The "Bad Faith" standard is in effect in this thread. Posts on the development of major game features are expected to be made in good faith.
2024 edit: skip to this post for the latest status of this project.
Preface: The rate of new features added to the game looks to have slowed a little lately. Violet has indicated she is potentially able to put some time into coding new features; however the part that comes before (working out the merits of an idea, and hammering out details) takes up a lot of time, which is a limiting factor. I am not an admin, but I've been given clearance to work on conceptualising new features, and then pass them onto Violet for coding if/when they're ready.
There are other ideas, some of them bigger in scope, but I'd prefer to start with something relatively simple that makes use of existing code. For those with long memories, this won't be like the Summit of many years ago, but I'm also not going to offer any promises on timescales as they're not mine to keep.
Summary of change:
The "April Fool's" Secretary-General elections become a proper part of NationStates, with elections scheduled every 6 months. Elections work the same way as they did in the previous election, and include a Vice Secretary-General running-mate.
The Secretary-General has one Veto that they can use during their six month term to prevent a World Assembly proposal of either council from passing. EDIT: Updated later to apply to just the Security Council, not the General Assembly.
If the Secretary-General's nation ceases to exist, the Vice Secretary-General gains that Veto power. If the Veto has already been used during the term, they do not get a "fresh" one.
Why?
It adds a level of politicking to the game, and in the World Assembly, which ties a lot of disparate communities together. The change also uses existing code (for the elections), making it a simpler coding job. As for the various aspects of it:
6 month cycle - a balance between making the elections too frequent that they become overwhelming/people lose interest, and having terms that are too long for someone to want to serve for.
Dates - I haven't made a suggestion on these yet, but they need to factor in the "NS Calendar" of 1st April (April Fool's), 26th Sept (N-Day), and 31st October (Zombies), plus general holidays of Christmas and New Year. Initial thoughts are 1st February and 1st August.
Veto power - there are all sorts of potential powers the position could have, the most popular of the other ideas being impacting the proposal queue order, and providing some sort of voting recommendation on an at-vote proposal. Both strike me as too weak to make the position meaningful, though a voting recommendation is a potential future expansion. Before anyone suggests the S-G becomes part of the GA Secretariat, no - we are not electing site staff members or putting rules to mob vote.
The veto power is a significant power - it can be held over authors to try to get them to make changes, and timing in the WA is often vital so a veto can be crucial - however, the limit on use means it is actually tricky to use effectively, and requires real skill to do so. Use it too early and you're a lame duck; hold on too long and you potentially end up wasting it as legislation you oppose passes. A lot of work goes into passing resolutions, so the usage limit is to also prevent this from acting as a disincentive to participate.
Usage of it is also a key policy to influence elections - perhaps a promise not to use it on General Assembly proposals? Or to veto recognition of raiders? Or maybe a promise never to veto anything, because WA voters' opinions are what should count?
Vice Secretary-General - it's there and part of the code already; it's worth retaining as it provides a backup in case RL intrudes on a S-G's term. I don't feel there should be a separate veto for them, as that would encourage shenigans such as the S-G ceasing to exist to get their partner an extra veto. Shenanigans are fun, but I don't see that doubling of S-G position power as being desirable. Nor is it good policy in general to put players in a position that it's in their interest to let their nation CTE.
I considered alternate mechanisms aroung the S-G and Vice S-G, e.g. the Vice taking the position of S-G if the S-G ceases to exist, and then getting to choose a "Vice S-G" of their own - but I felt that over-complicated matters for little gain. If both partners CTE, WA members should make a better judgement on who they next elect.
There's lots more to be said on the topic, but the above is a starting point for discussion.
