(05-09-2016, 06:36 PM)Farengeto Wrote: Forums are a necessary extension of the limited gameside communications. When all you have is the RMB large scale governmental organization is just impractical, all you can have is a single discussion topic at once without another getting buried. (Which at the very least halts almost all "fun" conversation whenever any laws, elections, etc happen. Roleplays on the RMB also run into this problem. An external forum allow the multiple discussion topics for government and anything else that emerges. When it comes to electing officials there is also the issue of regulating it to ensure voters are different people, trying to ensure someone is who they say. Just look at with the LC just a few months ago. Belschaft (then still a security threat) got elected to the LC under a puppet and we were completely unaware until he revealed it. There's also some difficulties is conducting the vote and ensuring the legitimacy of voters. The logistical part of that problem is mitigated by the relatively recent additon of polls but even then we still can't agree on how to check our voters, which gave rise to forum-based citizenship where at least basic factors can be checked and screened. That's just a couple of the major reasons.

When of 7000 residents in TSP a rough 6500 just dont care about what an off-site government decides, there remains the question to it´s use.

The vast majority of those 6500 care about nothing other than there own nation, and some not even that.

(05-10-2016, 08:49 AM)W. Charlesfort Wrote:

(05-09-2016, 06:36 PM)Farengeto Wrote: Forums are a necessary extension of the limited gameside communications. When all you have is the RMB large scale governmental organization is just impractical, all you can have is a single discussion topic at once without another getting buried. (Which at the very least halts almost all "fun" conversation whenever any laws, elections, etc happen. Roleplays on the RMB also run into this problem. An external forum allow the multiple discussion topics for government and anything else that emerges. When it comes to electing officials there is also the issue of regulating it to ensure voters are different people, trying to ensure someone is who they say. Just look at with the LC just a few months ago. Belschaft (then still a security threat) got elected to the LC under a puppet and we were completely unaware until he revealed it. There's also some difficulties is conducting the vote and ensuring the legitimacy of voters. The logistical part of that problem is mitigated by the relatively recent additon of polls but even then we still can't agree on how to check our voters, which gave rise to forum-based citizenship where at least basic factors can be checked and screened. That's just a couple of the major reasons.

When of 7000 residents in TSP a rough 6500 just dont care about what an off-site government decides, there remains the question to it´s use.

That's not a claim that holds up though. Even on  topics like polls only around 100 nations answer them. And the last time we tried anything policy related with Osiris a third of respondents didn't know anything about the region, another third wanted only to stay out (which had at least some "don't care" votes in it).

We have many nations but we also have lots of puppets too. and we're also inherently one of the homes of those who play a couple days then leave permanently, or even those who do issues and don't care much for the social aspects. There's really not that many who are actually active in the region, and not all of them want to deal with regional politics either.

That's why maybe this isn't the best of ideas to include gameside.
At least not in small day to day governing.

Having read through both drafts in detail, I'm coming down in favour of this one. I don't like the way that Glen's draft has subtly changed the emphasis on certain things in the Charter, via the usage of language. A prime example is the relationship between forum and in-game region, which is fundamentally changed in his draft.

I'll have some proposed amendments for this draft tomorrow.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with my opposition to your CSS membership bid.

This is an admittedly thrown together proposal. Tsu posted it because he was frustrated with the speed of the Great Council.

We can do much better by uniting around the working group draft, which is complete and polished. I recall you saying you were very impressed with it, and had a few amendments you wanted to bring forth?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-11-2016, 03:14 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I'm sure it has nothing to do with my opposition to your CSS membership bid.

This is an admittedly thrown together proposal. Tsu posted it because he was frustrated with the speed of the Great Council.

We can do much better by uniting around the working group draft, which is complete and polished. I recall you saying you were very impressed with it, and had a few amendments you wanted to bring forth?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was impressed on my first reading, and still think there are good ideas in it. Reading it in fine detail I don't like the way it's subtly altered certain relationships between parts of the region, and carries an underlying reflection of your own ideological views. I don't think this is something you've done intentionally, but is merely an implicit result of you having written it from scratch.

Can you list these 'subtle alterations' and 'ideological views'?

I have a long history of opposing a bicameral system. The draft grants the LC a proportional vote on all Assembly matters, and devolves game-side matters completely to the LC. That goes against my 'ideological views.'

The relationship between the gameside and the forum community will end up being more integrated than it already is. In fact, the working group draft is way more generous in granting the gameside power and influence than this draft. The only thing Tsu's draft does is give the gameside a role in electing the Delegate. The working group proposal does that *and* grants proportional representation in the Assembly.

That being said, I'm really not sure how your criticism makes any sense. Except that you're upset I oppose your CSS bid, and so you don't want to support any GC draft I'm associated with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or, I'm not some cynical, petty, bitter jackass and I just don't like the language of your draft as much as I did at first. Like I said.

FFS Glen, what do I have to do to prove to you that I'm not some Biyah-esque villain?

The ideas found in the working group draft are largely co-opted from other drafts and the discussions during the previous portions of the Great Council. There aren't many original ideas in it. So the claim that I subconsciously inserted ideologically biased language into it makes no sense. The part that's changed the most is the CRS section, and that is basically a framework copy of TNP's laws.

That's why I asked if you could list these problematic areas. You said just last night that you had several amendments written up for it. Then you suddenly reverse course and decide that's it's beyond repair, and we should all shift towards this draft?

I don't think I'm being unreasonable in my suspicion.

Regardless, the working group draft has already been debated. We do not want to restart debate on an entirely different draft, which has hardly been vetted and was basically abandoned.

If you have proposed amendments to the working group draft, could you just post them? So we can see what subconscious biases I wrote into it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk