[DISCUSSION] A New Unified Discord Server |
Would #legislators-lounge really be open to all citizens, even if sensitive topics might be discussed?
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
One channel I added to my version of the unified server outline was an #applications-center channel just above #government-discussion. Currently, each ministry server has its own applications channel. At the very least, it posts a link to an application thread in its welcome channel. Obviously, doing that in a unified server doesn't really work: you don't especially want the single #welcome channel getting clogged up with five different ministries' applications. The #applications-center channel was meant to host all the ministries' applications in a single location -- and potentially, if we got a unified application working, it could serve as a sort of "civil service registration office" for people to ask questions about signing up for ministries. I'm curious as to why it's been removed from the plan.
(10-04-2020, 05:42 AM)Roavin Wrote: Some ideas I have to consider: I like all of these ideas, though I'm least sure about the first one. I'd be perfectly fine eliminating the #meme-island channel altogether, but we also want to be sure people realize that #drama-llama-palooza is for sharing music, art, and writing. Not anything at all that comes in a visual format. (10-04-2020, 05:47 AM)Nakari Wrote: I like the getting help channel. Depending on how sensitive it's expected to be, could always remove message history for it? I'm not sure an all-ministries lounge is totally necessary. My feeling is that, given the number of TSPers who are involved in at least one ministry, it would end up looking not much different from #government-discussion. As Roavin said, real inter-ministry coordination could take place in #cabinet-office if private, and in #government-discussion if public. (10-04-2020, 11:38 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Honestly, embassy channels are rarely utilized. I’m not convinced we need them, rather than have a single “diplomacy row” channel or something. I'm inclined to agree, but I think that's something for the MoFA to decide. No harm in leaving them around now (because that's how the MoFA is currently set up) but pressuring the MoFA to remove them later as a policy choice. (10-04-2020, 12:23 PM)Pronoun Wrote: To my understanding the OWL drafting and discussion channels are currently open to all citizens who are interested and join the server. Is it possible to keep #ga-discussion-drafting and #sc-discussion-drafting open to citizens who are interested? OWL discussion and drafting channels should still be open to all citizens, yes. (10-04-2020, 12:23 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Would #legislators-lounge really be open to all citizens, even if sensitive topics might be discussed? I don't believe that's actually the intention. I imagine it would stay the way it currently is. ~ Aumeltopia ~
Why is Citizen's Court only visible to citizens under Roavin's plan, when the channels were open to everybody in the current setup?
On #legislators-lounge: Yeah that'd be legislators only still ofc, sorry that I didn't specify in the overview I gave above.
On #meme-island vs #coconut-grove: Looking at it, it does look like the content there is in both cases frequent enough and different enough that they deserve to be separate channels so I'd keep it that way for now. On the Citizen's Court visibility: That's just an organizational aspect of things. Citizens now have their own corner, which they never had before, while the new #nationstates-corner channel still allows friends (and foes) from elsewhere to participate in our discussions. We could absolutely be convinced otherwise if it's controversial or problematic. On the public OWL channels: If those are to be public, wouldn't it make sense to have those in the Citizen's Court rather than the OWL category, then? A key paradigm here is making only relevant categories appear.
Sure, but the category would still appear in that case.
Doesn't matter much to me on OWL, so long as the appropriate people have the appropriate permissions.
~ Aumeltopia ~
To echo the calls on Discord for the past week: save the Court channel.
Why should the Court channel be saved? Or, why should it be archived?
Note in general: The "why" is more important than the "what". (10-20-2020, 03:03 PM)Roavin Wrote: Why should the Court channel be saved? Or, why should it be archived? Well for starters - Indiana Pictures. 2nd - every other branch of the government has a channel for needs and while the Court doesn't have a lot of things happening all the time, keeping them there and on the forums is nifty doodle. C) I would like to reiterate Indiana Pictures E) It gives the appropriate place for people to ask questions When a Justice has posted something.
This is Penguin!!
Nothing Gold Can Stay Penguins shall one day rule the pie! And by "pie", I mean "World"!! Goddess Empress Queen Princess Lady of TSP Lilium Inter Spinas // Non timebo mala I have done a lot of things in the Region in my History. There's a list somewhere if you wanna go looking. |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |