SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

General discussions about the Particracy web game.

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:07 pm

Auditorii wrote:That doesn’t really make any sense to be honest. Countries and players who attain Great Power status and are active or want to be active within the SC are reliant on traditionally inactive elected members of the SC? That’s a recipe for the same disaster we have now in the SC. Why limit the voting of people who actively want to RP?

The arbitrary limit in GP’s is just silly. At one point in the world we had dozens of great powes and it incredibly hampers RP abilities.


The idea is that since Non-Perms will be on the SC for a limited amount of time, they'll have an incentive to make the most of it and introduce and vote on resolutions while they still have the chance. I'd prefer this to the current setup where Moderation can replace inactive SC members, because it removes Moderation involvement, and if it works out well it can function smoothly with no need for micromanagement.

I agree that a limit on GPs is arbitrary. Do you have any suggestion other than giving the Perms full voting rights?
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Auditorii » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:21 pm

Polites wrote:
Auditorii wrote:That doesn’t really make any sense to be honest. Countries and players who attain Great Power status and are active or want to be active within the SC are reliant on traditionally inactive elected members of the SC? That’s a recipe for the same disaster we have now in the SC. Why limit the voting of people who actively want to RP?

The arbitrary limit in GP’s is just silly. At one point in the world we had dozens of great powes and it incredibly hampers RP abilities.


The idea is that since Non-Perms will be on the SC for a limited amount of time, they'll have an incentive to make the most of it and introduce and vote on resolutions while they still have the chance. I'd prefer this to the current setup where Moderation can replace inactive SC members, because it removes Moderation involvement, and if it works out well it can function smoothly with no need for micromanagement.

I agree that a limit on GPs is arbitrary. Do you have any suggestion other than giving the Perms full voting rights?


The whole idea behind Permanent Members was because elected members have a long standing tradition of being incredibly inactive. The reform that was suggested by the players since the inception of the SC was having Permanent Members with the same rights as elected members as Permanent Members were traditionally active RPers.

My edit from the post you responded to was: For example Dorvik brings Res 1 to the SC, only 1 of the 5 elected members are active...the 2 other GPS and the 1 elected sit and stare at each other?

And there shouldn’t be any limits on who wants to reach GP status.
"An Empire is never peaceably acquired or maintained. It is willed into existence. We are that will."
PT Wiki Aficionado & Fmr. RP Team Member
Eastern Homeland Association (Dolgavia)
Auditorii
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Yolo04 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:53 pm

FPC wrote:
Yolo04 wrote:Yo I think Klavia or as you call it in the post Keymon should be average on both


This isnt a consultation on where each nations sits on the rankings, it is a consulation about how the SC works.

So basically Klavia sits were it is
Peoples Nationalist Party-(Keymonite Republic)-Inactive
National Ahmadist Party(Aldegar)-Inactive
Democratic Nationalist Party/Republican Party-(Dankuk)-Inactive
Sekowan Conservative Party-(Sekowo)-Inactive
Party Uni Centeriste-(Lourenne)-Active
Yolo04
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:03 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Auditorii » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:23 pm

Yolo04 wrote:
FPC wrote:
Yolo04 wrote:Yo I think Klavia or as you call it in the post Keymon should be average on both


This isnt a consultation on where each nations sits on the rankings, it is a consulation about how the SC works.

So basically Klavia sits were it is



Yes...until they update it in April....
"An Empire is never peaceably acquired or maintained. It is willed into existence. We are that will."
PT Wiki Aficionado & Fmr. RP Team Member
Eastern Homeland Association (Dolgavia)
Auditorii
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby CCP » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:26 pm

This isn't going to fix inactivty in the Security Council.

Just to bottom-line a few points.

