Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Separatist Peoples]

It depends on what the moderators are more concerned with. Corruption was explicitly mentioned as a concern. Precedent was not. I addressed the raised concern. Obviously the system has drawbacks, but I assume that the moderators had a valid reason for bringing up cronyism and corruption.

They were brought up as potential concerns with non-mod appointed teams. If you had a team that then solely self-selected replacements, you could get cronyism - friends/supporters brought in rather than more capable people with opposing views. The corruption could apply to both that or an elected group, which could simply decide to start declaring proposals that they didn't like illegal.

Let me start out by noting that I'm not making criticisms of the mod's priorities or anything, just trying to map out the problems.

Randomly removing certain votes would help combat corruption in a community that would essentially be electing itself, because it would decrease the potential strength of a particular bloc. If, at any particular time, half the votes will be randomly thrown out, you'll need much more than half the vote to reliably control the system. I'd like to think we're diverse enough that it's unlikely one cooperative group would assume complete control.

However, as Scion pointed out, that would be counter to the goals of following precedent, though arguments utilizing precedent could certainly be used to argue a point prior to a vote.

If we don't bother with the tossed votes system, there would likely be a need for increased moderation on the group to ensure there isn't any overt corruption in a self-selected group, but this creates two problems: Firstly, it requires increased moderation attention, which the moderation seems to want to avoid. Secondly, moderation cannot effectively control off-site communication, and would be limited in their corruption detection methods.

Assuming this ends up being a voting organization and not merely an advisory one, it helps to know what the moderators would prefer to see. Its entirely possible that they share my view of the perception of corruption in the GA: it isn't really an issue, and extreme measures aren't necessary. I'm also a stodgy traditionalist, and I like most of our precedents, but if the moderation team was primarily concerned with limiting their moderation of the group itself and preempting claims of corruption, that might be the exchange.

Since moderation team members are already expected to be a part of the Council, and since corruption is really a nonissue here, I think that encourages not having a voting system and instead relying on the moderation team to exercise judgement on the Council's membership and activity. But I would be remiss if I didn't bring it up.

[Mousebumples]

If we don't bother with the tossed votes system, there would likely be a need for increased moderation on the group to ensure there isn't any overt corruption in a self-selected group, but this creates two problems: Firstly, it requires increased moderation attention, which the moderation seems to want to avoid. Secondly, moderation cannot effectively control off-site communication, and would be limited in their corruption detection methods.

Assuming this ends up being a voting organization and not merely an advisory one, it helps to know what the moderators would prefer to see. Its entirely possible that they share my view of the perception of corruption in the GA: it isn't really an issue, and extreme measures aren't necessary. I'm also a stodgy traditionalist, and I like most of our precedents, but if the moderation team was primarily concerned with limiting their moderation of the group itself and preempting claims of corruption, that might be the exchange.

Since moderation team members are already expected to be a part of the Council, and since corruption is really a nonissue here, I think that encourages not having a voting system and instead relying on the moderation team to exercise judgement on the Council's membership and activity. But I would be remiss if I didn't bring it up.

I'd like to believe that to be the case, but I could also see a situation where an otherwise seemingly even-keeled individual lets "power" go to their head and begins acting what would otherwise be perceived as out of character. (Not OOC v. IC, to clarify, but not like what we'd expect from them.) Optimally, in my view, I'd like to start with a Council with limited "power" and more of an advisory role. Depending on how things go, the power and scope of the Council could be re-addressed at a later date. It's possible that in a year (or a few years), things will have changed in the GA (compared to the status quo) significantly.

[Sciongrad]

If we don't bother with the tossed votes system, there would likely be a need for increased moderation on the group to ensure there isn't any overt corruption in a self-selected group, but this creates two problems: Firstly, it requires increased moderation attention, which the moderation seems to want to avoid. Secondly, moderation cannot effectively control off-site communication, and would be limited in their corruption detection methods.

Assuming this ends up being a voting organization and not merely an advisory one, it helps to know what the moderators would prefer to see. Its entirely possible that they share my view of the perception of corruption in the GA: it isn't really an issue, and extreme measures aren't necessary. I'm also a stodgy traditionalist, and I like most of our precedents, but if the moderation team was primarily concerned with limiting their moderation of the group itself and preempting claims of corruption, that might be the exchange.

Since moderation team members are already expected to be a part of the Council, and since corruption is really a nonissue here, I think that encourages not having a voting system and instead relying on the moderation team to exercise judgement on the Council's membership and activity. But I would be remiss if I didn't bring it up.

I'd like to believe that to be the case, but I could also see a situation where an otherwise seemingly even-keeled individual lets "power" go to their head and begins acting what would otherwise be perceived as out of character. (Not OOC v. IC, to clarify, but not like what we'd expect from them.) Optimally, in my view, I'd like to start with a Council with limited "power" and more of an advisory role. Depending on how things go, the power and scope of the Council could be re-addressed at a later date. It's possible that in a year (or a few years), things will have changed in the GA (compared to the status quo) significantly.

First of all, if you are looking for an advisory role, this council serves no role at all whatsoever. That's actually insulting, because players in this forum have been trying to advise you guys for years. So if this "council" is limited to an advisory role, I doubt anyone would be interested. I'm also unsure why you guys think there would be widespread corruption or cronyism? Do the moderators have such little trust in the players that they believe we're incapable of conducting ourselves responsibly?

[Tzorsland]

Optimally, in my view, I'd like to start with a Council with limited "power" and more of an advisory role. Depending on how things go, the power and scope of the Council could be re-addressed at a later date. It's possible that in a year (or a few years), things will have changed in the GA (compared to the status quo) significantly.

First of all, if you are looking for an advisory role, this council serves no role at all whatsoever. That's actually insulting, because players in this forum have been trying to advise you guys for years. So if this "council" is limited to an advisory role, I doubt anyone would be interested. I'm also unsure why you guys think there would be widespread corruption or cronyism? Do the moderators have such little trust in the players that they believe we're incapable of conducting ourselves responsibly?

I have to agree with Sciongrad. Advisory role is worse than useless. it sends a signal to the players that no matter how they have behaved in the past they cannot be trusted. If you really are that paranoid a probationary period could be established for a member of the council. Players have been giving advice for years; the last thing we need is another select members to merely advise and have no role whatsoever. Do you need help or do you not need help, because a group of people giving advice is only going to give you MORE work, not less.

[Bananaistan]

If we don't bother with the tossed votes system, there would likely be a need for increased moderation on the group to ensure there isn't any overt corruption in a self-selected group, but this creates two problems: Firstly, it requires increased moderation attention, which the moderation seems to want to avoid. Secondly, moderation cannot effectively control off-site communication, and would be limited in their corruption detection methods.

Assuming this ends up being a voting organization and not merely an advisory one, it helps to know what the moderators would prefer to see. Its entirely possible that they share my view of the perception of corruption in the GA: it isn't really an issue, and extreme measures aren't necessary. I'm also a stodgy traditionalist, and I like most of our precedents, but if the moderation team was primarily concerned with limiting their moderation of the group itself and preempting claims of corruption, that might be the exchange.

Since moderation team members are already expected to be a part of the Council, and since corruption is really a nonissue here, I think that encourages not having a voting system and instead relying on the moderation team to exercise judgement on the Council's membership and activity. But I would be remiss if I didn't bring it up.

I'd like to believe that to be the case, but I could also see a situation where an otherwise seemingly even-keeled individual lets "power" go to their head and begins acting what would otherwise be perceived as out of character. (Not OOC v. IC, to clarify, but not like what we'd expect from them.) Optimally, in my view, I'd like to start with a Council with limited "power" and more of an advisory role. Depending on how things go, the power and scope of the Council could be re-addressed at a later date. It's possible that in a year (or a few years), things will have changed in the GA (compared to the status quo) significantly.

One individual might do so, but surely it is incredibly unlikely that the entire eight (or however many) would. And I don't think we should hamstring the council from the start on the basis that somebody might let the power go their head. Set out a decent code of conduct, require that all discussions of the council be recorded in forum posts leaving a paper trail for moderators and other members of the council to follow, and trust people to do it right. Like all other parts of the game and forum, it will still be subject to moderator oversight. And ultimately, poor decisions or lack of adequate consideration of the issues, will come to light, at least to the other members of the council who can draw the moderators' attention to it.

And surely there is already a site policy regarding corruption in the moderator team which could be adapted for the purposes of this council.

And I'll restate again, you already have an advisory body: the GA forum. There's no need for another one with shiny badges and access to super secret lair for the select few when they'd have no more influence in decision making than they currently have.

[Hannasea]

We've discussed it. Kryo just doesn't want to post here much. We can't force her.

That's ridiculous. The WA forum is where legality discussions take place. If you're not willing to be part of that, you have no business enforcing them.

There are actually quite a few more "WA moderators" now than there were when it was the NSUN, and really only TMGH & Fris did NSUN moderation. Yet things then ran much more smoothly. The environment then was just as legalistic, the rules were broadly similar, and even most of the resolutions were the same. (And I can personally vouch for the fact the players were just as argumentative.) The difference is that they were both active presences on the forum. It's why adding yet more moderators, or empowering a group of Super Best Friends to help them out, is not going to do anything: it's the existing moderators that are the problem.

Most the proposals she deletes are the ones submitted by noobs with no understanding of the rules, who generally won't have posted a draft here. When it comes to more borderline deletions of proposals submitted by regulars, we generally discuss those amongst us first anyway, and that evaluation includes reading the arguments here. Not posting doesn't mean not following what's going on.

Can't say I agree, but, as you say, you can't force her. *shrug*

Anyway, there seems to be some fairly substantial disagreement between you and your fellow moderators about what this actually is. For example:

You know we're looking for the Council to do much more than that

vs.

Optimally, in my view, I'd like to start with a Council with limited "power" and more of an advisory role.

Which makes this thread a bit confusing in terms of one half arguing with the moderators for more power, and one half for less.

The only possible upside I can see to this: maybe it would mean you could finally put an end to the Silly Proposals thread? After all, it seems like you're saying its stated value in "crowdsourcing" legality opinions is no longer practical.

[Sciongrad]

The only possible upside I can see to this: maybe it would mean you could finally put an end to the Silly Proposals thread? After all, it seems like you're saying its legality opinions is no longer practical.

For what it's worth, I think that thread should be discontinued anyway, regardless of what happens with this project. It's basically a place for regulars to mock inexperienced players.

[Separatist Peoples]

The only possible upside I can see to this: maybe it would mean you could finally put an end to the Silly Proposals thread? After all, it seems like you're saying its legality opinions is no longer practical.

For what it's worth, I think that thread should be discontinued anyway, regardless of what happens with this project. It's basically a place for regulars to mock inexperienced players.

If it was actually meant to crowdsource legality challenges, it could be changed to Illegal Proposals, merged with the SC thread, and moved to Moderation. Then the mods can treat it like a report thread to cut down on the asshattery. Nuking it from orbit would be the more palatable option, though.

[Wrapper]

it's the existing moderators that are the problem.

And you wonder why moderators don't want to post here anymore? It's posts like this that discourage our continued participation.

Which makes this thread a bit confusing in terms of one half arguing with the moderators for more power, and one half for less.

We have some competing views on the potential selection process and make-up of the Council, as well as on its responsibilities, and are looking for feedback on how this can work best for both staff members and players.

[Hannasea]

I'm aware of what your post said. And I'm pointing out how it's not a good way to start the discussion, as it leads to - has led to - arguing at cross-purposes: one group of users arguing with one moderator that the council should have more power, another user arguing with a different moderator that it should have less power. Even if both groups prevail in their arguments, you'll be no closer to reconciling those views!

Unless, of course, the response is, "we'll take all this, go off to our private forum, and come back with a final decision" - which is the exact process that even those of us who disagree on everything else seem to be in accord on being at the heart of the problem.

it's the existing moderators that are the problem.

And you wonder why moderators don't want to post here anymore? It's posts like this that discourage our continued participation.

If you're not willing to acknowledge any problems with WA moderation, then I don't see that this is going to progress very far. You can accept there are problems and encourage us to suggest ways to fix them (as, in fairness, Sedgistan largely has been willing to); or you can say there are no problems and therefore that no fix is needed - but you can't really do both.

[NERVUN]

First of all, if you are looking for an advisory role, this council serves no role at all whatsoever. That's actually insulting, because players in this forum have been trying to advise you guys for years. So if this "council" is limited to an advisory role, I doubt anyone would be interested. I'm also unsure why you guys think there would be widespread corruption or cronyism? Do the moderators have such little trust in the players that they believe we're incapable of conducting ourselves responsibly?

I have to agree with Sciongrad. Advisory role is worse than useless. it sends a signal to the players that no matter how they have behaved in the past they cannot be trusted. If you really are that paranoid a probationary period could be established for a member of the council. Players have been giving advice for years; the last thing we need is another select members to merely advise and have no role whatsoever. Do you need help or do you not need help, because a group of people giving advice is only going to give you MORE work, not less.

Personally, I am for the idea of this council having decision making powers with a Moderator serving as the sign off'er. I.e. we sign off and publish the ruling unless it's rather obvious that the council missed the barn for some reason, and even then it should be kicked back with detailed remarks about why this wasn't going to fly for a second round.

THAT SAID, not only do we have competing points of view about this, this is also something that hasn't been tried before and there is some wisdom in keeping the council as advisory at first to see how it's working before unleashing it fully.

On the gripping hand however, it should be noted that because we're at logger heads, we came here to see what you guys thought and what you would like. We are listening.

[NERVUN]

And you wonder why moderators don't want to post here anymore? It's posts like this that discourage our continued participation.

If you're not willing to acknowledge any problems with WA moderation, then I don't see that this is going to progress very far. You can accept there are problems and encourage us to suggest ways to fix them (as, in fairness, Sedgistan largely has been willing to); or you can say there are no problems and therefore that no fix is needed - but you can't really do both.

Saying there is a problem with Moderation is one thing. Saying that we, ourselves, are the problem is something else.

You're in effect yelling at us for not being here to yell at us. Of course we don't want to be here if all you're going to do is tell us how horrible we are.

[Christian Democrats]

We're looking for answers to the following questions:

1. Do you support the idea of a Secretariat's Council? If not, what alternative suggestion do you have, bearing in mind that "appoint more Moderators" is not an option on the table?
2. How should members of the Council be selected in the long-run?
3. What, if any, checks should exist against the Council's behaviour? Consider the potential for corruption, cronyism, laziness, and mission creep.
4. Which of the current rules should the Council have responsibility for enforcing?
5. Should Council members act as "Mentors" too?

1. Yes.

2. They should be selected by the moderators, and there should be some degree of ideological balancing (IntFed/NatSov, etc.).

3. The moderators select them and remove them. Accountability to the forum regulars is also important, so the moderators should publish the tallies of all votes. "We, the moderators, referred this legality challenge to the council. It voted 4-2 to declare this proposal illegal. We're keeping their votes anonymous, but the majority reasoned such and such, and the minority countered such and such."

4. All of them, unless a violation is crystal clear (e.g., a player submits a resolution amendment).

5. Not formally. Mentorship in the GA has always been and should remain organic.

A willingness to work on a team with other players and mods to resolve legality challenges through seeking consensus decisions.

Let's be clear. There's no such thing as consensus building when a decision is binary. One side or the other wins. Consensus building relies on two sides trying to reach a middle ground. There is no middle ground between legal and illegal. Either a proposal is permitted, or it's not.

First off, is the name open to being changed to something that isn't the same initials as the Security Council?

I don't think we're tied to the name. Make a suggestion, by all means.

General Assembly Rules Panel.

it's the existing moderators that are the problem.

And you wonder why moderators don't want to post here anymore? It's posts like this that discourage our continued participation.

I don't want to sound rude, but this is pretty much how I interpreted the above exchange:

• Lack of moderator participation is a problem.
• "It's the existing moderators who are the problem."
• "That really discourages me from participating."

The only thing I have to add is that the identities of challengers should be unknown to councilors to minimize personal bias. "Here, guys. We're giving you this GHR stripped of personal identifying information. Now, discuss it and rule on it. Consider its merits."

[Mousebumples]

I have to agree with Sciongrad. Advisory role is worse than useless. it sends a signal to the players that no matter how they have behaved in the past they cannot be trusted. If you really are that paranoid a probationary period could be established for a member of the council. Players have been giving advice for years; the last thing we need is another select members to merely advise and have no role whatsoever. Do you need help or do you not need help, because a group of people giving advice is only going to give you MORE work, not less.

Personally, I am for the idea of this council having decision making powers with a Moderator serving as the sign off'er. I.e. we sign off and publish the ruling unless it's rather obvious that the council missed the barn for some reason, and even then it should be kicked back with detailed remarks about why this wasn't going to fly for a second round.

This is more what I was getting at. Advisory, insofar as not being the "final word" - in part, as we figure out how this new process works. Optimally, as the Council continues it's work, moderator "approval" would no longer be needed.

Basically, my view - and, again, there is disagreement here - We could start by formalizing the "advisory capacity" of respected GA players. After a period of time (a few weeks, a few months, whatever), gradually shift from being an "advisory capacity" to a more "ruling making role" with less direct moderator involvement needed.

It's a step forward, in my view, regardless, and I hope to see more significant changes as time passes.

[Louisistan]

Do you support the idea of a Secretariat's Council? If not, what alternative suggestion do you have, bearing in mind that "appoint more Moderators" is not an option on the table?
It seems to be a decent enough suggestion. Since these players will be selected only for the WA, they can't be sidetracked the way mods can. A mod can suddenly find his plate full of a gazillion other responsibilities besides the WA.

How should members of the Council be selected in the long-run?
Mod appointment for sure. With the inter-personal aggresive disputes raging on here from time to time (yes, even OOC) anything else is a disaster waiting to happen. There should of course be some balance between opposing views.

What, if any, checks should exist against the Council's behaviour? Consider the potential for corruption, cronyism, laziness, and mission creep.
A decent enough code of conduct and swift removal from office in cases of prolonged inactivity should do the trick for now.

Which of the current rules should the Council have responsibility for enforcing?
As many as possible.
Duplication, Contradiction, Committees, Ideological ban, House of Cards, Real World References, Amendments, all the repeal rules, Meta-Gaming, Game Mechanics, Category, Format

Should Council members act as "Mentors" too?
Meh, not necessarily. There are people here who might be a good fit for legality analyses but may end up being crappy mentors. The two skills are not related. While the Council members may be good for offering advice on proposal legality to new members, they might not necessarily make good mentors. Also, this is still an RP of some sort and as such mentoring new players goes beyond just plain proposal legality and into the realm of how to RP well. And that skill is certainly not related to those required tomake legality rulings.


I've only skimmed over the other answers in this thread, as I don't have a lot of time right now. I'm against this just being a solely advisory body. As has already been pointed out, some transparency would be good (i.e. the ruling was reached 4-2 blah blah).

[Bananaistan]

I have to agree with Sciongrad. Advisory role is worse than useless. it sends a signal to the players that no matter how they have behaved in the past they cannot be trusted. If you really are that paranoid a probationary period could be established for a member of the council. Players have been giving advice for years; the last thing we need is another select members to merely advise and have no role whatsoever. Do you need help or do you not need help, because a group of people giving advice is only going to give you MORE work, not less.

Personally, I am for the idea of this council having decision making powers with a Moderator serving as the sign off'er. I.e. we sign off and publish the ruling unless it's rather obvious that the council missed the barn for some reason, and even then it should be kicked back with detailed remarks about why this wasn't going to fly for a second round.

THAT SAID, not only do we have competing points of view about this, this is also something that hasn't been tried before and there is some wisdom in keeping the council as advisory at first to see how it's working before unleashing it fully.

On the gripping hand however, it should be noted that because we're at logger heads, we came here to see what you guys thought and what you would like. We are listening.

That seems to suggest to me that the moderators would always retain a veto over the council and no matter how it would be dressed up, it would effectively remain an advisory body. IMO, let the council have the final decision on all cases based on the subjective rules. Fair enough though about having a moderator act as a sort of chairperson and in that role stating that the group hasn't adequately discussed a particular aspect of the case and thereby holding back a final decision until whatever aspect causing the concern has been addressed. To prevent the council from becoming mini-mods, the overall site rules and TOS, should remain the responsibility of the moderators.

I also think that there's no need for the deliberations of the council to be conducted behind closed doors with the remaining players being only offered a moderator approved summary of the discussions. I don't see why the council's deliberations couldn't be conducted in a sub-forum of the GA viewable by all forum members but, obviously, only moderators and council members could post therein. At a stroke, you have transparency and the perception that rulings are just being dropped on the community from on high is gone.

I think that this transparency combined with set terms of one year or so, strict selection criteria, and a code of conduct based on that already applicable to moderators, would be safeguards against corruption. Even though I think we are getting far too concerned about such issues.

I'm also not too fond of this idea of having it as an advisory body at first with a view to it eventually getting full authority. This smacks to me of too much distrust of the community. Either we trust this group to this job, or we shouldn't bother at all. Anyway, if it does go to hell in a handcart, isn't it a given that at all times the site admins in consultation with the moderator team can pull the plug on the whole thing whenever they want?

[Araraukar]

First of all, let me echo Scion's thank you for taking the time and effort to ask for opinions from the GA peeps, even though the decisions will be yours in the end.

1. Do you support the idea of a Secretariat's Council?

Yes, though I'd change its name to something else. Maybe GA Advisory Council? (As far as I know, the acronym GAAC isn't used by any other important thing around here.) And there should be an odd number of people on it, because if the Council members disagree on a question, their internal vote shouldn't end up in a tie. (Yes, yes, someone might excuse themselves from the vote or be afk or whatnot, but basic structure should discourage ties.)

The Councillors should not have a special badge or forum title.

2. How should members of the Council be selected in the long-run?

Ultimately by the mods. They should meet certain criteria (like maybe things like having been around for some time, activity in drafting threads other than their own, low-to-none warning history, understanding of both RP and OOC sides of things, demonstrated understanding of all of the rules, not just what the Council would deal with - and while requiring WA status might be difficult since people sometimes change it from account to account, maybe requiring them having a WA nation), and there could be a vote, but the voters should themselves be GA-ers.

The Councillors should not be able to nominate themselves.

3. What, if any, checks should exist against the Council's behaviour? Consider the potential for corruption, cronyism, laziness, and mission creep.

Setting a term limit (6 months? year?) after which their suitability to continue in the Council would be put to question; they'd have to, again, meet the criteria, be given the chance to step down (I would discourage "mid-term elections" to pick up new Council members if someone quit/vanished/got super busy with work, so maybe 6 months would be a good time), perhaps subjected to re-vote.

Also, their debates should be publicly viewable. Not sure if it's possible for you guys to set up a subforum where only certain people can post and still be viewed by all, but that would be the ideal solution.

