What is your perspective on political roleplay?

[HaveADream]

9 hours ago, Oaks. said:

Similar answer I thought I'd get, shame really because Gov is capable of a lot of good things IF allowed to impact players.

They are really, considering the only law that has been a no was marijuana. The biggest problem is more the structure of the government but I think they're working on reform to streamline.

[Smilesville]

22 minutes ago, HaveADream said:

They are really, considering the only law that has been a no was marijuana. The biggest problem is more the structure of the government but I think they're working on reform to streamline.

I continually get the sense that anything that'd actually have an impact on players would be kicked right back to the staff team. If something as inconsequential as marijuana was vetoed, how can we say that GOV will be able to pass things like enhanced criminal sentencing or gun purchase reform?

 

Without the ability to impact the server in any meaningful way, it seems more than a bit pointless - like an outsourced think tank rather than a governing body of players. Again, if a veto is going to come down the pipe over something like marijuana, there's really no point in having it at all - and I say this as someone who was initially pretty pumped about the prospect of a player government.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Smilesville

[HaveADream]

15 minutes ago, Smilesville said:

I continually get the sense that anything that'd actually have an impact on players would be kicked right back to the staff team. If something as inconsequential as marijuana was vetoed, how can we say that GOV will be able to pass things like enhanced criminal sentencing or gun purchase reform?

 

Without the ability to impact the server in any meaningful way, it seems more than a bit pointless - like an outsourced think tank rather than a governing body of players. Again, if a veto is going to come down the pipe over something like marijuana, there's really no point in having it at all - and I say this as someone who was initially pretty pumped about the prospect of a player government.

I wouldn't mind that and I doubt Sharvit would in terms of those bigger changes, but then we didn't have an issue with weed either so really it's up to management.

 

Another issue of it is that people tend to force management's hand by complaining directly/posting threads, take the Israel/Palestine resolution, I doubt anyone would've cared had it been Myanmar, Xingliang, DR Congo, and arguably all of those are against the premise of the rule, but again, it's about the public outrage and people's refusal to engage with the political process in-character.

Edited May 20, 2021 by HaveADream

[Smilesville]

2 hours ago, HaveADream said:

I wouldn't mind that and I doubt Sharvit would in terms of those bigger changes, but then we didn't have an issue with weed either so really it's up to management.

 

Another issue of it is that people tend to force management's hand by complaining directly/posting threads, take the Israel/Palestine resolution, I doubt anyone would've cared had it been Myanmar, Xingliang, DR Congo, and arguably all of those are against the premise of the rule, but again, it's about the public outrage and people's refusal to engage with the political process in-character.

My hope is that we reach a place where we can allow these things to play out and gauge the result - rather than shutting it down immediately.

 

I'm much more sanguine about how Groz handled the Israel/Palestine situation, and yet I feel like we constantly create Catch-22 style situations for ourselves. That controversy is demonstrative of how strict adherence to realism (the meaning of which can change to suit the discussion, whatever it may be) rarely serves us particularly well; it may not be terribly realistic, but doing away with the Republican and Democrat parties to go with something entirely created by players would certainly gin up the sort of interest that RL politics tends to diminish.

 

This could branch out to so much more, too. News writers could also be lore writers - creating fictitious wars that only exist within our shared universe so we can maintain IC controversy without spilling into OOC. I'm trying not to ramble, but I feel like strict realism has kneecapped us in several areas.

 

If people feel like they have an impact IC, I doubt we'll see near as much OOC discontent.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Smilesville

[ThatDutchPerson]

28 minutes ago, Smilesville said:

My hope is that we reach a place where we can allow these things to play out and gauge the result - rather than shutting it down immediately.

This goal is amazing, but unreachable aslong as we got people in this community that verbally attack and harrass others because of their OOC opinions on these matters. Yesterday I voiced my opinion on the act about minors and gender surgery, and I got attacked and harrassed in my discord DM's by a certain individual because of it, calling me ''transphobic'' because I do not support minors making life altering decisions, even though I expressed multiple times I am a large supporter of LGBTQ+.

 

Aslong as that happens, discussions like these will never be able to play out ICly and naturally simply because people feel OOCly offended by these IC things. Ofcourse, a line has to be drawn and the Israeli/Palestine conflict is a clear violation of that line, but what else is? The same person that harrassed me even went onto metagaming, voicing her OOC position in an IC comment.

 

Lines must be drawn, I also agree with that. Certain topics aren't meant for the entertainment medium thats GTA World, again the conflict is a nice exemple of that. But where is the exact line, and should we feel safe expressing opinions on those both IC and OOC (saying IC aswell because people get OOCly offended)? This is where management must make a statement about honestly. Make a list of ''forbidden'' topics and periodicly update it, or outright ban sensitive topics as a whole for the sake of keeping unfriendly discussions away.

 

Just my two cents on the whole topic.

Edited May 20, 2021 by ThatDutchPerson

[TinPan]

I’d like to see political entities have a more involved presence on the server that actually has notable consequences beyond simply being a background faction of sorts that doesn’t do a whole lot due to the server administration controlling a lot of aspects about the city.

 

Imagine the drama and intrigue that’d be present if government entities were given the ability to determine budgets for government factions which in turn determines the kind of equipment they have access too for the duration of the month; something significant that affects both legal & illegal roleplayers whilst putting government members into the limelight as public figures with legitimate power.

 

Things should be more ‘House of Cards’ with public figures that everyone on the economic food chain knows & internal power struggles that can change the course of the political identity of LS, not ‘Cory in the House’ RP.

[Eriks]

In my view, political roleplay typically suffers three challenges:

 

1. A shallow pool of interested and capable political role players.

 

Players who are knowledgeable, competent and motivated to play political characters are few and far between. This can result in stagnation and inactivity which can bring the legislative process to a crawl. It also means that political roleplay heavily depends on a small handful of people (who are often overwhelmed with work). While we would like to establish more agencies to implement meaningful policies IC, it's extremely challenging to find players capable of fulfilling those duties. This can lead to a slow roll-out of government policy, which is dissatisfying. There's no real way to overcome this challenge, but I think most people don't recognize this constraint. Instead, it's easy to complain about ineffective government.

 

2. Out of character directives and influence on government activity.

 

Decisions affecting legal roleplay (e.g. private business and government) are often made outside of IC institutions, many times without their direct input. This diminishes the government's capacity to make decisions or structural changes, and instead turns the government into a IC manifestation or rubberstamp for OOC decisions. This isn't always the case, but it happens pretty often. We also grapple with the issue of city vs. state. After the State Government and Senate was established, the city continued, except without a City Council to conduct oversight, manage the budget and develop ordinances. In addition, the Senate effectively has no say in how the city conducts business, which silos them into their own thing separate from everyone else. Finally, we have the issue of OOC politiking among/within legal factions themselves. There's nothing wrong with IC bureaucratic politics and it's best to manifest these attitudes in-game instead of over TeamSpeak and discord. 

 

3. The server's general disinterest in engaging with the political process IC.

 

The OOC constraints placed on the Senate aren't just from Server Management (SM). Players at-large too often OOCly take issue with Senate actions. People are overly sensitive. This results in players taking to the forums or petitioning SM to make changes to laws or political activities, instead of engaging in the political process IC. One letter to a senator on a particular issue can go a very long way. A meeting with a senator IG can be even more effective in attaining desired outcomes. That isn't to say politicians shouldn't create more opportunities for constituent engagement, but see problem #1.

 

Having said that, even with these challenges, I think government is faring pretty well. We are moving in the right direction. The first two Senate sessions have been  focused on setting up the government, codifying duties into law, and formalizing the state appropriations process, rather than making "big changes." One step at a time.

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Eriks

[.George]

11 hours ago, HaveADream said:

They are really, considering the only law that has been a no was marijuana. The biggest problem is more the structure of the government but I think they're working on reform to streamline.

Still waiting on those speedsbumps we got promised!!!

[arrdef]

Political roleplay is the opposite of realistic or interesting when the only thing anyone is allowed to portray is a John Dolitte caricature.

 

You can't really have a political debate on firearms, police or drug use without references to RL politics; and there's a large platoon of hall monitors both staff and community members that apparently make it their mission to cleanse any thought-provoking roleplay from the server.

Edited May 20, 2021 by arrdef

[Smilesville]

2 hours ago, Eriks said:

 

1. A shallow pool of interested and capable political role players.

[...]

2. Out of character directives and influence on government activity.

[...]

3. The server's general disinterest in engaging with the political process IC.

[...]

 

Having said that, even with these challenges, I think government is faring pretty well. We are moving in the right direction. The first two Senate sessions have been  focused on setting up the government, codifying duties into law, and formalizing the state appropriations process, rather than making "big changes." One step at a time.

Each of the points you've outlined feed into one another; why would I be interested in political RP (#1) with the knowledge that petitioning staff directly is much more effective (#2) and it can be reversed at the drop of a hat (#3) even if we do manage to effectuate change?

 

This isn't the first time we've been here, either - GTAW has been trying to foster a properly functioning GOV for years at this point.

 

The last time the server rallied to push a political change was when mayor Morales was cajoled out of office ICly due to the tax hikes the government (see also: server) was going to implement. What happened the moment Rockford was put into office? The tax hikes were pushed through anyways. Putting aside the judgment of whoever decided Rockford's player should be in control of the city government, what was the purpose of all the IC development to that point if the server was simply going to shrug and do what it wanted to do anyways?

 

Players have no meaningful way of impacting the development of the city. Everything is admin fiat, and at some point, "the real treasure is the friends we made along the way" doesn't cut it - and people tune out.

Even when the Senate gets on its feet, we've hardly addressed the underlying issue that would allow it to succeed in any  meaningful way.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Smilesville