I think you're missing the broader issue Glen, which is that we're a relatively small and largely unrepresentative minority that governs a large majority, theoretically by consent, but never actually consults said majority. The argument you're making essentially comes down to "They don't care as much as I do, so why should we ask for their opinion?"

If TSP is as democratic as we claim to be we shouldn't need a reason to extend the franchise; we should just do it as a matter of principle.

(03-16-2016, 05:18 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: If you're not interested in approaching these issues in good faith, I'm not sure it's worthwhile seeking your input.

My point is that expanding representation could be putting a poll in front of people and getting 120 responses (like our last WA resolution poll), if all you care about is mass numbers. I'm not sure those 120 responses really translate to any meaningful expansion of the franchise, beyond the most technical definition of, yeah, people voted in the poll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would like to point out that one of the only times a vote was held both here on the forums and on a poll on the main site at the same time, percentages were within 1% of each other, despite the main site getting significantly higher votals. I will try to track these polls down tonight.

I am personally in favour of this one.

Belschaft, I don't think we govern a large majority. That, to me, is a really baseless argument to make in favor of something like this. Our governance over the RMB extends basically to us electing the Delegate and setting an endo cap. There's not much else to govern. So I'm not really moved by appeals to philosophy on that point. It's perfectly democratic for there to be a forum community and a game-side community.

Some feel that the game side needs to have more representation. It's never been clear what that actually means. It's no more fair to subject our community to a game side majority than it is for us to subject them to our own majority. So if "representation" means a vote on all matters, including those that doesn't really affect RMBers, then I'm generally opposed.

If it means having a share in picking the Delegate, or setting their own RMB laws, that's a different form of representation. That doesn't require a sweeping enfranchisement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-17-2016, 06:08 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Belschaft, I don't think we govern a large majority. That, to me, is a really baseless argument to make in favor of something like this. Our governance over the RMB extends basically to us electing the Delegate and setting an endo cap. There's not much else to govern. So I'm not really moved by appeals to philosophy on that point. It's perfectly democratic for there to be a forum community and a game-side community.

Some feel that the game side needs to have more representation. It's never been clear what that actually means. It's no more fair to subject our community to a game side majority than it is for us to subject them to our own majority. So if "representation" means a vote on all matters, including those that doesn't really affect RMBers, then I'm generally opposed.

If it means having a share in picking the Delegate, or setting their own RMB laws, that's a different form of representation. That doesn't require a sweeping enfranchisement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look — I already conceded that "representation" might be the wrong word.

But we need them involved.
We need them to care.

I don't really care how we go about it, but we need to grow our numbers and get more people active — on the forums and in the RMB, but by doing the later I believe we'll do the former, as well.

Care about *what*, though? Care about the wording of our judicial procedures? Or care about protecting a legitimate Delegate against a coup or an invasion?

I think it's wrongheaded to be so obsessed with raw numbers. Most of NS communities are concentrated in a relative handful of players. The WA is like 30 people, tops. Gameplay isn't anywhere near hundreds. So if the goal here is to get 50-100+ people active, that's a task you're gonna fail no matter what you try to do. TSP isn't that interesting; there's not that much *to do* to draw in a large number of players. Yeah, throw a poll in front of people and bug them to vote, and you'll get people to vote. That happens in the WA all the time. But that doesn't mean that kind of participation has any substance that would make TSP better.

Why do we *need* them involved? Is it existential? Is there a real goal beyond, "It just makes sense to think they should be involved"?

I'm not opposed to something like including a poll in electing the delegate. But if the idea here is just to start throwing votes at the RMB and hope that somehow enriches everything through a mysterious process we can't yet name... That's never been convincing to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-17-2016, 09:51 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Care about *what*, though? Care about the wording of our judicial procedures? Or care about protecting a legitimate Delegate against a coup or an invasion?

I think it's wrongheaded to be so obsessed with raw numbers. Most of NS communities are concentrated in a relative handful of players. The WA is like 30 people, tops. Gameplay isn't anywhere near hundreds. So if the goal here is to get 50-100+ people active, that's a task you're gonna fail no matter what you try to do. TSP isn't that interesting; there's not that much *to do* to draw in a large number of players. Yeah, throw a poll in front of people and bug them to vote, and you'll get people to vote. That happens in the WA all the time. But that doesn't mean that kind of participation has any substance that would make TSP better.

Why do we *need* them involved? Is it existential? Is there a real goal beyond, "It just makes sense to think they should be involved"?

