View Topic

In our history, there have been few debates more long-lasting as the status of the Underhusen. It's no secret that it's rarely active and it's work rarely impactful to the region. As a result, people wonder  whether the Underhusen as it exists is relevant at all.

Over the past several weeks, I have given the matter a lot of thought. This post is a summary of those thoughts, along with ideas that might help. I warn you in advance, it's a lot of reading and the proposals aren't as dramatic as you might expect. But dramatic changes aren't always necessary for dramatic effect.

The Challenges of the Storting
The Storting was born in late 2013, when Wintreath was new and facing many unknowns. We expected that most of our activity would remain with NationStates. As it turns out, that wasn't the case, and as a result the Underhusen hasn't aged well. Furthermore, by design most of the practical policy-setting authorities rest with the Monarchy.

The result is that the Underhusen has long-set the few policies that it has authority over. It can't take on new policies because of issues with jurisdiction or practicality. For example, can the Storting make laws for the Minecraft server? No. Can the Storting regulate culture? Sure, but why would it?

What's left is self-administration: elections, procedural rules, and seating acts. There's also Citizen honors, which have proven to be an easy and popular source of activity. Besides that, you have an Underhusen that struggles to find anything else to do that matters.

The Benefits of the Storting
That being said, there remain some benefits to the Storting as it is. Despite inactivity, Underhusen elections are usually popular, with many Citizens running. The June 2020 elections had 12 candidates! It's true that the last election only had 5, but I think this is due to a drop of activity in the region as a whole since June. The fact is, it's the easiest way for people to get into government, especially newer Citizens. It allows Citizens to run on an agenda without the responsibility of joining the Cabinet.

Alternative Proposals
There have been two ideas in recent years that take the region in opposite paths. One transforms the Underhusen into a more democratic open assembly. The other dissolves the Storting, returning its authorities to the Monarchy. We've debated both proposals over the years, but neither gets to the root of the problem: a lack of purpose. An open assembly that does away with elections would have most of its existing activity cut. Dissolving the Storting removes the easiest way for Citizens to get into government.

Is there no way to give an elected group purpose in Wintreath?

Thoughts on the Purpose of the Underhusen
What is the purpose of the Underhusen, even? Because it's rarely impactful, the community has asked that many times over the years. It's the question that all our discussions about what to do with the Underhusen dance around. In the process, I think we've forgotten that it already has a greater purpose than legislating. That purpose is to represent the Citizens of Wintreath. That seems a more worthwhile purpose than passing a bunch of bills.

That strikes to the core of the issue. We believe the Underhusen can't be relevant because it can't make decisions in most areas. It wasn't meant to. The responsibility of managing the region rests with the Monarchy. The Riksrad in particular does a great job of running the region from day to day. It would be duplicative and impractical to expect the Underhusen to also take up this role.

But I believe there is a need for a body to represent the Citizens. I appoint almost every other official in the region. In a way, they all represent me. By contrast, direct representation can lead to too many cooks. Having more people involved in tense situations can make it easier for things to get out of hand. In those cases, representative democracy is a happy medium.

Thinking about it this way, we can come to a new understanding of the functioning of government. The Underhusen represents Citizens. The Overhusen provides stability in legislative affairs. Finally, the Cabinet manages the day to day affairs of the region.

Rediscovering the Underhusen’s Purpose
If you think about it this way, the question isn't so much how to make the Underhusen a more active legislature. It's how to make it a more effective representative of Citizens? I think the answer is to enable the Underhusen and Cabinet to better work together.

To that end, I propose a joint Riksrad-Underhusen channel on Discord and forum here on the forums. The purpose would be to discuss the needs of the community as well as issues raised by Citizens. The joint group would also plan and administrate the region under my supervision. I believe this would make the Underhusen a more effective representative body. It would also allow Skrifa to actually advance an agenda besides legislating.

I have to admit, I’m not sure how exactly this would work. This is a new idea after all, but I hope that the group would at least set goals for the region that we could all work toward.

Embracing Direct Representation
Didn't I call representative democracy a happy medium?

Even if this new arrangement works out perfectly, it may not catch every idea and issue in the community. Things could slip through the cracks, or not get the attention of the right people. Sometimes direct representation is the most effective representation. Judging from the question I put out last week, most people agree. And it just makes sense. Who wouldn't want to be able to post their own ideas, thoughts, and suggestions?

That’s why I’m also proposing an area on the forums for Citizens to raise issues and make suggestions. It would merge the several places people can do so now, some of which have their own problems. I mean, it makes sense to not allow discussion in #suggestions so we don't miss the actual suggestion. That has been vexing to people who want to discuss them, though.

This forum would come with the ability for Citizens to mark a topic for resolution. It would be like liking a post. If enough people marked the topic, it would mandate a response within a certain amount of time. This would most likely come from the relevant ministry for government affairs. Administration would respond to technical requests.

In Conclusion
I know these ideas don't sound all that dramatic, especially when you compare it with Burn It Down. But they could offer Citizens a greater voice and give renewed purpose to the Underhusen. In time, it could pave the way for a nimbler, more streamlined government. At the very least, if it doesn't work out, the option for more dramatic solutions remain.

But for now, I would love to hear your thoughts and feedback. If there's enough support for these ideas, we can go about changing the law to reflect them. We don't have to amend the Fundamental Laws for these ideas, so that's another benefit, too!

I think it's worth a shot. It doesn't really seem like we'd have anything to lose by trying this out.

But if there is a Riksrad-Underhusen group so that citizens are represented in respect to the Cabinet/Monarchy, would it not make sense to do the same with the Discord Operators? One continual problem I hear on Discord (though not really as much lately) is that regular citizens don't feel listened to by the Ops team. Wouldn't this be the perfect way to get citizen representation on the issue?

Your reasoning for change is clear: because the Underhusen functions separately from everything else, it is easy to feel its uselessness and lose sight of its actual function. If the goal is to represent the citizenry to the Monarchy, then a joint venture between the legislature and the Monarchy (and His Majesty's Cabinet) is the only way to accomplish that.

The change that excites me the most is the revamping of the Citizen's Platform. All too many times I have felt ignored trying to propose bills there, or commenting on bills in the Discord. Creating a section that requires a level of input and response will correct a lot of those concerns, and alleviate a lot of the tension we've had regarding moderator transparency.

That said, I still think we need to allow commenting in #suggestions, and just have operators pin the relevant suggestions at hand.

I hope if nothing else my post comes off as thoughtful and fresh. It seems we've been debating open assemblies and doing away with the UH for five years now. At least this is something new.

At work I'm part of a Strategic Planning Council that drafted objectives and goals for the next few years and is now organizing the work to meet those goals. I'm hoping the joint group will likewise decide what we need to most work on from term to term, because I don't think we've ever really worked together on something. Even with something like Summersend or Z-Day, it's a few officials shouldering a lot of responsibility to do it themselves. I also took a lot of inspiration from EVE Online's Council of Stellar Management, which is an elected body that represents players to the game's developer. The white paper that led to the CoSM's founding is a really interesting read:

The Council of Stellar Management: Implementation of Deliberative, Democratically Elected Council in EVE

I think the forum suggestion mechanism will be particularly great for moderation, because I think what's happened when we've tried to resolve moderation issues through Discord chats is a lot like what happens with political chats on there. People pick a side, things get personal quickly, and instead of resolving an issue it becomes an even bigger conflict. Having it through the forums will provide a space for people to thoughtfully put together their thoughts, then give administration time to discuss the matter and put together a more thoughtful response than what's possible when you're replying to something on Discord.

To answer Gerrick's question, I'm hesitant to include moderation in the joint group, because one of the things that was pointed out in the investigation of the Schism is that the lines between the in-character government and out-of-character administration were blurred. People believed the government handled OOC issues and came to them for that purpose, and in some cases the Cabinet took it upon themselves to deliberate OOC matters, which is generally considered inappropriate in NationStates regions. I'm concerned that adding moderation to a government group may blur that line further.

I believe the #suggestions channel would probably be archived, because I don't think it's a good median for proposing and deliberating suggestions. Even Discord's own feedback area is off-site. I think going forward we'll be asking ourselves whether Discord or the forums is the best median for a particular thing, and then making a space in the area that makes the most sense. Of course, this wouldn't prevent people from informally bringing up and discussing suggestions in #wintreath or #tavern, too.

Sorry, I meant two separate joint groups: one that is Underhusen+Cabinet while another is Underhusen+Operators. If anything, I think that would help people more clearly understand the definite separation between IC government and OOC moderation.

I suppose at this point I would like to hear from @Chanku and @Dawsinian, as they have shaped the Underhusen the most throughout the years.

Sorry, I meant two separate joint groups: one that is Underhusen+Cabinet while another is Underhusen+Operators. If anything, I think that would help people more clearly understand the definite separation between IC government and OOC moderation.

Well, let's see if the one group works first.

I suppose at this point I would like to hear from @Chanku and @Dawsinian, as they have shaped the Underhusen the most throughout the years.

I think this is a fine idea. Back when the Underhusen was the most active, this region was mainly a NationStates-based region and most of us were very much into politics and such, so there was always something to legislate. I think the region has evolved past the political gameplay that our government is based upon, and now we find ourselves trying to give purpose to an entirely political body.

On that note, though slightly off topic, I also want to address the OOC moderation + IC government debate. As I mentioned above, it is evident that we as a community have evolved past the point of being a group of people running a regional government on NationStates that just happened to also have an IRC channel and a Minecraft server. We're now a forum-based community with some members that don't even play NationStates. We have a discord server, a minecraft server, an active roleplaying section on the forums, a steam group, and yes... a region in NS. I wonder if it is time to look at including these various platforms in our regional "government", as most of our activity now occurs in these other platforms. It almost makes no sense to have laws that only apply to certain parts of our community (such as the forums) but that don't apply on the minecraft server or the discord server.

I think this is a fine idea. Back when the Underhusen was the most active, this region was mainly a NationStates-based region and most of us were very much into politics and such, so there was always something to legislate. I think the region has evolved past the political gameplay that our government is based upon, and now we find ourselves trying to give purpose to an entirely political body.

On that note, though slightly off topic, I also want to address the OOC moderation + IC government debate. As I mentioned above, it is evident that we as a community have evolved past the point of being a group of people running a regional government on NationStates that just happened to also have an IRC channel and a Minecraft server. We're now a forum-based community with some members that don't even play NationStates. We have a discord server, a minecraft server, an active roleplaying section on the forums, a steam group, and yes... a region in NS. I wonder if it is time to look at including these various platforms in our regional "government", as most of our activity now occurs in these other platforms. It almost makes no sense to have laws that only apply to certain parts of our community (such as the forums) but that don't apply on the minecraft server or the discord server.

I think you've hit the core of the issue...beyond this debate about the Underhusen, how do we represent what Wintreath has become? From what I understand, in the few cases where a group expands beyond NS, the NS region is completely separate from the other platforms except for name and some shared members, but all of our stuff is nominally under one umbrella. It calls into question issues from how each area is represented to what being a Citizen means.

The NS RMB community is technically represented through the Ministry of Regional Affairs, but the MC server entirely managed and represented by trader. Each of our three Discord servers are managed differently. The Steam Group is technically manged by the Thane of Gaming, but it's been years since we've done anything with it and it's mostly an afterthought. Citizenship has expanded over the years to take forum activity and donations into account, but should those options be expanded further? It ultimately calls into question...what is Wintreath?

My feeling is that we're going to have to tackle those issues piecemeal through trail and error, because we're going to have to innovate the solutions...there is no model for this for us to copy. If we adopt this idea, there's a chance it may not work out and we have to go back to the drawing board. That's why I'm glad that it can be implemented without amending the Fundamental Laws...we can try it, and if it doesn't work we can easily do away with it. Once we find a series of systems that work though, I do wonder if we'll need to amend or draft an entirely new principle document to reflect what we are now.

Baby steps, though. Just resolving the Underhusen question would end a five-year debate, and that in itself is not insignificant.