This really just feels like a codified version of what we have now, but with more RMB mods.
You really need to separate the idea that the “LC” should be doing any moderating at all. Similarly, if I were to support any sort of “LC” apparatus surviving, it would be solely the election of 1-3 people that report to the MoC to coordinate gameside events, or even the MoE to coordinate integration efforts (wink wink, merge MoE and MoC, anyone?).
There still has to be some sort of moderation in the scenario that the moderators aren’t around. RMB moderation capabilities are handicapped, so I would like to think there should be back ups. Also, thinking this should be clear, if the “LC” are an extension of the MoC, of they would be reporting back to the ministry because in that scenario, they wouldn’t have autonomous control on their own events.
The key word here is existing. In the current verbiage of the Charter, the Local Council has an explicit mandate to “encourage activity on the gameside.” How Local Councillors wish to do so is up to them, but technically speaking, under our laws it’s not optional and it’s never been optional. The wording is that the Local Council will encourage activity, not that it may encourage activity. Whether voters actually prioritize that aspect of the Local Council’s responsibilities is another matter, but the laws for this are already in place and I’m not sure how we’d really make them more definitive.
Perhaps a better question to ask is: why do we feel a need to better define the Local Council’s role in engagement? Why do we feel we need a much stronger emphasis on it? If you ask me, it’s because having two entities in our region responsible for the same thing doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t help the Ministry of Culture, it doesn’t help the Local Council, and most importantly, it doesn’t help the region as a whole.
I appreciate that there is, I think, fairly broad support for better cooperation between the Local Council and the Ministry of Culture on cultural matters (if not just combining them). We’ve been at this stage since July. The question I would ask is still the same one that I asked back then:
Why do we need two separate entities working together in the same area?
I appreciate that you mention the Local Council could be an extension of the Ministry of Culture, and I think that would work a lot better than our current system. But I’m not entirely sure why we would need a part of the Ministry of Culture (let alone a separate entity) that’s elected specifically by… anyone with a NationStates nation who cares enough, really, given in-game polls just don’t have the options to keep them secure.
We don’t need a Local Council for the forum and we don’t need a Local Council for the Discord just to have people working on events and on engagement on those platforms. Why do we need a Local Council for the RMB?
Why do we need a stronger emphasis? Because of what you just stated. It’s not optional to not encourage activity. Even the “About the LC” dispatch states that the LC “has never had a rigorously defined role”. It’s not a choose this, choose that, though unfortunately, it has, or still is, like that.
If I may say, if it is not “helping” anyone, is it “hurting” anyone? Having extensions to reach out to the region should not be detrimental to the ministries, Local Council, or the region. Personally, I haven’t seen any damage to these institutions, but rather just two groups minding their business, and even sometimes, coming together to work on projects. Going of that, it’s not that we necessarily need two entities, it’s just been the way it is for MoC to work on off-site culture and LC to work on on-site culture. Other than the rare issue, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
As for elections, even though RMB polls aren’t as secure as forum polls for the reasons you stated, I do believe that matters that affect the RMB should be voted on by the RMB and the people that mostly reside there. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but do emergencies happen often in regards to LC voting?
And for the last question of why do we need a Local Council? Because the RMB want to see themselves heard. This is not me saying things on my own accord, but rather showcasing the sentiment that has been going on since discussion started about the LC in the Great Council. That’s probably the “simple” answer to that.
But how has the Local Council not had a rigorously defined role? Its role is defined to include encouraging activity. That’s not unclear. And if it’s not happening, ‘making our laws clearer’ is not a solution because they’re already plenty clear,
I generally agree that ‘extensions to reach out to the region’ are beneficial, although I think that should be a central component of what the Ministry of Culture and our government as a whole does rather than this super special job for a specific group of people. Just because having two entities might not be hurting anyone doesn’t mean we can’t improve this system by shedding unnecessary bureaucracy and tasking our government as a whole to address the needs of the entire region — as it should.
I think both of your points here boil down to the idea that the RMB needs a voice. I agree! I just think that everyone in our region gets a voice already, especially because it’s now easier than ever to create an account here on the forums and because we have discussions in progress that would make it easier for people to participate in (more secure) elections without having to participate elsewhere on the forums if they’re simply not interested.
If we actually implement the Local Council as an extension of the Ministry of Culture, then, as you point out, the RMB would be voting for an institution that isn’t even autonomous. What if we just skipped that step and made it easier for anyone in our region who is here in good faith to make their voice heard in Minister of Culture and/or Cabinet elections? Doesn’t that amplify the voices of RMBers?
This doesn’t make sense. The whole point of moderators is that they are the ones who moderate.
We do not have unlimited RO spots to give out.
@KrisKringle
This doesn’t make sense. The whole point of moderators is that they are the ones who moderate.
Let me rephrase. The “LC” which don’t have Border Control may step in to help moderate if the Moderators, as defined in the suggested system I proposed, aren’t around. Basically a backup.
@Sandaoguo
We do not have unlimited RO spots to give out.
That’s a known. If possible, the 3 spots given to the ministers could instead to be filled in by the Moderators (appointed) if the law outlining how admin slots are allocated is changed.
@Pronoun
-snip for length-
I can agree with that.
If the two entities are already addressing the needs of the region, and are able to work together, which they have, it shouldn’t be deemed as unnecessary. Having an on-site team and an off-site team does not make the process any more complicated or confusing. It’s two groups addressing the needs of two distinct groups. Yes, systems can be improved but I don’t think there is an actual issue here. The idea of having one group or two is a minor issue, if not even an issue at all.
Going a bit of point 2, having separate entities even creates engagement from the gameside. There is usually a general excitement and aspiration when LC elections happen, because they can strive for a position where they can make the most direct impact in their community. Their voice is localized to RMB from a group on the RMB. And yes, it is easier to have a voice now, however, that does not necessarily mean it will be regarded. Since the whole LC talks, there is a very notable and increasing disdain and demoralization from the RMB? Why? Because essentially the one thing that gives the RMB ground or standing in the community could be removed. That sentiment cannot be ignored. Sure, you can make it easier for people to be heard in Cabinet, however, I think it is more impactful and meaningful if that voice is heard and acknowledged right from their community: gameside.
This will probably be unpopular, but gameside is not so critical that it needs the minister slots and backup moderators. If moderation is so burdensome that it needs such an expanded staff then you should consider moderating less.
I disagree with moderating less. Considering the fact that we are a feeder region - a very active one too, and we are prone to spammers and there is often not fast responses to bans, moderating less would negatively impact the RMB.
You’re proposing at least half of all ROs be dedicated to RMB moderation plus some rump LC that’s allegedly going to do all the things that the current LC has continually failed to do for last 6+ years. No thanks.
To be a bit harsh, your idea is worse than the status quo. I’m genuinely at the point where the pro-LC input in these debates is really not worth listening to or entertaining. You’re not offering anything that’s based in reality, just ideas that show you’re married to maintaining something called the Local Council no matter what.
I don’t think Jay should let this thread be dominated by this strand of discussion. Let’s get back to the topic at hand, RMB moderators. At this point, people are support it or they oppose it. What is there left to debate?
Three are dedicated to moderation. The other three focus on culture and engagement and can possibly assist in moderation (hence why i said “optional?”). Other than the Prime Minister spot, the other Minister admin spots aren’t widely used. I would think that replacing those spots would be more beneficial. You may suggest I’m “married” to the LC, but I just want to exchange ideas and not be shutdown for it.
Anyway, that’s all I have to say for now. I don’t want to derail the debate to petty squabbling.
I appreciate that this is being framed as a ‘moderation reform package,’ but I do think some of the objections raised focus on deeper differences of opinion that are worth addressing.
TL;DR: we are one region, and we’d be better off actually taking that mindset to heart.
Why do I say this? Because I think viewpoints like this…
…are a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we talk about the RMB and the rest of the region as separate groups, the more divided they become. And this separation shows up because, eventually, we end up just accepting that we are fundamentally and irreparably divided as a region, and therefore that…
Unfortunately, these divisions do cause real damage beyond unnecessary bureaucracy. In fact, they leave many South Pacificans, especially those most active on the RMB, feeling that the Local Council is…
Now, to be clear, I don’t think that sentiment is accurate. Anybody can apply to be a legislator and they don’t even need to be one to comment on or criticize any government institution. However, that doesn’t mean we should just ignore that sentiment. Every South Pacifican — no matter which platform(s) they are most active on — should feel they have a voice in our democracy. The question is, why do so many RMBers feel like they wouldn’t have a voice without the Local Council? Why do they not feel represented by our government as a whole?
Well, the Local Council is the government entity they see the most, and it’s likely to stay that way as long as we keep having a separate Local Council and Ministry of Culture, or even if one is technically an extension of the other if in practice they are formed separately and they operate separately.
If we keep these things separate, then of course RMBers will feel like they don’t have a say in the region as a whole. After all, the government entity they see the most is the Local Council. The natural conclusion? They only have a voice on local issues, not regional ones. That’s not how we want any South Pacifican to feel.
The Local Council might feel like a more direct form of government, but it’s really just more limited. Keeping it around will only continue to make RMBers feel limited. Of course, it can feel powerful to be…
…but it feels a lot more powerful when that community is a regional community, not just a local one.
How much of the powers can be split, can you give just bc to one person, or does it require suppression powers too? You’re not going to get many people holding a moderation job that you intentionally limit for long.
I agree with this, how do you propose it be amended? It is my hope that by empowering RMB moderation to request Border Control status from the CRS, and requiring CRS response to such a request, that we can both satisfy demands for more responsive BC ROs and for border control action execution to not be a task of the Delegate alone.
Seeing as this conversation is not really going anywhere at this point, though it’s needed, I’ll agree to disagree on this matter if that is fine.
We could just make two full time mods with bc and suppression abilities that report to the delegate. Then the delegate could keep the CRS in the loop for any actions taken. If we adopt this style though, we’ll need to revamp the appeals process, it’s so convoluted to be ridiculous.
It would be very simple, just have the law say the Delegate handles the ban requests.
The big “scandal” months ago was because Evinea and certain others had (and may still have) an unrealistic expectation of 24/7 moderation coverage. I’ve no interest in making that a reality. And I don’t like how the CRS was roped into moderation, so I’d rather we place 100% of the onus on the Delegate.
And maybe in the future, if RMB mods buck the trend and prove they can be trusted to not be tyrannical mods, they can have BC powers themselves.
At the risk of throwing this thread into a tangent, I’ll just say this is all just academic mumbojumbo, and you should actually question the premise that any substantial number of players think this way. But either way, you’re trying to talk about something completely beyond RMB moderation, which is the topic of this thread and about the only topic the LC itself has cared about for years.
I’d prefer it say Delegate and RMB moderation, largely because I hope the BC appointment mechanism for RMB mods is actually used in cases where the RMB moderator is trusted not to be a security threat.