Our supermajoritarianism has served little purpose other than to enforce a stagnant status quo. It was designed to do just that. I know, because I designed our current version of it and that was 100% the intention. Except the status quo at the time wasn’t stagnant.
There’s nothing magical about having 6 out of 10 people agree to things. Does that 6th person’s support really subjectively, objectively make an idea better than one that 5 out of 10 people agree on? No. I think you’re committed to an abstract idea, that has a time and a place. And unfortunately that idea, at this time, is slowly killing off the community.
For a variety of reasons, we’ve had an exodus of senior members, the people who created our current law book and rules to uphold their (our) preferences, and they didn’t put in any real work in ensuring the community prospers once they abandoned it. So from where I sit, we have a community composed of people who’ve never had the opportunity to craft TSP in their own image, haven’t ever written laws, are relatively new to the political simulation, and they’re saddled with supermajority requirements that just make navigating successfully even harder. All out of some fidelity to a set of status quo-enforcing rules written by people who no longer are part of TSP, that exist mostly to ensure their power & preferences were hard to dislodge.
When we’re at this crossroads, the justification for supermajorities doesn’t exist. We don’t need to ensure 60%+ of the community agrees on a path forward. We just need a path forward that most people agree on. Otherwise there’s no path forward at all, if there isn’t a 6th person to seal the deal. And yet we all know the status quo isn’t sustainable.
I mean really, our moderation team barely exists anymore, we’re definitely going to need to add new mods very soon because the team thus far has been composed of the same senior members who are leaving. The CRS is 1 or 2 active people, definitely only 1 person that’s actually really active and knows how to secure the region. Our Cabinet elections are non-competitive. We’re rotating the same few people in the same roles, until they also retire, leave, or get bored of doing it. The only active legislative business the community’s been debating is over the Local Council, which isn’t resolvable because entrenched councilors refuse to do anything that might mean they no longer get to bear their titles hold just enough voting power to kill reform efforts under the supermajority rules you want to keep.
What exactly is the plan for the next year of TSP? Next 2 years? Under the requirement that 60% of the community must approve of it? Because I think we can have a lot of new players coming in and being active and productive, but only if they have the ability and permission to change things. If we never get to the point where we can cross that 60% threshold on anything “controversial”, then I’d be worried that we’ll still get new players coming in, but they’ll leave before we hit that critical mass.
And to address the obvious political issue here… Even if we do completely rewrite the Charter from scratch, we’re being held at gunpoint by Local Councilors. They will vote down any Charter that doesn’t save their titles. It’s almost illegitimate the way we have a preference the clear majority of the community holds, but we can’t move forward because of self-interested office-holders who have continuously failed to do anything worthwhile with their roles.