External Influence Reforms

As most of you know, when Eluvatar and Mcmasterdonia proposed and the then-Council of Five approved a WA voting policy that required a WA nation in the region or NPA service to vote on WA resolutions I was vehemently opposed to it. We later reached a compromise that resulted in the current WA voting policy. I'm still opposed to the earlier proposal because I think it's unfair to those who make a significant contribution here but have their WA nations elsewhere, but in light of recent events I do see the need for reforms to curb external influence.

I propose the following reforms and would like for the RA to have a civil discussion and debate about how we should move forward:

1. I propose retaining Section 6.7 of the Legal Code, but I would advise the Delegate to alter the executive directive that governs WA voting in favor of something more stringent. My proposal:

a) Forum voting on WA resolutions should be restricted to members of the Regional Assembly;

b) The votes of the region's WA nations should be factored into the Delegate's final vote, without regard to whether or not they are involved on the forum;

c) If RA members vote here they may only vote here, and if they are discovered to have voted elsewhere their vote should be automatically discounted. Repeat instances of voting here and elsewhere would result in indefinite disqualification from voting on WA resolutions in TNP. This policy wouldn't completely solve the problem of external influence on our WA voting, but it would at least ensure that those voting here care enough about TNP to only vote here and that we aren't just one region out of nine on their rounds.

2. I propose omnibus legislation that would do two things:

a) Allow the Regional Assembly to expel members, particularly for inactivity;

b) Allow any member of the Regional Assembly to object to an RA application, at which time the application will be put on hold until it can be voted on by the entire Regional Assembly.

Discussion is welcome. I haven't written any legislation on any of this yet because I would like us to discuss these ideas and potential alternatives before we even get down to actual legislating. I do think these are issues that need addressed not only here but in most GCRs, though, and I think this is a discussion we should have sooner rather than later in light of recent events.

You say "in light of recent events". What recent events have prompted this move?

flemingovia:

You say "in light of recent events". What recent events have prompted this move?

Click to expand...

I was trying to be polite and there have also been non-recent events that have indicated this is a problem. But specifically, I'm referring to the number of voters we had on Condemn The United Defenders League who also voted in other regions -- some of whom were UDL members and some of whom were not -- and quite a few of whom are not typically very active here.

a) Forum voting on WA resolutions should be restricted to members of the Regional Assembly;

Click to expand...

That is fine - I think it is RA members and Citizens presently anyway, and citizens are really just RA members without a vote in the RA. They go through the same security checks and application.

b) The votes of the region's WA nations should be factored into the Delegate's final vote, without regard to whether or not they are involved on the forum;

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure about this, a lot of uneducated voters just vote by title, which means you get such stupidity as that which passed the recent "Rights of the Disabled" - which does the opposite of its title, really.

c) If RA members vote here they may only vote here, and if they are discovered to have voted elsewhere their vote should be automatically discounted. Repeat instances of voting here and elsewhere would result in indefinite disqualification from voting on WA resolutions in TNP. This policy wouldn't completely solve the problem of external influence on our WA voting, but it would at least ensure that those voting here care enough about TNP to only vote here and that we aren't just one region out of nine on their rounds.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Couple of problems here - a) How do you even find out if people have voted or not unless you have a spy in every region with a WA Vote? Some if not a lot of regions hide their WA votes from guests and even forum members and ambassadors. b) I personally feel this is very restricting on people who have an obligation to vote else where - such as heads of state in UCRs. c) Where do you draw the line? We already have a problem right now with a voter being warned for not disclosing a "vote" in another region, when all they did was make a single comment stating that a point I made was valid and "Also, like the snowflakes! Wheee!" (referring to the falling snow flake effect presently running on the Nysan forums). Therefore I can see even further abuse of the system taking place here; do you restrict only voting or do you also warn them for even participating in debate without formally voting?

2. I propose omnibus legislation that would do two things:

a) Allow the Regional Assembly to expel members, particularly for inactivity;

b) Allow any member of the Regional Assembly to object to an RA application, at which time the application will be put on hold until it can be voted on by the entire Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

I personally feel we don't need a). RA members are already removed for inactivity as it is (namely, not logging in to the forums for 30 days or CTEing their TNP nation). The only thing I could suggest is perhaps a) reinstating the requirement for people to vote on laws to retain their membership or b) shortening the 30 days to 20 but making an exception for notices of absence given to the Speaker.

I will vehemently oppose any change that allows the Regional Assembly to vote on its own membership.

Eluvatar:

I will vehemently oppose any change that allows the Regional Assembly to vote on its own membership.

Click to expand...

I agree with this to an extent. However, we are a community, and with that we should be able to have some say in who we allow into this community. Forum moderation does that a bit, but otherwise there is no mechanism to reject people from our community, even if they have a history of innappropriate behaviour elsewhere, unless that behaviour amounts to forum destruction.

I need to do some catching up on the WA vote debate etc regarding the SC resolution. However I have seen in other regions, Delegates not counting the votes of certain individuals when a proposal as controversial as this comes up to vote. I believe such an option could have been taken here. For this particular resolution it may have been appropriate to have denied the right to vote in multiple regions for this vote. i.e. to prevent vote stacking. Again, not sure how effective this would be.

My opinion is the regional WA vote should be decided by those that are TNP WA nations at the time of the vote. I held this opinion most strongly at the point just before I joined the WA, and agreed with Elu and McM in principle.

The problem with implementing a policy to enforce this is it can create the wrong impression. It can be used to prevent external forces from influencing the outcome. I seriously believe we should not be stigmatising those people who care enough about the vote to try and sway it. If you introduce rules they are uncomfortable with there will be backlash. Sometimes leadership is about making unpopular decisions like that but this is where I disagree with Elu and McM: we should be encouraging non-citizens to discuss resolutions at vote on our forum even if that's all they do. To suggest they might be trying to influence the outcome... that is too negative, we shouldn't put them off.

So now I think the solution would be a compromise that includes different criteria. We need a system that respects people of all situations: citizen, non-citizen, assembly member, non-assembly member, WA member, non-WA member, TNP resident, non-TNP resident. Count the in-game WA votes, and then factor in the forum votes. A vote from each forum member, and then additional votes for them if they hold citizenship, membership in the RA, or a nation currently in TNP. There is currently a rule that the cabinet can override the vote, so you could even factor the cabinet into this system, it includes everybody.

I will object vehemently to any proposal that forces me to choose between TSP and TNP. I've no doubt that Cormac has good intentions, but a knee jerk reaction is the last thing we need. My WA is at present in the service of TSP; this does not mean I am less loyal to TNP than anyone else here, simply that my WA is not available. The idea that I should be reduced to a second class citizen in TNP unless I, in effect, abandon TSP is abhorrent to me.

Belschaft:

I will object vehemently to any proposal that forces me to choose between TSP and TNP. I've no doubt that Cormac has good intentions, but a knee jerk reaction is the last thing we need. My WA is at present in the service of TSP; this does not mean I am less loyal to TNP than anyone else here, simply that my WA is not available. The idea that I should be reduced to a second class citizen in TNP unless I, in effect, abandon TSP is abhorrent to me.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure anybody is proposing what you're vehemently objecting to...

I believe what Cormac is suggesting is that the vote be opened to all RA members, however if you vote here, you can only vote here on WA resolutions, if you want your vote to count.

Which forces me to choose between TSP and TNP....

In WA resolution voting...

Belschaft:

Which forces me to choose between TSP and TNP....

Click to expand...

Well I can see how that would be a problem for you if you want to vote in both regions. What if you alternated between them?

Not a fan of restricting RA members voting on WA resolutions. Requirement = RA membership to vote on WA resolutions. No more, no less.

Now, don't get me wrong: I dislike the prospect of organizations and lobbyists trying to influence WA votes, but do we seriously need this witch hunt of sorts? I dislike the current policy, however it's acceptable. But this proposal is just getting out of hand. This just makes more work for the Minister of the World Assembly and it forces people to choose which region they want to vote in. Why does this matter so much to you?

[me]plans to count the number of times that the term "witch hunt" appears in this discussion.

A mean old man:

A mean old man plans to count the number of times that the term "witch hunt" appears in this discussion.

Click to expand...

I personally do not use the term often at all. But I'm going to call it what it is.

Eluvatar:

I will vehemently oppose any change that allows the Regional Assembly to vote on its own membership.

Click to expand...

I am on board with that.

One possible solution to the WA voting issue is you simply require people to vote in the region in which their WA nation resides and only in that region. Then give the Delegate of TNP the latitude to consider how the WA voting independent of the forum is going along with the voting on this forum on WA issues. One of the prizes of being the Delegate is to cast a substantial WA vote. If the Delegate votes in a manner that is contrary to popular opinion, there is always a recall or another upcoming election to rectify that.

We'd be flooded with recalls then, and the delegate is only elected every four months Romanoffia.
However I do agree we should not let the RA vote on its own membership.

Personally I feel this entire idea is creating a whole system of second class citizens and opening us up to huge abuse of the system. It'll just end badly - while I don't deny their are vote stackers, the people who legitimately inhabit multiple regions and have just as much dedication to each of them shouldn't be punished in this area.

I think to avoid the issue of Non-WA Members or Multi-Citizens being removed of their equality or witch-hunts for that matter (+1 for AMOM!): we should simply require a quota of RA Activity (dunno, attendance in twenty-five votes) for all RA Members to vote in the WA.

Perhaps Citizens would just require a time quota.

---

In this manner, you can address the issue of people who we legitimately know were trying to undermine our democracy, but try to keep from splitting our citizenship into blocks of first and second class citizens or worse, denying that a mobile member can be a true citizen. It is wrong to suggest that simply because someone is a defender or a raider they are not a trustworthy citizen -- that is feederite nonsense that stems as far back as Cathyy-paranoia over the ADN; I think a more accurate security mechanism would focus on time and involvement in the region to catch infiltrators, instead of arbitrary conditions such as WA Status and Multiple-Region Citizenships which are just used to trip up specific classes of players (i.e., Raiders, Defenders) without this being a precise targeting.

I am also against TEP/Lazarus/Pacifica/Balder(?) method of voting on membership. That seems somewhat illiberal and nothing like how TNP does or ought to operate. Largely because that has much wider scope of consequences than the security issue it aims to reduce by sacrificing some civil liberties -- I think the greatest threat to TNP would be in that situation, not people trying to influence TNP from the outside, but those trying to influence TNP from the inside. Diversity would be one the greatest ideals of TNP most at threat if we voted on members.

Which could mean a year in the RA, if the RA goes through a dry spell. Yeah, no.

Or we could keep it as it is, which is perfectly functional.

Our system is functional when the issue isn't a highly political and contentious issue. Perhaps the vote should have just been called off and the Council decided -- condemning an organization that has worked alongside the NPA on various missions is a big political decision and probably wasn't best decided in a vote with a bunch of questionable votes and people just coming in to vote with spite votes and then leaving for five months.

Perhaps the RA Activity Quota could be a percent of votes made over the last three months or something.

unibot:

I think to avoid the issue of Non-WA Members being removed of their equality; we should simply require a quota of RA Activity (dunno, attendance in twenty-five votes) for all RA Members to vote in the WA.

Perhaps Citizens would just require a time quota.

---

In this manner, you can address the issue of people who we legitimately know were trying to undermine our democracy, but try to keep from splitting our citizenship into blocks of first and second class citizens or worse, denying that a mobile member can be a true citizen. It is wrong to suggest that simply because someone is a defender or a raider they are not a trustworthy citizen -- that is feederite nonsense that stems as far back as Cathyy-paranoia over the ADN; I think a more accurate security mechanism would focus on time and involvement in the region to catch infiltrators, instead of arbitrary conditions such as WA Status which are just used to trip up specific classes of players (i.e., Raiders, Defenders) without this being a precise targeting.

I am also against TEP/Lazarus/Pacifica/Balder(?) method of voting on membership. That seems somewhat illiberal and nothing like how TNP does or ought to operate. Largely because that has much wider scope of consequences than the security issue it aims to reduce by sacrificing some civil liberties -- I think the greatest threat to TNP would be in that situation, not people trying to influence TNP from the outside, but those trying to influence TNP from the inside. Diversity would be one the greatest ideals of TNP most at threat if we voted on members.

Click to expand...

I think you're saying that as a joke, it did make me smile to think you would actually consider a twenty-five vote quota.

It would be fair, but it would exclude many people, who have participated as little as me. I'm not really in favour of it.

I disagree that WA nation is "arbitrary" criteria. It is natural and logical criteria. It would be difficult for R/Ders though so perhaps not the best solution for everyone.

Did you read what I posted here about enfranchising everybody? Nobody responded to that.

I agree that it would be bad to lose diversity, and TNP is a place which is open to all kinds of people, and it's best that it stays that way. There is a lack of accountability of RA members though, I'm not sure the best way to address that. The WA and RA are separate issues that don't need to be locked together.

One solution is to vote the way the regional WA members are voting. That would be an easy solution.

Alternatively the Delegate can just decide not to let us vote and make up their own mind independent of ours. That's a nice clean solution.

punk d:

One solution is to vote the way the regional WA members are voting. That would be an easy solution.

Click to expand...

Sounds solid.

What is it that has changed so drastically on either concept being proposed since the time such issues were discussed and polled to death in the run up towards the adoption of the current Constitution just a few short months ago?

I think some weren't happy with those outcomes and are seeing fit as we head into the slowest period of the year, every year, in terms of regional activity.

I don't support changing the activity requirement for R.A. members from what it is now. And never again. We've tried the most restrictive approach and the R.A., in its wisdom decided that those types of restrictions do not work and are, to say the least, anti-democratic in nature.

As to requiring votes on bills, there are times when not voting is in fact a vote of sorts. Or maybe real life has intervened. Or the R.A. member prefers simply not to go on record in any form. I've had to keep records of voting using the speadsheets, and when we have a half dozen or more votes going on at the same time it became needless complicated to the point of being useless.

As to W.A. voting, TNP recognizes that a player may have nations with different personas. While the persona of the W.A. nation may have one opinion in its region, a persona with a different nation controlled by that player may have a different opinion that it expresses in another region.

I didn't like anything being enacted dealing with the topic when this came up during Eluvatar's delegacy. And I still don't like what was passed or voted on in the R.A. If it were up to me, I would have the R.A. nullify all of the legisltion and the policy directives on the topic and return it to the state it was before any of this came up. That would be the most sound and fair way to address it. You can assume I won't be supportive of any other form of legislation on the topic of W.A. voting.

unibot:

Our system is functional when the issue isn't a highly political and contentious issue. Perhaps the vote should have just been called off and the Council decided -- condemning an organization that has worked alongside the NPA on various missions is a big political decision and probably wasn't best decided in a vote with a bunch of questionable votes and people just coming in to vote with spite votes and then leaving for five months.

Perhaps the RA Activity Quota could be a percent of votes made over the last three months or something.

Click to expand...

What about UDL members who are not that active normally placing votes? It went both ways bub.

Funkadelia:

punk d:

One solution is to vote the way the regional WA members are voting. That would be an easy solution.

Click to expand...

Sounds solid.

Click to expand...

And the result would be the same as if voting on WA resolutions in the forum required WA membership.

Personally, I am still amazed that the Almighty Max Barry is able to physically relocate my Nation into a different region.
That being said, I reject the illogical claim of multi-citizenship, which goes against the very fabric of science. We are leaders of single Nations, and any other Nation under our control is a puppet. The Almighty Max Barry knows this and as such does not allow people to gain WA membership status for their puppet Nations.
One Man, One Vote.
Sorry honorable Belschaft - you have to choose.

Lord Byron
Supreme Leader, God n Country n Byron
Puppet Master, Blue Wolf II

Also, in the name of regional security, the Elected Delegate should be able to choose RA members, and should appoint the Court Justices.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with our current system. Speaking as one of a few who only voted in the North Pacific I feel no sense of superiority to those who voted in multiple regions.

Against this 'reform', meant in my opinion to drive out many of our newer invader-leaning region mates.

Cormac Stark:

flemingovia:

You say "in light of recent events". What recent events have prompted this move?

Click to expand...

I was trying to be polite and there have also been non-recent events that have indicated this is a problem. But specifically, I'm referring to the number of voters we had on Condemn The United Defenders League who also voted in other regions -- some of whom were UDL members and some of whom were not -- and quite a few of whom are not typically very active here.

Click to expand...

In other words, like any election here ever.

That said, if we enact Cormac's idea into legislation, the invader presence in this region is already substantial enough that we could probably start ejecting all the UDLers and 'old guard' TNPers from the Regional Assembly. Not trolling, just pointing it out.

Chasmanthe:

It would be fair, but it would exclude many people, who have participated as little as me. I'm not really in favour of it.

Click to expand...

Well, what about a much smaller number like, seven. Seven is a lucky number. >_>

Grosseschnauzer:

As to W.A. voting, TNP recognizes that a player may have nations with different personas. While the persona of the W.A. nation may have one opinion in its region, a persona with a different nation controlled by that player may have a different opinion that it expresses in another region.

Click to expand...

Honorable Speaker Pro Tempore,
This is crazy talk; it belongs in Role Play.
We are all just "players" with "personas"!? Ridiculous!

Grosseschnauzer:

What is it that has changed so drastically on either concept being proposed since the time such issues were discussed and polled to death in the run up towards the adoption of the current Constitution just a few short months ago?

I think some weren't happy with those outcomes and are seeing fit as we head into the slowest period of the year, every year, in terms of regional activity.

I don't support changing the activity requirement for R.A. members from what it is now. And never again. We've tried the most restrictive approach and the R.A., in its wisdom decided that those types of restrictions do not work and are, to say the least, anti-democratic in nature.

As to requiring votes on bills, there are times when not voting is in fact a vote of sorts. Or maybe real life has intervened. Or the R.A. member prefers simply not to go on record in any form. I've had to keep records of voting using the speadsheets, and when we have a half dozen or more votes going on at the same time it became needless complicated to the point of being useless.

As to W.A. voting, TNP recognizes that a player may have nations with different personas. While the persona of the W.A. nation may have one opinion in its region, a persona with a different nation controlled by that player may have a different opinion that it expresses in another region.

I didn't like anything being enacted dealing with the topic when this came up during Eluvatar's delegacy. And I still don't like what was passed or voted on in the R.A. If it were up to me, I would have the R.A. nullify all of the legisltion and the policy directives on the topic and return it to the state it was before any of this came up. That would be the most sound and fair way to address it. You can assume I won't be supportive of any other form of legislation on the topic of W.A. voting.

Click to expand...

Honorable Gross,
With all that being said, I'm a little bit at a loss as to the specifics of your valued opinion.

We've not long loosened up RA restrictions because they were frustrating, stupid, and did little good, and now we're saying that we should undo that? No thanks. I also absolutely oppose any way for RA members to vote on our membership, that's just ridiculous and bureaucratic at best. Personally, I don't tend to vote on a WA resolution in more than one region but like Durk don't have a "holier than thou" attitude to those who will. Of course a controversial proposal drags people out of the woodworks...nuh. I don't know if I'm alone, but that kinda seems...like an obvious inevitability to me. People who don't often vote will vote on things they care about, rather than everything, and we reaallly shouldn't be saying to those people that they don't matter to the region because they've not got oodles of time to spare.

Abbey Anumia:

People who don't often vote will vote on things they care about, rather than everything, and we reaallly shouldn't be saying to those people that they don't matter to the region because they've not got oodles of time to spare.

Click to expand...

My concern is not with people who don't have time to be that involved, but with people who aren't involved at all except to vote on controversial WA resolutions like this one. Abbey, for example, is quite busy but still finds the time to be somewhat involved in the RA and has served as Attorney General -- but there are people who only show up to vote on WA resolutions and, increasingly, elections. I'm concerned that there are people here (and in most GCRs) who are only here to influence our WA voting and possibly our elections and I think that's a problem that needs addressed more effectively than is currently the case, but without limiting WA voting only to those who have a WA nation in the region or are in the NPA.

To be clear, these reforms are not targeted at invaders. They're not targeted at anyone except those who use TNP as well as other GCRs to effectively give themselves multiple votes in the WA or to have an oversized impact on interregional affairs -- and there are invaders, defenders and probably even some neutrals who appear to be doing that.

Cormac Stark:

Abbey Anumia:

People who don't often vote will vote on things they care about, rather than everything, and we reaallly shouldn't be saying to those people that they don't matter to the region because they've not got oodles of time to spare.

Click to expand...

My concern is not with people who don't have time to be that involved, but with people who aren't involved at all except to vote on controversial WA resolutions like this one. Abbey, for example, is quite busy but still finds the time to be somewhat involved in the RA and has served as Attorney General -- but there are people who only show up to vote on WA resolutions and, increasingly, elections. I'm concerned that there are people here (and in most GCRs) who are only here to influence our WA voting and possibly our elections and I think that's a problem that needs addressed more effectively than is currently the case, but without limiting WA voting only to those who have a WA nation in the region or are in the NPA.

To be clear, these reforms are not targeted at invaders. They're not targeted at anyone except those who use TNP as well as other GCRs to effectively give themselves multiple votes in the WA or to have an oversized impact on interregional affairs -- and there are invaders, defenders and probably even some neutrals who appear to be doing that.

Click to expand...

I think a negative definition is flawed and will inevitably be complained about. A positive definition is more likely to be acceptable.

I'm not sure why we want to punish people for using their access to our region to maximum political effect.

If you had the power to influence the votes of all the GCRs, and you cared about the issue, why wouldn't you do it? Unless there is a fundamental principle. There is no agreement on such a principle.

Cormac Stark:

Abbey Anumia:

People who don't often vote will vote on things they care about, rather than everything, and we reaallly shouldn't be saying to those people that they don't matter to the region because they've not got oodles of time to spare.

Click to expand...

My concern is not with people who don't have time to be that involved, but with people who aren't involved at all except to vote on controversial WA resolutions like this one. Abbey, for example, is quite busy but still finds the time to be somewhat involved in the RA and has served as Attorney General -- but there are people who only show up to vote on WA resolutions and, increasingly, elections. I'm concerned that there are people here (and in most GCRs) who are only here to influence our WA voting and possibly our elections and I think that's a problem that needs addressed more effectively than is currently the case, but without limiting WA voting only to those who have a WA nation in the region or are in the NPA.

To be clear, these reforms are not targeted at invaders. They're not targeted at anyone except those who use TNP as well as other GCRs to effectively give themselves multiple votes in the WA or to have an oversized impact on interregional affairs -- and there are invaders, defenders and probably even some neutrals who appear to be doing that.

Click to expand...

I am someone who quite frequently falls into the "not showing up very often" category. I'm going through a particularly active period right now, but I'll often find that I'll lurk a lot, but never feel the need to post. Apart from voting occasionally. Perhaps I'd personally slip above most quotas, but I'm not so far above that I feel it's unreasonable for someone to pay attention and vote, but not want to get dragged into day-to-day things - this is especially true of reg cits.

The problem is that it's very difficult to build intent into a system such as this without punishing those -without- bad intentions, and as such I remain opposed.

Interesting point brought up by Unibot by inference: Does the TNP government have actual jurisdiction over citizens who, per se, for actions not conducted in TNP? Meaning, nothing actually compels a TNP citizen from having their WA nation in the region except under enumerated circumstances. Are we to be immediately suspicious of citizens who have no WA nation?