WA Chancellors, WA Secretary General

[Sionis Prioratus]

Inspired by this thread.

Look, I really, absolutely do not care the smallest bit if I'm laughed off of this thread.

Fact is, the legislative process in the World Assembly is a mess. We are living mob rule.

I propose we elect/select from the pool of Delegates a number of people who would be named WA Chancellors. Their only function would be to have the power to remove Proposals from the World Assembly queue by majority votes, after written individual justifications. Their decisions would be binding on future discussions. Binding decisions would be overruled by two-thirds majority.

Isn't this the spirit driving the Security Council? Let the people make the rules?

I propose a number of nine WA Chancellors. One of them would assume the rotating (weekly? bi-weekly? monthly?) post of WA Secretary General, who would preside the judging sessions and have the actual power to have a button to delete proposal after the majority of the WA Chancellors have reached a majority decision. Should a WA Secretary General be found in derelict of its duties, it would be simply fired.

Election of Chancellors:

Every willing Delegate could apply. First-past-the post, according to the number of Chancellor seats. No two feeder Delegates could be Chancellors at the same time.

This is a very rudimentary blueprint. Well, one can dream.

[Inflatable Gandalfs]

The whole point of the approval process is to weed out bad proposals. Delegates are empowered to ignore and refuse to approve bad proposals, 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.

[Havensky]

What happens if the Chancellor loses his delegacy position?

[Sionis Prioratus]

The whole point of the approval process is to weed out bad proposals. Delegates are empowered to ignore and refuse to approve bad proposals,

I agree, and it is not working.

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.

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.

[Sionis Prioratus]

What happens if the Chancellor loses his delegacy position?

If there should be, let's say, nine Chancellors, the 10th most-voted candidate could ascend.

[Havensky]

My concern is that the delegate vote would always gravitate towards size of the region vs actual interest in WA affairs.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

[Sionis Prioratus]

My concern is that the delegate vote would always gravitate towards size of the region vs actual interest in WA affairs.

As I said, a blueprint. I'd be concerned about that as well, hence the proposed ban on two feeders' Delegates as Chancellors. It's all a blueprint. There are many alternatives to first-past-the-post.

[Sionis Prioratus]

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.

I know Glen-Rhodes, so many ideas, and what has been done, implemented? Nothing. This is one more idea, in the dim hopes something will be done as to what regards the state of the proposals queue.

[Inflatable Gandalfs]

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.

[Sionis Prioratus]

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.

I agree with that and with "Burn" powers in principle. How long ago was that first proposed?

What has been done since then in that regard?

You must agree much more drastic things have been implemented in the World Assembly ever since. And I need not comment the result. 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. And that is the whole point. Holding politics to a higher standard. But nothing is ever done. It's frustrating.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

[Unibot]

I suggested this before, that there could be WA political parties, and a Head elected chancellor, or Secretary General.

The idea was sort of proved popular, that was before the thread got closed. (thanks to Ard )

I still have a copy of the thread I started for people to enlist political parties (also thanks to Ard ).

In other words, I'm saying we could probably organize and run something like this without coding needed ....

[The Sedge]

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. 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. I don't have a problem with raising the level of approvals needed to attain quorum - though if poorly drafted resolutions are getting through, then maybe those who have an issue with them can take more responsibility in helping others draft resolutions (like the Commend 10000 Islands one), rather than complaining after they reach quorum. Anything which adds another level onto the World Assembly, though, I definitely oppose.

EDIT: And if you want WA political parties, go and do what ACCEL did.

[Unibot]

EDIT: And if you want WA political parties, go and do what ACCEL did.

What did ACCEL do?

[The Sedge]

It was an organisation of right-wing regions/nations, which (amongst other things) worked together on UN affairs. The point was that they were based on an off-site forum - if anyone wanted a World Assembly political party, you'd just need to create a forum for it, and then start inviting individuals/regions.

[Unibot]

Personally I was thinking of running a sort of WA House of Parliament on the official site, where people vote for a Secretary General. To vote, you'd have to join a Political Party or enter Independantly, and to be elected Secretary General you'd have to be as well, obviously. All discussion and organization for individual political parties would be run offsite, the onsite threads would only be for the termly elections, and official party enlistments.

[Inflatable Gandalfs]

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...

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.

Well,that's the thing: we already have "officers" in place for that; the delegates decide what's "worthy of debate," the mods scrutinize for legality. 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.

I suggested this before, that there could be WA political parties, and a Head elected chancellor, or Secretary General.

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?

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.

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.

[Unibot]

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?

In this particular circumstance I wasn't suggesting a game alteration, I was suggesting we didn't need one, a community built on the forums would more than suffice as it has in the past.

My suggestion was to pit those political cultures against each other, by establishing an election on the forums, each of those communities would have been campaigning and whatnot to control the top position.

The purpose is very clear, to allow the political opinions of the WA to be heard even more noticeably.

[Sionis Prioratus]

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...

Kenny, sorry for not have made clear my question was a rhetorical one. I wanted to emphasize there are all those wonderful and simple additions to the proposals flux, and not a single one of them gets EVER implemented. I'm acquainted with the Fris's "Burn" proposal, and I'm all for it.

I know all this talk about WA Chancellors and Secretary General will never get off the ground, given the mood of the "improvements" recently implemented. If only for the fancy names. If it would help, "Chancellors" could be "WA Toilet Cleaners" and the "Secretary General" could be "Gangrene Sucker".

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.

Agreed, agreed and agreed.

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.

Indeed I was not talking about the Security Council at all; after seeing all the improv... er, developments, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Security Council is our own World Assembly Cirque du Soleil, but with bad clowns.

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.

You totally misunderstood what I said. I'll repeat it for the zillionth time: IT. IS. TOO. FUCKING. EASY. TO. GET. A. QUORUM.

That, for me, is mob rule.

Yes, the World Assembly is supposed to be governed by the majority. But did you know it is the elitists who frequent the WA forums who are supposed to WRITE the Resolutions the majority votes on? And that ANYONE can (and should!) become an elitist who frequent the WA forums?

From the modnazified thread:

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.

I am not proposing democracy be damned. I want better democracy. Better democracy, to me, means not having to deal with "Oh, I've just hit quorum on this idea I've just had!"

Everyone already forgot the Kohlhaasenbruck guy.

[Sionis Prioratus]

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.

I'm all for concurrent voting. The Security Council should be completely and definitely segregated from the World Assembly. "General Assembly" be damned, I want my old World Assembly back.

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".

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think this is a sound idea and it would be worth elaborating and further analysed to see how this would work in the WA. I would still stand by the "burn" button if that is to make concurrent voting successful.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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".

I wasn't saying it would. :\ It was an example of how sticking behind one solution to a problem makes the likelihood of that solution being implemented increase.

A burn function would solve the problem of 'absurdities and illegalities'. A WA governing body would be fun to roleplay, but I think it should serves just that: roleplaying. If, through roleplaying, you can get nations to agree to approve or not approve something, to vote for, against, or abstain from voting on a resolution... well, I think that would be a great achievement. We need a WA voting bloc to counteract this Gameplay voting bloc, don't we?

[Yelda]

I like the idea of a "burn" button for delegates. Chancellors and a Secretary General, not so much.

The task of policing the proposal list has always belonged to the mods and it should remain so. The difference between now and "back then" is that back then there were two, sometimes three mods policing the proposal list. Now as far as I can tell there is only one. So the solution should be to add another mod with expertise in vetting proposals and culling out the illegal ones. I can think of no better candidate for this position than Flibbleites. I think I'll go nominate him now.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I can think of no better candidate for this position than Flibbleites. I think I'll go nominate him now.

I've said it before and restate it. Bob Flibble for Mod '09!!! Even if I live to regret it, after s/he wipes his ass with my Proposals