Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Christian Democrats]

I don't mind it - since they can't warn or anything

I can't speak for the other GenSec members, but . . .

[Excidium Planetis]

They could, however, move GA threads to their secret invisible lair to prevent anyone from seeing them.

The resolution draft censorship conspiracy theory can begin now.

[Araraukar]

I wouldn't worry.

Oh, I don't, but...

Cue paranoia in 3... 2... 1...

They could, however, move GA threads to their secret invisible lair to prevent anyone from seeing them.

The resolution draft censorship conspiracy theory can begin now.

^This.

I don't mind it - since they can't warn or anything

I can't speak for the other GenSec members, but . . .

This reads like you were disagreeing. Damnit, CD, you're not supposed to feed the paranoia.

[Christian Democrats]

-

[Reploid Productions]

Curse you, technical issues!

[Araraukar]

Curse you, technical issues!

...ok, you showing up here and CD having edited out something I didn't have time to catch, is starting to make me paranoid.

[Sedgistan]

There was a mistake made with the forumside powers handed out to the GenSec members, which involved them being able to do a bit more than we'd intended. CD pointed it out and the powers have been removed for the time being while we work out if its possible to assign them as we want to.

[Araraukar]

There was a mistake made with the forumside powers handed out to the GenSec members, which involved them being able to do a bit more than we'd intended. CD pointed it out and the powers have been removed for the time being while we work out if its possible to assign them as we want to.

Thank you for the clarification. I'm now just going to go and hide under my security blanket for a bit...

[Bananaistan]

I'm not having a pop at anyone here but it's probably not unreasonable that the council should have a quorum in terms of how many they need to be present in order to act. We all know real life happens and people will be called away from any online activities, or at least be unable to devote any time other than a cursory browse of the forums. And some of these rulings require a lot of thought and consideration. And there is no doubt that at some stage in future someone will go offline without warning for whatever RL reason.

Should there be more councillors? Should four councillors being present and making their views known over, say, seven days, be sufficient for the council to proceed based only on those four opinions?

I note there has been reference to the council procedures in some of the challenges threads. Don't we all have a valid stake in what form these procedures are going to take and wouldn't it be worthwhile to discuss them here?

I'm only catching up on a lot of threads now after Christmas. Given the discussion in the "[Legality Challenge] Protection of Nuclear Armaments" thread, I really think this needs to be looked at. The whole GA process can't be held up just because one or two people are AFK for a few days.

[Ertiria]

HEIL HITLER!!!!!!! HEREBY I ANNOUNCE, I WILL MAKE THE PROPOSAL"FOREVER CONDEMN THE CAIN"!!! HEIL HITLER, HEIL FUHRER!!

[Old Tyrannia]

HEIL HITLER!!!!!!! HEREBY I ANNOUNCE, I WILL MAKE THE PROPOSAL"FOREVER CONDEMN THE CAIN"!!! HEIL HITLER, HEIL FUHRER!!

Ertiria: *** Warned for trolling and spam. *** This post has nothing to do with the thread topic.

[Sciongrad]

I'm not having a pop at anyone here but it's probably not unreasonable that the council should have a quorum in terms of how many they need to be present in order to act. We all know real life happens and people will be called away from any online activities, or at least be unable to devote any time other than a cursory browse of the forums. And some of these rulings require a lot of thought and consideration. And there is no doubt that at some stage in future someone will go offline without warning for whatever RL reason.

Should there be more councillors? Should four councillors being present and making their views known over, say, seven days, be sufficient for the council to proceed based only on those four opinions?

I note there has been reference to the council procedures in some of the challenges threads. Don't we all have a valid stake in what form these procedures are going to take and wouldn't it be worthwhile to discuss them here?

I'm only catching up on a lot of threads now after Christmas. Given the discussion in the "[Legality Challenge] Protection of Nuclear Armaments" thread, I really think this needs to be looked at. The whole GA process can't be held up just because one or two people are AFK for a few days.

