| Some things I feel like should be said but... |
That really depends on your definition of getting along. Example: I genuinely can't stand most of what Belschaft says in the Assembly and I wish he would just stay out of it, but I think he's really cool when he doesn't deal in regional politics, and I'm actually really glad he's taking an interest in our roleplaying section*. I obviously can't speak for him, but I don't have any problems with him on a personal level.
But it's trickier if by getting along you mean to stop arguing in the Assembly, because the problem isn't us arguing as much as how we do it, and that is exacerbated by the inherently divisive nature of the current discussion. It's difficult to get along when we have such intractable positions, and those arguments need to be solved one way or another. I don't plan to give you crap for saying this. I think it's very logical and something we all wish would happen, but it's just more difficult when you start thinking of what exactly we would have to do to get along. * Speaking of which, he should keep getting involved! It'll be fun. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Tsu, we can't invite all of NS to TSP and expect NS to stay out of TSP. That's the crux of my argument. That's what I'm talking about when I say we can purge and be restrictive in who allow in (and be a peaceful and harmonic region), or we can be open and diverse (and experience political rivalry that sometimes is totally intractable).
I honestly think you're in the minority and have been for years. TSP politics has been entrenched in NS gameplay for a very long time. The old elite class were all Gameplayers, there just weren't fights because the region was homogenous. The current class of active politicians is also largely Gameplayers and people who have opinions on this stuff. It hasn't been the case that TSP has been separate from all of that for several years. Sometimes it needs to be the case that somebody's opinion isn't incorporated, because sometimes two opinions are mutually exclusive. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(03-08-2016, 12:10 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Tsu, we can't invite all of NS to TSP and expect NS to stay out of TSP. That's the crux of my argument. That's what I'm talking about when I say we can purge and be restrictive in who allow in (and be a peaceful and harmonic region), or we can be open and diverse (and experience political rivalry that sometimes is totally intractable). No. I'm hardly in the minority -- we've just managed to drive everyone else out of the region. The idea is we are playing a totally different game than the nations on the RMB is one of the ways that's been managed. We didn't make a bigger tent by welcoming more people into the process, as I've long advocated for. Instead, we've made a bigger tent by opening the door to this constant game play fight. Everyone's welcome but we need to make sure that the base of TSP -- meaning, this region and the members who live primarily here -- have a say in the process. When I've advocated as such, I've been told that I'm rejecting cosmopolitan ideas and excluding people who play in multiple regions -- but that's not the point. We can be welcoming to all and leave the drama at the door by having a large cross section of people who aren't involved in the game play dynamic. When you systematically make the argument that the off-site forum has nothing to do with the in-game region and that the interregional politics is all there is to the game, you set up a constant dynamic where the region is push-and-pulled by outside forces. Further, you're setting up a dynamic that is obviously false. We have one of, if not the lowest levels of WA participation. This is because we've ceased the idea of a community in TSP and instead discounted the majority of our member base. Further, when we have had newbies enter the region and government, we've driven them out by constant bickering and fighting (see: Serres). We can have a strong, cosmopolitan community but that has to come with the realization that everything we do isn't within the game play sphere or game play dynamic. Until *that's* realized, we're going to keep having the major fault lines where we're constantly suspicious of each other.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Gameplayers have been in TSP for a long time. They've held most government offices for most of the time. They've been the drivers of politics. Hileville, Belschaft, HEM, Unibot, southern bellz, Todd McCloud, Antariel, Milograd, McMasterdonia, A mean old man, Cormac, Raven, Punk D, Topid... These aren't people separated from NS, who were just there to chill and have fun and not care about the politics of the game outside the forums.
