[PROPOSAL] RMB Voting Omnibus

The Magisterium
3

I dislike the way you presented the reasoning for proposing it, because it implies that RMBers can’t legally vote. They can. This should be about making it more accessible for the RMBers to tear down any potential nonlegal barriers they may have. Additionally, I’d like to point out for everyone that’s not familiar with this case that the information of people who wouldn’t vote if not for this is not yet available, and is currently being polled. I assume it will be available in a week or so. Those clarifications aside:

I disagree with giving the Viceroy an RO slot. We already sacrifice four for Viziers with good reason and multiple for RMB Moderators, which is possibly going to become a mandated thing with a new Admin initiative, and giving any more to non-Executive positions feels like a not-great idea. I would mandate that the Delegate send it out when ordered to by the Viceroy, and that failure to do so is like a crime or something. Maybe use the Viziers, because they are behind the Directorate, and their leader already has a mandated RO slot. There’s no need to waste an extra RO slot for something that can easily be delegated to other officials.

I don’t like how the slang word ping is used instead of the technical term mention - maybe specify mentioned through the [nation] BBCoding or smth, but notify is weak on its own and ping doesn’t make sense unless you create an additional clause defining ping.

3.10 is useless because the EPEC is literally just the Viceroy and/or the Viceroy Designee. I believe the SOC already prevents candidates from running the vote and the Delegate can’t be an Arbiter. Unless you’re creating a new organization with an application and acceptance process as well as defined members and duties, but I don’t see that here, and I would be against it, if so.

The definition of RMB is probably useless because it’s a technical term and the definition rn is literally “The RMB is the RMB”.

Big thing: Make sure that votes by someone given in the RMB and forum only count as one vote, not two.

Idk so much about removing the stipulation that the Directorate can designate any medium for voter registration in place of a defined “Use a forum thread and use the RMB.” I think granting more flexibility may be wise, and it could cut out RMB-related registration parts of this act entirely if the Directorate just said “You can register in the RMB now” which I am positive they would do if asked, of course with specific application stuff.

Maybe take this time to rename the Directorate. Maybe because it’s too close to my Valsora nation, but it doesn’t feel right for me. Registrar is far better than Director for this purpose, and just Registrar Office or Registration Office is probably also better than Directorate. Just something to consider while stuff’s being changed.

Overall, I think I’m still of the opinion that either registration be done on forums or registration requires proof of a forum account, for IP purposes, but voting can/should definitely be done elsewhere too.

4

— Begin quote from ____

I dislike the way you presented the reasoning for proposing it, because it implies that RMBers can’t legally vote. They can. This should be about making it more accessible for the RMBers to tear down any potential nonlegal barriers they may have.

— End quote

Ack, my bad - I was trying to imply they can vote, they just prefer not to use the forums - you’re absolutely right, I’ll change that.

— Begin quote from ____

I disagree with giving the Viceroy an RO slot. We already sacrifice four for Viziers with good reason and multiple for RMB Moderators, which is possibly going to become a mandated thing with a new Admin initiative, and giving any more to non-Executive positions feels like a not-great idea. I would mandate that the Delegate send it out when ordered to by the Viceroy, and that failure to do so is like a crime or something. Maybe use the Viziers, because they are behind the Directorate, and their leader already has a mandated RO slot. There’s no need to waste an extra RO slot for something that can easily be delegated to other officials.

— End quote

Fair point. However, I do not think the Delegate should send out telegrams for elections. Additionally, I think it would be more sensible to allow someone who is actually running the election, or helping do so, send out the telegram rather than delegating it to someone else. I.e. we could delegate it, but I do not view it as ideal.

The Executive currently has 6 RO slots. It can work fine with 5 - I haven’t even seen some ROs use their powers that much beyond banning people.

I’ll look for more feedback on this. If more people are against this change, I’ll remove it.

— Begin quote from ____

I don’t like how the slang word ping is used instead of the technical term mention - maybe specify mentioned through the [nation] BBCoding or smth, but notify is weak on its own and ping doesn’t make sense unless you create an additional clause defining ping.

— End quote

I can use mention, I forgot what term it is.

— Begin quote from ____

3.10 is useless because the EPEC is literally just the Viceroy and/or the Viceroy Designee. I believe the SOC already prevents candidates from running the vote and the Delegate can’t be an Arbiter. Unless you’re creating a new organization with an application and acceptance process as well as defined members and duties, but I don’t see that here, and I would be against it, if so.

— End quote

Incorrect - the EPEC is whomever the Viceroy wants to be in it. Usually it is the Viceroy/Designee, but Arbiters have been used in the past and even further back in time, regular citizens.

I may remove it because it may be superfluous, I’ll think of it.

— Begin quote from ____

The definition of RMB is probably useless because it’s a technical term and the definition rn is literally “The RMB is the RMB”.

— End quote

Fair

— Begin quote from ____

Big thing: Make sure that votes by someone given in the RMB and forum only count as one vote, not two.

— End quote

Will add that in

— Begin quote from ____

Idk so much about removing the stipulation that the Directorate can designate any medium for voter registration in place of a defined “Use a forum thread and use the RMB.” I think granting more flexibility may be wise, and it could cut out RMB-related registration parts of this act entirely if the Directorate just said “You can register in the RMB now” which I am positive they would do if asked, of course with specific application stuff.

— End quote

I felt it would probably be better just to specify where the applications are held. I don’t see too much of a need in flexibility  as the mediums do not change that much, and I do find it beneficial to force the Magisterium into the conversation with these things when it isn’t too impractical.

One thing, though - I want RMB registration in law. Not up to the Directorate’s whims. If I do remove these changes, I will still be mandating RMB registration serve as one method of registration.

— Begin quote from ____

Maybe take this time to rename the Directorate. Maybe because it’s too close to my Valsora nation, but it doesn’t feel right for me. Registrar is far better than Director for this purpose, and just Registrar Office or Registration Office is probably also better than Directorate. Just something to consider while stuff’s being changed.

— End quote

Hm I’ll probably use Registrar Office - that sounds cool

— Begin quote from ____

Overall, I think I’m still of the opinion that either registration be done on forums or registration requires proof of a forum account, for IP purposes, but voting can/should definitely be done elsewhere too.

— End quote

Putting registration on the forums defeats the entire point of this. Yes, it’s a one-time-and-done thing, but voting itself also isn’t that difficult. I am making an assumption here, but I imagine if someone could bother to get voter registration, they would probably bother to vote.

5

Alright. Made some heavy changes to the Voter Registration Act amendment - both what Aiv suggested and a few other stuff. Feel free to take a look.

Also, the results from the survey (RMB Survey Results - Google Tabellen):
https://i.imgur.com/GSxboYT.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/7RwLmel.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/L63ex5q.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/7SqdXih.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/drBaDYg.png

6

So I really like the idea of RMB voting. I absolutely support RMB rights and listening to the RMB, and one of the ways we can do that is by making voting more accessible, however there is always a caveat :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m not a fan of the security processes outlined. You could argue that 2000 messages is a high thereshold, and sure, it is, but that will not stop the most determined people from votestacking - people have done many things to infiltrate and votestack regions, both in the R/D metagame (see Frenchy setting up an embassy collector just to raid the Embassy) and in regions, and having limited checks makes me feel uncomfortable.

My other worry is that votes would be missed on a fast paced RMB - we could use something like nselec 2.2.1 on PyPI - Libraries.io, with the permission of whoever created it (we might not even need that, it’s open sourced) provided that someone provides hosting, but eh, that still isn’t a full IP and background check. I don’t know, I love the idea of opening up voting, but we need to find a way to keep elections secure.

I would much prefer a system where people sign up to vote on a forum/secure site or forum - if given the choice between the current system and the prposed system, I’d marginally prefer the proposed one, but I think we need to improve our security practices anyway so I’d much prefer a middle ground - a compromise between security and making voting more accessible would be ideal.

Difficulty navigating forums and disliking them in general is the problem, so what can we do to either:

  1. Make registering for elections on the forums/using the forums easier;

  2. Have people register for elections without using the forums at all, using another service which allows us to run a background check?

Modern internet has generally moved on from forum culture and with that we need to modernise things like voting, although I’m not quite sure how we should go about doing that :stuck_out_tongue:

7

— Begin quote from ____

…4.1- Any Citizen who is applying for voter registration on the RMB must have posted at least 2000 times in the RMB with the citizenship nation they are using to post their application. Applications from non-citizenship nations of Citizens shall be rejected. Registered Voters who later change their recorded citizenship nation do not need their new recorded citizenship nation to have posted on the RMB.

— End quote

Why do RVs who changed their citizenship nation not need to have their new nation not post on the RMB? Shouldn’t we get confirmation from that nation?

— Begin quote from ____

…4.2.1- Telegrams shall still be required for changing of recorded Citizenship nations and/or WA nations, per Section III of this Act.

— End quote

Section 3.3, the relevant part of the law, makes no mention of telegramming a Registrar, merely to post on the RMB or any medium. The only mention of telegramming is in section 3.1, where they have to telegram to become a Registered Voter, not to transfer citizenship nations.

— Begin quote from ____

…5.2- Any Citizen may renounce their voter registration by notifying the Office in the medium designated by the Office.

— End quote

Does this allow people in RMB to renounce their voter registration in the RMB?

For now, I’m leaning FOR this proposal, barring some misgivings I’ve said above. I’d like our RMB members to be able to vote, which this proposal seeks to do.

8

If the qualms Halley had with the proposal are fixed then this will have my full support. From the polling most  RMBers list the reasons of generally disliking forums and finding this forum hard to navigate. Both of which I agree with heartily. I am of the opinion that most people dislike forums and it’s one of the biggest reasons why I think people are scared off from participating in TEP government. I don’t think moving registration to a different website would be a good compromise either because it just moves the problem of people not liking forums to a different website.

9

— Begin quote from ____

I’m not a fan of the security processes outlined. You could argue that 2000 messages is a high thereshold, and sure, it is, but that will not stop the most determined people from votestacking…

— End quote

Neither will our current system.

Our system as a whole is not built to prevent dedicated infiltration or small-time highly dedicated vote-stacking efforts. Because unless we wish to assume something like Karma’s/NPO’s security apparatus (which would basically threaten our democracy with less engagement overall), our system just cannot handle dedicated infiltrators because it (like any democratic system) is quite open.

But the thing is, this post requirement would quell larger vote stacking efforts - because those don’t tend to be people in a gc plotting, but rather friends of infiltrators casually asked to vote. That’s what happened during Fedele’s time, anyways. That type of mostly apathetic voter would absolutely not post 2000 times.

Also, keep in mind an infiltrator will have to post 2000 times just to… vote. It’s difficult to do anything else governmentally in a meaningful manner (even Discord-based Executive work) without interacting with the forums at least once and ergo giving us your IP. For most people, it would be easier to just use our forums and change their IP than using RMB voting.

  • remember that they have to disclose their WA to get registration; most vote stackers tend to not even bother changing their identities.

So essentially, the only thing this really does is allow people to hide their identities without changing their IP, if they used the RMB. Which as I said, isn’t much of a practical concern because a) massive vote stacking efforts wont get past the RMB post thing, and b) anyone trying to do meaningful infiltration would have to use our forums sooner or later.

Overall I get where you’re coming from, but practically speaking I think an RMB activity commitment secures the process, for the most part.

— Begin quote from ____

My other worry is that votes would be missed on a fast paced RMB - we could use something like nselec 2.2.1 on PyPI - Libraries.io, with the permission of whoever created it (we might not even need that, it’s open sourced) provided that someone provides hosting, but eh, that still isn’t a full IP and background check. I don’t know, I love the idea of opening up voting, but we need to find a way to keep elections secure.

— End quote

Indeed I share this worry, but at this point I do not expect like 50 RMB votes. The system is made so any valid vote requires a ping to the Viceroy or someone else - thereby, the notifications history in NS can be used to garner posts.

If it becomes too much, what we can always do is put in a specific tag word like #TEPElections in the vote template for the RMB; searching that tag word would pull up all the relevant votes.

So I think it is a manageable issue.

— Begin quote from ____

I would much prefer a system where people sign up to vote on a forum/secure site or forum - if given the choice between the current system and the prposed system, I’d marginally prefer the proposed one, but I think we need to improve our security practices anyway so I’d much prefer a middle ground - a compromise between security and making voting more accessible would be ideal.

— End quote

How would you propose we improve our security process?

And I second what Roman said - forcing RMBers to use a third-site will likely lead to the same levels of engagement we have right now.

— Begin quote from ____

  1. Make registering for elections on the forums/using the forums easier;

— End quote

I’m for this, but it doesn’t resolve the rest of the issues.
— Begin quote from ____

  1. Have people register for elections without using the forums at all, using another service which allows us to run a background check?

— End quote

Data collection was another concern for RMBers - some just do not want to give us their data. Plus, Roman’s point on a third site still apply here.

— Begin quote from ____

Modern internet has generally moved on from forum culture and with that we need to modernise things like voting, although I’m not quite sure how we should go about doing that :stuck_out_tongue:

— End quote

I do not know either, but as far as I know my proposal is currently the most surefire way to do it.

10

— Begin quote from ____

Why do RVs who changed their citizenship nation not need to have their new nation not post on the RMB? Shouldn’t we get confirmation from that nation?

— End quote

The RMB post requirement is an initial deterrent to protect the application process. Once someone meets that post requirement, then it is assumed they are acting in good faith and thereby we shouldn’t hinder them if they wish to switch their nation.

TLDR; I didn’t add it in because I saw no point after the initial application.

— Begin quote from ____

…4.2.1- Telegrams shall still be required for changing of recorded Citizenship nations and/or WA nations, per Section III of this Act.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

Section 3.3, the relevant part of the law, makes no mention of telegramming a Registrar, merely to post on the RMB or any medium. The only mention of telegramming is in section 3.1, where they have to telegram to become a Registered Voter, not to transfer citizenship nations.

— End quote

… fixed.

— Begin quote from ____

Does this allow people in RMB to renounce their voter registration in the RMB?

— End quote

It should, but specified the RMB.

Also made some changes to 6.2 as well

11

Oh also:

Are you planning to allow the RMB to nominate and second candidates? Or si that locked behind forums?

12

Making the voting process more proximate to the RMB is a key issue and should even be a commitment towards what definitely is another section of our region. In the state this debate is in right now, I believe there’s few security concerns to address. And about Halley’s question, if there’s going to be a RMB vote, there should also be a RMB candidate nomination.

13

— Begin quote from ____

Making the voting process more proximate to the RMB is a key issue and should even be a commitment towards what definitely is another section of our region. In the state this debate is in right now, I believe there’s few security concerns to address. And about Halley’s question, if there’s going to be a RMB vote, there should also be a RMB candidate nomination.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

Oh also:

Are you planning to allow the RMB to nominate and second candidates? Or si that locked behind forums?

— End quote

At this point, it may be a good idea so I’ll add it in. As per Discord, teh only sensible thing to do would be allowing on-site campaigning as well, so I’ll add in a theroetical solution just to have something there but I’ll accept other suggestions.

@sammy re the security concerns, my points to Aga still stand. The only way we can provide security is by using a third party site, thereby rendering this entire proposal useless. Unless we can find an RMB-only security feature, we will have to go with the proposal as-is and compromise security slightly (note: not a lot as I told Aga), or not do this at all.

14

Made some changes to the act to allow for RMB nominations and RMB campaigning. Feedback appreciated.

15

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Making the voting process more proximate to the RMB is a key issue and should even be a commitment towards what definitely is another section of our region. In the state this debate is in right now, I believe there’s few security concerns to address. And about Halley’s question, if there’s going to be a RMB vote, there should also be a RMB candidate nomination.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

Oh also:

Are you planning to allow the RMB to nominate and second candidates? Or si that locked behind forums?

— End quote

At this point, it may be a good idea so I’ll add it in. As per Discord, teh only sensible thing to do would be allowing on-site campaigning as well, so I’ll add in a theroetical solution just to have something there but I’ll accept other suggestions.

@sammy re the security concerns, my points to Aga still stand. The only way we can provide security is by using a third party site, thereby rendering this entire proposal useless. Unless we can find an RMB-only security feature, we will have to go with the proposal as-is and compromise security slightly (note: not a lot as I told Aga), or not do this at all.

— End quote

I believe you misunderstood me a bit, since there’s little we can do towards security about this. I am 100% in your same path regarding security.

16

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Making the voting process more proximate to the RMB is a key issue and should even be a commitment towards what definitely is another section of our region. In the state this debate is in right now, I believe there’s few security concerns to address. And about Halley’s question, if there’s going to be a RMB vote, there should also be a RMB candidate nomination.

— End quote

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

Oh also:

Are you planning to allow the RMB to nominate and second candidates? Or si that locked behind forums?

— End quote

At this point, it may be a good idea so I’ll add it in. As per Discord, teh only sensible thing to do would be allowing on-site campaigning as well, so I’ll add in a theroetical solution just to have something there but I’ll accept other suggestions.

@sammy re the security concerns, my points to Aga still stand. The only way we can provide security is by using a third party site, thereby rendering this entire proposal useless. Unless we can find an RMB-only security feature, we will have to go with the proposal as-is and compromise security slightly (note: not a lot as I told Aga), or not do this at all.

I believe you misunderstood me a bit, since there’s little we can do towards security about this. I am 100% in your same path regarding security.

— End quote

Ohh ye im misunderstanding, mybad

Sent from my LM-Q730 using Tapatalk

17

— Begin quote from ____

Made some changes to the act to allow for RMB nominations and RMB campaigning. Feedback appreciated.

— End quote

I believe this brings much more clarity to what you proposed in Discord about it. I’m now more supportive of your ideas

18

made some changes to the campaigning section, and stopped mandating the viceroy record rmb nominations (they only have to record explicitly accepted/declined ones or the seconds of ones) to make the job slightly easier

19

I motion this to vote.

20

I second it

21

Acknowleded, [VOTE] RMB Voting Omnibus - The East Pacific - Tapatalk