(12-10-2020, 09:39 PM)North Prarie Wrote: So you think that 7,000+ South Pacificans shouldn't have a voice in electing the leader of their region because they don't play the game like you do?

Got it.

By my count, this is at least the second time you've misrepresented my words. Nothing is preventing them from coming over to the forum to vote for their delegate. Moreover, I don't think other feeders even elect their delegates using gameside polls for the exact same reasons I stated in my previous post.

7000 TSP nations aren’t voting and never will. Like 100 people voted. Let’s not exaggerate.

(12-11-2020, 09:29 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: 7000 TSP nations aren’t voting and never will. Like 100 people voted. Let’s not exaggerate.

We generally get 200+ for the delegate elections, I believe. (So still generally a small number overall.)

But ... I'll be honest in that I'm not up for re-litigating whether or not we want gameside voting. The idea that it's unsecure and open to tampering clearly hasn't proven out — regardless of Jay's saber rattling in this thread. (Although, absolutely not to Google form voting.)

Changing the language to deployment at the end of the poll makes sense; nations who leave the region or change WA status would be removed from the poll by the game mechanisms so there's no chance in someone voting twice.

I’m not really here to debate whether or not voting on the RMB makes sense either. Just think the histrionics aren’t helpful!

At the end of the day, we need to avoid making our voting systems more complicated, and adding in exceptions that create that much more work for the person running the election isn’t worth it imo. Let’s be real, the LC isn’t a super serious part of the government. They do little to nothing outside of RMB moderation. There aren’t even many SPSF members who are solely RMBers anyways. Missing one election to participate in a military op isn’t a very high cost. So just suck it up.

(12-12-2020, 11:19 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: I’m not really here to debate whether or not voting on the RMB makes sense either. Just think the histrionics aren’t helpful!

At the end of the day, we need to avoid making our voting systems more complicated, and adding in exceptions that create that much more work for the person running the election isn’t worth it imo. Let’s be real, the LC isn’t a super serious part of the government. They do little to nothing outside of RMB moderation. There aren’t even many SPSF members who are solely RMBers anyways. Missing one election to participate in a military op isn’t a very high cost. So just suck it up.

I wasn't really responding to you, specifically, outside of the number voters. But, I generally agree on all accounts.

No Glen, I'm not going to suck it up. I want my vote to count.

I am very much part of the group that the current rules affect; I am an SPSFer who is basically required to be WA mobile at all times. I switch WAs sometimes dozens of times in a single update and when I'm not WA locked in a liberation attempt as I have been for the last several days, I am using it to defend other regions in the game and clean up after the messes raiders leave. I and others like me should not be penalized or disenfranchised for choosing to play the game this way, especially in a region that appears to value inclusiveness and democracy as much as this one does. So I apologize for continuing Jay's "sword-rattling," but having to WA lock myself in TSP for the entirety of a delegate election is not just inconvenient, it could be dangerous. Wins and losses, especially in large-scale operations, are often decided by a handful of endorsements.

"Sorry, I'm voting in the TSP election" shouldn't be an excuse I give to other defenders for why I can't do something. Protecting native communities from invasion shouldn't mean disenfranchising myself here. I don't really care if it makes elections slightly more inconvenient, WA-mobile SPSFers need to be able to participate in LC and delegate elections.

What could happen is that whoever makes the polls could set the voting requirements to WA natives instead of WA native residents. Assuming that the SPSFers have been in TSP for long enough that they're a native of TSP, this could work for SPSFers outside of TSP to be able to vote in Delegate and LC elections.

(12-15-2020, 08:31 AM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: What could happen is that whoever makes the polls could set the voting requirements to WA natives instead of WA native residents. Assuming that the SPSFers have been in TSP for long enough that they're a native of TSP, this could work for SPSFers outside of TSP to be able to vote in Delegate and LC elections.

That wouldn’t work, because SPSFers don’t move their nations out of TSP. They use a different nation that most likely doesn’t have any influence in TSP.

(12-12-2020, 11:19 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: I’m not really here to debate whether or not voting on the RMB makes sense either. Just think the histrionics aren’t helpful!

At the end of the day, we need to avoid making our voting systems more complicated, and adding in exceptions that create that much more work for the person running the election isn’t worth it imo. Let’s be real, the LC isn’t a super serious part of the government. They do little to nothing outside of RMB moderation. There aren’t even many SPSF members who are solely RMBers anyways. Missing one election to participate in a military op isn’t a very high cost. So just suck it up.

This is specifically an amendment to delegate elections, and SPSF members probably care a bit more about those



I'll admit I don't know the full extent of EC effort but I don't think it should be too much additional effort to count these votes in the only-last-day sense?

Let deployed SPSF members vote by TG via their TSP nation, naming their WA nation in deployment, and then just... ignore them. At the end of the vote, ask the MoD to confirm if these members are deployed. If the MoD says yes, count the votes. If not, don't count them.

This avoids the issue of potentially voting twice. It also means that being deployed halfway through the voting period won't mean SPSF members are entirely blocked from voting (since it's not the full duration of the vote). But also if they aren't deployed by the end, the EC can just ignore those votes entirely. So it should be rare that the EC actually even has to do the extra procedure.

Would this be an ok procedure, ECs?

(12-14-2020, 08:22 PM)Witchcraft and Sorcery Wrote: No Glen, I'm not going to suck it up. I want my vote to count.

I am very much part of the group that the current rules affect; I am an SPSFer who is basically required to be WA mobile at all times. I switch WAs sometimes dozens of times in a single update and when I'm not WA locked in a liberation attempt as I have been for the last several days, I am using it to defend other regions in the game and clean up after the messes raiders leave. I and others like me should not be penalized or disenfranchised for choosing to play the game this way, especially in a region that appears to value inclusiveness and democracy as much as this one does. So I apologize for continuing Jay's "sword-rattling," but having to WA lock myself in TSP for the entirety of a delegate election is not just inconvenient, it could be dangerous. Wins and losses, especially in large-scale operations, are often decided by a handful of endorsements.

"Sorry, I'm voting in the TSP election" shouldn't be an excuse I give to other defenders for why I can't do something. Protecting native communities from invasion shouldn't mean disenfranchising myself here. I don't really care if it makes elections slightly more inconvenient, WA-mobile SPSFers need to be able to participate in LC and delegate elections.

So, couple things here:

First, WS, you're misreading what I saying about Jay's saber rattling. If you look back over the thread, Jay is saying all on-site elections are not secure and should be done away with because they could be tampered with. We've had no instances of that happens and while it is a potential concern, it's yet to be a major issue.

Second, I think it's inappropriate to be telling this body that what outside defenders are doing is more important that what's happening in the region. If anything, that encapsulates the fear many people here had when we decided to "go defender" that people were going to start putting outside interests above TSP. 

Toward Glen's point: we need to make it realistic for the EC to know what to count. Trying to keep track of a host of SPSF members and where they are for a three days or a week is an unrealistic (and frankly fruitless) expectation as originally suggested. 

But, as Nakari is suggesting, having a roaster the MoD OKs to vote because they'll be out of the region is perfectly acceptable and easy to do.

Personally, I'd even go so far to assume that we can trust SPSF members to not vote twice. Not to mention, joining the SPSF then going on missions just to get an extra vote seem ... unduly time consuming.