Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

We could all bring friends and then argue we just told them to be "active", and you would still call it out, Llamas... /me shrugs

It does feels forced to be honest. But I don't want to dabble on this again.

I do insist that it takes a bit to become a truly fledged TWPian, it honestly took me quite a while to FULLY and REALLY understand the TWP system, and I personally feel there are details that still escape my grasp, and I've been here for quite a while. So it surprises me when people pretends to be fully knowledgeable of it all in a matter of hours.

TWP is different and interesting because of the things that make it different and special.

Perhaps I grew to love the place slowly. /me shrugs.

Let's just try our best, our HONEST best?

Posted

I suggest we get off this topic. We're doing little more than arguing about ourselves personally, as opposed to policies, which is what PD just complained about, and it's hardly doing much good. :)

Posted

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 :P I'm sure it would not be voted down there, as YES are usually selected over NOs :P

 

And you're right. I have no certainties as to its effectiveness in practicality. However that is why we should try it. Instead of dismissing it because bad things COULD happen, why not try it out because good things COULD happen? No progress is made without a chance of risk and it is that very reason why we should take a chance on it. After all, progress is the primary purpose of this convention is it not?

Posted

I will state, again, that no proposal that incorporates 'limits' (in any form) on the Delegate will even be put forward to vote.

Even if she agrees?

Posted

Even if she agrees?

Since she has stated publicly and privately that she does not support the idea of limits on the Delegacy, then that is my position until such time as I hear otherwise.  Obviously, if the Delegate wishes to change her position on the situation then I would be obligated to do likewise.

Posted

In much of the minutiae on the prior page, I missed her reply.

 

Indeed - being a delegate is time consuming and doing this would be even more time consuming. 

 

Let's scale this back then. Why don't we try it with something and see how it works. Basically a pilot. I get that we will be running with other proposals and likely select one of those. 

 

What I'm saying is that could we attempt to experiment with this idea on 1 topic that has a non-binding effect? Just to see how this could work in the real world.

Posted

That, PD, is an idea I can totally support. Even in general for not biding things we can run opinion polls and find a way to introduce them into the dynamics of the government

Posted

I like that, actually. :) I recommend we hold an in-game poll to select a constitution as a pilot to see how it works out, then have the forum community either approve or reject the constitution that has been selected using a majority vote.

Posted

I like that, actually. :) I recommend we hold an in-game poll to select a constitution as a pilot to see how it works out, then have the forum community either approve or reject the constitution that has been selected using a majority vote.

I don't believe having the foundation of how the forum community governs itself as the pilot testing is the best course of action.  Ultimately, we are still discussing how the offsite community will be governed.  The in-game community of nations have every right and opportunity to come here and take part.

Posted

I don't believe having the foundation of how the forum community governs itself as the pilot testing is the best course of action.  Ultimately, we are still discussing how the offsite community will be governed.  The in-game community of nations have every right and opportunity to come here and take part.

Agreed
Posted

TWP has always (mostly always) maintained that the in-game mechanics are supreme. A delegate is master and commander unless they are no longer delegate. It's simple, we're consistent, and it works, imo, far better than other ethos in other regions.

 

My proposal is that we take it to the next level - dissolve offsite forum government entirely. 

 

My proposal would list a factbook entry on the main TWP page listing how government works. 

 

The overall idea is that all votes take place in-game. The polling option truly helps in this. So when we have legislation we're going to vote on, we vote in game. If we're having elections, we vote in-game. Etc. 

 

If we wish to have discussions on topics here and/or campaigns here, that's fine, but the game is where things truly happen. I don't know of any large region that is doing this. I think we could be a trailblazer in that regard and do something completely non-traditional but use some of the new NS tools. 

 

Why try this? Like i said, TWP is about the supremacy of the in-game mechanics. We can support that idea by getting the in-game more involved and reducing the decision making that takes place off-site. That gives more of the in-gamers ability to direct the path of the region they've been in for a while. 

 

I can take a stab of writing a draft of the proposal if there is any interest in something like this.

 

 

The in-game community of nations have every right and opportunity to come here and take part.

It saddens me to see that the last quote appears to be alarmingly similar to the responses of The Coalition when the suggestion that the Region should have a say in the running of itself in TSP.

I am paraphrasing here but the reaction was along the lines of "if they want to participate then they should join the forums and apply for citizenship"

I realise that there is no requirement to jump through the hoops that TSP impose, but nevertheless it is tantamount to saying the same thing

PD has put forward a proposal for a mechanism to introduce onsite Regional "Administration" without having to resort to any third party offsite forum

It in no way impacts on the in-game mechanism of electing a delegate (endorsements) or indeed on the powers of the delegate.

However, rather than embracing the idea of an in-game government (the prime aim of the proposal) and examining what would be required to implement it (how to address "poll tourism" ,who would maintain the factbooks/dispatches etc) the refrain has been "we will not and cannot seek to control the delegate"

This, in my opinion misses the point of the original proposal

Is seems clear that GCR's are not fertile environments for innovation in this area, preferring to consolidate existing methods rather than act as the vanguard of a new, inclusive way of doing things.

Posted

Sorry to keep harping on about this but what about what the region wants?

It seems to me that PD would have been better off placing this proposal in the RMB rather than in this forum where, to be honest, the response has been biased towards the negative.

Darkesia has already intimated that sooner or later she will be stepping down - a new delegate may be keen to encourage on-site activity and make a clean break with the past.

Rather than dismissing the idea because the current administration is not receptive, it might be expedient to look into how it could be implemented if the atmosphere changed, and such a system became a requirement

Posted

Then that new Delegate can decide differently.

I think the entire point, when you get down to it, is that a relatively small minority on an offsite forum can not legitimately claim to know what the region wants. The only tangible mechanism for knowing what a GCR wants is via endorsements. Darkesia has the most, therefore she is what the region wants.

Posted

Then that new Delegate can decide differently.

I think the entire point, when you get down to it, is that a relatively small minority on an offsite forum can not legitimately claim to know what the region wants. The only tangible mechanism for knowing what a GCR wants is via endorsements. Darkesia has the most, therefore she is what the region wants.

I'm fine with saying that the delegate is supreme in game or that they can decide policy, but I'd also like to point out that we don't currently have elections for delegate via endorsements--there is an endo cap, and people can get ejected for passing it. If everybody decided today that Soandso would be a better delegate and endorsed him, he'd get booted. So saying Darkesia has the most endos, therefore she's in charge, fine. Saying that means that her popularity is directly proportional to her number of endorsements, however, is false. I don't mind not having perfect democracy as much as I mind the people in charge trying to make it sound like we do when we don't.

Posted

I'm fine with saying that the delegate is supreme in game or that they can decide policy, but I'd also like to point out that we don't currently have elections for delegate via endorsements--there is an endo cap, and people can get ejected for passing it. If everybody decided today that Soandso would be a better delegate and endorsed him, he'd get booted. So saying Darkesia has the most endos, therefore she's in charge, fine. Saying that means that her popularity is directly proportional to her number of endorsements, however, is false. I don't mind not having perfect democracy as much as I mind the people in charge trying to make it sound like we do when we don't.

I never said anything about democracy.  As far as I am concerned, The West Pacific is a (benevolent) dictatorship and nothing else.  What I stated was that the will of the region is reflected in the Delegate having the most endorsements.  That is a fact.  If the will of the region were otherwise it would not matter what the cap is because nations have the option to unendorsed the Delegate.  If the masses truly believed that another nation would better serve in the role then it would happen with or without ejections.  The simple fact is that Darkesia is the current Delegate because she has the most endorsements.  If she chooses to protect that position against opposition while maintaining high support among the populace that doesn't make it any less valid.

Posted

We do have elections for Delegate in game, but we use the rules of the GAME to have them. That election is ongoing and it never ends. We, the Guardians, have done the political work in the region to get positions of influence and power. We have worked night and day for years to accumulate that influence and to get the power to set the rules. Every time I send a telegram asking for an endorsement, and I've likely sent 100s of thousands over the years, I ask that nation to endorse my Delegate. When I'm Delegate I ask them to endorse my Guardians. We do the work, we ask people for their support and they give it.

 

The truth is we have an elected Delegate and that Delegate has been chosen by the WA member nations in our region and if they didn't want her as Delegate nothing we could do would stop the WA nations from turning her out. Oh there would be all the usual BS about outside this and oligarchies and blah blah blah, but the will of those with votes would prevail.

 

We worked with our benefactor Winnipeg to set up a forum that is independent of the game. Any player in the region can come here and form a RP government, they can build influence with other players, they can make their case to the Delegate for any policy. They can not dictate to the Delegate because the Delegate is independent of the forum, but likewise the Forum is independent of the Delegate.

 

It was setup that way so the players have a home to voice their opinions, build a community, exchange ideas. I can't imagine that a player that becomes Delegate could possibly keep the support of the Guardians without the support of the forum community. As Delegate you're done if the Guardians are against you, because they have too much influence.

 

so all that rambling nonsense amounts to, do the work and gain the influence and you'll get it. set up a rp forum govt that reflects the game and it'll be more fun. get everyone involved the best you can and you can become Delegate and be there for as long as your energy holds out.

×
×
  • Create New...