[Discussion] Onsite Internal Region Affairs/Management Forum

[Warwick Z Codger]

Title Edited: Originally "Remove the "No Internal Affairs" rule in the Gameplay Forum"


Hello,

Currently there the following rule in the GP forum.

Regions wanting to post their legislation, organise their internal affairs, or to have a discussion for members of their region only are advised to get an offsite forum for this, as we do not permit regions to run their internal affairs or have "Region Only" threads in Gameplay. Popular providers of free forums include Zetaboards, InvisionFree, and Proboards.

I propose that this rule should be modified such that regions are allowed to organise internal affairs here, on the understanding that by putting their thread here it becomes an open invitation for the rest of NS to comment on their affairs. The no thread ownership and no "region only" rules still apply.

Almost all discussion on the Gameplay forum is dominated by a small set of noteworthy events (R/D, coups, drama in ~certain~ regions) from a smaller set of regions instigated by an even smaller set of the same "Gameplayers". The other type of thread, the "embassy" thread, usually get no responses from others because no one is interested in a region giving news and announcements, unless it affects them in some way. The lack of interest especially felt for smaller regions because no-one heard of them before and there is little incentive to do so.

The practical effect of this changing this rule is to allow regions to bring their elections, trials and legislation/political debates to the Gameplay forum for open debate and seek outside comment/influence on their region. The fact that outsiders are allowed to comment and influence these proceedings means there is actually an incentive for people to have an interest about other regions outside their own cliques. It is also healthier the Gameplay forum overall as the Gameplay community have more subjects to interact about and regions aren't limited to questions in the "How To Build A Region" but instead raise issues in a direct way. Those who stand to gain are the rest of NS, who would now actually find some use for the GP forum.

-Codger

[Consular]

Yeah I don't entirely understand why admin is so determined to shove regional affairs offsite.

I imagine the response will be that regions can organise on their rmb, but let's maybe preempt that a tad by pointing out (as we've done before) that said rmb is wholly inadequate for anything more than casual banter.

[Corindia]

I also never got why this was a thing. It seems like an obvious and relevant topic of discussion to include.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll agree with this. My region, Europe, isn't all that big on the use of a non-NS forum. There's barriers (conceptual and actual) to creation of another account on some forum someplace. While something like an internal regional forum would be best, if we are to do little more than what we currently do – having internal affairs present on the gameplay forum would be fantastic, though I'd be curious if many of the currently established regions would take it up.

I'd support this idea.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Discord is a good choice, my region although small uses it, along with several other regions and its easy to use, free and mobile friendly.

[Aclion]

This rule is a large reason why despite being interested in region-building I've no interest in the Gameplay forum, and why all my regions policy making has moved offsite. I think that it would be better both for regions, and the forum as a whole if we did not push content out of view of most users. I supports

[Lockdownn]

I'll go ahead with my two cents here:

First off, since it's not a technical topic, this thread belongs in moderation.

Second, I will stand by this rule as regions (especially large ones) tend to have a great amount of internal crap that is written about and posted on the RMB and Off-site forums already. Removing this rule would potentially require regions to have more than one thread. You wouldn't post about your international conflicts in your recruitment thread now would you? That being said, having multiple threads might be an ideal situation if you had everything tucked away off-site, but in the Gameplay sub-forum, not so much. The problem is that this game has hundreds of active regions all crammed together in one advertising space, and with the allowance of other gameplay topic threads already, there's even less. So all these regions wanting new players. (I'm also talking about smaller sized regions aswell) They're all trying to be seen already and now the rule is gone. All of a sudden, you've just potentially allowed several bloated GCR's worth of internal deliberations, rp's, talks, contests, elections, and not to mention the little guys. You now have all this unnecessary junk clouding other regions and giving them less of a chance to be noticed with forum recruitment. What I just described may or may not be a worst case scenario.

Instead of this rule, I can propose a couple things:
1) That the site staff create a designated "Internal Affairs" section on the forum (Which I will still assume to be frowned upon as past statements indicate a lack of desire for more sub-forums.)

2) We carry on with this rule and heed this saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

My opinion is that things have been fine under this rule and at the moment the Gameplay sub-forum adequately provides a chance to be noticed. Removing this rule would most definitely hurt that.

[Luna Amore]

I'll go ahead with my two cents here:

First off, since it's not a technical topic, this thread belongs in moderation.

Why. yes. Yes it does. Moved.

[Galiantus VII]

It seems to me the main issue is exclusivity and relevance. No one should be posting things in gameplay about their region with the expectation that only members of their region use the thread. It's a public discussion. In fact, it seems the intent of the rule is basically: "Talk about what is going on in your region if you want, but don't try and make the gameplay forum your own private space."

The real problem here is that the way the rule is worded could be construed to suggest that regions ought not to post (gameplay relevant) legislation, discussion of internal affairs, or direct their members to have a discussion on the gameplay forum. But if you look closely, you can see it is merely suggesting that, since these activities tend to be exclusive to the region and it is against the rules to make a post in gameplay exclusive for your region, people who want exclusivity should create their own space elsewhere.

So maybe the rule should just be reworded like this, or similar:

Regions wanting to post their legislation, organise their internal affairs, or to have a discussion for members of their region only are advised to get an offsite forum for this. Popular providers of free forums include Zetaboards, InvisionFree, and Proboards. We do not permit regions to have "Region Only" threads in Gameplay.

The first change is that there is a clear separation of the suggestion (it's a good idea to have your own forum for regional discussion) from the mandate (no region-only threads) while still making it obvious the two are connected (have your own forum, because you can't be exclusive in the gameplay forum).

The second change is the removal of the mandate that regions not organize their internal affairs in the gameplay forum. I'd say that based on the other rules, it should be fairly clear which kinds of organizational discussions are appropriate in the gameplay forum. The real issue is that we don't want regions coming in with several active threads each, all discussing what is going on in their legislature, military training, elections, etc. Of course, I would love to see some of those threads in gameplay - it is a fairly slow forum, after all, and I want to discuss more than just the latest raid, coup, or essay someone wrote.

Just limit each region to one thread in the gameplay forum and let them use it however they want, with the knowledge that anyone else can jump in and give their thoughts on that region, and I think we'll be fine.

[Christian Democrats]

I imagine the response will be that regions can organise on their rmb, but let's maybe preempt that a tad by pointing out (as we've done before) that said rmb is wholly inadequate for anything more than casual banter.

A megathread where all discussions on a region's affairs are conducted would be equally disorderly.

[RiderSyl]

I imagine the response will be that regions can organise on their rmb, but let's maybe preempt that a tad by pointing out (as we've done before) that said rmb is wholly inadequate for anything more than casual banter.

A megathread where all discussions on a region's affairs are conducted would be equally disorderly.

No one is suggesting a megathread here...

[Metal Mekhet]

Good points Galiantus, though I'd say the exception also being one recruitment thread additionally to the one thread rule in this case.

[Christian Democrats]

A megathread where all discussions on a region's affairs are conducted would be equally disorderly.

No one is suggesting a megathread here...

Is the suggestion that each region be allowed to open multiple threads for its internal affairs in the Gameplay forum?

[Katganistan]

No one is suggesting a megathread here...

Is the suggestion that each region be allowed to open multiple threads for its internal affairs in the Gameplay forum?

My two cents: Why is that necessary? Then the threads which are of GENERAL INTEREST to Gameplayers, and others looking to find info that applies to all nations, will get buried under masses of highly specific threads for specific regions and specific players only.

I don't see the need to change this rule. Surely your internal regional affairs are better discussed on your rmb or offsite?

[Warwick Z Codger]

Is the suggestion that each region be allowed to open multiple threads for its internal affairs in the Gameplay forum?

My two cents: Why is that necessary? Then the threads which are of GENERAL INTEREST to Gameplayers, and others looking to find info that applies to all nations, will get buried under masses of highly specific threads for specific regions and specific players only.

I don't see the need to change this rule. Surely your internal regional affairs are better discussed on your rmb or offsite?

My philosophy is that if someone decides to post in Gameplay forum, then the OP has made a decision that they believe the issue is of General Interest to Gameplay. If I want my regional trial to be decided by the gamewide GP community , or want to use the GP community to help holster my regional election I should be allowed to.

The GP community can decide for itself whether something is "actually" of General Interest by whether it participates in those threads/issues, instead of mods doing it for them through the current rule.

[USS Monitor]

Removing this rule would potentially require regions to have more than one thread.

I assume if we did this, we'd have a limit to how many threads a region could have.

Instead of this rule, I can propose a couple things:
1) That the site staff create a designated "Internal Affairs" section on the forum (Which I will still assume to be frowned upon as past statements indicate a lack of desire for more sub-forums.)

I'm definitely opposed to that.

[Galiantus VII]

-snip-

That's basically how I'm understanding this proposed change. There are times when it makes sense for internal affairs to take place in front of the gameplay community rather than off in an offsite forum because it could be relevant to a segment of the gameplay community much larger than that region.

Removing this rule would potentially require regions to have more than one thread.

I assume if we did this, we'd have a limit to how many threads a region could have.

I'd say limit it based on relevance. I don't care if TNP makes a new thread for a new current event every 3 or 4 months - which would exceed the current limit - if each thread is addressing a new topic relevant to part of the gameplay community every time. Chances are the old threads are not going to come up again anyways. What I don't want is for TNP to move all their government affairs to gameplay and post a new topic every hour.

Again, the gameplay forum is slow relative to most other forums, very few regions actually use the space they're allowed, and it would be good for the gameplay community as a whole to see more activity there.

[Spode Humbled Minions]

Then the moderators would have to moderate in more places, and the forums would be slow. Also, there are prefecly good offsite alternatives.

I'm guessing that's why they made that rule in the first place.

[Frisbeeteria]

I've opened a discussion in our hidden forum for mod discussion. I'm sure we've had this conversation before, but times change, and perhaps it's time for policies to adapt as well.

Just limit each region to one thread in the gameplay forum and let them use it however they want, with the knowledge that anyone else can jump in and give their thoughts on that region,

If we made a change, I'd be inclined to allow several threads per region. Huge regions might need several threads for competing political parties. Regions might want one thread for a constitutional convention, and another for regional legislation. I wouldn't necessarily want a hard limit, but I think we could quite easily prevent multi-thread spamming in the same way we do with GE&T. Just like you don't need a new thread for every airport or factory, you don't need a new thread for every law or trial.

I'm also thinking that regional recruitment would be far better served by having on-site conversations rather than the current "come see my spiffy WFE" adver-tainment. If you want to brag on how active you are, what better way to demonstrate than by being active.

I'm in agreement that regional threads should not be closed. I'd be in favor of limited thread ownership, in that the OP could ask for a thread to be locked when its usefulness is done. I would NOT be in favor of letting them kick unwelcome players from the thread.

I am ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to any form of regional chat thread. Use the RMB for that.

the moderators would have to moderate in more places

Not really. We respond to reports for the most part. We don't actively browse every forum at all times.

the forums would be slow.

No, they wouldn't. Additional traffic rarely affects forum speed, as we've seen on various event days like April Fools, as well as mass incursions of new players like the occassional Reddit storms.

Also, there are prefecly good offsite alternatives.

I don't like telling players to go offsite for what is clearly game-related business, like legislation. For chat, use Discord or IRC or an offsite. If you've got a Regional Judiciary and you want to have trials all the time, it's a little more iffy - maybe an offsite is better for that.

[Swith Witherward]

I've opened a discussion in our hidden forum for mod discussion. I'm sure we've had this conversation before, but times change, and perhaps it's time for policies to adapt as well.

Just limit each region to one thread in the gameplay forum and let them use it however they want, with the knowledge that anyone else can jump in and give their thoughts on that region,

If we made a change, I'd be inclined to allow several threads per region. Huge regions might need several threads for competing political parties. Regions might want one thread for a constitutional convention, and another for regional legislation. I wouldn't necessarily want a hard limit, but I think we could quite easily prevent multi-thread spamming in the same way we do with GE&T. Just like you don't need a new thread for every airport or factory, you don't need a new thread for every law or trial.

I'm also thinking that regional recruitment would be far better served by having on-site conversations rather than the current "come see my spiffy WFE" adver-tainment. If you want to brag on how active you are, what better way to demonstrate than by being active.

So much YES there. People go to region pages to get a snapshot of the region. No matter how fancy our WFE, we can not put enough in there to reflect the region's flavor due to character limits and whatnot. It makes advertising special events a right pain in the ass. I also see this as a means to preserve on-site documentation without the worry of raiders wiping the data.

I suggest a standard of some sort to avoid spammy threads. For instance, in P2TM, the community frowns on threads containing only a few lines and scant material. The community pretty much expects specific elements in the OP (for us, it's usually an overview, a listing of who is in charge, features offered, an optional image to set the tone, etc. We also look for character apps and rules, but this won't translate well for the Gameplay forum.) We'll frequently see new threads with the standardized OP and several "reserved" boxes which will eventually contain pertinent information.

As an example for how a region thread is beneficial: Madhouse Productions is a region. We're limited in what we can convey on our regional page. We have a thread in P2TM (as we are an RP org based out of this subforum). Our initial OP informs people of our purpose. Additional official posts contain information vital to our membership's needs. These are updated frequently.

For Gameplay, a reserved box may eventually contain a section that provides links to announcements and news updates within the thread. The OP can use a reserved box to discuss issues at vote, or spotlight candidates in an election. The reserved boxes are fluid, meaning they can change to suit the region's purpose.

The downside is the thread OP themselves. Typically, a Founder or WAD might create it. The thread needs to be transferred should the Founder CTE or the WAD change. With the addition of RO appointments, regions might benefit by having someone dependable as Secretary or thread admin. They needn't worry about WAD changes in this case.

I'm in agreement that regional threads should not be closed. I'd be in favor of limited thread ownership, in that the OP could ask for a thread to be locked when its usefulness is done. I would NOT be in favor of letting them kick unwelcome players from the thread.

I am ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to any form of regional chat thread. Use the RMB for that.

I think that's fair. I also agree that the RMB is better suited for chat. The Gameplay community would need to police itself, meaning regional leadership point people towards the RMB for shitposting. Again, it comes down to establishing standards. The community and Moderation would need to outline what is or isn't acceptable on a thread set up for regional business.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I imagine the response will be that regions can organise on their rmb, but let's maybe preempt that a tad by pointing out (as we've done before) that said rmb is wholly inadequate for anything more than casual banter.

A megathread where all discussions on a region's affairs are conducted would be equally disorderly.

Still preferable than the current situation, where if one uses the RMB for regional affairs, anything having to do with regional affairs also gets buried by personal chats, general discussions, RPs, and people triple-posting.

If you've got a Regional Judiciary and you want to have trials all the time,

NationStates trials... Haha! It's like the Star Chamber in every one, from the need to submit everything in writing to the political use of judicial powers.

[Frisbeeteria]

Bumping this thread for additional discussion. We're not seeing much of a mandate here.

[Corindia]

My hot-take:
I'd like to be able to discuss internal affairs on the forums because I like keeping everything in one place. It seems like an obvious thing to be on the forums, and I was surprised to learn that it wasn't.

I don't have a rules/precedent based argument for it, I'm just saying that I'm a user of this site, and allowing it would streamline my experience.

[The North Polish Union]

Almost all discussion on the Gameplay forum is dominated by a small set of noteworthy events (R/D, coups, drama in ~certain~ regions) from a smaller set of regions instigated by an even smaller set of the same "Gameplayers". The other type of thread, the "embassy" thread, usually get no responses from others because no one is interested in a region giving news and announcements, unless it affects them in some way. The lack of interest especially felt for smaller regions because no-one heard of them before and there is little incentive to do so.

How would your solution solve the issue? The large regions that are involved in Gameplay already have highly sophisticated offsite means of organizing their internal affairs, meaning that their involvement in the GP forum would likely remain limited to discussion of "news" (such as it is).

Smaller regions that try to run their internal affairs in GP will still likely have their threads ignored by anyone outside the region for the same reason described in your post (excepting the occasional cheeky banter I assume that most of those who post on the GP forum are more interested in passive-aggressively sniping at each other over the most recent GCR coup than they are interested in "Tiny Region With Less Than 10 Members" trying to ratify a regional constitution). If this would turn out to be the case, the only increase in traffic that the GP forum would see is a glut of embassy-like threads from small regions that few posters from outside that region would bother to read and even fewer would bother to respond to.

I agree that the Gameplay forum is currently underutilized by the majority of NS but I doubt that allowing regions to organize their internal affairs will cause a significant shift in use of the GP forum.

[Drasnia]

Almost all discussion on the Gameplay forum is dominated by a small set of noteworthy events (R/D, coups, drama in ~certain~ regions) from a smaller set of regions instigated by an even smaller set of the same "Gameplayers". The other type of thread, the "embassy" thread, usually get no responses from others because no one is interested in a region giving news and announcements, unless it affects them in some way. The lack of interest especially felt for smaller regions because no-one heard of them before and there is little incentive to do so.

How would your solution solve the issue? The large regions that are involved in Gameplay already have highly sophisticated offsite means of organizing their internal affairs, meaning that their involvement in the GP forum would likely remain limited to discussion of "news" (such as it is).

Smaller regions that try to run their internal affairs in GP will still likely have their threads ignored by anyone outside the region for the same reason described in your post (excepting the occasional cheeky banter I assume that most of those who post on the GP forum are more interested in passive-aggressively sniping at each other over the most recent GCR coup than they are interested in "Tiny Region With Less Than 10 Members" trying to ratify a regional constitution). If this would turn out to be the case, the only increase in traffic that the GP forum would see is a glut of embassy-like threads from small regions that few posters from outside that region would bother to read and even fewer would bother to respond to.

I agree that the Gameplay forum is currently underutilized by the majority of NS but I doubt that allowing regions to organize their internal affairs will cause a significant shift in use of the GP forum.

For a lot of these smaller regions, they don't have players who have the time and/or technical know-how to set up a decent offsite forum. By disallowing them to do important regional stuff in the GP forum, it becomes nearly impossible to do any sort of organization or really any way for their region to grow. While I'm not terribly fond of phpBB, I still like this forum's looks than a lot of the stock themes for free options, plus there's no worry about forum leaks or destruction, or other such shenanigans.

I actually think this is an overall good idea. I'm all for helping smaller regions be able to organize and hopefully grow to be able to sustain themselves without the NS Forums. As it stands, very few regions even bother with a recruitment/announcements thread in GP. There's almost no point at all to it. The ones that do are usually either successful UCRs or are GCRs so recruitment is not needed and they're significant enough that people in GP probably already know about the developments, being told through Discord, off-site embassies, etc. Really, all GP is able to be with the current rules is to be a place for raiders and defenders to present their update reports. That's about it.