1. if you game-out the Great Powers proposal, under the current Rankings Kazulia and Vanuku would be added to the SC in addition to Istalia which is already there. These countries' great power status is due to the RPs of 1 main player in each country: Maxington in Kazulia, Kubrick in Vanuku, and Axxell in Istalia, so it's reasonable to assume that they will take greatest interest in participating in SC if appointed. Looking at those three players' track record of WC activity: Kubrick was the first Secretary General of the WC, but was removed by SC members in part for inactivity, and he is currently not playing in Vanuku; Axxell is the SC's most consistently-active player, and that probably won't change under the proposed reform; Maxington has been one of the General Assembly's most active players over time, but has apparently never seriously attempted to win Seat D for Kazulia which he fairly easily could have if he had made the effort, so his non-campaigning may indicate some ambivalence about the SC, and this is in addition to his heavy school schedule which has required him to leave the game abruptly several times. Taken together, this means that the two new Great Powers SC members are likely to have random players representing them at some point during their SC tenures, and since those random players are not responsible for having made those countries Great Powers, they can't reasonably be expected to actively lead the SC and WC as Permanent Members would be expected to do.

2. Inactivity may be a feature, not a bug. Many countries have objected to SC interventionism since the WC's inception. Additionally, some countries have actively abstained from voting in SC elections almost consistently since moderators created the WC, which indicates at least disinterest and at most opposition to the WC system entirely. For the opponents of WC interventionism, supporting RP-inactive countries in SC elections would be one effective way of impeding WC interventionism.

3. A moderator-appointed Secretary General is a bad idea. I say this as one of only three people in the game who have been both a SC delegate and Secretary General. It's a bad idea for many reasons, but the most important one is that an appointed SG will always have less interest and skin in the game than players who have devoted weeks and months of effort to getting and staying on the SC. It would be better to let the SC elect one of its own members as secretary general.

4. Swapping-out SC members to counter inactivity has been tried and it didn't produce more activity. The one counter-example to this was when Corvo Attano played Malivia's SC delegate, but that came to naught because after he proposed a few resolutions, they still had to garner majority support and then be implemented in RP. Implementation never really happened. The other swapped-in countries never really participated, which was predictable since they didn't care enough to win the election in the first place which, truth be told, isn't very difficult to do given sufficient time.

5. Auditorii is correct that removing the Permanent Members' right to vote in most circumstances is counter-productive. Referring back to point #1, you're going to put two of the game's most active players on the SC permanently (Axxell and Maxington), but then you're going to tell them that they have to get other players to vote if they want to get anything done. How is that any different from the current situation? Axxell submits SC proposals regularly, but half the time they die because other SC members don't vote on them. Axxell could privately contact other SC members and ask them to vote, but apparently he doesn't do that much. If you add more random members and further limit Axxell's ability to pass resolutions, he'll have even less incentive to do so.

6. Auditorii says players have been complaining about SC inactivity since the WC was created. That's not true. I was on the SC when the WC was created. The first 3 sessions of the SC were very active precisely because the SC members took it upon themselves to rally support for their resolutions. Dorvik, where Auditorii plays, is on the SC now but no player from that country has posted once in the SC forum for at least 2 months. So moderators, since you haven't had much firsthand experience playing in the SC, you need to be wary of taking SC complaints at face value. instead, look at the WC track records of the various SC members, including those complaining. You'll find the complaints don't line up with facts and follow-through.

7. Your proposed system is complicated and therefore will cause confusion. Confusion leads to apathy and inactivity.

If you really want the SC to be more active (and again, there's nothing stopping it from being active now -- the players who want to see activity just have to rally support), the best thing to do is to give the SC power to reform the WC system. In WC Session 2, the SC remained active because we players decided to remove the inactive SC member (Vanuku/Kubrick) through campaigning and then we players decided to appoint our own Secretary General. We privately elected Kalistan/Jamescfm as our SG and then we PMed the moderator and asked if he would support us and permit us to move ahead with our decision. The moderator agreed, and so we fixed the problem that we players identified as impeding our SC RPs. On the other hand, every time moderators have tried to "fix" this WC "problem," they have failed. You guys are about to make a big change, cause a small amount of controversy, and give yourselves a whole lot of extra homework for what, in the end, according to the track record, will be another failure. Save yourselves the trouble and just allow players to lead reforms.
CCP
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Auditorii » Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:07 am

I generally agree with what CCP says.

"6. Auditorii says players have been complaining about SC inactivity since the WC was created. That's not true. I was on the SC when the WC was created. The first 3 sessions of the SC were very active precisely because the SC members took it upon themselves to rally support for their resolutions. Dorvik, where Auditorii plays, is on the SC now but no player from that country has posted once in the SC forum for at least 2 months. So moderators, since you haven't had much firsthand experience playing in the SC, you need to be wary of taking SC complaints at face value. instead, look at the WC track records of the various SC members, including those complaining. You'll find the complaints don't line up with facts and follow-through."


I'll be quite honest, one of your points talks about apathy and lack of desire and that's precisely what I haven't been involved with the SC since I've come back. Quite frankly, after repeated attempts to reform the SC and at times the World Congress itself, they were met with either outright opposition or just ignored entirely. I'm not the biggest fan of putting time and work into something when it just falls off.

I agree that a limit on GPs is arbitrary.


As a note, Great Power should be the highest "ranking" of power. It was generally agreed upon by previous Moderation teams and veteran RPers that the designation of Superpowers and "Hyperpowers" would cause nothing but issues, as they have in the past, and it was generally agreed upon that we'd never use these designations again (as they were used when we never had an RP Accord).
"An Empire is never peaceably acquired or maintained. It is willed into existence. We are that will."
PT Wiki Aficionado & Fmr. RP Team Member
Eastern Homeland Association (Dolgavia)
Auditorii
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby PhilG » Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:26 am

Auditorii wrote:
I agree that a limit on GPs is arbitrary.


As a note, Great Power should be the highest "ranking" of power. It was generally agreed upon by previous Moderation teams and veteran RPers that the designation of Superpowers and "Hyperpowers" would cause nothing but issues, as they have in the past, and it was generally agreed upon that we'd never use these designations again (as they were used when we never had an RP Accord).


I mean, that's really just a matter of semantics. If you're only going to have one Great Power (GP status as the highest "ranking"), then that's a hyperpower (or lone superpower if you don't subscribe to the idea of hyperpowers), since a hyperpower is literally just the lone Superpower in a unipolar system. So, if I'm correctly understanding what you're saying (that the highest ranked country should be the one and only Great Power), they would still be a Superpower/Hyperpower, even if you don't want to call it that, so I don't really see how that solves any of the issues you're alluding to.

To chime in on the suggested changes to the SC, I understand the idea of limiting the power of GPs in the SC, though I also understand completely why such an idea isn't exactly desirable, either. It seems to me like it's ultimately going to be a matter of realism vs. balancing. This is a sim, but it's also a game, so going for the realistic options won't always give you the best entertainment value. If people feel like GPs are too powerful, they won't want to play less powerful nations. If they feel like GPs aren't powerful enough, they won't care about the GPs.

Personally, I like the idea of giving the GPs voting rights, but I also suggest keeping the ratio at 3 permanent to 4 non-permanent, with a majority required to pass a resolution, that way even if the GPs are all in agreement, they still have to convince at least 1 of the non-permanent members to agree.
Briser les chânes !
PhilG
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:09 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:31 am

Ok, a quick response for now:

You guys make some very good points regarding the voting rights of Permanent Members, so we'll change the proposal to allow them full voting rights, and we'll remove the cap. In order to solve the issue of breaking ties in case of an even number of SC members, we're considering the option of giving the President of the SC one vote, and having the presidency rotate alphabetically among SC members (either just Permanent or all of them), so a random SC member will have two votes in case of a tie. We're still thinking of removing Seat E and alternating membership for elected members, as that would lower the threshold for a successful SC campaign and eliminate the need for Moderation to dismiss inactive members (which as far as I can tell rarely really worked). The level and consistency of international involvement of various nations is then likely to be more seriously taken into consideration when the next rankings are released, since the rankings would guarantee a spot on the SC.

Will offer a more detailed response later today. Thank you all for your suggestions! :D
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby CCP » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:49 am

Auditorii wrote:I'll be quite honest, one of your points talks about apathy and lack of desire and that's precisely what I haven't been involved with the SC since I've come back. Quite frankly, after repeated attempts to reform the SC and at times the World Congress itself, they were met with either outright opposition or just ignored entirely. I'm not the biggest fan of putting time and work into something when it just falls off.


To me that's understandable. I personally think the apathy is because the WC was created as a quasi-game mechanic instead of as a RP group. I agree that Permanent Members are a step in the right direction. More on that below . . .

Polites wrote:Ok, a quick response for now:

You guys make some very good points regarding the voting rights of Permanent Members, so we'll change the proposal to allow them full voting rights, and we'll remove the cap. In order to solve the issue of breaking ties in case of an even number of SC members, we're considering the option of giving the President of the SC one vote, and having the presidency rotate alphabetically among SC members (either just Permanent or all of them), so a random SC member will have two votes in case of a tie. We're still thinking of removing Seat E and alternating membership for elected members, as that would lower the threshold for a successful SC campaign and eliminate the need for Moderation to dismiss inactive members (which as far as I can tell rarely really worked). The level and consistency of international involvement of various nations is then likely to be more seriously taken into consideration when the next rankings are released, since the rankings would guarantee a spot on the SC.

Will offer a more detailed response later today. Thank you all for your suggestions! :D


Personally I think these are good improvements, but as I was saying with Auditorii above, I think it misaligns game play styles with game mechanics, which I believe is the root of some players' SC frustrations. Simply put: most Particracy players do not RP, they only vote on laws; the WC vote is just another law to most players; but the SC is a RP group, not a law-voting group; this means that non-RPers are hampering RPers' ability to play the RP game.

With that in mind, here're my suggestions:

1. Get rid of Seat E


2. Give Permanent Security Council Member status to the Military Great Powers


3. Allow the General Assembly to pass Resolutions in the form of Game Laws


4. Give Great Powers (permanent members) Veto Power over GA and SC resolutions


5. Leave Seats A-D as is


6. Let SC elect its own presiding officer


What this does is align the WC system with the three main Play Styles in Particracy: Foreign Policy RPers (Great Powers aka "deep RPers"), Domestic RPers (elected SC members and GA regulars, aka "light RPers"), and Non-RPers (law variables voters, aka "casual players"). It would allow all three play styles to participate in WC gameplay without impeding the other play styles. A few explanatory points about how it could work:

1. At the start of each new session (beginning of every month), the SC will elect a new presiding officer (doesn't matter who this person is, only that the players elect them; this is an easy jumpstarter to get RP going; the moderators or a CRC can conduct the vote). The winner can also preside over the GA or the GA could be allowed to elect its own presiding officer if it helps increase RP activity.

2. Any GA or SC member can propose a GA Resolution by making a proposal thread in the GA forum. The proposal should be 3 sentences or less and must include at least 2 voting variables (usually YES and NO). Five governments must support the resolution before it can be voted on (1 proposing government + 5 supporting governments = 10% of nations). A head of government, foreign minister, or WC ambassador can support a GA resolution on behalf of their country by signing the country's name in the proposal thread. Third World Nations and NGOs cannot propose or support proposals, but they can get any of the 58 Nations governments to do it for them.

2A. To keep moderator workload and involvement minimal and keep things moving quickly, SC members and the presiding officer(s) have a collective responsibility to ensure GA proposals abide by the rules. GA Proposals must be short, legible, to the point, and supported by 6 nations (the proposer plus 5 others). When a proposal is ready for prime time, any SC Member or presiding officer can post the proposal in the Final Approval thread. The moderators would copy and paste the proposal and its law variables from the Final Approval Thread onto the game system as a new law. Moderators should basically approve any proposal that doesn't violate game rules; since these are only designed to be on the game system temporarily, the extended scrutiny given to permanent law variables in the Creating the Law forum isn't as necessary.

2B. 30 votes are required to pass a GA Resolution. If there's a plurality in cases of 3 or more variables, it's up to the SC to decide whether and how to implement it. If the proposal garners 30 yes votes or plurality support from the 58 nations, the presiding officer will inform the SC. The SC can then vote on whether and how to implement the GA Resolution. A no vote by any Great Power will veto the GA Resolution. The SC and presiding officer(s) have a collective responsibility to keep the World Congress Section of the game system laws uncluttered and up-to-date by requesting that moderators remove proposals from the game system at appropriate times. Once a GA Resolution garners 30 yes or no votes, the presiding officer may declare the vote closed and ask moderators to remove the proposal from the game system. If a proposal has been on the game system for 1 month or was proposed in a prior WC Session, moderators have discretion to remove the proposal from the game system at any time.

3. Security Council Resolutions are on the forum only, they DO NOT go on the game system. Only General Assembly Resolutions go on the game system. 4 votes are required to pass a Security Council Resolution. A no vote by any Great Power will veto a Security Council Resolution.

Swapping out Seats A-D should be unnecessary in this system because 1) any nation can get a resolution passed via the GA and 2) the Great Powers hold the real power. This set-up gives players of all playing styles three ways to force WC action (win SC election, propose a GA resolution, or become a Great Power). To get even more activity, the Rankings period can be shortened from 6 Months to 4, 3, or 2 Months to allow players more opportunities to compete for Great Power status.

I think concerns about tie-breaking should not be built into the system. Instead I think the system should be tweaked as necessary if ties ever become a problem. As of now there are three Great Powers. Come April, there are only two real contenders for promotion to Great Power: Malivia and Dorvik. As of now, there's no guarantee that either will be promoted. And even if 4 Great Powers resulted in an 8-member Security Council, that does not significantly increase the likelihood of ties because throughout SC history, at least one member has usually been inactive. So instead of adding rigidity to the system, I think the system should be allowed to respond to RP as much as possible and if a problem arises in the future, it can be fixed at the time rather than pre-empting a solution that currently has no problem.
Last edited by CCP on Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
CCP
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM CONSULTATION

Postby FPC » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:19 am

CCP wrote:
Auditorii wrote:I'll be quite honest, one of your points talks about apathy and lack of desire and that's precisely what I haven't been involved with the SC since I've come back. Quite frankly, after repeated attempts to reform the SC and at times the World Congress itself, they were met with either outright opposition or just ignored entirely. I'm not the biggest fan of putting time and work into something when it just falls off.


To me that's understandable. I personally think the apathy is because the WC was created as a quasi-game mechanic instead of as a RP group. I agree that Permanent Members are a step in the right direction. More on that below . . .

Polites wrote:Ok, a quick response for now:

You guys make some very good points regarding the voting rights of Permanent Members, so we'll change the proposal to allow them full voting rights, and we'll remove the cap. In order to solve the issue of breaking ties in case of an even number of SC members, we're considering the option of giving the President of the SC one vote, and having the presidency rotate alphabetically among SC members (either just Permanent or all of them), so a random SC member will have two votes in case of a tie. We're still thinking of removing Seat E and alternating membership for elected members, as that would lower the threshold for a successful SC campaign and eliminate the need for Moderation to dismiss inactive members (which as far as I can tell rarely really worked). The level and consistency of international involvement of various nations is then likely to be more seriously taken into consideration when the next rankings are released, since the rankings would guarantee a spot on the SC.

Will offer a more detailed response later today. Thank you all for your suggestions! :D


Personally I think these are good improvements, but as I was saying with Auditorii above, I think it misaligns game play styles with game mechanics, which I believe is the root of some players' SC frustrations. Simply put: most Particracy players do not RP, they only vote on laws; the WC vote is just another law to most players; but the SC is a RP group, not a law-voting group; this means that non-RPers are hampering RPers' ability to play the RP game.

With that in mind, here're my suggestions:

1. Get rid of Seat E


2. Give Permanent Security Council Member status to the Military Great Powers


3. Allow the General Assembly to pass Resolutions in the form of Game Laws


4. Give Great Powers (permanent members) Veto Power over GA and SC resolutions


5. Leave Seats A-D as is


6. Let SC elect its own presiding officer


What this does is align the WC system with the three main Play Styles in Particracy: Foreign Policy RPers (Great Powers aka "deep RPers"), Domestic RPers (elected SC members and GA regulars, aka "light RPers"), and Non-RPers (law variables voters, aka "casual players"). It would allow all three play styles to participate in WC gameplay without impeding the other play styles. A few explanatory points about how it could work:

1. At the start of each new session (beginning of every month), the SC will elect a new presiding officer (doesn't matter who this person is, only that the players elect them; this is an easy jumpstarter to get RP going; the moderators or a CRC can conduct the vote). The winner can also preside over the GA or the GA could be allowed to elect its own presiding officer if it helps increase RP activity.

2. Any GA or SC member can propose a GA Resolution by making a proposal thread in the GA forum. The proposal should be 3 sentences or less and include at least 2 voting variables (usually YES or NO). Five governments are required to support the resolution before it can be voted on ( = 10% of nations). A head of government, foreign minister, or WC ambassador can support a GA resolution on behalf of their country by signing the country's name in the proposal thread. Third World Nations and NGOs cannot propose or support proposals, but they can get any of the 58 Nations governments to do it for them.

2A. To keep moderator workload and involvement minimal and keep things moving quickly, SC members and the presiding officer(s) have a collective responsibility to ensure GA proposals abide by the rules. GA Proposals must be short, legible, to the point, and supported by 6 nations (the proposer plus 5 others). When a proposal is ready for prime time, any SC Member or presiding officer can post the proposal in the Final Approval thread. The moderators would copy and paste the proposal and its law variables from the Final Approval Thread onto the game system as a new law. Moderators should basically approve any proposal that doesn't violate game rules; since these are only designed to be on the game system temporarily, the extended scrutiny given to permanent law variables in the Creating the Law forum isn't as necessary.

2B. 30 votes are required to pass a GA Resolution. If there's a plurality in cases of 3 or more variables, it's up to the SC to decide whether and how to implement it. If the proposal garners 30 yes votes or plurality support from the 58 nations, the presiding officer will inform the SC. The SC can then vote on whether and how to implement the GA Resolution. A no vote by any Great Power will veto the GA Resolution. The SC and presiding officer(s) have a collective responsibility to keep the World Congress Section of the game system laws uncluttered and up-to-date by requesting that moderators remove proposals from the game system at appropriate times. Once a GA Resolution garners 30 yes or no votes, the presiding officer may declare the vote closed and ask moderators to remove the proposal from the game system. If a proposal has been on the game system for 1 month or was proposed in a prior WC Session, moderators have discretion to remove the proposal from the game system at any time.

3. Security Council Resolutions are on the forum only, they DO NOT go on the game system. Only General Assembly Resolutions go on the game system. 4 votes are required to pass a Security Council Resolution. A no vote by any Great Power will veto a Security Council Resolution.

Swapping out Seats A-D should be unnecessary in this system because 1) any nation can get a resolution passed via the GA and 2) the Great Powers hold the real power. This set-up gives players of all playing styles three ways to force WC action (win SC election, propose a GA resolution, or become a Great Power). To get even more activity, the Rankings period can be shortened from 6 Months to 4, 3, or 2 Months to allow players more opportunities to compete for Great Power status.

I think concerns about tie-breaking should not be built into the system. Instead I think the system should be tweaked as necessary if ties ever become a problem. As of now there are three Great Powers. Come April, there are only two real contenders for promotion to Great Power: Malivia and Dorvik. As of now, there's no guarantee that either will be promoted. And even if 4 Great Powers resulted in a tie on the SC, that does not significantly increase the likelihood of ties because throughout SC history, at least one member has usually been inactive. So instead of adding rigidity to the system, I think the system should be allowed to respond to RP as much as possible and if a problem arises in the future, it can be fixed at the time rather than pre-empting a solution that currently has no problem.



Some of this sounds really great. We'll discuss it and get back to you ASAP.
Particracy Moderation
Wiki Admin and Bureaucrat (for some reason)
User avatar
FPC
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:14 am
Location: Scotland

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest