The Future of Government

[Nervous]

There is already a very active government faction, they just lack the resources and time to be very active with players IC.

The work achieved by @AVRO DANKASTER is huge and we already set up unique budgets for all factions with specific reports, they have developed the business fundings and all the organization / structure for what's to come for faction, especially with SD and the county jail.

We're not done achieving all the actions and organization we need to finish before it's ready to a vote from all players, and we'll also not allow people to get elected just because they pooled as much OOC friends as they could to vote for them, which leads to trolls or bad roleplayers in a critical position for the server as the government hold all budgets for the factions, and all factions needs their budgets discussions to be serious otherwise the entire economy will take a massive blow. All the server scripts are tied to this and the government's money isn't spawned, it's coming from all the taxes & co.

We're not sure yet how it's all going to happen, but what i'm sure of is that we need more political parties and power plays by roleplayers. Good political roleplay will be definitely rewarded and you'll be included in what's to come next.

[Declan]

Hopefully we can have something that semi-emulates the LA county board of supervisors in time, I think that would be a good way to govern the bodies in LS (for example, look at what they r doing to the lasd's funding and hiring irl) 

 

It would probably be hard to do but would provide good RP for a lot of parties. 

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

On 11/20/2019 at 7:04 PM, Nervous said:

There is already a very active government faction, they just lack the resources and time to be very active with players IC.

 

 

If they lack the time, why aren't they replaced by those who have the time and can be trusted? I'm sure the OP, if given the opportunity, would step up.

[Machiavelli]

On 11/23/2019 at 8:16 AM, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

If they lack the time, why aren't they replaced by those who have the time and can be trusted? I'm sure the OP, if given the opportunity, would step up.

Very good point. Also the current political climate looks like an echo chamber since both party favors legalized marijuana and liberalize the restrictive gun control laws. IMO it seems like a way to appeal to the largest segment possible, throwing away any real political convictions and principles. 

[zaXer.]

12 minutes ago, Machiavelli said:

Very good point. Also the current political climate looks like an echo chamber since both party favors legalized marijuana and liberalize the restrictive gun control laws. IMO it seems like a way to appeal to the largest segment possible, throwing away any real political convictions and principles. 

GOV is actually quite active. The fact you dont see much stuff being done doesnt mean it doesnt happen! The lack of people to work for GOV is the issue. Not a lot of people are interested in taking part of government and one man cannot lead the whole party alone. I have almost daily encounters and roleplay with GOV.

[Machiavelli]

7 minutes ago, zaXer. said:

GOV is actually quite active. The fact you dont see much stuff being done doesnt mean it doesnt happen! The lack of people to work for GOV is the issue. Not a lot of people are interested in taking part of government and one man cannot lead the whole party alone. I have almost daily encounters and roleplay with GOV.

Although perhaps a bit unconventional I propose we garner our attention primarily on Discord, in terms of revitalizing the political discourse. Permit some of the governance to take place on Discord, so people at a moment's notice can pitch in. Hopefully this way, although a lack of people we can make things run more smoothly. Focus on the IG stuff primarily for newly introduced legislation and to create RP events. 

[Justitiae]

1 hour ago, Machiavelli said:

Very good point. Also the current political climate looks like an echo chamber since both party favors legalized marijuana and liberalize the restrictive gun control laws. IMO it seems like a way to appeal to the largest segment possible, throwing away any real political convictions and principles. 

 

I, too, one hundred percent agree with this statement. Some of the party policies disregard the historical stance of their real-life counterparts that they supposedly wish to represent or imitate, and it is done in an attempt to garner attraction and to 'fit in' with the current political climate, which I personally don't necessarily support. This won't bring much discussion/debate in the Council if most of the policies of the two parties are quite identical, and as you say it raises the echo-chamber issue.

[HaveADream]

1 minute ago, Justitiae said:

 

I, too, one hundred percent agree with this statement. Some of the party policies disregard the historical stance of their real-life counterparts that they supposedly wish to represent or imitate, and it is done in an attempt to garner attraction and to 'fit in' with the current political climate, which I personally don't necessarily support. This won't bring much discussion/debate in the Council if most of the policies of the two parties are quite identical, and as you say it raises the echo-chamber issue.

 

I think I'm confused, I've adapted the manifesto around the economics of the server but not so much the culture. The Democratic Manifesto mentions nothing regarding relaxing gun laws but protecting the constitutional right to do so which I believe is a common theme in local Democratic parties through the US. The manifesto published is simply a preliminary one and only mentions making it easier to be licensed (in terms of applying itself) and separating it from the PD.

[Justitiae]

41 minutes ago, HaveADream said:

 

I think I'm confused, I've adapted the manifesto around the economics of the server but not so much the culture. The Democratic Manifesto mentions nothing regarding relaxing gun laws but protecting the constitutional right to do so which I believe is a common theme in local Democratic parties through the US. The manifesto published is simply a preliminary one and only mentions making it easier to be licensed (in terms of applying itself) and separating it from the PD.

 

Both parties have manifesto-related issues. My argument, was that I believed both parties shared similar fundamental policies, especially with regards to the legalisation of marijuana and gun laws and have diverted a bit from the mainstream historical political stance their real-life counterparts represent. That is one issue, the other problem is the issue of party-policy vagueness; both parties are vague in certain parts of their manifesto. The Democrats say they support the right to bear arms, but there's literally nothing regarding gun control, which is in fact a major political issue for the Democrats. On the other hand, the Republicans have their policies mainly around crime (which includes guns and drug policies) and licensing, but nothing else. While one is slightly more advanced than the other, ultimately both manifestos have little to nothing about government reform, energy/oil, trade or markets, security, the economy, tax reform or infrastructure/jobs.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Justitiae

[Machiavelli]

1 hour ago, Justitiae said:

 

I, too, one hundred percent agree with this statement. Some of the party policies disregard the historical stance of their real-life counterparts that they supposedly wish to represent or imitate, and it is done in an attempt to garner attraction and to 'fit in' with the current political climate, which I personally don't necessarily support. This won't bring much discussion/debate in the Council if most of the policies of the two parties are quite identical, and as you say it raises the echo-chamber issue.

I am in the process of making a political party. We are simply awaiting the final verdict from Faction Management. Hopefully our party can solve this echo chamber issue.