NationStates

President Rogers has announced that the World Assembly powers of Republicanana have transferred to a new department, to promote WA reform. For too long, the World Assembly has been the home for mega bureaucracy including Secretariats have the ultimate say over resolutions and other items. Delegates have too much power to put certain resolutions where individual countries should have some input. The Security Council has no real ability to actually force condemnations and liberations. The protectors of the world have no real way to end the scourge that is the raider groups that have plagued NationStates for almost as long as it existed like the Black Hawks, who despite double condemnation continues to have an raider-ready force at all times today. This thread is meant to a discussion on how to officially push World Assembly reform to equal the power as much as possible between Delegates and Secretariats and individual members of the WA community.

Shouldn’t this go in technical?

u wot mate?

This won't end well...

Wayneactia wrote:This won't end well...

Why not, we need this discussion in order to make the WA better.

Better, or more like how you want it ?

The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:Better, or more like how you want it ?

How would you make the WA better than?

That's just how the mechanics work. Secretariats do the rules if proposal is legal. There's no agenda. Wa delegates may seem unfair but if you think about it a region is electing its delegate so the populace can just unendorse the unpopular and endorse the popular and many regions delegate vote based on how their populace vote or on the WA ministry expertise.

Black hawks are powerful because they exploit founder less mechanics. Don't like it, don't leave your region founderless or with executive power or you will get sent to a very bad place.

The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:Better, or more like how you want it ?

No, I would agree with the OP on his points. Especially on the Secretariat point; they made the WA an oligarchy. Yes before them we got a lot of superfluous legislation, but it’s not like it was truly a nuisance, since it’s not like we’re actually diplomats with duties.

Now we get rejected because they’re of the opinion we ran afoul of some subsection of a resolution no one’s read since 2009.

Adriatican wrote:No, I would agree with the OP on his points. Especially on the Secretariat point; they made the WA an oligarchy.

...and exactly how was it not an "oligarchy" when the moderation team was making the calls? Especially given that even in the best of times we had all of three mods with the necessary experience to tackle GA legality calls.

Now we get rejected because they’re of the opinion we ran afoul of some subsection of a resolution no one’s read since 2009.

If your proposal gets rejected because you contradict previous resolutions (it wasn't, by the way), post the draft on the forum first; people here will help you spot the issues so you can fix them. Contradiction avoidance is part of how the game functions, GenSec didn't invent it at random.

World Assembly Reform wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:This won't end well...

Why not, we need this discussion in order to make the WA better.

No we don't. There was a rules discussion quite a while ago, and everybody had their input. It was decided to implement the Secretariat. If you don't like the way things are, take it to technical where it can be blown out of the water over there. No matter what you shout from the top of a soapbox, nothing is going to change. So stop hiding behind a three hour old puppet Adriatican, and either deal with what we have, or don't play this part of the game. It really is as simple as that.

Adriatican wrote:

The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:Better, or more like how you want it ?

No, I would agree with the OP on his points. Especially on the Secretariat point; they made the WA an oligarchy. Yes before them we got a lot of superfluous legislation, but it’s not like it was truly a nuisance, since it’s not like we’re actually diplomats with duties.

Now we get rejected because they’re of the opinion we ran afoul of some subsection of a resolution no one’s read since 2009.

The same rules (more or less) have existed for many years, including the contradiction and duplication rules (EG the Hackian rules were 2005 and replaced the Enodian rules, and the current rules replaced the Hackian rules in 2016 after the major moderator-community discussion in 2015 (see the archive forum: General Assembly Rules Consortium). And of course there have always been minor edits to the rules between major revisions.

Before GenSec was established, the moderators enforced the rules. So no, before the Secretariat, we did not get a lot of superfluous legislation. All that changed was the group of people responsible for enforcing the rules.

Also, every single GA regular (with the possible exception of Bears Armed who, AFAIK, exists outside the time-space continuum ) currently participating in this aspect of NS started playing when the rules and "culture" was already established. EG I only started in the GA in early 2014. If 1000s of other players managed to learn the rules and precedents, you can do so too instead of getting butthurt about your failure to try and learn.

Wayneactia wrote:This won't end well...

*Applauds*

World Assembly Reform wrote:President Rogers has announced that the World Assembly powers of Republicanana have transferred to a new department, to promote WA reform.

I am still opposed to it if it still involves your WA Constitution that we were talking about this time last year.

Bananaistan wrote:Also, every single GA regular (with the possible exception of Bears Armed who, AFAIK, exists outside the time-space continuum ) currently participating in this aspect of NS started playing when the rules and "culture" was already established.

