RMB self-governance - Printable Version +- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz) +-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html) +--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html) +---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html) +----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html) +----- Thread: RMB self-governance (/thread-4688.html) |
RMB self-governance - sandaoguo - 12-23-2016 The following amendment would clarify and expand the Local Council and in-game community's structure and powers in the Coalition of The South Pacific. It would make clear that the Local Council can administrate itself and pass its own laws. Additionally, it would put into place federalism-like relationship between the local in-game community and the forum-based government, ensuring that both can grow and develop in peaceful coexistence. Quote:V. THE LOCAL COUNCIL Given that the current leader of the Local Council has no desire to see this pass, and doesn't even believe the LC can vote on it, my preference of having changes like this come from the RMB must unfortunately be put aside for now. I vehemently oppose attempts to diminish the forum community for some abstract notion that we need to "expand the franchise" as far as it will go. I also oppose granting the Local Council even more votes on the forum, whether it be through the block vote or some strange "MP" system, in response to Belschaft's rousing a lot of rabbles. Why on earth should the LC be granted even more votes on issues that don't affect the game-side? The Local Council was a carefully crafted compromise between a fully bicameral system and no forum-gameside relations at all. It's pretty clear that the community still rejects bicameralism, and the debate on granting all WA members a vote also shows pretty clear rejection of that idea. The LC is only inadequate because its leadership has been inadequate. And that's because its leadership has been far more concerned with exercising the powers of forum government than with what the RMB community actually likes and prefers doing. This amendment would formally recognize the existence of two communities sharing one home. The RMB would have a government of its own, reflecting its own values and interests, whether it be forum-style politicking or a more casual and social environment. The forums would continue being the cherished decade-old community we are, and we wouldn't stick our heads where they don't belong when it comes to the RMB. This isn't bicameralism, but a fleshing out of what I originally intended when I rewrote the Local Council section of the Charter during the last Great Council. The vision I had was never realized, both for the above reasons, and also because the Charter didn't provide enough guidance to newbies on what exactly the LC was meant for. I hope this amendment makes it more clear. RE: RMB self-governance - Ryccia - 12-23-2016 This is a better alternative and a good compromise. Full support! RE: RMB self-governance - Belschaft - 12-23-2016 This does absolutely nothing to make the government of TSP more accountable to the vast majority of our citizens, and leaves over eight-hundred regional WA members effectively dis-enfranchised. I have no objection to expanding on the role of the Local Council and better defining it's powers, but this is not an alternative to improving the democratic accountability of our government by expanding the voting rights of regional WA members or improving political representation. RE: RMB self-governance - Tim - 12-23-2016 To be honest, I don't see the need to even compromise on a widely unpopular issue. From how it seems to me, the current system is successful, and the only person actually advocating heavily for anything different is our local self-proclaimed savior of the downtrodden non-forum players. While it's certainly far less problematic than the security and sovereignty compromising amendment that Belschaft is trying to push through, I think our current balance in which the forum still has clear supremacy is a good one and should be kept. While our in-game community is certainly an important part of the region, we should be seeking to bring more of it into our offsite forum and integrate it into the forum community rather than further embracing a separation of governments between the two. RE: RMB self-governance - sandaoguo - 12-23-2016 (12-23-2016, 03:57 PM)Tim Wrote: To be honest, I don't see the need to even compromise on a widely unpopular issue. From how it seems to me, the current system is successful, and the only person actually advocating heavily for anything different is our local self-proclaimed savior of the downtrodden non-forum players. While it's certainly far less problematic than the security and sovereignty compromising amendment that Belschaft is trying to push through, I think our current balance in which the forum still has clear supremacy is a good one and should be kept. This isn't even really a "compromise." It's me attempting to clarify what the LC was supposed to be post-Great Council, before it was dominated by somebody who thinks the only power worth wielding is the kind found on the forums. (12-23-2016, 03:05 PM)Belschaft Wrote: This does absolutely nothing to make the government of TSP more accountable to the vast majority of our citizens, and leaves over eight-hundred regional WA members effectively dis-enfranchised. We have an incredibly easy means of enfranchisement: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4235.html RE: RMB self-governance - Seraph - 12-23-2016 As someone who considers themselves part of both communities, I like this clarification a lot. The communities are fundamentally different in character and the LC role should be to help the In-Game community flourish in the ways it wants. This makes it clear that they have the power to do that. RE: RMB self-governance - Ryccia - 12-23-2016 (12-23-2016, 03:05 PM)Belschaft Wrote: This does absolutely nothing to make the government of TSP more accountable to the vast majority of our citizens, and leaves over eight-hundred regional WA members effectively dis-enfranchised. I have no objection to expanding on the role of the Local Council and better defining it's powers, but this is not an alternative to improving the democratic accountability of our government by expanding the voting rights of regional WA members or improving political representation. This argument has been flawed from the start. We are not some crazy dictatorship that won't let WA nations in. It's simple: register, apply, and congratulations! You're now a legislator, and now you can vote in an organized platform, instead of the vulnerable gameside! Even without a WA nation! You want accountability? Register and apply. It's right there in our laws. Very easy. You want your voice to be heard? Register and apply. It's not some apocalyptic, life-or-death process. It's simple. Really, I don't get the big fuss of registrating in our forums. Every other major region does it. Every major region has a forum superior to the gameside. Why do we have to give more and more special rights for those who will not try, when the current system is fine? And they have it better. There's no way to check if you voted or not in the gameside. Whilst here, it's easier to keep track of your voting activity, required by law to us legislators. This proposal of federalizing the two communities is better than devolving powers to people that can join us here instead. The gameside can take care of it's own business if they don't want to join us. Furthermore, since when most legislation we pass has a considerable impact on the gameside? Why impose their authority to things that mostly affect us here? Why should their votes be equal to ours? After all, most legislation here is not making much effect down there. If the gameside wants to make it's own laws, then they can do so. If the gameside wants autonomy, we should grant it to them. As long as the forum government's authority, importance and existence overall stays intact, I'm fine with whatever they want. RE: RMB self-governance - Rikutso - 12-23-2016 I agree with Ryccia. You're giving power to people in the region that are even able to have a WA nation in the first place. This would be unfair to people who are WA locked elsewhere or are constantly raiding with WA puppets, and this is all excluding the fact that all of them can easily move a puppet to TSP, join the forums, and apply for legislator. There's nothing that's keeping them from doing that at all. RE: RMB self-governance - Kris Kringle - 12-23-2016 I think it makes sense to let the gameside community develop the way it wants, rather than force it to develop the way we think it should. Maybe we think they should be more politically involved, but it's also possible they prefer to keep stay away from politics for the most part. In the end we will have a flourishing community to the degree that they feel comfortable enough to be what they want. RE: RMB self-governance - Omega - 12-24-2016 I fully support this proposal. Let me just throw that out there real quick. |