Advertisement
by Morover » Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:08 am
by Unibot III » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:22 am
Morover wrote:Sorry to bump, but I had an idea for this, though I want to get other people’s thoughts: my thought is that maybe the President can have free access to telegram Delegates and/or the WA? If this is considered too large of a power, perhaps they could be limited in how many they get per term? Though I think if it were being abused, a recall could happen.
Just a thought, to give the position a bit more oomf, y’know?
[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 Imperium Anglorum » Sun Dec 26, 2021 3:45 pm
by Wallenburg » Sun Dec 26, 2021 6:38 pm
Morover wrote:Sorry to bump, but I had an idea for this, though I want to get other people’s thoughts: my thought is that maybe the President can have free access to telegram Delegates and/or the WA? If this is considered too large of a power, perhaps they could be limited in how many they get per term? Though I think if it were being abused, a recall could happen.
Just a thought, to give the position a bit more oomf, y’know?
by Morover » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:11 pm
Unibot III wrote:Morover wrote:Sorry to bump, but I had an idea for this, though I want to get other people’s thoughts: my thought is that maybe the President can have free access to telegram Delegates and/or the WA? If this is considered too large of a power, perhaps they could be limited in how many they get per term? Though I think if it were being abused, a recall could happen.
Just a thought, to give the position a bit more oomf, y’know?
I like this idea but I wonder if shoehorning that communication into the WA filter could inadvertently limit the use of the power for GP application.
For instance, if “Liberate X,” passes, the Secretary-General could put out a call to the WA to find troops to endorse the current delegate or an occupier or liberator, or something. It’s SC related, but not strictly aligned with the WA filter’s purpose.
Wallenburg wrote:Morover wrote:Sorry to bump, but I had an idea for this, though I want to get other people’s thoughts: my thought is that maybe the President can have free access to telegram Delegates and/or the WA? If this is considered too large of a power, perhaps they could be limited in how many they get per term? Though I think if it were being abused, a recall could happen.
Just a thought, to give the position a bit more oomf, y’know?
That's an interesting idea, although it's rather incongruous with the goal of increasing stamp revenue.
by Hulldom » Mon Oct 10, 2022 7:56 am
by Galiantus III » Wed Oct 12, 2022 2:41 pm
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 Haganham » Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:26 am
Galiantus III wrote:Here's an idea for electing the SG:
On the first day of the election, a number of votes (let's say 10) are simultaneously distributed to each WA nation. Votes may be given to any other nation that is currently in the WA, in any number. Votes received by a nation simply add to the pool of votes they can give. At the end of two weeks, whoever holds the most votes wins and becomes the SG.
My reasoning is that this system is incredibly simple. At the outset, it promises to be fair and democratic. Yet at the same time, it leaves the door open for and practically invites crazy shenanigans throughout the whole election period, especially leading into the 11th hour of the election, when some nations will have large quantities of votes primed to swing the election one way or the other. It should be interesting to see the combination of campaigning and negotiation used to actually win using this system.
by Honeydewistania » Fri Oct 14, 2022 4:13 am
Galiantus III wrote:Here's an idea for electing the SG:
On the first day of the election, a number of votes (let's say 10) are simultaneously distributed to each WA nation. Votes may be given to any other nation that is currently in the WA, in any number. Votes received by a nation simply add to the pool of votes they can give. At the end of two weeks, whoever holds the most votes wins and becomes the SG.
My reasoning is that this system is incredibly simple. At the outset, it promises to be fair and democratic. Yet at the same time, it leaves the door open for and practically invites crazy shenanigans throughout the whole election period, especially leading into the 11th hour of the election, when some nations will have large quantities of votes primed to swing the election one way or the other. It should be interesting to see the combination of campaigning and negotiation used to actually win using this system.
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Free Algerstonia » Fri Oct 14, 2022 4:24 am
Sedgistan wrote:It also means entirely re-coding the election methodology. That's not an option.
by Galiantus III » Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:16 am
Sedgistan wrote:It also means entirely re-coding the election methodology. That's not an option.
Hulldom wrote:A thought I have on this, especially seeing that multiple rounds aren't preferred.
Would a system of election for the [insert new title for SecGen here] that allowed for multiple votes in the first round (and then eliminated all those under a certain quota: say...10%) and then allowed for a preference order in round 2 to find a "consensus" candidate be feasible?
I can elaborate on this if need be, but I think that's probably the simplest way of handling things.
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 Hulldom » Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:30 am
by Hulldom » Thu Jan 19, 2023 9:15 am
Sedgistan wrote:S-G election is 99% not happening when scheduled this year - I was over-optimistic on getting changes to it, particularly given that F/S is getting worked on at present instead.
by Sedgistan » Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:53 am
by Haganham » Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:53 am
Sedgistan wrote:S-G election is 99% not happening when scheduled this year - I was over-optimistic on getting changes to it, particularly given that F/S is getting worked on at present instead.
by Salcanceacy » Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:26 pm
Hulldom wrote:Sedgistan wrote:S-G election is 99% not happening when scheduled this year - I was over-optimistic on getting changes to it, particularly given that F/S is getting worked on at present instead.
Ah, that's a touch disappointing. Is there anything like a revised timeline or even a guesstimate?
by Wallenburg » Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:41 pm
by Wymondham » Thu Sep 21, 2023 9:53 pm
by Lord Dominator » Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:53 pm
Wymondham wrote:After mulling this over in VC with a few people I wanted to propose that instead of a once per term absolute veto, the SG would get a suspensive veto that could be used more than once per term. This would work in one of two ways
1. The SG raises a veto within X hours of a proposal coming to vote - that vote now requires a 2/3rds majority to pass
2. The SG vetos a proposal within, say, 12 hours of passing, the proposal now goes back to the SC at the top of the queue and requires a 2/3rds majority to pass.
Either of the above would balance the veto in such a way that it could be used more than once per term; this would hopefully allow the SG to be more than a zero-sum election over an ability they get to use once. It would also hopefully encourage the role to be used for more profound high politics than simply killing one injuction/commend/condemn/liberation that they don't like and then the SG is irrelevant for the rest of their term.
by Sedgistan » Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:56 am
by Varanius » Sun Oct 08, 2023 2:20 pm
Angeloid Astraea wrote:I can't think of anyone that creates controversy out of nothing better than you!
Excidium Planetis wrote:Yeah, if you could enlighten me as to why you're such an asshole, that would be great.
Koth wrote:Vara is such a dedicated hater, it's impressive
Mlakhavia wrote:Vara isn't a gameplay personality, he's a concentrated ball of spite
by Flanderlion » Mon Oct 09, 2023 5:56 pm
Varanius wrote:Alright. I’ll be honest, I think we’re looking at this wrong. Specifically, I don’t think either of the currently presented ideas are actually all that interesting. Restructuring the queue is somehow both too overpowered and too useless. It would essentially either guarantee or completely prohibit liberations and injunctions depending on who had the seat, and also be entirely pointless for anything outside of that.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ammmericaaaa, Ancientania, Ashas Favor, Countriopia, Geopolity, Hapilopper, Iberian Republic, Isla Pluma, Kniefenland, Kractero, Merethin, Reyo, The Wasp Nest, WeaselKneesia
Advertisement