Sedge said, as the SC would receive the bulk of them (and there only being 2 a year).

Youll have to forgive me for not pinning my hopes and dreams on your analysis. Repeal Rights and Duties failed because of a critical intervention at a specific time. Proposals that fail after a submission often induce voter fatigue and reduce the chances of later success. The GA can be a game of moments more often than the casual observer without expertise might think. One veto every six months is more than enough to fuck it up.

Taken with the proven track record of GPers to at best neglect and at worst actively torpedo the GA, the idea of vesting that power of fucking up a concerted effort by GA regulars to a GPer is absolutely harmful.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... ?start=335 would be something I would expect to be vetoed though, as the WA elite (which I'd expect to win an election like this in some form) was not a fan of Bitely. So personally, implementing it for the GA and SC vs just the SC I don't think would make a massive difference, it's more whether [v] wants to keep the two parts of the WA together, or is more in favour of the GA viewpoint of splitting them apart more.

It would make a massive difference to the community not interested in having the feature. As usual, it's unsurprising that it's the GA being told to suck it up and not, say, the GP crowd.

[Greater Cesnica]

Question. What's the point of the discussion? If it is to finetune an idea that's going to be implemented over the unanimous opposition of GAers, there's little point in continuing to engage.

1) deciding if an idea should be implemented, 2) working out the details of it.

When I put an idea forward, it's with the belief that it should be implemented, and that the way I have outlined it is the best way for that to happen. But the point of the discussion is that neither of those beliefs may be correct, and that therefore it may be sensible not to implement the feature, or for details of it to change.

There are already things that have been brought up in the thread that are likely to change details - e.g. the issue with election TG spam causing players to block WA campaign TGs, the potentially excessive rounds of voting, and the naming confusion with the Secretariat. The biggest one is obviously whether the veto power affects the General Assembly. I would prefer it to, but that doesn't mean that my preference cannot change or that my preference should necessarily take precedence. Posts like Unibot's could change my mind. Posts like "My taxi driver told me this is a bad idea." won't.

If the overwhelming consensus from the community is that we are strongly opposed to this proposed addition, then why are you continuing to try to push it? It would be one thing if the consensus was slightly against, equally conflicted, or even leaning for it; but you have received ample amounts of opposition and justifications from GAers as to why they believe this idea is catastrophic. Sure, you may believe that the manner in which some of us expressed that disagreement may be "uncouth", but I ultimately find that irrelevant. You got your feedback, the feedback has been overwhelmingly negative. If you truly cared about the well-being of the GA, you'd recognize that we don't want Sec-Gen foisted on us without our approval, and drop the idea. It's really not that hard, Sedge. Wally expressed his thoughts in a much more expanded manner, only to be whacked with a warn. You may not appreciate his sentiment, it may not be true, but do you think this all came overnight? Do you think this backlash you're getting, and GAers' thoughts regarding GPers came out of the blue? Of course not. Years upon years, slight upon slight, being toyed with- you have to consider why such sentiments are broadly held by the GA community. Yet, you don't consider. At the best, you're a disinterested party apathetic to the fate of the GA. At worst, you actively seek to harm the GA. You might not appreciate that insinuation, but once again, I've only even had to put this out here because you are adamantly refusing to acquiesce to the feedback you're getting, which strongly opposes Sec-Gen implementation like this.

All we want is for GP to not get a further opportunity to impede upon the activities of the GA. That's it. That's all we are asking. We shouldn't have to compile our thoughts like this to get you to even consider changing your mind, Saint Pete's taxi driver post should be counted as another bit of feedback against this idea. But I know this pursuit is absolutely worthless. I know that you intend to get this idea realized, I know that we're just screaming into the void with this one. No matter how much criticism you receive, no matter how valid they are, no matter how well-put and expressed they are, I have no delusions about you actually doing the responsible thing here, and dropping the idea. GenSec wasn't even notified about this idea before this thread came out, which I find especially telling. They are ostensibly relegated to deal with the GA, and this absolutely should have been consulted before this idea was even brought out here.

Just drop the idea, Sedge. Please. Show us proof that we were wrong about you, show us that you care about the GA community, show us that you don't want to screw with GAers. I'd like to believe that is case. Prove those who don't believe that wrong. It's not that hard.

