Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Araraukar]

Now we absolutely need to make the forum publicly viewable. I can't miss out on all the hijinks they get up to in the VIP Lounge.

I doubt they will, but I hope SP won't stop posting in the regular Bar thread.

[Mousebumples]

So, how do we submit legality issues for the council's review?

This is also currently under discussion amongst the Councillors. A few avenues are being considered, and I would expect that input from the public is welcome. A few (starting point) options:

1) Stick with GHRs as the primary method.
Pros: Allows players to remain anonymous
Cons: If the subforum is made public, the anonymity may be lost when the GHR is transcribed to the Council; Delays in notification to the Council as a GM needs to review the GHRs and post them for Council review

2) Start up a thread in the GA for legality issues to be lodged.
Pros: More organized and publicly viewable; immediately obvious to Councillors when a new legality challenge has been lodged
Cons: Might discourage some from lodging a legality challenge if they don't want to be identified; If multiple challenges are going on at once - with all of the GA discussing them simultaneously - they could lead to some confusion when arguing back and forth

3) Some hybrid option

4) Something else?

**

I think my personal preference is for #2 (with the option for players to still submit GHRs - especially for those that don't frequent the forum much/at all), but that we limit the legality challenge thread to people challenging a proposal or asking for a ruling and Councillors/Mods issuing a ruling or asking for a clarification, etc. I definitely want to encourage regular GA players to weigh in on legality stuff (even while the Councillors are doing their own deliberations - be they in public or private), but I think that that would be better suited for the individual proposal thread in question.

Of course, this is meant to be useful and workable for you guys too, so feel free to tear apart my idea or offer up your own permutations that you think would work best.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Hmm...the first two people who replied to this thread ended up on the Council (I'm still calling it that). Coincidence? I think NOT!

Jokes aside, congrats to all those who were chosen.

[Sciongrad]

Hmm...the first two people who replied to this thread ended up on the Council (I'm still calling it that). Coincidence? I think NOT!

Even scarier? 5/6 of Gruen's suggestions made it.

[Wallenburg]

Hmm...the first two people who replied to this thread ended up on the Council (I'm still calling it that). Coincidence? I think NOT!

Even scarier? 5/6 of Gruen's suggestions made it.

Clearly, Gruen is in bed with the moderators. I cry corruption! Impeach Gruen, legalize creative compliance, Sapient Hammers 2016!

[Gruenberg]

I would expect that input from the public is welcome.

I wouldn't, based on the "voice of god" revelation we had a few days ago.

Nonetheless:

1) Stick with GHRs as the primary method.

GHRs were never the primary method of legality questions, and that you think they are shows why you can't be trusted to interfere with the operation of the council. If mods continue to encourage players to submit GHRs on legality questions that should be debated in the forum, this will all have solved absolutely nothing because a lack of public consultation is the primary grievance that WA players have expressed.

2) Start up a thread in the GA for legality issues to be lodged.

That sounds like an immensely confusing morass.

3) Some hybrid option

As does that.

4) Something else?

Why can't people simply post legality questions on the forum, as always? The whole point of appointing WA players was to get people who actually visit the WA forum involved. If all six councillors and all of the moderators genuinely miss such a post, there are bigger problems afoot.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Even scarier? 5/6 of Gruen's suggestions made it.

Clearly, Gruen is in bed with the moderators. I cry corruption! Impeach Gruen, legalize creative compliance, Sapient Hammers 2016!

How did you miss out 'Make Legislation Funny Again'?

[Tinhampton]

In addition to my earlier post about GAS Forum topics, there is also a topic called "Council name". Also, Malt has started this thread over in Technical about the ironically-named Forum Access/Visibility thread in the GAS Forum (ironically, Souls has referenced the Council Name thread in the Technical thread).

[Sapient Hammers United]

Impeach Gruen, legalize creative compliance, Sapient Hammers 2016!

The 2x4 thanks you for your contribution to the Union. A Nail has been hammered into place in your honor.
AKA: I'm putting that in my Signature.

[Separatist Peoples]

How much can councilors mention about the deliberation process? Because this:

I would expect that input from the public is welcome.

I wouldn't, based on the "voice of god" revelation we had a few days ago.

Nonetheless:

1) Stick with GHRs as the primary method.

GHRs were never the primary method of legality questions, and that you think they are shows why you can't be trusted to interfere with the operation of the council. If mods continue to encourage players to submit GHRs on legality questions that should be debated in the forum, this will all have solved absolutely nothing because a lack of public consultation is the primary grievance that WA players have expressed.

2) Start up a thread in the GA for legality issues to be lodged.

That sounds like an immensely confusing morass.

3) Some hybrid option

As does that.

4) Something else?

Why can't people simply post legality questions on the forum, as always? The whole point of appointing WA players was to get people who actually visit the WA forum involved. If all six councillors and all of the moderators genuinely miss such a post, there are bigger problems afoot.

has a solution in the works.

[Elke and Elba]

I do agree that everyone has an opinion on anything and everything. That's a given.

How will each member actually make sure that they don't show their bias, or cancel the bias? Don't vote at all? That doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I still do believe there's a conflict of interest with CD's appointment, even without regard of his stance on abortion. As a delegate of a region, how is he expected to vote? Vote according to the region's wishes? Don't vote because of conflict of interest? Don't be on GAS?

Why isn't Sciongrad being given this level of grilling for his delegacy? Would I be getting it if I was still delegate of Monkey Island? This seems to be a poorly shaded attack on CD the player, which is incredibly unfair.

Drop the red herring. So what would yourself, Scion, CD and the rest of the council do in these instances of possible conflict?

What I am getting is just accusations of me being biased but no substantive policies/actions in the event of such conflicts, which you yourself have stated. I don't see why anyone should be worried about accusations of bias if one can address the concerns adequately.

Yet what I am seeing is sorely lacking.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why isn't Sciongrad being given this level of grilling for his delegacy? Would I be getting it if I was still delegate of Monkey Island? This seems to be a poorly shaded attack on CD the player, which is incredibly unfair.

Drop the red herring. So what would yourself, Scion, CD and the rest of the council do in these instances of possible conflict?

What I am getting is just accusations of me being biased but no substantive policies/actions in the event of such conflicts, which you yourself have stated. I don't see why anyone should be worried about accusations of bias if one can address the concerns adequately.

Yet what I am seeing is sorely lacking.

We were selected for our ability to be impartial and reasonable by setting aside our politics in the face of a question of law, not because we were apolitical. We are working out a set of working rules to deal with that, but much like you see in real world courts (I'm only familiar with US courts, so take that with a grain of salt), the grounds upon which a judge is to recuse him or herself is vague, but based on any situation that is considered to be a conflict of personal interests. Not necessarily political. Dealing with our own proposals would be a conflict of personal interests, and we would be expected to recuse ourselves. Its a small group. We can self-regulate that pretty easily.

What I don't see is why political belief is a bar to that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't understand why people decided to go with six members.

[Araraukar]

I don't understand why people decided to go with six members.

Six members plus a mod seat (changing probably by whatever mod has time), I thought?

[Tinhampton]

Any news about the visibility of the GAS forum yet?

[The Blaatschapen]

Any news about the visibility of the GAS forum yet?

It's under discussion.

So, no, not yet.

[Tzorsland]

First of all congratulations to all the victims. I'm so glad I don't have to wedge any more time into my schedule.

Can we please not call it the gas chamber?

Perhaps we can call it the "Gas House" instead? And the group the Gas House Gang!

The Baseball Team The Barbershop Quartet

[Tinfect]

Can we please not call it the gas chamber?

On that note, can we please call it the GAS Chamber?

[Wallenburg]

Can we please not call it the gas chamber?

On that note, can we please call it the GAS Chamber?

As much as I think we need a far less silly (and offensive) official name for the council, I really like the idea of the "GAS Chamber". I think that "Gas Chamber" should be for the council what "Festering Snakepit" is for the GA.

[The Blaatschapen]

On that note, can we please call it the GAS Chamber?

As much as I think we need a far less silly (and offensive) official name for the council, I really like the idea of the "GAS Chamber". I think that "Gas Chamber" should be for the council what "Festering Snakepit" is for the GA.

I don't mind silly I do mind offensive. Seriously equating a place "where proposals go to die" to an instrument of mass genocide is, well, sickening.

Also, no gaslighting quips yet? Y'all disappoint me here

[Araraukar]

I don't mind silly I do mind offensive. Seriously equating a place "where proposals go to die" to an instrument of mass genocide is, well, sickening.

Well, we do have a committee that abbreviates to GESTAPO, so GAS Chamber isn't much worse...

[The Blaatschapen]

I don't mind silly I do mind offensive. Seriously equating a place "where proposals go to die" to an instrument of mass genocide is, well, sickening.

Well, we do have a committee that abbreviates to GESTAPO, so GAS Chamber isn't much worse...

Two wrongs don't make a right

[Araraukar]

Two wrongs don't make a right

No, but two generally accepted wrongs (I've been complaining about that committee name for a while, but most people just find it funny) smudge the line between right and wrong...

[The Blaatschapen]

Two wrongs don't make a right

No, but two generally accepted wrongs (I've been complaining about that committee name for a while, but most people just find it funny) smudge the line between right and wrong...

Hence why I hope they find another name for the whole thing.

[Araraukar]

Hence why I hope they find another name for the whole thing.

I've been suggesting General Assembly Council since the start.