Overstepping IR or Not?

[Eirikr]

First of all, can referendums be limited to a message group? I recall seeing a feature request about this but did not find it during my brief search.

Regarding the suggested system, I would do it differently. I am no magistrate though and can not say if the proposed system or my suggestion are IR compatible with any authority. I feel that both are.

The Rule:
All region lords, dukes and council members are eligible for a seat on the senate. Should you hold such a position and wish to join the senate just let us know and you will be made a member. As a member of the senate you are expected to contribute your voice to the discussions and decisions being made. Should you wish to leave the senate at any time simply state your desire and you will be removed.
Optional: At a minimum, you, as a senator, are required to make a senate wide statement regarding each and every referendum brought before the senate.

The Culture:
With a basic rule in place, begin molding the culture. Be vocal yourself. Specifically call out those senators who have not contributed to a conversation. Encourage all others to do the same. If the referendum “Should we eat cheese” is brought before the senate and only two out of five senators have announced their positions, directly call out the other three and ask their opinion. If they still do not respond, send a private message. People will sometimes give an opinion if asked directly even if they were not willing to throw out their opinion on their own. Be open to whatever response the do give and try to turn it into a conversation.

Punish the Silent Senators:
If a particular senator simply refuses to speak up over and over again, remove them from the senate. Maybe have a referendum about it before hand and only remove them with a majority. They are not being removed due to inactivity, they are being removed because they are not doing the job. The same guidelines used when banning nobles who do not follow orders would apply.

I posted something in the Development forum about allowing more flexibility in the referendum system, but I didn't make a formal feature request because it seems like it was intentionally limited to the current options. I was going to write a full request if it was really just something that hadn't been done/considered.

Your system looks a lot like what I envisioned. I like how the Rule is stated, but the Optional portion is too strict. Requiring word on every single referendum can be either very intensive or very subdued depending on the volume of referendums. I think the allowance system is more forgiving to less active players that still want to participate. I see no issue with the Culture, though that is already in place as much as possible. It does get a little ridiculous when you have to start sending out 12 private letters. The punishment does go with what I've been saying in that the characters are essentially losing their job for lack of doing it. The thing that I don't like is that "over and over again" doesn't give any warning as to when something will happen (or if it will actually happen at all). It also leaves the door wide open for corruption, but that's an IC consideration.

[Anaris]

I do not believe that your goal is in any way incompatible with the IR.

However, I, too, feel that voice vote is going to be your best way forward.

This is much easier with the message search feature: you simply make one person (usually, but not necessarily, the Judge) responsible for tallying the votes for every referendum, then you give each referendum a specific title, and require that every official vote cast must follow a specific format, such as

Official Vote: Alliance with Keplerstan

I vote "Yes".

The "Official Vote: Alliance with Keplerstan" line can be copied & pasted so there can be no confusion; then, once the referendum has concluded, the Judge (or whoever) can use the Message Search feature to find all messages containing that tag, and tally up the votes.

(This is slightly different from Riombara's system; however, it is less prone to breakage, particularly with large groups.)

[Chenier]

I do not believe that your goal is in any way incompatible with the IR.

However, I, too, feel that voice vote is going to be your best way forward.

This is much easier with the message search feature: you simply make one person (usually, but not necessarily, the Judge) responsible for tallying the votes for every referendum, then you give each referendum a specific title, and require that every official vote cast must follow a specific format, such as

The "Official Vote: Alliance with Keplerstan" line can be copied & pasted so there can be no confusion; then, once the referendum has concluded, the Judge (or whoever) can use the Message Search feature to find all messages containing that tag, and tally up the votes.

(This is slightly different from Riombara's system; however, it is less prone to breakage, particularly with large groups.)

That's how things used to be done before the game's own referendum mechanics.

What we used to do, to keep it simple and prevent a search through a pile of letters for someone (who could miss some or be dishonest) is that everyone who voted would include a recap of the previous votes and the tally.

It'd be nice to have an option to remove the anonymous nature of the game's referendum, though.

[Anaris]

That's how things used to be done before the game's own referendum mechanics.

What we used to do, to keep it simple and prevent a search through a pile of letters for someone (who could miss some or be dishonest) is that everyone who voted would include a recap of the previous votes and the tally.

It'd be nice to have an option to remove the anonymous nature of the game's referendum, though.

Before the game's referendum mechanics, there was no message search feature, only Ctrl-F.

[Munro]

This may sound controversial, but I really LIKE the fact that votes are anonymous. For so many reasons!

Firstly, I do not like to play the two characters I have in the same realm the same. In fact, Sicarius often doesn't agree with his brother Saeculo (and as a result votes against him on certain issues). Yet if these were to become public, he'd have no choice but to support his older brother, lest he suffer a backlash.

