Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Hannasea]

A whole forum filled with multiple threads wandering in different directions where everyone and their dog can voice an opinion, informed or not vs a selected (how, we'll leave out for now) group of vetted, dedicated players in a more focused and controlled setting where (hopefully) some kind of rules of order for voting and whatnot takes place... That's the difference, and much more valuable.

This is just sounding more and more like an "advisory body". If you find a thread too cumbersome to read, you can always come in and request that one player from each side post a brief summary of their opinion. I realize referencing the organization that ran pretty smoothly for five years is inexplicably forbidden now, but in the NSUN, that's exactly what Fris & TMGH did with the UN Security Act, which grew into the kind of sprawling debate you're mentioning here: they requested Forgottenlands and HotRodia each post their opinion, limited them to a brief word count, and then came to their decision. It worked well.* If that's all you want - condensed summaries of player opinions with no extraneous guff - then you already have that facility without any need for a special council. (It would be a lot easier for you, I'll admit, if the Illegal Proposals thread could be used for this, but sadly it isn't and as other moderators have observed, they don't even take much notice of it anymore.)

* What worked less well was in the WA, when "X Mod" unilaterally overturned that decision in a seven-word reply, the explanation of which had to be delivered by a second party months later, with no chance for player comment or input.

I think you're misunderstanding what it is I am calling for. I see the Moderator in question functioning as a president/royal in terms of the council making the ruling and then delivering it to the Mod who then gives it a looksie and publishes, or returns should there be problems.

Giving the presiding mod veto power over the decision - again, this is just shaping up to be an "advisory body".

Again, you're yelling at us for not being here to be yelled at. I get yelled at regularly in the course of my Moderation duties. That's part of being a Moderator, I accept that. But I'll be damned if I hang out in a place where just showing up I get yelled at, even when not being a Moderator.

No one is yelling. But sure, the WA is argumentative: it's a debate chamber for international politics! Topics such as abortion, nuclear disarmament and free trade are going to generate some disagreement! If someone can't handle that, then maybe they're just not a good fit for moderating the WA?

When I come in here and see how X Mod is incompetent or should have never been appointed because they know nothing... That's not saying the ruling is poor, or was decided wrong because of Y reason, that's an attack on the person.

I do not see why it cannot be both.

For example:

• the ruling to delete Non-Interference in Elections was poor;
• that ruling was decided wrongly because it's very longstanding precedent that committee duties can be expanded by a subsequent resolution;
• "X Mod" could have avoided this issue had they simply read the forum thread (the telegram on deletion suggested the author of the proposal draft the proposal in the forum...which they had been doing, for several months);
• "X Mod"'s failure to do the basic thing the moderators themselves suggest to all new players, to engage with the forum, is incompetence.

[Sedgistan]

On the name colours/badges discussion: if we have Council members delivering the ruling (which even if they don't initially, is something we would want to happen eventually), they should have a different coloured name to clearly distinguish them as someone empowered to deliver a ruling. Groups/name colours are really easy to set up, and don't need admin involvement, so there's no problems on that ground.

On the Council operating in public/private: they'd obviously need their own forum to discuss matters in; I would side with having it a private one. People are more prepared to be frank and honest in private, and less worried about "playing to the crowd", and I think that outweighs the desire for transparency. More than that, I think a public forum would stymie the development of the Council. There are behind-the-scenes things (I'm primarily thinking of category-related stats) that in the interests of the game need to remain private, but which can be extremely useful with certain legality decisions - plus there's the potential of the Council one day taking over responsibility for the development of the Category system (or coding stats for proposals if we change to that system), which wouldn't work with a public forum.

[Araraukar]

One question that just occurred to me (I need to head out, so I'll comment later on what was posted since my last post): if a moderator is going to be the "chairperson" for this council thing, and we even now struggle to have so much as one of the few GA-knowledgeable mods around at all times, how would the council make things any better? We'd still need the specific GA mod around for the council to be able to actually do anything.

[Wallenburg]

On the Council operating in public/private: they'd obviously need their own forum to discuss matters in; I would side with having it a private one. People are more prepared to be frank and honest in private, and less worried about "playing to the crowd", and I think that outweighs the desire for transparency.

I disagree entirely. I'm not sure about anyone else here, but I have no reservations about posting my genuine opinion to the General Assembly forum. Hell, the only reason I'm unwilling to be even more frank with some people is because I would get smacked with a ban. I don't see how a private forum would benefit anyone. At the very most, a "read-only" permission for nonmembers of the Council would make sense. I very much believe that such a forum, if we were to make one at all, should be public.

More than that, I think a public forum would stymie the development of the Council. There are behind-the-scenes things (I'm primarily thinking of category-related stats) that in the interests of the game need to remain private, but which can be extremely useful with certain legality decisions - plus there's the potential of the Council one day taking over responsibility for the development of the Category system (or coding stats for proposals if we change to that system), which wouldn't work with a public forum.

Well, if sensitive information were to be discussed, I can understand the use for a private Council forum, but at the moment that is far from the considerations of what this Council would do.

[Sciongrad]

On the Council operating in public/private: they'd obviously need their own forum to discuss matters in; I would side with having it a private one. People are more prepared to be frank and honest in private, and less worried about "playing to the crowd", and I think that outweighs the desire for transparency.

I disagree entirely. I'm not sure about anyone else here, but I have no reservations about posting my genuine opinion to the General Assembly forum. Hell, the only reason I'm unwilling to be even more frank with some people is because I would get smacked with a ban. I don't see how a private forum would benefit anyone. At the very most, a "read-only" permission for nonmembers of the Council would make sense. I very much believe that such a forum, if we were to make one at all, should be public.

I agree. I don't know anyone in this forum that isn't willing to make an argument, even if it's controversial - in fact, making public arguments is literally the cornerstone of this part of the game. I can understand the need for privacy if the group will discuss stats, but that isn't on the table right now.

[Excidium Planetis]

I disagree entirely. I'm not sure about anyone else here, but I have no reservations about posting my genuine opinion to the General Assembly forum. Hell, the only reason I'm unwilling to be even more frank with some people is because I would get smacked with a ban.

Here, here. Although I'm fairly sure that such an attitude actual precludes me becoming a Council member!

---

I agree that the forum should be publicly read but with posting limited only to Council Members and Mods.

I agree that there should be term limits, but they shouldn't obviously be a limit on the number of terms... simply a rule against more than two back to back terms or something.

I do not believe these Council members should be elected. A mod-appointed, player-nominated system like we have for mods right now would be best, I think.

I agree that at least one mod should be on the Council. But it would need to be someone active in the GA, and the only mod that I feel really fits that description is Wrapper.

I agree that the Council Members should serve as Mentors. If a player can't help out other players, then I don't think they have the character needed for a job such as this.

I agree that they should have fancy colors for their name. Obviously they need to be recognizable for newer players.

[Separatist Peoples]

One problem with having totally public discussions in this group is that the discussion might get bogged down by non-Council input. I don't believe that the opinions of those not in the council are without merit—quite the opposite— but having open access would make having a semblance of order difficult, and nothing really separated an ado sort board having a conversation where open input is possible from what happens on the forums right now. Throw in the possibility of discussing behind the scenes information, and a private forum of some degree is necessary, even if it's just Read Only.

[Hannasea]

It's unwise to tangle up the "resolution editor" idea, which had nothing to do with judging proposal legality but merely implementing their mechanical effects, with the idea of this Totally Not An Advisory Council, Honestly. So, setting that side:

Other than game stats, there's nothing that needs to be treated as sensitive information. So either have it a public forum, or a private forum with a "declassification" procedure whereby after, say, three months, the discussion is made public. (Previously, WA players have argued for this system for even moderator discussions, so it would be hypocritical of them not to be open to it with respect to their own discussions.) No idea on the technical feasbility, of course.

[Sciongrad]

One problem with having totally public discussions in this group is that the discussion might get bogged down by non-Council input. I don't believe that the opinions of those not in the council are without merit—quite the opposite— but having open access would make having a semblance of order difficult, and nothing really separated an ado sort board having a conversation where open input is possible from what happens on the forums right now. Throw in the possibility of discussing behind the scenes information, and a private forum of some degree is necessary, even if it's just Read Only.

When I said public forum, I meant publicly viewable. If it's possible, I envisioned a forum where only members could post but that everyone could read.

[Sedgistan]

Re "public" forums, the assumption is that posting would be limited to Council members/mods only. That's a necessity; the question is one of visibility - who can read the forum. EDIT: ninja'd on that point.

