Join the new world

SIGNED

SIGNED x 2

John Hancock.

~hyuu~

I've been seriously contemplating this, and really it does make everything easier for members. Though for now, some advice about the EPIC forums, if you start
http://ecanada.cc/epic/index.
the go to
http://ecanada.cc/forums
You won't be logged out. It's a bug I've spoken with neoice about and it cannot be fixed.

That's not a bad idea. If we created masks for each party then couldn't we also create sub-forums available just for them?

If we kept those sections focused on actual party business then we might see members from all parties mingling together for other things that people are known to go to party websites for like games and general discussions.

Another benefit: rather than having CP candidates travelling from forum to forum to repeat their spiel and answer questions they could just set up one Q&A section that everyone can read. There's bound to be a question or two that one party asks that another party didn't think of but would have liked to know the answer to. Then the parties can take this information back to their individual polls.

signed and shouted

This was suggested in the past.

People didn't want to do it because Admins would have access to all of their party business, and could modify/edit/delete whatever they wanted.

While I don't see it as a big deal, would the CPP or MOO like admins who are members of EPIC to see all of their party business? For some reason I don't think they would.

Great in theory, terrible in practice.

While I don't see it as a big deal, would the CPP or MOO like admins who are members of EPIC to see all of their party business?

It depends. If the party forum was setup as a separate mask and sub-forum, then the Admin team would likely have some level of access. If, as was done with CPP's new forum (which is no longer used for some reason), neoice allowed each party to host their forums on the ecanada.cc domain but as a separate entity, the Admin team would have no control/access unless given it (though neoice would likely still have access).

Subforums - I'm not a fan of.
Hosted independent forums - Great idea.

Neoice was already complaining about the EPIC forums taking up a lot of space on his server.

Hosting at least 4 more independent forums probably isn't high on his priority list.

I don't really think that having the Admins theoretically have permission to view what other parties are doing is that big a deal. It's just like how we trust them not to go snooping around the CAF High Command section or the private Executive section and, to a lesser extent because several of them clearly have, Closed Door Congress.

The other reason is that, at least theoretically, the Admin team is now elected and not appointed. We should be able to appoint those that we trust not to screw around with other parties' stuff.

Oh, and another reason: sure, parties have things they want to discuss only on their own but most a lot of what they are discussing has managed to make it out of their forums anyways. As EPIC has shown, really, it's not that big a deal to be transparent because most of the time people don't care (and for those occasions when they do, it's hard to keep a secret). But really, the uber super secret back room deals don't usually get kept on forums anyways.

Anyways, if a party doesn't want to create a sub-forum on the eCan forums I don't think anyone would try to force them to.

What's a party got to hide? It's not like they're planning a military strategy...

I prefer the opposite and demand EPIC to get a new seperate forum.

En eFrance, tous les partis ont leur sous-forum sur le forum national.

Signed!

"The other reason is that, at least theoretically, the Admin team is now elected and not appointed. We should be able to appoint those that we trust not to screw around with other parties' stuff."



Uhh, not so much. Theory is awesome, it however has never been put into practice, and probably never will.

That's why I threw theoretically in there. Congress has the right to add or remove Admins as need be even if it hasn't exercised that right. It hasn't chosen to do that yet because it trusts the current Admin team. It may be more implicitly than explicitly, as a vote would show, but the trust is there otherwise Admins would have been replaced. The voting part is theoretical, the trust in the capable Admin part already exists in practice.

"It hasn't chosen to do that yet because it trusts the current Admin team"

Actually, my understanding is that the first time a vote was attempted congress was told to "F~ itself in the A~" and the whole idea promptly died.

Could be. But I would think that if they were told something like that they'd fight back, especially if they had a nice and shiny new law they'd just passed to fall back on. I assume there was a reason that Congress didn't fight back, maybe due to the fact that they didn't in fact want to change the Admin team, maybe due to trusting the team already in place. But I wasn't really paying attention.

Anyways, if you actually think that the current Admin team can't be trusted not to mess around with hypothetical party sub-forums wouldn't it also stand to reason that we just plain old can't trust them? Wouldn't it also stand to reason that you'd want to replace that team? Would it not also stand to reason that someone in a position to do something about that, say a Congressman, actually go about proposing removing those Admins we can't trust and replacing them with ones we can?