On this path of thought, I also think it opens up the possibility of a lot more backstabbing, I read on the Wiki years ago a funny description of being offered a cookie to vote for person A, and then taking the cookie, eating it and voting for person B without person A ever knowing. I like this. I also like the fact that less powerful characters can make their own decision without the threat of repercussions of more powerful characters. If there was only one Duke for example, he could easily force everyone to obey his commands, and anyone who did not, well he could make their lives extremely difficult. (Depending on the government system, would depend on how relevant this is).

This is not to say that I don't think the above would make things interesting, I just think that there are two sides to it.

[Chenier]

Before the game's referendum mechanics, there was no message search feature, only Ctrl-F.

I know, I didn't contradict this. But leaving the responsibility of doing that to a single person can easily result in votes being lost, be it intentionally or accidentally.

This may sound controversial, but I really LIKE the fact that votes are anonymous. For so many reasons!

Firstly, I do not like to play the two characters I have in the same realm the same. In fact, Sicarius often doesn't agree with his brother Saeculo (and as a result votes against him on certain issues). Yet if these were to become public, he'd have no choice but to support his older brother, lest he suffer a backlash.

On this path of thought, I also think it opens up the possibility of a lot more backstabbing, I read on the Wiki years ago a funny description of being offered a cookie to vote for person A, and then taking the cookie, eating it and voting for person B without person A ever knowing. I like this. I also like the fact that less powerful characters can make their own decision without the threat of repercussions of more powerful characters. If there was only one Duke for example, he could easily force everyone to obey his commands, and anyone who did not, well he could make their lives extremely difficult. (Depending on the government system, would depend on how relevant this is).

This is not to say that I don't think the above would make things interesting, I just think that there are two sides to it.

I have no issue with the default being private, as with the government elections. But we used to do these votes manually, publicly. And some people want to be able to hold public votes now too, and are forced to bypass the game-generated referendum. It'd be nice if there was the option for a public referendum.

[Indirik]

Ok, the situation as explained definitely looks different than I got from the first message. If I were you, I would definitely use a public voice vote, though.

Even so, I think you should make an attempt to ensure that you don't somehow end up entrapping, even unintentionally, someone who is inactive into being blackmarked by the system.

[Geronus]

But if the characters are active anyway, this proposal clearly doesn't impinge upon their activity. i.e. not an IR violation?

"Not an IR violation" does not and should not mean "Best way to do it."

Well, it's a bit of a gray area, isn't it? This is basically creating system whereby characters are judged on their activity level. Don't have time to write letters explaining your position? You're out of the club. I haven't formed a definitive opinion yet, but I will say that this doesn't feel totally right to me, for reasons I may or may not be articulating well.

Some points worthy of considerations:

1. No one is being "punished," in the sense of bans or fines.

2. The group in question is not broadly inclusive; it is limited to a subsection of the realm's nobility, and so is already by definition exclusive.

3. No one is specifying that a player must log on at specific times or intervals. Five days is a quite reasonable window of time to grant, and almost all players who aren't about to auto-pause will log in at least once within this time frame.

I think my decision about this would hang on the second point. The Senate is not a group that any character (and by extension player) has a right to belong to. That being the case, I suppose I would have to grant considerable latitude to those running the group to determine how its membership should be constituted.

I still think the voice vote is a better alternative to try before adopting this system, but as it stands I'm not sure I would call it an IR violation. I don't care for it, but as Vellos said, just because it's not optimal doesn't make it wrong by definition.

[Indirik]

1. No one is being "punished," in the sense of bans or fines.

Not by bans/fines. But that's not the only way to punish someone. They are having their reputation damaged by being kicked out of the Senate. Which could in the future lead to them not getting other lordships or council positions.

3. No one is specifying that a player must log on at specific times or intervals. Five days is a quite reasonable window of time to grant, and almost all players who aren't about to auto-pause will log in at least once within this time frame.

Yes, five days is a good length of time. Not impossible to imagine a situation where someone gets busy,and logs in once, quickly, during the middle of that time. Still, there is a limit to how many hoops a player should have to jump through to make sure they are being fair.

I still think the voice vote is a better alternative to try before adopting this system, but as it stands I'm not sure I would call it an IR violation. I don't care for it, but as Vellos said, just because it's not optimal doesn't make it wrong by definition.

I definitely agree. Just because a system is byzantine, inefficient, or whatever doesn't mean it can't be used, or violates the IR.

However, just because you're not *intending* to violate an IR doesn't mean that the system you use can't end up doing that. I suppose that if you're going to track people's activity (which is really what's happening here) then your rules should really include some OOC notice about RL inactivity, and a notice that having OOC reasons for occasionally not participating won't have IC consequences. This isn't letting them use OOC inactivity as a shield for poor IC performance, it's just a nod to the fact that sometimes !@#$ happens, and that as fellow players we're acknowledging this.

[Vellos]

I suppose that if you're going to track people's activity (which is really what's happening here) then your rules should really include some OOC notice about RL inactivity, and a notice that having OOC reasons for occasionally not participating won't have IC consequences. This isn't letting them use OOC inactivity as a shield for poor IC performance, it's just a nod to the fact that sometimes !@#$ happens, and that as fellow players we're acknowledging this.

This seems fair.

[Geronus]

However, just because you're not *intending* to violate an IR doesn't mean that the system you use can't end up doing that. I suppose that if you're going to track people's activity (which is really what's happening here) then your rules should really include some OOC notice about RL inactivity, and a notice that having OOC reasons for occasionally not participating won't have IC consequences. This isn't letting them use OOC inactivity as a shield for poor IC performance, it's just a nod to the fact that sometimes !@#$ happens, and that as fellow players we're acknowledging this.

I also agree. Maybe you should build in a grace period upon request. That should separate people who are making a good faith effort from those who just don't care.

[Penchant]

I also agree. Maybe you should build in a grace period upon request. That should separate people who are making a good faith effort from those who just don't care.

I may be wrong but I am pretty sure the system they are proposing only affects active people, as in I think it only applies if you vote, which they will know because Eirikr already said they are using the voice vote.

[Geronus]

I may be wrong but I am pretty sure the system they are proposing only affects active people, as in I think it only applies if you vote, which they will know because Eirikr already said they are using the voice vote.

Oh? The way I read it, you'd also get a strike for doing nothing at all, but I could have misinterpreted that.

[Penchant]

Oh? The way I read it, you'd also get a strike for doing nothing at all, but I could have misinterpreted that.

I see how it can be interpreted that way, and until one of the them responds, I am not sure.

[Eirikr]

They are having their reputation damaged by being kicked out of the Senate.

I don't think their reputation is damaged by the action itself. That's like saying that someone who didn't want to participate in gym class because it doesn't interest them loses reputation as a result. If they were removed for bad sportsmanship, then that would hurt their reputation. This is a system not dealing with infractions, but with apparently lack of interest.

I may be wrong but I am pretty sure the system they are proposing only affects active people, as in I think it only applies if you vote, which they will know because Eirikr already said they are using the voice vote.

No, the system would remove people who do not vote at all as well. Characters are not given a strike for making it known that they wish to abstain. My logic here is that if you abstain without stating it 100% of the time, you probably didn't want to be in the Senate anyway. You are in a message group that you are ignoring. Let me remove the spam for you. I suppose there could be IC reasons (like being a spy) for not voting and yet wanting to stay in the Senate, but I wouldn't mind catching a few spies with this IC as well.

I think the OOC note is a good idea. Also note that there is a way to return to the Senate if someone is removed in error. I've made it fairly easy to do, but it does require that you take the first step.

In a somewhat similar case, is a guild allowed to remove inactive (that is, not pursuing the guild's mission) members? It is not as though the guild itself is a guaranteed piece of the game for the player; if someone hadn't created the guild in the first place, it isn't the player's right to have some other guild available to join. The Senate is similar in that some realms don't even provide a forum for characters to discuss issues like this. The King or whomever simply just implements what he feels like. (This is balanced by the protest option. There is still a way for nobles to resist.) Does the IR protect the right for a player to participate in systems not guaranteed to exist?

Code: [Select]

Just as an editorial note, I feel like I could word this better and that it sounds unintentionally like I'm trying really hard to make something illegitimate sound legitimate. Unfortunately, I don't know how to describe it very well.

This may sound controversial, but I really LIKE the fact that votes are anonymous. For so many reasons!

I also like the anonymous vote for several reasons. As you say, it does allow for political maneuvering. I could be bribed to support a vote vocally and yet vote another way. What I don't like is that the current system can effectively deadlock a realm without allowing for someone with initiative to try and resolve the opposition's complaints. It just doesn't make sense for some things to be anonymous to me. A vote for a ruler or lordship is a vote of confidence in someone's conduct on many issues. You might not agree entirely with him, but you think the other guy's going to be really bad news if you vote for him. A vote on whether or not a law should be passed helps identify what you think is acceptable. It allows people to help you out and potentially find a compromise. As it is, there's so much pressure on trying to pass something that compromising is a vital tool to get anything done, but there is no need for the opposition to compromise at all. Ever. You can't even use it as a method to decide whether or not you will give them the same treatment. After all, they could start their own referendum and instantly be down one negative vote!

On the plus side, it does prevent people from trying to form political parties to some extent. Having the option to vote against those who believe I'm on their side without having to deal with the flak can be a real relief.