Llamas
-
Posts
1245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by Llamas
-
-
I'd like to note (as I have multiple times in the past) that my constitution, which is still being drafted, contains a clause stating that if the delegate refuses to hold a poll, then it will instead be held on the forums. This eliminates the concern about the offsite forums dictating that the Delegate must hold polls by making it a strong recommendation as opposed to a full requirement.
-
Thank you for this, Punk Daddy. It's sometimes a bit hard to notice this kind of thing when you're the one arguing, and I could have sworn that I was on point and talking about which system of government/voting is better, which is the point of this who convention.
Still, though, I trust your judgement; I don't want this to change into a TSP-like region where personal rivalries and arguments get put ahead of the good of the region. I'd like to apologize if I got too heated or attacked Elegarth personally instead of his ideas.
I'd like this if I still had the ability to like more posts
-
Mine will be up soon.
-
*sigh*
I've pretty much figured out that you have absolutely NO way to control the delegate.
They don't have to give a crap what you say.
So we should probably keep the forum and the in-game pretty separate.
Not true, even though it might initially seem that way. If all the Guardians decided to rebel against Darkesia tomorrow, she'd be out of the delegacy pretty quick – They have enough influence to ban her and still have some left over. Close to the same thing if everyone decided they no longer supported Darkesia and unendorsed her then picked someone else to be the new delegate, which is close to what happened in Lazarus and is how they successfully removed the NPO from their region.
Don't lose hope, URAP, Delegates can be controlled using in-game methods, and successfully have been many times in the past. You just need to be clever about it.
-
Oh dear.
That was rather contradictory, aye, llamas?
Indeed.
Turns out I changed my mind. -
My moms gotten much more better over the past week, so I'll be rejioninging soon after I learn how to spell.
Anyway, how is everyone so far?
YOU'RE BACK! I sent you a TG.
-
<.< Erm... that's the worst of both worlds. Somebody could sign up on surveymonkey using multiple emails/accounts to change the results, but you don't get increased participation because these surveys would be hidden offsite and harder to find than simple onsite polls. Plus, it eliminates half the point of using in-game polls, that being to maintain the supremacy of the in-game region over offsite tools.
which is why nobody has done it before.
Also, this is outright wrong. Various large UCRs, such as the Internationale, use in-game polls already, and I remember using it for elections in UCRs and Warzones that I ran. As to GCRs, it's been implemented in TSP for use in elections to the Local Council, where it was tremendously successful.
-
Willkommen!
-
It would not be the first time that FACTS have spooked politicos!
XD
I love this. Remind me to promote you for it later.
-
Sounds like a threat
... What? Where in any of that does that even remotely sound like a threat?
-
On the subject of in game regional polls, can anyone tell me who said this:
With regards to flooding the votes with puppets there is a method which could alleviate the problem
If a snapshot of the nations resident in the region is taken before announcing the pool via this little facility, a comparison can be made with the list of voters that participated - any that are not on the first list but on the second could be discarded.
Its not a perfect solution, but would at least mean that anyone seeking to rig the polls would have to maintain puppets in the region on the off chance that a snap vote was called
If you wanted to go further into the issue of *polling puppets" there are ways of checking activity of nations to determine their true nature
As for Darkesia's assertion that "Feeder delegates are ego maniacal power mongers. We don't do subservient. Not in our nature", implying that such a system would not be adopted it is perhaps timely to remind anybody in a position of power (especially and elected post) that they are public servants, not hereditary monarchs.[/size]
As the FAQ states "Delegates are elected: if you don't like yours, it's up to you to get her unelected!"
Clean up formatting and grammar. Naoh.
But apart from that this is a great post. -
Big Bad Badger is having problems with verifying his account; the email's not showing up, even when he checks his spam folder. Could you verify him manually, please?
-
Please. For the love of Max. Stop with the eye-rolling teenage behavior. It's driving me nuts.
<.< I did it twice, and last I checked it's a common behavior to show exasperation among people in general, not just teenagers. But OK.
-
Llamas, does it bother you that you and Punk Daddy -- who I'm not sure supports all of the logistics you're proposing, in any case -- seem to be the only ones in favor of this idea? It would seem more productive to me to work toward something more people are willing to support.
*rolls eyes* Trust me. You'll see, and soon.
-
Good. I look forward to crushing it in debate soon.
-
hi ! if the map is still active can i take seat number 32 (my lucky number) please ? and my colour is black
Sorry, but the map's not very active, unfortunately, and we have no Minister of Home Affairs to make a new one or regulate RP.
-
Setting up a poll limited to all WA members of the region is quite easy for a Delegate, Dark. After that, you just need a script to check if a nation endorsed the Delegate more than a week ago and then tally the votes of nations who have. If Winni is willing to do it, that'd be great; if not, then I'm sure that either Elu or Hobbes could get it done.
-
I like this, but it's not what you said earlier.
Think so? " I'd recommend that any citizen be allowed to create a petition on the forums, and should it receive a certain number of signatures, it will be put to a vote." My second post in this thread. Please try reading what you're debating, Rec. :/
If you expect people to continue discussing on the forums, I don't see why you're arguing so staunchly for other forms of communication.
I'm arguing for them to be used in addition. IRL, people become politically informed by watching candidates argue on TV, just as I expect people to debate on the forums, but citizens also watch the news and read up on the topic they're voting on. Each provides more information; what I'm supporting right now is creating a news source to cover political news in an unbiased way here in TWP in addition to the debates we have on our forums, to help our in-game citizens without become more informed. I don't understand why you're opposed to this.
And it already is the choice of the people whether or not to participate. In fact, I would say it is the opposite--by pushing regional government in-game, that's how you force it upon TWPers. So your argument in the last sentence there is actually exactly the argument *I* would use against *you*.
OK... I'm not forcing anybody to vote in-game. I'm allowing them the additional choice of voting without being forced to join the forums if they don't want, while your position is that anyone who is not a member on the forums should be disenfranchised. This argument sounds poorly thought-out and worded, honestly.Perhaps not *everybody* on the forums cares about politics, but definitely a very large majority and a much larger percentage than in-game.
On average, people over the age of 60 vote much more than people under that age. Does this mean we should ban everyone apart from the elderly from voting? Of course not. People under the age of 60 have just as much value as those over that age, which is why we still let them vote. Unless you believe that the forums are somehow inherently superior to the in-game, it's difficult to argue that we shouldn't allow those outside of our forums to vote.
Apparently we are discussing two different things then. This is not the thread for your proposition, but for Punk Daddy's--which, if you will read the title involves precisely "taking the government off [the forums] entirely". Maybe that is how we can use the exact same arguments against each other--we're not discussing the same thing at all.
However, I did see your proposal in the other thread and I'm opposed to that too.
That's not really the reason. :/ And what I'm arguing for is just a few posts back, where I described how I would run a government using in-game polls.
-
I don't see how you can say "more democratic system" and "grant the Executive Council... legislative initiative" in the same sentence without blushing. Democracy means *everybody* has a say--not just those in the executive council.
*rolls eyes* granting the Executive Council (A council headed by an elected Prime Minister, BTW) the ability to propose laws does not necessarily mean removing it from everybody else. I already pointed out that by getting a petition signed by a certain number of people on the forums, it would be possible to get it moved to vote. This simply allows the Executive Council to make recommendations to the legislature, something common in various NS governments.
Along that same line of thought:
I don't see how you can say any of those options are more "accessible" than the forums. There is no way to reply to a factbook. TG's can only be viewed by 8 people at a time, max. And the RMB is live and cannot be divided by topic--can you imagine trying to discuss new legislation on Karaoke friday? Did you see the RMB yesterday? It was inane.
I said absolutely nowhere that we should abolish the forums. At all. I'd expect people to continue discussing on them. The only difference now is that now it won't be forced upon the people of TWP, but rather be their own choice.
Like I said, I think instead of political participation, we have more banter. We do have high participation--it's just not political. That's what makes us unique.
This isn't a proposal to remove banter from the region. It's one to encourage political participation as well.
He just did. Not everybody in-game wants to be involved in government, guaranteed. It feels like you're not even reading what we're what we're saying when you respond with "Yeah? So what's your point?"
And the fact that not everyone will want to be involved matters because...? If you're going to be arguing that, let's extend it a bit: Not everybody on the forums cares about politics. Ergo, we should completely remove politics from the forums. Doesn't sound reasonable, right? And there's a reason. Hurting everybody because of some people's actions makes no sense whatsoever.
That is a terrible analogy. I don't see how you can compare regional government to murder. Be happy I'm not campaigning/running attack ads against you!
How do you know that Darkesia hasn't killed anybody... I mean, she did appear a few years ago with a giant bag of chocolates, and whenever I try to google chocolate, this comes up...
I will grant that I worded my argument badly, however. Instead of saying "The forum government gives the forums purpose," I should have said "The forums are purposed perfectly for regional government. I can imagine no environment better adapted to running an organized government and also keeping separate, distinct space for 'chillin,' all in a format that is easily accessible by everyone."
Better, now.
This is completely true, I'll grant you that. Why do you think that my proposal says nothing about removing the forums, or taking the government off of them entirely? The only difference is that now, voting would occur offsite, using a simpler and more accessible mechanism.Allow me to propose a better analogy: it's like saying birthdays give cake a purpose.
Obviously, you can have birthdays without cake (in-game government) and cake without birthdays (a forum with no government) but they go together so well that if you're not going to eat cake for your birthday, what's the point of cake even existing? (Again, that's a rhetorical question.)
Continuing the analogy, then, I'm not proposing we remove either cake or birthdays from here. I'm proposing that we no make it easier to go to the birthday party by putting it closer to the people for whom a two-hour drive is too much.
For all of the above reasons! This is exactly what what we're discussing, Llamas!
Not quite. These are arguments against a more accessible legislature, not for arbitrarily dividing the forums from the in-game.
I apologize for any of my comments that could be construed in this sense--I certainly do not mean to attack or offend you. I hope we can continue this debate in reasonable fashion and stay friends.
o7
-
While I'm newer here and a multi-resident/citizen, I'd like to participate if I may.
Nice to see you! Welcome to the ConCon! -
Eh, no. People who loves complex liberal democratic systems is naturally attracted to TNP. And that is nice.
Honestly, if you are so in love with their system, why don't you go there instead of trying to turn twp into a copy? It feels forces. All GCRs are different and THAT IS A GOOD THING. Cormac understood that this time around, man, yet you keep coming back in most of your arguments to Laz this, TNP that... get over those. Stop thinking "how can twp do what tnp did" and start thinking "how can twp create a thing of its own"
...said Elegarth, while proposing a legislature functionally identical to that of every other GCR in the game. A total of 0 regions have what I'm proposing right now, and the idea that it's somehow a copy is just plainly ridiculous.
Elegarth, just think about this: I currently hold citizenship in 0 other regions. I burnt all my ties to Lazarus almost a year ago, when the region turned on me for refusing to back down against a totalitarian regime, yet you're insulting me over the fact that I learned something about how oligarchy doesn't work and how to run governments successfully (Or, better put, how not to run a government) from the hell that was the PRL.
What I'm supporting is a unique idea that takes a bit of inspiration from ideas that have been proposed in other GCRs. Valuing what other regions have to teach us and learning from them does not somehow mean "turning TWP into a copy," and it's this very ideology of radical xenophobia, of attacking anything even remotely foreign that has held TWP back for so long in Foreign Affairs. It saddens me when such a great region as our own makes a mistake that leads it down a path of isolation.
So, when I propose something unique that would strengthen our region and build on our founding principles of equality, cooperation, and support for the in-game community, you pounce on it because I mentioned that something tangentially related (Creating a ministry designed to encourage in-game activity) was done in TNP. Didn't you vote for the Executive Council Act? And the Office of Home Affairs is modeled off of TNP's Ministry of Home Affairs. I made that abundantly clear; I think it's a good idea they had. All regions have good ideas at least once in a while, and learning from them is something we should encourage. But honestly, if you oppose our in-game community so much because TNP supports it, then why did you vote for this bill? I'll tell you why: Because you're currently just trying to be a politician. You're trying to attack me to harm my image. And it makes me sad that you do this, contrary to the spirit of TWP, simply to try to score a few points in an imaginary internet argument, rather than valuing the human being on the other side of the screen, trying to talk to them and be friendly towards them.
Also, try to even pay attention to what regions I'm taking ideas from. I've mentioned TEP's Magisterium for inspiration on an upper house, TNP as a model of how cooperating with our in-game population can help us advance, Lazarus to show the problems that oligarchy can bring... I'm not talking about any groups in particular. I'm simply choosing not to ignore the world around me.
-
I very much agree with Reçueçn's points, and I don't think moving government to the in-game region would be practical, productive, or at all beneficial to the in-game residents who enjoy the casual in-game atmosphere and don't want to be involved in government.
Then put up some better arguments. I've been refuting all the same anti-democratic claims about "Security" and "Merit" as I did in Lazarus when I fought the Chairman's power and opposed the status quo of inactivity which had dominated the region for years. It's always exactly those exact same arguments: Supposedly, the people are lazy, stupid, and half of them are spies, according to the regional aristocracy.
As ever, anyone who wants to be involved in government beyond endorsing or declining to endorse the in-game Delegate can register on this forum and participate.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that making political participation easier while bettering security is something to be shunned.
That's even easier to do in the West Pacific than in most regions, so I don't see the need to move things to the in-game region.
If this is true, then I'd like to ask: Why do some other regions have much more political participation than our own? In the last election for Delegate, TNP had a turnout of over 50 nations. This can easily be attributed to TNP's clearly recognizing the value of their in-game community: Their Ministry of Home Affairs is dedicated to improving activity among in-game players and getting them more active in the region. With this bill, we can go even further, promoting political participation among the community more than any other GCR has in the past. Unless you are suggesting that nations in TWP are lazier than those in other GCRs, rather than this being a problem with the government getting citizens engaged?
-
Welcome, Benjamin! Nice to see you.
-
I am opposed to making it the duty of the executive council to write the legislation--I think any TWP resident should be able to write legislation and have it discussed. Your compromise--getting signatures on petitions to send it to a vote--is really just re-naming our rules of procedure in the HGA--getting seconds on drafts to move them to a vote.
It's similar, but not identical, Rec. The major difference is that this would be a simpler and more democratic system than the current one, by allowing easier participation, and would also grant the Executive Council as a whole a right commonly given to both RL and NS cabinets: Legislative initiative, which allows the executive to make informed recommendations to the legislature. As noted, this is a compromise, as opposed to entirely destroying everything we have in place.
There are also other reasons I think the government should stay on the forum--it gives the forum purpose,
This is like saying that murder should be legalized to give guns a purpose. Remember, Rec, the forums are a set of tools to be used for the common good of TWP. The reason why the forums exist because they do have a lot of advantages: Improving communications, generating activity, and developing a regional culture are just a handful of these benefits. But we shouldn't try to give the forums more work that can better be handled by the people of TWP simply because we want to give them a purpose when they already have one.
besides factbooks, TGs, and the RMB, there's not really anywhere well adapted to the kind of discussion needed for writing or debating legislation.
You literally proved my point. You listed 3 whole places where legislation could be effectively debated or written, all of which are simpler to use and more accessible than the forums. Also, let's remember that we're not abolishing the forums, simply making voting easier for all.
Finally, the forum government is completely separate from the in-game government, as has been said many times. That being the case, if what is currently the forum government migrated in-game, as per this proposal, there would be absolutely nothing from stopping me, and others who think like-wise, from setting up an entirely new forum government with exactly the same powers as the old one. (In fact, as has been mentioned a couple times recently, we could do that right now and have multiple forum governments. It makes sense to me, however, to keep a single forum government.) We could run the in-forum embassies and be self-governing, which is pretty much all we can do now anyways. I realize this may sound like a threat ("Leave the forums and I'll start a splinter group!") but it's not supposed to be. I'm just trying to say that I think the forums are best adapted to running a government, and would like to stay here.
Here's the question: Why? Why should we keep the in-game and forum separate? It's only resulted in problems in the past by generating oddly-constructed bureaucracies that are unaccountable to the people of TWP. I outright admit that I do not believe in the idea of separating the two from each other, which is a relatively new concept in TWP's history (In the past, Delegates have typically controlled the regional forums) as well as quite an unsuccessful one, stifling both innovation and cooperation.
YOU'RE BACK! I sent you a TG.
OK... I'm not forcing anybody to vote in-game. I'm allowing them the additional choice of voting without being forced to join the forums if they don't want, while your position is that anyone who is not a member on the forums should be disenfranchised. This argument sounds poorly thought-out and worded, honestly.
Extraneous discussion from Dramatic Legal Reform thread
in The Lounge
Posted
I like the above two posts.
Let's remember that this is what happened in Lazarus. The NPO's attempt to coup and absorb the region failed because the native population was strongly opposed to it, and instead supported the Lazarene Underground State, which is now the ruling government of the region.