There's been drama for a LONG time. It's not a new phenomenon! There was drama with the UDL & Unibot, and then the UDL and Unibot got driven out. There was drama with Milograd, obviously, and we know how that ended. It's just fiction that TSP hasn't really been part of NS gameplay, immune to all the politics and tribalism of that part of the game. It's just that past eras were less open and better at shutting people up when they got too loud. It's not like there's this small tiny fraction of players who are forcing the entire Assembly into arguments 99% of people don't want to have. If most people didn't want to have arguments, they wouldn't join in on arguments, we wouldn't have contentious votes, elections would be easy sweeps with no rivalries. The image you want isn't what we have, or what we have had for a very long time. TSP is a GCR. It's an important point in the game, and we'll always attract Gameplayers as long as we let them in. And with Gameplayers come their opinions and their politics and their wants. And with that come arguments, contested elections, and contentious votes. You can't have one without the other. That doesn't mean we need to have flame wars all the time. But it does mean you need to stop looking down on people for not liking each other, not getting along, and being on opposite sides of nearly every issue. The forced consensus and constant compromise thing hasn't worked before, and it's not going to work long term this time either. Rivalries are going to simmer all the while we're putting up a front that some compromise nobody actually likes has settled some issue. Anger and resentment will be pent up until there's another explosion. It's not that hard to predict. It's a literal case of sweeping things under the rug. You can't say, "I want a region where GR, Belschaft, Cormac, Raven, etc. are all allowed to be here. But they're not allowed to vehemently disagree and they're not allowed to fight, especially over the things they tend to care about the most." That's not fair, and it's not realistic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(03-08-2016, 01:29 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: That doesn't mean we need to have flame wars all the time. But it does mean you need to stop looking down on people for not liking each other, not getting along, and being on opposite sides of nearly every issue. The forced consensus and constant compromise thing hasn't worked before, and it's not going to work long term this time either. Rivalries are going to simmer all the while we're putting up a front that some compromise nobody actually likes has settled some issue. Anger and resentment will be pent up until there's another explosion. It's not that hard to predict. It's a literal case of sweeping things under the rug. You've ignored my point. I'm saying that we've managed to drive out the moderate center to the discussion. This has happened in several waves, but harms the community nonetheless. You're imposing this us-v-them on this situation. You're not the first -- and likely won't be the last. But, my point is -- you're consciously framing the debates in such as way -- in a way I frankly reject. I'm not saying you can't have disagreements, but stop framing in this a GP manner. Frankly, all of this fighting has the explicit result of forcing others out the region. Or to less contention parts of the game (see: the RP forums Kris still enjoys). We can have legitimate disagreements, but to do that you need some form of moderation which we've managed to drive out.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
What moderate center has been driven out? The bulk of TSP has been, for many years, the types of players you're saying are driving people away. Yes, people have left the region, and those people tend to have been involved in some scandal or left because they lost at politics. But they decided to engage in it in the first place, so it's not like they're the chill apolitical people that are allegedly being driven away.
When I look at our history, I see plenty of new players that get involved and stick around. They've risen through the ranks of government, too. They haven't been driven out. You mention Serres, but form what I understand, they don't really disagree with what I'm saying and actually think it might be worth having political parties too. I'm not imposing anything on anybody. I'm just telling it how it is. If anything, you are trying to force players to act a certain way, rather than do what comes natural in a game built on rivalry. Reject it as much as you want, but your consensus building way of leadership isn't superior, and the politics of Gameplayers isn't inferior to it. It's this constant tsk-tsk'ing that's causing problems, too. This desire to force people into a clean box of compromise and moderation, when some people just don't like each other and have polar opposite politics. That's what's led to this craziness of Sam still being on the CSS, Belschaft now denying there was a coup, and a bunch of other BS that wouldn't exist if it wasn't "divisive" to call people out. Like, stripping Sam of his RO powers (but not really, because it's "retroactive") was billed as a compromise that 98% of us agree with-- but it's not, actually. It's what you thought was a good compromise. But those of us who are actually the aggrieved party here weren't asked if we liked it! And that's really typical of the culture that has led us down this path in the first place. In a desire to just silence a controversial issue, somebody came up with a "moderate" position, but that decision hasn't addressed what the actual issue is in the first place. If we were to just let people duke it out, it would be settled. Sam would either be in the CSS or not, based on votes and a political process that includes rhetoric, resignations, and people deciding they could live with it after getting the chance to actually put up a fight. That's not unhealthy and it's not a problem! You want a government and elections, but you don't want politics. You want to count diehard enemies among the community, but you don't want them to fight. And the way I'm understand it, your solution is to have a group of apolitical "moderates" who get to make the final decision. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All this talk about people wanting to force him out the region coming from Glen is entirely hypocritical nonsense, and I say that as the only person genuinely forced out of the region in recent years. Not a single person has suggested or argued for that to happen, and in contrast he is on record - both in comments and voting terms - as wanting a considerable number of people, myself included, forced out of the region or at the very least forced out of any and every office they might hold.
This is a completely absurd situation, where only one side is even trying to find common ground, whilst the other resorts to histrionics, endless recall votes, and lengthy rants about how by not letting them have their way we're not agreeing to compromise. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
You were not forced out of the region, your citizenship was merely removed. You were entirely free to continue participating on the Regional Message Board and all areas of the forum that did not require citizenship. Milograd is the only person who was genuinely forced out of the region.
Quite frankly, I truly believe you would be very happy to see Glen leave the region and that, even subconsciously, drives your relatively hostile approach towards him, just as I also believe Glen would be very happy to see you leave the region, even if he says he can coexist with you. I don't believe for a second either of you would admit it, but I honestly believe that it the case. As an aside, I also don't believe you are truly trying to find common ground. I believe you believe you the coup wasn't that big of a deal, because the system really is dysfunctional, and the only people affected were people who are politically controversial. That means you, naturally, don't feel the same drive or need to be tough in your treatment of the coupers and the whole situation. I don't think that's entirely your fault. I mean, I don't believe compromise is even possible, in this situation. One side believes the coup wasn't so serious and the coupers believe to be forgiven, another side simply doesn't believe forgiveness should be an option, while many are caught in the middle. You can't really half-forgive them. I can't speak for other people who also believe the coup was more serious than the treatment it's getting, but personally, my problem isn't that you don't treat it seriously, as much as it's that I don't get the feeling you are actually trying to see my side of the issue, and instead you're sticking to calling my positions uncompromising, as if it was my responsibility to unconditionally forgive the very people who mounted a smear campaign against me and then ejected me from the region. Example: would you have unconditionally forgiven Milograd for all he did, less than an month after the coup? Would you really think it would be fair for people to call you uncompromising for not wanting to forgive him? It's the same thing with me, and with others. Sure, this time only three nations were ejected, but you're talking to those three nations. They feel that same sense of betrayal you felt towards Milograd, and it's not fair for you to ask of them what nobody asked of you, and with good reason. In short, my problem is I don't think you're upfront about not actually trying to find compromise (even if I believe compromise isn't really possible), as much as you're trying to frame your own position as compromise. Could I be wrong? Sure, I definitely could be. But that's the feeling I get, and I honestly don't think you can blame me for getting that impression. (03-08-2016, 01:52 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Or to less contention parts of the game (see: the RP forums Kris still enjoys). RP FTW! Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I mean if we're talking examples, the one that sticks out most to me is that of Osiris post Empire's coup of me in late 2012 (was it 2012? or 2011? something like that, allow me i'm getting old). I was urged by some to outright ban the coupers, or at least put them on trial for treason. Due to various reasons an attempt at a trial didn't come to pass, and after a lot of discussion a compromise including an amnesty was agreed.
What happened next set the stage for all of Osiris's problems for the next year or more. Instead of trying to find common ground and work together the two camps that had formed stayed more or less the same, although my relationship with some of my opponents was better than with others, and the acrimony and hostility only increased. It wasn't always obvious but it was always there. It was a reason for Douria's coup, and it was a massive problem in both Cormac's and Asta's terms, eventually culminating in the abolition of the KRO and its replacement by the OFO. I get how you feel Kris, believe me I've been there and back again. I logged onto NS at 8am one day to find that I was couped and I was chilling in TRR. I know how hard it is to forgive or to even pretend like its a possibility. But this situation has all the makings of another Osiris.
[align=jusity]It's not common ground when one side is asked to forgive and move on.
I know you're trying to keep the peace, but your above example is exactly why I believe being so unbelievably lenient towards the coupers is a bad idea. We are essentially telling them that couping is fine as long as say claim having good intentions and don't eject the wrong people, and we are all but implying to those personally affected that their concerns and grievances are misplaced, even shameful. I'm not saying you are doing it, I'm saying that's the overall tone of the argument in the Assembly: you're wrong to argue the people who ejected you should be punished, because that goes against reconciliation, and by extension against the region. Nobody says it explicitly, but that's how the implication feels, and so reconciliation doesn't become reconciliation, it turns into one side being coerced into not expressing itself, and building up resentment.[/align] Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |