Making the Secretary-General Meaningful

[Honeydewistania]

There is no way this is going to get abused. Not at all.

An ideal or viable way to accomplish this would be comparable to the Secretariat, imo. Like I said, not set on it or committed to demanding it by any means.

Secretariat have to interpret and enforce the official rules. This panel is much much more based on opinion. They are not really comparable

[Galiantus III]

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.

[Wallenburg]

For once, I agree with Gal. Community standards are best enforced by the community, not by some resource-intensive gameplay gimmick.

[Sedgistan]

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).

There's already that quality review from Delegates. Poor quality proposals can still get to vote, but only occasionally, and a single counter-TG run tends to stop them in their tracks. I'm not seeing that as a worthwhile expansion to the SCP position.

There hasn't been quite as much feedback to my last summary post as hoped, so the next step for myself is to probably write up a full proposal for this change as I see it, which might get more of a reaction.

[Brilliantly]

Though it is a good idea, it think this is kind-a com service for my taste. First of all, recently a flood of poor quality SC proposals coming in and even some entering vote. This is ridiculous because I really want a good debate in the forums nowadays and the proposals up for voting are always one sided, which means one side is of the debate is better just in common sense. Also one veto is way too less because out of all the poor quality proposals that needs to be seriously not on vote, there equally as bad and poor quality as each other. Only vetoing one of them won’t stop the others. Also veto can be abused to stop good quality proposals because they say bad words about the elected allies. This power will go too corrupted and after the elections, we see mass abuse. I suggest we take away veto and the other are generally fine if we have safe guard from corruption in this power.
Signed - president of brilliantly.

[Great Algerstonia]

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.

Agreed, having unofficial solution would be far better than coded solution unless it's raising the amount of delegates required to make quorum or something simple like that

[Lenlyvit]

I know I'm really late to this party, by about 8 months, but I do have some ideas in regard to this. I think making the S-G position a permanent political position within the SC is a great idea, because it will bring more politics into the WA body than it usually enjoys. My ideas might be half-baked, and might not make much sense, but I'll try my best to express myself from the position of the current S-G and prolific SC author.

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.

As for a one-time every 6 months veto? I'm not really sure about that. How often would it really be used? It's not very often that there are proposals or resolutions that will be opposed to that degree I think. Off the top of my head I can think of maybe two within the last year that may have had a veto held over them, and that's only depending on whether a defender or a raider held the position. Raiders would definitely hold it over liberation proposals though, there's no doubt about that.

As for an idea more that I had, I wanted to explore the possibility of an S-G (or whatever) being able to freeze a proposals approvals. It adds a little politicing that I think would be great. They could freeze it before it reaches queue to force the author to make changes, or freeze it after queue in order to prevent quorum raiding the proposal to lose approvals. I'm not really sure how it would work, but it's an interesting idea I just wanted to bring up.

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.

[Flanderlion]

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.

Fully agreed.

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.

[Lenlyvit]

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.

Well, yes. However, at that point you really do run into the possibility of someone holding the position indefinitely like others have said. On the flip side of that though is that they can get pushed out by an up-and-coming player who may be more influential than them. It's kind of a dynamic that nobody can really predict until it happens though. My question is, would it be possible to try it out for 6 month terms right off the bat, and then change the term length down the road? And, if it doesn't work out, implement term limits down the road as well?

I see one way around someone using proxy nations to get around it, and that is to implement a system that will check IP or previous nations emails on the admin side to prevent it. And I'll also add in, I like Tinhamptons examples of what it could look like on the WA side for S-G powers.

[Sedgistan]

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.

[Doge Land]

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).

[Lenlyvit]

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.

6 month terms sounds okay to me, and I understand your reasoning on it now. 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.

[Bears Armed]

[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.

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...

[Flanderlion]

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.

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]

Could you reorder a Recall resolution?

[Apatosaurus]

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.

[Comfed]

Well I don’t see the problem, game mechanics-wise, with a corrupt SG.

[Lenlyvit]

[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.

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...

Unless there's a possibility a Security Council President can freeze a proposals queue process, stopping it from gaining or losing approvals. It's an interesting idea towards a possible power, which could possibly be counteracted by a resolution type to stop that power or unfreeze the proposal. But that might be too complicated....

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.

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.

I was just throwing out numbers, I have no particular numbers in mind. Permanently freezing a proposal from vote though seems a little extreme doesn't it? Although, it does give fodder for a recall vote if implemented.

Could you reorder a Recall resolution?

I think they should be able to, because that just adds more reason to either recall them or to vote them out in the next election .

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.

Just want to make it known that I also support the idea of a recall vote to add more politicking to the SC areas.

[Marxist Germany]

If the Sec-Gen elections are held every six months, then a cycle of January-July or December-June would help with the absence of events between April and September, and vice versa.

As for the recall resolution, it should require a supermajority to pass, to avoid having to replace the Sec-Gen constantly. I suggest that the mechanism by which the Sec-Gen would be recalled is to have a nominee, as the target of the resolution, to replace the Sec-Gen temporarily, until the next election cycle arrives. Having full elections every time a recall succeeds would harm WA authors, as more people will start blocking WA telegrams, thereby making campaigning more difficult.

[Comfed]

If we have regular Sec-Gen elections then I think we need a separate TG category for election campaigns.

[Wallenburg]

If we have regular Sec-Gen elections then I think we need a separate TG category for election campaigns.

Absolutely. Keeping it as part of the WA TG system will render the WA extinct within, at most, 2 years, as authors would be incapable of collecting approvals.

[Sedgistan]

That's already intended to be part of implementing this.

Someone is going to tell me to update the OP soon. I will. Soon.

[Tinhampton]

Regional telegrams are associated with the Influence icon.
Recruitment telegrams are associated with a stylised person.
WA campaign telegrams are associated with the WA logo.

Perhaps - given that SecGen is likely to be the SC President in reality - SecGen election campaign telegrams should be associated with a sword, the main part of the SC's logo?

[Haganham]

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.

[Sedgistan]

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.

Open to ideas, but the main thought behind it is that SG elections have been very TG spammy in the past, and we don't want them to cause people to filter stuff they might otherwise be okay with.