[Xoriet]

While I do like the idea of a position that might be able to bump good proposals over meme proposals when it comes to voting order given recent events, at the same time, Gameplay does have an inordinate amount of influence over the GA even if most of us completely ignore it simply because of voting mechanics and that the largest regions are not often connected to the GA community. Votes are determined either based on whim or sometimes on the consensus of a voting body in the region in regards to the GA in particular. GA proposals may or may not be impacted by quorum raid battles in the SC. As a Gameplayer, I can confirm that I have no interest in the GA and leave GA proposals entirely up to our WA program.

Veto power is too strong if the GA is going to be affected by this. The thing I like about the idea is being able to promote better proposals over meme proposals that somehow reached quorum first. The GA almost never has this problem, which means it would be almost exclusively a thing for the SC. Still, even this is open for abuse of the GA system, as someone's whim would dictate whose proposals go first. There would have to be some substantial checks and balances on this position so that it would not be able to be used as a scythe through the GA community's proposals. We all know perfectly well that the Gameplayers are the ones who would ultimately get the positions. Given that Gameplay ranges from indifference to mild interest to complete opposition on principle to the GA body, it would be unfair to the GA community to further enable Gameplay to control something that is of peripheral or no interest to them.

If the situation was reversed and the GA, which largely dislikes or ignores the SC, was poised to have control over the SC's proposals, the Gameplay community would be as up in arms as the GA community is here.

[Sedgistan]

I'm going to drop the GA side of things, so the brands and pitchforks can be put away. For clarity's sake, that means the veto would only be usable in the SC. I'd still like input from the GA crowd, as there are aspects of this that remain relevant to you, e.g. the TG spam issue, and the naming confusion.

I do believe this would have been positive for the General Assembly, but I can recognise when I'm in a small minority.

[Greater Cesnica]

I'm going to drop the GA side of things, so the brands and pitchforks can be put away. For clarity's sake, that means the veto would only be usable in the SC. I'd still like input from the GA crowd, as there are aspects of this that remain relevant to you, e.g. the TG spam issue, and the naming confusion.

I do believe this would have been positive for the General Assembly, but I can recognise when I'm in a small minority.

Thank you Sedge, we greatly appreciate this. Thank you for showing us that you ultimately are willing to listen to GAers.

[The Free Joy State]

I'm going to drop the GA side of things, so the brands and pitchforks can be put away. For clarity's sake, that means the veto would only be usable in the SC. I'd still like input from the GA crowd, as there are aspects of this that remain relevant to you, e.g. the TG spam issue, and the naming confusion.

I do believe this would have been positive for the General Assembly, but I can recognise when I'm in a small minority.

I think keeping veto power confined to the SC is a good move.

On the issue of the number of rounds, which relates to the TG spam issue, I think more than one round (to not unfairly disadvantage contestants in various time-zones) is beneficial, but too many risks a problem. Perhaps 2 rounds, each of a fairly standard WA voting period of 3 days, to allow a longer contest (rather than the multiple votes in a few days of the April Fools', as it's intended to become a part of the game).

For the naming confusion, I still suggest something with President (Security Council President, World Assembly President), etc. Something that has no similarity to a staff title.

[Crowheim]

I'm going to drop the GA side of things, so the brands and pitchforks can be put away. For clarity's sake, that means the veto would only be usable in the SC. I'd still like input from the GA crowd, as there are aspects of this that remain relevant to you, e.g. the TG spam issue, and the naming confusion.

I do believe this would have been positive for the General Assembly, but I can recognise when I'm in a small minority.

With TG spam, if there was a way to create a telegram type separate to WA campaigning, that could maybe fix the issue? Like, there would be recruitment, WA campaigning, and "other" campaigning? That could potentially resolve the spam issue if SecGen campaigns were forced into the latter category.

I am a fan of the idea as long as the veto is kept away from the GA, I should add.

[Comfed]

I agree that Security Council President is a good name, especially because in the IRL UN it’s an office held by a nation and not a person, and is a role with actual power (setting the UNSC agenda, which would also work well with reordering the queue)

[Gorundu]

This is an awful idea, period. Giving one person the power to control what passes the SC is...so bad it makes me speechless. My guess is that it will make the dynamic extremely one-sided. And there's nothing to stop someone from just abusing the power and bring the SC to a halt for 6 months.

