by Sionis Prioratus » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:14 pm
by Inflatable Gandalfs » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:22 pm
by Havensky » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:22 pm
by Sionis Prioratus » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:27 pm
Inflatable Gandalfs wrote:The whole point of the approval process is to weed out bad proposals. Delegates are empowered to ignore and refuse to approve bad proposals,
Inflatable Gandalfs wrote:and moderators in effect are the secretaries-general, removing proposals (and members) in violation of certain rules. Giving players the power to "check-and-balance" an already smoothly running moderator-controlled system seems rather like needlessly hurling a wrench into the works.
by Sionis Prioratus » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:28 pm
Havensky wrote:What happens if the Chancellor loses his delegacy position?
by Havensky » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:31 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:35 pm
by Sionis Prioratus » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:44 pm
Havensky wrote:My concern is that the delegate vote would always gravitate towards size of the region vs actual interest in WA affairs.
by Sionis Prioratus » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:53 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:To be honest, I would prefer that jolly old "Burn" function that was proposed by Fris. It's far less complicated and would mean not having a middle-man Chancellor or SG.
by Inflatable Gandalfs » Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:56 pm
Sionis Prioratus wrote:This is not to disenfranchise the Mods. That is not desirable nor possible. That is to help them, to help us, to help the World Assembly weed out some of the very questionable things that have been popping up on the queue, and reaching quorum.
by Sionis Prioratus » Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:09 pm
Inflatable Gandalfs wrote:Sionis Prioratus wrote:This is not to disenfranchise the Mods. That is not desirable nor possible. That is to help them, to help us, to help the World Assembly weed out some of the very questionable things that have been popping up on the queue, and reaching quorum.
You can help the WA weed out bad proposals by convincing delegates not to endorse them. TG campaigning in opposition to proposals is every bit as legal as TGing in favor of them. We already have very capable delegates who can either approve or disapprove proposals in queue; we don't need "superdelegates" to override the political process, as politics are, by and large, the whole point to the World Assembly.
And I agree with GR: a burn/disapprove option is a much better and much simpler solution, and one that affirms the players' right to politic, rather than thwarting it.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:15 pm
by Unibot » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:45 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by The Sedge » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:59 pm
by Unibot » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:27 pm
EDIT: And if you want WA political parties, go and do what ACCEL did.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by The Sedge » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:32 pm
by Unibot » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:39 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Inflatable Gandalfs » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:48 pm
SP wrote:I agree with that and with "Burn" powers in principle. How long ago was that first proposed?
The whole point of the original thread was a "superquorum", so only the things most worthy of debate (EDIT: and the most scrutinized for legality) would ever be coming to a vote.
Unibot wrote:I suggested this before, that there could be WA political parties, and a Head elected chancellor, or Secretary General.
The Sedge wrote:Some may dislike spelling errors, or resolutions not being drafted in the usual format, but quite clearly, the majority doesn't, and its not the right of those on this forum to have their way.
by Unibot » Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:04 pm
Yes, you did, but if I recall correctly, you had no practical purpose in mind for the new political power structure; you proposed it for the same reason you propose most changes to the game: just because it would be a cool thing to have.
The NSUN of old had a very vibrant political culture: there was a sovereigntist faction, an anti-sovereigntist faction, think tanks for green proposals and international security, the Antarctian Clique, the IDU, a fraternity for forum regulars that is still semi-active, even the previously disclosed ACCEL, for those who enjoyed repeals and sticking it to the commies. We never needed any official political parties or forum officers to do it, either. Nor did we constantly feel the need to propose dozens of new game features because we were dissatisfied with what we had. We just played the game because we enjoyed playing it. Perhaps you ought to try doing the same sometime?
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Sionis Prioratus » Sun Aug 09, 2009 5:55 am
Inflatable Gandalfs wrote:SP wrote:I agree with that and with "Burn" powers in principle. How long ago was that first proposed?
A few months ago, around the same time that someone proposed increasing the amount of approvals needed for quorum. Fris countered with the "Burn" idea, but that was the last anyone heard of it. But it might have been a nice little addition as well, considering the admins were already making all those other changes to the World Assembly...
Inflatable Gandalfs wrote:But as long as we're in agreement that "stricter scrutiny" (for want of a better term) would cause fewer headaches, the point is moot. We could either increase the number of approvals needed, or implement the "burn" option -- but I think we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did both.
Inflatable Gandalfs wrote:I don't believe SP was referring to the Security Council, which doesn't have standards; he was talking about the General Assembly, which does. But as long as we're at it, the players on this forum have every right to push for standards as the players in the rank and file have to vote in proposals that lack them. It's why the GA has rules in place detailing which proposals are fit for vote, and why we have moderators in place to enforce them. It's also why the GA has functioned so well as a legislative body all these years. And that's why I support implementing minor changes to assure these standards are upheld.
The Sedge wrote:I don't see a problem with 'mob rule'. The World Assembly is supposed to be governed by the majority, not by the elitists who frequent the WA forums.
If elitism it is, blessed elitism it is, Glen-Rhodes. I plead guilty to it also. I may have been mistaken all this time this was a diplomacy game. Well, I'll let you opposers know what: Diplomacy is supposed to be HELL. "Ooooohh.. 80 World Assembly Delegates is so difficult to get!" Well, tough luck. Only the best of coalition builders should deserve to get quorums. "Oh, you're so mean." Guess what, you ain't seen nothing.
There's always a good excuse as for not to raise the threshold to an actually difficult level.
"Oh, the queue is not clogged!" (which I dare predict won't be used now)
"It's all the Security Council's fault" (AFAIK, the GA and SC are both just as capable of sheer amounts of stupidity)
"Nobody would be able to pass anything anymore!" (LIE! A fucking LIE! I can, and if allowed, will elaborate on this)
"The Mods are always watching!" (Look, cleaning up the queue it is the most ungrateful, stressful, painful, hellbound job. Granted. But no, the mods are not always watching. Sad, but true.)
"Who cares about the World Assembly anyway" (I do, even if this means shit for the majority)
Can't remember others as of now, but creativity in this field is everlasting. It's just this everlasting creativity isn't working anymore. Actually, haven't been for a long time already.
by Sionis Prioratus » Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:09 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Isn't it better to stick behind a single 'solution'? Sooner or later, if it's really a good idea, it will gain much more support and get the attention of the admins. I mean, look at concurrent voting. When Charlotte Ryberg, I think it was, first proposed it, there was little support outside of the small WA regular group; rather, nobody outside of the small group really cared. Now you see more people demanding it quite frequently.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:44 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:13 am
Sionis Prioratus wrote:But, concurrent voting would do nothing about the perennial typhoon of absurdities and illegalities hitting the Proposal Queue and reaching quorum in the "General Assembly".
by Yelda » Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:16 am
by Sionis Prioratus » Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:20 am
Yelda wrote:I can think of no better candidate for this position than Flibbleites. I think I'll go nominate him now.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Haganham, Kractero, Myanerus, Publica, Socialismia, Statte
Advertisement