# \[A\] Voting by Telegram **URL:** \ **Category:** The Magisterium\ **Tags:** amendment\ **Created:** [September 6, 2025, 6:16pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333 "2025-09-06T18:16:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 9:16pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/21 "2025-12-12T21:16:27Z")
Ah. Well, all you had to do was ask. I don’t think dissent should be ignored. I think it should be listened to. And I think if you listen to it, and your mind isn’t changed, and you make your arguments, and their mind isn’t changed, it doesn’t help anyone to keep repeating and rephrasing yourself, or to disparage others. You can allow people to read your points and make their decisions, knowing that you and them have made yours. And if someone else comes along and speaks, the process repeats. The only reason to keep going after you’ve both made your points clear is if either or both of you are open to changing your mind. Here, I don’t think you are, and I’m not. So we vote our conscience and don’t clutter the thread with useless back and forth that only serves, let’s be honest, to strain our professional relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/bachtendekuppen/32/12984_2.png) [@Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Bachtendekuppen)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 9:20pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/22 "2025-12-12T21:20:03Z")
The problem with just letting it be “to each his own”, is that I don’t think I’ve gotten an actual response. You stated: > [@Mangegneithe](#): > > If you think that’s easy then I don’t think we’re speaking about the same things, and therefore I don’t think it’s productive to continue our debate. So I see you refusing further debate, and I’ve got no idea why you think we’re not speaking about the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 10:52pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/23 "2025-12-12T22:52:29Z")
Seconded ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 11:23pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/24 "2025-12-12T23:23:39Z")
Honestly it IS an age-old question as to why so many people find forums hard to use. I can’t tell you why - but I can also tell you that I’ve been using the forums for 7 years, so it isn’t exactly easy for me to understand those who struggle with it. What I can tell you is that there ARE people, for one reason or another, who don’t want to use the forums. I think from there, it’s mostly a value judgement and principles more than anything. I can understand the idea that we shouldn’t cater to those who don’t want to engage via voting on forums. However, I do agree with Aivintis, in that we do have a duty to make voting easier. Said “duty” just stems from the fact we’re a democracy operating to serve a population who we should strive to represent as much as possible, whilst not falling into impracticality or wasted effort. In my opinion, telegrams votes are a reasonable way for the government to gain the voice of more people. I will add that I’ve seen this argument employed also by Libertanny and others when such topics have arose in the past - this idea that “if we’re doing RMB-based vote stuff, why not Discord votes? or tiktok or etc. etc.” Well, my main problem is that we haven’t heard a peep from our TikTok community about wanting to have a bigger voice in TEP or feeling ignored by the government or what have you. But we _have_ repeatedly and extensively heard such from the RMB. So to me - whether they want to use the forums or not is irrelevant. TEP only benefits if the elected Delegate represents the region better, including the section of the population who avoid our forums. And telegram votes would not be a major burden to running an election. Also, you jest that RMB votes are a possible implied ridiculuous idea to further extend this concept - but I did almost pass a bill that did just that, but it failed at a tie haha 😛 And a final point - if we ever did start hearing a steady complaint from a TikTok or facebook or Discord-only population that they were feeling unrepresented or ignored by our government, I would definetly support reworking our voting system to make it more accessible to them , too. (Although perhaps running elections via 3 mediums stops being practical, but voting options like an online site like Refugia uses would be more plausible in such a scenario). ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2025, 5:13pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/25 "2025-12-13T17:13:43Z")
> [@Bachtendekuppen](#): > > So I see you refusing further debate, and I’ve got no idea why you think we’re not speaking about the same thing. Okay well telegrams are an easily manageable on-site mechanics. Facebook messages have never once been used for any gameplay purpose and are completely unrelated to NS. House visits require not just that one doxx themselves but that our Viceroys spend real human money and time traveling to people’s IRL locations. Those are the differences I see between what I’m talking about and what you’re talking about. Again, I’m happy to answer questions. But I’m just not going to bother restating my points when I’ve made them clear. I do think you know exactly what my stance is, that it’s important to include RMBers and it’s the government’s duty to do so. That telegrams are an efficient and easy way to increase outreach, with a low energy/time commitment that yields a great benefit. You just disagree. Which is fine. I’m not silencing your disagreement. I’m just saying that I feel silly repeating myself, and I’m surprised you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/bachtendekuppen/32/12984_2.png) [@Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Bachtendekuppen)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2025, 7:15pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/26 "2025-12-13T19:15:36Z")
The point wasn’t the examples (which were ridiculous, stop responding to those as if they make sense or as if you really think I think they make sense). The point was that calling it a “duty” to make voting “as easy as possible” is quite the statement, and that’s what I wanted to debate. But one really has to insist to get some actual debate here, it seems. And now you’ve changed that to “It’s important to include RMB’ers” (why?) and “it’s the duty of the government to do so” (why?). That’s also totally different kind of duty than the previous one you threw out here. I’m not asking you to repeat talking points. I’m asking you to explain your thinking on these, because so far in this thread, nobody has actually explained WHY this would be a good idea, let alone why it would be a DUTY. This whole thread only deals with superficial questions about the how, without anyone actually debating the “why” (except now Zuk in one post, finally). What further annoys me to no end is that you’re thanking a Magister here for a private discussion on this very proposal that nobody else now can see or read, while it sounds like it was actually very relevant to this topic and everybody following it. That’s a great way to debate in a legislature, somewhere off in a corner so nobody else can follow what people are actually thinking. I’m not even that dead set against this proposal. What I do firmly dislike is doing a change like this on a non-reason like supposedly some random players in TEP thinking the forum is too difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2025, 9:29pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/27 "2025-12-13T21:29:03Z")
For Bach and anyone else who is curious as to the why of this proposal, I encourage you to read the following posts: > [@Mangegneithe](#): > > As a part of my discussions with members of the RMB, I learned that most people were apprehensive about extended/repeated use of the forum, and not use of the forum in any context. Giving the option to vote in Delegate elections via telegram creates an opportunity for us – if we create a system by which people really only have to use the forum once (which is all we need for IP checks) – then we are potentially opening ourselves up to more citizens and more voters. This is something that would not be required and likely would not be used by most citizens, but if even one or two new citizens/voters emerge from this change, it will be worth it. > > The labor cost to implement is negligible – all we need is a Viceroy that logs into NS and copies/pastes their telegrams once every four months. This is also not a system which permits voter fraud – each vote is still only counted once and only citizens may vote. We can have a line in every announcement that we already make that citizens (and only citizens) may cast votes by telegram. I also don’t think we’ll get significantly more false votes because unlike the RMB the privacy of the TG doesn’t create a follow-the-leader effect of people who can’t vote, voting. > > It’s just another option, a very small investment into a new avenue of access which can be of great benefit to the region. Furthermore, if no one uses it, there’s no extra work associated with maintaining it. Many RMBers support this concept, and the idea has been refined through conversations with various Viziers. Special thanks to New Leganes, A Mean Old Man, and Dragons Blood for their participation. > [@Mangegneithe](#): > > This is exactly the point. A significant group of people – potential voters – have logistical issues with the forums. Even some of our own Viziers have admitted that it’s not a walk in the park. It’s a survivorship bias that we are all here today – of course the people who have managed to use the forum are able to say that they find it easy to use the forum. > [@Mangegneithe](#): > > The argument is that “You only have to come here once” would be more appealing to people who aren’t comfortable/confident using the forums than “You have to come here once and then repeatedly afterwards each time you ever want to do anything.” Let me tell you, I’ve been in the RMB community for six years and I’ve been working on legislatively advancing its rights and health for five and a half, so even if you can’t see the logic here, trust that they will. That’s who we need to be convincing, and they’re already convinced. I know this because I’ve talked to a lot of them about this very proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2025, 9:35pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/28 "2025-12-13T21:35:44Z")
> [@Bachtendekuppen](#): > > What further annoys me to no end is that you’re thanking a Magister here for a private discussion on this very proposal that nobody else now can see or read, while it sounds like it was actually very relevant to this topic and everybody following it. That’s a great way to debate in a legislature, somewhere off in a corner so nobody else can follow what people are actually thinking. If you, like Cretox, are interested in the history of RMB-government relations, this is the piece I sent him: [https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=2581597](https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=2581597 "https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=2581597") Otherwise, all I did was fill him in on the Maham Pact bans, the Vussul ban, the rise of Cordone and proscription thereof, and the backlash from the RMB with all that. You are already familiar with these subjects, so I will not rehash them with you at great costs to your time and mine. ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2025, 9:42pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/29 "2025-12-13T21:42:11Z")
> [@Bachtendekuppen](#): > > And now you’ve changed that to “It’s important to include RMB’ers” (why?) and “it’s the duty of the government to do so” (why?). Why is it important to include RMBers? Well, I believe all residents should be considered and involved in government, and extended all the rights that everyone else has, on a matter of principle. I believe that it is fundamentally undemocratic to specifically exclude an innocent subset of residents from the institutions that govern them. However, if you don’t care about that, I have a more ruthless answer for you: We want power. Therefore, we need endorsements. Endorsements come from greater numbers of players. The RMB draws in players and keeps them. A happier RMB means more endorsements for us. The RMB is also a source of flexing power – the government is currently working on RMB C/Cs. Finally, the RMB is a source of activity. If you care about community health and power, you care about the RMB. If you care about the RMB, you want to include them, to make sure that we’re maximizing their impact on community health and power. Why is it the duty of government to include RMBers? Again, there’s my idealistic answer – because inclusion is always the right thing to do, and because empowering people is democratic and democracy is good. And then the ruthless answer – it’s our duty to include them because we need them for our power and health, and we need to appease them to keep them. I don’t care if you don’t care about my ideals. But even if you don’t, there’s an equation here that makes sense. More people in the region generating activity and endorsements for the region is good for the region. Ergo, we want to empower whatever subsets of TEP bring more people into the region, generating activity and endorsements in the process. ---
**Author:** ![Ladona](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/ladona/32/15492_2.png) [@Ladona](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Ladona)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2025, 11:51pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333/30 "2025-12-19T23:51:15Z")
Following the passage of [[A-2025-55] A Different Amendment to the Delegate Elections Act](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-2025-55-a-different-amendment-to-the-delegate-elections-act/19564), this discussion topic has been closed. If further discussions are wanted to this topic, please contact a member of the Office of the Provost to unlock this topic. [Previous page](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/a-voting-by-telegram/19333.md?page=1)