4. Which of the current rules should the Council have responsibility for enforcing?

1c, 2b-3, all of 4, all of 5 and all of the "unwritten rules". Or else the unwritten ones should actually be written into the ruleset.

5. Should Council members act as "Mentors" too?

Yes (and requiring at least some mentoring from active Council members should be a requirement to be re-chosen for another consequtive term), but, again, they shouldn't have a special badge or forum title, nor should Council seat be a prequisite for someone to act as a mentor.

Additionally to all of the above, if WASC has or is going to have something similar, people's seats in the advisory councils should not overlap. One council seat per person.

The only possible upside I can see to this: maybe it would mean you could finally put an end to the Silly Proposals thread? After all, it seems like you're saying its legality opinions is no longer practical.

For what it's worth, I think that thread should be discontinued anyway, regardless of what happens with this project. It's basically a place for regulars to mock inexperienced players.

Or, for me, it's a great place to catch the proposals that showed promise but have already been deleted for a rule violation, to TG the authors the advice to post them on the GA forum.

You're in effect yelling at us for not being here to yell at us. Of course we don't want to be here if all you're going to do is tell us how horrible we are.

I think it's partially the lack of mod participation that leads to frustration (and thus to some people blaming mods for everything) and then to strong reactions when someone eventually posts. It might be my observational bias, but I don't recall such strong reactions to Wrapper's posts, because he posts here anyway (on the RP acc) to discuss the merits of the proposals.

Mind you, I'm not excusing anyone yelling at you guys, but if the only time people see mods in the GA forum is when they hand down rulings, it's not going to encourage a healthy relationship with them.

[The Blaatschapen]

To prevent the council from becoming mini-mods, the overall site rules and TOS, should remain the responsibility of the moderators.

Warnings, forum bans, WA bans, etc. will remain the sole responsibility of the moderators. The last thing we want would be that (because then we'd just invite more mods, but that's not on the table).

For the rest, I have no horse in the race. Hence why I skip the rest of your post

[The Blaatschapen]

Additionally to all of the above, if WASC has or is going to have something similar, people's seats in the advisory councils should not overlap. One council seat per person.

There are no plans for that at this moment in time. Though I agree in principle that one should not be both Councillor here and have another formal function (RP Mentor, Issue Editor) {excluding mods, for oversight reasons}. So that all the focus can lie on the function you excel in.

[Sciongrad]

Personally, I am for the idea of this council having decision making powers with a Moderator serving as the sign off'er. I.e. we sign off and publish the ruling unless it's rather obvious that the council missed the barn for some reason, and even then it should be kicked back with detailed remarks about why this wasn't going to fly for a second round.

This is more what I was getting at. Advisory, insofar as not being the "final word" - in part, as we figure out how this new process works. Optimally, as the Council continues it's work, moderator "approval" would no longer be needed.

Basically, my view - and, again, there is disagreement here - We could start by formalizing the "advisory capacity" of respected GA players. After a period of time (a few weeks, a few months, whatever), gradually shift from being an "advisory capacity" to a more "ruling making role" with less direct moderator involvement needed.

It's a step forward, in my view, regardless, and I hope to see more significant changes as time passes.

I'm still confused by this argument. How would an advisory council be any different from the GA forum currently? Hypothetically, if the group is limited initially to an advisory role, how would the moderators determine whether or not the group is ready to make its own decisions? Why exactly do you distrust the forum regulars so heavily?

If you're not willing to acknowledge any problems with WA moderation, then I don't see that this is going to progress very far. You can accept there are problems and encourage us to suggest ways to fix them (as, in fairness, Sedgistan largely has been willing to); or you can say there are no problems and therefore that no fix is needed - but you can't really do both.

Saying there is a problem with Moderation is one thing. Saying that we, ourselves, are the problem is something else.

You're in effect yelling at us for not being here to yell at us. Of course we don't want to be here if all you're going to do is tell us how horrible we are.

I am annoyed by this argument. No one is yelling at anyone at a personal level. You guys don't participate in this forum. Consequently, you guys have no idea what's going on when you make rulings. In response to poor rulings, the players get upset. And then you guys respond to us by saying it's our fault for giving you a hard time? Do you really think that's fair? We obviously don't want to make any of you guys uncomfortable in this forum, but if you're going to neglect us for years, you need to have thick skin when we criticize you.

Or, for me, it's a great place to catch the proposals that showed promise but have already been deleted for a rule violation, to TG the authors the advice to post them on the GA forum.

If everyone took that approach to the silly/illegal thread, it would be very helpful. But unfortunately, that isn't the case these days for most players.

[Wrapper]

Since other mods are putting forth their opinions, while I have a few spare minutes I'll offer a couple of my own.

IMO, let the council have the final decision on all cases based on the subjective rules. Fair enough though about having a moderator act as a sort of chairperson and in that role stating that the group hasn't adequately discussed a particular aspect of the case and thereby holding back a final decision until whatever aspect causing the concern has been addressed. To prevent the council from becoming mini-mods, the overall site rules and TOS, should remain the responsibility of the moderators.

I had some misgivings about this initially, but as long as one or two moderators sit on the panel then I agree. Council rulings should not be overturned or vetoed by moderation, and moderation should only take the reins when there's an OSRS violation as Blaat suggests. Having a moderator as part of the council can steer discussion, particularly in issues with mechanics or category/strength if players on the council are not privy to stat changes, but the council's decision should be final.

I do think that game mods should continue to remove obviously illegal proposals that have not been discussed on the forum; there's no need to involve the council on those.

The Councillors should not have a special badge or forum title.

Any reason why? I can see putting their names in neon green on the forum, like we do for the mentors and issue editors, so they're easily identifiable.

Or, for me, it's a great place to catch the proposals that showed promise but have already been deleted for a rule violation, to TG the authors the advice to post them on the GA forum.

If everyone took that approach to the silly/illegal thread, it would be very helpful. But unfortunately, that isn't the case these days for most players.

I can't speak for other mods, but I pretty much ignore that thread nowadays, unless someone mentions plagiarism, which we don't always detect 100% of the time.

[Umeria]

I can see putting their names in green on the forum, like we do for the mentors and issue editors, so they're easily identifiable.

Our names are already in green... Oh, you mean neon green, turquoise, or whatever greenish color the issue editors use.

[Wrapper]

I can see putting their names in green on the forum, like we do for the mentors and issue editors, so they're easily identifiable.

Our names are already in green... Oh, you mean neon green, turquoise, or whatever greenish color the issue editors use.

Yes, that neon green, thanks.

[Mousebumples]

This is more what I was getting at. Advisory, insofar as not being the "final word" - in part, as we figure out how this new process works. Optimally, as the Council continues it's work, moderator "approval" would no longer be needed.

Basically, my view - and, again, there is disagreement here - We could start by formalizing the "advisory capacity" of respected GA players. After a period of time (a few weeks, a few months, whatever), gradually shift from being an "advisory capacity" to a more "ruling making role" with less direct moderator involvement needed.

It's a step forward, in my view, regardless, and I hope to see more significant changes as time passes.

I'm still confused by this argument. How would an advisory council be any different from the GA forum currently? Hypothetically, if the group is limited initially to an advisory role, how would the moderators determine whether or not the group is ready to make its own decisions? Why exactly do you distrust the forum regulars so heavily?

It's not "distrust of forum regulars." It's - in my mind - a measured, gradual change just because of the unknown. There's a transition on both sides here. This is something new, and while I am hopeful that it will be an excellent change, I want to set the program up to succeed, rather than giving complete access to everything right away that might end up shooting itself in the foot for an unexpected reason.

[Sciongrad]

[...] might end up shooting itself in the foot for an unexpected reason.

Such as?