During my tenure as Minister of Culture I generally viewed the Ministry of Culture as an "off-site" cultural service where we manage the events on the discord/forums and events concerning FA. In turn that also means we try to run events with the forum roleplay (which I tried). I viewed the Local Council as the RMB/polls government that runs events using polls and tries to engage with the RMB.

During my time as MoC it was hard to find people to run the weekly events and sometimes I would find myself running 3 events per week or trying to find last-minute replacements for someone who said they couldn't make it 2 hours before the event started. It would be difficult for the MoC to incorporate RMB activities into their usual activities with how small the active staff force is, and it would be even more difficult for the 3 Local Councillors and their deputies who probably show up on the discord once per year to run all of these events the MoC usually runs.

"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture

Reply

I think the concept of giving the Ministry of Culture the mandate and authority to run "events" on the gameside is good. I don't think that can fully replace the integration and moderation functions that we would like to have happen on the RMB, which is why I think a Gameside Manager/Advocate/Bridge/RMB Moderator position still has utility.

That said, I'm willing to be convinced. We can have have a job with a portfolio which is oriented towards the RMB without having this absurd and antiquated concept of a 'gameside community' that needed to be buried long long ago.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

(This post was last modified: 07-19-2022, 04:33 PM by HumanSanity.)

Reply

I think the concept of giving the Ministry of Culture the mandate and authority to run "events" on the gameside is good. I don't think that can fully replace the integration and moderation functions that we would like to have happen on the RMB, which is why I think a Gameside Manager/Advocate/Bridge/RMB Moderator position still has utility.

That said, I'm willing to be convinced. We can have have a job with a portfolio which is oriented towards the RMB without having this absurd and antiquated concept of a 'gameside community' that needed to be buried long long ago.

Yes the ministry has this mandate already, which is good, and I hear waffles comments too.

I recall the MoRA had a mandate/requirement to work with the LC and generally I think that worked well, But I think it fell out when we separated MoRA into parts. The MoRA had its own issue on size, so probably not wise to go back there.

I personally like the thought of expanding the managerial/moderation role of LC to security and giving at least one (probably two) of them Border Control to take the pressure of the CRS. CRS could stay but do more of an assembly side security role. What thoughts do you have on this?


The CoE has the integration function which, as far as I recall always covered things like SWAN, etc. There was a bit of technical basis behind this and it always seems better to sit separately from LC... but happy to hear views on it?

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

(This post was last modified: 07-19-2022, 04:59 PM by Beepee.)

Reply

It wouldn't be logical to entrust the Local Council with regional security. There is a reason why we have a security body.

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

Are we just arguing over semantics here? Because look, frankly, I don't care if you want to call it the Ministry of Culture 'subsuming' the Local Council, or the Local Council 'amalgamating' the Ministry of Culture. I think there's much, much more common ground than the increasingly dogmatic language of this debate suggests. Regardless of how insistent anybody is that the Local Council is abolished or preserved, we don't need to duplicate our efforts simply for the sake of an arbitrary 'gameside' divide.

One side of this debate is that the Local Council is ineffective because it doesn't have "unfettered control over gameside." There are two problems with this narrative of "gameside representation" currently advanced by our Charter. Firstly, when we refer to the "gameside," we really just mean the RMB. There are countless other in-game mechanics — issues, cards, factbooks, and so forth — that never appear in these debates. Secondly, almost every aspect of our "off-site" government interacts with "in-game" mechanics and communities on a day-to-day basis. Mass telegrams, pinned dispatches, endorsements and influence, and so forth, are just a few examples of the means by which this happens. Thus, I ask: are we really arguing for the Local Council to have unfettered control over the gameside? All of it? Are we really arguing that the Local Council should have exclusive jurisdiction over not just the RMB but also the World Assembly, mass telegrams, pinned dispatches, the WFE, all RO powers, card farming, the Delegacy, and everything else that exists in the "gameside"? No, I don't think so. So let's help ourselves move this debate along and drop these lofty ideals of a "gameside" government. We're talking about the RMB, and it doesn't help us to pretend that we aren't.

I don't mean this as a criticism of the Local Council. In fact, I argued that SwanVision was an example of a successfully run regional cultural event. (By the way, I haven't seen any complaints that it was illegal, so if anyone genuinely believes that only the Ministry of Culture can run cultural events, they should probably go file a complaint to the High Court.) I brought up SwanVision as an example because the scheduling conflicts with TSPride highlighted some shortcomings in having two government entities working towards essentially the same goal: hosting a cultural event.

Two of our soon-to-be-outgoing Local Councillors have already voiced support for closer coordination between the Local Council and the Ministry of Culture.

Or both groups could mutually work with each (e.g., discussions of expanding roleplay), though there needs to be an improvement in communication to avoid event mishaps (e.g., SwanVision and TSPride). If the MoC wanted to have more presence on the RMB, they can work with us, or if able to, direct their own activities, which I don't think the LC stops them from doing so.

 

there should be some overhaul to connect it to the region government instead of just leaving it out there limping along.

The question in my mind is, what is the functional difference between saying "oh, we'll work more closely together" and just... merging the two? I suspect that the responses to that question will vary widely depending on whether the question is phrased as the Ministry of Culture absorbing the Local Council, or the other way around. But how big is the difference, really? Why do we need two separate entities working together in the same area? If we put aside our dogmatism for a moment, I think many more of us will see that while we may like or hate the idea of abolishing the Local Council, we don't need multiple parts of our government trying to fulfill the same functions.

Same function (working on culture events), but, often, not the same area. The Ministry of Culture has more range on where they can set up cultural events as they can do work on the RMB (e.g., TSPride) and Discord (e.g., Tetris). The LC are limited to making cultural events on gameside (e.g., SwanVision), so in that aspect we don't have the same coverage. In another way if the Ministry of Culture do not have a "minister role" on the admin page, they can't "market" RMB cultural events or cultural projects as well as the LC can due to the communication role. For example, the LC and MoC were working on a RP project. Murelia, the Minister of Culture at the time, reached out to us to broadcast the announcement of the project, since they didn't have a "minister role" on the admin page. We were able to do so because we have a more broad and well-known presence on the RMB, so we have more leverage in reaching out to the RMB. This is similar to last term's LC where the LC, Apatosaurus in specific, helped the MoC send out word about some Event subscription (can't exactly remember the name) which the MoC was working on. There is difference just due to where each group's work is focused, and how they do that work.

Reply

It wouldn't be logical to entrust the Local Council with regional security. There is a reason why we have a security body.

I'm thinking about the requirements for moderation on the board which has to be implemented on trolls and spammers. There's, to my knowledge, not been a disagreement between LC and CRS when the LC has proposed banjecting nations?

I wouldnt want The CRS wouldn't lose its function as to regional security in terms of other matters but their ability to move at the speed of the RMB appears, from my view, limited. Maybe I'm wrong?

Also Wouldnt The Delegate and the other members of the CRS, who would retain the powers, and, together with the LC, have sufficient weight to chuck out security risks?

Happy to hear more...

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

Reply

I just want to point out, being the literal architect of the Local Council, that the notion it's hamstrung or prohibited from doing things by the Charter is 100% wrong. I cannot count the number of times I've explained that to LC members, Delegates, the Assembly, etc., since I invented the Local Council as it exists today. We have been repeating ad nauseam that we wanted to see the Local Council do things other than just poorly moderate the RMB. We've spent years trying to help the Local Council devise different ideas, from having no semblance of government at all and just focusing on moderation, to forming their own branches within the confines of the RMB and having a fully fledged local government. Not a single elected councilor ever tried to do anything other than the status quo.

So I sit here and read this thread and can't help but feel like somebody's trying to gaslight me. The Local Council's failures are their own, not anybody else's. They've had so many hands extended, so many ideas given to them, so many attempts to do more, and declined every time. Because at the end of the day, the RMB simply does not care. None of the current LC are representative of the RMB and frankly neither is anybody else here. You're all outliers, nothing like the average poster. The Local Council is an exclusive popularity club that prefers to maintain the status quo of being glorified moderators with control over polls, while offering up fantasies they will never have the capacity to fulfill (or an RMB that wants to fulfill them) whenever the status quo is placed in the spotlight. The RMB itself largely doesn't care what the government is or does, and those who do vote in LC elections are just ticking a poll option based on whoever's popular or whatever whim happens to dictate their votes.

We've been doing this song and dance for years. Every time the topic comes up, somebody always repeats the same arguments Beepee, Evinea, and others are repeating. But it's all fake and leading nowhere. Nothing ever changes. Not a thing written here in support of keeping the LC will result in anything happening with the LC or the RMB. We could do every single thing being proposed as an alternative to abolishing the LC and just having RMB mods, and it will not matter, because it has never mattered before any time we've done what people say will "fix the LC."

Reply

I just want to point out, being the literal architect of the Local Council, that the notion it's hamstrung or prohibited from doing things by the Charter is 100% wrong. I cannot count the number of times I've explained that to LC members, Delegates, the Assembly, etc., since I invented the Local Council as it exists today. We have been repeating ad nauseam that we wanted to see the Local Council do things other than just poorly moderate the RMB. We've spent years trying to help the Local Council devise different ideas, from having no semblance of government at all and just focusing on moderation, to forming their own branches within the confines of the RMB and having a fully fledged local government. Not a single elected councilor ever tried to do anything other than the status quo.

So I sit here and read this thread and can't help but feel like somebody's trying to gaslight me. The Local Council's failures are their own, not anybody else's. They've had so many hands extended, so many ideas given to them, so many attempts to do more, and declined every time. Because at the end of the day, the RMB simply does not care. None of the current LC are representative of the RMB and frankly neither is anybody else here. You're all outliers, nothing like the average poster. The Local Council is an exclusive popularity club that prefers to maintain the status quo of being glorified moderators with control over polls, while offering up fantasies they will never have the capacity to fulfill (or an RMB that wants to fulfill them) whenever the status quo is placed in the spotlight. The RMB itself largely doesn't care what the government is or does, and those who do vote in LC elections are just ticking a poll option based on whoever's popular or whatever whim happens to dictate their votes.

We've been doing this song and dance for years. Every time the topic comes up, somebody always repeats the same arguments Beepee, Evinea, and others are repeating. But it's all fake and leading nowhere. Nothing ever changes. Not a thing written here in support of keeping the LC will result in anything happening with the LC or the RMB. We could do every single thing being proposed as an alternative to abolishing the LC and just having RMB mods, and it will not matter, because it has never mattered before any time we've done what people say will "fix the LC."

Okay, you made me laugh. Offered us guidance and help? Pull the other one. I’ve been hamstrung a few times where I ended up as basically a solo LC and I don’t recall anyone coming to my aid. I’m here in good faith to try and figure out solutions to keep our “low quality “ and “high quality” people talking and having fun. It is a game after all.

Reply

I think the concept of giving the Ministry of Culture the mandate and authority to run "events" on the gameside is good. I don't think that can fully replace the integration and moderation functions that we would like to have happen on the RMB, which is why I think a Gameside Manager/Advocate/Bridge/RMB Moderator position still has utility.

That said, I'm willing to be convinced. We can have have a job with a portfolio which is oriented towards the RMB without having this absurd and antiquated concept of a 'gameside community' that needed to be buried long long ago.

The MoC has always had the authority to run events on the game-side. We just... didn't do it that much. In my opinion that's more of the job of the LC as laid out in the Charter. Do they fulfill that job? Not that much right now, but they are getting better about it.

"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture

Reply

Okay, you made me laugh. Offered us guidance and help? Pull the other one. I’ve been hamstrung a few times where I ended up as basically a solo LC and I don’t recall anyone coming to my aid. I’m here in good faith to try and figure out solutions to keep our “low quality “ and “high quality” people talking and having fun. It is a game after all.

I had dozens of conversations with different LC members over the years, after changing it to be a local government in 2016, on all the possibilities of what that could mean. None of them went anywhere, because nobody was interested in doing anything other than moderating the RMB. Did you and I personally have that discussion? I don't believe so. It has, however, been discussed openly probably hundreds of times in the last 6 years, and the Assembly even passed a resolution in April begging to LC to craft some semblance of a local government... which the LC promptly ignored.

I'm all for solution to keep "people talking and having fun." That's exactly what I think the RMB is about, that so many people are is complete denial over. We don't need a local government on the RMB. We just need mods who will lightly moderate the people talking and having fun.

(This post was last modified: 07-19-2022, 10:09 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply