Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat

[Gruenberg]

I don't understand this. Do you believe that GenSec members shouldn't be allowed to play the game like everyone else? Proposing and voting on repeals is a right that should apply to all WA members. Removing the rules would also be catastrophic.

Granting the responsibilities and power of GenSec to 4-6 members is a mistake. People in the forums love to quote historicity as arguments, which, in this case, would serve to justify a system with severe power imbalances that depends on the time and good will of 4-6 people. Who chose GenSec? Doesn’t the World Assembly proclaim itself a democracy? Why don’t we get all GA Resolution Authors involved in the process of legality votes, without a top-down system? Elections and term limits? Nah, nation X is a GenSec since 20XX BCE, so why change?
Removing the rules would not be catastrophic - the worst resolutions that manage to dodge the rules are voted down. Several “poorly written” or “outdated” resolutions are repealed by authors. What this community could do to minimally improve is decentralize the verification of contradictions. If a resolution contradicts another, then enlarge the pool of members that can input a check and vote on a contradiction (GA authors with passed resolutions?). Finally, let more resolutions be voted, by reducing the time at vote. Most of the other rules are meant to maintain a closed-doors status quo, some of which were failed to be clarified, or consist in dark room legality decisions. All of this to keep this current that is unbothered to be changed, in code and in reception of new authors.

Completely agreed.

---

Remind me, are AI-written proposals really not illegal?

[Pacific Haven]

Granting the responsibilities and power of GenSec to 4-6 members is a mistake. People in the forums love to quote historicity as arguments, which, in this case, would serve to justify a system with severe power imbalances that depends on the time and good will of 4-6 people. Who chose GenSec? Doesn’t the World Assembly proclaim itself a democracy? Why don’t we get all GA Resolution Authors involved in the process of legality votes, without a top-down system? Elections and term limits? Nah, nation X is a GenSec since 20XX BCE, so why change?
Removing the rules would not be catastrophic - the worst resolutions that manage to dodge the rules are voted down. Several “poorly written” or “outdated” resolutions are repealed by authors. What this community could do to minimally improve is decentralize the verification of contradictions. If a resolution contradicts another, then enlarge the pool of members that can input a check and vote on a contradiction (GA authors with passed resolutions?). Finally, let more resolutions be voted, by reducing the time at vote. Most of the other rules are meant to maintain a closed-doors status quo, some of which were failed to be clarified, or consist in dark room legality decisions. All of this to keep this current that is unbothered to be changed, in code and in reception of new authors.

Completely agreed.

---

Remind me, are AI-written proposals really not illegal?

It would most likely fall under plagiarism, as it isn't your own work.

[Kenmoria]

Granting the responsibilities and power of GenSec to 4-6 members is a mistake. People in the forums love to quote historicity as arguments, which, in this case, would serve to justify a system with severe power imbalances that depends on the time and good will of 4-6 people. Who chose GenSec? Doesn’t the World Assembly proclaim itself a democracy? Why don’t we get all GA Resolution Authors involved in the process of legality votes, without a top-down system? Elections and term limits? Nah, nation X is a GenSec since 20XX BCE, so why change?
Removing the rules would not be catastrophic - the worst resolutions that manage to dodge the rules are voted down. Several “poorly written” or “outdated” resolutions are repealed by authors. What this community could do to minimally improve is decentralize the verification of contradictions. If a resolution contradicts another, then enlarge the pool of members that can input a check and vote on a contradiction (GA authors with passed resolutions?). Finally, let more resolutions be voted, by reducing the time at vote. Most of the other rules are meant to maintain a closed-doors status quo, some of which were failed to be clarified, or consist in dark room legality decisions. All of this to keep this current that is unbothered to be changed, in code and in reception of new authors.

Completely agreed.

---

Remind me, are AI-written proposals really not illegal?

There was a discussion in Moderation about that here. Use of AI to generate proposals, though usually resulting in some illegality or other by virtue of ChatGPT being ChatGPT, is not considered plagiarism.

[Gruenberg]

There was a discussion in Moderation about that here. Use of AI to generate proposals, though usually resulting in some illegality or other by virtue of ChatGPT being ChatGPT, is not considered plagiarism.

Thanks. Shit rule but I guess plagiarism stuff is out of your hands anyway.

[Wallenburg]

I've taken what opportunities I can to discourage computer-generated text, but ultimately it isn't up to me or any other pink guys.

[Urgench]

OOC: As a matter of interest, the current repeal at vote explicitly states that the repeal is based on the fact that subsequent resolutions have amended the resolution up for repeal, to such an extent that the resolution is effectively rendered defunct. Are the rules around amendment and contradiction no longer enforced or have they be done away with? Or are there new moderation guidelines on that?

[The Ice States]

OOC: As a matter of interest, the current repeal at vote explicitly states that the repeal is based on the fact that subsequent resolutions have amended the resolution up for repeal, to such an extent that the resolution is effectively rendered defunct. Are the rules around amendment and contradiction no longer enforced or have they be done away with? Or are there new moderation guidelines on that?

I don't think what it's stating is that the target is amended, but rather that additional protections have been imposed on top of it (obviously without engaging in contradiction). Amendment and Contradiction remain illegal.

[Urgench]

OOC: As a matter of interest, the current repeal at vote explicitly states that the repeal is based on the fact that subsequent resolutions have amended the resolution up for repeal, to such an extent that the resolution is effectively rendered defunct. Are the rules around amendment and contradiction no longer enforced or have they be done away with? Or are there new moderation guidelines on that?

I don't think what it's stating is that the target is amended, but rather that additional protections have been imposed on top of it (obviously without engaging in contradiction). Amendment and Contradiction remain illegal.

OOC: interesting. I'm not sure what "additional protections imposed on top of" could really qualify as if not amendments. But given what you're saying that would appear to be something to hash out in character in debate.

[The Ice States]

I don't think what it's stating is that the target is amended, but rather that additional protections have been imposed on top of it (obviously without engaging in contradiction). Amendment and Contradiction remain illegal.

OOC: interesting. I'm not sure what "additional protections imposed on top of" could really qualify as if not amendments. But given what you're saying that would appear to be something to hash out in character in debate.

It simply means that a resolution protects something topically related to what another resolution does. This is not an Amendment. See [2017] GAS 1.

[Urgench]

oes. This is not an Amendment. See [2017] GAS 1.

OOC: That ruling appears not to be in relation to the argument of a repeal. The argument of this repeal goes so far as to say that additional resolutions have rendered the resolution to be repealed useless. Additional provisions which go that far could hardly be regarded as anything other than amendments surely? So the repeal is making an argument that states as fact that one resolution has been amended into irrelevance. This is extremely messy. Either the Gen Sec makes rulings on what qualifies as amendment or contradition or repeals do no? Or is it now customary for the dogs on the street to decide this stuff?

[The Ice States]

oes. This is not an Amendment. See [2017] GAS 1.

OOC: That ruling appears not to be in relation to the argument of a repeal. The argument of this repeal goes so far as to say that additional resolutions have rendered the resolution to be repealed useless. Additional provisions which go that far could hardly be regarded as anything other than amendments surely? So the repeal is making an argument that states as fact that one resolution has been amended into irrelevance. This is extremely messy. Either the Gen Sec makes rulings on what qualifies as amendment or contradition or repeals do no? Or is it now customary for the dogs on the street to decide this stuff?

Unless a resolution is literally trying to change what a prior one does, just imposing additional protections is still not an Amendment. You might have an argument for Duplication, but the burden for that is quite high.

[Kenmoria]

oes. This is not an Amendment. See [2017] GAS 1.

OOC: That ruling appears not to be in relation to the argument of a repeal. The argument of this repeal goes so far as to say that additional resolutions have rendered the resolution to be repealed useless. Additional provisions which go that far could hardly be regarded as anything other than amendments surely? So the repeal is making an argument that states as fact that one resolution has been amended into irrelevance. This is extremely messy. Either the Gen Sec makes rulings on what qualifies as amendment or contradition or repeals do no? Or is it now customary for the dogs on the street to decide this stuff?

There are a few different issues at play here. First, the Amendment Rule is primarily about a resolution purporting to change the text of a previous resolution. A very obvious example would be a clause as follows: “The third clause of GA #XXX shall be altered to remove ‘not’ from ‘The General Assembly shall not be allowed to directly collect tax from its members for any purpose’.” That is a clear violation of the Amendment Rule. If a resolution were to implicitly attempt to alter what a passed resolution did, that would also qualify, but it has to actually try to change the effect of passed legislation.

Second, there is the matter of what decides what constitutes legality. GenSec is what does that. It used to be the Moderators, but now it is GenSec. The Amendment Rule, Duplication Rule, and Contradiction Rule are all in the purview of GenSec, and there is nothing apart from GenSec that presently rules on said matters. A repeal, in fact, cannot argue that a passed resolution is illegal, because it is considered that all passed resolutions are legal by default. Legality is a wholly different matter to the grounds on which repeals are argued, which tend to focus on the substantive matters of what the target did and the procedural matters of how the target did it.

Third, we come to the overall matter, which is whether the target is making an intelligible claim. Yes, the target does so. Though one can argue about whether it is persuasive, the target claims that past legislation has become obsolete because of newer protections. The Duplication Rule has quite limited scope, so it is entirely possible that an older piece of legislation is covered, in chunks, by many newer pieces to such an extent that the older resolution is simply redundant. This can happen entirely legally, and it is very reasonable to use such a situation as a rationale to repeal the outdated predecessor. Whether this is convincing is up to the voters.

[Urgench]

Third, we come to the overall matter, which is whether the target is making an intelligible claim. Yes, the target does so. Though one can argue about whether it is persuasive, the target claims that past legislation has become obsolete because of newer protections. The Duplication Rule has quite limited scope, so it is entirely possible that an older piece of legislation is covered, in chunks, by many newer pieces to such an extent that the older resolution is simply redundant. This can happen entirely legally, and it is very reasonable to use such a situation as a rationale to repeal the outdated predecessor. Whether this is convincing is up to the voters.

This is literally the only matter Im really trying to understand here. I don't have any opinion about what is or isn't duplication or amendment or contradiction in this instance.

So to be clear, the Gen Sec make rulings on what counts or does not count as a violation of the rules. Members of the Gen Sec can then pass resolutions based on their own rulings collectively rendering other resolutions redundant, and then repeal those resolutions and replace them with resolutions of their own authorship and then the Gen Sec would be the final authority on whether any part of that process is legal. That puts rather a lot of power over the legisaltive process of the WA in the hands of the Gen Sec while having devolved interpretation of the rules meant to govern the whole process into the hands of the Gen Sec. Is there any kind of check or balance in this whole structure?

[Kenmoria]

So to be clear, the Gen Sec make rulings on what counts or does not count as a violation of the rules.

Yes, this is correct. Providing clarity about the way that the rules operate and then ruling based on the rules is the function of GenSec.

Members of the Gen Sec can then pass resolutions based on their own rulings collectively rendering other resolutions redundant, and then repeal those resolutions and replace them with resolutions of their own authorship and then the Gen Sec would be the final authority on whether any part of that process is legal.

This is not how GenSec works, however. In the queue, currently, there are three proposals, and these are all marked as legal. That is because GenSec has found that these do not violate the rules. If, however, there were some that violated the rules, then GenSec would mark those as such.

In the comparatively rare event that a proposal reaches vote, but GenSec realises that the proposal is illegal, GenSec tells the Moderators that the proposal needs to be disregarded due to illegality. At no point does GenSec, in an official capacity, pass a resolution. The procedure doesn’t work through passing resolutions that declare that previous ones are illegal, but through preventing illegal proposals from reaching vote and, if that happens, telling Moderators that a proposal is illegal. Members of GenSec are still players, so we can pass repeals for other reasons, but this is unconnected to any work as GenSec. Repeals are certainly not the avenue for dealing with illegality.

That puts rather a lot of power over the legisaltive process of the WA in the hands of the Gen Sec while having devolved interpretation of the rules meant to govern the whole process into the hands of the Gen Sec. Is there any kind of check or balance in this whole structure?

It is not really a legislative power. GenSec don’t get any advantages in passing legislation or whether legal proposals pass or fail. The domain of GenSec is solely constrained to legality. As to whether there is a check or a balance, that falls to the Moderators, and by extension to Admin. If GenSec went completely off the rails, then that would be remedy, though this has, to my knowledge, never actually happened.

[Urgench]

This is not how GenSec works, however. In the queue, currently, there are three proposals, and these are all marked as legal. That is because GenSec has found that these do not violate the rules. If, however, there were some that violated the rules, then GenSec would mark those as such.
In the comparatively rare event that a proposal reaches vote, but GenSec realises that the proposal is illegal, GenSec tells the Moderators that the proposal needs to be disregarded due to illegality. At no point does GenSec, in an official capacity, pass a resolution. The procedure doesn’t work through passing resolutions that declare that previous ones are illegal, but through preventing illegal proposals from reaching vote and, if that happens, telling Moderators that a proposal is illegal. Members of GenSec are still players, so we can pass repeals for other reasons, but this is unconnected to any work as GenSec.

So you don't see any possible problem with a player of a game also having the power to decide how the rules of the game are applied to other players?

Repeals are certainly not the avenue for dealing with illegality.

I didn't say they were. But I did say that having the power to wear one hat that gives you the power to make official rulings on the way the game is played then taking off that hat and using your own rulings to play the game wearing your player hat is dubious sounding at best.

It is not really a legislative power. GenSec don’t get any advantages in passing legislation or whether legal proposals pass or fail. The domain of GenSec is solely constrained to legality. As to whether there is a check or a balance, that falls to the Moderators, and by extension to Admin. If GenSec went completely off the rails, then that would be remedy, though this has, to my knowledge, never actually happened.

So there's no correlation between being part of the secretariat and how many resolutions one might have passed? I'm not saying that this counts as "completely off the rails" but it does make me extremely wary about seeking rulings, or expecting actual impartiality in how the rules are being interpreted by the Gen Sec. The WA is a game within the game. Some play it because they enjoy wracking up passed resolutions with their name attached. You're saying you don't think there's any reason a player like that might also want to be a Gen Sec member or find being Gen Sec kind of useful to that aim? Being a player and a ref at the same time... there's no way that their rulings could possibly contribute to their own competitive success at passing resolutions regardless of whether those rulings are really fair or good faith interpretations of the rules?


You don't think any of this sounds like a closed shop and an uneven playing field?

[Kenmoria]

This is not how GenSec works, however. In the queue, currently, there are three proposals, and these are all marked as legal. That is because GenSec has found that these do not violate the rules. If, however, there were some that violated the rules, then GenSec would mark those as such.
In the comparatively rare event that a proposal reaches vote, but GenSec realises that the proposal is illegal, GenSec tells the Moderators that the proposal needs to be disregarded due to illegality. At no point does GenSec, in an official capacity, pass a resolution. The procedure doesn’t work through passing resolutions that declare that previous ones are illegal, but through preventing illegal proposals from reaching vote and, if that happens, telling Moderators that a proposal is illegal. Members of GenSec are still players, so we can pass repeals for other reasons, but this is unconnected to any work as GenSec.

So you don't see any possible problem with a player of a game also having the power to decide how the rules of the game are applied to other players?

It’s for the same reasons, approximately, that Moderators are also allowed to play the game. Otherwise, nobody would want to be part of GenSec, and the active playerbase would dwindle as the players best acquainted with the rules were forced to stop playing.

Repeals are certainly not the avenue for dealing with illegality.

I didn't say they were. But I did say that having the power to wear one hat that gives you the power to make official rulings on the way the game is played then taking off that hat and using your own rulings to play the game wearing your player hat is dubious sounding at best.

It isn’t possible for a member of GenSec to use his or her own rulings to play the game, particularly, since all players must abide by the rules. It’s not as though it’s possible for a member of GenSec to rule a proposal illegal simply on the grounds of disliking it or because it contradicts with that member’s plan for a replacement. And, of course, members of GenSec are not allowed to rule on their own proposals, nor on proposals that they coauthored, nor on proposals where there is enough of a connexion to establish a risk of apparent bias.

It is not really a legislative power. GenSec don’t get any advantages in passing legislation or whether legal proposals pass or fail. The domain of GenSec is solely constrained to legality. As to whether there is a check or a balance, that falls to the Moderators, and by extension to Admin. If GenSec went completely off the rails, then that would be remedy, though this has, to my knowledge, never actually happened.

So there's no correlation between being part of the secretariat and how many resolutions one might have passed? I'm not saying that this counts as "completely off the rails" but it does make me extremely wary about seeking rulings, or expecting actual impartiality in how the rules are being interpreted by the Gen Sec. The WA is a game within the game. Some play it because they enjoy wracking up passed resolutions with their name attached. You're saying you don't think there's any reason a player like that might also want to be a Gen Sec member or find being Gen Sec kind of useful to that aim? Being a player and a ref at the same time... there's no way that their rulings could possibly contribute to their own competitive success at passing resolutions regardless of whether those rulings are really fair or good faith interpretations of the rules?


You don't think any of this sounds like a closed shop and an uneven playing field?

There is certainly a correlation between resolutions passed and membership on GenSec, since the average number of proposals passed by a player of NationStates is very close to zero. However, there isn’t much of a powerful causation. Members of GenSec are appointed based on a variety of criteria, but these are all rooted in how well that member can be expected to provide clarity to the ruleset, not on skill in passing proposals. For example, I am not very good at it. I only have two actual authorships. It is also worth remembering that nobody self-nominates for GenSec, but rather is nominated by someone else, and that exploiting the rules to gain a competitive edge isn’t something that is really possible, at least not directly, seeing as one cannot rule on one’s own proposal.

With all that said, there are players who have very respectable arguments against the concept of GenSec. I hadn’t even heard of NationStates when GenSec was first introduced to the game, but I believe that the introduction was somewhat controversial. Though I wouldn’t consider possible bias to be among the most useful arguments in that direction, there are definitely others that are worth some consideration. A discussion about the merits of GenSec as a whole might belong in a separate thread, however.

[West Barack and East Obama]

It’s for the same reasons, approximately, that Moderators are also allowed to play the game. Otherwise, nobody would want to be part of GenSec, and the active playerbase would dwindle as the players best acquainted with the rules were forced to stop playing.

Being a moderator doesn't directly impact how one plays the game though, as they deal with warnings and DEATing and housekeeping. For example, a mod who participates in II or NationStates Sport or NSG or PT2M would not gain any kind of edge through their moderation actions. However, the GenSec decides the rules and its interpretations, which affects their ability to play the game as players. There is a direct effect.

It isn’t possible for a member of GenSec to use his or her own rulings to play the game, particularly, since all players must abide by the rules. It’s not as though it’s possible for a member of GenSec to rule a proposal illegal simply on the grounds of disliking it or because it contradicts with that member’s plan for a replacement. And, of course, members of GenSec are not allowed to rule on their own proposals, nor on proposals that they coauthored, nor on proposals where there is enough of a connexion to establish a risk of apparent bias.

A GenSec can put forth an interpretation of the rules in a legality challenge that benefits their personal stance more. (Disclaimer: the following example provided is for example's sake. It is not meant to single out a GenSec member or accuse them or the rest of the team of wrongdoing). For example, a recent rule change was put forth by a GenSec member to clarify the metagaming rule, who as a non-member previously asked for discussion on overturning the precedent set by the defeat of a legality challenge they filed earlier. As a result of the overturn, their GenSec position benefitted a stance they held before they joined the team.

I'm not advocating for any changes or anything (trying to hamstring the GenSec to prevent them from benefitting themselves in any implicit way possible would be infeasible and undesirable), but there needs to be an acceptance of the fact that GenSec can benefit themselves as a result of holding their position.

[The Ice States]

This is not how GenSec works, however. In the queue, currently, there are three proposals, and these are all marked as legal. That is because GenSec has found that these do not violate the rules. If, however, there were some that violated the rules, then GenSec would mark those as such.
In the comparatively rare event that a proposal reaches vote, but GenSec realises that the proposal is illegal, GenSec tells the Moderators that the proposal needs to be disregarded due to illegality. At no point does GenSec, in an official capacity, pass a resolution. The procedure doesn’t work through passing resolutions that declare that previous ones are illegal, but through preventing illegal proposals from reaching vote and, if that happens, telling Moderators that a proposal is illegal. Members of GenSec are still players, so we can pass repeals for other reasons, but this is unconnected to any work as GenSec.

So you don't see any possible problem with a player of a game also having the power to decide how the rules of the game are applied to other players?

You don't think any of this sounds like a closed shop and an uneven playing field?

This is frankly Bitely-level discourse. Gensec members can and do recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest, and a Gensec member cannot rule on their own proposals; it is certainly possible for a Gensec member's proposal to be found illegal. Absent such situations, I fail to see how it is problematic for Gensec members to still be able to play the site. If anything, barring Gensec members from participating as players would harm the community more than anything else, and make it significantly more inactive, as members of the Secretariat are often among the most active participants.

So there's no correlation between being part of the secretariat and how many resolutions one might have passed? I'm not saying that this counts as "completely off the rails" but it does make me extremely wary about seeking rulings, or expecting actual impartiality in how the rules are being interpreted by the Gen Sec. The WA is a game within the game. Some play it because they enjoy wracking up passed resolutions with their name attached. You're saying you don't think there's any reason a player like that might also want to be a Gen Sec member or find being Gen Sec kind of useful to that aim? Being a player and a ref at the same time... there's no way that their rulings could possibly contribute to their own competitive success at passing resolutions regardless of whether those rulings are really fair or good faith interpretations of the rules?

I acknowledge that there is indeed a correlation in that Gensec members tend to have passed more resolutions than other players, but this is not because Gensec membership allows one to write more resolutions, but rather the reverse, ie the most prolific authors tend to have the qualities required for Gensec, and so Gensec members are often those who are already prolific. Gensec membership if anything reduces authorship frequency due to time commitments for the role. The vast majority of resolutions are not written by members of Gensec (at the time). [1] (percentage is over 25-resolution periods).

A GenSec can put forth an interpretation of the rules in a legality challenge that benefits their personal stance more. (Disclaimer: the following example provided is for example's sake. It is not meant to single out a GenSec member or accuse them or the rest of the team of wrongdoing). For example, a recent rule change was put forth by a GenSec member to clarify the metagaming rule, who as a non-member previously asked for discussion on overturning the precedent set by the defeat of a legality challenge they filed earlier. As a result of the overturn, their GenSec position benefitted a stance they held before they joined the team.

As the said Gensec member, I challenged the proposal, initiated the said discussion, and pushed for the said rule change because of a strong belief in the relevant rule, not because of a benefit to me as a player. _{(NB: If it were to have even reached quorum, which it did not, it had next-to-no chance of passing. Even so a rule change two years later would not have conferred some kind of retroactive benefit).} Obviously opinions on the rules are relevant to a position in charge of enforcing and maintaining the ruleset. At best this does not engage with Kenmoria's argument which you replied to (ie that "[i]t isn’t possible for a member of GenSec to use his or her own rulings to play the game"). This distinction is even noted in the recusal guidelines (emphasis mine),

Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against a proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. Past expressed opinions on rule interpretations do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

[Urgench]

So you don't see any possible problem with a player of a game also having the power to decide how the rules of the game are applied to other players?

You don't think any of this sounds like a closed shop and an uneven playing field?

This is frankly Bitely-level discourse. Gensec members can and do recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest, and a Gensec member cannot rule on their own proposals; it is certainly possible for a Gensec member's proposal to be found illegal. Absent such situations, I fail to see how it is problematic for Gensec members to still be able to play the site. If anything, barring Gensec members from participating as players would harm the community more than anything else, and make it significantly more inactive, as members of the Secretariat are often among the most active participants.

So there's no correlation between being part of the secretariat and how many resolutions one might have passed? I'm not saying that this counts as "completely off the rails" but it does make me extremely wary about seeking rulings, or expecting actual impartiality in how the rules are being interpreted by the Gen Sec. The WA is a game within the game. Some play it because they enjoy wracking up passed resolutions with their name attached. You're saying you don't think there's any reason a player like that might also want to be a Gen Sec member or find being Gen Sec kind of useful to that aim? Being a player and a ref at the same time... there's no way that their rulings could possibly contribute to their own competitive success at passing resolutions regardless of whether those rulings are really fair or good faith interpretations of the rules?

I acknowledge that there is indeed a correlation in that Gensec members tend to have passed more resolutions than other players, but this is not because Gensec membership allows one to write more resolutions, but rather the reverse, ie the most prolific authors tend to have the qualities required for Gensec, and so Gensec members are often those who are already prolific. Gensec membership if anything reduces authorship frequency due to time commitments for the role. The vast majority of resolutions are not written by members of Gensec (at the time). [1] (percentage is over 25-resolution periods).

A GenSec can put forth an interpretation of the rules in a legality challenge that benefits their personal stance more. (Disclaimer: the following example provided is for example's sake. It is not meant to single out a GenSec member or accuse them or the rest of the team of wrongdoing). For example, a recent rule change was put forth by a GenSec member to clarify the metagaming rule, who as a non-member previously asked for discussion on overturning the precedent set by the defeat of a legality challenge they filed earlier. As a result of the overturn, their GenSec position benefitted a stance they held before they joined the team.

As the said Gensec member, I challenged the proposal, initiated the said discussion, and pushed for the said rule change because of a strong belief in the relevant rule, not because of a benefit to me as a player. _{(NB: If it were to have even reached quorum, which it did not, it had next-to-no chance of passing. Even so a rule change two years later would not have conferred some kind of retroactive benefit).} Obviously opinions on the rules are relevant to a position in charge of enforcing and maintaining the ruleset. At best this does not engage with Kenmoria's argument which you replied to (ie that "[i]t isn’t possible for a member of GenSec to use his or her own rulings to play the game"). This distinction is even noted in the recusal guidelines (emphasis mine),

Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against a proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. Past expressed opinions on rule interpretations do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

And this was Glen Rhodes level sophistry. It's incredibly telling to me that responsible for the ruling on amendment and contradiction (coincidentally) quoted to me earlier in this discussion are two of the most unscrupulous, plainly deceitful, dissembling, strategicly calculating players who have ever played in the WA (in my extensive experience). Two players less suitable for the role and more liable to abuse it for entirely self-serving aims I could scarcely conceive of. And I mean that in the most OOC way possible. Their characters are in my opinion so disreputable as to make any of their rulings on legalities comically unreliable. It's not in the least bit surprising to me that they ruled on that matter as they did.

But yes, I'm sure the conventions on recusal are more than sufficient to have prevented the Gen Sec from having been thoroughly exploited for personal gain by power tripping players on a mission to gain as many plaudits as possible while disadvantaging any players they see as their opposition.

Anyway, as Kenmoria pointed out I think we're straying into territory better suited for another thread, so by all means reply if you want to but I'm going to consider my contribution to this discussion at an end. I thank you for taking the time to respond though, and I'll certainly keep all of this in mind in future.

[Isabella van der Feltz]

But yes, I'm sure the conventions on recusal are more than sufficient to have prevented the Gen Sec from having been thoroughly exploited for personal gain by power tripping players on a mission to gain as many plaudits as possible while disadvantaging any players they see as their opposition.

Just to clarify, from reading your very emotional post, so you're basically saying that Magecastle/Ice States is "corrupt" and "power tripping"?

[Urgench]

But yes, I'm sure the conventions on recusal are more than sufficient to have prevented the Gen Sec from having been thoroughly exploited for personal gain by power tripping players on a mission to gain as many plaudits as possible while disadvantaging any players they see as their opposition.

Just to clarify, from reading your very emotional post, so you're basically saying that Magecastle/Ice States is "corrupt" and "power tripping"?

Nope, not at all. I don't know Ice States like that, and if I did mean to say that I would have said it explicitly. There was no particular emotion in my post. Some incredulity perhaps.

[Kenmoria]

Being a moderator doesn't directly impact how one plays the game though, as they deal with warnings and DEATing and housekeeping. For example, a mod who participates in II or NationStates Sport or NSG or PT2M would not gain any kind of edge through their moderation actions. However, the GenSec decides the rules and its interpretations, which affects their ability to play the game as players. There is a direct effect.

My point about the similarity between GenSec and the Moderators was that it wouldn’t be possible to exclude either from the game due to dwindling participation, not that the two have similar roles. GenSec’s role is definitely more tied to the business of legislating than Moderation’s is to the business of international incidents, sports, or portalling to the multiverse.

A GenSec can put forth an interpretation of the rules in a legality challenge that benefits their personal stance more. (Disclaimer: the following example provided is for example's sake. It is not meant to single out a GenSec member or accuse them or the rest of the team of wrongdoing). For example, a recent rule change was put forth by a GenSec member to clarify the metagaming rule, who as a non-member previously asked for discussion on overturning the precedent set by the defeat of a legality challenge they filed earlier. As a result of the overturn, their GenSec position benefitted a stance they held before they joined the team.

I'm not advocating for any changes or anything (trying to hamstring the GenSec to prevent them from benefitting themselves in any implicit way possible would be infeasible and undesirable), but there needs to be an acceptance of the fact that GenSec can benefit themselves as a result of holding their position.

That’s fair. I was thinking of more quantifiable in terms of passing resolutions and the like, rather than changes to the rules as being a benefit. It is certainly true that being part of GenSec helps someone to alter the ruleset. With regard to the rest of your post, I don’t particularly disagree.

[Verdant Haven]

And this was Glen Rhodes level sophistry. It's incredibly telling to me that responsible for the ruling on amendment and contradiction (coincidentally) quoted to me earlier in this discussion are two of the most unscrupulous, plainly deceitful, dissembling, strategicly calculating players who have ever played in the WA (in my extensive experience). Two players less suitable for the role and more liable to abuse it for entirely self-serving aims I could scarcely conceive of. And I mean that in the most OOC way possible. Their characters are in my opinion so disreputable as to make any of their rulings on legalities comically unreliable. It's not in the least bit surprising to me that they ruled on that matter as they did.

Discussions and disagreements about rules and procedures are absolutely fine.

Blatant and deliberate personal attacks on players are absolutely not.

Urgench: *** Warned for Flaming ***

[Yelda]

And I mean that in the most OOC way possible.

Pssst. Better watch what you say and who you say it about. Speech is restricted here.

[Separatist Peoples]

This is frankly Bitely-level discourse. Gensec members can and do recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest, and a Gensec member cannot rule on their own proposals; it is certainly possible for a Gensec member's proposal to be found illegal. Absent such situations, I fail to see how it is problematic for Gensec members to still be able to play the site. If anything, barring Gensec members from participating as players would harm the community more than anything else, and make it significantly more inactive, as members of the Secretariat are often among the most active participants.


I acknowledge that there is indeed a correlation in that Gensec members tend to have passed more resolutions than other players, but this is not because Gensec membership allows one to write more resolutions, but rather the reverse, ie the most prolific authors tend to have the qualities required for Gensec, and so Gensec members are often those who are already prolific. Gensec membership if anything reduces authorship frequency due to time commitments for the role. The vast majority of resolutions are not written by members of Gensec (at the time). [1] (percentage is over 25-resolution periods).


As the said Gensec member, I challenged the proposal, initiated the said discussion, and pushed for the said rule change because of a strong belief in the relevant rule, not because of a benefit to me as a player. _{(NB: If it were to have even reached quorum, which it did not, it had next-to-no chance of passing. Even so a rule change two years later would not have conferred some kind of retroactive benefit).} Obviously opinions on the rules are relevant to a position in charge of enforcing and maintaining the ruleset. At best this does not engage with Kenmoria's argument which you replied to (ie that "[i]t isn’t possible for a member of GenSec to use his or her own rulings to play the game"). This distinction is even noted in the recusal guidelines (emphasis mine),

And this was Glen Rhodes level sophistry. It's incredibly telling to me that responsible for the ruling on amendment and contradiction (coincidentally) quoted to me earlier in this discussion are two of the most unscrupulous, plainly deceitful, dissembling, strategicly calculating players who have ever played in the WA (in my extensive experience). Two players less suitable for the role and more liable to abuse it for entirely self-serving aims I could scarcely conceive of. And I mean that in the most OOC way possible. Their characters are in my opinion so disreputable as to make any of their rulings on legalities comically unreliable. It's not in the least bit surprising to me that they ruled on that matter as they did.

But yes, I'm sure the conventions on recusal are more than sufficient to have prevented the Gen Sec from having been thoroughly exploited for personal gain by power tripping players on a mission to gain as many plaudits as possible while disadvantaging any players they see as their opposition.

Anyway, as Kenmoria pointed out I think we're straying into territory better suited for another thread, so by all means reply if you want to but I'm going to consider my contribution to this discussion at an end. I thank you for taking the time to respond though, and I'll certainly keep all of this in mind in future.

I am so pleased with this description of me. Unironically. You made my day!