Let the joke position stay a joke position.

[Sedgistan]

This is an awful idea, period. Giving one person the power to control what passes the SC is...so bad it makes me speechless. My guess is that it will make the dynamic extremely one-sided. And there's nothing to stop someone from just abusing the power and bring the SC to a halt for 6 months.

Let the joke position stay a joke position.

Just checking you're aware that the intention is for the veto power to be limited to once per 6 month term? Because there are people in this thread arguing the exact opposite of you, namely that that power is pointless as it's easy to resubmit a proposal and get it to pass.

[Comfed]

This is an awful idea, period. Giving one person the power to control what passes the SC is...so bad it makes me speechless. My guess is that it will make the dynamic extremely one-sided. And there's nothing to stop someone from just abusing the power and bring the SC to a halt for 6 months.

Let the joke position stay a joke position.

Just checking you're aware that the intention is for the veto power to be limited to once per 6 month term? Because there are people in this thread arguing the exact opposite of you, namely that that power is pointless as it's easy to resubmit a proposal and get it to pass.

They shouldn’t be able to resubmit that proposal (i.e. if “Commend Testlandia” is vetoed then no proposals to Commend Testlandia can be submitted that term)

[Unibot III]

First of all, I want to express my gratitude to Sedge for listening to the communities here. This discussion was not a new discussion, it was a painful old conversation that we had in 2009 - and the compromise that we set out to forge brought a lot of good. The GA, since its creation, has thrived.

Now that the GA veto is out of the picture, let's talk turkey - gameplay-style...

My suggestion to Sedge is keep the Secretary-General proposal simple so that you conserve [Violet]'s bandwidth for additional tech reforms. The Security Council is an unfinished project - the Secretary-General would add texture & a more political dimension - but the Security Council could also greatly benefit from additional proposal categories to generate new interest and renewal.

Secretary-General:
- Two fixed general election dates: June 1 and January 1. I strongly suggest not using April 1 as an election date, because April Fools is already a busy time in NS - and you don't want the S-G race to be disrupted or marginalized by the April Fools activities. June 1 is the anniversary of the GA/SC compromise. Jan 1 is six months from June and the start of the new year (new year, new S-G).
- If the S-G CTEs or resign from the WA, their tenure is terminated and a special election automatically begins.
- One veto of SC resolutions per term.
- Don't rename the role, just stick to what you've got. It's not a bad name.

Don't overcomplicate the proposal with a Vice S-G position or other powers (additional powers could be added in the future). The more roles you add, and the more powers you add, the more discussion required, and the more new code needed.

I would strongly suggest implementing this slimmed down version of the Secretary-General veto & then focus [violet]'s attention on the other much needed area of attention: SC categories. We're long overdue for some new SC categories!!

Thanks for being patient during this discussion, Sedge, and thanks for weighing in and trying to add something here.

[Sanctaria]

I'm going to drop the GA side of things, so the brands and pitchforks can be put away. For clarity's sake, that means the veto would only be usable in the SC. I'd still like input from the GA crowd, as there are aspects of this that remain relevant to you, e.g. the TG spam issue, and the naming confusion.

I do believe this would have been positive for the General Assembly, but I can recognise when I'm in a small minority.

Thank you Sedge, I really appreciate you listening to our concerns. I don't agree that the GA community was as divisive and pitchfork-y as you say, but that being said, having a GA background maybe sometimes immunises one to more hyperbolic and border-on-baity accusations.

I think re the TG spam issue, maybe having a separate tag for campaigning would be the most useful way to do it? If this would be an election every 6 months, or so, then I think it being a regular thing would warrant the effort to make it, and then people who don't want the TGs can simply select to ignore the tag, like you can ignore recruitment or WA TGs.

Re the name, yes I agree with the others that SecGen and GenSec are too similar, and I'm glad to see you recognise this too. Someone suggested Security Council President and I think this is the most straightforward and makes most sense.

[Sedgistan]

They shouldn’t be able to resubmit that proposal (i.e. if “Commend Testlandia” is vetoed then no proposals to Commend Testlandia can be submitted that term)

I left the prospect of that out of the original discussion, as such a thing wasn't feasible with GA resolutions - but it could be for SC ones. It is a massive increase in the veto power though. What do others think?

On Unibot's points:

Dates - I preferred Feb/August to avoid trying to host an even when people have New Year's Day hangovers. Also Jan / July would be your 6 month gap (not Jan / June).

Special elections & Vice S-G. The Vice S-G position already exists (it was coded in the last election) so it's not additional work to add it. I think it adds sufficient cover in case of the S-G CTEing. I dislike special elections, as you run the risk of having one just a week before a scheduled one, plus it needs more code to have them trigger automatically. Also I want a balance of the elections not becoming overwhelming.

[Unibot III]

They shouldn’t be able to resubmit that proposal (i.e. if “Commend Testlandia” is vetoed then no proposals to Commend Testlandia can be submitted that term)

I left the prospect of that out of the original discussion, as such a thing wasn't feasible with GA resolutions - but it could be for SC ones. It is a massive increase in the veto power though. What do others think?

On Unibot's points:

Dates - I preferred Feb/August to avoid trying to host an even when people have New Year's Day hangovers. Also Jan / July would be your 6 month gap (not Jan / June).

Special elections & Vice S-G. The Vice S-G position already exists (it was coded in the last election) so it's not additional work to add it. I think it adds sufficient cover in case of the S-G CTEing. I dislike special elections, as you run the risk of having one just a week before a scheduled one, plus it needs more code to have them trigger automatically. Also I want a balance of the elections not becoming overwhelming.

Ah, I didn't know it was coded! Well that solves that then. (It assumes me greatly that I counted the months wrong in my head).

I agree that a Vice S-G is better than Special Elections. I just didn't know it had been coded already.

Now, forgive me but I wasn't paying attention during the S-G elections - is it one day thing? I would suggest piping it through the SC Queue and holding the election here rather than having the election operate outside of the Queue. That way there's a four day voting period. All WA voters can clearly see the election is occuring. And there's no possibility of a resolution passing while voting for a new S-G is ongoing (so no question about interim/caretaker powers & vetos). However, if this would expand the coding necessary, then I don't think you should pursue that.

I don't really care what the name is, S-G or President. Aug/Feb seems fine. June 1 / Dec 1 ain't bad either! One problem with August 1 is it tends to be a low point in activity I've found in the past. I think we're on the same track of mind though, don't run it in April 1 because the April Fools Day overwhelms everything else. I doubt anyone will feel strongly about which days are chosen as the fixed election dates.

As for vetos blocking all other resolutions of the same nominee -- I think it would be a bad idea because it blocks the possibility of compromise legislation (within the six month term) that targets the same nominee with different language. And it blocks the possibility of new legislation based on changing circumstances (for example, an occupation turning towards griefing).

I may open up a new thread about SC categories if that's alright with you? We've had many before. But I still think it's an important conversation for the SC.

[Sedgistan]

I may open up a new thread about SC categories if that's alright with you? We've had many before. But I still think it's an important conversation for the SC.

You don't need my permission for that. SC categories are on my list, but this was the change I wanted to work on first.

[Gorundu]

This is an awful idea, period. Giving one person the power to control what passes the SC is...so bad it makes me speechless. My guess is that it will make the dynamic extremely one-sided. And there's nothing to stop someone from just abusing the power and bring the SC to a halt for 6 months.

Let the joke position stay a joke position.

Just checking you're aware that the intention is for the veto power to be limited to once per 6 month term? Because there are people in this thread arguing the exact opposite of you, namely that that power is pointless as it's easy to resubmit a proposal and get it to pass.

Oh, I somehow missed that >_>

In that case yes, it's a pretty pointless power, will annoy people with the 6-monthly campaigns, and probably make elections very boring in the long run when people get tired of it.

[Sedgistan]

Sanctaria mentioned a potential SC "Impeachment" category on Discord. I'd intended to mention that here, but forgot. I think it's something to consider as a potential "stage 2" to the introduction of a S-G. Not necessarily to get the feature up and running, but potentially beneficial to introduce later.