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.