Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Separatist Peoples]

How is this going to happen, exactly?

How is what going to happen? Me not being around, me being on the Council, or the Council taking away the freedom to roleplay?

How is it going to take away your freedom to roleplay? We're an entirely out of character organization.

[Excidium Planetis]

How is what going to happen? Me not being around, me being on the Council, or the Council taking away the freedom to roleplay?

How is it going to take away your freedom to roleplay? We're an entirely out of character organization.

1) Even the mods got acknowledged in character, why would the New!Secretariat be any different? You already roleplayed Bell being part of the VIP at the bar, so saying now that everything is entirely Out of Character is kinda conflicting with your own roleplay, isn't it?
2) Why would I be involved in the WA if I was not part of it ICly? Even Ara has an IC reason to be here.
3) It involves a good deal of my time, forces me to remain up to date on discussions in the GA. That takes away my ability to roleplay.

[Separatist Peoples]

How is it going to take away your freedom to roleplay? We're an entirely out of character organization.

1) Even the mods got acknowledged in character, why would the New!Secretariat be any different? You already roleplayed Bell being part of the VIP at the bar, so saying now that everything is entirely Out of Character is kinda conflicting with your own roleplay, isn't it?
2) Why would I be involved in the WA if I was not part of it ICly? Even Ara has an IC reason to be here.
3) It involves a good deal of my time, forces me to remain up to date on discussions in the GA. That takes away my ability to roleplay.

What happens in the Bar is entirely distinct from what happens in regular roleplay. 99% of bar shenanigans never make their way into debate threads, and the 1% that does are just inside jokes, not anything that means...well anything. The comparison of a silly VIP lounge inclusion to an out of character legality determining board is just asinine.

The legality rulings won't affect roleplay at all because the issues we're tackling are not issues of roleplay. If the GA takes away your ability to roleplay, why would the inclusion of the Secretariat change that? Its no different than keeping up with mod rulings.

[Excidium Planetis]

What happens in the Bar is entirely distinct from what happens in regular roleplay. 99% of bar shenanigans never make their way into debate threads, and the 1% that does are just inside jokes, not anything that means...well anything.

That's news to me.

The legality rulings won't affect roleplay at all because the issues we're tackling are not issues of roleplay.

I never said anything about the legality ruling. The Council could be deciding what color their names should be, and it would still interfere with my roleplay if I was on the Council.

the GA takes away your ability to roleplay, why would the inclusion of the Secretariat change that? Its no different than keeping up with mod rulings.

Because right now I can leave at any time. If I was on the Council, I couldn't leave at any time.

[Araraukar]

Welcome to the GA: No Controversial Opinions Allowed!
*snip*
Neither Knootoss or Bananistan were chosen, and both have said that people who submit "petty" or "frivolous" challenges should be derided and have social consequences.

Very much this. Who decides what's petty or frivolous? Is it petty if the player making the challenge just plain doesn't like the one whose proposal it is, nevermind the aptness of the challenge made. Is it frivolous if the person making the challenge has simply misunderstood the meaning of the proposal or is utterly confused by it, possibly due to excessive Legalese use or the text requiring a master's degree in the subject matter to be fully understood?

---

Looking at the arguments for & against allowing anonymity, I personally would prefer to have the senders of those GHRs identified -- at least to the council, and maybe to everybody else as well -- but can see that the availability of "instant" puppets would create a loophole in any such rule anyhows...

For council to see the identities, like the mods can see the identities of the senders of the normal GHRs, that's fine. But letting everyone else as well, can lead to playerhating, even if the legality challenge was the last straw to grasp, because the proposal-writer was ignoring all objections and advice in the thread.

Though I dislike the use of throw-away puppets, I might seriously consider resorting to that, if it was a controversial matter and I knew the author for some reason disliked me.

unless we introduce a rule that the submitters have to be WA members, which would make it a bit easier to see where people have switched nations for this purpose?

Not everyone has a WA nation, and for example if someone at the same IP address already has one, they can't get one, without being accused of multi'ing. Furthermore, some people who partake the silly raid/defend fluff, may need to switch WA status between various accounts, sometimes rapidly - would you need to be a WA nation to be able to submit a GA-GHR, or would you have to remain a WA nation while the challenge is processed?

If the first, then that wouldn't be a big issue for some people, as they could create a puppet, drop WA from their normal WA nation, make the puppet a WA nation, submit the GA-GHR, drop WA status from it and get it back on their normal nation. It could be done within minutes, only restricted by how fast the confirmation emails reach you. Sure, there would be marks in the national happenings, but people do WA status switches for various reasons all the time anyway, so you'd have to really have a vendetta against someone to be so paranoidly looking at their usual WA account.

Also, a WA nation is not required to partake the GA - the only thing it's required for, is submitting a proposal - so requiring it for this would 1) restrict that freedom to partake this aspect of the game and 2) probably lead to people without WA nations to post their legality challenges either via normal GHRs or moderation forum.

---

Some players who don't see a proposal until it's submitted or who infrequently post might have legitimate concerns and might feel more comfortable submitting GHRs because they don't want you to attack them for not raising their concerns earlier, for being nitpickers, or whatnot.

Indeed. And imagine if someone like Auralia, when he was really unpopular a while back (or UFoC before he got himself DOS'ed), had sent in a GHR legality question on something that someone people perceived him "feuding" with, and the GHR with his name attached, had been posted on the thread of that proposal, many people would've looked at the person, not the contents of the message, and dismissed it as part of the "feud".

Though I dislike reposting the GA-GHR verbatim, even just being able to do so anonymously, without needing to create a puppet nation just for that purpose,

For instance, stats could be compiled on the number of legality requests, decision times, invalidation rates, and the like; and such stats could be published from time to time.

Already looking forward to you guys ending up as casualties of some sort in the next Mod Olympics.

Will the councilors not monitor each other, and will one councilor not blow the whistle if his five colleagues are engaged in untoward conduct?

If you guys work anything like any non-RL-official councils I've ever been part of, you'll present a united front to the outsiders, and bicker each other to an early grave.

...I'd be most interested seeing the Bar's "VIP Lounge" thread, not the deliberations, whether instantly or months later.

---

While I am upset that Calladan was nominated (twice) and I wasn't, Tinfect wasn't nominated either, so I'm totally cool with that.

You two are more RPers than strict legality debaters (despite you arguing on weird OOC tangents sometimes ), so I didn't include either of you. Also, you may have burned several bridges with the WAIF hassle.

2) Why would I be involved in the WA if I was not part of it ICly? Even Ara has an IC reason to be here.

Um, I'm not sure counting "I'm here for the arguments when things are boring back at my home nation" for an IC reason to be here is entirely correct. More like it's an attempt to justify why I'm here, just using IC language. It's like how ICly Tinfect doesn't really have much of a reason to be here (xenophobic nation without any contact with outisders that doesn't involve WMDs), but he's made one up to explain why he's debating here. (Or so my memory says - if I'm wrong, I hope he'll correct it.)

---

Now, a question that I don't think has been answered (or discussed, although I know this is all still being worked out), is what just how much does the GA-GHR need to contain? SP would be happy (as I would expect a law student to be *tease*) with it having everything that's ever needed to know about the issue, but I know I've previously sent in valid GHRs to the tune of "I think this proposal contradicts Resolution X because of Line Y", rather than quoting the entire proposal or referenced resolution or linked to anything.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Now, a question that I don't think has been answered (or discussed, although I know this is all still being worked out), is what just how much does the GA-GHR need to contain? SP would be happy (as I would expect a law student to be *tease*) with it having everything that's ever needed to know about the issue, but I know I've previously sent in valid GHRs to the tune of "I think this proposal contradicts Resolution X because of Line Y", rather than quoting the entire proposal or referenced resolution or linked to anything.

We don't expect legality challengers to be able to pass the bar exam. As long as you're saying what rule is broken and why, then you're good.

[Separatist Peoples]

Yup. My suggestion for framing the precise legal question could be satisfied by pointing to the relevant parts of both documents and mentioning the rule, and giving reasoning. It was to avoid blanket "Is my proposal illegal?" Or even "does this clause duplicate anything in X?" Because that is a deceptively difficult question to answer without an additional explanation.

[Bananaistan]

Welcome to the GA: No Controversial Opinions Allowed!
*snip*
Neither Knootoss or Bananistan were chosen, and both have said that people who submit "petty" or "frivolous" challenges should be derided and have social consequences.

Very much this. Who decides what's petty or frivolous? Is it petty if the player making the challenge just plain doesn't like the one whose proposal it is, nevermind the aptness of the challenge made. Is it frivolous if the person making the challenge has simply misunderstood the meaning of the proposal or is utterly confused by it, possibly due to excessive Legalese use or the text requiring a master's degree in the subject matter to be fully understood?

Nobody decides whether it's petty or frivolous. If all challenges are posted on the forums by the challenging player (or puppet) everyone can see whether it is or isn't but the council rules on it once, as GR says, "you're saying what rule is broken and why". And once it is posted on the forums, the author gets a chance to defend their proposal. Most importantly, if everyone debated honestly and raised their concerns during drafting, the author gets a chance to amend their proposal accordingly. Which is what I'm pushing for. Private or anonymous challenges do not improve anything. Open and honest debating does.

[Araraukar]

Most importantly, if everyone debated honestly and raised their concerns during drafting, the author gets a chance to amend their proposal accordingly. Which is what I'm pushing for. Private or anonymous challenges do not improve anything. Open and honest debating does.

Yeah, and everyone will be happy foreverafter and we'll all be drowning in cute kittens/puppies/unicorns...

I suspect the main reasons GHRs have been filed by regulars in the recent howevermany years or months, have been because 1) the person hadn't logged in early enough to catch the proposal before it was submitted (life happens, as I know to my chagrin, and also because sometimes authors decide to submit after 2 days from posting the draft on the forum), or 2) the author in question is unwilling to listen to the critique explaining why the legality might be questionable. (And probably 3, because there's some personal dislike between the two players.)

[Bananaistan]

Most importantly, if everyone debated honestly and raised their concerns during drafting, the author gets a chance to amend their proposal accordingly. Which is what I'm pushing for. Private or anonymous challenges do not improve anything. Open and honest debating does.

I suspect the main reasons GHRs have been filed by regulars in the recent howevermany years or months, have been because 1) the person hadn't logged in early enough to catch the proposal before it was submitted (life happens, as I know to my chagrin, and also because sometimes authors decide to submit after 2 days from posting the draft on the forum), or 2) the author in question is unwilling to listen to the critique explaining why the legality might be questionable. (And probably 3, because there's some personal dislike between the two players.)

And none of these three reasons preclude posting challenges on the forum. A formal method of doing so, such as a dedicated thread, would be particularly suited to number 1.

[Gruenberg]

--snip--

Ah, I see. That was a later post - I was going back to this one where you said "I didn't nominate Sciongrad for the Council not because I had any personal grudge against Sciongrad or anything, but because Scion had publicly made legality arguments I objected to and I did want Scion on a legality council." So I assumed you were discussing nominations, given you'd talked about nominating players!

You're talking about appointments. Fair enough, I'll have to bow out, as I don't have any knowledge of how that works.

And none of these three reasons preclude posting challenges on the forum. A formal method of doing so, such as a dedicated thread, would be particularly suited to number 1.

Yep. The only reason people submitted GHRs was because mods kept telling them to. If the not-quite-mods tell them to submit not-quite-GHRs, the same thing will happen. So just don't tell them to do that, and instead tell them to post on the forum.

[Araraukar]

And none of these three reasons preclude posting challenges on the forum. A formal method of doing so, such as a dedicated thread, would be particularly suited to number 1.

Yep. The only reason people submitted GHRs was because mods kept telling them to. If the not-quite-mods tell them to submit not-quite-GHRs, the same thing will happen. So just don't tell them to do that, and instead tell them to post on the forum.

Are you two really unable to see the issues with requiring full openness?

[Tzorsland]

Both of your "models" are inappropriate. Submitting an illegal proposal is not a crime, and a player who files a legality challenge is not an accuser because he's not accusing the proposal writer of doing anything wrong to him.

Then are you stating, for the record, that the decisions used by the Secretariat's Council can in no form be used to eject a player from the WA?

Because ejecting someone from the WA is a punishment and whether you call it a crime or not, the right to face the accuser remains. The council rules on the request of the legality challenge, does it not?

[Araraukar]

Because ejecting someone from the WA is a punishment and whether you call it a crime or not, the right to face the accuser remains. The council rules on the request of the legality challenge, does it not?

...or GA-GHRs could be the equivalent of private citizens reporting a crime, the law enforcement (council) investigating it and filing charges on behalf of the state (WA) by posting it on the forum thread [and presumably making a thread if such doesn't exist?], and then acting as the court of law by processing the matter.

Seriously, you're (not just you, Tzors) taking this way too seriously. Seriously speaking, NationStates is a game that shouldn't be taken entirely seriously due to its nature of seriously overdoing any effects of issues and such, even if you were seriously trying to make sensible choices. So sensible people should take the sensible approach to be sensible about the GA Council - or whatever its sensible name will eventually be - and how it will probably work.

Incidentally, I suggest that if the Council's IC designation is to be "the Secretariat" from whenever it becomes functional, then the mods should be collectively known as the Justice Department.

...the words "seriously" and "sensible" totally lost all meaning when I was writing this.

[Tzorsland]

Seriously, you're (not just you, Tzors) taking this way too seriously. Seriously speaking, NationStates is a game that shouldn't be taken entirely seriously due to its nature of seriously overdoing any effects of issues and such, even if you were seriously trying to make sensible choices. So sensible people should take the sensible approach to be sensible about the GA Council - or whatever its sensible name will eventually be - and how it will probably work.

