| [DISCUSSION] In-Game Governance |
Obviously, we want better in-game involvement. How exactly this is achieved has been a great source of discussion for the better part of a year now. I'd like to throw an approach out there for discussion.
Let's reimagine the relationship between the region and its government a bit. As it is, the Coalition of the South Pacific is the government, ruling over the region, the South Pacific. This has been the case for nearly 14 years now. However, the Coalition wasn't always in control of the region. Coups in 2003, 2011, 2013, and 2016 vested control over the actual region from the Coalition, but they were always ill-fated and the Coalition regained, as it should, its position as benevolent entity watching over the region and acting in its name. Read a bit between the lines here, though - this shows that while the Coalition is a central part of our region and its culture, it's also something that is somewhat removed from it - above it, you could say. Maybe we can take this as a cue to think of it differently - the Coalition of the South Pacific is an extraregional organization, with the South Pacific as its principal member. This has several implications. One prominent one is that this implies that more regions could be part of the Coalition, and this is something I will get to at a later date. What I specifically want to talk about today is that this leads us naturally to a federated model of relationship between us forumites (Coalition) and the RMBers (region), similar to what Glen's been advocating for a while now. Given this, does the Coalition want to be so heavy-handedly involved in the region as it is? Federated systems typically allow its constituent entities much more say in their own rule, but we haven't really been following that mantra in our discussions. Some want to bring the Coalition and the region even closer together, in a way gutting the Coalition in favor of the region. Some want the Coalition to reign supreme with absolute authority. Some like the status quo, which mostly has the Coalition reigning supreme but gives the region a token say through the heavily regulated Local Council. I say we take the concept seriously and free our region to be an entity in a true benevolent federation. What does this entail? A few things. The region needs actual governance, and it shouldn't be the kind of governance that the Coalition enforces on it. However, we can't just say "hey, you're on your own now" either, though. What we can do is look at regions like The Western Isles, a large region with completely in-game based governance, and gather some inspiration. Using that, we can craft a set of laws to start with for the Local Council (or whatever it could be called), with guidance and input from interested RMBers. This set of law would include recognition of the Coalition as the federal government, as well as things such as how in-game officers are elected, how in-game law can be changed, how disputes are resolved, and other such things. We then give these laws to the region for them to hold their elections and get their government set up, while we completely strike down most (if not all) provisions in our Coalition body of law regarding the Local Council and other such in-game matters. I believe this grants the region much, much more liberty than looking for ways to have the region somehow get involved with the forum-based governance. This is giving the region its own governance, while it delegates those things that are irrelevant to it but required for a feeder such as ours to the Coalition. In other words, a truly free system. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(02-19-2017, 10:33 PM)Roavin Wrote: What does this entail? A few things. The region needs actual governance, and it shouldn't be the kind of governance that the Coalition enforces on it. However, we can't just say "hey, you're on your own now" either, though. What we can do is look at regions like The Western Isles, a large region with completely in-game based governance, and gather some inspiration. Using that, we can craft a set of laws to start with for the Local Council (or whatever it could be called), with guidance and input from interested RMBers. This set of law would include recognition of the Coalition as the federal government, as well as things such as how in-game officers are elected, how in-game law can be changed, how disputes are resolved, and other such things. We then give these laws to the region for them to hold their elections and get their government set up, while we completely strike down most (if not all) provisions in our Coalition body of law regarding the Local Council and other such in-game matters. I understand some of your points here Roavin, but I don't think such an action would help: 1- It is difficult to compare one UCR region to a GCR; as we have many new players coming into TSP with, perhaps, a less understanding of off-site governance (on on-site for that matter). What I'm trying to say with this point is that nations actively seek out UCR regions because they like the way those work; in a sense they had a chance to look at their options and decided that's the best for them. Meanwhile, we don't lay down to heavy on our RMB of many many new players and folks who just are not interested in any governmental affairs. 2- The forum activity might dwindle down to the usual hats around these parts. we have not done much in terms of forum recruiting or such things, but there may be a removal of an incentive to join the forums. In other words, if there's a self governing body on the 'region' side as you've put it, there may not be enough newer blood coming into the forums to create the richness and diversity we all love to see here; instead it may get stale with the same hats all being tossed into the same ring, with all the new voices staying keeping to the gameside. 3- Organizational issues could also be a problem. We are a region of 5000+ nations. Albeit not many actually participate, the RMB already gets swamped on the daily, so missed messages from said government could be missed, or discussions can be lost between 2-3 other conversations/spam/weird RP happening at the same time. It could be a tough time to try and keep the governing body in communication with the residence of the gameside community. It is already difficult to run Local Council elections and properly campaign for them, and a discussion/debate on laws could be problematic with merely the sheer size of the RMB community. It isn't to say I believe you're off the rails, just not on the right track. I don't think seperating the forums from the RMB is the best way to go.
I want to say something here just from a semi-procedural aspect: if we really decide we want to have this kind of federal system we should hold aa GC over it.
Here's the thing: how do tings like FA and MA ever happen if we have this system as they interact so much with the gameside of the region? Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
I've always operated with the understanding that Coalition of the South Pacific is the official name of the region as defined by the government, just like the Federal Republic of Germany or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, rather than as a separate entity that happens to govern the region.
It's worth pointing out that we already tried to have other regions "join the Coalition" during the delegacy of Southern Bellz. I haven't done much research into it, but I don't think it was that productive, nor do I think there was much success with the sole region that joined. True, times have changed, but all things considered, I don't believe colonising or forming some kind of confederation with other regions is consistent with our regional values. Our aim is to achieve internal development, not external expansion. In terms of your actual proposal, I think you are confusing the role of the Local Council. Glen can correct me, but the whole idea is that it would establish itself as the kind of local government that the gameside community wishes to have. It could be a more political body that issues plenty of ordinances, it could be a more culture-focused government that promotes activity and festivals, it could be a mix of both. But the key here is that the onus is on the Local Council to develop that. You call the Local Council a token, but I think it's a rather ingenious institution under its current format. It has little regulations under regional law, and that affords its members and the community they represent the chance to decide how it will be structured. Should the Government offer assistance and guidance? Absolutely. I think it makes perfect sense that the Government and the Local Council should work together to enhance one another. However, I think you are assuming too much regarding the need to have a fully political body for the gameside community. They don't necessarily need a full set of laws, a full slate of elected officials and a cleat set of responsibilities for each. That sounds more like forcing most forum responsibilities upon the gameside community, and leaving the regional government to handle basic matters, like the United States under the Articles of Confederation. TL;DR: I think you are mistaken about what the Coalition actually is and have the wrong idea about gameside covernance. We should definitely assist the Local Council in finding their north, but the kind of reforms you propose don't seem workable or positive for the region. 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
So, I've been talking to Roavin about this and I'm personally interested in the idea.
Part of the problem we have now is that the LC doesn't quite know what it can/can't do and how it fits into the regional government. I also think — as Glen's been arguing — people on the RMB play the game differently. I think having a more structured setup might help here. It largely wouldn't look anything like our government because the RMB side doesn't need the depth and structure we have here. I also think trying to pull more UCR into our orbit would be useful and potentially beneficial in increased activity. We could also offer a bit of structure for developing regions and give a section of our forums to help them out, as well as taking over things like FA and MA stuff. Finally, I don't think this would be that much of a change from what we currently have now. We've been moving in this way to give the LC more of an independent say — as I think we all acknowledged in this thread — so, I think the question comes down to whether or not we want to welcome smaller regions into our fold. I'd be interested to hear Escade's thoughts since it seems somewhat compatible with her FA campaign.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Framing the Coalition as an umbrella entity that helps manage and regulate various spheres of influence would need quite possibly a GC and extensive parsing of our current laws. However, I am not averse to the idea because the game has changed in a multitude of ways and continues to evolve which means we too should be open to change.
Two things are being discussed here which are 1. The desire to reimagine the management of gameside for The South Pacific so that is is more organic and stems from the gameside rather than from the forum side as it currently seems to and 2. The potential management or TSP Coalition serving to assist UCR members (colonies may not be the best term, protectorates perhaps or ?) 1. Local Councillors, as they currently operate, do not seem as effective because of the forum push and pull and in an ideal world are those players who are active game side but not forum side. Then there is the issue of representation in a region of 3000 with approximately 721 WAs - how does one account for full representation? Things that we have to think about are - what are some possible models that the gameside may adopt? Does the coalition maintain control over Delegacy and Cabinet\RO positions through the forums or? Does the forum determine the Delegate and cabinet entirely? And the Local Government liasons with the forum side but doesn't impact it via game side polls? Or do we want to allow the gameside Local government to send a representative to serve as an RO? Or to participate in each elected position after the forums or concurrently or? These kinds of questions need to be thought out. Should the delegate position, which is heading there anyway, become a year long position for example to be even more stable (and therefore keep gameside and UCRs from worrying about potential coups)? 2. Looking at The Western Isle and a few other UCRs, such as Forest (linked here -> https://www.nationstates.net/region=forest) with minimal forums or no forum presence at all, I notice a few common trends: 1. A high use of dispatches to record history\laws\maps\timelines\events 2. TWI uses the NS forums for Roleplay\introduce your nations and nation leaders and 3. Forest while not partaking in R\D directly does state that they may partake in liberations for embassied allies. If we are considering becoming an Umbrella entity, then we must also think about it in terms of: 1. How does this benefit TSP (or the Coalition)? For me the benefit lies in allies who are willing to come to the defense of us and also perhaps support military missions as well as the opportunity for more cultural activites including roleplays\writing and collaborations. Having recently interviewed members of the outgoing and incoming cabinet, one common sentiment is desiring having enough people who follow through on commitments and keep projects sustainable. 2. How would UCRs benefit from our assistance in management? We may have to talk to UCRs more directly about this but I can think of 1. Defense from a GCR 2. Assistance with lulls in activity through cross-collaboration and 3. More opportunities to get participants from multiple like-minded (as in democratic) regions to participate. Would anyone who is actively (politically) involved in one or more GCrs and a UCR (?) want to comment on or provide their perspective on this? How might the relationship look from your end? What benefits would you want and what assurances or control would you want? Questions that remain: 1. What do we do in situations that blur the forum and game-side? I've usually been involved in both (for example for Inter-Regional Games and such). Am I now a picking a side and then trying to find someone from the other side to help\work with me or am I continuing on? 2. I really like the idea of actually making an Umbrella forum that has sub-forums for other UCRs who's own forums are pretty dead or otherwise need serious activity boosts. However, what if they want to leave the partnership or secede from the Union so to speak? Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
So, I've also chatted with Roavin about this in the past few weeks and, whilst I do not think all of his suggestions in the OP are quite the right way to go about things, I think the idea of the Coalition being a real coalition of regions hold merit, not least because it would be an interested new move for GP and might liven up a scene which, by all accounts, is dying.
I think the various points against it made by folk in this thread seem valid, but that, actually, they could be incorporated into a new model of the region. There's no reason why the idealised vision of what the LC should be right now can't be the kind of government that the region keeps whilst the forum government stays largely the same, with some changes. I would suggest that the current cabinet structure remains, but with the MoMA and MoFA holding those positions for all member regions, whilst the MoRA will become more of an overseer or co-ordinator of various RA positions in each region, including the LC in the South Pacific, thus allowing regions to maintain a cultural identity whilst sharing good ideas and making sure activity is spread evenly. In a model like this, we would also want to make sure that the Assembly of the coalition is representative of the member regions, bringing in folk from new members to ensure that the government is fair and representative. Anyway, these are just my first few thoughts this morning and, since those who have said this would need a GC are quite right, I'll stop here. Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
My concern is if the game-side government and the forum government become too detached from each other, there will be a real push within the region for the Coalition to be entirely replaced with the game-side government. It could turn into a situation not unlike that of the West Pacific, in which the game-side community becomes so detached from forum government that an autocrat or oligarchy is able to persuade them no forum government is even necessary or desirable. Such a shift toward total game-side governance, especially when promoted by an autocrat or an oligarchy, is very often accompanied by a shift toward the primacy of game mechanics, i.e., the replacement of democratic self-government with rule by a Delegate who is only passively "elected" by game-side endorsements and manages any opposition or attempt to "elect" someone else with generous use of the eject and ban buttons. In other words, detachment of the game-side community from the forum government can be, and has been, detrimental to democracy.
This potential problem could become even more aggravated by expanding the Coalition to include other regions, if our focus shifts too far toward the interregional coalition and the South Pacific game-side region is neglected. To again use the West Pacific as an example, the death of their forum community was a long, complicated process, and it would be oversimplification to blame just one factor, but a definite contributing factor was the "NationStates Republic" that was led by the West Pacific from 2011(?)-2012. It was a coalition of regions too and it took attention entirely away from the West Pacific. It was also a total failure from start to finish, but that is less relevant as its failure was due to reasons specific to its structure, leadership, and member regions, which we would not duplicate. I'm not saying "this idea is bad, kill it with fire," but I do think we need to be careful that whatever we set up doesn't lead to these outcomes. There may be ways of doing this that wouldn't lead to such outcomes. On the other hand, I think there is something to be said for modest, deliberative, gradual change. The Local Council is not yet that old as an institution and, I would argue, has not yet found its footing in regard to what local governance should mean. Modest reform, and continuing to encourage and assist the Local Council in continually improving, may be better than wholesale change like this. There should also be much more focus on getting residents involved forum-side, and that should be true even -- and especially -- if we decide to pursue these changes.
This is why I'd want the cabinet to be closely involved with the regional and in-game governments, more so than we are today, which is to say I want that anyway, regardless of whether or not we became a confederation of regions.
Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
(02-20-2017, 07:46 AM)Cormac Wrote: I'm not saying "this idea is bad, kill it with fire," but I do think we need to be careful that whatever we set up doesn't lead to these outcomes. There may be ways of doing this that wouldn't lead to such outcomes. On the other hand, I think there is something to be said for modest, deliberative, gradual change. The Local Council is not yet that old as an institution and, I would argue, has not yet found its footing in regard to what local governance should mean. Modest reform, and continuing to encourage and assist the Local Council in continually improving, may be better than wholesale change like this. There should also be much more focus on getting residents involved forum-side, and that should be true even -- and especially -- if we decide to pursue these changes. To jump off here, one of thing I think we've been learning on the LC (Bel and Feir and correct me if I'm wrong), is that the hard and fast nature we have on the forums doesn't work especially well on the RMB. So stupid things like — the length of time a vote is held — and the likes become an issue. And, one of the reasons I think a better delineation could help. That said, I think Cormac makes a good point in that we would need to reaffirm that TSP is the center. I think we do this by keeping things we have now — offsite and RMB elections — and attempting to mix the RMBs (we have few non-feeder embassies in game even). Maybe even giving our RMB a more explicit vote on the process so it's clear that we all are helping other regions, not becoming imperialistic and ignoring our own.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Previous Positions
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |