I will be answering your queries.

For Apato:

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote: I really don't think this is a good way to go. If the LC works correctly, then it can be a powerful tool for gameside integration; I know that Evinea (who was recently elected to the LC) also has some plans on building the LC, so I actually am optimistic going into this term.

LCs term after term have proved this notion otherwise.

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote: The Local Council (LC) has existed since April 2015, but its existence has, in the past, often been questioned and debated upon, and has proved redundant to our current institutions.

It doesn't have to be.

It has always been that way. I've been absent from both the region and nationstates for a year. It would've been fairly obvious to me any change that the LC may have attempted to make over the past year, but I didn't see changes. Just the same old moderation stuff.

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote:

Quote:(1) The Local Council will be the local government of the in-game community, composed of three or more residents of the South Pacific, and will represent the interests of all players in the region, moderate the Regional Message Board, encourage activity on the gameside, and administrate itself on issues unique to the in-game community.

The first is the LC moderating the Regional Message Board (RMB) should never have been allowed. They should not have moderation powers because of their political nature as elected officials. It is ultimately better that the moderation of the RMB be relegated to the South Pacific out-of-character (OOC) Global Moderator team, or a new apolitical gameside-specific moderation team overseen by the Global Moderators.

This is a fair point, though I do think that people active in the RMB who have lots of experience there (which is basically required to be elected into the LC) are the best moderating this; I would not be too opposed to putting RMB moderation in the job of some other group, however.

Your proposed amendments to the Regional Officers Act and the Border Control Act are compatible with these amendments.

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote: Meanwhile, encouraging activity on the gameside should be handled by the Ministry of Engagement (MoE) as explained in detail under the rebuttal against section 3.

Or, there could be an off-site Ministry of Engagement managing off-site engagement, and an on-site Local Council which is active on the gameside, has experience in the gameside, etc. and knows best on how to encourage activity on the gameside and is the most effective in doing so, particularly when both can - and should - collaborate and work with each other.

No. RMBers who want to be involved should apply to the Ministry of Engagement. It takes literally 10 minutes to register a forum account and apply to any ministry.
 

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote:

Quote:(2) The Local Council is entitled to self-administration within its jurisdiction on local issues, but may not pass laws or regulations that contradict this Charter or constitutional laws passed by the Assembly. To that end, the Assembly may not enact any law, nor the Cabinet deliver any directive, that is solely related to an issue local to the in-game community, except as done under the terms of this Charter.

What are local issues really? Double posting? Non-English language posts? Spamming? All of these can be handled by an apolitical gameside-specific moderation team, appointed or chosen, and overseen by the Global Moderators.

Local issues could be gameside roleplay, gameside communication in N-Day/Z-Day, cultural activity on the gameside, integration of new gameside members, managing polls, etc. All of which are best done by people active and experienced in the gameside.

All of which can be managed by the MoE and the MoC. RMBers can very easily apply for the ministries.

The unified government application form makes it more accessible, more convenient, and easier than ever before.

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote:

Quote:(3) The Local Council may not be denied the authority to run regional polls, create and pin Dispatches, and to suppress messages on the Regional Message Board according to a standard moderation policy. However, it may not alter the regional flags or tags, and may not send out mass telegrams, without the approval of the Delegate.

According to this dispatch Local Council also has appearance, communication, and poll powers, but the LC in its current form may not even alter the regional flags or tags, or send mass telegrams without the approval of the delegate as stated in the quote above. The only things the LC can do freely with the aforementioned powers are as follows:

• Appearance: change the WFE (not sure), pin dispatches
  
• Communication: virtually nothing
  
• Polls: create polls
  

The appearance (for dispatches) powers can be exercised by the Ministry of Engagement (MoE), or a new gameside-specific team appointed or chosen by the ministry.

Fair enough as to MoE doing that. "A new gameside-specific team appointed or chosen by the ministry" i.e. a Local Council which is just a puppet government of the offsite government which barely even touches the RMB. There is a reason that I think that the best path going forward is constant collaboration and communication between independent offsite and gameside governments.

Yes, but with more competent people since we can screen them and train them within the ministries.

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote: The primary purpose of the MoE as outlined by Article VI, Section 9 of the Charter of the South Pacific is '...recruiting and integrating new players into the Coalition's government and community, maintaining public infrastructure such as dispatches and other guides, setting unified presentation standards, and providing graphics to the government and citizens of the Coalition.' The MoE can also encourage activity on the gameside.

Same as above; the best path going forward is constant collaboration and communication between independent offsite and gameside governments, because both will be specialised towards the needs of the offsite and gameside communities respectively.

The beauty of having an integrated single government is that it will promote cohesion between the forums and gameside. It will erase the divide that has been ever-solidifying since the establishment of the LC.

