WA Voting Policy

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Last night the Council of Five voted overwhelmingly to send the question of how TNP should decide my WA vote as Delegate to the Regional Assembly after I proposed a compromise policy of requiring disclosure of what other regions a voter is voting in on the WA resolution in question (with an exemption for undercover operations by TNP or our allies).

So, I come before you to ask for the Regional Assembly's preference. Several proposals already exist, but if the Regional Assembly comes up with something better, so much the better:

  1. The Traditional system: to vote on a WA Resolution in TNP you must have a WA in TNP or be a member of the NPA.
  2. The proposed compromise: voters on WA Resolutions who vote on the same resolution in other regions must disclose them, excluding regions where they have an undercover mission from TNP or an ally of TNP.
  3. The system during most of my first term: to vote on a WA Resolution in TNP you must have a WA in TNP or be a citizen on the forum (includes RA members).
  4. It has been suggested that one shift to a sole requirement of citizenship and/or post count on the forum

I will present my views on these ideas in a separate post.
 
I was previously strongly in favour of option #1 but recent discussions have made clear this would alienate to such an extent that the consequences would be intolerable and in the wake of that, the principle behind the policy would seem insignificant.

Since the voting rights of all WA nations are protected by NS in-game (each WA nation is always allowed one vote and no more than that) it is not strictly necessary for the delegate WA voting to mirror this. Although personally (in an ideal world) I would prefer a robust system that is equal in every possible way, I think this is currently not practical, and so instead I would favour a system for TNP WA delegate voting whereby all TNP forum members can vote, except for banned members. This would minimise any problem of exclusivity/descrimination and maximise the potential for activity (noting that most members who are currently entitled to vote do not).

I support proposal #2.
 
I believe that a disclosure requirement would be the best way forward. I see it as a satisfactory compromise which would discourage excessive multi-voting without keeping TNP Citizens from voting in TNP WA votes. I prefer it to an alternative compromise suggested earlier by MoWA Mahaj of requiring those who vote in TNP WA votes to not vote elsewhere.

I believe that through disclosure, we can culturally move to a better place as regards WA voting. We will reduce room for quiet outside interference and reduce room for apprehensive speculation. We will move on from the heated debate we are currently in with neither side marginalized. Disclosure alone means that community standards should govern our behavior, and I believe that is an appropriate path.

Council of Five meeting transcript
#tnp-cabinet:
[(time=1348185900)] <Eluvatar> I've called this meeting for some further discussion of the GA and SC resolution voting issue.
[(time=1348185900)] * Tim nods
[(time=1348185900)] <Eluvatar> When the change in WA voting policy was first raised toward the end of the previous Council term, the impression most of us had was that returning to the traditional policy was a common-sense kind of policy, that the region at large wanted.
[(time=1348185960)] * Tim does not agree
[(time=1348185960)] <Eluvatar> This has obviously turned out not to be the case.
[(time=1348185960)] <Tim> Times have changed.
[(time=1348186020)] <Eluvatar> I'm surprised you didn't see where I was going with what I was saying Tim.
[(time=1348186080)] <Tim> Eluvatar, my apologies. May you continue?
[(time=1348186080)] <Eluvatar> I'd like the Council to consider changing to allowing votes by all Citizens so long as they disclose all other regions where they have voted or will vote on the resolution in question.
[(time=1348186080)] <Romanoffia> Hmmm. All things considered, that would work.
[(time=1348186140)] <Eluvatar> (Obviously one would be allowed to update one's disclosure if one voted in a region one didn't originally plan on voting in)
[(time=1348186140)] <Scandigrad> I'm just wondering how we might reward people who keep their WA in this region, or serve our region's military.
[(time=1348186140)] <Unibot> Rewards should not be by punishing others who don't.
[(time=1348186200)] <Scandigrad> Because at this point, there's really no benefit to that. Perhaps we should consider some way to make it worth their while.
[(time=1348186200)] * Tim supports Eluvatar's idea
[(time=1348186200)] <Unibot> I don't see why Elu's plan is needed? Other than to, erm.. embarrass people? What's the point, Elu? Why would it embarrass people?
[(time=1348186260)] <Eluvatar> I'm surprised that one can oppose the disclosure rule.
[(time=1348186260)] <Eluvatar> Oh I forgot the exception I intended to include. WA votes while undercover in regions on a sanctioned mission from TNP or any of its allies would be exempted from disclosure under the amended policy.
[(time=1348186260)] <Romanoffia> That works.
[(time=1348186260)] <Unibot> Well it's just I don't know of any region that requires disclosure of where else they are voting.
[(time=1348186260)] * Tim can support this idea
[(time=1348186320)] <Eluvatar> We don't have to be like all other regions.
[(time=1348186320)] <Tim> Aye
[(time=1348186320)] <Unibot> There's a reason why other regions don't do it though, Elu.
[(time=1348186320)] <Eluvatar> We don't require disclosure when joining the RA; other regions do that, should we do that?
[(time=1348186320)] <Romanoffia> And we aren't like other regions.
[(time=1348186320)] <Unibot> They don't require it for voting because it's not necessary.
[(time=1348186320)] <Romanoffia> And how could it be enforced.
[(time=1348186320)] <Eluvatar> The enforcement is simple.
[(time=1348186380)] <Romanoffia> ?
[(time=1348186380)] <Eluvatar> Failure to disclose, when caught, is Fraud.
[(time=1348186380)] <Unibot> If I vote in ten regions, why is this relevant to TNP?
[(time=1348186380)] <Unibot> And furthermore
[(time=1348186380)] <Eluvatar> It's absolutely relevant.
[(time=1348186380)] <Unibot> No it is not.
[(time=1348186380)] <Romanoffia> Oh, I see.
[(time=1348186380)] <Unibot> And furthermore, what if the vote elsewhere is a secret ballot.
[(time=1348186380)] <Tim> ^
[(time=1348186380)] <Eluvatar> You don't have to say how you voted. Just that you did vote.
[(time=1348186380)] <Unibot> Ummm no
[(time=1348186380)] <Tim> Ex. Balder. How can you prove that they voted there or not? They do a Poll
[(time=1348186380)] <Unibot> In The East Pacific if I vote in a poll, it'll be 1-0 for quite some time.
[(time=1348186440)] <Eluvatar> It's difficult to prove that someone did vote in Balder I suppose, though possible
[(time=1348186440)] <Unibot> So you'll know how I voted there.
[(time=1348186440)] <Eluvatar> I think a certain degree of honesty can be hoped for.
[(time=1348186440)] <Tim> The idea has good meaning, but it's difficult to enforce.
[(time=1348186440)] <Tim> Honesty doesn't happen.
[(time=1348186440)] <Unibot> I don't see why it's relevant info, Elu.
[(time=1348186440)] <Eluvatar> Interesting.
[(time=1348186440)] <Unibot> I think it's info being brought to light to make the person feel bad. "Oh look Uni votes in ten regions" (Which I don't) "Whereas I'm a true TNP citizen, I vote only in TNP!" But other than this, the info doesn't seem to be very important.
[(time=1348186500)] <Tim> Indeed
[(time=1348186500)] <Eluvatar> That this would discourage voting across too many regions is part of the appeal to me.
[(time=1348186500)] <Tim> How so?
[(time=1348186560)] <Eluvatar> I believe in one man, one vote.
[(time=1348186560)] <Romanoffia> Another solution is for the Delegate to vote at the last minute and to vote the way the most WA nations in the region have already cast their votes.
[(time=1348186560)] <Eluvatar> That would greatly reduce TNP's influence in the WA.
[(time=1348186560)] <Tim> Very greatly
[(time=1348186560)] <Romanoffia> True.
[(time=1348186560)] <Eluvatar> Voting early is far, far more effective.
[(time=1348186560)] <Unibot> And we've flat out told you that TNP has no interest in discouraging voting across "too many regions" -- that's a personal beef of yours.
[(time=1348186560)] * Tim somewhat is a believer in one man, one vote
[(time=1348186560)] <Eluvatar> You do not get to arbiter what is objectively in TNP interests, Unibot. Neither, of course, do I.
[(time=1348186560)] <Unibot> And your beef with it has been infringing on our citizens' rights for about a week now.
[(time=1348186620)] <Unibot> Well then, perhaps this is better left for the RA to decide.
[(time=1348186620)] <Eluvatar> At this time the RA has made no decision on this matter.
[(time=1348186620)] <Unibot> That five individuals who all claim to be objective arbiters of the region's interests. And yet all five seem to have different opinions.
[(time=1348186620)] <Eluvatar> I'm afraid I just said that neither of us can claim that, Unibot.
[(time=1348186680)] <Unibot> Furthermore I think you want this information made available so you can gawk at people who vote in say three or four regions. And use that to reverse the policy later.
[(time=1348186680)] <Eluvatar> If any such policy change were to be instituted in future it'd be in the direction your superior, MoWA Mahaj suggested. I don't foresee supporting a change from a disclosure requirement to a residence requirement.
[(time=1348186800)] <Unibot> We already know there are people in the region who will vote in three or four regions. All you are going to do is use this information to publicly argue that the policy needs to be reverse with the shock and awe of a statistic we already know to be true now.
[(time=1348186800)] <Tim> Honestly, you'll have a lot of people doing it. Won't discourage it.
[(time=1348186860)] <Eluvatar> I think that the information being disclosed would serve TNP interests well.
[(time=1348186860)] <Unibot> Institutional memory doesn't run deep unfortunately and I think the collection of this data serves no purpose of TNP but a political strategic end of yours.
[(time=1348186860)] <Tim> How so? To be used as pointless campaign time dirt?
[(time=1348186860)] <Unibot> Exactly Tim.
[(time=1348186860)] <Tim> That's honestly all I can see coming from it
[(time=1348186860)] <Eluvatar> I'm surprised at how swiftly Tim shifted stance on this policy.
[(time=1348186860)] <Unibot> You have haven't grounded your argument, Elu. Why is it serving our interests? Because it's sneaky, Elu.
[(time=1348186920)] <Romanoffia> If done in a 'blind' fashion, it does give us a good idea of how much crossover we have between TNP and other regions.
[(time=1348186920)] <Unibot> We already know it's a lot.
[(time=1348186920)] <Eluvatar> It helps voters understand where votes are coming from. It helps inform the public.
[(time=1348186920)] <Romanoffia> But specifically how much is the question.
[(time=1348186920)] * Unibot rolls his eyes.
[(time=1348186920)] <Tim> Eluvatar, honestly all I've done is go less moderate on the issue
[(time=1348186920)] <Unibot> It's going to divide the electorate.
[(time=1348186920)] <Eluvatar> [(time=1348186200)] * Tim supports Eluvatar's idea
[(time=1348186980)] <Tim> Oh that
[(time=1348186980)] <Eluvatar> that was 12 minutes ago.
[(time=1348186980)] <Romanoffia> Let's be honest, does how a WA vote goes mean a hoot in terms of our regional security?
[(time=1348186980)] <Eluvatar> It definitely could with an SC vote.
[(time=1348186980)] <Romanoffia> How so?
[(time=1348186980)] <Tim> Well yeah, because I thought that was the only compromise I could see at the time. Doesn't mean I don't find it flawed.
[(time=1348186980)] <Eluvatar> If we voted for a resolution that offended an ally, that would jeopardize the alliance would it not?
[(time=1348187040)] <Romanoffia> Then we just don't vote for it.
[(time=1348187040)] <Eluvatar> You asked how a WA resolution could affect our security, I answered.
[(time=1348187040)] <Tim> I don't think our FA should play into our WA to that extent
[(time=1348187040)] <Romanoffia> How we votes might have an effect, the result of a vote is largely meaningless in terms of anything.
[(time=1348187100)] <Eluvatar> Cormac has posed a question in #tnp
[(time=1348187160)] <Romanoffia> Cormac has a good point.
[(time=1348187160)] <uni> <Unibot> Regionalists will see Open Cosmos voting one way.. well "I VOTE IN TNP AND ONLY IN TNP.. SO I WILL VOTE THE OPPOSITE WAY -- THE TRUE TNP WAY"
[(time=1348187160)] <uni> <Unibot> Whether this is a good thing or not.
[(time=1348187160)] <uni> That's what I posted before the net crash
[(time=1348187160)] <Eluvatar> So... you would like regionalists to be prevented from knowing such matters? Seems like a strong argument for the region endorsing cosmopolitanism.
[(time=1348187220)] <Romanoffia> Meh.
[(time=1348187220)] <uni> Yes, actually. Information that is conveyed to voters should be important information to help them decide how to vote.
[(time=1348187220)] <Tim> I think there is no point for the information. As I stated earlier, it seems that all it really does is give campaign dirt.
[(time=1348187220)] <Eluvatar> And the external associations of voters can be important information.
[(time=1348187220)] <uni> Arbitrary information like "how many regions elsewhere have they voted in" isn't anything but arbitrary information to descredit real and good opinions.
[(time=1348187280)] <Scandigrad> That doesn't even stop us now.
[(time=1348187280)] <uni> No more than being a racial minority is important information to airport personnel -- it's the same sort of arbitrariness.
[(time=1348187280)] <Eluvatar> Not how many, which ones.
[(time=1348187280)] <Eluvatar> .... So, multiregional members are ethnic minorities now?
[(time=1348187340)] <uni> You seem to treat them like they are, Elu.
[(time=1348187340)] * Romanoffia face palms
[(time=1348187340)] <Eluvatar> I treat them as people with dual citizenship.
[(time=1348187340)] <Scandigrad> It seems like we would be treating monoregional members as minorities if we institute rules like these.
[(time=1348187400)] <Unibot> I think questions at this time would act as though discussion is done on this issue alone.
[(time=1348187460)] <Unibot> By no means it is done, you have hardly explained how this info is anymore than a political tactic for you to get info that paints a "bad" picture of multi-citizens.
[(time=1348187520)] <Unibot> I motion that this entire issue should be left to the RA
[(time=1348187520)] <Unibot> With competing proposals brought forth
[(time=1348187520)] <Tim> I second
[(time=1348187520)] <Scandigrad> Actually, I'm going to have to agree with that.
[(time=1348187580)] <Eluvatar> [(time=1348186980)] <Cormac> Question for the cabinet, Eluvatar, if you're taking questions: How is this policy so important to TNP interests that we should punish someone who innocently forgets to post a region he/she voted in with a charge of Fraud?
[(time=1348187580)] <Eluvatar> I would answer this by saying that the definition of Fraud includes an intent requirement.
[(time=1348187580)] <Romanoffia> That it would.
[(time=1348187580)] <Scandigrad> I'd imagine an occasional slip of the mind would be only a minor offense.
[(time=1348187580)] <Eluvatar> It's up to the court system to adjudicate it properly, but I would expect that in a clear case of innocent mistake the Court would follow that appropriately.. --`10. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.`
[(time=1348187640)] <Scandigrad> But if it is a common thing, that's when issues arise
[(time=1348187640)] <Eluvatar> I highlight the word "intentional"
[(time=1348187640)] <Unibot> I think this is just a way to get multi-citizens treated as a criminals if they forget a region.
[(time=1348187640)] <Tim> Can be abused.
[(time=1348187640)] <Unibot> A way of creating red-tape they have to try to dodge to please people like you, Elu.
[(time=1348187640)] <Unibot> When this info wasn't relevant in the first place anyway.
[(time=1348187700)] <Eluvatar> It's amazing how all-or-nothing you're being here.
[(time=1348187700)] <Scandigrad> It's a trend.
[(time=1348187700)] <Romanoffia> We could just allow anyone legally deemed as a 'citizen' vote via PM/TG and have done with it.
[(time=1348187700)] <Eluvatar> The potential for piling in to influence TNP's WA vote is there.
[(time=1348187700)] <Romanoffia> True.
[(time=1348187760)] <Unibot> And what will you do about it?
[(time=1348187760)] <Eluvatar> Taking measures to at least see when it's happening is not an evil plot to make TNP fascist.
[(time=1348187760)] <Romanoffia> That assumes that the actual result of WA resolution has any real effect.
[(time=1348187760)] <Unibot> Elu -- the region has sternly opposed your policy, Elu.
[(time=1348187760)] <Eluvatar> Transparency is often an extremely powerful tool against corruption.
[(time=1348187760)] <Eluvatar> Let me be clear. When I opened this meeting I said that I was mistaken when I expected that the traditional policy was overwhelmingly supported.
[(time=1348187820)] <Unibot> Transparency of arbitrary information can also be powerful tool for increasing conformity, reducing privacy, civil rights and overall trying to enforce a common social order and stigmatize those who don't follow it.
[(time=1348187820)] <Unibot> So what if I also vote in a fascist region.
[(time=1348187820)] <Eluvatar> I do not believe however that there is overwhelming support for your position.
[(time=1348187940)] <Unibot> You believe that people are not concerned about their privacy and that this disclosure isn't meant to just blatantly discredit people or cause suspicion around them for arbitrary reasons.
[(time=1348187940)] <Eluvatar> And even if it were clear that a majority of TNP citizens oppose requiring TNP WA to vote on WA resolutions, it would not say what popular opinion would be regarding a disclosure rule.
[(time=1348188000)] <Unibot> Or any other red-tape law you can pull out of your ass to try to make enfranchisement more difficult for non-WA nations I presume, correct?
[(time=1348188000)] * Unibot whistles.
[(time=1348188000)] <Eluvatar> I don't think that voting on a resolution in a great number of regions is an arbitrary reason to pay close attention.
Click to expand...
 
