Except it goes against literally everything this region is meant to stand for.

(04-16-2014, 10:27 AM)Escade Wrote: Currently, I believe that the posting requirement for citizens is 2 posts a month.

Since when did we have a posting requirement? *is confused* Because if there was, my citizenship would've been revoked by now, since sometimes I only post once a month just to update the map thread.

(04-16-2014, 10:27 AM)Escade Wrote: Personally, I believe that a person should have 20 or so posts on the forums before they can vote in an election or otherwise. It is conducive to citizens actually participate beyond the vote and being part of the community it self. It's quite easy to rack up posts.

Back then in 2006/2007, when I was new in NS, my first 2 nations were Brutland and Norden (born in TSP) and Kylesburgh (born in TWP). One of these regions had no posting requirements for citizenship, the other had a 50-post requirement for citizenship. Guess which region caught me.

Initially, I arrived in both TWP and TSP not knowing anyone in them; in both I felt left out because everyone else already knows each other. That feeling was stronger in TWP since I had the door shut in my face - I had overcame my hesitancy to register in offsite forums only to be told that there was another hurdle that I had to pass.

Thing is, the post requirement really can deter people, especially new ones, from participating. The TWP post requirement came to me as "bleh, forget it, I'm not going to make 50 posts just to get citizenship which I don't know what's the use". It was harder for me to get involved in TWP, because a huge chunk of their forum and activities in the region are off-limits and invisible to non-citizens. In TSP, I could participate immediately in regional activities and discussions by having citizenship.

I could understand the fear that the low barriers to citizenship may open our region to undue outside foreign influence, but that's a trade-off. I am averse to foreign influence in TSP and I look down at people who try to influence our elections. Historically, TSP has been an open region with low barriers for citizenship, as opposed to let's say (again for the sake of comparison), TWP, with a high barrier for citizenship. I'll be completely honest with you by saying that back then I believed that TWP was more of an oligarchy (to use the dirty word) than TSP was, because they left out new people by imposing posting requirements. Security freak that I am, but in the trade-off, I'd rather have openness. It's what's made TSP the region it is now.

A two-tiered citizenship is, in my opinion, very unacceptable in a self-respecting democracy such as TSP. Again, if I was a new person and told I'm going to be given a second-class citizenship in which I can say stuff but not vote, I'd probably be insulted and won't bother anymore. (That's probably what I felt in TWP back then.) A two-tiered citizenship would again open a rift between the forum and the in-game, which I think we had done a great job in bridging during the past year. Which serves which? Does the forum serve the region, or does the region serve the forum? Imposing a forum requirement in order to be able to shape the region would be the latter, and that would prove true the criticisms other people had leveled at TSP.

A similar situation can be said about the TSP map. Oftentimes I've found myself adding new nations only to remove them in the next monthly update after they CTE in 28 days. Many other regions impose a postcount requirement or a population requirement in order to claim plots on the map. Imposing that would've been a great way for me to lighten my work on the map. But I've shied away from doing so, because: Firstly, the map serves the region, and it would be open to anyone in the region - simple residence in the region is enough to justify inclusion in the map. Secondly, the map is one of the ways to start in TSP, and I'm not going to close that avenue by imposing requirements that may or may not be relevant. Thirdly, imposing requirements may have unintended consequences, even opposite effects. If I require people to be active or to be able to demonstrate RPing capability in order to have a spot on the map so that I increase activity, I might even get less activity. People will simply not apply because they cannot meet the requirements or will simply don't bother.

Just remember that this is a game. People will switch off a game if they deem it cumbersome. Adding more cumbersome requirements will turn them off. This is also a game of politics in that, in which competition for new blood is unbridled and fierce. Imposing additional barriers for new entrants will only divert them to our competition.

Like I said before in the ex-forum, our goal is to pull in new people and encourage activity. We're not going to encourage activity and fulfill our goal in helping people find their niche/be better players if we close a large and important segment and window of opportunity for them. There are other ways of improving activity, and those must be pursued.

1432

This plays into the hands of those who see a Oligarchy existing in TSP

We are trying to encourage democratic participation and encouraging people to apply for citizenship, yet as soon as they jump through that hoop we are insisting that they continue jumping through more?

It may lead to a slight increase in activity, but it may also lead to a sense of resentment and, ultimately, a rejection of the principles behind having an offsite forum for Administrative purposes.

Creating the equivalent of "Forty Shilling Freeholders" is hardly conducive to transparency and open democracy IMHO

...

Why am I agreeing with something Ditortilla is saying? Why? WHY??!?!?!?

Oh dear, the apocalypse must be near. :O

B&N,

Thank you for your thoughts on this issue and sharing your personal experience, particularly with TWP.

I'll agree that TSP presents itself as democratic and open, however sometimes the actual on the ground reality isn't quite in congruence with this self-presentation.

Registrants on the forum can access all but the Private Assembly (and cabinet, etc.), I believe.

I propose, as has been mentioned a few times in the past, renaming "Citizenship" to "Voter Registration" and "Resident" to "Citizen". It makes it sound move inclusive. Everyones a citizen, but you must register to vote/run in elections.

If the goal is to lower barriers to participation, that's one of the best ideas I've heard, but, if the Assembly were to do this, it'd require amendin' the entire Charter. I don't see that happenin'.

(05-01-2014, 01:01 PM)God-Emperor Wrote: If the goal is to lower barriers to participation, that's one of the best ideas I've heard, but, if the Assembly were to do this, it'd require amendin' the entire Charter. I don't see that happenin'.

Why not? I'd support it.

So would I. It's more in line with TWP's current citizenship policy.