I propose the following amendments to the Charter of the South Pacific, the Elections Act, the Regional Officers Act, and the Border Control Act with the intention to abolish the Local Council in its entirety:

THE CHARTER OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC

...

I. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

...

(5) Constitutional laws passed by the Local Council hold the same status as those passed by the Assembly, limited in their scope and force to the realms of Local Council jurisdiction, but may not contradict this Charter or any law, regulation, or policy of the Assembly, Cabinet, or Council on Regional Security.

...

V. THE LOCAL COUNCIL

Establishing home rule for the in-game region residents.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

VI. THE EXECUTIVE

...

VII. THE DELEGATE

...

(2) The Delegate will work with the Local Council in moderating the Regional Message Board, fulfilling Regional Officer positions, promoting gameside activities, and representing the preferences of the gameside community.

(3) The Delegate must fulfill in-game actions required by law but assigned to others if those actions can only be taken by the person holding the in-game Delegate seat.

...

VIII. THE HIGH COURT

...

(5) The High Court may reconcile contradictions within the Charter, constitutional laws, general laws, and Cabinet directives, and Local Council laws and regulations, maintaining the least amount of disruption to the intended purposes of the contradictory parts.

...

IXVIII. THE COUNCIL ON REGIONAL SECURITY AND CORAL GUARD

...

(13) The minimum qualifications for membership in the Coral Guard are: maintaining a World Assembly member nation in the South Pacific; having served at least six consecutive months as a legislator or two terms in the Local Council; and meeting requirements for influence and endorsements which are set and published by the Council on Regional Security.

...

IX. THE MILITARY

...

XI. RECALLS AND MOTIONS OF NO CONFIDENCE

...

XII. THE ADMINISTRATION TEAM

...

XIII. AMENDMENT PROCESS

Setting a procedure for amendment of the Charter and constitutional laws.

(1) The Assembly may amend any provision of the Charter or constitutional laws passed by the Assembly with a three-fifths supermajority. These amendments must be constitutional in nature, and amendments to the Charter must address the structure or framework of government. Bills that may exist as general laws, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, should not be placed in the Charter or constitutional laws.

(2) Any amendment to the Charter or constitutional laws that directly affects the gameside community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also receive the consent of the gameside community before coming into force, where the consent shall not require more than a three-fifths supermajority in a vote. Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its structure in the Charter, which must receive the consent of the Assembly before coming into force.

(3) The Local Council will determine the qualifications and processes for amendments to its own constitutional laws.

...

XIIIV. GREAT COUNCILS

...

 

Elections Act
An act establishing elections for office

...

7. Separation of Powers

(1) Offices of the Coalition are the Delegate, the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers, the Chair of the Assembly, Local Councillors, the Chief Justice, and any of their appointed deputies.

...

 

Regional Officers Act
An act providing for the granting of Regional Officer powers to government officials

...

2. Regional Officers

...

(5) The Local Council will be allotted three Regional Officer positions and granted Appearance, Communications, and Polls powers.

(6) Members of the Council on Regional Security who concurrently serve as another Regional Officer named in this act shall be granted the powers of both offices. 

(76) Where applicable, all unused Regional Officer positions shall be allotted to the Council on Regional Security.

(87) During elections, the Election Commissioner will be granted Communications and Polls powers.

...

Border Control Act
An act to establish processes for the use of in-game ejection and banning powers

...

3. Powers of the Local Council and Delegate

(1) The Delegate, or a majority of the Local Council, may order a border control action against a nation they determine to be spammers or trolls. The assent of the Council on Regional Security is required if the nation in question is not a low influence nation.

(2) The Delegate or Local Council must inform the Council on Regional Security immediately after having ordered a border control action.

(3) The Local Council may enact policy allowing border control actions within its purview to be performed unilaterally by a border control officer. Any change to such a policy must be clearly and immediately communicated to all border control officers.

...

 

---

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.

To delve into what the LC is supposed to do, I will quote each of the four sections of Article V of the Charter, and explain why they should be struck out.
 

(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.

First of all, 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.

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.
 

(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.
 

(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. 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.

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.

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.
 

(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.

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. 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:
 

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.

Ladies and gentlemen of the assembly, there will simply be no unification with enshrined separation. The continued existence of the LC will effectively cement the ever-solidifying barrier between the gameside and the forumside.

I understand that this will require a gameside vote, and I implore the assembly to pass these amendments to trigger a gameside vote, for them to decide whether to maintain this segregated and separated structure of government or to choose the path towards unification and integration of our entire coalition.

Glory to the Coalition of the South Pacific!

(This post was last modified: 03-18-2022, 04:34 PM by philipmacaroni.)

Reply

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.

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.

(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.

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.
 

(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.

(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.

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 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.

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.

(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.

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.

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:
 

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.

Local Councilroar.

Selfie

(This post was last modified: 03-18-2022, 04:43 PM by Apatosaurus.)

Reply

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.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

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.

Reply

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 honestly am fine with and would probably support moderation being delegated to an OOC RMB Moderator team; moderating the RMB is truly time-consuming and distracts from what should be the true purpose of LC - leading the gameside. There's also the obvious issues of putting an IC institution in charge of OOC action.

I think the first step to reforming the LC is having deputies with different jobs (e.g. managing roleplay, managing cultural events etc. on the gameside, integrating gameside members into the communities, etc.). Then, there's improving collaboration and communication between the gameside and the offsite - the offsite wanting to abolish the gameside government is excellent proof that the LC is not doing well enough at collaboraing with the offsite. It would be greatly beneficial for the LC to, for example, collaborate with the MoC in running cultural events in the gameside (possibly even gameside festivals), and collaborate with the MoE to help integrate new members into the community.

However, I simply cannot get behind abolition. The Local Council, if functioning properly, has the power to be an excellent means for building a vibrant community on the gameside. A non-abolished Local Council can probably do that better than an abolished one.

Local Councilroar.

Selfie

(This post was last modified: 03-18-2022, 07:52 PM by Apatosaurus.)

Reply

I honestly am fine with and would probably support moderation being delegated to an OOC RMB Moderator team; moderating the RMB is truly time-consuming and distracts from what should be the true purpose of LC - leading the gameside. There's also the obvious issues of putting an IC institution in charge of OOC action.

I think the first step to reforming the LC is having deputies with different jobs (e.g. managing roleplay, managing cultural events etc. on the gameside, integrating gameside members into the communities, etc.). Then, there's improving collaboration and communication between the gameside and the offsite - the offsite wanting to abolish the gameside government is excellent proof that the LC is not doing well enough at collaboraing with the offsite. It would be greatly beneficial for the LC to, for example, collaborate with the MoC in running cultural events in the gameside (possibly even gameside festivals), and collaborate with the MoE to help integrate new members into the community.

However, I simply cannot get behind abolition. The Local Council, if functioning properly, has the power to be an excellent means for building a vibrant community on the gameside. A non-abolished Local Council can probably do that better than an abolished one.

This makes sense on paper, but my concern is that we are nearing 7 years of the Local Council and we are no closer to having it be a truly functional institution of government, not least of all because none of the councillors that the region elects seems to have the inclination to actually deliver on the ideas you are proposing.

You mention taking away moderation so that the LC can focus on its other duties, but does the LC even try to do its other duties? Every time I read the campaigns I see that the overwhelming focus is on moderation, as if there was no notion that the LC is supposed to be more than just a moderator. You mention appointing deputies and improving communication with the Cabinet, yet these are ideas that have been floated a long time ago, and these are discussions that we've been having for months now, but I haven't heard that the current LC has even tried to implement them. I worry that we'll drop this debate because "we should give the new LC a chance" only to see the LC continue focusing on moderation and do nothing else or, if moderation was taken away, just do the occasional fun poll and leave it at that.

I think we should be asking ourselves what we expect the LC to be, asking the region what it wants the LC to be, and see how those two visions can be reconciled (if at all) between themselves and with the reality that the LC hasn't been acting on its broad mandate.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 03-18-2022, 11:23 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I will be answering your queries.

For Apato:

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.

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.

(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.

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.
 

(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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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:
 

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:

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:

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!

(This post was last modified: 03-19-2022, 03:20 AM by philipmacaroni.)

Reply

Where do we draw the line between on-site and off-site communities? What about on-site and off-site mechanics? On-site and off-site gameplay?

NationStates is a game with many different mechanics: issues, trading cards, factbooks, World Assembly resolutions, and much more. Our regional government (both on-site and off-site, for however little value that distinction holds) already engages with a wide range of in-game mechanics and features: the RMB, the WFE, regional polls, regional officers, influence, endorsements, mass telegrams, dispatches, and more. There is no neat line that we can draw through these mechanics to separate on-site from off-site. Terms like the 'gameside' or 'off-site' community can mean whatever we want them to mean when no distinction truly exists. Does the MoD not engage with the in-game mechanics of regional telegrams in order to recruit players for a liberation operation? Does the CRS not engage with the in-game mechanics of endorsements and influence when considering regional security? Does the MoFA not engage with the in-game mechanics of military gameplay when negotiating mutual defense treaties with other regions? Does the MoE not engage with the in-game mechanics of dispatches when writing guides for new players? Does the High Court not engage with the in-game mechanics of ejections and bans when issuing sentences for criminal offences?

Clearly, our 'off-site' government doesn't just engage with on-site mechanics; it is built upon them. Dividing our government into a false dichotomy between on-site and off-site communities is a misnomer at best and intentionally acrimonious at worst. It advances a false self-fulfilling prophecy that there exists a gameside community and an off-site one. Speaking in broad strokes about 'building a vibrant gameside community' or 'improving collaboration between the gameside and forumside' easily evokes notions of two distinct communities separated by their chosen venues of discussion. In reality, we're all in the same region, playing the same game. It just happens that the game has many different mechanics — far more than any simple separation between gameside and forumside could accurately represent.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

Where do we draw the line between on-site and off-site communities? What about on-site and off-site mechanics? On-site and off-site gameplay?

There should never have been a line between them. That divide never should have existed. The forums ultimately derive from the gameside. The gameside and the forums are one and the same, and should have the same government.

NationStates is a game with many different mechanics: issues, trading cards, factbooks, World Assembly resolutions, and much more. Our regional government (both on-site and off-site, for however little value that distinction holds) already engages with a wide range of in-game mechanics and features: the RMB, the WFE, regional polls, regional officers, influence, endorsements, mass telegrams, dispatches, and more. There is no neat line that we can draw through these mechanics to separate on-site from off-site. Terms like the 'gameside' or 'off-site' community can mean whatever we want them to mean when no distinction truly exists. Does the MoD not engage with the in-game mechanics of regional telegrams in order to recruit players for a liberation operation? Does the CRS not engage with the in-game mechanics of endorsements and influence when considering regional security? Does the MoFA not engage with the in-game mechanics of military gameplay when negotiating mutual defense treaties with other regions? Does the MoE not engage with the in-game mechanics of dispatches when writing guides for new players? Does the High Court not engage with the in-game mechanics of ejections and bans when issuing sentences for criminal offences?

Clearly, our 'off-site' government doesn't just engage with on-site mechanics; it is built upon them. Dividing our government into a false dichotomy between on-site and off-site communities is a misnomer at best and intentionally acrimonious at worst. It advances a false self-fulfilling prophecy that there exists a gameside community and an off-site one. Speaking in broad strokes about 'building a vibrant gameside community' or 'improving collaboration between the gameside and forumside' easily evokes notions of two distinct communities separated by their chosen venues of discussion. In reality, we're all in the same region, playing the same game. It just happens that the game has many different mechanics — far more than any simple separation between gameside and forumside could accurately represent.

I agree.

The existence of a separate government for the gameside, like the local council, instead of integrating the gameside with our ministries, just effectively reinforces the idea of a separation, a virtual divide, that never should have existed in the first place.

We should integrate and unify the South Pacific. Get rid of the Local Council, and include the RMB within the scope of the Ministries of Engagement and Culture.

#AbolishTheLCNow!

Reply

I withdraw these proposed amendments in favour of Apato's amendments and HS's reforms.

(This post was last modified: 03-19-2022, 03:03 PM by philipmacaroni.)

Reply