(DISCUSSION)- World Assembly Reform

[World Assembly Reform]

Proposal #2- An World Assembly Executive

This executive will have a term length of two years, be able to serve two consecutive terms before leaving, will be elected, will serve as the final appeal vessel from the Legal Council, enforces the resolutions passed by the GA, commander-in-chief of the World Assembly Security Force (more on this later). Below him will be a Secretary-General who will replace the Executive in the case of inactivity, banning from WA/NS and resignation. They will be in charge of running the floor operations between the GA and SC, the appointment of members of committees (more on this later), and serve as the lead chief legal officer of the WA. If the Executive were to leave the position, the Secretary-General being the new Executive, would be able to appoint a new Secretary-General which is to confirmed by the General Assembly. The Secretary-General would also be an elected position.

[Denathor]

This is just GenSec with more bureaucracy and a bunch of undefined committees.

[Separatist Peoples]

You forget to mention the one key fact that the OP will likely demand to be appointed the supreme leader or whatever of this new whatever this is supposed to be. You know that is coming.

I, of course, will NOT demand to become the Supreme Leader of the General Assembly post-reform. Regarding Separatist Peoples point, politics does not matter in terms of seeing if a proposal is legal or not. The member nations though should have the opportunity to vote on the people who really help the GA function. Besides, if you are worried about the qualifications of the said members of the Legal Council, then the members can read the three pages of rules and become qualified.

It is disingenuous to conflate interpreting the rules to write a legal proposal and interpreting the rules to reason out a difficult question of interpretation. Rather like how most legislators are entirely unqualified to be judges. That you made the argument suggests to me you have no familiarity with either legislation nor judiciaries.

Elections do not find the most competent individual. They find the most popular individual. Popularity is not a useful factor in rules enforcement. You have yet to articulate otherwise beyond a strange normative statement that boils down to Voting Good, even though that a demonstrably not the case.

[The New California Republic]

Proposal #2- An World Assembly Executive

This executive will have a term length of two years, be able to serve two consecutive terms before leaving, will be elected, will serve as the final appeal vessel from the Legal Council, enforces the resolutions passed by the GA, commander-in-chief of the World Assembly Security Force (more on this later). Below him will be a Secretary-General who will replace the Executive in the case of inactivity, banning from WA/NS and resignation. They will be in charge of running the floor operations between the GA and SC, the appointment of members of committees (more on this later), and serve as the lead chief legal officer of the WA. If the Executive were to leave the position, the Secretary-General being the new Executive, would be able to appoint a new Secretary-General which is to confirmed by the General Assembly. The Secretary-General would also be an elected position.

It wasn't a serious proposal before, and it is even less so now. I mean, just look at this, it's a complete load of nonsense, a bureaucratic mess; which is ironic, considering you said you were against that sort of thing:

For too long, the World Assembly has been the home for mega bureaucracy [...]

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...commander-in-chief of the World Assembly Security Force (more on this later)...

Unless you're talking about WA Headquarters building security (and perhaps even then), you'll have to repeal GA Resolution #2 first.

Or else abolish the Contradiction or Amendment rules.

[BlackLight Covenant]

Proposal #2- An World Assembly Executive

This executive will have a term length of two years, be able to serve two consecutive terms before leaving, will be elected, will serve as the final appeal vessel from the Legal Council, enforces the resolutions passed by the GA, commander-in-chief of the World Assembly Security Force (more on this later). Below him will be a Secretary-General who will replace the Executive in the case of inactivity, banning from WA/NS and resignation. They will be in charge of running the floor operations between the GA and SC, the appointment of members of committees (more on this later), and serve as the lead chief legal officer of the WA. If the Executive were to leave the position, the Secretary-General being the new Executive, would be able to appoint a new Secretary-General which is to confirmed by the General Assembly. The Secretary-General would also be an elected position.

I'm not sure I see the use of a position that involves somehow having to enforce all passed resolutions. What kind of methods and tools would this single nation use to enforce hundreds of resolutions upon thousands upon thousands of WA members?

Also, why does the WA need a military force? I understand that you intend on destroying raider organizations, but I don't see how a WA military force would be much more effective than specialized defender regions...and well, mercenaries hired to engage in defending, I suppose.

[Kenmoria]

Proposal #2- An World Assembly Executive

This executive will have a term length of two years, be able to serve two consecutive terms before leaving, will be elected, will serve as the final appeal vessel from the Legal Council, enforces the resolutions passed by the GA, commander-in-chief of the World Assembly Security Force (more on this later). Below him will be a Secretary-General who will replace the Executive in the case of inactivity, banning from WA/NS and resignation. They will be in charge of running the floor operations between the GA and SC, the appointment of members of committees (more on this later), and serve as the lead chief legal officer of the WA. If the Executive were to leave the position, the Secretary-General being the new Executive, would be able to appoint a new Secretary-General which is to confirmed by the General Assembly. The Secretary-General would also be an elected position.

(OOC: What is so wrong with the current system? It works fine, and creating new positions and titles is both unnecessary and confusing.)

[Jebslund]

Regarding Separatist Peoples point, politics does not matter in terms of seeing if a proposal is legal or not. The member nations though should have the opportunity to vote on the people who really help the GA function. Besides, if you are worried about the qualifications of the said members of the Legal Council, then the members can read the three pages of rules and become qualified.

Ask anyone who follows politics in countries that operate by democracy how well voting has worked out in terms of finding competent, apolitical, non-corrupt legislators and/or executives.

Proposal #2- An World Assembly Executive

This executive will have a term length of two years, be able to serve two consecutive terms before leaving, will be elected, will serve as the final appeal vessel from the Legal Council,

And when people accuse this person of just going, "Illegal! Illegal! Illegal!" because they expect "appeal person" to mean "A daddy who says yes when mommy says no"? Also, A World Assembly Executive, not An World Assembly Executive.

enforces the resolutions passed by the GA,

Unless you mean OOCly banning nations from the WA for not conforming to resolutions (which will take FAR more manpower than you will find volunteers for), resolutions are already enforced IC. We have gnomes for that so people don't have to waste the limited number of characters per proposal spelling out enforcement details.

commander-in-chief of the World Assembly Security Force (more on this later).

GAR #2 if you mean IC security force.
If you mean OOC security force, well, good luck finding competent people willing to enforce hundreds of resolutions on thousands of member nations.

Below him will be a Secretary-General who will replace the Executive in the case of inactivity, banning from WA/NS and resignation.

Ah, so we're meant to find TWO competent volunteers.

They will be in charge of running the floor operations between the GA and SC,

Which do not exist, as the GA and the SC do not operate together. The latter does not even exist to the former. If you bothered to learn the ropes instead of glancing at them and declaring them unknowable, you'd know this.

the appointment of members of committees (more on this later),

No, not more on this later. Explain it NOW.

and serve as the lead chief legal officer of the WA.

Doesn't the Executive already do this in your Series of Unfortunate Proposals?

If the Executive were to leave the position, the Secretary-General being the new Executive, would be able to appoint a new Secretary-General which is to confirmed by the General Assembly. The Secretary-General would also be an elected position.

Would you like to examine that statement for logical consistency?

[Bears Armed]

I'm half expecting an added clause "Renames the WA as the USA"...

[The New California Republic]

I'm half expecting an added clause "Renames the WA as the USA"...

Each new idea put forth here by the OP is getting more and more ridiculous, so be careful what you wish for.

[World Assembly Reform]

I'm half expecting an added clause "Renames the WA as the USA"...

Each new idea put forth here by the OP is getting more and more ridiculous, so be careful what you wish for.

The WA Executive proposal is not ridiculous.

[Denathor]

81% of respondents in your little poll say it is.

[The New California Republic]

Each new idea put forth here by the OP is getting more and more ridiculous, so be careful what you wish for.

The WA Executive proposal is not ridiculous.

It really really is tho. It's contradictory and nonsensical.

[Separatist Peoples]

Each new idea put forth here by the OP is getting more and more ridiculous, so be careful what you wish for.

The WA Executive proposal is not ridiculous.

It is. You've taken the countermajoritarian but still multi-pronged power of GenSec and put it in an appellate position under the strange guise of an executive branch. This would make the ruleset more subject to abuse by creating no oversight. If your goal was to have a streamlined system, you've proverbially shot yourself in the foot. With an anti-tank rifle.

More and more I see you melding powers that are distinctly of one branch into different government branches, and I still think you're not actually well versed in what the executive, legislative, and judicial branches do, how they work, and why. This entire concept sounds like a concerning hybrid of a teenager's Civics 101 notes, a poor interpretation of Montesquieu, and dissatisfaction with being inexperienced.

[WayNeacTia]

Each new idea put forth here by the OP is getting more and more ridiculous, so be careful what you wish for.

The WA Executive proposal is not ridiculous.

Keep plugging your ears. No one cares. You are being patronized, and if you are too blind to see that, then that is on you.

[Kenmoria]

Each new idea put forth here by the OP is getting more and more ridiculous, so be careful what you wish for.

The WA Executive proposal is not ridiculous.

(OOC: It adds unnecessary bureaucracy, serves very little useful purpose, and won’t aid the GA community. The proposal won’t work.)

[Araraukar]

What I don't really get is why they're trying to convince us, when any such change would necessarily need lots of coding to be done and thus should be posted in Technical? Were they already laughed out of Technical forum?

[WayNeacTia]

What I don't really get is why they're trying to convince us, when any such change would necessarily need lots of coding to be done and thus should be posted in Technical? Were they already laughed out of Technical forum?

It boils down to "GenSec is bad, and declared my proposal illegal, so I will create a puppet to hide behind and demand all sorts of changes that aren't really needed just to prove Gensec is bad". People need to quit giving him the time of day, as this is nothing more than an attention grab and spam.

[Marxist Germany]

Lets not.