Ah, I missed that somehow
Advertisement
by Mousebumples » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:04 am
Gruenberg wrote:Topid wrote:Mouse provided some examples of how this could have helped in the past from a GA history prospective
Her examples didn't show it would have "helped" at all. They simply pointed out examples of where one person submitted a resolution after another, and then hinted that for some reason allowing the system of submission first to be upset would have been "political" and thus good. There are (as usual) some fairly glaring defects in basic reasoning there.Topid wrote:but the SC has submission races far more often than the GA.
OK, so have an SG for the SC only.
Mousebumples wrote:IF such a thing were to become reality (and I still remain unconvinced that they should), I would hope that they would be limited in their usage.
If anyone has this sort of power - whenever they want, as often as they want - I can see it ruining some of the fun of the game. However, I could see how adding limits could add some intrigue to the game, and another layer of political maneuvering.
I can also definitely see the arguments that it's not "fair" to whomever doesn't have the "preferred proposal" - when they play by the rules, and get their proposal submitted first/to quorum first ... why shouldn't they get to have their proposal go to vote first? It adds another layer of politics, which for some may be appealing, but I can also see it turning off some players as well.
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:15 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:Why should nobody have that kind of power?
Flanderlion wrote:Not remove proposals, mods do that for SC, and I wasn't 100% on whether the council or mods did it for blatant illegalities. A player could just be a dick about it, and that wouldn't improve things for anyone. Reorder, so if proposal A, B and C attained quorum within a short timeframe, leading to proposal A being at vote. Proposal B is a worthy option, but not as urgent as Proposal C (such as the case of a SC liberation recently). Proposal B had to be withdrawn from the queue to get Proposal C to vote in time.
But while it could be good, it could be bad (for authors) if there are two repeals of the resolution. Bitely has re-enacted WSA 2.0 and it is winning slightly at vote. Repeal proposal A is in queue, and proposal B comes along with a slightly better repeal of WSA. The initial author could get shafted if the second proposal was moved in front of it.
Regarding quorum, I was a bit worried about that as I wrote this (which reminds me, I'm not seeing whatever PMs etc. anyone has sent me about this unless they're a TG), exactly because of the rubbish proposal thing.
I thought about having the proposal to need to gain quorum to be enacted, but go immediately to vote, or need a certain number of votes (30/40%) or they lose the power.
With the number of votes, that was my easy way of requiring less work but still giving the SG something. That was my meh option, because they'd just be a big delegate with a fancy title, but better than nothing.
Personally, I'd prefer the Approval Stamp and the proposal re-ordering. The re-ordering is actual unique power, the stamp is for the average WA nation to see that the office means something, and the prestige is in the name. But that said, if this happens at all, it'll be others more WA involved who sway the admins for or against.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by -Mr Money- » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:19 am
by Tinhampton » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:46 am
Mousebumples wrote:...I'd rather change the Sec-Gen into a "Miss NationStates" type Beauty Pageant, similar to whatever issue number lets you crown Max Barry as your nation's beauty queen.
by Sciongrad » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:15 am
Gruenberg wrote:OK, so have an SG for the SC only.
by Sedgistan » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 am
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:45 am
Sedgistan wrote:Voting would have to be WA members to prevent puppetwanking, while a one-member one-vote system (rather than with delegates having extra power) would make the race much harder for big regions to dominate the way they can with WA proposal votes.
The SG idea I liked was for them to have a limited veto over legislation - one per X month term; potentially with one SC veto and another GA one. This would give them significant power within the WA, albeit one that they would have to use very carefully to maximise its impact. If it's used too early, they're powerless; save it too long and you may end up wasting it. Plus, using it to veto a popular vote could cost you in the next election.
Potentially they could pin a dispatch to the WA page with commentary on the at-vote proposal.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:48 am
Sedgistan wrote:The SG election was a big event that people cared about, and got involved in. It's definitely worth considering if the role can be retained + expanded, particularly as the code for the elections is already there, so it's not just another entry at the end of the lengthy admin to-do list.
Voting would have to be WA members to prevent puppetwanking, while a one-member one-vote system (rather than with delegates having extra power) would make the race much harder for big regions to dominate the way they can with WA proposal votes.
The SG idea I liked was for them to have a limited veto over legislation - one per X month term; potentially with one SC veto and another GA one. This would give them significant power within the WA, albeit one that they would have to use very carefully to maximise its impact. If it's used too early, they're powerless; save it too long and you may end up wasting it. Plus, using it to veto a popular vote could cost you in the next election.
Potentially they could pin a dispatch to the WA page with commentary on the at-vote proposal.
by Sciongrad » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:53 am
Sedgistan wrote:-snip-
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:56 am
by Gruenberg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:35 pm
by -Mr Money- » Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:28 pm
Gruenberg wrote:Or even better, new rule, once a resolution's been vetoed, it can't be resubmitted. So that resolution that turns out to have a massive flaw can't ever be repealed, because I vetoed the repeal! We're stuck with it!
It's just what the WA game has been crying out for, clearly.
by Flanderlion » Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:47 pm
by Christian Democrats » Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:52 pm
Sedgistan wrote:The SG election was a big event that people cared about, and got involved in. It's definitely worth considering if the role can be retained + expanded, particularly as the code for the elections is already there, so it's not just another entry at the end of the lengthy admin to-do list.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:34 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Sedgistan wrote:The SG election was a big event that people cared about, and got involved in. It's definitely worth considering if the role can be retained + expanded, particularly as the code for the elections is already there, so it's not just another entry at the end of the lengthy admin to-do list.
Do you have stats on how many players started blocking WA campaign telegrams because of the SG election?
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:00 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:Do you have stats on how many players started blocking WA campaign telegrams because of the SG election?
Oh yea, this. There were an utterly enormous number of telegrams flying around the site around that time. SG election was certainly a money maker, if anything...
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Enfaru » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:24 pm
Sedgistan wrote:The SG election was a big event that people cared about, and got involved in. It's definitely worth considering if the role can be retained + expanded, particularly as the code for the elections is already there, so it's not just another entry at the end of the lengthy admin to-do list.
Voting would have to be WA members to prevent puppetwanking, while a one-member one-vote system (rather than with delegates having extra power) would make the race much harder for big regions to dominate the way they can with WA proposal votes.
The SG idea I liked was for them to have a limited veto over legislation - one per X month term; potentially with one SC veto and another GA one. This would give them significant power within the WA, albeit one that they would have to use very carefully to maximise its impact. If it's used too early, they're powerless; save it too long and you may end up wasting it. Plus, using it to veto a popular vote could cost you in the next election.
Potentially they could pin a dispatch to the WA page with commentary on the at-vote proposal.
Sciongrad wrote:Sedgistan wrote:-snip-
I think it's generally good policy to leave things alone unless they're broken. If the GA community decides that we're just not being screwed over quite enough as it is and comes running to the moderators and admins asking for yet another way our proposals can be removed arbitrarily and capriciously, then we can consider this. This recent habit of coming up with novel ideas and forcing them on the GA because you guys think it would be neat is really wearing away at whatever is left of the community.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:At the very least, I would hope that automatic stamp refunds would apply should a player decide to kill another player's resolution just to be a jerk. Then we can go through the whole process of getting the same shit passed all over again before the SG's monthly visitor returns - I mean, how fucking stupid would it be if both branches had to start submitting emergency duplicates of the same proposal, just to get it passed again in case of veto?
Gruenberg wrote:I love the incredible stupidity of this idea.
I've vetoed your resolution! Now at vote...oh, you resubmitted your resolution. So we get to spend another week voting on exactly the same issue.
Or even better, new rule, once a resolution's been vetoed, it can't be resubmitted. So that resolution that turns out to have a massive flaw can't ever be repealed, because I vetoed the repeal! We're stuck with it!
It's just what the WA game has been crying out for, clearly.
by Gruenberg » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:49 am
Enfaru wrote:Since when was the GA community the be all and end all of the World Assembly?
Enfaru wrote:I'm not sure the mods will take kindly to multiple (as in 5+) resolutions being submitted that are exactly the same.
Enfaru wrote:You can take things to the extreme sure, feel free. Reality plays out differently. There doesn't have to be one or the other here it's not black and white, we're not answering one of Max's issues.
by Enfaru » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:03 am
by Gruenberg » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:12 am
Enfaru wrote:We will consider the impact of the this proposal on the GA.
Enfaru wrote:As for the mods apparently taking many resolutions with exactly the same wording at the same time... I am honestly surprised. I had heard rumours that such a thing was frowned up on and would be merged into one resolution instead (which would stop time being wasted).
Enfaru wrote:"I've vetoed your resolution, but now I can't veto any more resolutions until next month" is the shade of grey. Someone's resolution being vetoed because it is a bad idea or because the SG just doesn't like you isn't in itself a bad thing in fact it can be good to shake things up and add to the political scene. Being able to veto the proposal every time is a bad thing and that's why I agreed with Sedge's limitations. Sure, you might have just spent $20 on stamps just to get your resolution through, but really, we don't care how effective your stamps are, you got to use them after all.
Enfaru wrote:That's really what you're complaining about,
Enfaru wrote:the fact that you wasted your stamps thinking that money will get your resolution through if you just spend enough, which is why you demanded automatic "compensation".
Enfaru wrote:I had no idea that Stamps had become such a pay to win system. Maybe the SG is needed with veto powers specifically to offset the advantages conferred by stamps.
by The Blaatschapen » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:18 am
Gruenberg wrote:This is all completely insane. A player with no GA involvement took far too seriously an April Fool's joke and threadjacked a discussion on GA rules moderation to bring up the SG role being expanded, and now here we are, with mods actually considering going forward on it.
by Enfaru » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:44 am
Gruenberg wrote:Enfaru wrote:We will consider the impact of the this proposal on the GA.
That's a really exciting prospect, given you have never once posted in the GA forum. Clearly, the right sort of person to be deciding major changes to our part of the game. (And, no, that's not sarcasm: you really were exactly the sort of person whose opinion was listened when deciding to introduce C&Cs, rather than any actual WA players.)Enfaru wrote:As for the mods apparently taking many resolutions with exactly the same wording at the same time... I am honestly surprised. I had heard rumours that such a thing was frowned up on and would be merged into one resolution instead (which would stop time being wasted).
Those "rumours" were wrong.Enfaru wrote:"I've vetoed your resolution, but now I can't veto any more resolutions until next month" is the shade of grey. Someone's resolution being vetoed because it is a bad idea or because the SG just doesn't like you isn't in itself a bad thing in fact it can be good to shake things up and add to the political scene. Being able to veto the proposal every time is a bad thing and that's why I agreed with Sedge's limitations. Sure, you might have just spent $20 on stamps just to get your resolution through, but really, we don't care how effective your stamps are, you got to use them after all.
But, as I pointed out in the post you're replying to, a player can simply resubmit their resolution. That there are no other vetoes until next month is irrelevant to that. So, again, where is the shade of grey?Enfaru wrote:That's really what you're complaining about,
I'm confident it's not.Enfaru wrote:the fact that you wasted your stamps thinking that money will get your resolution through if you just spend enough, which is why you demanded automatic "compensation".
That was a different player, so again, no.Enfaru wrote:I had no idea that Stamps had become such a pay to win system. Maybe the SG is needed with veto powers specifically to offset the advantages conferred by stamps.
What advantages? Stamps can help anyone get a proposal to quorum, they do nothing to help pass the resolution. Unless you spend a hundred quid TGing every person in the entire game - but, from experience, even then the mods will magic up a pretext to discard your repeal.
This is all completely insane. A player with no GA involvement took far too seriously an April Fool's joke and threadjacked a discussion on GA rules moderation to bring up the SG role being expanded, and now here we are, with mods actually considering going forward on it.
by Gruenberg » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:52 am
Enfaru wrote:you seem to think that the SG will *only* affect the GA
Enfaru wrote:since I don't write resolutions, I really really don't care about how they are written or approved.
Enfaru wrote:Since they can resubmit their resolution, what have they lost honestly?
Enfaru wrote:The same process works well in a number of countries around the world and it's a good process.
Enfaru wrote:That player with no GA involvement by the way, is not me.
by Flanderlion » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:24 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:Gruenberg wrote:This is all completely insane. A player with no GA involvement took far too seriously an April Fool's joke and threadjacked a discussion on GA rules moderation to bring up the SG role being expanded, and now here we are, with mods actually considering going forward on it.
This might take a while.
Personally, I'd not be in favour of expanding the SG role right now (at least for the GA) while we're still discussing and possibly implementing the council. 1 big change at a time, to see what its effects are.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement