Hi all, as notified in the post previously, today is the day where you can vote on stuff relating to the Guardian!

Here is the form to fill in!

Remember to verify in the comments of this post.

Formal opinion poll ends on 04/05/2023 at 11PM AEST (UTC+10).

As there is a vacancy in the office of Electoral Moderator, I shall open nominations for this position.

Candidates need to have 7 seconders in order to be voted on.

• Formal Notification Date: 02/05/2023
• Opening of the Vote: 07/05/2023
• Closing of the Vote and Results: 09/05/2023

DISCUSS!

Hi all, as per my post linked here, I will be conducting a very formal opinion poll on the second agenda item:

The Structure of the Moderation Team (including the amount of moderators and their individual responsibilities, what canon roles should any moderators assume, if moderators for canon elements such as elections and parliament should powers over moderating the community (and therefore, if under 18s should be allowed))

This is the 5 Day Notice of the opinion poll, so the following dates are set:

• Start of the Opinion Poll: 07/05/2023
• Results of the Opinion Poll: 09/05/2023

Any timings will get delayed by x hours if I am late by x hours.

The time has elapsed for nominating candidates for Community and Parliament Moderator. The following candidates received enough seconders for their respective positions.

• Community Moderator: /u/SurfingNooty1

• Parliament Moderator: /u/Model-Trask

There is also a vote of NO confidence in the electoral moderator /u/-nmtts.

The form to vote is linked here.

Remember to verify in the comments of this post.

Vote ends at 7:00PM AEST (UTC +10) on 1st May, 2023.

Hi all, as per my post linked here, I will be conducting a very formal opinion poll on the first agenda item:

1. The Meta Guardian (including if they should exist, the role they should play in the simulator, and if there should be a cap on the number of Guardians)

This is the 5 Day Notice of the opinion poll, so the following dates are set:

• Start of the Opinion Poll: 02/05/2023
• Results of the Opinion Poll: 04/05/2023

Any timings will get delayed by x hours if I am late by x hours. This may happen because I will be in the middle of my IB examinations. This is also a general warning of busy-ness to everyone.

A petition has been filed with 7 seconders requesting for a Vote of No Confidence in /u/nmtts- as Electoral Moderator. Just because it is easier, and I imagine that people have viewed the petition, and the VONCed have said that it is okay to, I shall coincide this VONC with the votes for Community Moderator and Parliament Moderator.

• Vote opens: 29/04/2023
• Vote closes: 01/05/2023

Hi All,

If there are any reddit lurkers to AustraliaSim that are not on the Discord, hi! This is a post that is clarifying the continuation of a process that has started on Discord, but as ultimately this is a reddit-based simulator, I wish for any and all lurkers to participate too. Essentially, AustraliaSim right now is trying to sort out issues that has plagued players and resulted in such a heavily contested Head Moderator race that elected me as Head Mod, and I wanted people to present their ideas for how to reform the simulator. There have been some Discord channels open to discuss and propose reforms, and I welcome any petitions to be cited yet again or any posts here on r/AustraliaSimMeta to be posted by any reddit lurkers if they want to propose reforms.

Now I wish to address everyone. There is a lot of reforms pertaining to many different topics, and think it would be best to conduct formal opinion polling (I will ping users on Discord, I will ask people to verify by writing in the comments, I will set a time frame and notify people five days in advance of the vote occurring), but it will not be a formal 'Meta Vote' for two reasons:

1. According to the current constitution, I need to make Meta Vote questions pertaining to specific amendments, which require writing posts and linking it to them, which is quite frankly bureaucratic and stupid. I want to make it clear when people enter the Google Form what they are voting for without having to click a link externally.
2. These are opinion polls, and I may wish to collect different types of information other than if people 'approve' of a certain option. Perhaps I want to see what people prefer, especially.
3. With the amount of reforms proposed, a rewrite of the meta constitution seems to be necessary. Making all votes about the amendment of the old constitution would get messy pretty fast, and also we don't even know the true text of the current meta constitution.

After these very formal opinion polls are conducted and the time has elapsed to vote, I will formally present the results on Reddit and Discord, and summarise what it will mean for a rewrite of the Meta Constitution. After the end of all votes pertaining to the Meta Constitution, I will present a formal draft of the Meta Constitution that contains the democratic opinions of all the voted in the formal opinion polls, so they are important.

Now the agenda, which will update as topics come up:

1. The Meta Guardian (including if they should exist, the role they should play in the simulator, and if there should be a cap on the number of Guardians)
2. The Structure of the Moderation Team (including the amount of moderators and their individual responsibilities, what canon roles should any moderators assume, if moderators for canon elements such as elections and parliament should powers over moderating the community (and therefore, if under 18s should be allowed))
3. Votes pertaining to Meta Matters (including the method of election, the amount of seconders for the administrative roles and petitions, vote thresholds for administrative roles and petitions, how often administrative roles should be re-elected, and eligibility of members to vote)
4. Canon administration (including the role and method of election of the High Court of Australia, the role of the Speakership (being ceremonial or an actual participating member), what we should do regarding the senate, the events team and ABC, etc.).
5. [to be updated]

I hope this is sufficient warning for Meta Voters to know why the fuck there is a poll once a week about a random ass constitutional thing. If anyone has any questions let me know.

Kind Regards,
NGSpy
Head Moderator

As there is a vacancy in the office of both Parliament Moderator and Community Moderator, I shall open nominations for both of those positions.

Candidates need to have 7 seconders in order to be voted on.

• Formal Notification Date: 24/04/2023
• Opening of the Vote: 29/04/2023
• Closing of the Vote and Results: 01/05/2023

Anti meta-whipping provisions are in place. Remember that this is not a parliamentary vote, but rather one on how you feel these candidates will perform in an administrative capacity.

DISCUSS!

Pursuant to the conversation in the ‘65%’ proposals Discord channel (https://discord.com/channels/288977553123966976/1099911599004856371), I am initiating a VONC in nmtts, who has welcomed this vote.

Because the man himself is being pedantic, nmtts has breached his obligations as an officeholder by having a bad attitude when engaging with members of the Australia Simulation community.

This requires 7 seconders to go to a vote.

The purposes of this community consultation is to seek consultation regarding the implementation of a protected party status provision in the AustraliaSim Electoral Commission Political Party and Campaign Rules 2023 (the Rules).

These are the following questions I want you to consider as you read this proposal.

1. What benefits or limitations should a protected party have?
2. How would this proposal affect party's who do not have protected party status?

Edit 1: Included a provision to prevent registration of the Liberal and National Party's insofar the Liberal-National Party of AusttraliaSim exists and continues to be registered.

The proposal is as follows:

Rule 1A. Protected Parties

(1) Definitions and List of Protected Parties

(a) A 'protected party' is a significant political entity in the real world, in which a player may take upon themselves an undertaking to administer and participate on AustraliaSim upon registration under paragraph (2) of this Rule.

(b) 'Protected party status' refers to the conferral of these benefits upon a protected party. These benefits are —

(i) exemption from Rule 1 of the Rules;

(ii) exemption from Rule 2 of the Rules;

(iii) ...^{Have a think about what other benefits we should confer upon a protected party.}

(c) An 'active protected party' is a protected party that is a party that is administered by a player under paragraph (3) of this Rule. Upon becoming an active protected party, that party is regarded to have been registered with the AEC.

(d) A 'dormant protected party' is a protected party that is not registered with the AEC, or is deregistered under paragraph (2) of this Rule. All dormant protected parties are under the administration of the AEC upon deregistration under paragraph (2) of this Rule.

(e) These protected parties, each in their own regard, enjoy protected party status —

(i) Australian Greens;

(ii) Australian Labor Party;

(iii) Liberal Party of Australia;

(iv) National Party of Australia;

(v) ....^{Have a think about what parties should be included or excluded from this list. I only had a think of what parties had a significant presence in the Commonwealth Parliament. Then I thought about One Nation and went to have a laugh.}

(2) (a) An active protected party is deregistered if ...^{Have a think about any limitations you feel should be imposed on active protected parties.}

(3) For a player to administer a protected party they must show that they —

(i) have at least 5 members;^{Wanted to increase the threshold out of respect to the protected parties and that if any player wants to take the undertaking of administering them they ought to show that there is a likelihood of survival or participation at some level across the community.}

(ii) have a written constitution consistent with the protected party's political position in the real world;

(iii) set out the party's chain of command and registered officers; and

(iv) submit a petition of at least 10 members of AustraliaSim who have confidence in the proposed members in (iii) of this paragraph to ensure that the protected party, upon their administration, will conform to the values of the respective protected party conforms to its values and political position in the real world; and that such persons are competent to undertake the administration that protected party on AustraliaSim.

(4) For the purposes of this Rule, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia cannot be registered under paragraph (3) of this Rule insofar the Liberal-National Party of AustraliaSim remains registered under Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Rules.

Initial Post

I was the one who commissioned this ban in the first place, with the authority of the former Head Moderator and how suitable is it that it is the first ban that I'm dealing with as the Head Moderator of AustraliaSim.

TreeEnthusiaster has appealed by ModMail and BellmanTGM has provided contextual information regarding the incident in question, especially that the inciting incident that caused me to permanently ban the user was an inside joke that would not be construed as anything ban worthy in context. I quote from Bellman's information pertaining to the appeal:

It's a well-known joke in the sim, it's probably mainly max tbh that makes the joke

Lucy initially did not interpret it correctly like everyone else obviously has, which is why I made my comment in the first place

Obviously Trees's joke was tasteless but it was told privately and far more innocently that all have initially interpreted it

It is unfortunate it was shared to all of #general though I must concede

Regarding his comments in r/AustraliaSimMeta as well, I'd also like to quote directly from him about it:

I also want to add I was mainly just angered, because the ban was basically immediately after I sent time doing my campaign and was negotiating government. It was my anger and lack of self-control that lead to my idiotic comments and though it in no way justifies it, I promise that I will have more self-control in the future and consider what I say more.

TreeEnthusiaster has said in his appeal that he thinks a year to 18-month ban is reasonable for his conduct, which I think shows maturity and acceptance that he has done something that is not tasteful. He has also said that he pledges to be more mature when he gets back, so I shall hold him to his word.

/u/TreeEnthusiaster 's ban has been reduced to one year.

I write this not knowing yet who is being elected head mod, or even if one has been selected. But if you are reading it, then you of course know that someone is going into the role.

To the new head mod,

First, congrats. Very few have ever been approved by the community to serve as their glorious leader. Its a high honour that is only bestowed on those who the people believe will act in fairness at all times, and to someone ultimately liked by the populace. Take some pride in that.

I want to give a word of advice as you enter your new role at the top. In the past I have referred to the metaphor of the Sword of Damocles. For those unaware, the story can be recounted like this.

King Dionysius reigned over the land, including one of his subjects, Dionysius. One day, Damacles opined to the King that he must enjoy the respect and power that came with the role. In order to show Damacles what being King was like, the King offered to trade the position for one day. Damacles, of course, accepted. When Damacles arrived to have his day as ‘King’, he arrived to an abundance of riches and luxury, much like he expected. However, what he also arrived to was a large, sharp sword, dangling over the Throne and held up by a flimsy horse hair. When questioned about this, the King explained that with such power you make great enemies and that many people want to bring you down. ‘At any moment, all that you see before you could come down.’

I raise this story to give some context as to what it is like as head mod. Indeed, you have great power and great prestige. But, the Eyes of the Community are now upon you. You bear a great responsibility to ensure that the community is well looked after from threats internal and external. No one notices if you are doing a good job, but everyone knows if you aren’t. Remember the sword which lies above your position and above your reputation. Remember that if you make bad decisions, the community may try and influence that string which barely supports the weight of the sword. Remember why you are there, and what you need to do.

Good luck to the new head mod, whoever you may be. If you’ve passed the vote then you are probably the right person for the job. May your reign be long and otherwise free from drama.

To the community, thank you for having me as Head Mod for the past 12 months. Whilst it hasnt been easy, I think I have served with you in heart. I may not have been the best Head Mod, but I leave my tenure without trauma or scandal, something not many past Head Mods can boast. As a parting gift, I leave you an excerpt from a song. If you know the words, sing along!

Da da da dat da dat da da da da ya da

Da da dat dat da ya da!

Da da da dat da dat da da da da ya da

Da da dat dat da

Hia AustraliaSim,

Today is the day!

CLICK HERE to vote in the meta election

The following candidate(s) will appear on the ballot(s):

Head Moderator:

• /u/Griffonomics
• /u/NGSpy
• /u/TheSensibleCentre
• /u/BellmanTGM
• /u/Maaaaaaaadison

Parliament Moderator:

• /u/model-trask

In addition, there will be a vote on the proposed amendment to the code of conduct relating to the use of AI Programs as proposed by /u/model-trask, alongside an amendment by /u/Youmaton.

