Possible New WA incorporation

[DP Country]

I have had a idea that would make the WA Secretary-General an elected position. I would like some feedback, positive, negative, or constructive. Please add more and more ideas!

[Tinhampton]

Good idea (if unlikely and oft-suggested). But how often will the elections be?

[Matta]

Ok, what would his powers and duties be?

[DP Country]

Good idea (if unlikely and oft-suggested). But how often will the elections be?

Three months?

[DP Country]

Ok, what would his powers and duties be?

This is already a position. It's powers and duties are already determined. This would just make it a elected position. The current Secretary-General was elected by the people already. This would just make sure that it would always remain an elected position.

[Caelapes]

The powers and duties of the WA Secretary-General are "responding to telegrams seven months later about an April Fool's joke."

[Matta]

Ok, what would his powers and duties be?

This is already a position. It's powers and duties are already determined. This would just make it a elected position. The current Secretary-General was elected by the people already. This would just make sure that it would always remain an elected position.

Secretary-General was an April Fools joke

[DP Country]

This is already a position. It's powers and duties are already determined. This would just make it a elected position. The current Secretary-General was elected by the people already. This would just make sure that it would always remain an elected position.

Secretary-General was an April Fools joke

If you look at the guy who won nation page, it says WA Secretary General.

[Matta]

Secretary-General was an April Fools joke

If you look at the guy who won nation page, it says WA Secretary General.

Still an April's Fools Joke, it holds no power

[Wallenburg]

Question: would this position have power, or would this just be a case where the election happens periodically, with new races and campaigns?

[Flanderlion]

I have had a idea that would make the WA Secretary-General an elected position. I would like some feedback, positive, negative, or constructive. Please add more and more ideas!

Full support (this nation is completely unrelated to me btw. as far as I know) Less people seem to have an issue with the position itself, but more on what powers they have and the ability to block campaign TGs separately from WA (and also block GA but not SC, and vice versa).

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=392286
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=393050
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=387818
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=371045 - more Luna's links to other posts about it.
viewtopic.php?p=30171908#p30171908 - first two paragraphs are more official, 2nd two are Sedge's personal ideas. Part of one of the above threads, but you'll likely not read all of them.

Above are some other related threads. There is literally hundreds, some with same name, some with different, all with the same general premise. But it is fairly popular the idea of having the position (at least over the years), just the issue comes with what powers they should have. I've already said my thoughts on it, so I'll refrain (this post at least) from repeating myself.

Edit: Now not so unrelated, but was at the time of the post

[Gruenberg]

But it is fairly popular the idea of having the position (at least over the years), just the issue comes with what powers they should have.

Do you think that's an accurate portrayal of the level of support from the WA players who would be most directly affected by an empowered SG?

[Flanderlion]

But it is fairly popular the idea of having the position (at least over the years), just the issue comes with what powers they should have.

Do you think that's an accurate portrayal of the level of support from the WA players who would be most directly affected by an empowered SG?

Depends if the SG has powers over the WA. I personally think it should (proposal reordering and the badge thing), but that's my personal opinion, rather than a guarantee that it'll be WA players who are most impacted. I'm fairly sure the GA just associates the SG with bad things due to the debacle in the GenSec thread, judging by the posts made in previous threads on the SG. That said, I don't think it's exactly unified in hatred for the SG position (no community can really be) but you're in a better place to judge than I. SC wise they can speak for themselves, but given the double singapore lib within the last few days kind of shows that the ability to switch proposals order in the queue could be useful.

[Gruenberg]

That said, I don't think it's exactly unified in hatred for the SG position (no community can really be)

So I'll ask again: do you think saying that the idea is "fairly popular" accurately reflects how WA players feel about it?

SC wise they can speak for themselves, but given the double singapore lib within the last few days kind of shows that the ability to switch proposals order in the queue could be useful.

This thread is about the "WA Secretary-General". If there was a moderation snafu in the SC, that's no reason to give a gameplayer sweeping powers over an unrelated legislative chamber.

[Flanderlion]

That said, I don't think it's exactly unified in hatred for the SG position (no community can really be)

So I'll ask again: do you think saying that the idea is "fairly popular" accurately reflects how WA players feel about it?

SC wise they can speak for themselves, but given the double singapore lib within the last few days kind of shows that the ability to switch proposals order in the queue could be useful.

This thread is about the "WA Secretary-General". If there was a moderation snafu in the SC, that's no reason to give a gameplayer sweeping powers over an unrelated legislative chamber.

I'm fairly sure you don't want me to put the SC and GA together due to your other threads. That's why I split it in between the GA and SC in the above post. But WA players in general (as in players who are in the WA) seem in favour judging by the threads both pre-event, during and post event. That said, technical things aren't decided by popular vote.

Sweeping powers would be too much, as I've said earlier (I feel like you're just trying to get me to repeat), obviously there needs to be a balance between the role mattering to people enough that people don't just completely dismiss it, like how Z-Day does it. But no one wants the SG to have sweeping powers (or at least not the majority, some of the threads in the past are players going a bit too far, you know who did that last thread). Authors don't want it because who wants one person who can decide everything about your resolution. WA voters don't want it because if a single player has sweeping powers over the WA that means everyone elses opinions don't matter. I and my region obviously wouldn't want that because the likelihood is that the SG at some point (if not all the points) will be hostile towards our region. A SG with sweeping powers would be too much, just as a SG with nothing is too little.

[Gruenberg]

I'm fairly sure you don't want me to put the SC and GA together due to your other threads. That's why I split it in between the GA and SC in the above post.

But this is a proposal about a "WA Secretary-General". No such split.

obviously there needs to be a balance between the role mattering to people enough that people don't just completely dismiss it, like how Z-Day does it.

Why? Z-Day is incredibly popular. A few people complain and want to opt out, some people stay off the site or just ignore it, but many thousands participate. Vastly more players actively participate in Z-Day activities than WA proposal discussions. Z-Day is the perfect model for a mini-event: run an SG election every year, or every few months if it's popular, and then - just like Z-Day - have no lasting consequences on the game.

just as a SG with nothing is too little.

Why? What current problem with the WA - and no, an SC mod being unable to tell when a proposal will pass is not such a problem - would this solve?

[DP Country]

The powers and duties of the WA Secretary-General are "responding to telegrams seven months later about an April Fool's joke."

Sorry.

[DP Country]

Actually, why can't this position become a real elected position instead of an April Fools Joke?

[Flanderlion]

I'm fairly sure you don't want me to put the SC and GA together due to your other threads. That's why I split it in between the GA and SC in the above post.

But this is a proposal about a "WA Secretary-General". No such split.

Doesn't matter. Just because the SecGen role may impact on different groups, there is no reason to combine them all into one group when thinking about who it will impact. There is generalising into communities (because in a game like NS you can't take every single nation, or even WA nations individual opinions into account, and instead have to group them) but generalising the SC and GA into one group when they are made from mostly completely different players isn't really right.

obviously there needs to be a balance between the role mattering to people enough that people don't just completely dismiss it, like how Z-Day does it.

Why? Z-Day is incredibly popular. A few people complain and want to opt out, some people stay off the site or just ignore it, but many thousands participate. Vastly more players actively participate in Z-Day activities than WA proposal discussions. Z-Day is the perfect model for a mini-event: run an SG election every year, or every few months if it's popular, and then - just like Z-Day - have no lasting consequences on the game.

Agreed on all points of this quote, just the point of difference is the lasting consequences.

If the SecGen had the power to veto every proposal, pass a proposal at will without sending the WA proposal passed TGs, and turn every player in the SC and GA forums masking pink at will, it still would likely impact the average player less than Z-Day, and have lasting consequences that would impact the average nation about the same as Z-Day. WA nations get odd TGs from the entire world, but that is only to WA nations rather than all nations, and in Z-day most nations in active regions get at least a single TG regarding it. The average nation to my knowledge doesn't frequent the GA/SC forums, nor do they pay attention to the passed resolution list (or really the WA bar the notification) unless techies have some stats that somehow show that most nations click on the passed resolution list every month or so and spend more than 2 seconds (so it's not a misclick).

Z-Day remains on happenings, and although the population is returned to normal and the superweapons vanish, while WA resolutions have the TG, and maybe a vague recollection after the vote for the majority of players. ZMost people who were around for a Z-Day remember it. From most accounts I've had, random players don't care about what happens before or after the vote, (and many don't care about the vote itself), so anything changing that doesn't matter/give a lasting consequence to them.

Before someone goes in and says that all non-WA nations/most are just puppets, every single RL person I know who plays/has played NS are non-WA. I'd say a good portion of non-WA's are puppets though. But that's a sidetrack.

just as a SG with nothing is too little.

Why? What current problem with the WA - and no, an SC mod being unable to tell when a proposal will pass is not such a problem - would this solve?

Not that, the order of the proposals in the first place, where there was one well supported, and another done by some anonymous puppet. Both reached quorum (the popular one first) but the anonymous one was submitted first so got to vote first. With the GA, I still think it'd be useful for instant repeals, but as I've said earlier, I really don't care, and doubt the rest of the game does either, if the GA gets things now or if it misses out and comes out wanting them a long time later. Not my decision with any of this though, so not me you have to convince.

The GA has kind of had its 'turn' kinda of thing with the GenSec which, although having a couple of teething issues, will likely work out in the longer run as something positive (I hope.) But if we went turn wise it'd probably be something dispatch/RP related (or NS sports, or some obscure community that doesn't get as much love as the WA, issues/stats, and gameplay gets).

[Gruenberg]

Doesn't matter. Just because the SecGen role may impact on different groups, there is no reason to combine them all into one group when thinking about who it will impact.

I'm not combining them. I am specifically and exclusively concerned with the impact on the WA: whatever merits it may have for the SC are immaterial for that.

Z-Day remains on happenings

I'm sure "@@NATION@@ was elected to the Secretary-General position" would remain on the happenings too.

None of your other screed seems to in any way really respond to my argument that Z-Day is fun despite the lack of long-term consequences.

Not that, the order of the proposals in the first place

That's not a problem. Every player has the same chance to submit a proposal, and if one player manages to do so before another, then that's just part of the game. It's not a "problem" that Abortion Legality Convention was submitted before Clinical Abortion Rights - it's part of the game. Can you imagine how differently subsequent legislation would have turned out had some gameplayer been able to reverse their order because they had a different personal opinion on abortion?

where there was one well supported, and another done by some anonymous puppet.

Then run a TG campaign for the first, and a disapproval campaign for the second. The admins have been very generous in revamping the TG system, and it makes campaigning a real possibility: it used to be the case that disapproval campaigns took so long to complete they were virtually impossible to actually achieve, but that's no longer the case.

With the GA, I still think it'd be useful for instant repeals

There is no objective standard on why "instant repeals" are needed nor why they should obtain priority in the proposal queue.

if the GA gets things now or if it misses out and comes out wanting them a long time later.

Good. Which returns to the question I've asked you 19 billion times with no response: why can't the SG just apply to the SC, and not the WA?

Not my decision with any of this though, so not me you have to convince.

I do have to convince you. You seem to know almost nothing about the WA game: that makes it much, much more likely you will be the one [violet] listens to, based on past experience. So it's important to try to change your mind from trying to advocate game-wrecking changes. How I wish I'd had the same opportunity when "hey let's cram gameplay into WA proposals after seven happy years without it" was first mooted.

The GA has kind of had its 'turn' kinda of thing with the GenSec

As an aside, this has definitely been one of my fears, that the Council experiment will be perceived as a favour to us. Though that's for another thread.

[Bitely]

Hmm this sure sounds familiar...

[Wallenburg]

Again:

Would this position have power, or would this just be a case where the election happens periodically, with new races and campaigns?

[Flanderlion]

Doesn't matter. Just because the SecGen role may impact on different groups, there is no reason to combine them all into one group when thinking about who it will impact.

I'm not combining them. I am specifically and exclusively concerned with the impact on the WA: whatever merits it may have for the SC are immaterial for that.

The SC is part of the WA, if you're meaning the GA you're in a better place to speak for the GA than I.

I'm sure "@@NATION@@ was elected to the Secretary-General position" would remain on the happenings too.

None of your other screed seems to in any way really respond to my argument that Z-Day is fun despite the lack of long-term consequences.

It would remain on the happenings, but not for the average nation - as I'm expecting on the national happenings it wouldn't show up unless it was the actual player who was elected (nominations I'm guessing would have to be done yourself rather than others so a nation who didn't want the job didn't get it). Regional happenings would only have it if the nation elected was in their region. It wouldn't be something that stays on the happenings for a few months after for most regions.

Yeah, wrote that other bit at late hours of the night, realised it didn't really work out, but decided sleeping was better than removing the useless bits of the post.

Not that, the order of the proposals in the first place

That's not a problem. Every player has the same chance to submit a proposal, and if one player manages to do so before another, then that's just part of the game. It's not a "problem" that Abortion Legality Convention was submitted before Clinical Abortion Rights - it's part of the game. Can you imagine how differently subsequent legislation would have turned out had some gameplayer been able to reverse their order because they had a different personal opinion on abortion?

I'm more in the view that the best resolution rather than the first resolution submitted should pass. This literally would only matter when there is multiple resolutions in queue. Presently there is one resolution in queue in the GA, and none in the SC.

I can't imagine how different in the GA abortion would be, because I tend to see the word and run. It's one of those rare things I can't muster up an opinion on, I didn't follow it at the time, don't follow it now, and won't follow it in the future. But even if it was different, would that be a bad thing/good thing, or would it just be different?

where there was one well supported, and another done by some anonymous puppet.

Then run a TG campaign for the first, and a disapproval campaign for the second. The admins have been very generous in revamping the TG system, and it makes campaigning a real possibility: it used to be the case that disapproval campaigns took so long to complete they were virtually impossible to actually achieve, but that's no longer the case.

As campaigning becomes easier, it also becomes less effective. If you didn't receive a TG for 6 months, then got one you're more likely to pay more attention to it than if you get one each week.

With the GA, I still think it'd be useful for instant repeals

There is no objective standard on why "instant repeals" are needed nor why they should obtain priority in the proposal queue.

Instant repeals aren't instant if they take a while to go to vote. Do I really need to explain instant repeals to you of all people...

if the GA gets things now or if it misses out and comes out wanting them a long time later.

Good. Which returns to the question I've asked you 19 billion times with no response: why can't the SG just apply to the SC, and not the WA?

I meant that as my response (and I'm fairly sure I have responded to it a few times in earlier topics). But the SG could just apply to the SC (in fact it could just apply to a certain region if admins so desired) but then it wouldn't really deserve the title of the World Assembly Secretary-General.

Not my decision with any of this though, so not me you have to convince.

I do have to convince you. You seem to know almost nothing about the WA game: that makes it much, much more likely you will be the one [violet] listens to, based on past experience. So it's important to try to change your mind from trying to advocate game-wrecking changes. How I wish I'd had the same opportunity when "hey let's cram gameplay into WA proposals after seven happy years without it" was first mooted.

How would this be game wrecking? Some of the other suggestions people have made regarding this have in my opinion been game wrecking, but you haven't really gone into much more rather than 'this would ruin everything but will happen because admin doesn't listen to us/me'. Sorry to be blunt with that.

The GA has kind of had its 'turn' kinda of thing with the GenSec

As an aside, this has definitely been one of my fears, that the Council experiment will be perceived as a favour to us. Though that's for another thread.

I know, that's why I brought it up again. And not a 'favour' as such, just time devoted. Suppression throttles etc. wasn't exactly a favour to raiders, but it was time spent on them.

@Bitely - linked your thread in an earlier post above.

Again:

Would this position have power, or would this just be a case where the election happens periodically, with new races and campaigns?

I personally want it to have power to shake things up a bit, and to get random players interested in it. And yes, GPers do exist, and obviously you have to make it unattractive to them so they don't completely mess with it like the last one. WA only voting, the SG having to be WA and being unable to be delegate while SG are all suggestions others and I have made for that, but there is always room for more.

[Stellonia]

Actually, why can't this position become a real elected position instead of an April Fools Joke?

I'd imagine that this would be replicated next year. In that case, the Secretary General would become a "real elected position," albeit a figurehead.