I am not taking it to seriously (well except for the ejection thing). I'm just trying to get my mind wrapped around the model. The model you are proposing is perfectly fine, only it means a ton of more work for the council. If the GA-GHRs are just like "reporting a crime" then there doesn't have to be any real merrit to the argument in them. It is then the job of the council to find evidence of violations and to judge based on that violations. That's sounds like a lot of work for them. I still think WORK is a four letter word, but hey, I'm not a member so it's COOL BY ME!

Why even bother with GA-GHRs in the first place? Just investigate everything that crosses a certain threshold of endorsements if their job is to investigate not evaluate the merits of a GA-GHR. That's not being overly serious, that's being practical.

[Bears Armed]

If the GA-GHRs are just like "reporting a crime" then there doesn't have to be any real merrit to the argument in them. It is then the job of the council to find evidence of violations and to judge based on that violations. That's sounds like a lot of work for them. I still think WORK is a four letter word, but hey, I'm not a member so it's COOL BY ME!

Why even bother with GA-GHRs in the first place? Just investigate everything that crosses a certain threshold of endorsements if their job is to investigate not evaluate the merits of a GA-GHR. That's not being overly serious, that's being practical.

1/ We're going to "require" that GA-GHRs contain legal arguments, stating the rules that the complainants think are broken (and why...), rather than just claims that "This proposal is illegal" and no more...
2/ Having said which, I think that several (probably all) of us are going to continue monitoring the submissions list anyway.

[Araraukar]

1/ We're going to "require" that GA-GHRs contain legal arguments, stating the rules that the complainants think are broken (and why...), rather than just claims that "This proposal is illegal" and no more...

So basically like the Silly/Illegal thread, after they removed "Silly" from it?

[Bears Armed]

1/ We're going to "require" that GA-GHRs contain legal arguments, stating the rules that the complainants think are broken (and why...), rather than just claims that "This proposal is illegal" and no more...

So basically like the Silly/Illegal thread, after they removed "Silly" from it?

Yes.
Actually, saying that legality challenges should initially be posted there -- perhaps with a [CHALLENGE] label to differentiate them from the obvious illegalities that would probably still be deleted "automatically" by a Mod in the rare case of them getting close to quorum -- might work well enough anyway.

[Araraukar]

Actually, saying that legality challenges should initially be posted there -- perhaps with a [CHALLENGE] label to differentiate them from the obvious illegalities that would probably still be deleted "automatically" by a Mod in the rare case of them getting close to quorum -- might work well enough anyway.

...but you can't post proposals there that have their own drafting threads...

Colour me confused.

[Kryozerkia]

Actually, saying that legality challenges should initially be posted there -- perhaps with a [CHALLENGE] label to differentiate them from the obvious illegalities that would probably still be deleted "automatically" by a Mod in the rare case of them getting close to quorum -- might work well enough anyway.

...but you can't post proposals there that have their own drafting threads...

Colour me confused.

This is the exception. If the proposal has its own thread, then the challenge links to it; if there is no thread, chances are it will either be posted to the current illegal thread or already handled behind the scenes by GenSec. Ideally, the legality challenges will be posted to its own thread.

[Araraukar]

This is the exception. If the proposal has its own thread, then the challenge links to it; if there is no thread, chances are it will either be posted to the current illegal thread or already handled behind the scenes by GenSec. Ideally, the legality challenges will be posted to its own thread.

Wait, what?

Which one(s) of these are you talking about?

1. We post [CHALLENGE] to the Illegal Proposals thread with a link to the drafting thread.

2. We post [CHALLENGE] and the proposal that doesn't have a drafting thread to the Illegal Proposals thread.

3. Mods will create a thread where we post these challenges and nothing else.

4. We make a post in the drafting thread with [CHALLENGE] in it.

[Sciongrad]

Announcement:

The following is our procedure for hearing legality challenges.

1. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why, along with relevant precedent.

2. The filing player must create a new [Legality Challenge] thread. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses.

3. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions.

[Christian Democrats]

I'll just note that three councilors supported this move. Because of the "impasse," one member changed his vote today "in the interest of moving forward."

EDIT: 3 + 1 = 4. One member changed his vote, giving the above motion a majority.

[Legality Challenge]

I embrace the change and am ready for it

[Separatist Peoples]

I embrace the change and am ready for it

Christ, can we not with this? Please? Can anything at all slip by without a hackneyed puppet being formed? This joke needs to stop.