I could support something like this, after some slight revisions, and making the language more formal.

Also, why is this in the private area?

Unless North Prarie has a particular reason to object, I'll move this to the general Assembly forum tomorrow. Since it's to integrate the government with the gameside community, non-legislators should probably be able to see it.

Reply

I very much do support the idea behind this. It's far too easy for players, including ranking members of government, to ignore the gameside community merely because it's not "convenient" enough for them. That is not a valid excuse. That is laziness, pure and simple. 
 

Second, we had posting requirements here for a long time. We got rid of them because people would literally just post “I posted this month” in a thread to meet those requirements. You’re not going to get forum players to become active on the RMB. You’re going to get us to grudgingly post meaningless spam every 10 days. *We are separate communities with different interests.* Not all of us like the kind of talk that happens on the RMB, just as not all RMBers like or care about what we do in the forums. That’s acceptable and we should just live with that— especially those of us who have been here for years and know better.

This sets a very worrying tone to me. Not only does it suggest that it's perfectly acceptable to separate two communities that very much depend on one another, it also insinuates that this is something long term players should know. Coupling an out of hand dismissal of gameside value with the sense that long term players should know to separate the two communities seems to me to smack of elitism.

 Perhaps posting requirements aren't the best way to go about encouraging gameside activity. Judging from the past, they probably aren't. However, a way absolutely needs to be found. It's absurd to have senior members of government arguing for a separation of two very much intertwined communities. Gameside and forumside both need each other, and trying to set them apart does no good and quite a lot of harm.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

Reply

I don't know what's so worrying about this statement of fact:

Not all of us like the kind of talk that happens on the RMB, just as not all RMBers like or care about what we do in the forums.

The issue isn't about separating the two communities, it's about realizing that the separation does inherently exist in any region such as ours. Besides, TSP is an innovator in the field of bridging that gap - can you point me to any GCR that grants the kind of freedoms and governance to the game-side that TSP does?

It's absurd to have senior members of government arguing for a separation of two very much intertwined communities. Gameside and forumside both need each other, and trying to set them apart does no good and quite a lot of harm.

So I presume you will also argue for Legislator requirement for all Local Councillors?

Reply

It's absurd to have senior members of government arguing for a separation of two very much intertwined communities. Gameside and forumside both need each other, and trying to set them apart does no good and quite a lot of harm.

So I presume you will also argue for Legislator requirement for all Local Councillors?

No. The Local Council is solely a gameside entity that doesn't directly affect the forumside community. The Cabinet, however, is a forumside office which does directly affect the gameside community.

That said, I do think it's a very important thing for Local Councillors to understand how the Assembly functions and what its current climate is. Being a legislator absolutely makes that easier. It's not something I'd require though.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2018, 10:04 PM by Drall.)

Reply

As I previously said on discord, I don't think mandating posting activity is going to work as a way to ensure government members' activity gameside, but I do think we should find a way to do so.

As far as cabinet members are concerned, "gameside natives" (i.e. those whose home terrain is on the RMB/site) are already forced to play the offsite in order to be ministers, while "offsite natives" (i.e. those whose home terrain is discord/forums) don't have to do anything and can simply stay in their comfortable zones. And in the end, the cabinet is supposed to be representing both gameside and offsite. There's no incentive for offsiters to do anything at all gameside, and yet because they're used to the systems on which we hold our governmental decision-making, they have much easier access to becoming part of the government. If people coming from gameside are already required to be active on both platforms, it seems only fair that people coming from offsite are required to be active on both as well.

If there are these "two communities" as Glen keeps claiming, then why are we really only encouraging gamesiders to join offsite and not offsiters to join gameside?

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

(This post was last modified: 01-20-2018, 12:04 AM by Somyrion.)

Reply

oh my gosh, I went to do something IRL just after posting this and did not realize it would blow up so much! Let me answer some questions:

This is a fair point, but I think that there's some issues I have here. 

For one, I think 10 days is a little lax, quite frankly. However I also think that there's such a vagueness with the description of "activity"

Secondary question to piggyback further off of Kris, what's the plan for the person to be watching this? Who would it be? Who would appoint this person?

1. I am kind of a noob legislation drafter, so I thought that the definition would be fine. What more can I add to it?
2. Maybe...................I could track it? I am on NS pretty much every day, and am looking for ways to get involved in governement. I could just do a runthrough of governement officals' pages every day.

Second, we had posting requirements here for a long time. We got rid of them because people would literally just post “I posted this month” in a thread to meet those requirements. You’re not going to get forum players to become active on the RMB. You’re going to get us to grudgingly post meaningless spam every 10 days. 

Quoting:
" Factbooks and Dispatches have to be at least 2 paragraphs long. "
I knew this problem would arise, and that is why i put this in. For RMB posts, everyone would see i, including me or whoever kept track. We jsut have to click "a message" on the Activity thing, so it would be easy to find out.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Reply

Just to be clear: I don't find it objectionable in principle to expect certain game-side activity of various offices, but a sensible differentiated view is appropriate. The CoA has 0 things to do with game-side and shouldn't be expected to have any presence there; the MoRA certainly does due to cultural events and it's reasonable to expect it there; the MoMA less so as SPSF can't be coordinated on the RMB for a variety of reasons, etc.

So you could come up with individual requirements for each individual position to try and gauge it, but honestly, I think this particular issue is easier to approach through election campaigns and the ballot box.

By the way, I'm not saying this to avoid game-side presence myself - I'm not an RMBer by any means, but I've been staying active on the RMB during my PM tenure because I did feel it was important to have a presence for all South Pacificans, not just Legislators.

Reply

Somy, I don’t think it’s really fair that gameside people get to amass so much influence and vote for our Delegate, while getting to ignore everything that happens in our forum community. They’re exercising quite a bit of influence without having the slightest clue as to what forum people think and feel and want.

The LC gets to do whatever they want gameside, without even needing an account here. They get to stay comfortably in their safety zone of the RMB, while running an entire branch of the Coalition’s governing. That’s not right— they could be very out of touch with what the forum people are doing. They should need to be active here, too. There’s no incentive to them to pay attention to the forum at all, and yet they’re supposed to be an equal part of government.

I propose that to have more than 50,000 influence in TSP, you must be an active legislator, posting in the Assembly at least once every 10 days. This will ensure that people who hold a significant amount of raw power in the game aren’t out of touch with half of the community.

Furthermore, since the LC is literally part of our government, they should be required to do the same. They need to know what’s happening on the forum and what forum people’s interests are. It’s not right that they can control an entire branch of TSP government and not even have a forum account.

If we’re truly two communities, then why aren’t we holding everybody to the same standards of activity??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

Somy, I don’t think it’s really fair that gameside people get to amass so much influence and vote for our Delegate, while getting to ignore everything that happens in our forum community. They’re exercising quite a bit of influence without having the slightest clue as to what forum people think and feel and want.

The LC gets to do whatever they want gameside, without even needing an account here. They get to stay comfortably in their safety zone of the RMB, while running an entire branch of the Coalition’s governing. That’s not right— they could be very out of touch with what the forum people are doing. They should need to be active here, too. There’s no incentive to them to pay attention to the forum at all, and yet they’re supposed to be an equal part of government.

I propose that to have more than 50,000 influence in TSP, you must be an active legislator, posting in the Assembly at least once every 10 days. This will ensure that people who hold a significant amount of raw power in the game aren’t out of touch with half of the community.

Furthermore, since the LC is literally part of our government, they should be required to do the same. They need to know what’s happening on the forum and what forum people’s interests are. It’s not right that they can control an entire branch of TSP government and not even have a forum account.

If we’re truly two communities, then why aren’t we holding everybody to the same standards of activity??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well you know that the actual GAME takes place gameside, right? And that is why we are here and even have a forum, right? It's all around the game. If forumsiders want to have a say, then they should post on the RMB more and make their say heard to the LC. That's their problem if they don't get their voice heard, not mine. 
And for the "staying comfortable on the RMB" thing, you could say the same about forumsiders. They stay comfortable on the forums without ever going to 90% of the activity on TSP. Gamesiders are already forced to go forumside if they want to run for office. Why can't we say the same for forumsiders?

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

(This post was last modified: 01-20-2018, 10:04 AM by North Prarie.)

Reply

If there are these "two communities" as Glen keeps claiming, then why are we really only encouraging gamesiders to join offsite and not offsiters to join gameside?

Largely, everyone needs a nation in the region to be a legislator and, therefore, run for Cabinet position.

Which, largely, brings me around to the idea that we already have an activity check: the CTE function of our nations.

It might be ideally that someone does more than the bare minimum, but we already have a standard minimum that *everyone* on the forumside needs to meet. Which, while well intended, seems to make this proposal a bit redundant.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 01-20-2018, 10:55 AM by Tsunamy.)

Reply