Fratellnoir Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Sorry Elgarth, but is it your suggestion that, as, ultimately, this forum holds no sway over what does and doesn't occur in the in-game region that any form of government/administration we discuss here is not to consider how the region is run? And Vlagh, if there are to be no restrictions on the Delegate then why do the Guardians exist? If we truly respect that the delegate is the nation with the most endorsements, then the whole endocap system is a manifestation of restricting the delegate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Not exactly, but close enough. On ideal terms, the in-game and in-forum aspects would collaborate at all times. But the inforu government shouldn't depend on in-game features in order to prevent any scenario where the collaboration is weak, which could potentially stop the operation of such government. You have to consider all scenarios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Church of Satan Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 One thing you have to consider, is that the forum itself discourages people from getting involved with the regional community. It's an undeniable fact that most people in literally every single GCR, absolutely refuse to even sign-up on the regional forums. If we could extend the regional government to those that may want to get involved without signing up on the forum, that kind of transparency could ultimately strengthen the region beyond what the average GCR has seen with regards to activity. It's at the very least worth a trial period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fratellnoir Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Consider this scenario: A candidate who believes that the decisions about the region should be made by the region, runs for Delegate. Somehow the candidate convinces sufficient WA nations in the region to endorse them, and attains the post. As part of the manifesto they have pledged legislation will in future be conducted via the in-game polling system. A referendum will be held to decide if the Endocap remains a device to maintain security, and whether the Guardian scheme is also to be maintained If the response is in favour then new Guardians will be selected and prior to taking up their post will be ratified by the Region, again by using the polling system. All of these decisions have been made without reference to the forum, which is now redundant and is discarded as being surplus to requirement. How does the forum community, and the existing Guardians, respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 One thing you have to consider, is that the forum itself discourages people from getting involved with the regional community. It's an undeniable fact that most people in literally every single GCR, absolutely refuse to even sign-up on the regional forums. If we could extend the regional government to those that may want to get involved without signing up on the forum, that kind of transparency could ultimately strengthen the region beyond what the average GCR has seen with regards to activity. It's at the very least worth a trial period. This is perhaps the only possible positive outcome / characteristic of this system that I can't argue. It makes sense that it creates the potential for this, but is it REALLY worthy to give it a trial period? I don't personally think it is, as the negative outweighs the positive in my view. We could still use the polls and other in-game features to try to engage more people into the forum governance, by using the dispatches, messaging, and why not, some opinion polls that the delegate be willing to do. Consider this scenario: A candidate who believes that the decisions about the region should be made by the region, runs for Delegate. Somehow the candidate convinces sufficient WA nations in the region to endorse them, and attains the post. As part of the manifesto they have pledged legislation will in future be conducted via the in-game polling system. A referendum will be held to decide if the Endocap remains a device to maintain security, and whether the Guardian scheme is also to be maintained If the response is in favour then new Guardians will be selected and prior to taking up their post will be ratified by the Region, again by using the polling system. All of these decisions have been made without reference to the forum, which is now redundant and is discarded as being surplus to requirement. How does the forum community, and the existing Guardians, respond? It is hard to respond to a scenario that is totally in-game from an in-forum perspective. You should ask the current delegate and the guardians how would they react to the first part of this scenario, as I'm neither one or the other, nor have authority over their in-game reactions. Interestingly enough, for all matter and purposes the forum government would not need to stop existing if that happened, not would it need to abide by the in-game laws the new delegate makes. Co-existence of the separate entities seems to be a conceptual issue for many people lately. If tomorrow Max closes the game, the forum community would still exist and it can still have a "government structure" and continue "role playing nations and governments" regardless of the in-game existing or not. It would be, perhaps, weird, but nothing makes it impossible. Darkesia and Fratellnoir 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Sorry Elgarth, but is it your suggestion that, as, ultimately, this forum holds no sway over what does and doesn't occur in the in-game region that any form of government/administration we discuss here is not to consider how the region is run? And Vlagh, if there are to be no restrictions on the Delegate then why do the Guardians exist? If we truly respect that the delegate is the nation with the most endorsements, then the whole endocap system is a manifestation of restricting the delegate The Guardians are part of the in-game governance of the region and have nothing to do with the off-site government. We do not place restrictions on the Guardians either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fratellnoir Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 You seem to be contradicting yourself: "This is perhaps the only possible positive outcome / characteristic of this system that I can't argue. It makes sense that it creates the potential for this, but is it REALLY worthy to give it a trial period?" " Co-existence of the separate entities seems to be a conceptual issue for many people lately. If tomorrow Max closes the game, the forum community would still exist " If you truly believe that the forum should not seek to influence events in the region then you cannot argue that such a trial should not go ahead. It would seem that the options to progress an in-game government decided via this method is to either convince the existing Delegate or install a Delegate that is willing to instigate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 You seem to be contradicting yourself: "This is perhaps the only possible positive outcome / characteristic of this system that I can't argue. It makes sense that it creates the potential for this, but is it REALLY worthy to give it a trial period?" " Co-existence of the separate entities seems to be a conceptual issue for many people lately. If tomorrow Max closes the game, the forum community would still exist " If you truly believe that the forum should not seek to influence events in the region then you cannot argue that such a trial should not go ahead. It would seem that the options to progress an in-game government decided via this method is to either convince the existing Delegate or install a Delegate that is willing to instigate it. Who are you quoting and/or speaking to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fratellnoir Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 'pologies Elgarth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Church of Satan Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 You're right about one thing Elegarth, the idea is a gamble and chances are, if tried, we'd lose big. Instead of being overly cautious, shouldn't we at the very least try to explore this option and see just how feasible it is? Why dismiss an idea because it's merely theoretical? Theory is but a precursor to fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 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. I will await the draft to comment fully, but my initial concern about this is that it places the off-site government and Delegate into adversarial roles if there is ever disagreement, even if there is no direct coloration between that adversarial position and in-game action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 You're right about one thing Elegarth, the idea is a gamble and chances are, if tried, we'd lose big. Instead of being overly cautious, shouldn't we at the very least try to explore this option and see just how feasible it is? Why dismiss an idea because it's merely theoretical? Theory is but a precursor to fact. Theory is both a precursor to fact or to counter-proof, in equal measure. But you are right on arguing that it could pay up. Each and all ideas are possibilities, this does not mean some have more merit than others. Do I see merit in this one? Barely, that of activity, or engagement, of those not willing to make a forum account... But would they even care for that either? Will they really become engaged? Or will they just randomly select poll options to get it out of the way? You see my point? Is this a gamble that could REALLY be worth the risk? I personally BELIEVE not, but I don't KNOW it. You BELIEVE it is, but you don't KNOW it either. How much uncertainty are we - as the sum of all participants to the convention right now - be willing to take? thinking about it, we could even open a poll about it I'm sure it would not be voted down there, as YES are usually selected over NOs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I will await the draft to comment fully, but my initial concern about this is that it places the off-site government and Delegate into adversarial roles if there is ever disagreement, even if there is no direct coloration between that adversarial position and in-game action. Perhaps we need just a bit of adversity here. Competition is what has driven the capitalist system to be so successful, after all, and it forces people to work hard and be effective if they want to be successful. It's the basic premise behind democratic republics, and has been quite successful. The problem is when competition goes too far. This proposal avoids that by ensuring an escape valve in the case of disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Perhaps we need just a bit of adversity here. Competition is what has driven the capitalist system to be so successful, after all, and it forces people to work hard and be effective if they want to be successful. It's the basic premise behind democratic republics, and has been quite successful. The problem is when competition goes too far. This proposal avoids that by ensuring an escape valve in the case of disagreement. I await your proposal. Based upon your wording elsewhere and the continued discussion in other threads about seeking to curb the authority of the Delegate, I will be honest and say that I am not looking forward to it with much enthusiasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkesia Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 " Co-existence of the separate entities seems to be a conceptual issue for many people lately. If tomorrow Max closes the game, the forum community would still exist " If you truly believe that the forum should not seek to influence events in the region then you cannot argue that such a trial should not go ahead. I believe there is a misunderstanding of terms. The forum Community should absolutely influence the Delegate and Guardians. They should not control them via legislation. The forum government is the means by which the community organizes and allows it's voice to be carried loudly to The Delegate and Guardians. Simple Examples: If the forum community actually cared about how I voted on WA resolutions, they could hold a vote on the forum and present that desire to me. I'm not insane, therefore I would realize that in order to keep the regional community happy, I would be wise to comply with their wishes. However, I am not bound by any law other than common sense to do so. Because, if there was a law on the forums, that I must comply, and then the in-game community desired something else, or I felt strongly about it, or was bound by treaty or political favor to vote a certain way, I would then break the community law. Which would be an absolutly silly reason to rebel and would end up getting ignored. So why make the law? Instead, make the ability to vote in the community and then use the structure to ask the Delegate for help. In order for this system to work a delegate must be willing to hold the votes and whatnot. Before we move further, Darkesia if we (on the forum) decided to go this route, is such a system something you could administrate? If the answer is yes, what are the stipulations you would want around such a system? I can't push forward with the proposal until getting answers to those questions. Personally, I don't think I would have the time. I haven't been able to comply with a simple request to post this convention in the WFE yet. I fully intend to do so. And I'm not avoiding it, I just have not logged into the game with anything but my phone in days. Adding official elections to my plate would not be practical. Again, this has nothing to do with my desire to be difficult. I just don't have time. Heck, my own contest ended Friday and I have yet to complie the results and post them. Anyone who has not been a Delegate in an active GCR doesn't realize how time consuming it is. That's not to say that the next Delegate won't have the time to do it. So perhaps if there was some sort of means to request the polls be posted and administered, but don't make the system reliant on that part... Hariko 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I await your proposal. Based upon your wording elsewhere and the continued discussion in other threads about seeking to curb the authority of the Delegate, I will be honest and say that I am not looking forward to it with much enthusiasm. Perhaps not you personally, but I'm glad to have the younger population of TWP on my side. It'll be up today or tomorrow. Personally, I don't think I would have the time. I haven't been able to comply with a simple request to post this convention in the WFE yet. I fully intend to do so. And I'm not avoiding it, I just have not logged into the game with anything but my phone in days. Adding official elections to my plate would not be practical. Again, this has nothing to do with my desire to be difficult. I just don't have time. Heck, my own contest ended Friday and I have yet to complie the results and post them. Anyone who has not been a Delegate in an active GCR doesn't realize how time consuming it is. That's not to say that the next Delegate won't have the time to do it. So perhaps if there was some sort of means to request the polls be posted and administered, but don't make the system reliant on that part... Completely understandable if you don't have time, though I am a bit surprised as to that; I've created polls, they don't take too long. I'll make sure the system uses polls whenever possible but does not fully depend on it by allowing forum votes in the event that the Delegate cannot create a poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Perhaps not you personally, but I'm glad to have the younger population of TWP on my side. It'll be up today or tomorrow. Completely understandable if you don't have time, though I am a bit surprised as to that; I've created polls, they don't take too long. I'll make sure the system uses polls whenever possible but does not fully depend on it by allowing forum votes in the event that the Delegate cannot create a poll. Your definition of 'younger' is perhaps different than mine. If you mean newer, in that there are several nations that have decided to come forward and take part in this Convention without having taken part in the community prior, then you may be correct. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that several of them seem to only be concerned with your proposal and have not contributed to the other discussions taking place. I wonder why that might be? Darkesia 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fratellnoir Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I believe there is a misunderstanding of terms. The forum Community should absolutely influence the Delegate and Guardians. They should not control them via legislation. The forum government is the means by which the community organizes and allows it's voice to be carried loudly to The Delegate and Guardians. Simple Examples: If the forum community actually cared about how I voted on WA resolutions, they could hold a vote on the forum and present that desire to me. I'm not insane, therefore I would realize that in order to keep the regional community happy, I would be wise to comply with their wishes. However, I am not bound by any law other than common sense to do so. Because, if there was a law on the forums, that I must comply, and then the in-game community desired something else, or I felt strongly about it, or was bound by treaty or political favor to vote a certain way, I would then break the community law. Which would be an absolutly silly reason to rebel and would end up getting ignored. So why make the law? Instead, make the ability to vote in the community and then use the structure to ask the Delegate for help. Personally, I don't think I would have the time. I haven't been able to comply with a simple request to post this convention in the WFE yet. I fully intend to do so. And I'm not avoiding it, I just have not logged into the game with anything but my phone in days. Adding official elections to my plate would not be practical. Again, this has nothing to do with my desire to be difficult. I just don't have time. Heck, my own contest ended Friday and I have yet to complie the results and post them. Anyone who has not been a Delegate in an active GCR doesn't realize how time consuming it is. That's not to say that the next Delegate won't have the time to do it. So perhaps if there was some sort of means to request the polls be posted and administered, but don't make the system reliant on that part... Maybe our Delegate should looking into delegation of duties eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Your definition of 'younger' is perhaps different than mine. If you mean newer, in that there are several nations that have decided to come forward and take part in this Convention without having taken part in the community prior, then you may be correct. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that several of them seem to only be concerned with your proposal and have not contributed to the other discussions taking place. I wonder why that might be? I will fully say that I invited some of them to take part in this convention and the region as a whole. Recruiting friends to join a region, last I checked, is a good thing. Still, I will kick them in the arse very hard if they do not get active in other sections ASAP. Some of them are annoying me because they're not being as active as I'd like them to be. >.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fratellnoir Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that several of them seem to only be concerned with your proposal and have not contributed to the other discussions taking place. I wonder why that might be? You got me bang to rights gov'nr, I confess its a conspiracy, but they said I could keep me kneecaps if I did what they said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nox Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I will fully say that I invited some of them to take part in this convention and the region as a whole. Recruiting friends to join a region, last I checked, is a good thing. Still, I will kick them in the arse very hard if they do not get active in other sections ASAP. Some of them are annoying me because they're not being as active as I'd like them to be. >.< Shhh, I already justified my lurking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I will fully say that I invited some of them to take part in this convention and the region as a whole. Recruiting friends to join a region, last I checked, is a good thing. Still, I will kick them in the arse very hard if they do not get active in other sections ASAP. Some of them are annoying me because they're not being as active as I'd like them to be. >.< I didn't need you to verify it, as it is readily apparent to anyone that has been in this community for any length of time. But, yes, it is good to invite friends to take part in a region. I personally have a difference of opinion on whether that includes inviting people who have never taken part in anything here at all to just pop in so that they can vote in favor of my own agenda, but to each his own, I guess. We will see how many of them stick around after the fact and actually contribute. I will say that rigging the vote, which this most assuredly is, is not in the spirit of TWP at all and while we are open to having all parties take part here freely, if it turns out that the vote was so heavily rigged and that those rigging it were not here as legitimate members of the community (meaning that if they disappear afterwards) then it will call any form of government that takes shape's legitimacy into question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I didn't need you to verify it, as it is readily apparent to anyone that has been in this community for any length of time. But, yes, it is good to invite friends to take part in a region. I personally have a difference of opinion on whether that includes inviting people who have never taken part in anything here at all to just pop in so that they can vote in favor of my own agenda, but to each his own, I guess. We will see how many of them stick around after the fact and actually contribute. I will say that rigging the vote, which this most assuredly is, is not in the spirit of TWP at all and while we are open to having all parties take part here freely, if it turns out that the vote was so heavily rigged and that those rigging it were not here as legitimate members of the community (meaning that if they disappear afterwards) then it will call any form of government that takes shape's legitimacy into question. Rigging the vote? I'm honestly not trying to do that. I told each and every one of them to be active in the region. If they fail to do that, I will kick them very hard in the arse, as I've already said they deserve. But feel free to accuse me of whatever you want and contribute to the toxic atmosphere that's starting to develop. *shudders* God don't let this become a second TSP. >.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Rigging the vote? I'm honestly not trying to do that. I told each and every one of them to be active in the region. If they fail to do that, I will kick them very hard in the arse, as I've already said they deserve. But feel free to accuse me of whatever you want and contribute to the toxic atmosphere that's starting to develop. *shudders* God don't let this become a second TSP. >.< I believe you are attempting to make TSP the straw man of the region. There are some nations now taking part in this Convention that seem to be interested solely in the diminishing of the Delegacy as an independent body and they almost unanimously support your political agenda. You have just confirmed that you invited them here for this reason. I have commented that this level of manipulation is not in keeping with the spirit of TWP, because it is not. I make no accusations beyond what is readily apparent. I am not 'contributing' to anything, just making observation of your actions. If your actions are contributing to that which you state, so be it. Own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts