Advertisement
by Goobergunchia » Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:15 am
by Drew Durrnil » Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:18 am
Goobergunchia wrote:If this were implemented I would like to see Sec'y-General not be subject to Rule 3(a). It should absolutely be legal to Condemn a Sec'y-General for abusing their veto power, since that's a political action.
Rosartemis wrote:DOWN WITH UEPU THOSE DAMNED RAIDERS!
by Sedgistan » Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:45 am
Goobergunchia wrote:If this were implemented I would like to see Sec'y-General not be subject to Rule 3(a). It should absolutely be legal to Condemn a Sec'y-General for abusing their veto power, since that's a political action.
by Wallenburg » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:45 pm
Sedgistan wrote:I'm going to drop the GA side of things, so the brands and pitchforks can be put away. For clarity's sake, that means the veto would only be usable in the SC. I'd still like input from the GA crowd, as there are aspects of this that remain relevant to you, e.g. the TG spam issue, and the naming confusion.
I do believe this would have been positive for the General Assembly, but I can recognise when I'm in a small minority.
by Mancheseva City » Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:52 pm
by Miravana » Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:28 pm
Numero Capitan wrote:I resent the suggestion that I would spy on TBH.
by Goobergunchia » Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:44 pm
by Sedgistan » Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:58 pm
by Wallenburg » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:19 pm
Sedgistan wrote:The primary issue I'm having with re-ordering the proposal queue is visibility. Who looks at it? Dedicated WA players, and some Delegates - that's it. An S-G fiddling around with the queue is meaningless to most WA members, and barely noticeable. A veto is big, obnoxious and obvious. It'd be there on the WA page that the S-G overrode the democratic wishes of WA member to block a proposal. That's something that regular players will see, and will care about.
There are also all sorts of details around how "reordering the queue" works that are being glossed over, and would have a significant impact on how it operated.
by Flanderlion » Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:06 pm
by Wymondham » Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:21 pm
Flanderlion wrote:My musts are having a regular (whether annually or twice a year) event/election for a position that can do something. Ideally it'd reorder the queue as it's a constructive power that can be used destructively. But I don't mind whether veto happens/is unlimited. Just throwing an idea out there re veto, not for or against:
What if veto was unlimited or monthly but just meant 60/66/70% required to pass the resolution?
by Crowheim » Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:24 pm
by Comfed » Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:25 pm
Sedgistan wrote:The primary issue I'm having with re-ordering the proposal queue is visibility. Who looks at it? Dedicated WA players, and some Delegates - that's it. An S-G fiddling around with the queue is meaningless to most WA members, and barely noticeable. A veto is big, obnoxious and obvious. It'd be there on the WA page that the S-G overrode the democratic wishes of WA member to block a proposal. That's something that regular players will see, and will care about.
There are also all sorts of details around how "reordering the queue" works that are being glossed over, and would have a significant impact on how it operated.
by Goobergunchia » Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Sedgistan wrote:The primary issue I'm having with re-ordering the proposal queue is visibility. Who looks at it? Dedicated WA players, and some Delegates - that's it. An S-G fiddling around with the queue is meaningless to most WA members, and barely noticeable. A veto is big, obnoxious and obvious. It'd be there on the WA page that the S-G overrode the democratic wishes of WA member to block a proposal. That's something that regular players will see, and will care about.
Security Council
Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary
The Security Council recognizes and responds to individual nations and regions, with the aim of ensuring global harmony.
The agenda for the Security Council is controlled by the Secretary-General, @@NATION@@.
Security Council Agenda
AT VOTE: Condemn Minineenee
1. Commend Pope Hope
Question to be put in 2 days 5 hours.
2. Liberate Democratic Underground
Question to be put in 6 days 5 hours.
3. Condemn Francos Spain
Question to be put in 10 days 5 hours.
by Reploid Productions » Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:46 pm
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Sandaoguo » Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:53 pm
by Quebecshire » Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:10 pm
Altmoras wrote:If the Veto is OP an alternative to make SecGen meaningful could be to show voters how SecGen voted the same way it shows how your regional delegate has voted.
Benevolent Thomas wrote:I founded a defender organization out of my dislike of invaders, what invading represents, and my desire to see them suffer.
Pergamon wrote:I must say, you are truly what they deserve.
by Eshialand » Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:33 pm
Quebecshire wrote:TLDR: I like it.
But,
I have a couple of concerns and conflictions,
On the one hand, six months seems really frequent for something like this, on the other, with only one veto, I guess it seems reasonable.
My next thing would be resubmissions. At least in the case of the SC, if something is vetoed, it should be unable to be re-proposed until the next term, in my opinion.Altmoras wrote:If the Veto is OP an alternative to make SecGen meaningful could be to show voters how SecGen voted the same way it shows how your regional delegate has voted.
I feel like this should happen regardless, and there should be a differentiation between the SecGen voting no and the SecGen deciding to exercise their veto.
by Quebecshire » Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:36 pm
Eshialand wrote:In cases of urgent liberations (cough The Embassy cough), that would be devastating, and it isn't all that implausible if a raider gets elected Sec-Gen. What if it could be resubmitted, as long as it acknowledged that there was a previous veto and maybe was rewritten?
Eshialand wrote:Also, in the RL USA, the Senate can override a presidential veto with a supermajority... maybe some kind of supermajority mechanism could be implemented as well/instead?
Benevolent Thomas wrote:I founded a defender organization out of my dislike of invaders, what invading represents, and my desire to see them suffer.
Pergamon wrote:I must say, you are truly what they deserve.
by Goobergunchia » Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:39 pm
Reploid Productions wrote:Another alternative I threw at Sedge in the lair to the veto idea is that the S-G gets a sort of soft veto/pass tool. Maybe monthly they can cast a super-vote for/against that is equal to basically a WA delegate of a supermassive region in terms of vote weight. I pitched it at roughly 50% of the total WA membership though the numbers would likely need fine-tuning; basically enough to make it take a supermajority of delegates/regular voters to override it, but giving more versatility than a pure veto since it could be used to try and discourage OR ram through a proposal. Plus that prevents a complete dead-end scenario since the S-G's influence in the vote could be overcome. And being more than a one-off nuke would give elections fodder since campaigns could levy that information: "So-and-so tried to push through $unpopular_proposal! So-and-so tried to block $popular_one" and such, since that would give voters more data points to consider during elections, and also make that a consideration for candidates interested in trying for another term.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:42 pm
Reploid Productions wrote:Another potential soft power tool for the S-G might be a free WA-wide or delegate-wide telegram per resolution vote to "address the assembly" with their thoughts on the proposal being voted on.
Reploid Productions wrote:We would definitely need to make a S-G campaign TG category so that folks could block S-G election stuff if they wanted without also taking out their ability to get regular proposal campaign messages.
by The Free Joy State » Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:54 pm
Reploid Productions wrote:Another alternative I threw at Sedge in the lair to the veto idea is that the S-G gets a sort of soft veto/pass tool. Maybe monthly they can cast a super-vote for/against that is equal to basically a WA delegate of a supermassive region in terms of vote weight. I pitched it at roughly 50% of the total WA membership though the numbers would likely need fine-tuning; basically enough to make it take a supermajority of delegates/regular voters to override it, but giving more versatility than a pure veto since it could be used to try and discourage OR ram through a proposal.
Some other things to consider:
- We would definitely need to make a S-G campaign TG category so that folks could block S-G election stuff if they wanted without also taking out their ability to get regular proposal campaign messages.
We would probably need to include some kind of term limits to prevent it from stagnating or for one super-popular player becoming S-G for life. Like maybe 2 terms and then they can't run again until at least 2 more terms have elapsed. Enforcement could be tricky there since somebody would no doubt try to get around it by switching to a new WA nation though.
Similarly, some manner of Impeach or Recall proposal type to remove a really unpopular S-G from office early would need to be added. (And the above suggested super-vote tool could not be used on those!)
by Tinhampton » Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:23 am
Sedgistan wrote:...A veto is big, obnoxious and obvious. It'd be there on the WA page that the S-G overrode the democratic wishes of WA member to block a proposal. That's something that regular players will see, and will care about.
by Merni » Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:00 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Boainn BEZY, Ethel mermania, Istastioner, Quincy, The Endless Eventide, Wadelhelpia
Advertisement