Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Rohanai]

Need some more WA endorsements. I can properly run a nation and deserve some endorsements.

[Araraukar]

Need some more WA endorsements. I can properly run a nation and deserve some endorsements.

Only other WA nations in the same region as you can endorse you.

[Sciongrad]

Brief announcement, my friends.

GenSec has made a modification to our procedures for hearing challenges. For all challenges going forward (excluding those that began prior to the adoption of this procedure), the quorum for GenSec will be set at 4 and a hard time limit of 120 hours will be placed on all queries. In other words, if the decision is 3-1 in favor of legality after 5 days, that opinion is controlling, even though two other members failed to vote. This is our effort to cut down on the time it takes for us to deliver opinions.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Brief announcement, my friends.

GenSec has made a modification to our procedures for hearing challenges. For all challenges going forward (excluding those that began prior to the adoption of this procedure), the quorum for GenSec will be set at 4 and a hard time limit of 120 hours will be placed on all queries. In other words, if the decision is 3-1 in favor of legality after 5 days, that opinion is controlling, even though two other members failed to vote. This is our effort to cut down on the time it takes for us to deliver opinions.

I tentatively support this change, though I presume that the policy is open to amendment if it ends up creating a right mess of matters?

[Sciongrad]

Brief announcement, my friends.

GenSec has made a modification to our procedures for hearing challenges. For all challenges going forward (excluding those that began prior to the adoption of this procedure), the quorum for GenSec will be set at 4 and a hard time limit of 120 hours will be placed on all queries. In other words, if the decision is 3-1 in favor of legality after 5 days, that opinion is controlling, even though two other members failed to vote. This is our effort to cut down on the time it takes for us to deliver opinions.

I tentatively support this change, though I presume that the policy is open to amendment if it ends up creating a right mess of matters?

There will be no failure. The procedure also explicitly states that we're not allowed to mess up.

In the unlikely event we fail spectacularly, of course the policy will be revised.

[Wallenburg]

Brief announcement, my friends.

GenSec has made a modification to our procedures for hearing challenges. For all challenges going forward (excluding those that began prior to the adoption of this procedure), the quorum for GenSec will be set at 4 and a hard time limit of 120 hours will be placed on all queries. In other words, if the decision is 3-1 in favor of legality after 5 days, that opinion is controlling, even though two other members failed to vote. This is our effort to cut down on the time it takes for us to deliver opinions.

Excellent. Thank you for the new policy.

[Araraukar]

a hard time limit of 120 hours will be placed on all queries. In other words, if the decision is 3-1 in favor of legality after 5 days, that opinion is controlling, even though two other members failed to vote.

This is excellent news. Thank you, guys.

[Excidium Planetis]

This is terrible news. This policy should have been adopted only when a proposal has been submitted and a fast ruling is necessary.

[Sciongrad]

This is terrible news. This policy should have been adopted only when a proposal has been submitted and a fast ruling is necessary.

OK.

[Christian Democrats]

Brief announcement, my friends.

GenSec has made a modification to our procedures for hearing challenges. For all challenges going forward (excluding those that began prior to the adoption of this procedure), the quorum for GenSec will be set at 4 and a hard time limit of 120 hours will be placed on all queries. In other words, if the decision is 3-1 in favor of legality after 5 days, that opinion is controlling, even though two other members failed to vote. This is our effort to cut down on the time it takes for us to deliver opinions.

SL didn't move for a vote until Friday. Do you have a time machine or something?

[Sciongrad]

Brief announcement, my friends.

GenSec has made a modification to our procedures for hearing challenges. For all challenges going forward (excluding those that began prior to the adoption of this procedure), the quorum for GenSec will be set at 4 and a hard time limit of 120 hours will be placed on all queries. In other words, if the decision is 3-1 in favor of legality after 5 days, that opinion is controlling, even though two other members failed to vote. This is our effort to cut down on the time it takes for us to deliver opinions.

SL didn't move for a vote until Friday. Do you have a time machine or something?

? I was the one who moved for the vote last Sunday.

[Christian Democrats]

SL didn't move for a vote until Friday. Do you have a time machine or something?

? I was the one who moved for the vote last Sunday.

You said, "Can I get a second for both measures?" Nobody said that he was making a motion for a vote until Friday.

[Sciongrad]

? I was the one who moved for the vote last Sunday.

You said, "Can I get a second for both measures?" Nobody said that he was making a motion for a vote until Friday.

I made the motion, which was seconded by SL the same night. It passed this past Thursday after the four day period elapsed. SL's motion in the same thread was for an entirely different proposal.

[Christian Democrats]

You said, "Can I get a second for both measures?" Nobody said that he was making a motion for a vote until Friday.

I made the motion, which was seconded by SL the same night.

You didn't use the word "motion," "move," or "vote."

SL's motion in the same thread was for an entirely different proposal.

For which proposal?

[Sciongrad]

I made the motion, which was seconded by SL the same night.

You didn't use the word "motion," "move," or "vote."

Was it not obvious from the fact that SL seconded and others proceeded to vote?

SL's motion in the same thread was for an entirely different proposal.

For which proposal?[/quote]
SL proposed that the author of the opinion be responsible for releasing it. That was separate from my proposal.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

Would the Secretariat's be able to listen to a proposal about WA reform?

[Tinfect]

Would the Secretariat's be able to listen to a proposal about WA reform?

No, they have no power over Gameside matters. You can ask for a Secretary General Position to be made over in the Technical forum. But, like every other time someone has tried, it will get shot down. When nearly everyone involved in the GA you've brought the idea to says it's an awful idea, it may be time to stop.

[Separatist Peoples]

Would the Secretariat's be able to listen to a proposal about WA reform?

If you want to suggest reform on our behavior, please do so here. Please note, however, that you cannot submit them for consideration as resolutions. The GenSec is an Out Of Character entity, while the voting system you see on the World Assembly game page is an In Character institution. GenSec serves the Out Of Character function of clarifying rules and assessing the legality of proposals.

We are always happy to hear constructive suggestions from this thread that will improve our relationship with the player base and streamline the process of legality rulings.

[Flanderlion]

Would the Secretariat's be able to listen to a proposal about WA reform?

No, they have no power over Gameside matters. You can ask for a Secretary General Position to be made over in the Technical forum. But, like every other time someone has tried, it will get shot down. When nearly everyone involved in the GA you've brought the idea to says it's an awful idea, it may be time to stop.

Good thing tech changes aren't purely made from the GA viewpoint. And shot down, I'm pretty sure it's still on the to do list, just not high up so won't happen for years.

[Separatist Peoples]

No, they have no power over Gameside matters. You can ask for a Secretary General Position to be made over in the Technical forum. But, like every other time someone has tried, it will get shot down. When nearly everyone involved in the GA you've brought the idea to says it's an awful idea, it may be time to stop.

Good thing tech changes aren't purely made from the GA viewpoint. And shot down, I'm pretty sure it's still on the to do list, just not high up so won't happen for years.

A Secretary General position? It is not on the to do list. The GenSec group is Moderation's response to the growing need for GA experts in the administration of the GA. No Secretary General position is on any list, except perhaps a blacklist.

[Imperium Anglorum]

No Secretary General position is on any list, except perhaps a blacklist.

Separatist Peoples for Secretary General 2017!

[Separatist Peoples]

No Secretary General position is on any list, except perhaps a blacklist.

Separatist Peoples for Secretary General 2017!

If appointed, I will not step down immediately, but fight to retain the position while refusing, categorically, to actually use any of the Secretary General powers.

"A Frustration of Purpose You Can Count On!"

[States of Glory WA Office]

No Secretary General position is on any list, except perhaps a blacklist.

Separatist Peoples for Secretary General 2017!

Drain the Wetlands! The Unsilent Minority Stands With Separatist Peoples! Make Legislation Funny Again!

[Wansul]

I have a freind whose nation is called Beutarch, he is good with grammar and spelling, and has fairly good reasoning. He could be a good person to do this, if you need more people.

[Separatist Peoples]

I have a freind whose nation is called Beutarch, he is good with grammar and spelling, and has fairly good reasoning. He could be a good person to do this, if you need more people.

We will take that under advisement.