(01-15-2015, 12:59 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: First and foremost, the security risks Sandaoguo has cited can be easily remedied by requiring World Assembly membership and native status. While some have portrayed that members can simply stack the vote, those voters that no longer fit the criteria are removed during the updates thereby making it as safe as anything else in-game.

In which case, it will be much more difficult to become a member of the lower house, while all it takes to become a member of the upper house is forum registration and applying for citizenship. Again, you've cut off your nose to spite your face. In the pursuit to address myriad security flaws, you've come up with an idea that blows a massive hole through your entire reason to give the RMB legislative authority.

(01-15-2015, 12:59 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Second, while Sandaoguo has harped on the idea that the proposal is intended to “get more people involved,” the point is to provide a second means to governing. Coincidentally, this would give more individuals a voice in the process, since they would have more ways to get involved. The argument is not that 4,000 nations need to be involved, but rather that we have the means to get more involved and should do it.

No, what I've said is that I believe you're doing this just because of a numbers game. And you've confirmed this. Why does having the "means to get more involved" make it so that we should pursue this reform? It's simply because the polls are there and you want more participants. You haven't given a reason why it's a good idea in itself to thrust governance onto the RMB, other than that it's just somewhat possible now.

(01-15-2015, 12:59 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Third, who is to say that the regional message board is not suitable for legislative activity? We discuss legislature in vastly different realms from the off-site forums to Skype and IRC. Using the regional message board along with dispatches would provide ample space for discussion -- perhaps a change from the current discussion, but ample space nonetheless.

This is patently false. To test this theory, I propose we only discuss everything on these forums in a single thread. Let's see how that works out.

(01-15-2015, 12:59 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Finally, Sandaoguo has repeatedly suggested that there are two communities at work: the off-site forum community and the in-game community. (Eliminated 'Unfortunately') That is factually inaccurate and ahistorical to The South Pacific.

Let’s consider for a moment that one of the earliest positions the off-site government created were “board watchers” to spot spam, recruiting and other issues on the RMB. Likewise, for a number of years, delegate elections were held in the region through the Brave Little Toaster system. To suggest that there is a connection that is unreconcilable is willful ignorance of the centrality of the in-game region to The South Pacific.

You are stuck in history, then, and refuse to recognize that things that happened 10 years ago have no bearing whatsoever on how the game exists today. We have a forum community that has evolved over the years, and you want to basically get the ball rolling on throwing this community away. Our community is separate, and that's not a bad thing. You are starting from the premise that it's horrible to acknolwedge that the two communities don't mean very much to each other, so you have this warped view that the forum community is somehow an anti-democratic oppressor of the RMB. The truth is that both communities co-exist peacefully, but this reform will thrust regional politics onto the RMB for no good reason.

(01-15-2015, 12:59 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: The off-site forum was created to accommodate functions that the in-game experience didn’t allow. Now that NationStates proper has added functions for greater regional involvement, it is only right for us to revise our system of governing. 

Again, you have proven my point that there is no other reason to do this than simply because it's now possible. That's not a good reason. You can label me as anti-change or whatever you want. But you are literally trying to change the fundamentals of two communities just because you think polls are a neat new feature. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way our two communities co-exist. I do think the haphazard way you want to go about melding the two together for no good reason comes with tremendous costs to both communities, costs that you are neither willing to admit or address, and costs that are likely irreversible.