I'm inclined to agree with this. The possibility of a strict time frame and simple majority quorum has been proposed. We'll keep you guys posted.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It only took 10 days to reach a decision on that proposal. In our latest challenge, again, around 10 days. WA Peacekeeping Charter was around 15. These are not unreasonable times, especially when you're bringing challenges on subjects that have been hotly debated for a long time in the GA. Questions about Rights & Duties are going to take a while to hash out. Same with NAPA. They always have!

Again, I gotta repeat what I've said before. If you want smooth sailing for your proposals, don't write questionably illegal proposals.

[Sciongrad]

It only took 10 days to reach a decision on that proposal. In our latest challenge, again, around 10 days. WA Peacekeeping Charter was around 15. These are not unreasonable times, especially when you're bringing challenges on subjects that have been hotly debated for a long time in the GA. Questions about Rights & Duties are going to take a while to hash out. Same with NAPA. They always have!

Again, I gotta repeat what I've said before. If you want smooth sailing for your proposals, don't write questionably illegal proposals.

Our opinion on Trade of Endangered Organisms was never archived - that is 2 months and 4 days after the challenge was filed. That's a problem. Two weeks is still a problem. I agree, some of these issues are complicated, but we're all smart folks and we shouldn't pretend we're dealing with the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations here. In many cases, we agree on the conclusion and reasoning but it takes us several more days or weeks to get around to writing an opinion. That's not acceptable in my opinion.

And, of course, the advice that players should not write questionably illegal proposals is probably not helpful seeing as our goal is to clarify the boundaries of the rules. Questionably illegal proposals are, in fact, what we were made to resolve.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Two weeks is not a problem if we're being asked to interpret the GA's constitution. I just gotta disagree on that. And, frankly, EP knows what they're doing. It's not difficult to realize that if you're trying to do something that has been sticking point in the GA for many years, that it's going to take a while to hash it out. The last couple challenges we've received have been proposals written by experienced authors who know that they're inviting a legal battle! Writing a proposal that butts up against NAPA is gonna come paired with a legal challenge and a difficult interpretation of a terminally vague and largely meaningless resolution.

The vast majority of proposals being drafting right now aren't butting up against the rules or begging a legality challenge for contradicting existing resolutions. It's never been that difficult to avoid doing that. If you look at the challenges we've been asked to resolve, many of them are about proposals by experienced authors who know what they're doing. We've been asked to tackle the legality of non-compliance, the existence of WA peacekeepers, the fundamentals of metagaming, amendments vs expansions...

On proposals that don't seem to be purposefully written to invite legal battles, we've been pretty fast about it. But also, we're essentially starting from scratch in a lot of these challenges. Past mod precedent is scarcely recorded, so now we're reinventing the wheel a lot of the time.

I just don't think we're gonna be able to meet strict timetables all the time, while we're still very much in the infancy of this experiment. A week and a half is not a long time to wait for GenSec decisions on pretty fundamental questions of GA rules & GAR#2 interpretations.

[Araraukar]

Two weeks is still a problem.
*snip*
In many cases, we agree on the conclusion and reasoning but it takes us several more days or weeks to get around to writing an opinion. That's not acceptable in my opinion.

This is interesting to know, and also agreed that it sounds stupid that that is what's holding up rulings.

Two weeks is not a problem if we're being asked to interpret the GA's constitution.

It will be when you get the "hold" function and are holding up the whole voting queue for the two weeks.

---

Related to GA council rulings, but unrelated to the decision-making speed... Can specific interpretations of the rules be brought up with you guys, without there being a submitted/about-to-be-submitted proposal showcasing it? You haven't allowed for non-drafted-but-submitted proposals to be used as case studies, or else have dismissed the related challenge and instead gone for an easier alternative illegality rather than the one that was challenged as unclear. Are you forbidden from making rulings on the rules themselves?

[Separatist Peoples]

Two weeks is still a problem.
*snip*
In many cases, we agree on the conclusion and reasoning but it takes us several more days or weeks to get around to writing an opinion. That's not acceptable in my opinion.

This is interesting to know, and also agreed that it sounds stupid that that is what's holding up rulings.

Two weeks is not a problem if we're being asked to interpret the GA's constitution.

It will be when you get the "hold" function and are holding up the whole voting queue for the two weeks.

---

Related to GA council rulings, but unrelated to the decision-making speed... Can specific interpretations of the rules be brought up with you guys, without there being a submitted/about-to-be-submitted proposal showcasing it? You haven't allowed for non-drafted-but-submitted proposals to be used as case studies, or else have dismissed the related challenge and instead gone for an easier alternative illegality rather than the one that was challenged as unclear. Are you forbidden from making rulings on the rules themselves?

The Hold function has a hard time limit of, like, three days. I think. Two week holds aren't gonna happen.


We prefer, as a limit to our power, to rule on the narrowest scope and only when there is an actual controversy involving a proposal. Judicial restraint is necessary when there isn't any other entity to balance our power; we have to restrain ourselves. That makes it frustrating on a case-by-case basis, but overall a more reliable system. We aren't forbidden from relaxing those standards, but we are cognizant of the opinion that the powers of the GenSec will lead to cronyism or corrupt use of the powers to exclude ideological opponents.

We have the authority, per mod permission, to change non-OSRS rules, but we only intend on doing so with community involvement, if at all. Another self-imposed check. None of us want to turn this into an oligarchy.

[Araraukar]

when there isn't any other entity to balance our power; we have to restrain ourselves.

Fairly sure the mods and admnis would come down hard on you guys if you tried to abuse the council's power...

We have the authority, per mod permission, to change non-OSRS rules, but we only intend on doing so with community involvement, if at all.

Well, if you (plural you, not just you, SP) have been reading threads at all in the past few weeks, you should already know that the whole "what counts as branding?" thing is still contested. We have Bears' half-unofficial opinion that "I" and "we" count as branding, but despite asking several times and using a submitted proposal as an example of it being an ongoing issue, no official word from you yet. I don't intend to threaten you guys (I believe that threats should be saved for RPing ), but sooner or later you're going to have to deal with a proposal that is otherwise completely legal. Whether or not it will be intentionally written that way by a player seeking to solve the argument permanently, or accidentally someone getting it otherwise right, it's one of those bullets you can't dodge forever.

None of us want to turn this into an oligarchy.

WA already is one. The oligarchs are called "superdelegates"...

[Excidium Planetis]

None of us want to turn this into an oligarchy.

WA already is one. The oligarchs are called "superdelegates"...

I thought they were called "resolution authors". The .1% of players who pass 100% of all GA resolutions. Even the superdelegates don't decide 100% of resolutions, since sometimes a resolution passes with only a minority of superdelegate votes.

---

Wait, did you say you guys have permission to change the rules!? This could be either really good or really bad...

[Imperium Anglorum]

WA already is one. The oligarchs are called "superdelegates"...

That's absurd. You may as well say that all governments are oligarchies from the fact that representatives have power. Delegates, practically to a man, represent their constituents. Every delegate is elected. Can you say the same?

[Separatist Peoples]

Wait, did you say you guys have permission to change the rules!? This could be either really good or really bad...

That's why none of us have any intention of doing so without community involvement.

[Mallorea and Riva]

WA already is one. The oligarchs are called "superdelegates"...

I thought they were called "resolution authors". The .1% of players who pass 100% of all GA resolutions. Even the superdelegates don't decide 100% of resolutions, since sometimes a resolution passes with only a minority of superdelegate votes.

---

Wait, did you say you guys have permission to change the rules!? This could be either really good or really bad...

First: The discussion on Delegates is not suited for this thread.

Second:

We have the authority, per mod permission, to change non-OSRS rules, but we only intend on doing so with community involvement, if at all.

[Christian Democrats]

We prefer, as a limit to our power, to rule on the narrowest scope and only when there is an actual controversy involving a proposal.

I wish.

[Sciongrad]

We prefer, as a limit to our power, to rule on the narrowest scope and only when there is an actual controversy involving a proposal.

I wish.

I don't think I agree. I don't see why a "controversy" is necessary. Our goal is to clarify the rules. The fact that we do that through a challenge system is incidental. Really, we should be seeking to expand what types of challenges we can hear, not limit them.

[Separatist Peoples]

We have differing views on proper procedure, certainly, but that is currently the gist of it.