I'm not opposed to something like including a poll in electing the delegate. But if the idea here is just to start throwing votes at the RMB and hope that somehow enriches everything through a mysterious process we can't yet name... That's never been convincing to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Care about the delegate, mainly.

You can think it's "wrongheaded" to worry about numbers, but I'm here to tell you our numbers suck. And our goodwill sucks. We assume that we can get people to endorse delegate's at will and can spam our way out of messes. We need to undertake something to make them feel included and not a puppet of the offsite.

Beyond this, I'm going to try and explain this process to you one more time, with feeling. This region — this forum, this government, this RP, this everything — dies without active, interested people. End of story.

Finally, I'm going to wrap this up by saying I'm not debating solutions, but identifying problems. The fact that anytime someone posts on the RMB about the regional government s/he gets shouted down by RMBers who dgaf is a problem. It needs to be fixed.

I think people in the region are more interested, and care more, than you give them credit for Glen. Their opinions are as important as yours or mine; they're just not as dedicated as we are.

If we go to the effort of seeking them out and asking their opinions, you might be surprised at what happens.

Our numbers don't actually suck, though. They're in line with other GCRs, based on a simple look at everybody's recent legislative activity. From that alone, we're actually one of the most active GCRs, right up there with TNP. To think our numbers are that much different than what's typical in the past several years is pretty unmoored from reality. It's just not the case that we're facing some kind of existential activity problem. Maybe you're just not satisfied with the norm anymore.

If you want to argue for an unprecedented surge in the number of citizens, that's one thing. I still think it's completely wrong to focus almost singularly on how many people vote in a poll. At the end of the day, that's not real activity. We get 40+ voting in our elections regularly and that hasn't ever translated into long-term Assembly activity.

So you're going to need to offer a vision of something completely new. You can't just say "more activity" and have it happen. If our whole existence has never seen the kind of numbers you want, that's probably because the entire model of how we do the GCR Game isn't conducive to that much activity. Expanding the vote doesn't change the underlying model, so I don't know why we should expect anything different to happen than what we already see with elections. I think it's more likely than not that what we have to offer -- basically we're an almost entirely legislative-focused region -- isn't that great.

(03-18-2016, 02:29 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Our numbers don't actually suck, though. They're in line with other GCRs, based on a simple look at everybody's recent legislative activity. From that alone, we're actually one of the most active GCRs, right up there with TNP. To think our numbers are that much different than what's typical in the past several years is pretty unmoored from reality. It's just not the case that we're facing some kind of existential activity problem. Maybe you're just not satisfied with the norm anymore.

If you want to argue for an unprecedented surge in the number of citizens, that's one thing. I still think it's completely wrong to focus almost singularly on how many people vote in a poll. At the end of the day, that's not real activity. We get 40+ voting in our elections regularly and that hasn't ever translated into long-term Assembly activity.

So you're going to need to offer a vision of something completely new. You can't just say "more activity" and have it happen. If our whole existence has never seen the kind of numbers you want, that's probably because the entire model of how we do the GCR Game isn't conducive to that much activity. Expanding the vote doesn't change the underlying model, so I don't know why we should expect anything different to happen than what we already see with elections. I think it's more likely than not that what we have to offer -- basically we're an almost entirely legislative-focused region -- isn't that great.

We're comparing apples and oranges here, Glen. I'm unmoved, unconcerned and couldn't care less about how many people we have voting offsite. The voting numbers we have on the forum are fine. Would more citizens be great? Sure. But, what we have on the forum right now is fine.

My concern is with the in-game activity and the way the majority of the region feels about the offsite government. They feel disconnected. They feel like we don't care. And, frankly, some people here don't.

Yet, they are what make everything else possible. The fact that they acknowledge and endorse as we request is key. If Hile had followed a path like Milo pledged to make the RMB he center of the region, I suspect we would be in vastly a different place.

We don't have a region without controlling the delegate's seat.
And we don't control the delegate seat without nations who endorse the delegate.

We can slice it however we want, but those are the facts of the matter. Now we can ignore this until the next coup that isn't resolved so quickly or we can address it. I'd like us to address it.

Sorry Tsu, but I think you are wasting your breath

Most of the region probably do feel that the Government of TSP is a remote and irrelevant sideshow, but as long as the Delegate avoids interfering in their day to day affairs, is quite happy to carry on regardless.

This suits those who do participate because it means only a limited number of folk get to play at being boss, and they are all, generally speaking, of the same outlook, namely that they are right, and anything innovative is to be quietly steered toward the exit.