NationStates

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?
Seems fine to me.

How should members of the Council be selected in the long-run?
Not by the Council, nor by mods. Both of those are limited groups, and the former would be like a POTUS handing off the presidency to his wife/friends. Probably just a general election from a group of people who check all the figurative boxes on a list of standards, as is suggested in the OP.

What, if any, checks should exist against the Council's behaviour? Consider the potential for corruption, cronyism, laziness, and mission creep.
Some version of a vote of no confidence, with the ability to call for such belong only to mods. That way, no one clogs up the system with random troll requests. The vote for no confidence should be as open as the selection process.

Which of the current rules should the Council have responsibility for enforcing?
The Responsibilities list/description looks okay.

Should Council members act as "Mentors" too?
Whatever a "Mentor" is in this context, it can probably be done by the "Mentors". The less things you're doing, the better you do them. Unless it means mentorship for the Council, in which case it seems like a good idea.

Ithreland wrote:Should Council members act as "Mentors" too?
Whatever a "Mentor" is in this context, it can probably be done by the "Mentors". The less things you're doing, the better you do them. Unless it means mentorship for the Council, in which case it seems like a good idea.

Mentors are more experienced people who specialize in helping others - in GA it would likely be mostly helping newbies learn to deal with the challenges of the forum community and proposal writing. And we don't currently have mentors in GA.

Ithreland wrote:How should members of the Council be selected in the long-run?
Not by the Council, nor by mods. Both of those are limited groups, and the former would be like a POTUS handing off the presidency to his wife/friends. Probably just a general election from a group of people who check all the figurative boxes on a list of standards, as is suggested in the OP.

Bit late for that, mate. Mods are already picking people, IIRC.

Will the voting results of GAS (and perhaps their implications) be publicised, or is the GAS a secret body?

I would prefer majority and minority opinions over mere vote counts.

Tzorsland wrote:I would prefer majority and minority opinions over mere vote counts.

Me too, at least for the most part. Although, dissenting without opinion is an established practice in some places.

Christian Democrats wrote:Me too, at least for the most part. Although, dissenting without opinion is an established practice in some places.

Also wondering if it's necessary to mark how many councilors were absent (presuming some sensible time limit is put on their voting on a case) or needed to excuse theirselves due to being too connected to the proposal at hand.

Araraukar wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Me too, at least for the most part. Although, dissenting without opinion is an established practice in some places.

Also wondering if it's necessary to mark how many councilors were absent (presuming some sensible time limit is put on their voting on a case) or needed to excuse theirselves due to being too connected to the proposal at hand.

That makes sense to me.

Araraukar wrote:Also wondering if it's necessary to mark how many councilors were absent (presuming some sensible time limit is put on their voting on a case) or needed to excuse theirselves due to being too connected to the proposal at hand.

That sounds proper, in order to determine is quorums were established for the decisions.

A quick announcement - the following people have been appointed as the six Secretariat members:

Bears Armed
Christian Democrats
Glen-Rhodes
Sciongrad
Separatist Peoples
Sierra Lyricalia

Sedgistan wrote:A quick announcement - the following people have been appointed as the six Secretariat members:

Bears Armed
Christian Democrats
Glen-Rhodes
Sciongrad
Separatist Peoples
Sierra Lyricalia

Congratulations to all! When can we set a meeting?

P.S. Nice new color scheme for the Secretariat.

Sedgistan wrote:A quick announcement - the following people have been appointed as the six Secretariat members:

Bears Armed
Christian Democrats
Glen-Rhodes
Sciongrad
Separatist Peoples
Sierra Lyricalia

Grats to all those chosen. Almost glad I wasn't picked, since it means I don't have to worry about helping others with their proposals making me ineligible for votes.

Sedgistan wrote:A quick announcement - the following people have been appointed as the six Secretariat members:

Bears Armed
Christian Democrats
Glen-Rhodes
Sciongrad
Separatist Peoples
Sierra Lyricalia

While I send my congratulations - I have my reservations on particular members on this list.

Glen-Rhodes as a nation hasn't been very much involved in the GA since eons - his latest posts on GA proposals was in May - five months ago. If we're speaking about Sandaoguo - I presume powers should be granted to that nation, and not GR.

And how will moderators and administrators ensure, that members such as Christian Democrats do not pervade his own beliefs on abortion - given his longstanding opposition to it in both RF and OA, as well as promoting anti-abortion regulation in his work as part of the GAS?

I think these issues must be dealt with - else we'll only have the GAS start on a compromised position that will only perpetuate the same distrust certain regular GA/SC members have on the modly team and a belief that the GAS members are just part of an expanded "elite" of people that do not listen (or so I get from the vibes from a certain few). It is not in anyone's benefit for such to happen.

The Elba wrote:Glen-Rhodes hasn't been very much involved in the GA since eons - his latest posts on GA proposals was in May - five months ago.

GR has been using a puppet. I think the name is Sandaoguo or something.

And how will moderators and administrators ensure, that members such as Christian Democrats do not pervade his own beliefs on abortion - given his longstanding opposition to it in both RF and OA, as well as promoting anti-abortion regulation in his work as part of the GAS?

I'm pretty sure that CD may recuse himself when abortion topics come up.

Or maybe not. I mean, the pro-choice members probably won't recuse themselves, so we need to balance it out, right?

Excidium Planetis wrote:

And how will moderators and administrators ensure, that members such as Christian Democrats do not pervade his own beliefs on abortion - given his longstanding opposition to it in both RF and OA, as well as promoting anti-abortion regulation in his work as part of the GAS?

I'm pretty sure that CD may recuse himself when abortion topics come up.

Or maybe not. I mean, the pro-choice members probably won't recuse themselves, so we need to balance it out, right?

Exactly. I think the concern was personal bias, not issue bias. Pretending unpopular viewpoints are sufficiently biased to merit exclusion will turn the GA into an echo chamber.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Exactly. I think the concern was personal bias, not issue bias. Pretending unpopular viewpoints are sufficiently biased to merit exclusion will turn the GA into an echo chamber.

Agreed.

Congrats on your selection, by the way, even though it was pretty obvious from the start, I'd say.

The Elba wrote:And how will moderators and administrators ensure, that members such as Christian Democrats do not pervade his own beliefs on abortion - given his longstanding opposition to it in both RF and OA, as well as promoting anti-abortion regulation in his work as part of the GAS?

We can start by hoping that CD (and anyone else on the Secretariat) is professional enough to keep their personal/political views from interfering with their legal views.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

The Elba wrote:Glen-Rhodes hasn't been very much involved in the GA since eons - his latest posts on GA proposals was in May - five months ago.

GR has been using a puppet. I think the name is Sandaoguo or something.

And how will moderators and administrators ensure, that members such as Christian Democrats do not pervade his own beliefs on abortion - given his longstanding opposition to it in both RF and OA, as well as promoting anti-abortion regulation in his work as part of the GAS?

I'm pretty sure that CD may recuse himself when abortion topics come up.

Or maybe not. I mean, the pro-choice members probably won't recuse themselves, so we need to balance it out, right?

1. I edited the post if you didn't realised, since it was kinda not very clear that I was pointing to Sandaoguo indeed. I believe Sandaoguo should be given the powers since GR doesn't even use GR (the nation) to post on GA as mentioned.

2. So will he or won't he? Given that it's a big topic and agenda for CD, it's a question that probably requires resolving with answers at this point before things happen. CD actively works himself and promotes on abortion topics and works with a hardline stance against it and has the active agenda to repeal OA/RP when the chance comes with members such as Ovybia. SP/Scion/Bears don't.

The Elba wrote:And how will moderators and administrators ensure, that members such as Christian Democrats do not pervade his own beliefs on abortion - given his longstanding opposition to it in both RF and OA, as well as promoting anti-abortion regulation in his work as part of the GAS?

I don't think this is fair. You're concerned that CD might let his personal views influence his legal opinions, but you're not concerned that the rest of us will be similarly biased? We're all mature and capable of determining when to recuse ourselves and when to put issue bias aside to reach a fair conclusion. CD's personal views are irrelevant.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:

I'm pretty sure that CD may recuse himself when abortion topics come up.

Or maybe not. I mean, the pro-choice members probably won't recuse themselves, so we need to balance it out, right?

Exactly. I think the concern was personal bias, not issue bias. Pretending unpopular viewpoints are sufficiently biased to merit exclusion will turn the GA into an echo chamber.

Talkistan wrote:

The Elba wrote:And how will moderators and administrators ensure, that members such as Christian Democrats do not pervade his own beliefs on abortion - given his longstanding opposition to it in both RF and OA, as well as promoting anti-abortion regulation in his work as part of the GAS?

We can start by hoping that CD (and anyone else on the Secretariat) is professional enough to keep their personal/political views from interfering with their legal views.

That actually brings up a good point.

How do anyone ensure that members of the GAS are not personally biased against others? And are there methods of redress, since now we have a GAS that is expanded in power, but of which members are not checked as thoroughly as compared to mod selection? Sparse records on warning/whatever history may not be representative of GA-related issues that might occur.

Elke and Elba wrote:CD actively works himself and promotes on abortion topics and works with a hardline stance against it and has the active agenda to repeal OA/RP when the chance comes with members such as Ovybia. SP/Scion/Bears don't.

IIRC, Sciongrad actually authored, submitted, and campaigned for a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms.

But that's besides the point. As Sciongrad pointed out, why are you not concerned about bias in the other members? I'm sure they all have views on abortion too. Why is it only CD that concerns you?

Sciongrad wrote:

The Elba wrote:And how will moderators and administrators ensure, that members such as Christian Democrats do not pervade his own beliefs on abortion - given his longstanding opposition to it in both RF and OA, as well as promoting anti-abortion regulation in his work as part of the GAS?

I don't think this is fair. You're concerned that CD might let his personal views influence his legal opinions, but you're not concerned that the rest of us will be similarly biased? We're all mature and capable of determining when to recuse ourselves and when to put issue bias aside to reach a fair conclusion. CD's personal views are irrelevant.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Elke and Elba wrote:CD actively works himself and promotes on abortion topics and works with a hardline stance against it and has the active agenda to repeal OA/RP when the chance comes with members such as Ovybia. SP/Scion/Bears don't.

IIRC, Sciongrad actually authored, submitted, and campaigned for a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms.

But that's besides the point. As Sciongrad pointed out, why are you not concerned about bias in the other members? I'm sure they all have views on abortion too. Why is it only CD that concerns you?

Because CD has a history of intertwining into abortion arguments regardless of forum (be it GA or General or elsewhere), and there are more evidence about bias than not.

What does it say when more than 10% of CD's posts on the NationStates forum have to do with abortion? We're not taking about 10, nor 50. It's almost a thousand.

Elke and Elba wrote:Because CD has a history of intertwining into abortion arguments regardless of forum (be it GA or General or elsewhere), and there are more evidence about bias than not.

What does it say when more than 10% of CD's posts on the NationStates forum have to do with abortion? We're not taking about 10, nor 50. It's almost a thousand.

And? CD is merely more outspoken about his views. Any of the other 5 council members has an opinion on abortion, I'm sure. It could even be a strong one.

I think it is actually better that CD has made so many posts about his views. At least we know he has a bias. We don't really know with the others.

Elke and Elba wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:I don't think this is fair. You're concerned that CD might let his personal views influence his legal opinions, but you're not concerned that the rest of us will be similarly biased? We're all mature and capable of determining when to recuse ourselves and when to put issue bias aside to reach a fair conclusion. CD's personal views are irrelevant.

Excidium Planetis wrote:IIRC, Sciongrad actually authored, submitted, and campaigned for a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms.

But that's besides the point. As Sciongrad pointed out, why are you not concerned about bias in the other members? I'm sure they all have views on abortion too. Why is it only CD that concerns you?

Because CD has a history of intertwining into abortion arguments regardless of forum (be it GA or General or elsewhere), and there are more evidence about bias than not.

What does it say when more than 10% of CD's posts on the NationStates forum have to do with abortion? We're not taking about 10, nor 50. It's almost a thousand.

Why does it matter? We all bring some element of political bias. Our decisions are ultimately shaped by our worldview. CD's worldview diverges on this topic. That doesn't make him biased, it makes us diverse.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Elke and Elba wrote:Because CD has a history of intertwining into abortion arguments regardless of forum (be it GA or General or elsewhere), and there are more evidence about bias than not.

What does it say when more than 10% of CD's posts on the NationStates forum have to do with abortion? We're not taking about 10, nor 50. It's almost a thousand.

And? CD is merely more outspoken about his views. Any of the other 5 council members has an opinion on abortion, I'm sure. It could even be a strong one.

I think it is actually better that CD has made so many posts about his views. At least we know he has a bias. We don't really know with the others.

I do agree that everyone has an opinion on anything and everything. That's a given.

How will each member actually make sure that they don't show their bias, or cancel the bias? Don't vote at all? That doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I still do believe there's a conflict of interest with CD's appointment, even without regard of his stance on abortion. As a delegate of a region, how is he expected to vote? Vote according to the region's wishes? Don't vote because of conflict of interest? Don't be on GAS?