Discord discussion re OWL + talk more here |
Big Discord dump incoming. For Sunshine purposes as well as to continue discussion on how to make OWL work better.
Quote:[12:16 PM] HumanSanity: We really need OWL to be doing stuff. SC Declarations have been released. If we can't be bothered to get out recommendations and votes on somewhat reasonable timeframes on these, not only are we losing the ability to stack/stomp on individual votes, but we're basically solidifying the perception we regionally have nothing to offer in terms of WA discussion, debate, or drafting at a significant moment in the WA's evolution and history, which will have a long-term negative effect on our soft power and institutional influence. Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.
Big talking points I can think of:
1) why do we care so much about the opinions of foreigners 2) why do we have foreigners as senior staff instead of our own 3) stuff needs to be done in a timely fashion and CONSISTENTLY. Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.
I agree with the sentiment Luca is expressing here: OWL right now is fundamentally broken. It does not need to be tweaked, it needs to be fundamentally reworked because it does not advance any of our interests. It does not help us build influence, soft power, or clout within the WA. It does not help us generate propaganda for important WA votes. It is largely an administrative bureaucracy that has trouble integrating new staff or promoting new talent. While I support the fact we're using on-site democratic input to determine our votes:
(1) I think we should change the format of the Recommendation Dispatches to give a clear and well articulated recommendation statement instead of random quotes, (2) I think we should empower staff to actually talk about proposals and shape internal voting on OWL through debate and discussion--whether such discussion occurs via Discord, forum, or OWL RMB, and (3) OWL needs to start fulfilling the part of its mission related to advocacy and author mentorship. (07-09-2021, 05:03 PM)Witchcraft and Sorcery Wrote: 1) why do we care so much about the opinions of foreignersWe shouldn't. Foreigners can have good ideas and participate in our discussions, but I don't think we should be reproducing their opinions. (07-09-2021, 05:03 PM)Witchcraft and Sorcery Wrote: 2) why do we have foreigners as senior staff instead of our ownI do not know, but Honeydew and Cretox should both be removed from Senior Staff. Perhaps the category "Senior Staff" should be eliminated entirely as it seems to simply mean "people who access the OWL account" and, with the new MoE Dispatch tool, I think we could attempt to modify the system to mean fewer people have to access the account in the first place, even if we don't rework the system in any fundamental way. [rest of response redacted] (07-09-2021, 05:03 PM)Witchcraft and Sorcery Wrote: 3) stuff needs to be done in a timely fashion and CONSISTENTLY.Yes. Clearly there is a significant issue with motivation to do things and with no interest from OWL leadership in bringing on new Senior Staff or changing the system so vote or recommendation posting is done more consistently. Right now, we have not posted a vote on the current GA vote, current SC vote, the GA vote currently at quorum but not on the floor, or any of the 2 in quorum SC proposals. There has also been no internal staff discussion in any sense about the fact there's going to be a new WA game feature for the first time in 11 years. All of which goes to demonstrate the extreme dysfunction in this department. OWL needs new management or a new system, because the status quo is not working. Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Ambassador to Balder Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense
[partially redacted]
I'm sort of in the same boat as Luca. There are some chronic problems that tweaks along won't solve. We need an efficient and timely WA recommendation program that actually works for us. Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.
I'm a day slower than I said I'd be to talk about this topic, alack! In the mean time, we've had a fresh new headache-inducing thread on this subject, and that's very exciting.
So we've talked about it in the cabinet channel, and I've complained in OWL in the past, but for the sake of having the summary of my opinion in one place, you can find my relevant analysis here in the hell thread: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9544-post-2...#pid218719, <--- please read this if you have not already done so. The most direct response from Anjo on my complaints has been: Quote:anjo — 27/05/2021 And that is basically a noble intention, but obviously the OWL sets the format for conducting these votes, and by their own admission, we're collecting votes, but not actually interacting with these guys. It seems, then, like the gain is not made up for by what we're losing everywhere else. [one paragraph redacted] Beyond that, I think that the issues with OWL are going to be similar to the issues with MoE. Both have been run very procedurally-based, not a lot of human interaction by design of their structure. And so, if we're going to bring back the human element, it's going to take a bit of work. People in OWL aren't going to really know what that would look like because they haven't really seen it before, and they're not particularly inclined to conversation yet. In this area, I'm thinking about where I've had success in the past, and surely the first place that comes to mind is Refugia. There, basically I just started talking about WA topics because I liked them. Thinking out loud, talking about the issue, trying to poke people about what they think. The whole premise is that we, as a group, are in the World Assembly. When a proposal comes up to vote, we've go to figure out how we as World Assembly members are going to deal with a situation. If we don't figure it out, someone else is going to make that decision for us, so we had better be a part of that conversation and determine the right answer for us. So, we need someone to be around to start that conversation, and the responsibility of that really lies on the program director and their proxies. If the director is out, their deputies must take up the case and make sure the discussion starts and that discussion coincides with a vote being opened. These should take place at minimum of a day (and really probably two) before the actual WA vote begins so we're ready and prepared with our resources to stomp. The most, most, most important thing is the folks who are in management of the OWL making the subject matter approachable and able to be discussed so we can tick down the trepidation about getting involved and say "It's not so hard, hey?", and get them set up to maybe take over one day down the road. Following a discussion and good consensus that hopefully matches the outcome of the actual OWL vote, staff should begin building an IFV. The IFV should feature all the good talking points that were had in the debate, so that we look as competent and thorough as possible when we present our case, not only to the region but to the world, by invoking the upvote squad. But for all this to happen, we need comprehensive reform on all fronts at more or less the same time, and a few successful runs of the new model to break old people into the habit and get new people recruited and inspired.
I think we should also consider returning to a forum-based OWL because the disadvantage associated with the RMB method is cluttering, and I believe that is a major reason why there is little discussion on WA proposals. It is rather easy for arguments to get lost in votes or just publish one's vote with an argument and leaving it at that.
When the proposals are published forumside, they are done so thread-by-thread, reducing the clutter and giving people a clear space to argue proposals. Furthermore, conducting forumside votes and discussion increases reliance on the forum and leaves a better-organized paper trail of previous votes and discussion.
(07-12-2021, 11:29 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: I think we should also consider returning to a forum-based OWL because the disadvantage associated with the RMB method is cluttering, and I believe that is a major reason why there is little discussion on WA proposals. It is rather easy for arguments to get lost in votes or just publish one's vote with an argument and leaving it at that.I personally am highly persuaded by this but I know there’s a strong belief that what makes OWL unique is its on-site format. I’d honestly be interested in an informal poll on the forum (or even via OWL) about how important on-site voting is for people (and/or if they’d even prefer off-site voting or a combination) because while I personally find forums easy to use and conducive to conversation, I know that’s not a universal thought process nor does it necessarily serve our cultural prioritization of on-site input. Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Ambassador to Balder Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense
I'm not opposed to that idea. I think canvassing the people about it is a good idea though.
Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.
OWL is, indeed, rather unique in its format to involve gameside-only players in the decision making process in a manner that is somewhat convenient. However, at the end of the day, they receive a ping and go somewhere else to provide their input. There is no reason that that ping cannot come in the form of a dispatch or RMB mention and/or probably a subscription-based telegram saying that there is a new TSP forum vote up, with a link to get there. You do need to make an account for the forum, but that's really not that much of an ask to be involved in commanding TSP's incredible voting weight.
We could also have discussions and a voting system that's based entirely on Discord, or some combination of both. On Discord, we might catch more people who would be averse to using a forum as a platform, but we may end up in a situation where we start losing citizens and the discussion becomes OWL-only, and that hasn't really been our desire. Either way, something must change. What troubles me is that, although Anjo's tech for collecting and processing RMB votes is impressive, all discussion posts come back as needing to be classified. That is to say, there's a clear anticipation that discussion is unlikely and it even makes the work of processing a vote more inconvenient. I'm willing to give credit to Jay's suggestion that an RMB's single-thread system makes it jumbled to deal with multiple topics, but even in the case of single topics, we're not particularly discussing the issue. We really need to start encouraging people to discuss these issues and get in the practice of giving the mechanical structure and political intentions a critical eye before, during, or after a vote is made. That's the kind of stuff that I think gets people inspired and familiar with WA topics, and started going down their own WA career paths. Transferring OWL content to a board seems like a low-effort first step in getting there, but the presentation really needs to be shifted from not just dropping in a vote, but asking people what they *think*. I would like us to really start pushing the OWL director for comment and feedback in order to provide some much-needed reform to this department. But, as we've raised the issue several times, the ONLY responses we've gotten back from Anjo are recorded in the chatlog in the OP of this thread. I've had vastly more interaction with Somy on the subject in #legislators-lounge over the last few days, and so I'm troubled with how much attention we can actually get out of the existing director when it's pretty clear that the entire structure of the program is currently in question.
Just trying to organize our options here, I see two option menus.
Menu #1: Voting and Discussion 1) Keep RMB voting, OWL brings in new Senior Staffers 2) Keep RMB voting but have OWL place a new emphasis on discussion and encourage OWL Staff to lead RMB discussions 3) Move entirely to forum-based voting/discussion (re: Jay's post) 4) Move entirely to Discord-based voting/discussion 5) Maintain the RMB for voting but have OWL-led and planned Discord discussions as a complement 6) Move to a forum-based voting/discussion system but retain the RMB for on-site users to cast votes (Jay's post + an addition to make the RMB still an option) 7) Use an RMB and Discord combination system - votes can be cast on either and discussion can be held on either Menu #2: Recommendations 1) Maintain the status quo 2) Recommendations with only a recommendation, no quoting of opinions 3) Recommendations with a recommendation + quoting of opinions from TSP 4) Recommendations with a recommendation + quoting of opinions from TSP and its allies Let me know if I left something off of either of those lists. Personally, I prefer an option which maintains the current RMB voting system but opens up and off-site complementary voting and discussion system led by OWL which focuses more on substantive discussion to ensure long-term departmental growth. I also prefer an option which eliminates foreign opinion quoting from our recommendation, possibly eliminating quoting altogether (in practice, I've noticed this is busy work that fosters confusion among the staff rather than substantive engagement). I also want a system where we're dependent on a less exclusive set of staff for posting votes. (07-13-2021, 08:02 PM)Luca Wrote: We really need to start encouraging people to discuss these issues and get in the practice of giving the mechanical structure and political intentions a critical eye before, during, or after a vote is made. That's the kind of stuff that I think gets people inspired and familiar with WA topics, and started going down their own WA career paths. Transferring OWL content to a board seems like a low-effort first step in getting there, but the presentation really needs to be shifted from not just dropping in a vote, but asking people what they *think*.I agree with this 100% and think this needs to be the ultimate goal of any structural changes that OWL implements. (07-13-2021, 08:02 PM)Luca Wrote: I would like us to really start pushing the OWL director for comment and feedback in order to provide some much-needed reform to this department. But, as we've raised the issue several times, the ONLY responses we've gotten back from Anjo are recorded in the chatlog in the OP of this thread. I've had vastly more interaction with Somy on the subject in #legislators-lounge over the last few days, and so I'm troubled with how much attention we can actually get out of the existing director when it's pretty clear that the entire structure of the program is currently in question.I will note that anjo has said they are on LOA, however I'm not clear on the duration of that LOA. Not sure if anyone else knows? If it's going to be extended much longer, at the very least we need stop gaps of delegated leadership in OWL. Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Ambassador to Balder Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |