The Discussion Bus

[Voodoo Nova]

Since I cannot find the vote for the new posting rules, Lynneth can you please show me where we voted on any of the changes you made to the posting rules.

[Lynneth]

Since I cannot find the vote for the new posting rules, Lynneth can you please show me where we voted on any of the changes you made to the posting rules.

Originally, the rules on integrating land were that you have to make a new thread for every province annexed. There was no vote to change this to something more streamlines as outlined in the map thread. Would you like to go back to having to post a new thread for Najran, a new thread for Asir, a new thread for Jizan?

 

Because I can do that.

[Voodoo Nova]

Originally, the rules on integrating land were that you have to make a new thread for every province annexed. There was no vote to change this to something more streamlines as outlined in the map thread. Would you like to go back to having to post a new thread for Najran, a new thread for Asir, a new thread for Jizan?

 

Because I can do that.

 

Threats are silly, as that will be a lot of clutter for two-sentence posts.

 

What I am talking about is this:

 

An excessively large amount of provinces (Balkans, for example) may be combined into one 'region' if this region does not surpass 7.5 million people. Speak to the mapmaker about this to make sure it's legit.

 

 

Who decided an unelected mapmaker gets to be the person to decide when something is legit, over the GM's?

[Lynneth]

What I am talking about is this:

 

 

Who decided an unelected mapmaker gets to be the person to decide when something is legit, over the GM's?

Then specify what you're talking about the next time you complain.

 

That said, people had already started to clump up regions (Triyun in Italy, Cent taking Andalusia and Portugal at once, you taking all of Sudan in one stroke as recent examples I can think of), so I merely formalised the practise. If you'd like to formally hold a vote on it, that can of course be arranged.

 

Options would likely be

[Keep that as rule]

[Every Province must be annexed individually no matter what]

[Maybe a 3rd option]

[Evangeline Anovilis]

We have yet to settle whether this affects only white land, white land and peace agreements or all kinds of territorial handovers...

[Lynneth]

We have yet to settle whether this affects only white land, white land and peace agreements or all kinds of territorial handovers...

As per default, it would/should affect every territorial change, though it has not been enforced rigidly in the past (gifting).
Anything else would require a vote to make it so.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Lynneth

[Hereno]

Then specify what you're talking about the next time you complain.
 
That said, people had already started to clump up regions (Triyun in Italy, Cent taking Andalusia and Portugal at once, you taking all of Sudan in one stroke as recent examples I can think of), so I merely formalised the practise. If you'd like to formally hold a vote on it, that can of course be arranged.
 
Options would likely be
[Keep that as rule]
[Every Province must be annexed individually no matter what]
[Maybe a 3rd option]

I also did this with Naples and Venice by clumping the whole area together like that. Every time someone tries to fix it, nobody is willing to come out in favor. I think we should enforce the rules as they are. Every single province should have to have 7 posts and it's own thread for two weeks. Once they see how shitty it is, they'll try to fix it. Don't fix it for them, because then shit like this happens where you're suddenly the bad guy for trying to give people a break.

[Triyun]

It still doesn't explain why the mapmaker has the right to make these decisions.  I'd also point out that its pretty unfair as far as late vs. early expansion, especially for those who already wrote stuff.  Italy for instance which has been divided into three parts during my annexation (the southern three states which you still need to add to the map), the North, which is pretty depopulated because Zoot thermonuked it, and Sicily are not nearly the same as for instance annexing all of the much bigger and more rough terrain country of Myanmar in seven posts, which you personally as GM allowed Mael to do Lyn:  http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/121664-world-map-of-cnrp2/?p=3280100

 

For you to change the rules in the middle of People's RPs so their previous RPs are invalid seems hypocritical and selective.  If Mael or someone else is allowed to annex Burma in Seven posts, why nations now have to do it?  And why do some RPs get grandfathered in but others get invalidated.

 

At minimum all of this should require a vote, especially when its declared the 'mapmakers' judgement rather than anyone elses.  Rules need to be applied equally not selectively.

[PresidentDavid]

I don't remember the last time we had a mapmaker that was an idiot. Lynneth is always neutral. Cent isn't biased when it matters. Mogar is Mogar but I think "idiot" would be a step above the occasional ignorance or blinding hatred he has. 

 

That's why the mapmaker gets these special privileges. A generally not stupid non-elected public official.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I don't remember the last time we had a mapmaker that was an idiot. Lynneth is always neutral. Cent isn't biased when it matters. Mogar is Mogar but I think "idiot" would be a step above the occasional ignorance or blinding hatred he has. 

 

That's why the mapmaker gets these special privileges. A generally not stupid non-elected public official.

Why don't we do away with GM votes then and not just sit together, agree on three GMs we think "aren't idiots" who then run the court? Long live the Directorate!?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

It still doesn't explain why the mapmaker has the right to make these decisions.  I'd also point out that its pretty unfair as far as late vs. early expansion, especially for those who already wrote stuff.  Italy for instance which has been divided into three parts during my annexation (the southern three states which you still need to add to the map), the North, which is pretty depopulated because Zoot thermonuked it, and Sicily are not nearly the same as for instance annexing all of the much bigger and more rough terrain country of Myanmar in seven posts, which you personally as GM allowed Mael to do Lyn:  http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/121664-world-map-of-cnrp2/?p=3280100

 

For you to change the rules in the middle of People's RPs so their previous RPs are invalid seems hypocritical and selective.  If Mael or someone else is allowed to annex Burma in Seven posts, why nations now have to do it?  And why do some RPs get grandfathered in but others get invalidated.

 

At minimum all of this should require a vote, especially when its declared the 'mapmakers' judgement rather than anyone elses.  Rules need to be applied equally not selectively.

 

I did the 7 posts for Myanmar and developed it thoroughly. The malay peninsula is a protectorate. I continue to use Myanmar to this day. It's the hosting port of my space program and my fleets. Saying there has not been significant effort to develop it is a joke. A bad joke, and a bad argument. I took the full 2 weeks and 7 days.. and am continueing to follow that rule and often going beyond that rule in my level of participation in the regions I am annexing.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Evangeline Anovilis]

 

I did the 7 posts for Myanmar and developed it thoroughly. The malay peninsula is a protectorate. I continue to use Myanmar to this day. It's the hosting port of my space program and my fleets. Saying there has not been significant effort to develop it is a joke. A bad joke, and a bad argument. I took the full 2 weeks and 7 days.. and am continueing to follow that rule and often going beyond that rule in my level of participation in the regions I am annexing.

I think you are completely missing the point. This is about how arbitrarily, You need for example 7 posts for every German state, or for every Polish voivodeship, or for every Italian region, yet, somehow Myanmar was annexed in one go. And Myanmar is neither small area-wise, nor population-wise (60+ million people). Whast you do after annexing also is of no importance whatsoever. What this argument is about, is Lynneth making up rules on his own, but not even applying them uniformly, but with double-standards.

[Lynneth]

I think you are completely missing the point. This is about how arbitrarily, You need for example 7 posts for every German state, or for every Polish voivodeship, or for every Italian region, yet, somehow Myanmar was annexed in one go. And Myanmar is neither small area-wise, nor population-wise (60+ million people). Whast you do after annexing also is of no importance whatsoever. What this argument is about, is Lynneth making up rules on his own, but not even applying them uniformly, but with double-standards.

I never enforced those rules properly before. That's why Voodoo got all of Sudan in 7 posts or Mael got Myanmar.

But that's not going to happen anymore.

[Yerushalayim]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules said "Country or province". I took "province" to refer to Canadian style provinces, which are themselves larger than many countries. I don't think the rules support an interpretation of having to take each province/county/city in its own thread.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I never enforced those rules properly before. That's why Voodoo got all of Sudan in 7 posts or Mael got Myanmar.

But that's not going to happen anymore.

Well, you were a GM before, you are a GM now. There was no rule change. Ergo, you were lenient before and now are clamping down when you feel like it, in essence establishing a double standard.

 

[hr]

 

Now, on a different note, as this is the discussion bus... would anyone feel up for changing the way GM elections work? As it stands, we have a majoritarian system, which allows each of us to cast three votes. If you consider it that there are three GMs, if people in any way coordinate votes, it essentially could mean a small majority secures all three spots, while a sizeable minority goes unrepresented. GMs will tend to all represent similar opinions, as they were voted for by similar people.

 

Even worse, earlier today, reelections showed three potential winners, all at ~7 votes, while 21 people had cast votes. This is no longer the case, but it highlights, that with the plentitude of options we have, there might be cases where minorities secure all three seats, or are otherwise overrepresented, just because the rest of the votes went for the plentidute of other canditates, while the few concentrated on three.

 

This is democratically problematic.

 

I'd think, if all people had only one vote, it'd be much more representative of the community composition. If people pool their votes, they'll be able to get one, maybe two GMs elected, but not all three, unless they are a majority. If people don't have as many votes as there are GM spots, minorities get more representation and there is larger variety in the GM court in opinion. Also, it is easier to count and makes it hardly any more complicated.

 

Optionally, one could restrict the number of people running by only taking the x highest scoring in the nominations, to avoid some person that was nominated only once and has no chance of getting anywhere anyway.

 

I'm not accusing the GMs of being bad GMs (at least in this section of the post), but I do think that the possibilities from above should be avoided by measures taken now.Especially, as many noteworthy competences rest with the GMs, and certain drastic measures require unanimosity among the GM court to pass, making a change to more proportional elections a greater reassurance against abuse.

[Mogar]

it's almost as if that same problem has occurred numerous times throughout all of the incarnations of CNRP, including the GM elections before the most recent ones for RP1 in which you should have been elected GM until a final hour vote swapping forced a runoff election that wasn't even remotely close.

[Hereno]

Everything was fine last time when we had Biohazard/Lynneth/Rudolph who were elected the way we have been. In fact, all three won re-election, and would still be serving had we not already made it so that nobody can run as an incumbent candidate. Having 1/3 of the GMs disagreeing with the other two because they're representing the minority view doesn't actually change any outcomes, because the other two still have the majority. That's democracy for you: the majority rules. I don't see how things could get any better and I'm tired of voting on more and more bureaucratic procedures.

[Voodoo Nova]

I'm fine with the voting as it is. It's simple, effective and gets a group of 3 GM's [s]suffering[/s] elected in a timely matter.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

it's almost as if that same problem has occurred numerous times throughout all of the incarnations of CNRP, including the GM elections before the most recent ones for RP1 in which you should have been elected GM until a final hour vote swapping forced a runoff election that wasn't even remotely close.

Just that GM powers in CNRP and CNRP2 are hardly comparable. CNRP GMs are mostly interpreting the rules, within the constraints of the text and precedent. Sanctions for rule-breaking are wipes of specific instances of the RP.

 

In CNRP2, GMs have far greater power, ranging to the ability to initiate votes on banning people.

 

Majoritarian electory systems are not inherently bad. They just focus on creating working majorities, at the cost of representivity, which is fine, if the community is uniform and if there are other constraints on power.

 

So, your tu quoque argument hardly holds.

 

Everything was fine last time when we had Biohazard/Lynneth/Rudolph who were elected the way we have been. In fact, all three won re-election, and would still be serving had we not already made it so that nobody can run as an incumbent candidate. Having 1/3 of the GMs disagreeing with the other two because they're representing the minority view doesn't actually change any outcomes, because the other two still have the majority. That's democracy for you: the majority rules. I don't see how things could get any better and I'm tired of voting on more and more bureaucratic procedures.

Oh, tell me the bureaucratic burden that comes from giving every person one vote, instead of three. The burden actually becomes less, as the check to see whether anyone voted for more than three falls away. It's a simple and easy fix to a potential problem and it is making lives easier for everyone involved in counting votes.

 

And given certain matters require all three GMs to agree on a matter, not just two out of three, no, there is a difference in the outcome. Not like I expected minority rights to be of concern to you anyway.

 

I'm fine with the voting as it is. It's simple, effective and gets a group of 3 GM's suffering elected in a timely matter.

It is not becoming more complicated. It is an easy fix for greater representation.

[Hereno]

Not like I expected minority rights to be of concern to you anyway.

Is that really necessary?

[Evangeline Anovilis]

About as necessary as the Transylvanian Maoist note. What goes around comes around, my friend.

[PresidentDavid]

I read that as "moist" at first. 

[Lynneth]

Well, you were a GM before, you are a GM now. There was no rule change. Ergo, you were lenient before and now are clamping down when you feel like it, in essence establishing a double standard.

I fail to see what's bad about cleaning up one's act. Isn't bettering one's commitment to keeping to the rules generally considered a good thing? Or did I wake up in a mirror-universe where corruption and lax enforcement of rules are favoured?

[Triyun]

Not if its selective and without a vote.  Surely you must see the timing suspiciously correlates with the end of your buddies expansion and the beginning of those you've been historically politically opposed to.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I fail to see what's bad about cleaning up one's act. Isn't bettering one's commitment to keeping to the rules generally considered a good thing? Or did I wake up in a mirror-universe where corruption and lax enforcement of rules are favoured?

How about you should have been committed from the start, not just after most of your term has already passed. Thing is, you let it slide before, but suddenly, now that certain people are annexing stuff, it not only gets rigorously enforced, you also just decide to rewrite the land expansion rule without community vote or even discussion of the topic. Neither mapmaker nor GM position should give you this right and I'm not in the least inclined to believe that these recent events are just a honest attempt of yours to improve your performance as GM.