I still fail to see how not allowing non-WA members to vote marginalizes them in any way. If they can't have their WA in TNP, endorsing the delegate or in the service of the NPA, then they can vote elsewhere. I don't see what is unfair about it.
 
Lady Morgana:
I still fail to see how not allowing non-WA members to vote marginalizes them in any way. If they can't have their WA in TNP, endorsing the delegate or in the service of the NPA, then they can vote elsewhere. I don't see what is unfair about it.
Click to expand...
Because you're discriminating against citizens in a way that no other position does.

Equality. Its not a hard concept.
 
Quite frankly, it's none of your business where I vote and who for, and asking for it goes beyond what I'm prepared to give you. This whole policy of yours smacks of small minded regionalism, at a time when our own NPA is more and more outgoing, along with the foreign policy of the region.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Because asking people to make a commitment to the region is just the worst.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean it's not like we've got ministers who don't have their WAs in the region... or justices... or deputy ministers...

Oh wait.
 
Mahaj:
Lady Morgana:
I still fail to see how not allowing non-WA members to vote marginalizes them in any way. If they can't have their WA in TNP, endorsing the delegate or in the service of the NPA, then they can vote elsewhere. I don't see what is unfair about it.
Click to expand...
Because you're discriminating against citizens in a way that no other position does.

Equality. Its not a hard concept.
Click to expand...
It's not discrimination. It's a legal policy and justified policy. They are not holding a position and no where does it say all nations get the right to vote on WA proposals.
 
If you get caught not disclosing and you did it on purpose you would be punished "in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court."
 
You know, for clarity's sake, Elu, a caveat should be added before all the choices you presented that says:

"In order to vote upon how the Delegate casts his vote on WA resolutions".
 
I do generally like Eluvatar's idea. It relies on the honesty of people. I don't think it can be argued that it is discriminatory, everyone is allowed to vote. You must simply disclose where you have voted.
We don't have conflict of interest disclosures at the time of receiving citizenship, or at the time of taking office. I think that simply disclosing where you have voted on that resolution is easy and practical.

Other ideas from discussions with other people:

1: Vote in TNP with or without WA but nowhere else policy. Obviously there is some people who vote in TNP because they cannot vote elsewhere. Earth being an example of this. One idea is that we allow voting to be open to all citizens, but discount their vote if they vote elsewhere. As obviously people who still have WA in TNP can still vote elsewhere, and this has been happening including by some of the most vocal supporters of this policy. This would also not limit those members of TNP who are actively involved in gameplay elsewhere. (though i'd love them all in the NPA ;_;)

2: Obviously there are some issues where if its a particularly tight resolution, every one could possibly pile in to tnp to vote on the resolution. This idea was suggested to me, and I'm not sure I like it completely. But that is that in such a case the Delegate could discount votes if he or she thinks that piling in is occuring.
 
I'm for option #3, because I think what we have here are several solutions desperately searching for a problem. I do not see a large number of people who aren't active in TNP voting on our WA resolutions, I don't see why voting elsewhere is a problem if one is making an active contribution here, I think the risk to civil liberties outweighs any benefits in each of these policies, and I haven't seen anyone coherently address these issues to my satisfaction.

Option #1 discriminates based on WA status and violates if not the letter then certainly the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

Option #2 would provide little benefit beyond campaign dirt and fodder to move toward Option #1, would be difficult to enforce and would leave people who innocently forget to disclose where they voted subject to criminal charges.

Option #4 -- which I wrongly proposed as an alternative to Option #1 -- would discriminate against those who do have a WA nation in the region but who aren't on the forum, despite their contribution to regional security.

There is no need for any of this besides attempting to enforce an outdated regionalist mindset on an increasingly cosmopolitan TNP at the expense of citizens' civil liberties and, not insignificantly, regional activity levels. I'm sure everyone has noticed that discussion on WA resolutions has died across the board and there are far fewer votes, as Unibot correctly predicted would be the case. That's just the beginning; overall activity will take a hit as well, especially if the WA voting policy leads to other regionalist policies.

Say no to discrimination, no to rolling back civil liberties, no to diminished regional activity, and no to these pointless and divisive regionalist policies.
 
It's been nearly 23 hours and we have seen very little discussion of this by the Regional Assembly. I would urge all members of the Regional Assembly who care about the WA voting policy to join this discussion before one of the proposals is put to a vote. It's only through a discussion that we will know which one should be brought to the voting floor.
 
To me, if you are a member of the RA, you should be able to vote.

If people wish to exclude members who have regional ties, then you should exclude them from the RA. can we agree that voting on WA resolutions is of less importance than voting for the delegate, speaker, being a member of the Co5?

If we agree with that, then curtailing RA members in good standing from voting on WA resolutions makes no sense if we do not curtail their votes on more important matters. In that light, I again would recommend that any member of the RA is permitted to vote on WA resolutions.
 
I think that the WA voting has also fallen short in the discussion as the Minister for WA affairs has not been posting his commentary on them.

I don't see disclosure as being an issue, and why would it be campaign fodder? It would be perfectly legal to vote in more than one region. It would just provide more transparency about where you are voting. I don't consider that to be discriminatory.
Some of our closest allies require conflict of interest disclosures, relating to disclosing the other regions and organizations that they are involved in. If disclosures of where we vote on WA resolutions, are a violation of our rights and discriminatory, perhaps we should consider a disclosure of where we are all involved in NS. It would be interesting to see the overlap between regions.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I think that the WA voting has also fallen short in the discussion as the Minister for WA affairs has not been posting his commentary on them.

I don't see disclosure as being an issue, and why would it be campaign fodder? It would be perfectly legal to vote in more than one region. It would just provide more transparency about where you are voting. I don't consider that to be discriminatory.
Some of our closest allies require conflict of interest disclosures, relating to disclosing the other regions and organizations that they are involved in. If disclosures of where we vote on WA resolutions, are a violation of our rights and discriminatory, perhaps we should consider a disclosure of where we are all involved in NS. It would be interesting to see the overlap between regions.
Click to expand...
In regard to declining WA discussion, that could be part of it -- but you can't deny that discussion dropped off significantly once this policy was implemented.

Disclosure would be campaign fodder because those who don't vote in other regions would use disclosures against those who do, making a regionalist argument that they're more dedicated to the region than their opponents just because they only vote here. The better question is what benefit disclosure will bring to the region, and particularly if that benefit is worth the difficulty in enforcement and the potential for criminal charges against those who innocently forget to disclose where they voted.

I'm also opposed to broader conflict of interest disclosures. Yes, some of our allies do have such disclosures; at least one of those allies also has no Bill of Rights and doesn't have the same social and political culture as TNP does, so it's like comparing apples and oranges. Just because a conflict of interest disclosure may be desirable in Osiris doesn't make it desirable in The North Pacific. Where else people are involved is their business and would only be used against them. All that should be relevant is contribution to TNP.
 
The Fiqh court has ruled on this matter, less than 24 hours after the issue was raised there.

Hear now the words of God:

The hearts of many mortals are venal and corrupt. They lack enlightenment and complain endlessly about their "Rights" and "respect". They view everything as a baby views a bauble; from voting rights on World Assembly Resolutions to the position of Deputy Speaker, they see it as theirs by right, should they desire it.

But they are not to blame for this immaturity. Rather, this attitude has been fostered in them by the so-called "bill of rights", which causes them to expect rights without responsibility, and gives them a spirit of entitlement rather than obligation and submission to God.

So here is the judgement of Flemingovia: Everyone should return to their homeland to vote. If their homeland is TNP, let them show it as an act of devotion and love by having their WA nation in the region. If their homeland is in another region, let them not expect to influence the WA votes of the delegate here.

But let everyone foster in their heart a spirit of devotion to Flemingovianism, so that their motives are pure and their hearts are clean. And let nobody say any more "I demand my rights" or "I demand respect", for in this they just show their lack of faith and grace.
 
Disclosure as an issue for campaign fodder would be up to the individual voters to decide if its an issue. There is no reason that people could not go and research what region individual political opponents vote in and use that to their advantage now, should they wish to. There will always be people who are more 'regionalist', if that's how they want to argue their campaigns I don't think there is much anyone could do to stop it. Limiting that could also be a restriction on freedom of speech. So I consider that argument to be moot.

The benefit of disclosure is clear. It allows us to assess the level of cross-overs of citizenship, and for the public to be fully aware of the extent to which people are voting on a certain resolution. It also allows for accountability, as right now people who are supporters of this policy have been voting elsewhere. Eluvatar and I discussed disclosures as a potential compromise, if we are prepared to come to the negotiation table on this issue, it would be nice to have that reciprocated.

I think it is clear that some people do oppose the policy of having a WA in TNP or NPA membership to vote on the WA resolutions. It is also obvious that there are people who support this policy instituted by the delegate. The supporters might be quieter, but they are certainly there and need to be considered as well.
 
I like #1. The WA is akin to a club. If you aren't a member, you don't get to vote. For those that cry "equality," allow me to introduce the concept of equity. Equity has more to do with fairness than does equality. Equity is the outcome based on what a nation has earned. Equality already exists in that every nation has an equal right to join the WA. A nation which has not joined the WA has not earned the right to vote in the WA. Equal opportunity does not always guarantee an equal outcome. In this case it is, however, an equitable outcome.
 
awwwww muuuuuuuummmmm, you are being so unfaaaaaaaaair. I wannnnnna vote in TNP. I wanna vote in every region. You don't care about me. You don't love me. I wish you were deeeeeeeead. You never treat me like a grown up. I wannnnnna vote. I wannnnnna.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I like #1. The WA is akin to a club. If you aren't a member, you don't get to vote. For those that cry "equality," allow me to introduce the concept of equity. Equity has more to do with fairness than does equality. Equity is the outcome based on what a nation has earned. Equality already exists in that every nation has an equal right to join the WA. A nation which has not joined the WA has not earned the right to vote in the WA. Equal opportunity does not always guarantee an equal outcome. In this case it is, however, an equitable outcome.
Click to expand...
GBM...can you make your argument in light of the comments I made earlier? I just feel your argument falls flat on its face, to put it bluntly.
 
punk d:
Great Bights Mum:
I like #1. The WA is akin to a club. If you aren't a member, you don't get to vote. For those that cry "equality," allow me to introduce the concept of equity. Equity has more to do with fairness than does equality. Equity is the outcome based on what a nation has earned. Equality already exists in that every nation has an equal right to join the WA. A nation which has not joined the WA has not earned the right to vote in the WA. Equal opportunity does not always guarantee an equal outcome. In this case it is, however, an equitable outcome.
Click to expand...
GBM...can you make your argument in light of the comments I made earlier? I just feel your argument falls flat on its face, to put it bluntly.
Click to expand...
It doesn't fall flat on its face. It's a perfectly valid argument. It has nothing to do with the RA. Your point was to do with voting rights by virtue of citizenship, participation in the region, etc. GBM's argument is based on the WA itself, overriding the status of a nation within the region.

Personally I am willing to accept that people put more on importance on their rights and freedoms than they do on WA equity. But to say that the argument for it falls flat on itself, strikes me as the wrong thing to be saying.
 
punk d:
To me, if you are a member of the RA, you should be able to vote.

If people wish to exclude members who have regional ties, then you should exclude them from the RA. can we agree that voting on WA resolutions is of less importance than voting for the delegate, speaker, being a member of the Co5?

If we agree with that, then curtailing RA members in good standing from voting on WA resolutions makes no sense if we do not curtail their votes on more important matters. In that light, I again would recommend that any member of the RA is permitted to vote on WA resolutions.
Click to expand...
^ Exactly this. I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about excluding people from voting in the WA. When compared to voting on who the next Delegate will be, constitutional amendments, and legal code, it's really very minor, isn't it? There's not really a point in not letting these people vote in WA votes if you're going to continue to allow them to "spread their influence" in more important legal votes!
 
mcmasterdonia:
Disclosure as an issue for campaign fodder would be up to the individual voters to decide if its an issue. There is no reason that people could not go and research what region individual political opponents vote in and use that to their advantage now, should they wish to. There will always be people who are more 'regionalist', if that's how they want to argue their campaigns I don't think there is much anyone could do to stop it. Limiting that could also be a restriction on freedom of speech. So I consider that argument to be moot.
Click to expand...
Of course candidates could do their own research and still use voting elsewhere against their opponents during elections, but I'd rather they had to do that research than having campaign dirt handed to them by government policy. And you haven't even addressed the other concern: People who innocently forget to disclose where they voted are going to be subject to criminal prosecution and potential conviction, which aside from being problematic from a civil rights perspective has the potential to waste the Court's time on somewhat frequent and always needless criminal cases.

mcmasterdonia:
The benefit of disclosure is clear. It allows us to assess the level of cross-overs of citizenship, and for the public to be fully aware of the extent to which people are voting on a certain resolution. It also allows for accountability, as right now people who are supporters of this policy have been voting elsewhere. Eluvatar and I discussed disclosures as a potential compromise, if we are prepared to come to the negotiation table on this issue, it would be nice to have that reciprocated.
Click to expand...
That benefit is only clear if one accepts that multiple citizenship or a lack of transparency in WA voting are problems, which I do not. As I have repeatedly said, I don't see a large number of people just coming here to vote on WA resolutions and doing nothing else -- unless and until that becomes an actual problem I have no interest in "solutions" to a problem that doesn't exist yet and may never exist.

I appreciate your willingness to negotiate, but unfortunately I have no interest in compromising when it comes to TNP citizens' civil rights. If we're going to limit citizens' rights or subject them to criminal prosecution we need to have a very compelling reason for doing so, and I'm not seeing it here.

mcmasterdonia:
I think it is clear that some people do oppose the policy of having a WA in TNP or NPA membership to vote on the WA resolutions. It is also obvious that there are people who support this policy instituted by the delegate. The supporters might be quieter, but they are certainly there and need to be considered as well.
Click to expand...
I disagree that those who are in favor of limiting other citizens' rights and needlessly subjecting them to criminal prosecution need to be considered. I like to be as inclusive as possible too, but you need lines that shouldn't be crossed and one of those lines for me (and the Liberty Party) is civil rights.
 
Chasmanthe:
punk d:
Great Bights Mum:
I like #1. The WA is akin to a club. If you aren't a member, you don't get to vote. For those that cry "equality," allow me to introduce the concept of equity. Equity has more to do with fairness than does equality. Equity is the outcome based on what a nation has earned. Equality already exists in that every nation has an equal right to join the WA. A nation which has not joined the WA has not earned the right to vote in the WA. Equal opportunity does not always guarantee an equal outcome. In this case it is, however, an equitable outcome.
Click to expand...
GBM...can you make your argument in light of the comments I made earlier? I just feel your argument falls flat on its face, to put it bluntly.
Click to expand...
It doesn't fall flat on its face. It's a perfectly valid argument. It has nothing to do with the RA. Your point was to do with voting rights by virtue of citizenship, participation in the region, etc. GBM's argument is based on the WA itself, overriding the status of a nation within the region.

Personally I am willing to accept that people put more on importance on their rights and freedoms than they do on WA equity. But to say that the argument for it falls flat on itself, strikes me as the wrong thing to be saying.
Click to expand...
The reason GBM's argument fails is because she's using game mechanics (TNP WA nation) as a means to qualify membership into the "TNP WA Resolution Voting Club (TWRVC)" as it were.. In a vacuum, if TNP so decided to do that in other areas as well, then her argument would be THE argument. If RA members' game mechanics decisions decided admission into the TWRVC then I'd agree wholeheartedly with her. If to be a member of the RA, you had to have a WA nation present, fine. If, in order to vote for the delegate of the region you had to be in the WA and in TNP, fine. However, this is not the case in this region and as such her argument fails because her argument would need to be consistently self-evident within TNP's laws and it most certainly is not.

And so my question to GBM remains...include my argument with your context and I don't see how your argument doesn't collapse upon itself.
 
As an informal practice, who participated in the process of showing the region's collective opinion, was workable and each Delegate was free to decide how they wished to determine how to cast that regional vote.

The problem here is that trying to force a specific mandated policy on a wide open political system like TNP's makes very little sense, and leads to all sort of inequities and unfairness.

The concern I have about the policy-making is its consequence of creating "favored" and "disfavored" among our citizens when we have already promised freedom of choice and protection from coercion as to WA matters. I won't support any choice that restricts freedom and liberty. There were sound reasons why those protections were included in the Bill of Rights in the first place, such as the use of such coercion and restrictions by autocratic Delegates here, and in other regions. There was a time when this wouldn't have raised any debate in TNP because the commitment to liberty and freedom was that widespread.

I oppose any attempt to reduce or restrict the freedom and liberties of TNP. When and if we amend the Bill of Rights it should be to expand those protections, not reduce them.

As to the choices outlined by Eluvatar, I disagree with all of them. All of them have the flaw of ultimately reducing our liberties and freedoms with respect to the individual choices as to the WA. There's one device that hasn't been mentioned, and could be a factor the Delegate could freely use == the in game tally of how votes in the region are being cast on the matter at vote in either chamber of the WA. That would provide some additional guidance for the Delegate's use and avoid any infringement of our freedoms and liberty.
 
punk d:
And so my question to GBM remains...include my argument with your context and I don't see how your argument doesn't collapse upon itself.
Click to expand...
I have consistently argued against the erosion of regionalism for quite some time. The fact that I've lost those arguments doesn't change the way I feel about it.

Also, I think Schnauzers suggestion is quite elegant.
 
Great Bights Mum:
punk d:
And so my question to GBM remains...include my argument with your context and I don't see how your argument doesn't collapse upon itself.
Click to expand...
I have consistently argued against the erosion of regionalism for quite some time. The fact that I've lost those arguments doesn't change the way I feel about it.

Also, I think Schnauzers suggestion is quite elegant.
Click to expand...
Alrighty then.

Well, then your argument for regionalism is consistent but applied in this case is very inconsistent with how TNP has positioned itself in the regional/cosmopolitan paradigm. But I guess I get it, it's like being pro-life and curtailing 3rd term abortions. If you cant win the overall argument try to win what you can.

Still, it seems that the culture of TNP allows for people to have multiple affiliations and still vote on things that matter in TNP. There are only a few cases where that's not possible such as standing for delegate.

As for Grosse's suggestion, were I still delegate in TWP that would be my preferred method. I still don't see how that addresses the issue of people who are not in the WA and TNP-only residents or people who are affiliated in many places from a favored/non-favored status. All nations in TNP - iirc the new voting method correctly - can vote for the delegate regardless of having a WA nation or not. If that is so, all nations should be able to cast votes in the WA for/against specific resolutions that the delegate will vote on. If there is a situation where the two aren't consistent, then by default i believe a favored/non-favored situation arises.

But GBM I get your position but I think your position is a minority viewpoint in TNP and until the RA takes a more regionalist approach, I believe all citizens should have the right to vote on WA matters.
 
Cormac Docherty:
I'm for option #3, because I think what we have here are several solutions desperately searching for a problem. I do not see a large number of people who aren't active in TNP voting on our WA resolutions, I don't see why voting elsewhere is a problem if one is making an active contribution here, I think the risk to civil liberties outweighs any benefits in each of these policies, and I haven't seen anyone coherently address these issues to my satisfaction.

Option #1 discriminates based on WA status and violates if not the letter then certainly the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

Option #2 would provide little benefit beyond campaign dirt and fodder to move toward Option #1, would be difficult to enforce and would leave people who innocently forget to disclose where they voted subject to criminal charges.

Option #4 -- which I wrongly proposed as an alternative to Option #1 -- would discriminate against those who do have a WA nation in the region but who aren't on the forum, despite their contribution to regional security.

There is no need for any of this besides attempting to enforce an outdated regionalist mindset on an increasingly cosmopolitan TNP at the expense of citizens' civil liberties and, not insignificantly, regional activity levels. I'm sure everyone has noticed that discussion on WA resolutions has died across the board and there are far fewer votes, as Unibot correctly predicted would be the case. That's just the beginning; overall activity will take a hit as well, especially if the WA voting policy leads to other regionalist policies.

Say no to discrimination, no to rolling back civil liberties, no to diminished regional activity, and no to these pointless and divisive regionalist policies.
Click to expand...
Cormac, stands as usual, as the voice of reason in the North Pacific.

There is no good justification for #2 other than to add some red-tape to "trip up those semi-citizen bastards" and then levy heavy penalties against them when they forget to list a region by accident, in addition to marginalizing them with unnecessary disclosure of often semi-private information. It furthermore will just be used as dirt to later campaign for Elu's "#1" choice (@Elu: adding your preferential choice as Number one was an uncharacteristic attempt at adding bias, Elu.. considering you're the guy who used to randomize ordering of candidates on polls).

Option #3 is the choice that aims to restore equality and bring back activity to the North Pacific. All the while straying away from the divisiveness of regionalist policies, which seek to distant marginalized subsections of the population away from voting power.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
As to the choices outlined by Eluvatar, I disagree with all of them. All of them have the flaw of ultimately reducing our liberties and freedoms with respect to the individual choices as to the WA. There's one device that hasn't been mentioned, and could be a factor the Delegate could freely use == the in game tally of how votes in the region are being cast on the matter at vote in either chamber of the WA. That would provide some additional guidance for the Delegate's use and avoid any infringement of our freedoms and liberty.
Click to expand...
I suggested a system where the first day of voting was decided by the MoWA's recommendation, the second and third day of voting was decided by the forum polls (open to all residents of the North Pacific), the fourth day could be decided by the Game Poll.

Alternatively the initial vote could be done as usual and have the final vote could be decided by which option, "for", "against", between the (1) MoWA, (2) forum vote and (3) game vote has at least two siding with it. With the game vote being a tie-breaker if the MoWA or the forum abstains.
 
punk d:
Great Bights Mum:
punk d:
And so my question to GBM remains...include my argument with your context and I don't see how your argument doesn't collapse upon itself.
Click to expand...
I have consistently argued against the erosion of regionalism for quite some time. The fact that I've lost those arguments doesn't change the way I feel about it.

Also, I think Schnauzers suggestion is quite elegant.
Click to expand...
Alrighty then.

Well, then your argument for regionalism is consistent but applied in this case is very inconsistent with how TNP has positioned itself in the regional/cosmopolitan paradigm. But I guess I get it, it's like being pro-life and curtailing 3rd term abortions. If you cant win the overall argument try to win what you can.

Still, it seems that the culture of TNP allows for people to have multiple affiliations and still vote on things that matter in TNP. There are only a few cases where that's not possible such as standing for delegate.

As for Grosse's suggestion, were I still delegate in TWP that would be my preferred method. I still don't see how that addresses the issue of people who are not in the WA and TNP-only residents or people who are affiliated in many places from a favored/non-favored status. All nations in TNP - iirc the new voting method correctly - can vote for the delegate regardless of having a WA nation or not. If that is so, all nations should be able to cast votes in the WA for/against specific resolutions that the delegate will vote on. If there is a situation where the two aren't consistent, then by default i believe a favored/non-favored situation arises.

But GBM I get your position but I think your position is a minority viewpoint in TNP and until the RA takes a more regionalist approach, I believe all citizens should have the right to vote on WA matters.
Click to expand...
@punk d
All the viewpoints are minority viewpoints so what's your point?

Also you don't seem to see that there is a qualitative difference between the WA resolution voting and the other kinds of voting. WA resolutions are only binding on WA members. That's where the club aspect comes into it. To portray GBM's argument as pure regionalism seems simplistic, it was not based on the region itself and the virtues of regionalism. My interpretation of it is not seeking to favour some The North Pacific citizens over others, in restricting WA voting to WA nations.


unibot:
Alternatively the initial vote could be done as usual and have the final vote could be decided by which option, "for", "against", between the (1) MoWA, (2) forum vote and (3) game vote has at least two siding with it. With the game vote being a tie-breaker if the MoWA or the forum abstains.
Click to expand...
@unibot
How about like an electoral college? I wanted to suggest that yesterday but I thought it would be taken as a joke.
 
unibot:
Grosseschnauzer:
As to the choices outlined by Eluvatar, I disagree with all of them. All of them have the flaw of ultimately reducing our liberties and freedoms with respect to the individual choices as to the WA. There's one device that hasn't been mentioned, and could be a factor the Delegate could freely use == the in game tally of how votes in the region are being cast on the matter at vote in either chamber of the WA. That would provide some additional guidance for the Delegate's use and avoid any infringement of our freedoms and liberty.
Click to expand...
I suggested a system where the first day of voting was decided by the MoWA's recommendation, the second and third day of voting was decided by the forum polls (open to all residents of the North Pacific), the fourth day could be decided by the Game Poll.

Alternatively the initial vote could be done as usual and have the final vote could be decided by which option, "for", "against", between the (1) MoWA, (2) forum vote and (3) game vote has at least two siding with it. With the game vote being a tie-breaker if the MoWA or the forum abstains.
Click to expand...
That would still suffer from the defect of being an imposed system, and what I am saying that in order to avoid infringment of the rights and liberties of TNP'ers, there should not be any imposed mandatory system.

It is the imposition of any system on the matter that creates the restriction on the liberties and rights of TNP.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
unibot:
Grosseschnauzer:
As to the choices outlined by Eluvatar, I disagree with all of them. All of them have the flaw of ultimately reducing our liberties and freedoms with respect to the individual choices as to the WA. There's one device that hasn't been mentioned, and could be a factor the Delegate could freely use == the in game tally of how votes in the region are being cast on the matter at vote in either chamber of the WA. That would provide some additional guidance for the Delegate's use and avoid any infringement of our freedoms and liberty.
Click to expand...
I suggested a system where the first day of voting was decided by the MoWA's recommendation, the second and third day of voting was decided by the forum polls (open to all residents of the North Pacific), the fourth day could be decided by the Game Poll.

Alternatively the initial vote could be done as usual and have the final vote could be decided by which option, "for", "against", between the (1) MoWA, (2) forum vote and (3) game vote has at least two siding with it. With the game vote being a tie-breaker if the MoWA or the forum abstains.
Click to expand...
That would still suffer from the defect of being an imposed system, and what I am saying that in order to avoid infringment of the rights and liberties of TNP'ers, there should not be any imposed mandatory system.

It is the imposition of any system on the matter that creates the restriction on the liberties and rights of TNP.
Click to expand...
The latter proposed option allows you to choose between the forum vote or the game-side, Grosse.
 
How about "Anyone can lobby the delegate, who is expected to listen to their opinions. But the final decision is the delegate's. If people disagree, vote someone else in next time."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top