User blog:Jeremiah Garland/Roleplay Reformation Proposal - Please Read

It's no surprise that there have been several roleplayers on this wiki who have become upset over the current way roleplay is run on this wiki. We have heard your complaints, and now I have come up with a huge proposal that I hope will sate everybody's troubles and get everything back on track.

Just a reminder: In the paragraphs below, I will be proposing new ideas that will of course mean big changes to roleplay, and changes to the wiki in general. I know there are several people here who are not fond of change, but clearly change is needed here. I simply ask that everybody read this with an open-mind and are willing to consider new proposals. I am not writing this with any tone, any vitriol, or any resentment towards anybody. This mess has been going on for far too long and we need something done. As Goldtimbers said, people have been protesting the Role-Play Council to the point of having their countries cede. We have been left with no choice but to call for a reformation so everybody can benefit. By human nature, everybody tends to be happier when everybody benefits, as opposed to one side benefiting and the other side not. Why should we continue to fight and argue meaninglessly when we could be putting that energy into fixing the problem? In short, I ask that you all read this open-mindedly. As a variation on the 'Golden Rule', treat my blog as you'd want me to treat your's. If you keep a stubborn mind here and immediately shoot down all of my ideas without giving it a good thought, I will do the same with you.

Also do note that this is, after all, just a proposal. Nothing here is official, and the whole system of things proposed is still in the works and subject to change.

The Problem
If there is one thing I have learned from my late-night, heated yet intensely intellectual debates from my good friend John Breasly, it's that I am good at explaining what the problem to something is, but not the solution. That being said, I will attempt to do both here. Before going on with my proposal and stating what I believe should be the solution, it is necessary to understand what exactly the problem here is, so we can know what must be fixed.

As far as roleplay on the wiki goes, there are two distinct "factions" or "parties" of roleplayers. The first group are those roleplayers who are active in-game, and feel that roleplay should remain strictly (or mostly) in the game, with little to no influence on the wiki. They believe that all conflicts should be settled in the game, via SvS/PvP, and believe that only three or four major countries should exist, as opposed to the dozens we have here on the wiki.

For simplicity, I will refer to these roleplayers as conservatives throughout the remainder of the blog. No, I don't mean your stereotypical southern white homophobic God-fearing American Republican conservative, I mean the general term conservative: one who prefers little change and likes to keep things as tradition. These roleplayers are traditionalists in that they would prefer roleplay be solely in the game, where it was originated.

The second faction of roleplayers on the wiki are those who are hardly active or not active at all on the game, but dedicate their time to operating their country from the wiki. They are not ones for big wars or in-game conflicts, and even so, for the most part lack the military power needed to fight such occurances. They also believe that instead of three or four major countries in the roleplay realm, there should be several.

For the sake of consistency, I will refer to these roleplayers as liberals throughout the remainder of the blog. A liberal, by definition, is one who is open to new ideas and are willing to discard tradition. That being said, rather than have roleplay focused only on the game, these roleplayers are challenging that tradition by bringing it to the wiki. It is also no secret that the current Role-Play Council is predominantly made up of these liberals.

So, the problem here is that we have two factions who cannot agree. Each faction has its own thought of roleplay and try in vain to enforce. The conservatives are angry at the Role-Play Council who, as I said, is mostly if not entirely made up of liberals, saying they do not get enough recognition as far as roleplay goes here on the wiki. Furthermore, several conservatives for this reason have accused the Role-Play Council of practicing bias and corrupt behaviour (the accusations of bias are indeed true, as we have no representation on the Council from a conservative point of view). Several attempts and requests have been made to have the Council shut down, and as of the publishing of this blog, three countries have already completely cut themselves off from the Council out of sheer protest. Even from within the Council, certain members have made attempts to have the Council shut down.

Shutting it down is not the solution! I seriously believe the Council is essential to roleplay on the wiki; despite what several conservatives and non-councilists say, the Council has done a decent job of quickly and quietly settling minor disputes that would otherwise erupt into full-scale arguments and conflicts. Our sole mistake, then, was not getting more representation from conservatives and more in-game roleplays from the start, which is why we've gotten to where we are now. By human nature, we need an organised structure to help maintain and better the community it presides over, which is why every country on Earth from the beginning of time has had its own governmental structure. Anarchism simply does not work. And while I do not like to refer to the Council as a "government", per se, I believe that it is still essential in organising roleplay. Before the Role-Play Council there was the LIN. The biggest issue with the LIN is that it was operated too much by normal users, and was too cut off from the wiki itself, as there were no admins to help maintain it. The Role-Play Council, on the other hand, is an organization that is directly part of the wiki, and has been made official. To review, we shouldn't get rid of the Council. We need to strive to fix it and make it better for everybody.

So, let's review the situation: we have two factions (liberals and conservatives) who do not agree on how roleplay should work, and a council predominantly run by the liberals that is on the verge of both external and internal collapse.

The Solution
What should we do about this problem? Whenever a huge problem occurs between two disagreeable factions, one of two things almost always occur: war, or bipartisanship. Since war is not a good option, I propose bipartisanship. Basically, everybody puts their differences aside and we learn to tolerate each other and our beliefs when it comes to roleplay.

Let me draw an example from US history. When James Monroe was sworn is as the fifth president of the United States in 1817, a time period followed called the "Era of Good Feelings". It was called this because there were no wars, no conflicts, and it was the first (and only) time in US history that the country was not in debt. Basically, everybody was happy and they got a lot done. But why was everybody happy? Bipartisanship. Everything within the country itself was relatively peaceful because there was no factionalism but rather complete unity. It's no secret that in the United States, democrats and republicans have a long history of quarrel and disagreement based on their standing principles. Not during the Era of Good Feelings. Even Monroe himself did not associate with one party or the other; he was a member of the united Democratic-Republic Party.

What we need to do is, rather than try to tear each opposing faction down, strive to unite. No matter where you are or who you are with in life, there was always be somebody who disagrees with you in some manner. However, the only rational option would be to overlook this person's opinions, and tolerate them. I've noticed a lacking sense of toleration on the wiki, and perhaps I am guilty to this as well. Even still, we need to stop the endless cries of "bias!" and "powerhungry!" and "corrupt". We need to stop being at each other's throats 24/7 waiting for either side to finally give in. ''This is not how we need to get things done! ''The only possible (and logical) solution is to unite, rather than fight. Put our disagreements behind us. We all are roleplayers, after all.

The Proposal
Below is my proposal on how the Role-Play Council should be reformed. Each component of the proposal is divided. Do note, that the proposal and its various components are still in the works; this, however, should provide a rough outline of what I think should be done.

Structure and Organization
The way it is now, the Role-Play Council is a unicameral organization that has taken on a wide-range of responsibilities. While unicameralism can and does work, it only works when the people agree and there is relatively little conflict and few disagreements between national parties. Needless to say, that is not the case on this wiki. As I've stressed throughout the blog, there is disagreement among the community, and change is vital. Therefore, I propose that the Role-Play Council be divided into a bicameral council. One chamber will be occupied by conservatives, the other by the liberals. Think of the United States Legislature. The US Congress is divided into two chambers: the Senate and House of Representatives. Currently, the republicans control the House of Representatives, while the Democrats control the Senate. I propose we do the same thing here, with each chamber of this newly reformed Role-Play Council being controlled by each roleplay faction.

Both chambers have the same amount of members and are ''completely equal in status, power, and vote. ''Because each chamber is equal, the also have the ability to veto each other and their decisions (more on this later).

The conservative chamber of the council can be in charge of all "tangible", if you will, aspects of roleplay: that is, anything and everything that has to do with roleplay in the game, including SvS/PvP rules, guilds, wars, et cetera. If it has to do with the game, it falls under the conservatives.

The liberal chamber, on the other hand, handles the "administrative" duties of roleplay: that is, aspects of roleplay currently existing on the wiki. These duties include nation membership and the basic maintainence of roleplaying not in the game. If it has to do with the wiki, it falls under the liberals.

Both chambers hold responsibility in creating and maintaining laws and general rules of roleplay, for both in-game and on the wiki.

Membership and Voting
As stated above, each chamber will hold identically equal power. Ergo, so do the members within the council as a whole. That being said, there will be ''absolutely no central power figure. ''In addition, there will not even be leaders of each chamber. I've noticed that this wiki has a highly competitive nature, and the creation of such ranks would only bolster this competition, in turn resulting in a state of disarray and collapse.

Also as stated above, to maintain perfect equality, each chamber will hold the same amount of members. My proposal is that each chamber will each hold exactly five members, meaning there will be ten altogether in the entire Role-Play Council. Recall, though, that each member is equal. Therefore, all ten of these members will hold complete equality. There will be absolutely no individual that holds certain rights, privileges, or powers over the other ten.

Five members per chamber, and the overall number of ten members in the council is simply a random proposed number and is not set. For the sake of organization, whatever number we end up going with (given this proposal is passed) should be relatively small, so votes will be easier to manage. It is also easier if the number in each chamber is odd, as to eliminate the possibilities of a deadlock when voting.

Because all ten members are equal, each member will receive only one vote during the time a decision must be made through voting. Both chambers will operate on the already-existing Role-Play Council Requestpage, and all voting will happen through there. However, in most requests / issues, only one chamber will vote. If the request / issue concerns in-game matters, then the conservative chamber will hold the vote and make a final decision. Likewise, if the request / issue concerns any roleplay on the wiki, the liberals will hold the vote. This is not to say, though, that the opposing chamber not operating the vote has no say in the matter; as I stated, each chamber has the ability to override the decision made by the opposing chamber (again, more about this soon).

There will also be general, more wide-open and broad requests in which both chambers will decide the final vote, thus ten votes will be recorded. In the event that there are five supports and five opposes in said vote, either A) a second vote is held on the same matter, until a definite decision is made, or B) a third-party member (possibily a willing administrator of this site) is brought in to make the final decision.

In addition, there may be not more than one member or leader from each roleplay nation in the council at any given time. However, since there are several roleplay countries and only a proposed ten spots available on the council, this means that not every single country will have a member on the council. These countries though, of course, are still members of the Role-Play Council despite the lack of direct representation.

Vetoing
As I cannot stress enough that each chamber of the council and each member within holds perfect equality, one essential add-on to the voting system would be the vetoing ability. If one chamber passes a vote on a matter or request dealing with them, and for whatever reason, the opposing chamber does not agree with this decision made, they can veto it. However, vetoing is not all that easily done. The only way for a veto be successful is if all members of the vetoing chamber support.

So, let's say chamber one holds a vote based on a request submitted by another roleplayer. The request is granted and the majority of the chamber votes support. Chamber two, however, does not agree with the request and the decision made to pass it. Therefore, chamber two holds the ability to veto the decision made by chamber one. To do this, a separate vote will be held strictly among the challenging chamber (that is, the chamber who called for the veto against the chamber who made the decision). The vote will then be held among the members of that chamber to veto the decision. However, in order for the veto to be successful, all five members of said chamber must vote "support" for the veto. If, by the end of the vote, there is at least one oppose, the veto has failed and the decision made by chamber one goes into action.

If the veto succeeds and all five members of the challenging chamber (chamber two) vote support, then the decision made by chamber one is discarded and another vote is held to make the final decision about the original request. In this vote, however, both chambers (all ten members) may vote for the final decision. Because there are ten members voting, there is of course in this instant, the ability of a draw between the votes. If this is so, as stated above, the vote will repeat itself between the two chambers until either "support" or "oppose" wins, or the final decision will be held by an admin, or admins.

Election
Another huge aspect to discuss and decide is how each member of the council will gain its place in the council. To keep things democratic, I propose elections be held to decide who gets to sit in the council. My proposed election system, however, is still a bit rough around the edges and is in the works.

Basically, the election process will work like this: there will be two separate blogs, one for each chamber, each with a physical poll holding the names of those nominated to join the council. The number of names on the polls depends on how many names are nominated. How does a name get nominated, then? Anybody on the wiki (that is, a user with a registered account and with the appropriate amount of edits) may nominate a roleplayer for the council. Then, in order for that nominee to have his/her name on the final ballot, they must receive a second nomination by a different user. For example: Steve is an avid roleplay. His buddy nominates him for the council. Another user then seconds that nomination. Thus, because he has two total recommendations, Steve is officially put on the ballot.

Any given user may only may only submit one nomination. They may, however, second as many other submitted nominations as they wish.

Needless to say, one cannot nominate or second theirself. They can, however, vote for theirself if / when they get on the final voting ballot.

They may occurances when only five roleplayers are nominated for each chamber, thus only five names on the final ballot. If this is so, no final vote is necessary and the five names nominated are automatically made members of their chamber and thus, the council.

Term Length
As with any universal legislature, there is a certain length of consecutive time as to how long a member of that legislature can serve. I propose the same for the council. Setting a term length for the council has several benefits, including fresh ideas offered by new members of the council, and opportunities for all to take part.

Like the election process, however, the term lengths are still in the works and subject to change. I propose, however, that each member of the council will only hold their membership for either one month or two months, before it must be renewed in another election process, or their seat is taken by another roleplayer. One month allows more opportunities for others to gain positions in the council quickly, but may be way too short. Two months, then, may be a good length of time. I am still, however, undecided in this matter.

In addition, all tenures between the two chambers and among all members will be parallel. Therefore, all council incumbents serve the same one / two months before the new election process. This is simply for consecutive purposes and to simplify matters.

As for how many times any individual roleplayer can hold office, I propose an infinite number. This may also be consecutive, as well.

Conclusion
As it is evident that my proposal still has a few quirks to work out, I believe this is a start and should give you an idea of which direction I think we should be taking.

Even I, a dedicated member of the current Role-Play Council, will strongly admit that we have not all been fair. We lack representation from the other end of the roleplay spectrum, and those who have protested our decisions have every right to do so. Still, I feel this endless bickering among the two distinct groups need to cease, and rather than be destructive, we must be constructive. In times of great trouble, the best thing to do is for each faction to not look on the other with hatred, but rather learn to tolerate each other's views and simply get along. We all need to make a compromise here. Compromise is what moves a better society.

I am willing to tolerate everybody's views and opinions if you do the same for me. If we can learn toleration, we can then unite into one governing body (such as the one I have proposed here), and end all issues. The key to tolerance, though, is to get rid of all stubborn ideas. As I said at the beginning of this blog, it is essential that all read this with an open-mind. If you keep to your own stubborn ideas, nothing can be done! We will have moved nowhere! However, if you have read this blog with an open-mind, then perhaps tolerance is not that far off, and thus, neither is unity.

I realise this blog holds a lot of info and is a bit much to take in all at once. However, I ask every last one of you to consider my proposal, for I feel it may really help us get on a better road. And I say that sentence not as a roleplayer, but a friend to everybody on this wiki. You guys are indeed my friends, and I simply cannot take this arguing and the stress and tensions that come with it. By simply considering this proposal and the positive outcome it may have, you are helping to end this mindless fighting.

Please, give your opinions below. I ask once more that you do this, though, without any quarrel or immaturity. All comments, concerns, questions, or any otherwise statements open to discussion and debate are completely welcome.

Thank you dearly for reading!

Cheers,

-- Jeremiah Garland