| Broad solutions to in-game inclusion |
How will we determine what 'select' means?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ProfessorHenn
Legislator
Well, I've suggested Charter amendments, treaties and declarations of war.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Although the current top result is "Votes on everything"... That's a no-go for me, and I imagine quite a few others.
I think if we do end up having votes in-game, it should only be for legislation that directly affects the RMB. We are still two different types of communities, and having to push through votes that are largely inconsequential to RMBers' game experience isn't a fair trade off. Most treaties have no concrete impact on the in-game region. Same for Charter amendments. I could agree to declarations of war, because it would be a useful rallying call if we needed troops. There are other possibilities, though. For instance, we can beef up the LC and grant them a certain weighted vote in the Assembly. That has the upside of giving RMBers a voice in Assembly matters, but without the consequence of region wide campaign TGs that will surely follow suit when we let things be decided by an in-game poll. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (04-03-2016, 05:19 PM)Zak6858 Wrote: It seems too complicated in someways. Having two houses voting would take too long and we may not get enough people. If complication is the price we have to pay, then that's the price. And in my proposal, the Assembly comes out on top, while still giving a voice to the gameside community. After all, we do need to guard against security threats. And for me, this is an excellent, but I admit, not perfect compromise between the Conservatives(in Ryccia's Political Spectrum, it means those who want the power in the forums) and the Liberals(people who want more power to the Gameside). A moderate compromise. Keeping security, while still including them. Sure, its complicated, but, like the NS Issues say, isn't it worth it?
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7) (04-05-2016, 07:09 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Although the current top result is "Votes on everything"... That's a no-go for me, and I imagine quite a few others. I agree that "votes for everything" is excessive, which is why I'm suggesting a second approval ballot of regional WA's be only required after the Assembly amendments the Charter, not for ordinary legislation, appointments, recalls, etc. The Charter is the fundamental document defining how the region is governed, and alterations to it should be held to a higher standard than normal legislation. Treaties and declarations of war both effect the in game region, in that they determine who is/isn't our friend and how we will conduct relations with them. Again, these are more significant documents - which is part of the reason I think a second ballot is justified. They also have the benefit of not occurring too often, preventing legislative business from overwhelming the in game region. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I don't think it's worth being abstract here, and I think it's pretty abstract to say the game side should get to vote on all Charter amendments just because the Charter is Important. It's the foundation of the forum government, and it will always matter so much more to forum government participants than RMBers. The bulk of its provisions will have no impact on their experience. Given that, it would be difficult to reconcile requiring game side votes for Charter amendments, but not for regular laws, especially when we consider that the Code of Laws has far greater direct impact on the community.
The approach should be functional. What actually affects the game side experience? What kinds of effects are enough to trigger an in game vote? It's one thing to vote on a law because it changes how the LC works, and another to vote on a treaty because it means the Embassies list will be altered. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Honestly, I created that poll expecting to get a lot of people no caring. I'm pleasantly surprised by the results.
I'd encourage us to have a weighted LC vote. I think that's a good comprise tbh, along with votes for delegate.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
If its security we have a problem with on game side voting, why don't we make the region password protected when we are voting to prevent the people looking to harm the region. If a nation wants to get into the region during a vote, we could give the (Delegate/Vice Delegate) the ability to review that nation and determine if they can come in during that time.
Could this work? -Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Game-Created Regions like ours can't have passwords.
I would strongly oppose a weighted LC vote, as it would - realistically speaking - do no more than grant extra votes to a few people who can win a popularity contest.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |