In defense of inclusiveness and activity
Foxfire
This article actually began as a comment to Garry Carter 's article Abolish the forum of eCanada. The eCanada Forum is a subject I've danced with for many many years and Garry Carter's article does resonate with me, at least in meaning. I have in the past taken substantial dumps on the lawn of the eCanada Forum because:
1.) If you are going to build a giant manure pile and declare yourselves king of the hill, then you deserve to be knocked off that high horse and
2.) I enjoyed it.
This will not be in that vein though. I will attempt (note: attempt) an honest account of this issue.
The eCanada Forum purports to be a tool of government to assist in the exchange of ideas, record keeping and organized government. In it's best moments it does just that. Unfortunately, there are also elements, both purposefully and by happenstance that create barriers to players wishing to participate in the political module in eCanada.
What is true is activity in the eCanada Forums continues to be even lower then the already low activity in eCanada and there is many reasons why.
I want a Big Mac – The bureaucracy of an independent forum website
If you went to McDonalds to order a Big Mac, then were told to leave McDonald, go across the street, sign up for gym membership to a gym you neither know or have any interest in joining, told to discuss with a bunch of people the merits of whether or not you should have a Big Mac, and THEN go back across the street to McDonalds to resume your purchase of that Big Mac, you would honestly think the world had gone insane. More then likely, you would just buy the damn Big Mac and be about the rest of your day.
Yet, there is the expectation among some that an eRepublik Congress person should not use the mechanics provided in the game, but will instead leave the game, create an account on the eRepublik forum, navigate the site, learn it's mechanics and rules, propose what they wish to propose in-game, wait for that discussion to conclude, have vote proposed, wait for the vote to conclude, go back to the game and then propose the same proposal.
It is a bureaucratic nightmare of red tape and completely contrary to the premise of enjoying a free and easy access browser game.
Que dites-vous?
The second largest party in eCanada is also the most noticeably absent from the eCanada forums. That is the FRENCH speaking second largest party in eCanada is also the most noticeably absent from the predominantly ENGLISH speaking eCanada forums.
A committee has been formed to investigate this matter and will report it's finds in three years.
But I don't like you
Many players in eRepublik assume personas of less then likeable, sometimes down right offensive people. Not too surprisingly reputations develop and animosities form. So to then be told by these same individuals that you are actually supposed to be logging on to a separate website, chances are you are not going to be very receptive to their instructions. Better yet, if you do check out the eCanada Forums and you get a glimpse of all your favorite villains ripping each other apart, chances are you will slowly back out of the room and never return.
Basic website design
The eCanada forum is not very well designed. Basic website principles of design, to which many books and statistical data will confirm, is that you have two levels that your user will drill down to until you lose them to frustration. Congress is three clicks in and four to a specific Congress topic. It is a mammoth of bulk. I can navigate it because of familiarity, but even I can't find old topics with any ease. There is no way to reasonably assume that a new user could comfortably navigate the site.
The need for order
There are players in eRepublik that have invested a truly astounding amount of time and money into eCanada. They deserve our respect for their efforts and continued services to our country. Much like anyone that has invested so much into anything, they don't want a bunch of people that don't have a clue coming in and fucking it all up. The eCanada Forum assists as a bastion of right to rule in this regard. The familiar faces (to which, if being honest, I'd have to count myself among) stand guard, both passively and actively, in defense of an established political institution.
So the irony is there is a desire for active people in eCanada, but it's really for people that are active in the way that those that maintain the existing establishment have dictated so the country stay the course as those before them have set out.
An unauthorized tax proposal! Burn him!
When an elected member of Congress makes a proposal in eRepublik without any use of the eCanada Forum, they are highlighting a couple of ideologies that don't get along with each other.
A person that doesn't submit to the system created in the external website is subjected to penalties in that website. This actually makes complete sense. If I make a private club with private rules and you don't follow them, they you are out of the private club. Simple enough.
It's when the penalties bleed out of the external website and into the eRepublik game that it gets real cloudy, real fast. Penalizing political parties who do not in turn punish players (with bottom placement in the Congress voting lineup) that the external forum has decided should be punished. At it's worst I have seen this system abused and turned into a popularity contest, where the guilty go free and those deemed guilty are punished with excessive banning. Needless to say these outcomes nuke activity for not only the individual involved, but those watching. Do you go into a bar that the bouncers are kicking the crap out of the customers?
There is a reason I've called it a house of cards
So why the fanatical reaction to what is most of the time completely harmless financial adjustments that are quickly voted down and rejected? The other side of the matter is the Congress person is going against the establishment. A carefully crafted series of hoops to maintain that which has been built before and those that protect it. What should be terrifying is that if no one uses it, then it has no power at all, for all the levers of power continue to reside in the game itself. So a strong club is used to insist upon the idea that an external forum is the only house of governance. It's a dangerous authoritative structure and I appreciate the frenzy to which it is defended.
Cracks do form
If I viewed the eCanada Forum as a bastion of governance, I'd be concerned right now. A very ironic vote was held recently whereby Congress members are not allowed to make proposals in the eRepublik game without posting why in the eCanada external forum. I don't put a condom on after I've had sex either, so this law confuses the hell out of me. There is simply no way an individual wishing to remain in game and utilize the tools the game has to offer would do this.
Where it gets real interesting is that only 12 out of a potential 40 Congress members voted for this law and only 18 participated in the vote.
ttp://ecan.forumotion.com/t824p15-amendment-to-the-charter
Yes votes - 12
No Votes - 5
Abstains - 1
Quroum met
65% + 1 requirement for Charter amendment met
If I was pro-forum this would terrify me. I don't get how this is a 65% quroum (18 out of 40?), but I'm honestly going to ignore that part. If I want people to use the forum, how does voting a law through with only 12 people supporting it actually translate into increasing forum activity? There is a greater majority of Congress not participating on the forum, so make more binding forum use legislation? It will never work because you've just reinforced the impression that the eCanada forum is an exclusive group that doesn't want others participating in government.
Meet them half way
If I was firmly in the “only in-game play” camp, I'd try to see the merit of what a fully engaged forum can accomplish and how it can be used as a tool to tackle broader issues that although can be discussed in-game, can be better discussed with the additional tools that the external forum provides.
The trick is getting that fully engaged forum, and that's where the “forum governance” camp needs to step up, as it won't be done at the point of a sword, legislative or otherwise. Tactics need to be used that create inclusion and from that inclusion activity will follow. This may require compromise and a loosening of restrictions.
Realistically
As I stated at the beginning, I've spoken to this issue many times over many years. Although I hope a positive and productive compromise can be reached from both sides, I suspect that the trend will continue much as I've witnessed it for years. The same individuals will utilize the eCanada Forum and their ranks will continue to gradually decrease. Those that would rather stay with the in-game mechanics will continue to be disengaged, further facilitating the inactivity that permeates eCanada.
I hope I'm wrong.
Comments
Congratulations on reaching the end of this excessively long piece of writing and I hope you didn't have a stroke in the process.
I've read longer.
I will repeat my comment in Garry Carter's article here. The Forum, in my viewpoint, is used for discussion about different law changes that can/would happen in game, primarily. I am okay with moving that discussion in game, if there is a reasonable means of discussion. Some have suggested a congress group pm, but there is a limit of 30 people per message, and congress is 40. That doesn't lead to good discussion when there are two different message threads happening. There is also the issue of language barrier in-game as much as on the forum. Most of congress is english speaking and doesn't know french. The argument can be made that google translate would work just fine in that situation, and the same could be said about the forum.
Ultimately, if a legitimate discussion area can be proposed in game, I would be all for that, but as far as I can see it, pm's won't work, moving every congress member into a MU isn't very efficient either, and I don't see any other viable option for discussion.
When on a good day, you can get 18 active people in the forum vote, I wouldn't worry about that 30 person maximum just yet. Regardless, eIreland has run a Congress month after month through chat. So it is possible. As I pointed out in the article though, the forum is obviously more robust in this regard.
I'm a big proponent of giving to Caesar what is Caesars. Forum retaliated matters should absolutely be discussed in the forum. Game matters like tax changes could easily be discussed in the game without any security concerns. I think to say that it "isn't allowed" costs the pro-forum supports more in the long run as looking inflexible and unwilling to undertake new approaches. Not the kind of environment that promotes activity.
Three points:
1) An inactive Congress speaks more to the quality of the Congressmen elected than the mechanics at our disposal.
2) War is a game mechanic. Should it be discussed publicly here, too?
3) One of the reasons put forward in the past for requiring discussions to take place on the forums (and I don't think it's even the strongest point) is that in the 2 or 3 years since this idea was adopted it has only been used maybe 2 or 3 times.
I said this elsewhere - it's really not be a pressing issue. But that cuts both ways. If nobody was using the ability to propose and discuss laws here rather than on the forums, then why should we care that this is no longer an option?
1. A party can only pull from the populace it has. If the populace is not engaged, does the responsibility lay solely that the parties feet or is it at least shared with the governing institution facilitating the atmosphere of apathy.
2. This has been a long held bullet of the the pro-forum side and obviously the answer is no, it should be discussed in a secure location. This is one of many reasons why I highlight that there is benefits to the forum. But can you then in turn explain to me why the banning laws are used against individuals who propose tax changes? Is that a security concern? Does it NEED to be discussed in an external forum?
3. Then why remove it? I find when a freedom is removed is precisely when decent is created. Why bother to even create that animosity and even other barrier to participating in government. Not sure how the pros on that decision outweigh the cons of it.
1) No, it's the fault of the party. If it can't figure out how to get active members to join then it should close shop.
2) I'm only trying to point out the flaws in your argument. If one game mechanic should be discussed elsewhere, why not all? And, while Congress bans have historically varied depending on their type, the reason has more to do with the fact that no discussion took place before a proposal was made.
3) What are the cons for removing this option? That really is a question that hasn't been answered - why should it be an option? I already mentioned one pro - it wasn't something that was used. Why have additional rules if they're meaningless (I'm surprised you don't like this argument 😛).
For me, I think the forums offer two benefits over discussions in articles. First, it allows an organised discussion within Congress to take place. Secondly, there's a public record that can be accessed easily in the future that shows how decisions were made, one way or another.
A comment from me at this point would be useless because you've already well summarised my thoughts on the matter. A good piece of writing. Have an endorsement.
I won't speak to the usefulness of the forums right now.
Instead, I will just point out one thing: if enough people wanted to abolish the forums, this can be done. If enough anti-forum Congressmen are elected, they just need to register once and then propose a law tearing down the institution. Then they need never return.
It doesn't even appear that it would take many Congressmen to make this happen. Yet it has never happened. I think why not would be an interesting question to examine.
I'd rather have the best of both worlds. Both forum use and in-game use for governance. Both have merit and why should we not enjoy the benefits of both if they produce a more active community.
I personally doubt that anything can be done to make this community active, I'm willing to study any proposal you might have to improve the way we do things, even bringing some discussions back here.
That said, I would want to see record keeping and transparency addressed in any proposal, just so you know my preferences.
It's also a little curious that outside of a few attempts to have PM discussions the only formal measure so far to bring discussions in game was the recently abolished ability to propose changes here rather than on the forums. As pointed out above, it was only used a handful of times.
No doubt they can't figure out how to navigate a forum and our slope foreheaded cousins the French can happily stay away. They don't bring anything to the table anyways.
18 divided by 40 is 45%
65% is greater than 45%
If Congress won't follow its own rules, I don't see why they expect anyone else to follow them either.
[removed]
I think you exaggerate the hurdles one "must" jump to propose, debate and vote on the forums.
I say "must" because like people have said you dont really have to, you have to have an idea, get most of congress on board that dont give a shit about a few days ban from the forums and propose it in game totally bypassing the forums, its been done before numerous times.
Please propose an viable alternative to an outside forum for congress that would not end in multiple proposals all the time that could end up causing harm
What do you foresee as these overwhelming multiple proposals that cause such harm? Natural Enemy? Impeachment? Such rogue motions would proceed with or without the forum laws regardless, as if they are proposed to damage the country and no forum law will dissuade a player otherwise.
The majority of proposals that were made in-game without mention on the forum where of a financial nature. Tax changes. Wage changes. What could have simply been voted down has now in turn been made through even a process of discussion in game, illegal. To what end? As it was your initiative, I'm curious as the reasoning for it. The cost is further alienating those disenchanted with the political system and creating even further political activity, so there must have been a strong need for it. Else it's the very political heavy handiness that I've referenced. Not really governance for the true majority, but control by only a self appointed few. An approach that weakens our community.
such rogue motions would proceed and do but because most of congress is notified that it is a rogue proposal it is usually stopped in its tracks
discussion can and does take place outside the forums but IRL do congressmen debate and vote in a newspaper or TV, they do it in a moderated and controlled environment.
I look at it like this, activity has never been lower when the forum has been inactive and never been greater when there is an active forum outside this dismal game, it enhances the game, it doesnt alienate. It isnt the "self appointed few" it is for those that run and are successful in winning a congress seat. If your to lazy to click a few buttons to find out and disect the issues you shouldnt be in congress.
If you dont like it why do you participate on it?
If you read my article, you can see that I am supporting any avenue that promote activity, be it forum or in-game. I believe the forum could be better, to promote activity, with the points I've made in the article. Likewise I think closing the door to proposals in-game prevents activity and sends a message that discourages political involvement and interest.
One can and does participate politically outside the forums in the media but point me to one proposal that was made in an article over the year(s) that it was an option that was done successfully or even at all, i cant remember one
It leads to confusion, cant be moderated by a Speaker and enables every tom, dick and harry from any country to involve themselves in our discussions
Democratic process is not created to facilitate the success of failure of an individual proposal. It's to have an environment of open discussion and majority approval. If an individual seeks to initiate and propose their proposal in game, that is their right. If it fails, that is also something they must accept in their approach.
Point to the confusion here: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/proposal-to-raise-import-tax-2541126/1/20
Seems pretty clear to me. Or do you mean lack of control and just call it confusion? Because I'd agree with you that it is less control and that is entirely the point. Regardless, either forum or in-game proposal, when it is a mechanic of the game the vote must be held in game to be implemented. If it comes from the forum or in game should make little difference and an external website's authority over that is a fabricated one. Should people wish it to be respected, then they should also respect that other people make wish to approach the process differently, but no less democratically.
Ill say it again
This game has never been more fun when there is a fully functional, transparent and active congress when its business is done on a fully functional, transparent and active forum.
Never ever, ever,ever.
One can almost use the forum as a gauge to determine how inactive we are as a country and its those that bitch and whine about the trauma one must endure to reach ODC are the ones that stand infront of activity, cohesion and measured debate.
OK, what made it fun? What can congress do on a forum that will make the game more fun and more active? How will our debates about tax rate equate to more fun? How will votes over citizens make things more fun?
Chaos is what has made eRep fun - not congressional votes or forums. Wars and being wiped are fun. Listening to people pontificate about their pretend rules or "respect the position" or that rp bullshit may be fun for a few people who like dressing up in furry animal suits but the rest of us just want to have someone to fight and we want to know that we have money feed, arm, and fund our fighters. That's how you attract greater involvement. Not though a bloody forum. Never, ever, ever, ever.
What game are you playing?
naked twister
One stupid unauthorized NE got us wiped for 6 months once so there is that.
NE and Impeachment proposals are the only ones a congress person can make that does real damage to the rest of us.
Show me how anything you can do on the eCanada forum will stop a Congress member from declaring any NE that they wish. To save you time, the answer is you can't. You can't even stop the CPF from putting forward whatever Congress members they wish, as they don't participate in Congress. You may as well argue that tying your shoe laces twice over will stop people from declaring rogue NEs.
Having the forum structure clearly does work thought as evidence by the fact these harmful proposals are rare. It does not make them impossible but it does let individuals know the community as a whole does not like random, harmful proposals and being put into congress comes with responsibilities as well as privileges.
When we came back to democracy there were several harmful and stupid proposals including the NE of the UK right before our AS. Since we re-established the forum structure only one person continues to tell the rest of us how we should play.
[removed]
Votado con rotofuria.
Para muchas de las discusiones del juego, los artículos en un periódico son excelentes medios de debate. Que la gente se le obligue a registrarse a un foro en donde entrará solo para nunca volver, asegurando que solo una minoría participe de los temas importantes del país, lejos de ser una democracia es la representación fiel de una oligarquía.
Y no escribo en inglés porque no se me dio la gana. Cuando esa gana la tenga de nuevo, traduzco. 😛
Small country can be wipe and have no congress for one month. This is one of the worst design flaw this game has.
It litterally kill the forum activity. It take a long time to rebuuild the activity rate after a wipe.
Christ, I thought I was long-winded.
Congress without the meta-game supporting it is effectively meaningless, but the buttons that come with it can have an effect on how others play the game. Because of that, they need some kind of community governance - if we are all just poking buttons at random, we might as well roll dice for entertainment because there is exactly as much meaning in that.
The forums (such as they are) are the tool we have to ensure that our community (such as it is) functions (such as it does). If we wish to scrap the unpleasant-looking Homer-owned forums, we need an equivalent or better system to take its place.
It would be nice if that system was somehow attached to the game so we didn't need to log into a separate process, but I do not believe your "McDonalds + gym" analogy is at all accurate. The game is McDonalds, surely, but the forum is the Nutritional Information datasheet. If you want to make an informed decision about whether or not you should eat that Big Mac, you need to consult the Nutritional Information datasheet, which is not listed on the menu. You have to ask the manager, and he has to get it from "the back" because that's where they keep it. Then you can read the datasheet, see that the thing is full of pink slime, salt, rat feces and monosodium glutatamate. Then you can decide whether or not that's "food" you wish to put into your body.
As for extending forum-based consequences into the game when decorum is not followed - why, exactly, is that a problem? We as a community recognize that we need to discuss these political issues so we can figure out whether they are good or bad. That is why the forums were created in the first place. If our Congressmen - who are supposed to be thinkers and leaders making decisions on our behalf - refuse to recognize the responsibilities they have been given, why is it inappropriate to attempt to limit the damage they can potentially cause?
It should be the responsibility of the Party Presidents to ensure that their people follow the same rules as everybody else. And if their people do not want to follow those rules, they should be asked to leave this position of responsibility.
If we are not going to have consequences for people behaving in a selfish, disruptive, anarchic manner, why should we bother having any "laws" at all? If we're a community, we should act like one. Just going off and doing whatever the hell they please is not how Congressmen should be operating, and it's not something Party Presidents should be accepting from their members.
Holy crap, I 100% agree with every word. Must be a bad crop of dope.
Laced with Agent Orange for that zesty citrus flavor.