I first got involved in the UN, as it then was, in October or November of 2005 (after a month or three of browsing the forum), and Hack's version of the rules already applied by that point. That involvement was initially with St Edmund, though,and the Bears -- created OOC in June 2006 -- didn't become my "main" nation (and the source of my long-term 'WA puppet') until shortly after the UN=>WA change.
Admittedly this nation's IC timeline has been complicated by a few incidents since then...

Araraukar wrote:

Adriatican wrote:No, I would agree with the OP on his points. Especially on the Secretariat point; they made the WA an oligarchy.

...and exactly how was it not an "oligarchy" when the moderation team was making the calls? Especially given that even in the best of times we had all of three mods with the necessary experience to tackle GA legality calls.

Now we get rejected because they’re of the opinion we ran afoul of some subsection of a resolution no one’s read since 2009.

If your proposal gets rejected because you contradict previous resolutions (it wasn't, by the way), post the draft on the forum first; people here will help you spot the issues so you can fix them. Contradiction avoidance is part of how the game functions, GenSec didn't invent it at random.

Come on now, who do you think would be better at ruling an empire? A council of intellectuals or the fickle public?

World Assembly Reform wrote:President Rogers has announced that the World Assembly powers of Republicanana have transferred to a new department, to promote WA reform. For too long, the World Assembly has been the home for mega bureaucracy including Secretariats have the ultimate say over resolutions and other items.

OOC: Welcome to the World Assembly! As others have pointer out, the above critique is based on a misunderstanding of the GenSec role. The Secretariat does nothing except make sure that proposals in the General Assembly voting queue conform to the rules of the game. If it weren't us doing this, it would be Moderation, and frankly there aren't enough mods who pay enough attention to this part of the game to do the job with as much care as we can - as they themselves will tell you. Anyway, the reforms implied by the OP belong either in Technical (as a change in the way the GA game is run will require Admin input) or on one of the RP boards, as a roleplayed overthrow or reform of the way the whole WA works. Have fun / good luck!

Delegates have too much power to put certain resolutions where individual countries should have some input. The Security Council has no real ability to actually force condemnations and liberations. The protectors of the world have no real way to end the scourge that is the raider groups that have plagued NationStates for almost as long as it existed like the Black Hawks, who despite double condemnation continues to have an raider-ready force at all times today.

...Meanwhile, these parts have nothing at all to do with the General Assembly. With a friendly resolution title and a modest telegram campaign, virtually any resolution can get the delegate approvals needed to go to vote, and the raiding & SC stuff is simply off topic here - again, you're talking about technical changes to the way the site is coded and this belongs in Technical.

Tarchuna and Ravenna wrote:Come on now, who do you think would be better at ruling an empire? A council of intellectuals or the fickle public?

I've always said I'm not here for the political simulator, I'm here for the philosopher-kingship.

Something, something, "the Secretariat is too powerful because they can mark any proposal as illegal in order to further their own secret agenda". I've never understood why some people are so negative towards the idea of the Secretariat. Yes, they have the ability to mark any proposal as illegal, which gives them a certain influence over what will and what will not reach the voting floor, but the only time they are to utilize this ability is when they deem a proposal to be in violation of one of the GA's proposal laws (not counting the SC, because that's still done by the mods). If one member abuses their powers, the rest of the Secretariat will ensure that this abuse won't achieve anything. If a majority of them abuses their powers and cooperates this abuse, it can be reported to the mods in order to replace said corrupted members.

Speaking of the mods, how is this any different from the situation that reigned before the appearance of the Secretariat? Back then, it was the moderators who had to check whether a proposal was illegal or not, a task that now falls upon the Secretariat to carry out. The only difference that I can see is the difference in tasks that those responsible for the upholding of proposal rules have to carry out alongside their GA duties; if anything, the existence of a separate Secretariat would be better under this logic of mine, as it allows the mods to focus on their other duties without having to check and discuss a varying amount of GA proposals, whilst the Secretariat focuses entirely on their field of expertise.

As for the stuff related to the SC, how do you intend to give defenders the tools to permanently end raider groups? Because in order to end raider groups, you'd most likely have to make raiding against the site rules, which would in turn kill off one of the major aspects of NationStates. Either that, or you'd need to make it possible for the SC to somehow...I dunno, take away the right for residents of raider regions to join the WA (not that such a thing would actually help)? I'm honestly not entirely sure what you intend to do in order to make raiding go extinct.

And as for delegates, I don't really see the issue. In a lot of cases, the system of delegate approval seems to do wonders in order to keep poorly-written proposals that are still technically legal from actually reaching the voting floor and wasting everyone's time. You could call that some form of elitism, but the alternative of having to read through a wide array of proposals that clearly should've gone through a drafting process on the forums does not sound too appealing to me.

Tarchuna and Ravenna wrote:

Araraukar wrote:...and exactly how was it not an "oligarchy" when the moderation team was making the calls? Especially given that even in the best of times we had all of three mods with the necessary experience to tackle GA legality calls.


If your proposal gets rejected because you contradict previous resolutions (it wasn't, by the way), post the draft on the forum first; people here will help you spot the issues so you can fix them. Contradiction avoidance is part of how the game functions, GenSec didn't invent it at random.

Come on now, who do you think would be better at ruling an empire? A council of intellectuals or the fickle public?

What part of Araraukar's post is this a response to? Just curious.

Proposal 1- A new "World Assembly Legal Council"- by President Rogers

This Legal Council will replace the Secretariats in terms of their powers over the WA. They will have the ability to rule resolutions legal and illegal before they move on to the endorsement stage of the process. This will make sure that any resolution that gets that far into the process will be fully legal. Instead of the current process where resolutions are marked illegal, explained and moved on to the challenge stage automatically, all resolutions will immediately as soon the proposer is prepared to move on to the next stage for endorsements, the Legal Council will take up the resolution and make a decision and suggest changes to resolution in order to make them legal (if possible) so far that either further debate can occur on the new, legal version or the bill can move to the endorsement stage immediately from there.

So your answer to too much bureaucracy is even more bureaucracy?

World Assembly Reform wrote:Proposal 1- A new "World Assembly Legal Council"- by President Rogers

This Legal Council will replace the Secretariats in terms of their powers over the WA. They will have the ability to rule resolutions legal and illegal before they move on to the endorsement stage of the process. This will make sure that any resolution that gets that far into the process will be fully legal. Instead of the current process where resolutions are marked illegal, explained and moved on to the challenge stage automatically, all resolutions will immediately as soon the proposer is prepared to move on to the next stage for endorsements, the Legal Council will take up the resolution and make a decision and suggest changes to resolution in order to make them legal (if possible) so far that either further debate can occur on the new, legal version or the bill can move to the endorsement stage immediately from there.

Have we had any problems with the current illegal/illegal process though that require the need to be addressed by such mechanism?

Bananaistan wrote:So your answer to too much bureaucracy is even more bureaucracy?

lol, such reforms!

Bananaistan wrote:So your answer to too much bureaucracy is even more bureaucracy?

It is actually both the same amount of bureaucracy as the Secretariats and a most efficient bureaucracy as the Secretariats.

Borovan entered the region as he wrote:That's just how the mechanics work. Secretariats do the rules if proposal is legal. There's no agenda. Wa delegates may seem unfair but if you think about it a region is electing its delegate so the populace can just unendorse the unpopular and endorse the popular and many regions delegate vote based on how their populace vote or on the WA ministry expertise.

Black hawks are powerful because they exploit founder less mechanics. Don't like it, don't leave your region founderless or with executive power or you will get sent to a very bad place.

"Thats just how it is" is not a valid argument in response to change, you have to give reasons why it shouldn't change if you're in the defense of tradition

USS Monitor wrote:u wot mate?

LOL XD

World Assembly Reform wrote:President Rogers has announced that the World Assembly powers of Republicanana have transferred to a new department, to promote WA reform. For too long, the World Assembly has been the home for mega bureaucracy including Secretariats have the ultimate say over resolutions and other items. Delegates have too much power to put certain resolutions where individual countries should have some input. The Security Council has no real ability to actually force condemnations and liberations. The protectors of the world have no real way to end the scourge that is the raider groups that have plagued NationStates for almost as long as it existed like the Black Hawks, who despite double condemnation continues to have an raider-ready force at all times today. This thread is meant to a discussion on how to officially push World Assembly reform to equal the power as much as possible between Delegates and Secretariats and individual members of the WA community.

I think the conditions for liberations should be loosened a bit and the security council needs a bo more power as Commendations and Condemnations dont mean too much but at the same time, if they are too powerful that spoils the fun for the raiders, who are a significant portion of the playerbase (I dont support raiding but am simply stating a fact) so it is a delicate balance that must be maintained... otherwise Im quite happy with the WA... well, that's my two cents, have a great day everyone and God bless!