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote: The communication powers cannot even used by the LC without delegate approval, just let the delegate, the Council on Regional Security (CRS), or whoever actually needs them have it.

How in the world is "Hey Penguin can the LC send this telegram" "Sure" such a big deal that necessitates abolition of the LC? I, for one, as an LC, sent a regional telegram, for example.

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote: The poll powers can be exercised by the Ministry of Culture (MoC), or a new gameside-specific team appointed or chosen by the ministry. The primary purpose of the MoC as outlined by Article VI, Section 8 of the Charter of the South Pacific is '...supporting the roleplay community and organizing regional cultural activities, events, and exchanges.'

The MoC or a new gameside-specific team can also manage the roleplays in the main RMB, Knowhere, and Psomewhere Over The Rainbow.

The MoC, who is elected by the off-site and may not be the most active or experienced in the gameside. If you say "a new gameside-specific team appointed or chosen by the ministry", that's literally the Local Council but appointed by an offsite government which barely even touches the RMB! The Local Council desperately needing reform (which again, I am quite optimistic of going into this term with people like Evinea involved) does not mean that the LC should be abolished and replaced with a gameside government selected by a group with little experience or activity in the gameside.

RMBers or gamesiders who are so interested in being involved in the government should do so via the unified government application form.

That way we can screen them, and even train them within the ministries. That way we'll get more competent people to run cultural and engagement stuff in the RMB.

We will not be appointing forumers or discord people to helm the RMB-side of the MoE and MoC.

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote:

Quote:(4) To help promote inter-governmental relations, the Local Council may send a representative to the Assembly whose term must not exceed the Local Council’s. The method of selection will be decided by the Local Council.

Does this still happen? I don't think so. Just let the gameside join the government themselves if they really are that interested in being involved. It's free anyway.

Fair enough.

Yeah.

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote: Not to mention, the existence of the LC as an institution only reinforces and promotes the separation of the gameside and the forumside. With a separate government there is no incentive for integration, there will be a sense of disconnect with the wider government of the coalition, there will be no unity, and there will be no cohesion.

There can be. The LC can collaborate with the off-site government. The LC can, for example, help integrate on-site members into the off-site. The LC is merely a group specialised for leading the gameside, rather than the off-site. It should not be difficult to understand that a gameside government chosen by the gameside could do better at running the gameside than an off-site government which barely even touches in the RMB.

They always could have, but they never did. All they did was be moderators, and moderators should NOT be elected. They should be apolitical.

Moderation is NOT and should never be a popularity contest.

(03-18-2022, 04:41 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote:

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)philipmacaroni Wrote: We are one region, one coalition, and the separation of the gameside and forumside is contrary to the principles of our Charter, with our preamble stating:
 

Quote:The Assembly of the Coalition of the South Pacific, representing our diverse community, convenes to establish this fundamental law of our region, to uphold democratic principles and rights, and provide for the security of our unified community both on the forums and in the game.

That is quite beside the point, particularly when an LC does not have to be an entirely separate government which wants nothing to do with the offsite government. The LC and offsite government can collaborate and work with each other to promote unity between the gameside and offsite.

The only way to ensure unity and cohesion is to have one government across the entire coalition.

---

For Kris:

(03-18-2022, 04:50 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I'd like to hear from the Local Council, what they think of the status quo and what challenges, if any, they see in the way of doing something more than just moderating the RMB and the frequent and vague promises of "promoting roleplay". I'm not inherently opposed to abolition, but I think any debate should start with hearing from the institution we intend to abolish, identifying what the issues are, and figuring out if abolition is even the answer.

Let's hear them out, have a conversation, and only then decide if abolition is truly the way to go.

I do not disagree. But term after term, they always end up doing the same thing regardless of their campaign promises.

I do intend these amendments to trigger a gameside conversation and a gameside vote.

If they want RMB moderators, let's give them appointed OOC moderators. But moderation should always be apolitical and should not ever be elected or bound by the pressure of an upcoming election.

Moderation is not and should not be a popularity contest.

---

For Farengeto:

(03-18-2022, 05:00 PM)Farengeto Wrote: Independent of any merits of this proposal, I do feel compelled to note that a straight abolition of the Local Council would introduce some problems. For example it would remove the current main body for RMB moderation without any current substitute.

Any abolition proposals would need to address holes like that instead of purely removing the LC.

Apatosaurus' proposal addresses that. His proposal, despite his intentions being entirely the opposite of mine, is perfectly compatible with my amendments to abolish the LC.

And once that proposal is passed, when they are no longer de facto RMB moderators, they'll virtually do nothing now.

Their IC roles probably constitute just a quarter of their workload and would be better off handled by more competent people screened, appointed, and trained by the MoE and MoC. Delegating those tasks to those ministries requires no amendment as far as I know since it's already their job according to the charter.

#AbolishTheLCNow!