Secretariat have to interpret and enforce the official rules. This panel is much much more based on opinion. They are not really comparable
Advertisement
by Honeydewistania » Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:21 pm
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Galiantus III » Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:22 pm
Quebecshire wrote:Given the long consecutive line of absolutely shit-tier WA proposals at quorum in the SC, I'm gonna drop a hot take suggestion that I half agree with:
Letting the WASC President/SecGen appoint (maybe with a confirmation process by delegates) a panel of 3-5 nations to judge proposals and ensure they are not low effort (I use low effort as opposed to low quality because as Merlin noted on NSGP when using that term, quality is much more subjective).
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Wallenburg » Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:20 pm
by Sedgistan » Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:46 am
Quebecshire wrote:Given the long consecutive line of absolutely shit-tier WA proposals at quorum in the SC, I'm gonna drop a hot take suggestion that I half agree with:
Letting the WASC President/SecGen appoint (maybe with a confirmation process by delegates) a panel of 3-5 nations to judge proposals and ensure they are not low effort (I use low effort as opposed to low quality because as Merlin noted on NSGP when using that term, quality is much more subjective).
by Brilliantly » Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:16 pm
by Great Algerstonia » Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:33 pm
Galiantus III wrote:Quebecshire wrote:Given the long consecutive line of absolutely shit-tier WA proposals at quorum in the SC, I'm gonna drop a hot take suggestion that I half agree with:
Letting the WASC President/SecGen appoint (maybe with a confirmation process by delegates) a panel of 3-5 nations to judge proposals and ensure they are not low effort (I use low effort as opposed to low quality because as Merlin noted on NSGP when using that term, quality is much more subjective).
Players already have options for fighting proposals they oppose. Counter campaigning and quorum raiding are both effective options for keeping low-effort proposals off the floor. At the moment, the main issue is organization: perhaps someone could form a committee of delegates, former issues authors, and/or other relevant parties, for the purpose of establishing standards for proposals, and opposing them with whatever methods they feel comfortable using. That would be far more interesting.
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Lenlyvit » Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:58 pm
by Flanderlion » Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:51 pm
Lenlyvit wrote:To me the idea of possibly rearranging the queue order as a permanent power the S-G can use is very interesting. While the normal NS player won't see it, GP and SC focused people/groups will. These authors and/or groups could advocate to the S-G (or whatever it ends up being called) for getting their proposal pushed ahead, or having them push one further behind. It definitely makes a difference on who gets elected as well, because that will influence how they use the power and how they use it in a R/D capacity.
Lenlyvit wrote:The length of a term would probably be best to be a year long, instead of six months, because six months seems to short in order to effect change or politics and because we can go months without viable proposals. Overall, I would like to see this come to fruition at some point.
by Lenlyvit » Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:39 pm
Flanderlion wrote:Lenlyvit wrote:The length of a term would probably be best to be a year long, instead of six months, because six months seems to short in order to effect change or politics and because we can go months without viable proposals. Overall, I would like to see this come to fruition at some point.
Could they not just be reelected if they want longer terms? More frequent elections brings more events into NS, and stops inactive players from holding the role too long.
by Sedgistan » Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:49 am
by Doge Land » Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:50 pm
by Lenlyvit » Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:40 pm
Sedgistan wrote:I'm fairly certain on 6 month terms, and no limits on re-election. Committing yourself to 6 months of activity on an online game is a big thing, and unexpected stuff (RL, burnout) comes up. Even with a deputy position in place, I'd rather err on the side of more frequent elections than long terms that drag on and become meaningless by the end.
This post remains the most comprehensive summary of where things stand. The main thing that has changed since then is Frontiers/Strongholds going on the to-code list, which comes with a meaningful new SC Category. That makes re-ordering the queue a more significant power, so I'm more open to it than I was before, either as an alternative to or addition to veto powers. I do still feel that reordering the queue is not a particularly prominent power and is meaningless to the majority of players - which is why the veto is still attractive.
What I'd like to hear more of is how a "queue reordering" mechanic would work. What's the goal here? If it's prioritising certain proposal types, then you want to be able to bump something up to #1 in the queue. But I want to avoid a system where endless bumping can stop something ever reaching vote. There's the alternative of having the power to delay each proposal once by up to X days, which means they'll still get their chance to go to vote, and allows prioritising to an extent if carefully managed.
As ever, I don't want to overcomplicate this idea - part of its appeal is that it uses existing code, and the more stuff we add to it, then more months we'll wait before it's implemented.
by Bears Armed » Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:16 pm
Bumping a proposal to #1 also gives people who don't like one of the other proposals that it's bumped past longer to quorum-raid against that...Lenlyvit wrote:[As to the queue re-ordering, I'm thinking that we should keep both that and the veto for the powers of the Security Council President. While the queue re-ordering seems like a less "flashy" power to give, it allows politicking to a degree for authors and various organizations that would surpass politicking regularly seen during the approval phase. Bumping a proposal to the #1 spot seems to make the most sense to me because technically the code already exists due to the ability to bump regional officers or embassies and dispatches. There has to be a limit though, and that limit should be that a proposal can only be bumped if there's an X amount of proposals in the queue. Not if there's only two or three, but probably 4 or 5.
by Flanderlion » Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:02 pm
Sedgistan wrote:I'm fairly certain on 6 month terms, and no limits on re-election. Committing yourself to 6 months of activity on an online game is a big thing, and unexpected stuff (RL, burnout) comes up. Even with a deputy position in place, I'd rather err on the side of more frequent elections than long terms that drag on and become meaningless by the end.
This post remains the most comprehensive summary of where things stand. The main thing that has changed since then is Frontiers/Strongholds going on the to-code list, which comes with a meaningful new SC Category. That makes re-ordering the queue a more significant power, so I'm more open to it than I was before, either as an alternative to or addition to veto powers. I do still feel that reordering the queue is not a particularly prominent power and is meaningless to the majority of players - which is why the veto is still attractive.
What I'd like to hear more of is how a "queue reordering" mechanic would work. What's the goal here? If it's prioritising certain proposal types, then you want to be able to bump something up to #1 in the queue. But I want to avoid a system where endless bumping can stop something ever reaching vote. There's the alternative of having the power to delay each proposal once by up to X days, which means they'll still get their chance to go to vote, and allows prioritising to an extent if carefully managed.
Lenlyvit wrote:Bumping a proposal to the #1 spot seems to make the most sense to me because technically the code already exists due to the ability to bump regional officers or embassies and dispatches. There has to be a limit though, and that limit should be that a proposal can only be bumped if there's an X amount of proposals in the queue. Not if there's only two or three, but probably 4 or 5.
by Unibot III » Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:50 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Apatosaurus » Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:52 pm
Doge Land wrote:I like this idea.
6 month terms seem good and a "Recall" proposal for the SC also does (for when the SecGen gets elected and does absolutely nothing or they abuse their power).
by Lenlyvit » Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:06 pm
Bears Armed wrote:Bumping a proposal to #1 also gives people who don't like one of the other proposals that it's bumped past longer to quorum-raid against that...Lenlyvit wrote:[As to the queue re-ordering, I'm thinking that we should keep both that and the veto for the powers of the Security Council President. While the queue re-ordering seems like a less "flashy" power to give, it allows politicking to a degree for authors and various organizations that would surpass politicking regularly seen during the approval phase. Bumping a proposal to the #1 spot seems to make the most sense to me because technically the code already exists due to the ability to bump regional officers or embassies and dispatches. There has to be a limit though, and that limit should be that a proposal can only be bumped if there's an X amount of proposals in the queue. Not if there's only two or three, but probably 4 or 5.
Flanderlion wrote:Sedgistan wrote:I'm fairly certain on 6 month terms, and no limits on re-election. Committing yourself to 6 months of activity on an online game is a big thing, and unexpected stuff (RL, burnout) comes up. Even with a deputy position in place, I'd rather err on the side of more frequent elections than long terms that drag on and become meaningless by the end.
This post remains the most comprehensive summary of where things stand. The main thing that has changed since then is Frontiers/Strongholds going on the to-code list, which comes with a meaningful new SC Category. That makes re-ordering the queue a more significant power, so I'm more open to it than I was before, either as an alternative to or addition to veto powers. I do still feel that reordering the queue is not a particularly prominent power and is meaningless to the majority of players - which is why the veto is still attractive.
What I'd like to hear more of is how a "queue reordering" mechanic would work. What's the goal here? If it's prioritising certain proposal types, then you want to be able to bump something up to #1 in the queue. But I want to avoid a system where endless bumping can stop something ever reaching vote. There's the alternative of having the power to delay each proposal once by up to X days, which means they'll still get their chance to go to vote, and allows prioritising to an extent if carefully managed.
I think a proposal should be able to be delayed 'indefinitely'. That's the destructive part of the constructive power. There is no way that there will be non stop legal proposals that have reached quorum for an indefinite period of time. Even if there were, the Sec Gen would have to continously keep the undesired proposal at the bottom of the queue. And at that point, they're still limited by their term etc.
Why is a proposal being endlessly delayed an undesirable proposal? It implies that there will never be a lull in the SC. It has been 2 weeks and counting since the last SC resolution, and that's not a particularly abnormal gap. If the conditions for an indefinite delay are met, it means the SC is super active consistently with an engaged motivated SecGen who is receiving consistent support from the electorate. Sounds like a success to me.
Veto wise, I don't see it as an either or - I would be happy with both as long as veto was appropriate. Veto is the big flashy controversial one that makes headlines, reordering is the constructive improvement allowing the WA to rush proposals to vote/delay them so the WA gains more context for the resolution.Lenlyvit wrote:Bumping a proposal to the #1 spot seems to make the most sense to me because technically the code already exists due to the ability to bump regional officers or embassies and dispatches. There has to be a limit though, and that limit should be that a proposal can only be bumped if there's an X amount of proposals in the queue. Not if there's only two or three, but probably 4 or 5.
Agreed. Whatever is easier for implementation.
Why a limit, and if a limit why 4/5 proposals in queue? I don't see the need, and I don't see how if there 4/5 proposals in queue rather than 2/3 it changes anything more than the time in queue skipped.
Unibot III wrote:Could you reorder a Recall resolution?
Apatosaurus wrote:Doge Land wrote:I like this idea.
6 month terms seem good and a "Recall" proposal for the SC also does (for when the SecGen gets elected and does absolutely nothing or they abuse their power).
Yes, I support a Recall resolution because there will eventually be an inactive/corrupt SG.
by Marxist Germany » Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:34 am
by Wallenburg » Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:11 am
Comfed wrote:If we have regular Sec-Gen elections then I think we need a separate TG category for election campaigns.
by Tinhampton » Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:28 am
by Haganham » Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:32 am
by Sedgistan » Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:16 am
Haganham wrote:would these campaign telegrams include endo campaigns, or would they stay under wa campaigns and the election campaign tele just be for the SG election campaigns?
I'd prefer the former, seems easier to filter what you don't want, and would be more institutive.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Khantin, United States of Dictators
Advertisement