Post by studentloandebt on Mar 12, 2021 7:47:47 GMT
I wish to respond to the points here. I will begin this by saying that the Discord server's importance is why I hold the views I do. If it were just another aspect to our region, then perhaps I'd be fine with Demi's proposal. However, since the Discord server is an essential part to our region, something she and I agree on, I cannot support her proposal. I will respond to her 3 points.
1. I view the congressional membership as important. However, I view the residency requirement as even greater in importance.
Firstly, I'll talk congressional membership. Residents are people who reside in the DSA. Pretty simple. Residents, however, do not have say in the governing of our region. In order to have say, whether through voting or government membership, they need to be a Member of Congress. The barrier to enter congress is very easy so the only thing stopping someone from having a say in our region is whether or not they want to. If you actually have an interest in our region, you enter congress so you can have a vote, which every active member has done. Membership into congress is, in my view, different from entering our government. When people speak of the DSA government, they're most likely speaking not of the general body of people in our region, but of our Executive Branch: the Council. To be in the government, you're elected to it and, if trying for the Council, voted into it. With Congress, you just sign up, no election needed. This distinction between Congress and the DSA Government I make is important for the next part.
Demi has concerns over the inclusion of Discord Moderation into the government, which is a valid concern and one I share with her. However, I believe how we see that "inclusion" is different between us. She comes from experience of other regions criticizing our Discord server's mod team and her specifically as Admin and a considerable amount of that criticism being tied to our government, with those regions wanting our government to have more say over the Mods. This, however, from what I've seen, has been criticism asking for the Council to have more control over the Mods, not Congress, for the Council to intefere with the Mods, not Congress. I agree with Demi that Moderation and our Council should be separate as the combination of the two combines regional politics and server moderation too closely. However, inclusion of Moderators in Congress do not combine regional politics and server moderation as Congress is far less political than the Council, which is very much political.
However, I do not agree in complete total separation of the DSA from Moderation, as she is asking for. Firstly, as I have shown, connecting Moderation to Congress will not create conflict of NationState politics or the DSA Government with Moderation, as congressional membership has not done so in the past and the only conflicts has been on other regions demanding Council power over our Mods and not Congressional power, which is far more decentralized than Council power. Secondly, as said above, Congressional membership is already a necessity in having say in our region. To have a vote in community decision making, you join our Congress. Why should the Mods be excluded from this? Moderators already have a pretty powerful position within our region as they moderate our Discord server, which has become an essential part of our region. If one is to be in a posistion as high as our Mods, which most certainly gives them a powerful voice in our community decision making, then why should they not be required to be a part of our body that does community decision making? To not have the Congressional membership requirement puts Moderators in a special posistion where they get to make community decisions without being part of the general body that does so.
Along with my above argument, I would also like to bring to attention the following regarding already established Congressional membership requirement, written by Demi herself.
Already in the Discord legislation, there is law regarding moderation. As per the legislation, you have to be a Member of Congress in order to vote in a poll on our server. While not all have, a considerable number of these polls have been in regards to server moderation and so these polls tie Congressional membership to moderation. However, this I find to be confusing as legislation, of which is not sought to be amended, requires already for Congressional membership to vote on moderation, but the proposal put forward would make it so that you do not have to be a Member of Congress in order to moderate. My confusion is on why you don't have to be an MoC to be a Moderator but you do in order to vote on Moderation. I do not think any of us would dispute the importance of being a Member of Congress for these polls, and so I extend this argument into my own to say that Congressional membership has been needed this whole time for Moderator well before the Big Meaty Claws Act of 2021 and should continue to be needed.
That is my argument regarding Congressional membership. Now I will talk about Demi also wishing to remove the Residency requirement. Despite what some say regarding our Discord server, we are a NationStates region that has a Discord server, not the other way around. The server is not independent of our region nor was it ever intended to be. The server is to serve our region within NationStates, the Democratic Socialist Assembly, and it continues to do so. The server has become a very important part of our region and, as such, the posistion of Moderator gives some residents a very high and important part in regional decision making. With such a high and powerful posistion within our region that impacts how our region operates, the people in our region, and the atmosphere of our region, it makes sense that one should, at the very least, be part of our region to be a Moderator with such influence. No matter how much it has been attempted, one cannot fully separate our Moderators from influencing the region as a whole nor influencing the DSA government.
If we were to remove the Residency requirement, we would remove any necessity of needing to be part of our region in order to have such a high posistion. With this proposal, one would not have to be a member of our region in order to hold such sway in our region. Those in Congress who make community decisions would all be people who are in our region, but those in our Moderator group who would influence many facets of our region could now include people who have never even been part of our region but have only ever been part of our server. If Congress would promote someone to the rank of Moderator who is not a resident is beyond the scope of this response, but the ability for this to unfold is an ability I myself am not comfortable with. If one is to be a Moderator and hold such influence over the heart of the region, I think it is a very reasonable expectation that one should at least be part of our region first.
2. My views on Demi's second point is similiar to my views on her first point. As said, the posistion of Moderator gives one a large amount of sway over how the region goes, affecting many facets from the atmosphere of the region to who is in the region (as Discord membership has almost become essential to connecting with the rest of the region and removal from the server has almost always been followed by removal from the region) and even to how the region operates as much of the community decision making for our region occurs on our Discord server, which thus is under the domain of our Moderator group and thus must adhere to the server rules that Moderators create. If one were to no longer be part of our Congress or even our region but remain a Moderator, they would continue to hold such sway over our Congress and thus our region. Demi has phrased regional membership as a punishment in this topic but I do not see how it would be that at all but instead be a necessary aspect one must take on if they wish to be in such a high posistion within the DSA. To use an example, if one wishes to be in the Council, another very influential posistion within our region, but not to be in our region, regional membership requirement would not be a punishment but instead a necessary aspect to holding such power and such a high posistion within our region. This applies as well to Moderation where regional membership requirement would not be a punishment but instead a necessary aspect to holding such power and such a high posistion within our region
3. Demi brings up the possibility of problems arising on NationStates, ranging from account locking to NationStates itself possibly facing a problem, which I would presume ranges anywhere from region deletion to the entire website shutting down. These are all dark, very much so, and I share her concern with that. However, she looks to those with a response that would support removing the residency requirement for Moderators while I do not believe that one can draw that conclusion from those scenarios. Or, if they do draw those conclusions, then I believe Moderators shouldn't be the only group that should have that removed, but the Council as well. I will explain.
She believes that, if one these scenarios occur and there is a residency requirement to Moderators, that there would be undue stress and uncertainty on how to move forward. Let's first operate under the idea of something big happening like region deletion or NationState shutting down. Firstly, in regards to stress and uncertainty, that would happen regardless of the residency requirement. Since 99.9% of our members come from NationStates, our government is tied to NationStates, and our community is based on the game NationStates, Mods would not be the only ones affected by such a scenario. There would be no "business as usual" with this but instead this would be a crisis that I believe would rival the 2019 Cabinet Crisis itself, perhaps surpass it as our community is a NationStates community and there would have never been this community nor continued replenishment of it without the game. For example, if NationStates shut down, I don't think a residency requirement on our Mods would be the first, second, or even third concern on the community's mind. Another example, as used by Demi in her argument; if the Mods were locked out of there accounts or somehow else lost access to them, that's simple to get around as we have had multiple members lose access to the nation that their Congress membership is tied to and our Mods could just re-opt-in with a new account, no issue there. A Congress membership requirement would not at all be an issue to the ability to be a Moderator if something were to happen to NationStates and/or to a Moderator's Congressional nation.
As for my part regarding the Council, Demi's argument with this could also very much extend to the Council. She and I hold the Mods in high regard but her argument in this proposal only addresses issues regarding Mods if something ever happened to the DSA on NationStates or to NatioStates itself. The Council, who also are very influential and powerful in our region, would fit right into her argument. Councilorship is dependent on the existence of your NationStates account and if no longer having access to your account is detrimental to a Mod, then it would also be detrimental to a Councilor who would face the same situation. The Councilor of Role Play is the head of our RP community and losing them would be detrimental to the direction and moderation of our RP community. The Secretary-General is the one who organizes all our votes, updates the Charter, and runs our elections and losing them would be very detrimental to the continuing on of our government. The Councilor of Justice and High Judge both are essential to the following of regional laws and losing either of them would be very detrimental to ensuring that regional laws are followed and enforced. Region deletion or NationStates shutting down would also be situations that would be very similar between Moderators and Councilors as, based on Demi's argument, both posistions are based on residency.
My point with all this is this question: following the argument laid in Demi's 3rd Point. should there be no residency requirement for the Council? She is not arguing this, yes, but her argument very much fits that question and raises the same concerns she raises regarding Moderation. I do not feel like any of us would say that Councilors shouldn't have to be part of our region to be Councilors. Councilors run our region and have such high influence in our region. Why shouldn't they be in our region? Without a residency requirement, someone could be a Councilor and have such large sway over the region without having to even be part of the region. This argument carries on my argument supporting residency requirement for the posistion of Moderator. Without a residency requirement, someone could be a Moderator and have such large sway over the region without having to even be part of the region. Demi's 3rd Point raises concerns over a residency requirement for Moderators regarding if something happened on NS or to their account and what that would mean for Moderators. This, however, also applies to the other high posistions in our region that would face the exact same issues she believes Mods would face, but these others posistions are ones that seem obvious as to why a residency requirement is needed. Moderators should have the same requirement of having to be in our region.
1. I view the congressional membership as important. However, I view the residency requirement as even greater in importance.
Firstly, I'll talk congressional membership. Residents are people who reside in the DSA. Pretty simple. Residents, however, do not have say in the governing of our region. In order to have say, whether through voting or government membership, they need to be a Member of Congress. The barrier to enter congress is very easy so the only thing stopping someone from having a say in our region is whether or not they want to. If you actually have an interest in our region, you enter congress so you can have a vote, which every active member has done. Membership into congress is, in my view, different from entering our government. When people speak of the DSA government, they're most likely speaking not of the general body of people in our region, but of our Executive Branch: the Council. To be in the government, you're elected to it and, if trying for the Council, voted into it. With Congress, you just sign up, no election needed. This distinction between Congress and the DSA Government I make is important for the next part.
Demi has concerns over the inclusion of Discord Moderation into the government, which is a valid concern and one I share with her. However, I believe how we see that "inclusion" is different between us. She comes from experience of other regions criticizing our Discord server's mod team and her specifically as Admin and a considerable amount of that criticism being tied to our government, with those regions wanting our government to have more say over the Mods. This, however, from what I've seen, has been criticism asking for the Council to have more control over the Mods, not Congress, for the Council to intefere with the Mods, not Congress. I agree with Demi that Moderation and our Council should be separate as the combination of the two combines regional politics and server moderation too closely. However, inclusion of Moderators in Congress do not combine regional politics and server moderation as Congress is far less political than the Council, which is very much political.
However, I do not agree in complete total separation of the DSA from Moderation, as she is asking for. Firstly, as I have shown, connecting Moderation to Congress will not create conflict of NationState politics or the DSA Government with Moderation, as congressional membership has not done so in the past and the only conflicts has been on other regions demanding Council power over our Mods and not Congressional power, which is far more decentralized than Council power. Secondly, as said above, Congressional membership is already a necessity in having say in our region. To have a vote in community decision making, you join our Congress. Why should the Mods be excluded from this? Moderators already have a pretty powerful position within our region as they moderate our Discord server, which has become an essential part of our region. If one is to be in a posistion as high as our Mods, which most certainly gives them a powerful voice in our community decision making, then why should they not be required to be a part of our body that does community decision making? To not have the Congressional membership requirement puts Moderators in a special posistion where they get to make community decisions without being part of the general body that does so.
Along with my above argument, I would also like to bring to attention the following regarding already established Congressional membership requirement, written by Demi herself.
Subsection 1.3.2 - Rules and Procedures
Only Members of Congress may cast votes in polls conducted on the Main Server. Members of Congress may only cast a single vote
Only Members of Congress may cast votes in polls conducted on the Main Server. Members of Congress may only cast a single vote
That is my argument regarding Congressional membership. Now I will talk about Demi also wishing to remove the Residency requirement. Despite what some say regarding our Discord server, we are a NationStates region that has a Discord server, not the other way around. The server is not independent of our region nor was it ever intended to be. The server is to serve our region within NationStates, the Democratic Socialist Assembly, and it continues to do so. The server has become a very important part of our region and, as such, the posistion of Moderator gives some residents a very high and important part in regional decision making. With such a high and powerful posistion within our region that impacts how our region operates, the people in our region, and the atmosphere of our region, it makes sense that one should, at the very least, be part of our region to be a Moderator with such influence. No matter how much it has been attempted, one cannot fully separate our Moderators from influencing the region as a whole nor influencing the DSA government.
If we were to remove the Residency requirement, we would remove any necessity of needing to be part of our region in order to have such a high posistion. With this proposal, one would not have to be a member of our region in order to hold such sway in our region. Those in Congress who make community decisions would all be people who are in our region, but those in our Moderator group who would influence many facets of our region could now include people who have never even been part of our region but have only ever been part of our server. If Congress would promote someone to the rank of Moderator who is not a resident is beyond the scope of this response, but the ability for this to unfold is an ability I myself am not comfortable with. If one is to be a Moderator and hold such influence over the heart of the region, I think it is a very reasonable expectation that one should at least be part of our region first.
2. My views on Demi's second point is similiar to my views on her first point. As said, the posistion of Moderator gives one a large amount of sway over how the region goes, affecting many facets from the atmosphere of the region to who is in the region (as Discord membership has almost become essential to connecting with the rest of the region and removal from the server has almost always been followed by removal from the region) and even to how the region operates as much of the community decision making for our region occurs on our Discord server, which thus is under the domain of our Moderator group and thus must adhere to the server rules that Moderators create. If one were to no longer be part of our Congress or even our region but remain a Moderator, they would continue to hold such sway over our Congress and thus our region. Demi has phrased regional membership as a punishment in this topic but I do not see how it would be that at all but instead be a necessary aspect one must take on if they wish to be in such a high posistion within the DSA. To use an example, if one wishes to be in the Council, another very influential posistion within our region, but not to be in our region, regional membership requirement would not be a punishment but instead a necessary aspect to holding such power and such a high posistion within our region. This applies as well to Moderation where regional membership requirement would not be a punishment but instead a necessary aspect to holding such power and such a high posistion within our region
3. Demi brings up the possibility of problems arising on NationStates, ranging from account locking to NationStates itself possibly facing a problem, which I would presume ranges anywhere from region deletion to the entire website shutting down. These are all dark, very much so, and I share her concern with that. However, she looks to those with a response that would support removing the residency requirement for Moderators while I do not believe that one can draw that conclusion from those scenarios. Or, if they do draw those conclusions, then I believe Moderators shouldn't be the only group that should have that removed, but the Council as well. I will explain.
She believes that, if one these scenarios occur and there is a residency requirement to Moderators, that there would be undue stress and uncertainty on how to move forward. Let's first operate under the idea of something big happening like region deletion or NationState shutting down. Firstly, in regards to stress and uncertainty, that would happen regardless of the residency requirement. Since 99.9% of our members come from NationStates, our government is tied to NationStates, and our community is based on the game NationStates, Mods would not be the only ones affected by such a scenario. There would be no "business as usual" with this but instead this would be a crisis that I believe would rival the 2019 Cabinet Crisis itself, perhaps surpass it as our community is a NationStates community and there would have never been this community nor continued replenishment of it without the game. For example, if NationStates shut down, I don't think a residency requirement on our Mods would be the first, second, or even third concern on the community's mind. Another example, as used by Demi in her argument; if the Mods were locked out of there accounts or somehow else lost access to them, that's simple to get around as we have had multiple members lose access to the nation that their Congress membership is tied to and our Mods could just re-opt-in with a new account, no issue there. A Congress membership requirement would not at all be an issue to the ability to be a Moderator if something were to happen to NationStates and/or to a Moderator's Congressional nation.
As for my part regarding the Council, Demi's argument with this could also very much extend to the Council. She and I hold the Mods in high regard but her argument in this proposal only addresses issues regarding Mods if something ever happened to the DSA on NationStates or to NatioStates itself. The Council, who also are very influential and powerful in our region, would fit right into her argument. Councilorship is dependent on the existence of your NationStates account and if no longer having access to your account is detrimental to a Mod, then it would also be detrimental to a Councilor who would face the same situation. The Councilor of Role Play is the head of our RP community and losing them would be detrimental to the direction and moderation of our RP community. The Secretary-General is the one who organizes all our votes, updates the Charter, and runs our elections and losing them would be very detrimental to the continuing on of our government. The Councilor of Justice and High Judge both are essential to the following of regional laws and losing either of them would be very detrimental to ensuring that regional laws are followed and enforced. Region deletion or NationStates shutting down would also be situations that would be very similar between Moderators and Councilors as, based on Demi's argument, both posistions are based on residency.
My point with all this is this question: following the argument laid in Demi's 3rd Point. should there be no residency requirement for the Council? She is not arguing this, yes, but her argument very much fits that question and raises the same concerns she raises regarding Moderation. I do not feel like any of us would say that Councilors shouldn't have to be part of our region to be Councilors. Councilors run our region and have such high influence in our region. Why shouldn't they be in our region? Without a residency requirement, someone could be a Councilor and have such large sway over the region without having to even be part of the region. This argument carries on my argument supporting residency requirement for the posistion of Moderator. Without a residency requirement, someone could be a Moderator and have such large sway over the region without having to even be part of the region. Demi's 3rd Point raises concerns over a residency requirement for Moderators regarding if something happened on NS or to their account and what that would mean for Moderators. This, however, also applies to the other high posistions in our region that would face the exact same issues she believes Mods would face, but these others posistions are ones that seem obvious as to why a residency requirement is needed. Moderators should have the same requirement of having to be in our region.
