On the WA Voting Policy[Archived]

Cove

Cove

TNPer
May I ask why non-WA members who are not serving in the NPA's service are being allowed to vote on WA resolutions?
 
Last night the Council voted to keep the permissive policy.

Eluvatar and mcmasterdonia voted to make it more restrictive; Unibot voting for Mahaj, Tim, and Romanoffia voted against changing it.
 
Eluvatar:
Eluvatar and mcmasterdonia voted to make it more restrictive; Unibot voting for Mahaj, Tim, and Romanoffia voted against changing it.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that makes no sense with the "Unibot voting for" in there..
 
Earth:
Eluvatar:
Eluvatar and mcmasterdonia voted to make it more restrictive; Unibot voting for Mahaj, Tim, and Romanoffia voted against changing it.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that makes no sense with the "Unibot voting for" in there..
Click to expand...
Mahaj was not able to stay for the entire Cabinet Meeting. Since Unibot is Mahaj's Deputy, he voted in Place of Mahaj.
 
I do think that this policy needs to change. WA in TNP or NPA service. It doesn't make sense to me to have non-wa's influencing how our delegate votes.
 
At the current time, we'd have a hard time verifying who has WAs in TNP or are on service with the NPA or other government service.

I have discussed with Eluvatar the addition of an additional item in the user account profile for the listing of one's WA nation, similar to the current listing for one's TNP nation. Since that is voluntary, and updating of it is likewise voluntary it won't totally solve the matter of verification of a WA nation, but since the RA list no linger includes the WA nation, it provides something to be used voluntarily.
 
There is a simple reason why Tim, Unibot and myself argued for the current policy to remain. Fundamentally we all agreed that having as many people as possible participating in TNP is a good thing, and that imposing new barriers to participation would only lead to reduced activity. The more people active in the WA area, debating the motions and expressing their opinion the better. The best way to guarantee that is to have an open voting policy.
 
The best way to guarantee that certain people have a double vote on WA resolutions is to allow that to continue.

It also means that to an extent we become a battleground, get everyone you know to go and vote in TNP so we can get this resolution to pass or fail.
 
When you join the WA, you have to take the bitter with the sweet. Sometimes I do not like the effect a resolution may have on my nation. But non-WA nations can vote here and not have any repercussions at all. On a very basic level, it is unfair.

To address the activity issue, there is nothing prohibiting any forum member from engaging in the debate itself. Indeed, I used to invite the authors or others with a particular interest in a resolution to come here and discuss it. Should we let them know that now they can park a puppet here and vote as well?

Finally, as Schnauzers pointed out, there would be a challenge in verifying eligibility. I agree, and I am firmly opposed to making more work. May I suggest the honor system? I know, it sounds out-dated, but I feel nations can be trusted to respect the rules in this matter.
 
I've gone ahead and added an optional profile field to list one's WA nation in their profile that would be visible in the sidebar in one's forum posts.
 
I agree that the policy should be more restrictive, but I don't necessarily agree that the criteria should only be having a WA nation in TNP or service in the NPA. There are other ways to be active in the region and I don't think those who provide meaningful activity should be discriminated against by disallowing them to vote on WA resolutions. On the other hand, I see the problem of letting people just park puppets here so they can make TNP a WA battleground.

Maybe we should implement some kind of post count requirement based on how long someone has been a citizen? So, for example, if they've been a citizen for a month they should have, say, 50 posts, 2 months 100 posts, etc. (I'm not saying those should be the numbers, just giving an example). We could exempt those with WAs and those in the NPA from the post count requirement.
 
I may not be clear on just who it is that would be discriminated against. Is it the player who has his main nation elsewhere? If so, he can cast his vote in that region. Is it the player who has no WA nation at all? In that case, he is should be not entitled to a vote, as he is not a member. Am I missing someone?
 
Great Bights Mum:
I may not be clear on just who it is that would be discriminated against. Is it the player who has his main nation elsewhere? If so, he can cast his vote in that region. Is it the player who has no WA nation at all? In that case, he is should be not entitled to a vote, as he is not a member. Am I missing someone?
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Great Bights Mum:
To address the activity issue, there is nothing prohibiting any forum member from engaging in the debate itself. Indeed, I used to invite the authors or others with a particular interest in a resolution to come here and discuss it. Should we let them know that now they can park a puppet here and vote as well?
Click to expand...
The activity issue as simple: if people cannot vote, they have no incentive to participate in a discussion thread. Not everyone is an author, so only one or two foreigners or Non-WA TNPers, has that much stake in the resolution to be motivated to post.

If we apply the same red-tape and restrictions to voting as The Pacific and The East Pacific -- we will be as dead in discussion as The Pacific and The East Pacific. Francoist thought is great for appeasing those, like you or McM who would GAIN in capital if other TNPers had no voice in the WA, frankly but it usually discourages participation and activity.

Even WA TNPers,sometimes only get involved in discussion threads in the WA, because others are -- with others not, they might not even participate.
 
I don't think that is the case. I think their discussions are dead because of how much less overall activity they have, not because fewer people can vote.
 
Eluvatar:
I don't think that is the case. I think their discussions are dead because of how much less overall activity they have, not because fewer people can vote.
Click to expand...
Opportunity for Participation is always correlated with Activity -- because Activity is Participation. The Pacific, especially, is a perfect example where anything we as a region promote opportunities for participation, they do not.

We hold elections frequently, they do not.

We allow non-WA RA members to serve in government positions, they do not.

We hold elections even among non-WA members that aren't on the forum, -laughs- over their dead bodies.

We have an active army that deploys regularly, they do not.

Etc.

We need to stop thinking of each sector of a region as not being connected.. we think in these ways because we assign government officials to these neat little areas but they're hardly isolated sectors -- that's completely false and backward in theory. Everything, even things we wouldn't normally consider connected, are connected in a region. A region gathers it's strength and activity from a military-industrial-political complex -- if the amount of opportunities and people who can participate in our politics is down, this affects how many soldiers there are, since people come for the politics and stay for the army often or the cultural activities which I would call a region's industry along with laborious activities (recruitment) which in turn often have to be steady for the whole military-industrial-political to have its fuel (new people).

You reduce how many people can participate in the WA here, you reduce participation in the WA here in general and it has the same effect as McM declaring all NPA soldiers must have their main nation in The North Pacific -- patriotic, sure, but at the end of the day, that hurts us more than help us. The difference is, we usually see voting in the WA as a privelege that can be exploited whereas military contributions are duties that are beyond the call of duty -- but in reality, both sectors, the WA and the Military need high participation rates and open and relatively lax policies to sustain growth and development because voting in our discussion threads *is* a contribution to the region, plus people who come to vote and discuss often come for that and stay for other stuff, so a weaker, less inclusive WA sector is a sign of an impending imbalance in the military-industrial-political complex that actually ends up hurting the whole region -- the RA's activity, orientation services and immigration, military and cultural activities .. you name it!

I might be sounding too fearmonger-y, but what I'm trying to say is, WA Affairs is important to a region -- it's often something that attracts smart people to a region and then we keep them here by being interesting in other areas too. The notion of us being "exploited" is blown out of proportion, we're being liberal and in return, receiving it back in the form of activity and participation all across the region. You can't do it the other way around -- you can't expect full commitment to a region right off the bat... it hasn't worked in any other feeder or sinker well and it only works on singular individuals who, I'm sure, will proudly admit they fully committed to The North Pacific right away.. but if we design our regional policies to accomidate them and deter everyone else, we're shooting ourselves in the foot with an overly idealistic (perhaps stubborn?) model for regional participation. We've gotten this activity by opening doors and being liberal and approachable, so we should continue this trend, not switch to a philosophy of exclusiveness.
 
If you get to vote twice - once here and once wherever your main nation is, then all of us who keep our main nations here are being shortchanged. We are being penalized for staying here, because we only get the one vote that Max intended.

In that case, no one (aside from the Delegate) actually SHOULD stay here. Let's just all move along to another part of the Pacific, so everyone can double his vote. And while we're at it, we could have the MIIA target the 3000+ non-WA nations in the region so they can vote too. It's an unprecedented opportunity for participation. Why, just think of the activity!

(Seriously though, I'm not moving anywhere else. I love you guys.)
 
Great Bights Mum:
If you get to vote twice - once here and once wherever your main nation is, then all of us who keep our main nations here are being shortchanged. We are being penalized for staying here, because we only get the one vote that Max intended.

In that case, no one (aside from the Delegate) actually SHOULD stay here. Let's just all move along to another part of the Pacific, so everyone can double his vote. And while we're at it, we could have the MIIA target the 3000+ non-WA nations in the region so they can vote too. It's an unprecedented opportunity for participation. Why, just think of the activity!

(Seriously though, I'm not moving anywhere else. I love you guys.)
Click to expand...
Great Bights Mum meet the Great Slippery Slope. :)

Max did intend for us to have one vote and we do have one vote. That's the vote we cast in the actual WA.

Max also intended for regions to have one regional vote. He did not necessarily intend for -us- as individuals to have that vote, since delegates could just vote how they like for example and the endorsement system does not necessarily mean the delegate reflects the will of WA members purely, because usually delegate elections are done offsite where non-WAs can vote.

Max left regions to decide how their regions will vote -- delegates may include WA members or it may include non-WA members. One could argue, a regional vote only among WA members doesn't democratically reflect the region's will, it only reflects the WA's community will within the region. I think the latter is essential, since otherwise there is really no point to the delegate having a vote in a democratic region other than to copy the voting results already occurring in the region -- by allowing the region vote to be a collision of the true -regional- will, you sometimes will get variance in the regional will, discussion and debate.

Max also left regions to decide their citizenship and immigration policies. When are you a citizen? What's the needed demonstration of loyalty? In some regions, participation in the region often requires great demonstrations of loyalty to one's region -- in the North Pacific, however, we require the signing of an oath and likewise, our Bill of Rights protects us from discrimination on the basis of WA status for government positions. This is, of course, meant to be a spit in the face of francosist thought, no doubt. But there still will always be extrajudicial, popular sentiments on how citizens should be identified as either "true" TNPers or "not so true" -- popular discrimination like these, I find, occur the most in regions with laxer immigration policies since the public seems to find the need to fill in what they feel the law doesn't cover instead of accepting every legal citizen as a true citizen.

Also, you're not being penalized for having your main here. Ask Mcm here, who is a citizen of (three?) several feeders and sinkers. He can vote in all of them and his main nation is in The North Pacific. He could probably increase that to five or six feeders if he wanted to. There's only two feeders who require WA status to vote and the reality is.. this doesn't cause people to join those regions with their mains.. it causes them not to get involved, period -- that's why, as I was explaining although you ignored it, those regions are the most inactive especially in the WA.
 
Also, you're not being penalized for having your main here. Ask Mcm here, who is a citizen of (three?) several feeders and sinkers. He can vote in all of them and his main nation is in The North Pacific. He could probably increase that to five or six feeders if he wanted to. There's only two feeders who require WA status to vote and the reality is.. this doesn't cause people to join those regions with their mains.. it causes them not to get involved, period -- that's why, as I was explaining although you ignored it, those regions are the most inactive especially in the WA.
Click to expand...

As much as I admire and find it deeply heart warming that you feel the need to mention me and bring me up in almost every debate. I find my citizenship status to be irrelevant here. I've simply came to think that it is best if we vote in the region where our WA nation is located (unless NPA and deployed elsewhere). It means that the WA nations in TNP are the ones that help sway how the Delegate votes. Others are welcome to participate in the debates and discussion surrounding it. I don't consider it to be pro-francoist thought, nor do I consider it to be discriminatory.

Furthermore the region for inactivity in those regions is highly likely to be due to other factors, the fact that the delegate only accepts WA members voting on WA resolutions would be a very minor contribution to that.
 
Others are welcome to participate in the debates and discussion surrounding it
Click to expand...

They are welcomed, by no longer having a vote?

Furthermore the region for inactivity in those regions is highly likely to be due to other factors, the fact that the delegate only accepts WA members voting on WA resolutions would be a very minor contribution to that.
Click to expand...

It would be the main reason why little more than one or two people vote on resolutions in these regions and it would contribute to the region's overall inactivity, since, as I've explained, the WA draws in outsiders to come join our region and eventually get involved.

I've simply came to think that it is best if we vote in the region where our WA nation is located (unless NPA and deployed elsewhere). It means that the WA nations in TNP are the ones that help sway how the Delegate votes.
Click to expand...

I believe TNPers should sway TNP Delegate.

All WA Nations already have a vote for themselves as it is. TNPers have a stake in it, WA or not; this is how The North Pacific, their region, is voting in an interregional organization which -can- affect them in the General Assembly by affecting their WA neighbors in the General Assembly and moreover, can have political consequences for the entire region in both the General Assembly and the Security Council. Especially because any vote can have The North Pacific perceived differently internationally (more libertarian, more authoritarian, more defender, more raider etc.).

As much as I admire and find it deeply heart warming that you feel the need to mention me and bring me up in almost every debate. I find my citizenship status to be irrelevant here.
Click to expand...

Only a sicko would find be outed as a hypocrite, "deeply heart warming". *shakes his head slowly in genuine disgust*

I don't consider it to be pro-francoist thought, nor do I consider it to be discriminatory.
Click to expand...

It is by definition, "discriminatory" -- you classify a group of people into two groups of nations (WA and Non-WA) and then give more rights to them. You simple believe this discrimination to be "fair", whereas I believe it to be "unwise" and "unfair".

And it is more certainly a principle of francoist thought -- that residents are conferred WA voting rights when they are WA members in the region. Because Francoism always required larger demonstrations of commitment and loyalty to the region for power in the region. This is why one cannot be a government official in the Pacific without WA status, for example -- something our constitutional fathers especially sought to make sure didn't happen here when they penned the Bill of Rights.
 
As usual, Unibot has made some cogent and compelling arguments. I do understand where he is coming from and the merits of his position. I, however, remain unconvinced.

On a related note, The Salty Dogs of Great Bights Mum, despite selecting issues based on conservative fiscal policies, has an income tax rate of 70%. How could this have happened?
 
Great Bights Mum:
I may not be clear on just who it is that would be discriminated against. Is it the player who has his main nation elsewhere? If so, he can cast his vote in that region. Is it the player who has no WA nation at all? In that case, he is should be not entitled to a vote, as he is not a member. Am I missing someone?
Click to expand...
:agree: too

I would not presume to go on to the South Pacific forum and influencing the casting of their WA vote. So why should a South Pacific nation presume to do that here?

I would make it: Anyone can seek to persuade, but to vote here you need to have your WA nation here.
 
For people who like to influence the results (for example in SC), every way it's possible, the current system is very beneficial :P
Just saying, I still keep my WA nation here, while I could always move it shamelessly somewhere else xd
 
Unibot:
our Bill of Rights protects us from discrimination on the basis of WA status for government positions.
Click to expand...
Speaking of the Bill of Rights, it also states:

Bill of Rights:
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the World Assembly shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...

If the Delegate's WA vote counts as a 'governmental authority', which I believe it may very well do, then limiting participation in the deliberation on how the delegate should vote would breach the Bill of Rights and therefore be illegal.
 
Unibot:
I believe TNPers should sway TNP Delegate.

All WA Nations already have a vote for themselves as it is. TNPers have a stake in it, WA or not; this is how The North Pacific, their region, is voting in an interregional organization which -can- affect them in the General Assembly by affecting their WA neighbors in the General Assembly and moreover, can have political consequences for the entire region in both the General Assembly and the Security Council. Especially because any vote can have The North Pacific perceived differently internationally (more libertarian, more authoritarian, more defender, more raider etc.).
Click to expand...
This.

And actually, some WAers don't get a vote anyways. For instance, my WA is (clearly) in Osiris but I don't personally vote in the discussions because I don't want to influence others in that way, and it just feels wrong. Tis why I usually do vote here or in TRR instead. I'm an anomaly, though. :P
 
[admin hat] I'm not going to issue any warnings for now, but please watch how you refer to others in your discussions of this topic. Labels can be a dangerous thing.[/admin hat]
 
Romanoffia having considered the matter, Romanoffia voted to change the WA voting policy. The council has voted to require a TNP WA or NPA membership to vote on WA resolutions.
 
Oh. So that thing about not discriminating that was mentioned earlier was determined to be irrelevant?
 
Eluvatar:
Romanoffia having considered the matter, Romanoffia voted to change the WA voting policy. The council has voted to require a TNP WA or NPA membership to vote on WA resolutions.
Click to expand...
Breaks the Bill of Rights.

Y so tyranny.
 
It's my understanding that the Council of Five has adopted a new WA voting policy. Given that the previous policy impacted whether certain people could vote and impacted the way others voted (i.e., abstaining in protest), could the Delegate elaborate upon any policy changes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top