Making the Secretary-General Meaningful

[Sanctaria]

100% concur with QoD. This seems more of a gameplay initiative that might work well with the SC, but whether you like it or not, the culture in the GA is fundamentally different to the SC and always has been since the latter's creation. I'm surprised after the shitstorm [v] had to deal with post-SC creation, she's even contemplating allowing more tinkering in the dynamic of the body.

The GA is already hampered by gameplay because of proposal raiding, the skewed delegate:member state votes, big feeder populations etc. As QoD mentions, no other sub-community is affected by another in the same way. This just adds another tool to the GP community to hammer the GA community with, for RD/GP points. It's not fair on the GA community, at all.

[Wallenburg]

There is not a single thing that GP contributes to the GA. All it does is take and abuse. I mean, fuck, the only reason I got involved with TEP's executive was because I knew getting into GP was the only way I was going to advance in the GA. I only became genuinely interested and involved in GP when I figured I could use that position to do some harm reduction.

[Comfed]

The problem with this is that the current and previous sec-gen were gameplayers - giving them GA veto power could make lots of GA people very unhappy. Also, who is to stop the person who had their resolution vetoed from submitting it again?

[Sedgistan]

The funny thing is, you literally cannot conceive of anyone being interested in the WA because they actually like roleplaying international law. It's why you're such a poor fit to be the one overseeing this.

Similarly you can't conceive that anything other than the WA pre-2009 could be enjoyable for people. Yet the GA continues to operate, even more people seem to be involved in it these days, and you keep coming back to it.

"Like roleplaying international law" - I mean, the RL equivalent of what you like doing has veto powers (albeit for certain members, rather than an individual - but the end effect isn't that different), as do many other international bodies that pass legislation. So it's not stopping you roleplaying your international law; it's enhancing it. It's just different to what you're used to.

Worth noting here that the most recent election has already made things more difficult for WA players with how many delegates blocked campaign TGs when it was already the case that it's impossible to get a proposal to vote without campaigning delegates.

Yes, and acknowledged further back in the thread, with a potential solution, when Wallenburg brought that up.

100% concur with QoD. This seems more of a gameplay initiative that might work well with the SC, but whether you like it or not, the culture in the GA is fundamentally different to the SC and always has been since the latter's creation. I'm surprised after the shitstorm [v] had to deal with post-SC creation, she's even contemplating allowing more tinkering in the dynamic of the body.

The GA is already hampered by gameplay because of proposal raiding, the skewed delegate:member state votes, big feeder populations etc. As QoD mentions, no other sub-community is affected by another in the same way. This just adds another tool to the GP community to hammer the GA community with, for RD/GP points. It's not fair on the GA community, at all.

There is not a single thing that GP contributes to the GA. All it does is take and abuse. I mean, fuck, the only reason I got involved with TEP's executive was because I knew getting into GP was the only way I was going to advance in the GA. I only became genuinely interested and involved in GP when I figured I could use that position to do some harm reduction.

There's only one community being divisive and drawing battle lines here. The General Assembly is part of the major democratic feature of NationStates; expecting to use it without having to engage with the wider world of those members is unrealistic, and has never been the case. If you truly want a "GA for the GAers", you can roleplay it in the NationStates forum and scorinate your results. And you'll find there's about 3 of you interested in it. You get your activity because the GA impacts the wider world (reminder: GA resolutions affect the stats of thousands of nations even if they don't participate in the WA), and the result of that is the wider world is interested in the General Assembly.

[Sedgistan]

The problem with this is that the current and previous sec-gen were gameplayers - giving them GA veto power could make lots of GA people very unhappy. Also, who is to stop the person who had their resolution vetoed from submitting it again?

Various of the GA players have made their unhappiness clear. The winners of previous elections aren't really a good judge of how things would go in the future. Beforehand the position was just a joke one with no influence at all. It'd be different when it actually matters to the WA.

As for re-submitting it, nothing would prevent that. But a resubmitted proposal would not necessarily pass. The WA frequently passes legislation, and then repeals it by overwhelming margins straight away.

[Comfed]

Though, I wonder if the SG’s new real power might get non-GPers involved in the election.

[Greater Cesnica]

Though, I wonder if the SG’s new real power might get non-GPers involved in the election.

Sure. But will non-GPers be successful?

[Comfed]

Though, I wonder if the SG’s new real power might get non-GPers involved in the election.

Sure. But will non-GPers be successful?

I don’t know

[Greater Cesnica]

Sure. But will non-GPers be successful?

I don’t know

If this idea actually comes to fruition, I'd hope so. But I certainly wouldn't put money on it.

[Wallenburg]

There's only one community being divisive and drawing battle lines here.

Don't even fucking dare to gaslight the GA community. It's not convincing, and it's most certainly not befitting someone who should be protecting NS communities from harm, not doing the harm themselves.

The General Assembly is part of the major democratic feature of NationStates; expecting to use it without having to engage with the wider world of those members is unrealistic, and has never been the case. If you truly want a "GA for the GAers", you can roleplay it in the NationStates forum and scorinate your results. And you'll find there's about 3 of you interested in it. You get your activity because the GA impacts the wider world (reminder: GA resolutions affect the stats of thousands of nations even if they don't participate in the WA), and the result of that is the wider world is interested in the General Assembly.

If GP had a single positive effect on the GA, then I would have far different perspective on this. But it doesn't. It's torn apart what used to be a fairly active and robust GA community. There's basically no RP at all in the GA anymore, and anyone who wants to pass a resolution better fucking hope that GP likes it.

[Graintfjall]

The funny thing is, you literally cannot conceive of anyone being interested in the WA because they actually like roleplaying international law. It's why you're such a poor fit to be the one overseeing this.

Similarly you can't conceive that anything other than the WA pre-2009 could be enjoyable for people. Yet the GA continues to operate, even more people seem to be involved in it these days, and you keep coming back to it.

None of that is true. WA [or UN] membership was >30,000 back in the day. The forum was much more active. And I don't keep coming back for the WA: I come back for NS Sport, and just poke my head into the WA as I have poor impulse control. NS Sport, incidentally, is a great example of a community that's been hived off separate (it used to just be threads in the NS forum) and has thrived since. The simple suggestion I made years ago of re-nesting the WA forum as part of the roleplaying forums, as it used to be, would do infinitely more to promote activity than having twice-yearly elections in which GPers compete for the vaunted prize of being able to "veto" a resolution that can then be immediately re-submitted.

"Like roleplaying international law" - I mean, the RL equivalent of what you like doing has veto powers (albeit for certain members, rather than an individual - but the end effect isn't that different), as do many other international bodies that pass legislation. So it's not stopping you roleplaying your international law; it's enhancing it. It's just different to what you're used to.

Hey, I'd be for all that kind of IC mechanic being added for the WA, could be a fun opportunity. I've always thought a Security Council would be a fun addition, too. But that's not what's being suggested here if it's just a squeeze-toy for the gameplayers.

I was genuinely surprised when I saw this thread. Not being snarky: I sincerely thought you would have ironed out the kinks from the last time this was suggested or added new features. Instead it's just an election and a pointless veto. I think the most optimistic spin I can put on it is this is so genuinely pointless it probably won't have that bad an effect.

[Separatist Peoples]

Respectfully, applying this to the General Assembly is a terrible plan. The GA community avowedly does not want Gameplay drama involved in GA votes. It's made that clear over and over through the years. So much so that the very first GenSec opinion solidified that mentioning the SC is metagaming. Many of the players in the GA are either part of Gameplay as a result of their GA activity or avowedly against Gameplay.

Beyond the general dislike of having Gameplay affect the GA, there is a practical consideration. I, at least, and several other members of GenSec from what I know, have a routine issue of people confusing GenSec and SecGen. I am extremely relieved that SecGen will not have any GenSec-like role, but the current confusion is bad enough that I think there is a genuine risk of giving the SecGen player an uncomfortable illusion of authority that they lack. This tends to make enforcement as GenSec difficult among uninformed players (moreso than usual), and including a confusing element of SecGen would not make it easier.

I respectfully implore the Admins do not move forward with this idea. In the alternative, I respectfully ask they limit this to the SC.

[Separatist Peoples]

Somebody cleverly remarked in the GA Discord that it says a lot that the GPers are the ones lining up for this idea, and not GAers.

[Pluvie]

Yeah I’m pretty agreed, this is really not a good idea at all, there are a lotta other things I’d fix before adding something that is both unnecessary and potentially very harmful.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Like roleplaying international law" - I mean, the RL equivalent of what you like doing has veto powers (albeit for certain members, rather than an individual - but the end effect isn't that different), as do many other international bodies that pass legislation. So it's not stopping you roleplaying your international law; it's enhancing it. It's just different to what you're used to.

Lmao. Permanent members of the UN Security Council have vetoes over things happening in the Security Council. If anything, this is supporting Gruen's argument to make the veto apply only there. The UN GA in fact, under UN GA Resolution 377, is the organ used for bypassing Security Council vetoes:

Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security... the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including... the use of armed force when necessary...

That bypass power is literally the exact opposite of establishing your vetocracy. The UNGA's powers in resolution 377 were established for the sole purpose of circumventing possible Soviet vetoes over Security Council action re the Korean War. The real life equivalent of 'what you like doing' actually in real life has the GA overriding SC permanent member vetoes, not the other way around.

[Galiantus III]

Since it seems that GAers are opposed to having gameplayers in their space, why not have two positions elected: one for the GA, one for the SC, and you can only vote in one. Then gameplayers who care about the SC can elect their own S-G equivalent that won't have any influence over the part of the game they care about.

[Wallenburg]

Since it seems that GAers are opposed to having gameplayers in their space, why not have two positions elected: one for the GA, one for the SC, and you can only vote in one. Then gameplayers who care about the SC can elect their own S-G equivalent that won't have any influence over the part of the game they care about.

Except when GP organizes its militaries to vote in both of them.

[Separatist Peoples]

Since it seems that GAers are opposed to having gameplayers in their space, why not have two positions elected: one for the GA, one for the SC, and you can only vote in one. Then gameplayers who care about the SC can elect their own S-G equivalent that won't have any influence over the part of the game they care about.

Because there's no way to keep Gameplay/SCers from taking over the GA vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

The problem with this is that the current and previous sec-gen were gameplayers - giving them GA veto power could make lots of GA people very unhappy. Also, who is to stop the person who had their resolution vetoed from submitting it again?

Various of the GA players have made their unhappiness clear. The winners of previous elections aren't really a good judge of how things would go in the future. Beforehand the position was just a joke one with no influence at all. It'd be different when it actually matters to the WA.

Based on...?

[Comfed]

Since it seems that GAers are opposed to having gameplayers in their space, why not have two positions elected: one for the GA, one for the SC, and you can only vote in one. Then gameplayers who care about the SC can elect their own S-G equivalent that won't have any influence over the part of the game they care about.

Because there's no way to keep Gameplay/SCers from taking over the GA vote.

Since it seems that GAers are opposed to having gameplayers in their space, why not have two positions elected: one for the GA, one for the SC, and you can only vote in one. Then gameplayers who care about the SC can elect their own S-G equivalent that won't have any influence over the part of the game they care about.

Except when GP organizes its militaries to vote in both of them.

What makes you say they will? I personally do not care about the GA, I would have no interest whatsoever in trying to influence a GA Sec-Gen.

[Separatist Peoples]

Because there's no way to keep Gameplay/SCers from taking over the GA vote.

Except when GP organizes its militaries to vote in both of them.

What makes you say they will? I personally do not care about the GA, I would have no interest whatsoever in trying to influence a GA Sec-Gen.

Because Gameplay entities have a long history of trying to affect the GA regardless of their involvement. You saw that with TEP's anti-GA policies, for example. TWP had a history of it for some time. Every major delegate, with the possible exception of Imperium Anglorum, is Gameplay-centric, and yet exert huge control over the GA. Disproportionate with their involvement.

[Unibot III]

I like Sedge’s idea but only in relation to the SC.

1. The veto power only exists in the RL UNSC, not the RL UNGA.

2. It is clear that it is unacceptable to GA Authors that major gameplay regions be given an extra lever of power and influence in the GA.

I know I’m a bit of a hermit, but at one time I was a GA Author, and I knew the frustrations of having to grovel to players who had little interest in your game for votes, and the frustrations with the site administrators that killed the NSUN without consulting the community it impacted. I was also at one time a gameplayer, and was excited by new opportunities to politick in a game that often stagnated without new gameplay tools. It could be very frustrating to see new ideas shut down by what seemed like parochialism. So I think I understand a bit of the perspective from both sides in this discussion.

The World Assembly as it exists today is a compromise and I think it’s important that the spirit of that compromise be carried forward. We listened to players — we split the WA into two chambers. We split the queue. We gave GA Authors the option to play the game they wanted to play, via the GA. And we gave the opportunity, via the SC, to others to take part in a new extension of gameplay, via the SC. The split chamber came about precisely because we recognized that the GA Community had the right to continue their game as they wanted.

Applying the veto on the SC only would respect the compromise we made back in 2010 and allow an exciting new feature to develop without hard feelings and without trespassing on an important community.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

My taxi driver told me this is a bad idea.

[Galiantus III]

What makes you say they will? I personally do not care about the GA, I would have no interest whatsoever in trying to influence a GA Sec-Gen.

Because Gameplay entities have a long history of trying to affect the GA regardless of their involvement. You saw that with TEP's anti-GA policies, for example. TWP had a history of it for some time. Every major delegate, with the possible exception of Imperium Anglorum, is Gameplay-centric, and yet exert huge control over the GA. Disproportionate with their involvement.

And naturally so: Regional security in feeders and sinkers is directly tied to WA involvement. No feeder or sinker would choose a leader based on WA politics when their primary goal is the protection and prosperity of the local community. Note that Imperium Anglorum has the luxury of being the delegate of a region with an active founder. The region can afford to separate the issues of security and WA politics.

And this isn't to say I like how things are set up. I have suggested on multiple occasions that WA participation be separated from gameplay participation, because they are indeed two different games that should have been developed separately. If they were separate a lot of this would just not be an issue and features could be added more to the liking of GA without gameplayers caring, and vica-versa. Unfortunately, that would be technically difficult to do. So for the time being, the GA is going to have to get along with gameplayers because that is just the way things are.

[Graintfjall]

In what way will giving gameplayers veto power over the WA help everyone "get along"?