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
That's the result of trying to include the whole of gameside-only TSP in the decision-making process - we're bound to use a RMB by that, and in order to keep things organized we can't do it on the main TSP one, so voters won't actually get a "new post" notifications or something for it and so are unlikely to see that someone else has posted their ideas on the proposal unless they actively keep checking the voting center RMB

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.