[Official] GenSec Nominations

[Sierra Lyricalia]

It's that time again! We are requesting nominations for GenSec, which is currently at four members. This is not a vote, so weighing in with twenty or thirty +1s will have no effect on the ultimate decision. As before, players nominated in prior rounds will be considered again if they remain active to date.

We are looking for players who have a good understanding of the game rules, the patience to work together with other team members and to give advice to newbies without getting exasperated, and a relatively high activity level.

Thank you all in advance for your suggestions!

[Hulldom]

Just to be clear, are we expecting two members to be appointed or just the one?

In terms of nominations though, I nominate Wallenburg and Princess Rainbow Sparkles.

Edit: Also Morover.

[Separatist Peoples]

Just to be clear, are we expecting two members to be appointed or just the one?

In terms of nominations though, I nominate Wallenburg and Princess Rainbow Sparkles.

Irrelevant! Make your nominations without regard for the number of chairs being filled in what time frame!

[Morover]

Nominate Wallenburg, Honeydewistania, and Hulldom.

EDIT: Also Tinhampton

[The Orwell Society]

Nominate Princess Rainbow Sparkles, Honeydewistania, and Fachuman

EDIT: also Tinhampton (mostly) and Untecna

[Spiderman]

Nominate Honeydewistania, Hulldom, Morover, Princess Rainbow Sparkles, Wallenburg and Spiderman (completely kidding/IC on that last one, I will respectfully not be facetious here - but all of the others, and I suppose additional nominees in this thread too, would do excellent in my opinion)

[Freedomanica]

I nominate Wallenburg and Tinhampton.

[Untecna]

Shall I do something funny and nominate myself?

Hell no, not yet.

I'll nominate Morover, Wallenburg, and Hulldom

[Honeydewistania]

Would be good if people gave some justifications for their nominees, because I am really curious about some of the nominations.

Also, are all the nominees here fine with being nominated?

[Hulldom]

Would be good if people gave some justifications for their nominees, because I am really curious about some of the nominations.

Also, are all the nominees here fine with being nominated?

Speaking purely for myself, but if the community thinks I’m up for the challenge, I’ll let the nomination stand.

I will say that I expect my activity to be a bit more variable over the coming months just in terms of what I am capable of given some upcoming IRL changes. (Doesn’t help I have a job separate from the WA.) Beyond that though, I feel that it should be up for GenSec to decide.

That being said, I would like people to justify their choices a bit more, especially for non-obvious picks. (Like…Wally definitely has the track record.)

[Separatist Peoples]

Would be good if people gave some justifications for their nominees, because I am really curious about some of the nominations.

Also, are all the nominees here fine with being nominated?

Given some of the nominations that sounds like a nice inclusion.

[Daarwyrth]

I'd like to nominate Tinhampton too. She's active and passionate about the WA, as the amount of drafts proves, and in my opinion clearly knows her stuff. I've regularly consulted Tinhampton about draft ideas and the like, and I always received sensible and useful feedback from her. She also frequently gives new people solid and thorough advice, and has been known to guide inexperienced people in taking their first steps in the WA.

I'm convinced that Tinhampton would be a great and valuable addition to the GenSec for those reasons.

Edit: But I do hope that the approval of illegal proposals as the Delegate for Sophia will stop, if Tin accepts the nomination.

[Hulldom]

I’ll put my money where my mouth is on this one then, given I have some…different choices.

For Wallenburg, what more is there to say? Beyond being someone with a long history in this body, Wallenburg has shown a mastery of the ruleset that is frankly unparalleled among modern players with the exception of the current membership of GenSec. (Not including retired GenSec, of course.) I think Wallenburg maybe lags behind a bit in terms of provision of feedback, but when he does respond, he does so thoughtfully. My real hesitancy is not even one I’m in a position to address, so I won’t. From this player’s perspective, Wallenburg would be an ideal choice to serve if he could.

For Morover, I have no doubt that he knows the ruleset and can interpret it with the panache that GenSec requires. He’s been a force for good in terms of at least providing feedback to new drafts that hit the forums and has done so in a way that is both gentle but forceful. I do worry that his activity ebbs and flows a bit, but I do feel that he can be called upon to do the primary job (rules enforcement) when called. Morover would be a good choice to me because he’s shown he not only knows the rules but cares about them and cares about the player base at large as well. He has perhaps the coolest head in the room among the GA regulars. (I don’t think I’ve ever seen him upset come to think of it.) Surely that would be a desirable choice in a setting where negotiations are bound to be long, frustrating, tiresome, and occasionally boring.

For Princess Rainbow Sparkles, I know this is an unorthodox choice. For all of their plusses, PRS has been a player who has only been involved with the GA for a little under a year at this point. That inexperience definitely has its disadvantages. I also have yet to see them (I’m not sure on the pronouns so they/them is what I’ll defer to) engage with the rules in a substantive way besides piggybacking off of already-filed challenges. Which is to say: they definitely grasp the rules, but I’m not sure they’ve mastered them in the same way a Wallenburg has. However, that being said, PRS has been a force for good in this body. They’ve been consistently active and consistent about providing feedback that is both thoughtful and helpful. (As I recall, I believe I tried to make them a co-author on something I wrote because their help was just that good. However, they never responded to my Telegram to take me up on the offer.) If we’re looking for a candidate who may not be ideal now, but could grow into the role (and is frankly on the way to being ready anyways), then PRS would be the pick.

[Chipoli]

Right now I’d say my preferred options are Moreover, Wallenberg, and Hulldom. Therefore, I nominate each of them.

[Syberis]

I echo the sentiment of the masses so far with Hulldom, Honeydewistania, Wallenburg, Morover.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

On second thought, Wallenburg, Princess Rainbow Sparkles, Morover.

[Bears Armed]

A passing Bear, who'd really only popped back into the building to pick up an umbrella they'd accidentally left in the main cloakroom, points out that Tinhampton has a habit of 'approving' blatantly illegal proposals, which might cause some people concern about how much -- or how little -- they would care about enforcing the rules.

[Parvesha]

I too nominate Hulldom, Honeydewistania, Morover, and Wallenburg.

[Attempted Socialism]

To blatantly piggy-bag on Bears, I will note that GenSec aren't chosen for their legislative prowess or enthusiasm, but rather their ability to adjudicate and develop the rules in a way that promotes engagement while not disrupting established precedent too much. Ability to write legal resolutions is not the same as ability to adjudicate and develop the rules. I would prefer new GenSec members to be clearly invested in the rules, whether as proponent or opponent of specific rules and rulings. This means placing emphasis on their activity when it concerns legality in drafts and in challenges, rather than how many resolutions or drafts they have authored. With that in mind, I think some diligence is due for the people who nominate: Would you trust your nominee to interpret, help with, adjudicate, and develop, the rule-set, in an impartial and engaging manner? What evidence can you point to, if you should convince someone who knows nothing of your nominee that this is the case? If you search the GA forum for a player name and "challenge" or "legality", what comes up?
As such there are several nominees who could be considered nominated for the wrong reasons; The number of resolutions they have gotten passed, the number of drafts they have posted, or how popular they are in general. A legislative record, enthusiasm for the game, or likability, are generally good, admirable traits, but they are not, on their own, qualifying for GenSec. Nice to have, not need to have, in other words.
With that in mind, I will support Wallenburg's nomination. Wallenburg is sometimes direct (At times bordering on abrasive), but they honestly and diligently engage with the rules, and their command of the rules, precedent, and already-passed legislation is impressive. They're able to both work within the existing rule-set and challenge rules or rulings based on the effects they will have on the game. And I believe they're able to deal fairly and impartially in challenges.

[Morover]

I also nominate Goobergunchia and Attempted Socialism. I’ll be back and elaborating on my choices later but today’s a mental health day for me so it may be tomorrow.

And I’m fine with being nominated, whatever GenSec thinks is best.

[Morover]

Okay, I'm posting again since this is a pretty substantive addition, but these are my (as brief as possible) reasons for each nomination I've made:

Wallenburg: They're pretty even-handed and would stimulate good conversations within GenSec, I imagine. They have good, in-depth knowledge of the General Assembly and I don't think anybody doubts their passion for the rules. They can be overly blunt at times, but so can everyone around these parts, and I don't think it would take away from their contributions in any significant way.

Honeydewistania: Me and Honeydew definitely don't agree on a lot, but their knowledge is solid and I think they'd take the job seriously. They're active on the forums, and they also seem to check the queue pretty often. I admittedly am not overly familiar with how sure they are on the rules, but I have to imagine anyone as active as they are in the GA has a pretty good idea of them.

Hulldom: I want to say (grains of salt, people!) that Hulldom is the newest GA Regular on my list, but they have quickly become one of the most prominent people on the forums. They're kind and I don't see them doing anything but taking the job seriously. If I had to guess, they would probably be the best person on my list with regards to the "mentorship" segment. Hulldom is really good at making things understandable and digestible, which would probably help temper the weight of opinions of some of the more wordy and technical members of GenSec.

Tinhampton: A controversial pick, but Tin has a near-encyclopedic knowledge of all things NS - including the WA. While I'm not always the biggest fan of their proposals, you don't have to have the most consistently agreeable proposals in order to be GenSec. I'd wager that they are the most active person on NS in terms of checking the proposals, which if paired with a good knowledge of the rules could make for a great GenSec. She would certainly mix up GenSec from the run-of-the-mill candidates, and I don't think that that's strictly a bad thing. That being said, the controversy in this nomination is not lost on me, but I'd be remiss to not at least throw their name into consideration. Bears brings up good points, but I imagine that their approvals are more due to their more loose approval standards (if any), and not their understanding or desire to enforce the ruleset. If she moves forward in the process at all, I imagine GenSec will try and gauge where those aspects lie in interviews/discussions/whatever.

Goobergunchia: The most old-crowd of my picks, Goober has seen a lot, and can probably deal with tiebreaking decisions better. They're one of the last vestiges of the active roleplaying WAers, which is something I admire. They've been doing similar work in the SC, and though the ruleset is different, I don't think Goober is unfamiliar with the GA rules by any sense of the word, and the skills would transfer over well. There'd be no learning curve of the rulings panel, and though I don't know the relationship between GenSec and other site staff, Goober could certainly serve as a more direct link to make things more efficient (things like discarding at-vote proposals come to mind as examples as to why this is useful). I doubt they would want the position, but they ought to be nominated at least - which is why I did it!

Attempted Socialism: Admittedly, a lot of their style I've forgotten, but they have a really in-depth legal knowledge (in and out of NS) that I think most non-GenSec regulars don't really possess. They are probably the most safe candidate (on the assumption that they're active, even if they don't post as much, which is an assumption I'm making), but I don't think they would bring anything too new to the position; in many ways, they remind me of a Sciongrad character. They would write good opinions, and their forum posts have always been high-quality whenever I read them - shit, look at their post above. It's not the most technical, but it's well-articulated and brings up good points, which, when combined with an understanding of the rules, makes an excellent GenSec. If the current members are looking to recruit two new members, I would say to go with Attempted Socialism for one role, and another nominated person to spice things up a little.

[Barfleur]

I endorse Goobergunchia and Hulldom, for the reasons stated below:

Goobergunchia: Has a lot of experience both participating in the activities of the WA generally and adjudicating disputes regarding the rules specifically. I think they have both the knowledge of the rules and the ability to provide fair, unbiased, and reasoned decisions for ruling one way or the other. I also think having a mod on the team would reduce the disconnect between gameside mods and the playerside Secretariat.

Hulldom: A new but prolific author and a player who almost always has a way of contributing in some way. I think that is the kind of spirit which should be encouraged and rewarded, and in a position of authority, I believe Hulldom would apply it to good results.

[WayNeacTia]

Out of all the nominations so far, Goober is about the only one who would probably make a decent member of GenSec. Simply passing resoultions, and being "active" are not defining qualities for GenSec. With that being said, I nominate Unibot. He has been around since the beginning of time, and helped write the rules. I understand he isn't popular, but GenSec ain't a popularity contest.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Agree with nominations of Goobergunchia.

[The Orwell Society]

Sanctaria should also be nominated. They have a (to my knowledge) good grasp of the rules and the WA in general, and as expressed in discord, are more than willing to do the job.