It's unwise to tangle up the "resolution editor" idea, which had nothing to do with judging proposal legality but merely implementing their mechanical effects, with the idea of this Totally Not An Advisory Council, Honestly. So, setting that side:

If we were to implement Resolution Editors, then a group of experienced, trustworthy GA experts would be exactly what we'd want for those, so it would likely be a duty added to that team. It's something to consider for the potential future development of the team, as a public forum could stymie that.

Other than game stats, there's nothing that needs to be treated as sensitive information. So either have it a public forum, or a private forum with a "declassification" procedure whereby after, say, three months, the discussion is made public. (Previously, WA players have argued for this system for even moderator discussions, so it would be hypocritical of them not to be open to it with respect to their own discussions.) No idea on the technical feasbility, of course.

"Other than game stats" is actually quite a big thing to dismiss when we're talking about Category violations. If Council members were deciding on Category violations, I would want to be able to give them information on stats that would help their decision making. I guess there could be a public forum for most discussions, and a private one for Category issues, but that gets quite messy. It's not impossible though.

Declassifying threads: possible, but probably a manual process, so not great.

[Hannasea]

"Other than game stats" is actually quite a big thing to dismiss when we're talking about Category violations. If Council members were deciding on Category violations...

...yeah, but I don't want them to. (Misspelling "aside" in my initial comment may have meant this wasn't clear.) Even the OP lists "Mechanics" as something that would remain a moderator enforcement responsibility.

I do hope the resolution editor idea remains on the table and I'm genuinely sorry my disappearance last year may have contributed to progress on it stalling, but since I don't think the council idea will work, I'm obviously going to be opposed to combining the two into one mechanism.

[Wallenburg]

"Other than game stats" is actually quite a big thing to dismiss when we're talking about Category violations. If Council members were deciding on Category violations, I would want to be able to give them information on stats that would help their decision making. I guess there could be a public forum for most discussions, and a private one for Category issues, but that gets quite messy. It's not impossible though.

Declassifying threads: possible, but probably a manual process, so not great.

Perhaps statistics information could be sent to Council members through group telegrams? If the Council is made up of 5-8 people, that would work quite well. The only problem I see with this is a potential for telegram clutter.

[Separatist Peoples]

One problem with having totally public discussions in this group is that the discussion might get bogged down by non-Council input. I don't believe that the opinions of those not in the council are without merit—quite the opposite— but having open access would make having a semblance of order difficult, and nothing really separated an ado sort board having a conversation where open input is possible from what happens on the forums right now. Throw in the possibility of discussing behind the scenes information, and a private forum of some degree is necessary, even if it's just Read Only.

When I said public forum, I meant publicly viewable. If it's possible, I envisioned a forum where only members could post but that everyone could read.

Ok. That I'm on board with.

"Other than game stats" is actually quite a big thing to dismiss when we're talking about Category violations. If Council members were deciding on Category violations, I would want to be able to give them information on stats that would help their decision making. I guess there could be a public forum for most discussions, and a private one for Category issues, but that gets quite messy. It's not impossible though.

Declassifying threads: possible, but probably a manual process, so not great.

Perhaps statistics information could be sent to Council members through group telegrams? If the Council is made up of 5-8 people, that would work quite well. The only problem I see with this is a potential for telegram clutter.

Oh, please no. That would make quoting, replying, and keeping track of dfferent "threads" miserable for the members of the council. It would be worse trying to follow the declassified version as a viewer. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

[Bananaistan]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that proposals can be ruled illegal on the basis of information not available to authors, IE stats effect on categories, or vica versa. IMO neither the moderators nor this council should rely on such hidden information to make rulings. Ergo, I'd still say a forum viewable by all but only mods and the council can post in.

because membership of this council would be a far more limited role than being a moderator, the pool of potential members far exceeds the pool of potential moderators.

Precluding delegates from serving would still disqualify a huge chunk of forum regulars, including myself, IA, Tinfect, Christian Democrats, and several others. I can't see how such a restriction wouldn't severely limit the pool of possible members.

If delegates recuse themselves when there's a conflict of interest, who's decides what is or isn't a conflict of interest? And given the power of delegates in getting proposals to vote and then to make or break the vote, isn't there always a potential conflict of interest? Or perhaps not so much a potential conflict of interest as giving judicial power to people who already wield huge legislative power and thereby fusing the legislative and judicial roles and all independence is just shot out the door immediately. I just think having delegates as members of the council muddies the waters too much.

I'm not sure how delegates would have any serious conflict of interest besides having an opinion on the resolution (albeit, which they may influence more than the average player, but the influence of their opinion on a possible ruling is not changed by their endorsement count). And I think it's easy to overstate how much influence most delegates in this forum have. The only GA delegate with a sizable endorsement count is IA. But even then, I trust players are responsible enough to recuse themselves when there might be even a shadow of a doubt over a potential conflict of interest, especially if they can be removed at any time and especially if their deliberations are public.

I'm not saying that such players should be barred from being councillors. I am saying that if they want to be councillors they should step down as delegates. To me allowing delegates onto the council is akin to allowing MPs be supreme court judges. And as a result their independence is in question from the start.

Also, we can't even agree that this is or isn't a conflict of interest so I wouldn't have anything like your confidence that they would "recuse themselves when there might be even a shadow of a doubt over a potential conflict of interest".

One question that just occurred to me (I need to head out, so I'll comment later on what was posted since my last post): if a moderator is going to be the "chairperson" for this council thing, and we even now struggle to have so much as one of the few GA-knowledgeable mods around at all times, how would the council make things any better? We'd still need the specific GA mod around for the council to be able to actually do anything.

I also agree with this. I'd say that it should be any moderator available at the time should be chairperson (btw chairperson is a far better word than monarch or president) and like a typical chairman can set the agenda, and therefore point out issues the committee may have overlooked, but should not have a veto. Aside from the vast majority of us being against the council merely being an advisory body which it would be if the moderators retain a veto over its decisions, the practicalities of having to always have a GA mod on hand to exercise this veto means it would end being a worse situation than we currently have, as pointed out here by Araruakar and previously in the thread by Tzorsland.

[Excidium Planetis]

Precluding delegates from serving would still disqualify a huge chunk of forum regulars, including myself, IA, Tinfect, Christian Democrats, and several others. I can't see how such a restriction wouldn't severely limit the pool of possible members.


I'm not sure how delegates would have any serious conflict of interest besides having an opinion on the resolution (albeit, which they may influence more than the average player, but the influence of their opinion on a possible ruling is not changed by their endorsement count). And I think it's easy to overstate how much influence most delegates in this forum have. The only GA delegate with a sizable endorsement count is IA. But even then, I trust players are responsible enough to recuse themselves when there might be even a shadow of a doubt over a potential conflict of interest, especially if they can be removed at any time and especially if their deliberations are public.

I'm not saying that such players should be barred from being councillors. I am saying that if they want to be councillors they should step down as delegates. To me allowing delegates onto the council is akin to allowing MPs be supreme court judges. And as a result their independence is in question from the start.

That is effectively barring them from being Council memberd. Most players are not delegates because they like having more votes, they are delegates because they are actice members of their regional government or are concerned with regional security. You are essentially forcing players to choose between their region or the GA. Players should not have to make that choice.

[Bananaistan]

I'm not saying that such players should be barred from being councillors. I am saying that if they want to be councillors they should step down as delegates. To me allowing delegates onto the council is akin to allowing MPs be supreme court judges. And as a result their independence is in question from the start.

That is effectively barring them from being Council memberd. Most players are not delegates because they like having more votes, they are delegates because they are actice members of their regional government or are concerned with regional security. You are essentially forcing players to choose between their region or the GA. Players should not have to make that choice.

Why not? If this council is going to be fairly important in the workings of the GA, would it really be unreasonable to suggest that for the duration of a member's term of office, they should be free of any other obligations in the game. I don't see it as a big deal to ask these select few councillors that they should choose the GA over their region (or whatever else) while they're councillors. It might avoid a subsequent situation down the line where a member whose time available to devote to the game becomes limited and then having to make a decision themselves to neglect one or the other. And none of this at all speaks to the independence or conflict of interest issues.

[Excidium Planetis]

That is effectively barring them from being Council memberd. Most players are not delegates because they like having more votes, they are delegates because they are actice members of their regional government or are concerned with regional security. You are essentially forcing players to choose between their region or the GA. Players should not have to make that choice.

Why not? If this council is going to be fairly important in the workings of the GA, would it really be unreasonable to suggest that for the duration of a member's term of office, they should be free of any other obligations in the game. I don't see it as a big deal to ask these select few councillors that they should choose the GA over their region (or whatever else) while they're councillors. It might avoid a subsequent situation down the line where a member whose time available to devote to the game becomes limited and then having to make a decision themselves to neglect one or the other. And none of this at all speaks to the independence or conflict of interest issues.

Yes, it would be unreasonable. A player who is active in leading their region affects others than just themselves when they step down. It affects everyone in their region. It is not fair to regions to force their government officials to step down just because they were appointed by mods to a rule-deciding body.

But here's a problem for you: What happens to a Council member who becomes a Delegate during their term?

[Christian Democrats]

On the name colours/badges discussion: if we have Council members delivering the ruling (which even if they don't initially, is something we would want to happen eventually), they should have a different coloured name to clearly distinguish them as someone empowered to deliver a ruling. Groups/name colours are really easy to set up, and don't need admin involvement, so there's no problems on that ground.

On the Council operating in public/private: they'd obviously need their own forum to discuss matters in; I would side with having it a private one. People are more prepared to be frank and honest in private, and less worried about "playing to the crowd", and I think that outweighs the desire for transparency. More than that, I think a public forum would stymie the development of the Council. There are behind-the-scenes things (I'm primarily thinking of category-related stats) that in the interests of the game need to remain private, but which can be extremely useful with certain legality decisions - plus there's the potential of the Council one day taking over responsibility for the development of the Category system (or coding stats for proposals if we change to that system), which wouldn't work with a public forum.

I agree with one exception. I think a moderator should deliver all decisions on behalf of the council. If necessary, it can even include a short dissent. To prevent politicking, the whole process should be anonymous (including the names of challengers).

After deliberating for two days, the Council reached the following decision 5-1:

" _________ "

The one councilor who disagreed had the following opinion:

" _________ "

Of course, every author should be given notice that the council is debating the legality of his proposal, so he can make a counterargument.

[Bananaistan]

Why not? If this council is going to be fairly important in the workings of the GA, would it really be unreasonable to suggest that for the duration of a member's term of office, they should be free of any other obligations in the game. I don't see it as a big deal to ask these select few councillors that they should choose the GA over their region (or whatever else) while they're councillors. It might avoid a subsequent situation down the line where a member whose time available to devote to the game becomes limited and then having to make a decision themselves to neglect one or the other. And none of this at all speaks to the independence or conflict of interest issues.

Yes, it would be unreasonable. A player who is active in leading their region affects others than just themselves when they step down. It affects everyone in their region. It is not fair to regions to force their government officials to step down just because they were appointed by mods to a rule-deciding body.

But here's a problem for you: What happens to a Council member who becomes a Delegate during their term?

If the individual is that indisposable to their region then they should consider whether they'd need to add this to their plate.

If a council member becomes a delegate during their term, then they resign from the council. If they inadvertently become delegate, then they can resign from the WA to and reapply immediately to clear their endorsements.

[Excidium Planetis]

Yes, it would be unreasonable. A player who is active in leading their region affects others than just themselves when they step down. It affects everyone in their region. It is not fair to regions to force their government officials to step down just because they were appointed by mods to a rule-deciding body.

But here's a problem for you: What happens to a Council member who becomes a Delegate during their term?

If the individual is that indisposable to their region then they should consider whether they'd need to add this to their plate.

Being indisposable does not always mean a huge time commitment. Plenty of people have the free time to almost solely manage a region and be involved in RP or whatever.

Also, why are you against Delegates becoming Council Members again? Is it because of their voting power, or the power they hold over their region? If the former, why does it matter for Delegates like Tinfect or Wrapper, who have 3 and 4 endorsements respectively last I checked, and thus wield practically no voting power? If the latter, are you also going to ask that ROs and Founders not be Council members?

If a council member becomes a delegate during their term, then they resign from the council. If they inadvertently become delegate, then they can resign from the WA to and reapply immediately to clear their endorsements.

IIRC, a player remains a Delegate until the next update even if they resign from the the WA. Isn't that how some raiders can get multiple delegacies within the same update?

And what happens if some players repeatedly endorse a player each time they reapply to the WA? Would that person then have to resign from the Council because of the actions of other players?

[Araraukar]

A general note: commenting on posts since I last posted here. Some of these things have/may have been addressed since then.

*snip*

*snip*

^What they said (ty to both for reading my thoughts on the matter ).

I agree that at least one mod should be on the Council. But it would need to be someone active in the GA, and the only mod that I feel really fits that description is Wrapper.

...who should be asked before being nominated, in case he knew he'll be busy in real life in the near future at least. And actually the same should apply to all nominations of council members, if the "player nominated, mod selected" will be the model for selection at least at first.

*snip*

I think a Read Only subforum (for non-councilors) has been the one suggested by most (all?) people so far. If the council was to be given extra duties later on (coding and such), then hiding it from sight might be relevant. But to begin with, I think everyone should see what's going on - if for no other reason than to engender trust among the forum regulars that this council things can really work.

It's unwise to tangle up the "resolution editor" idea, which had nothing to do with judging proposal legality but merely implementing their mechanical effects, with the idea of this Totally Not An Advisory Council, Honestly. So, setting that side:

I don't think the idea was to give the council the extra duties rightaway, but rather build up to it. As far as I've understood from various hints, the whole "resolution editor" thing isn't ready for implementation anyway.

To me allowing delegates onto the council is akin to allowing MPs be supreme court judges. And as a result their independence is in question from the start.

Well I don't know how MPs and supreme court work, but I was for 8 years in a municipal environmental board, where you could only get if you were at least a candidate in the municipal elections, which usually meant you had to be active in politics. Of course we'd need to excuse ourselves from the proceedings if the topic was something either directly (you were the one submitting the issue to the board) or hit close enough to home (relative, neighbour or business partner/boss/coworker of yours). I would thing same would/could apply to this council thing.

This could also be applied to delegates, when the resolution proposal came from someone in their region, thus solving that problem as well.

Although, all of this becomes more hairy when you add in mentoring - would you be allowed to decide on the legality of the resolution proposal that your mentoree wrote?

[States of Glory WA Office]

While I like the idea of a panel of regulars who would judge the legality of a proposal, my main concern would actually be the timing. By the time everyone reads the proposal, types up a ruling, hands it in and the rulings are checked and counted, how would we ensure that the proposal doesn't end up coming to vote or passing within that timeframe? Discards don't ever result in increased popularity for the Mods and passed resolutions can't be removed AFAIK. Perhaps there should an option to 'hold' a proposal if it is being discussed by the Council?

[Excidium Planetis]

While I like the idea of a panel of regulars who would judge the legality of a proposal, my main concern would actually be the timing. By the time everyone reads the proposal, types up a ruling, hands it in and the rulings are checked and counted, how would we ensure that the proposal doesn't end up coming to vote or passing within that timeframe? Discards don't ever result in increased popularity for the Mods and passed resolutions can't be removed AFAIK. Perhaps there should an option to 'hold' a proposal if it is being discussed by the Council?

That idea was brought up in the GA Rules Consortium, IIRC. It seemed to have decent support then. I still support it now. But it requires a change to the game code, which always complicates things.

[States of Glory WA Office]

While I like the idea of a panel of regulars who would judge the legality of a proposal, my main concern would actually be the timing. By the time everyone reads the proposal, types up a ruling, hands it in and the rulings are checked and counted, how would we ensure that the proposal doesn't end up coming to vote or passing within that timeframe? Discards don't ever result in increased popularity for the Mods and passed resolutions can't be removed AFAIK. Perhaps there should an option to 'hold' a proposal if it is being discussed by the Council?

That idea was brought up in the GA Rules Consortium, IIRC. It seemed to have decent support then. I still support it now. But it requires a change to the game code, which always complicates things.

I suppose that if the idea isn't technically feasible, the Mods could decide only to appoint people if they're likely to be active enough to post a ruling fairly quickly. However, quite a few people are going to have times where they're not as active as they usually are.

Another suggestion would be to treat inactivity as an abstention and to dismiss those who are consistently inactive, while of course giving someone the option to temporarily step down if they know that they're not going to be active.

[Christian Democrats]

I think a Read Only subforum (for non-councilors) has been the one suggested by most (all?) people so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect