Seeing as I’m not sure I’m allowed to post my opinion in the conclave I thought we’d open up a discussion on this here so people can weigh in their solutions to preventing this situation happening again. Its a difficult one as Todd has a policy of not taking telegrammed votes instead trying to encourage people to visit the forum if they wish to have a say. Although its great to have new people getting involved, and I truly hope they do get involved, it seems to be a double edged sword and I don’t want us to find ourselves in a position where we treat every newcomer with suspicion. We don’t want to change the system to one where those who don’t want to get involved on forum activity, but are valued native nations to the East Pacific and only get citizenship on here so that they can give their opinion on resolutions, end up not meeting some criteria to give their opinion to the WA delegate.
We need to push on with plans that we had in the summer for reviewing citizenships here and there. They don’t need to be authoritarian but they need to be reasonable, maybe a suspended citizenship that takes away the ability to post in WA forums if a member hasn’t been active for sometime (so they’d need to ‘revive’ their full citizenship if they wanted to vote- not a big requirement for someone interested in getting involved here but enough to put off someone simply coming on here to react to a close vote in the Security Council). Post voting seems like the way forward too, but that needs to be discussed.
Let’s make the “Todd, vote yes! Todd, vote nay!” thread structured like a regular thread and not a poll… we’ll have a better insight on who’s voting what. In the end, in my short experience as assistant-to-the-wa-liaision 95% of threads will have a clear voting path and there will be no difficulties for Todd
In the remaining 5%, you’ll have “regular” citiziens in minority against hordes of John Does who happen to pass here just because they want to influence our vote… oh well, in that case, the Delegate should have some degree of discretionality, “weighing” the respective importances of said votes and then do what he thinks best… and who cares if a number of unknown people complain.
Oh… and then, TEP has always been some kind of “neutral region”, if i remember correctly. This whole thing of “liberate this, condemn that” is a farce. I think we should revive our neutrality… i.e. we should avoid casting a vote to liberate this or condemn that unless the region (or, more probably, one of its “trusted” member) is able to find a rather credible reason on why the hell we should get involved.
If all Feeders would start behaing like that, we’d cut 90% of the whining spum coming from John Does who beg for help from region which do not owe them nothing.
Oh… and then, TEP has always been some kind of “neutral region”, if i remember correctly. This whole thing of “liberate this, condemn that” is a farce. I think we should revive our neutrality… i.e. we should avoid casting a vote to liberate this or condemn that unless the region (or, more probably, one of its “trusted” member) is able to find a rather credible reason on why the hell we should get involved.
Hell, that’s a good idea Inquirius. There’s a couple regions that have gone the route of completely NOT voting in SCR (which would be a better route to follow, as the liberation and C&C thing HAS gotten severely out of bloody hand) such as Europe.
It may in fact be in best interest to take a similar route and stay completely out of SCR, which, would give Todd a little break here and there so to speak as well. Being he’s tracked up in RL studies I’m sure even he’d need one
Hell, that’s a good idea Inquirius. There’s a couple regions that have gone the route of completely NOT voting in SCR (which would be a better route to follow, as the liberation and C&C thing HAS gotten severely out of bloody hand) such as Europe.
— End quote
Europe is not a good example - the Delegate there made the decision to stay out of SCRs alone and does not allow his constituents any say in how he votes on resolutions. I should hope that Todd is more egalitarian than that. Such a decision must be made with input from the rest of the region.
Hell, that’s a good idea Inquirius. There’s a couple regions that have gone the route of completely NOT voting in SCR (which would be a better route to follow, as the liberation and C&C thing HAS gotten severely out of bloody hand) such as Europe.
— End quote
Europe is not a good example - the Delegate there made the decision to stay out of SCRs alone and does not allow his constituents any say in how he votes on resolutions. I should hope that Todd is more egalitarian than that. Such a decision must be made with input from the rest of the region.
Which C&Cs are severely out of hand?
— End quote
Up until recently, Repeal Nazi Europe and everyone and their brother pushing for a new commend 10KI/Condemn 10KI and of course Aegara throwing condemn himself. Lately, C&C’s have been quiet, and instead we just see liberation reso after liberation reso.
From what the Europe delegate stated outright regarding the repeal Grub, he abstained entirely on SCR votes. What he does with the GA wasn’t a concern to me at the time (and still largely isn’t. I When it comes to GA, it’s only a matter of a shift in a nation’s direction. SCR’s other half is a game altering effect.)
As far as GA’s I shouldn’t think if TEP as a delegacy abstained from SCR’s would be harmed. GA’s, yes, there’s the political sim bit, but that’s not game altering. that’s part of the game. Ugh. I’m starting to digress. Mind’s in two places at once. Forgive me.
Anyways, what i’m trying to say is: TEP could abstain from SCR votes, which would also prevent future…occurences…but still maintain the standard methodology of voting for GAR’s. Being as, well, by all speculative eyes, it would seem it was a rush of new citizenships to vote on the SCR.
Alsted said he’d/she’d(?) vote against a repeal of “Condemn NAZI EUROPE”.
I assume he’d also vote early, which is why many people don’t like him/her.
— End quote
It’s not the voting early per se that makes Alsted controversial, except maybe with the GA regulars. He’s not the only Delegate who does it, and the tactic makes good sense (which is why I’ve been trying to convert the other feeder delegates to the glory of voting early). Alsted is controversial because he does not give his constituents any say in how he votes, preferring to make decisions from on high entirely on his own. And he recruits only base newbies who don’t know enough about the game to realize that they should be able to expect any say, not to mention a number of other things that regions always offer newbies that Alsted doesn’t. This comes off as rather deceitful, to say the least, although of course he’s not the only one doing that either - merely the biggest.
Hmm, would be a good thing Vacationer…now if they’d start regulations on liberation resos.
@Kali: News to me. I only remembered seeing the post in Repeal Commend: 10KI
— End quote
Its harder for Liberations because they’re rarely personal (unlike a lot of C + C’s) and the natural ‘check’ on the legitimacy of liberations should be down to delegates considering whether the reasons for liberating a region are justified. I think that previous to Free Thought most delegates assumed raiders=bad so liberations should be approved with little to no question. I think Free Thought has changed a lot of peoples opinions now and people will question these proposals far more rather than have constant liberations wasting the Assembly’s time, and its also seemed to kick raiders into action to defend their actions, and perhaps avoid the hassle of liberation proposals by needlessly passwording regions.
I think that voting by post is definitely necessary.
The Vacationer’s plan may work quite well.
Additionally, (I’m not sure if we want to do this, it may be a little too much) we need to consider the idea of only allowing players with their WA nation in TEP to vote here. There are obvious issues with that (disenfranchising longtime TEPers and creating multiple grades of citizenship), but it should be discussed.
Additionally, (I’m not sure if we want to do this, it may be a little too much) we need to consider the idea of only allowing players with their WA nation in TEP to vote here. There are obvious issues with that (disenfranchising longtime TEPers and creating multiple grades of citizenship), but it should be discussed.
Of course, raiders and defenders switch WAs regularly. How would one counter a dishonest invader* who brings their WA to TEP just for the end of any important SC vote?
While we’re putting all the options on the table, a particularly novel solution could be to, using a script, record how all the nations of TEP (who don’t bump it off in the course of 24 hours) vote on the WA resolution. The problem is that this disregards the forum community completely, which is probably an undesirable outcome.
Let´s see… I don´t mind counting votes so, if the majority want to vote in regular threads again, i´ll do so(We changed to poll because people voted it so back then).
I´m against abstaining from SC for the same reason of Eluvatar.
I support Todd´s voting early as well. Projects TEP influence on WA, and Todd already proved to be noble enough to put democracy in front of his own wishes.
I actually think its nice to allow non-WA Teppers (or those who have the WA nations outside TEP) to vote in resos here. Its a bit unfair on GA resos as no-WA nations will be affected by the outcome, but i like the idea of having a “bonus” voting as an advantage to active TEP citizens.
Yes, i support activity as a requisite to vote, because if we´re giving advantages, they should work to make a better forum to all as well. (Maybe 1 post/month minimum)
