WA Chancellors, WA Secretary General

[Unibot]

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

My two cents worth :
When I started idemongering back in the Great Decline, Flib was the only one who'd give me a straight answer as to why things were, most people just told me to shut up politely. Maybe I did need to shut up, but I appreciated knowing why certain ideas were never approved for the game code - that was one of my inspirations behind the Big List, having a documented index of the admins' opinions on ideas (the other inspiration was Sirocco tellling me to make one ).

[Yelda]

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

I've just nominated him, assuming the email and instructions in this thread are still good. I couldn't find anything about nominating a mod on the new forum.

No guarantee he'll get modicized though.

[Unibot]

I've just nominated him, assuming the email and instructions in this thread are still good. I couldn't find anything about nominating a mod on the new forum.

No guarantee he'll get modicized though.

You're right there is no copy of that thread on these forums, so maybe that was the admins silently telling us the invitation has expired ? Though on Jolt they said they didn't set a due date for submissions. So I hope they consider it, I don't see why not.

[Yelda]

I've just nominated him, assuming the email and instructions in this thread are still good. I couldn't find anything about nominating a mod on the new forum.

No guarantee he'll get modicized though.

You're right there is no copy of that thread on these forums, so maybe that was the admins silently telling us the invitation has expired ? Though on Jolt they said they didn't set a due date for submissions. So I hope they consider it, I don't see why not.

They might not be looking for a new mod at this time and that might be one of the reasons that thread hasn't been copied over to these forums. Didn't hurt to nominate him though. Now the question is, would Flib accept the job if it was offered to him?

[Ardchoille]

As far as I know there's no change to nominating people for modship. It's not uncommon for people to send in GHRs to that effect. Player input, as the sticky says, is valued.

I do think, though, that before you start a campaign you really should ask the lovely Bob Flibble himself. Privately. It's not a fun job, and he'd be well within his rights to tell you to go jump. Or to tell you he didn't appreciate being pressured, or embarrassed if the idea's rejected.

The second point to consider is that forum mods don't start off sweeping the proposal queue. The Archangel Gabriel himself is not going to be punted up to Game Mod within weeks of his arrival. So the instant fix you want to achieve is not going to be instant, and could well take up to a year.

The mods who sweep the queue (which is mostly me, but sometimes Sirocco and occasionally Melkor, with even the odd guest appearance by Hack) are all happy (overjoyed!) to take player advice, and a good way to give it is in the "Silly or Illegal" thread. This excludes proposals that already have their own thread, of course. For those, if you've got a legality question, your best bet is still Moderation or Getting Help. My preference is for threads in the Moderation forum, since if you're just questioning for political ends someone's bound to reply pointing out your ebil motivation. But Fris and Hack preferred GH threads, possibly because of past experiences with UN/WA battles spilling over into Moderation flamefests. 'Sall good.

If anyone wants to start one, we can have a "debatable proposals" thread to do the same job for debated or drafting proposals as "Silly and Illegal" does for all other queued proposals. It would have to be strictly limited as to comment, so that it didn't turn into a second-string debate. Just a link to the proposal and a succinct "Optionality violation this clause? [ QUOTE]burble[ /QUOTE]". I refer to the S&I, and I'd use a "Debatables" the same way, with the usual reservation.

I can see why the "burn" idea appeals. If someone would like to link to Fris's proposal, or write a succinct argument for it, and post the link or argument here, I'll certainly put it to the admins/Max directly. But remember that a "burn" button will be just as much open to politicking as the "approve" button is (or as the change-your-mind option is). Conceivably, a good proposal by a GA-unpopular player could be burnt before it had a chance to garner support from those uncommitted delegates who looked at the proposal, not the proposer. The reaction to C&Cs seemed to me to suggest that "popularity contest" voting was anathema to many.

Political parties are fun, and they're great RPs -- but they are RPs, so your discussions would have to be held in the RP forums, or offsite, on RMBs or in TG exchanges. Think about it: the real politicking in any legislative body isn't done on the floor; the GA forum is the floor. The real stuff is done in seemingly unimportant committees, in the lobbies, in the bars, over dinners, in clubs, in bedrooms, in boardrooms. Movers and shakers don't want anyone to see the nasty mechanics of it, they just want to show off the spectacular results.

The outcomes of your discussions -- we'll vote for your lot on this if you'll drop clause 4 in that -- would show up in debates, as would any IC rivalries or alliances, and it would make 'em evilly interesting. Getting the urge to start easing some innocent little newbie puppets into some organisation you think would be valuable? Ready to pretend sentiments you don't feel so your puppet can rise to high positions in your opponents' counsels? Go for it!

[Glen-Rhodes]

I can see why the "burn" idea appeals. If someone would like to link to Fris's proposal, or write a succinct argument for it, and post the link or argument here, I'll certainly put it to the admins/Max directly.

There isn't much of an argument for it, but I think the reasons for adding it don't really need much arguing. Anyways, the thread is here, on the Jolt forum:

Thanks. I know your efforts will be appreciated.

Three or four years of reading Silly Proposals can wear a fella down. Particularly wearing are those awful Education proposals, which, without fail, are chock-a-block full of typos and grammatical horror stories. The really wearing part is that most of them don't overtly break any rules, and have to be left alone.

One of these days I'll talk [violet] into adding a 'Burn Without Reading' choice, so delegates have the power to remove those Horrid Examples without mod intervention. Even if we required 15% of active Delegates to Burn them, I think we'd revitalize Delegate interest in monitoring the queue.

(Now if we could only force each deleted proposal to automatically install and activate a spell checker on the target player's computer, life would be good.)

And I think that "Debatable" topic would be a nice addition. Sometimes the arguments over legality can spread multiple pages and be hidden in diplomatic attacks and other politicking.

[Unibot]

If someone would like to link to Fris's proposal

Cough, Big List, Cough.

[Unibot]

Political parties are fun, and they're great RPs -- but they are RPs, so your discussions would have to be held in the RP forums, or offsite, on RMBs or in TG exchanges. Think about it: the real politicking in any legislative body isn't done on the floor; the GA forum is the floor. The real stuff is done in seemingly unimportant committees, in the lobbies, in the bars, over dinners, in clubs, in bedrooms, in boardrooms. Movers and shakers don't want anyone to see the nasty mechanics of it, they just want to show off the spectacular results.

Thanks,
Its just I don't know the rules (and social taboos) regarding WA stuff in these Roleplay subforums.

Would the NationStates subforum be an acceptable place for it? Or that new shiny embassy subforum?

[Bears Armed]

I like the idea of a "burn" button for delegates.

Of course, Eduard Heir chose to burn himself...

... but...

"I have a little list, I have a little list;
They'd none of them be missed."

Oh, that wasn't what you meant? Pity...

[Unibot]

Of course,

Edmund

Eduard Heir chose to burn himself...

He was a silly fellow wasn't he?

____________________

Oh and here's a pic for yeh.....

[Quintessence of Dust]

You know, I'm pretty sure I (well, I-as-Gruenberg) nominated Flib...4 years ago. It might even have been I-as-Golgothastan: all I remember is I recommended Euro, and presumably a bazillion other players had already done so as Fris then immediately bumped the Suggest A Mod thread saying (paraphrased): "Your suggestions are getting pretty repetitive. Think outside the box". (Presumably, by that stage one more Euro-nomination was not going to make a difference.) So I sent one in for Flib as well.

But - sorry if Ard said this, I've only skimmed her post - a new mod would have zero impact on the WA because new mods don't have access to the Game Mod actions. In fact, we'd be making the work of the WA harder - because Flib would have no time for his Silly Proposal reports, as he'd be spending all his time breaking up fistfights in General and II.

Personally, my idea would be to only nominate for mod players you'd rather stopped posting in the WA (I have a couple of suggestions...). Promoting a WA regular to mod would be, basically, to lose them, like promoting a competent nurse into a doctor on night shifts or an excellent soldier into a bureaucratic officer.

I strongly suggest the mods copy and paste the entire rant about promotions from Starship Troopers into the Suggest A Mod post!