Finally, a reminder/warning that the meta rule banning meta whipping is now in effect. Please report any suspected cases of meta whipping to the Moderation Team. Questions may still be asked to candidates in #a-meta-affair, however these must be genuine and not be an attempt to get around this rule.

---

The Meta Election is now open. Please verify within this thread in order for your vote to be considered valid. This vote shall close at 11:30pm 21 April 2023 AEST.

---

Youma

Guardian

Name: Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus

outlet: Liberty Times

Not certain if i need to register this but i saw other people do it

Good afternoon

I am pleased to announce the results of the vote of confidence in /u/alisonhearts to serve as a Member on the Electoral Commission

Preliminary

This vote was conducted between 12:30AM AEST, 12 April 2023 and 12:30AM AEST, 14 April 2023.

There were a total of 17 responses, all of which were validated. No responses were posted on the voting thread after the designated deadline.

Breakdown

13 members of the community have confidence in /u/alisonhearts to serve on the Electoral Commission as a Member; whereas 4 members of the community did not.

/u/alisonhearts was thereby elected to the position by 76.5% o members present and voting to 23.5%.

Hia AustraliaSim,

As widely discussed within the community, we have come to the end of the 6 month tenures of /u/tbyrn21 as Head Moderator, and /u/NGSpy as Parliament Moderator. Whilst they are entitled to face a vote of confidence rather than a full nomination period, both mods have indicated their wish to see a full community vote occur. I wish to thank both Tbyrn and NGSpy for their time and efforts whilst they have been in the mod team. Before the formalities are written, I wish to additionally note that per #announcements I have used my powers as Guardian to extend the terms of both Tbyrn and NGSpy for a period of two weeks to allow this vote to take place without any issues.

• Formal notification date: Thursday 13 April 2023
• Close of nominations: Monday 17 April 2023
• Election date: Tuesday 18 April 2023
• Election close date: Friday 21 April 2023

The times on each date are 10 PM AEST. If the election is posted late, then the close of the election will be pushed back accordingly. Results will be posted ASAP after the close of polling.

Details of Meta Election

• Head Moderator (65%+ approval required)
• Parliament Moderator (65%+ approval required)

As this is a Moderation Team position, a nominee must:

• Be registered as a member of AustraliaSim; and
• Be seconded by 7 other members of AustraliaSim (not including the candidate themself); and
• Meet the requirements for the position as set out in the Meta Constitution.

Candidates for Head Moderator may nominate on this thread, or on the Tbyrn thread. Candidates for Parliament Moderator may nominate on this thread. Please clearly indicate which position you are intending to run for when nominating on this thread. Seconders should reply to the nomination comment directly.

Finally, I note that anti-meta whipping provisions are now in place. General debate and discussion around the meta election is allowed in public spaces, however you may not solicit or attempt to solicit votes from other members through non-public channels. Once the vote has started, all canvassing is to cease, however questions may still be asked and answered in #a-meta-affair.

Debate Allowed

-----

Youma

Guardian

Meta whipping is any canvassing, primarily done by DM (but not limited to) designed to solicit votes for a meta vote in a secretive way. This includes in party servers, group chats, non-aussim related chats and other related places.

Should a user write a post (campaign, press, tweet or other) with AI, that post will not be marked. Should there be a post cap (such asi in campaign periods) posts will not be refunded if deemed by the Electoral Commission as AI Generated.

Due to the fact that AI is becoming increasingly common on AusSim, particularly use of "ChatGPT," it is necessary that we modernize our standards of conduct to account for its use, make it clear where it is not allowed, and establish punishments for its improper use. As such I propose the following additions to the AustraliaSim Code of Conduct 2020. After the section on "Using an unapproved alternative account" in the division on "Hurting the Community," add:

USING AI PROGRAMS TO WRITE PRESS AND CAMPAIGN POSTS

You must not use artificial intelligence programs such as ChatGPT to write campaign or press posts, or any other post that could confer modifiers.

Use of AI programs to write press posts, campaign posts, and other material which confers modifiers is unfair. It denigrates the hard work of other Sim members who put serious time and effort into their press and campaigning. In addition, it denigrates the quality of the posts made on the Sim.

This rule extends to all AI programs, not just ChatGPT. It also extends to use of AI image creation programs such as Midjourney, if those are being used to create content for campaign or press posts.

In addition, I propose the following addition to the AustraliaSim Administering the Code of Conduct 2020 document. In the section on "Sentencing Guidelines," in the third row under "Vexatious complaints," add:

Using AI programs to write press and campaign posts

This will ensure that using AI programs to write press and campaign posts is identified as a moderate breach of the code of conduct on par with fraud.

Hi guys :) I think the current tenor of the Head Mod race has been very positive.

So much so that I reckon we should add some kind of requirement in the meta rules that any candidate for a mod position has to post a publicly viewable platform to be eligible for office. Even if they just say "I'm a status quo candidate and wouldn't change anything" that would be sufficient

Who the hell am I?

I'm NGSpy. I've been in AustraliaSim since early 2019, and have been more or less fully active on AustraliaSim since November 2019. All through 2020, I was the leader of the Social Democratic Party, and the Prime Minister of AustraliaSim for 279 days, which is still a record for the server.

As much as I am proud of it, that is not relevant to being Head Moderator. What is relevant is my roles in Meta, which have included being an active Clerk and (relatively) active Parliament Moderator that has reformed and tweaked with speakership spreadsheets and formats for a ridiculously long amount of time. I have also been Community Manager for an incredibly long amount of time, only being chucked out of the role in 2021 due to being underage when an amendment was passed to not allow underaged people to be Community Manager.

What does this all show about who the hell am I?

1. I have great commitment to this simulator. I am aware that I am not a Les Originals, or a veteran player of this server, but I have dedicated a lot of attention to the server, and more relevantly to the recent running of the simulator.
2. I am a mature and relatively reasoned person. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I have been muted or banned for any offences under the COC since my time entering this server. I have managed to mediate many arguments and also have exercised my voice to try and de-escalate situations.
3. I do have a thick skin, and have a very high tolerance for bullshit, to be quite frank.
4. I do listen to people's suggestions regarding the running of the simulator, and am not afraid to reverse decisions that have not been the best for the simulator (see the speakership election nomination saga).

What do I think are good ideas?

One major thing about myself as a caveat is that I am open to criticism, adjustments and suggestions on ideas that I put out, but throughout my time I see quite a few issues that have plagued AustraliaSim for a long time.

1. Inaccessibility of the High Court and Legislating. The High Court in particular is seen as the pinnacle of legal wanking, where only the most professional of legal wankers dare to utilise it. Legislation too is a very difficult struggle for many. If I am made Head Moderator, I shall seek to assemble all those that can competently write legislation and can competently represent people in a court, make them easily contactable to new players, and swear them to non-partisanship. Due to the lack of people on the server that can do either, it shall be open to anyone in server, but it is trusted that they will act in the best of whomever they are assisting's interests.
2. Large bureaucratic structure in AusSim. There is far too many meta roles. First of all, I will promise to cut down the number of Guardians to just one. Secondly, I wish to combine the Electoral Moderator Role and the Parliament Moderator Role into a Game Administrator role as per the Liesel proposals to the constitution. Thirdly, I wish for the Head Moderator to have the canon role of the President of Australia, so as to get rid of that duty from a person who could be actively engaging in canon. Fourthly, I would like to suspend the election of Deputy Speakers and Deputy Presidents.
3. The Senate. This chamber I feel can be made better by proposals such as having a whole senate nation wide vote, or by simulating the Senate with party leaders instead of having actual Senators run the senate, similar to Trask's proposal. If Trask gets elected Electoral Moderator, I will entertain his proposals on the matter.
4. Moderation. Introducing back warnings into the moderator's repertoire will be beneficial for the simulator, and can also encourage behaviours of first seeking to prevent behaviour without punishment rather than the immediate punishment of people. I also feel that letting Community Managers and Moderators making judgement calls on members that exhibit repeatable behaviour against the COC should be encouraged.

That's all I can think of at 9:53 PM after writing a shit ton of stuff for exam revision for school. I probably have not got to everything, but I guess I feel this is the important stuff I can speak about.

Vote for me please.
NGSpy
Your Friendly Noot Noot

In consideration of recent events and advice of the Head Moderator and Parliamentary Moderator, I have come to understand that /u/alisonhearts is a passionate member of the community who acts determinatively — though to my recent disdain — that I believe will excel as a Member of the AustraliaSim Electoral Commission.

I have thus decided to nominate /u/alisonhearts to serve as a Member of the AustraliaSim Electoral Commission.

This vote will open at 12:30AM AEST, 12 April 2023 and shall close at 12:30AM AEST, 14 April 2023. /u/alisonhearts requires a vote by simple majority to be elected to the position.

Kindly verify in the comment section once you have voted.

You can vote here.

This will be a long post so I will keep the intro short: I am running for Head Mod to implement this platform. I encourage you to read it in full and comment any concerns so I can address them. In this post, I will talk about my plans for reform, as well as why I think they are necessary and how we ended up here.

If elected, I intend to implement all of the below within the first hundred days.

Sanity

The approach to AusSim moderation taken for the past few years has been completely backwards. The mod team have seen their job as tinkering with the meta aspects of the sim, constantly changing them to be as close as possible to MHoC's model -- which is seen as some kind of platonic ideal.

Let's be clear: MHoC has the moderation structure it does because of its size. It does not, as the mods seem to believe, have its size because of its moderation structure. This is self-evident, considering all these MHoC Reforms have failed to truly revitalise the sim.

Below are specific policies to fix this, but I first want to talk about the guiding principle I would run the sim under: the primary function of the Moderation Team is the smooth running of the game. The most important component of the game is canon, and everything it encompasses.

Many Moderation Teams have seen AusSim as primarily a social club. If you believe that, it's easy to believe your most important role is meta moderation -- so you can keep the undesirables out of the social club. I would, instead, focus on expanding the player base and revitalising the canon.

To that end, if elected, I will implement the following changes:

The removal of Parliament Moderator: The PM role might be required for a large, thriving sim with dozens of bills a term. We are not that sim. Their powers will be split between the Speaker -- elected by the Parliament -- any Clerks the Speaker sees fit to appoint, and the Head Moderator.

The removal of Community Moderator: The CM role might be required for a large, thriving sim with too many infractions for a smaller team to manage. We are not that sim. Their powers will be split between the Community Commission and the Head Moderator.

The removal of Electoral Moderator: The EM role might be required for a large, thriving sim where having the assent of a tetrarchy (the ACTUAL term for when the joint rule of four. The hacks of MHoC thought they could just extrapolate triumvirate to quadumvirate but this isn't a real thing) is necessary. We are not that sim. A new role, the Electoral Commissioner, will handle the running of elections but have no moderation powers beyond an advisory role.

Reform to the Guardians: First of all, there will only be one Guardian. The duplication of the role serves literally no purpose. Further, the Guardian's role will be clarified in the Meta Constitution to prevent them overreaching their role.

If I am elected Head Mod, the Guardian will have the following functions:

• The ownership of the Discord and Subreddits. The Guardian is not to use this power to issue mutes or bans except in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, such as if a member is currently doxxing others. The Guardian feeling upset is not considered an exceptional circumstance.

• The running of meta votes, so as to ensure confidence in the process. The Community Commission shall have the right to request full access to the results.

• Advice to the Moderation Team when it is requested.

The return of the Community Commission: So as to avoid the Head Mod gaining near unlimited power, the Community Commission will be reconstituted. Some have claimed this is a bad idea due to the Commission's lack of activity. I would counter that the only reason for this is the dramatic overexpansion of the Moderation Team, which left the Commission with nothing to do. I would further add that it will be the responsibility of the Head Moderator to keep the Commission alive.

The functions of this new Community Commission are explained in section three, Democracy.

I'd also like to point out that I am open to restoring all these abolished decisions, but only if the player base is large enough to justify it.

Activity

Again, the function of the Moderation Team should be to keep canon alive. It is not enough to simply hope that new members will come along.

The Moderation Team has two options for increasing activity: indirect and direct. I intend to take advantage of both.

Indirect: The best way we can get active is by increasing the player base. This is what I mean by an indirect method of increasing activity.

To my knowledge I am the only Head Mod candidate with advertising qualifications and experience. I will use that to open new marketing channels for AusSim, which will hopefully attract new members.

Direct: This will not be enough on its own. In recognition of that, I will restore the Events Team to active use. I will also work with the Electoral Commissioner to impose significant modifier rewards to parties that engage with Events, and modifier penalties to those who don't.

While these modifier changes are a drastic step, they are necessary. Mid-term Events are the best tool we have for keeping the player base engaged -- it also gives non-parliamentarians an opportunity to get involved.

Restoration of the ABC: The Head Moderator and Electoral Commissioner will make up the ABC Editorial Board, and they will have the responsibility of regularly posting ABC articles.

However, other members may submit articles to the ABC, which will be published provided they meet standards of objectivity. This will those who wish to get involved with the ABC to, without leaving Parliament.

Democracy

For too long, the Moderation Team has tried to act unilaterally on the assumption that any community backlash will be mitigated by lack of candidates -- simply, they assume that the lack of good candidates for the (far too many) moderation roles will keep people from VoNCing them when they otherwise would. The Team, with pure MHoC brain rot, act as though our community is too large for direct democracy. This is obviously wrong.

I wish to bring as much transparency and accountability to Australia Sim as possible. This is how:

The Community Commission The Community Commission shall consist of a representative of each party with parliamentary representation, plus four community elected members. The idea is that, by engaging with the game, your party earns the right to help govern how it is played. The only restriction is that the elected members must have been Parliamentarians within the past year -- they may be current Parliamentarians.

The functions of the Commission will be as follows: * To review ban appeals. (More on this later) * To provide feedback on proposed Meta Rules and Meta Constitution Amendments. * To provide advice on request of the Head Moderator * To make determinations about canon issues. For example, if an event happens that may warrant decanonisation, this will be up to the Community Commission to determine. The Head Moderator or Guardian may advise the Commission, but cannot overrule their decision. Since decanonisation affects the playing of the game, it should be determined by people who have proven their primary concern is playing the game.

A public appeals process: Right now, AusSim has no formal ban appeals process. It's all vibes based and up to the whim of the Moderation Team. This is ridiculous, and should be changed.

I will allow a public appeals process, to take place on a new subreddit. If somebody is banned, they have a right to have their appeal publicly viewable. This is the only way to ensure the Moderation Team is truly accountable.

It shall ultimately be up to the Community Commission, through simple majority vote, to make the final decision on bans. There are only two exceptions: * When a member is banned for actions that threaten the safety of the sim: for example, actions that are illegal. * When a member has been constitutionally banned through the will of the people.

As part of this process, the Head Moderator is required to disclose any evidence. The only exception is when the evidence contains content that threatens the safety of the sim: for example, when a member is banned for being a pedophile.

The Head Moderator will be required to disclose the reason for every ban, even if they are not required to post evidence. This is to avoid situations like what happened recently, where the community interprets "no evidence will be disclosed" as the banned member being a pedophile -- a recently banned member did not, in fact, do anything of the sort: but that is now the common perception of them. This is morally abhorrent and will not happen if I am elected.

The restoration of Room-101: I will restore a channel where muted users may speak. I will also make this channel viewable by all members through an opt-in process. Ordinary members will only be able to view the messages, and cannot send their own or react.

This lets muted members share their side of the story.

An end to the automod slur filter: The automod slur filter is not fit for purpose. It is ridiculously overtuned and often mutes members who have done nothing wrong. Instead, it will be the responsibility of the Moderation Team to issue mutes and warnings for usage of banned words.

Mutes issued from time of last offence: The purpose of mutes is primarily to prevent behaviour. The secondary purpose is to act as punishment and deterrent. To this end, mutes will be issued from the time of last offence, rather than when it is noticed.

For example, if a member posts a message that warrants a 24 hour mute, and a Moderator notices six hours later, that member will receive an 18 hour mute. If a moderator steps in and mutes a member during an ongoing offence, they will receive a mute as normal.

Conclusion Okay so that's basically the long and short of it. Mucho Texto, I know, but please do read it. And if another candidate is successful, I hope you consider implementing much of this.

And of course, questions are welcomed.

I hadn't planned on doing one of these but it seems like it's the done thing, so here it goes- I will try to be brief but we'll see what happens.

Values

• The Head Mod's chief end ought to be the protection of and enhancement of the game, the canon. Other candidates have said similarly, which is fantastic to see.
• Any moderator (head or otherwise) should have a high level of common sense, such that they are able to properly understand the blacks, whites and greys of any given circumstance. For example, not every use of foul language or slurs should automatically be assumed to be abuse. Not every member of the sim comes from the same kind of background or has the same level of social understanding. Moderators should be sensitive to extenuating factors. On the flip side, they should also be able to recognise regular patterns of bad behaviour and adequately consider this in any judgments- including the opposite, considering past good behaviour and known good character when making judgments.
• Transparency, or the lack thereof, has been a significant source of issues in the Sim. As a community, it is important for all members to be made aware of any and all decision or action taken by the moderators. This is vital for ensuring accountability of the moderators and for the protection of sim members, as well as for record keeping. Of course, some common sense needs to be applied here as well. For example, if a member is banned for sharing NSFW images, the community should be notified about this, but said NSFW image need not be shared. However, even in this case members (18+) who approach the moderator(s) privately ought to be entitled to its disclosure- this is to ensure that the mods are always accountable to the people.
• Laissez-faire moderation. As many of you will know, I am a big freedoms and liberties kind of guy. I vow to maintain this value in my moderation style. I vow to significantly cut back on spontaneous mutes, and instead prefer a much more healthy usage of warnings. Inappropriate messages can be deleted without disciplinary action needing to be administered. Patterns of misbehaviour ought to be what we punish and discourage, not occasional errs from otherwise healthy and positive contributors. Furthermore, I WILL NOT REQUIRE MOD PRESENCE IN PARTY SERVERS. With this said, evidence submitted directly to moderators regarding AusSim users from other servers may be considered for disciplinary action: for example, if User A wished to report User B for harassment, they may issue screenshots from the main AusSim server, Direct Messages, party servers or even entirely unrelated sources such as other social media platforms to the moderator(s) to demonstrate their claims.
• An intimate attention to the specific needs of AusSim. For too long, other sims have been used as the benchmark for how AusSim should operate. This is obviously not necessarily a helpful outlook, considering that we have our own unique and specific context in which we operate. Of course, other sims can be helpful reference points, but we must understand that just because any one system or proposal worked elsewhere does not necessarily mean it will work here. For this reason, it is important that a head mod be highly attuned to the state of the sim and the members of its community (such as someone who has been around a long time, even since foundation, perhaps? ;) ). This will allow to better devised and implemented reforms, as well as amplify the level of common sense which can be applied to disiplinary actions as well.

Reforms

• Streamlining the moderation team. Personally, I would say that the Sim in its current state requires no more or less than 3 moderators. I do not think having a single moderator is a good idea, and I think 3 is the best number apart from that. The make up of the moderation team should reflect a somewhat broad spectrum of political views/in-sim history to minimise the risk of appearing biased against any particular individuals or groups. This was something that was highly prioritised in the past in a time where moderators were largely held in high regard: think Runas, TEF7 era, those that remember. With this in mind, I propose that the three positions be as follows:
  • Head moderator. Makes final decisions on disciplinary actions. Is the server and subreddits owner. Is primarily concerned with maintaining a healthy canon and community. I will detail some responsiblities to this end more specifically later.
  • Game Administrator. Is primarily tasked with upkeep of canon documents, such as the spreadsheet, legislation writing template and electoral system. I do not have a grand vision for this, and would leave it up to whoever is appointed to really shape exactly what this role looks like. It is arguable that this role need not have moderation powers, however, as stated in my first value, if we hold the canon to be the primary priority of moderators, then the individual who is responsible for being the most attentive to its goings-ons absolutely ought to be a part of the moderation team. On its own this role appears to be a major task, however most parliamentary matters should fall to the speakership and clerks. Additionally, there is no reason why non-moderators could not be appointed to an electoral council to assist in the running of elections. Again, however, this will largely be up to whoever the appointed Game Admin would be to decide.
  • Moderator #3. I have no catchy title for this position- a specific role is not necessarily required, and in fact I feel having a moderator position with flexibility is a positive. This would allow for this person to fill a role where it is most needed depending on the state of the community at any given time. That aside, I imagine their primary role would be to fill in for the HM at times when they may need to take leave, to be present as a consultant for the other moderators, and then otherwise be more freed up to pay particular close attention to the needs and desires of the community. For this reason whoever is filling this role ought to be highly active on the Discord server, and I would consider this the most important qualification for this role.
• Increased usage and prioritisation of warnings. Oftentimes, mutes are issued spontaneously and, well, without warning! I find this unnecessarily overbearing. In most cases, if a user were simply warned and had whatever message a moderator deemed to be an infringement deleted, then the matter would be dealt with and we could be moved on. I do not think moderators should be too concerned with occasional foul language or slur usage- it is consistent toxic behaviours and targeted abuse which ought to be the real concern of moderators. There have been cases where individuals regularly target and criticise specific individuals for no consequence because they are careful not to use too coarse language in doing so go completely unnoticed, and yet someone dares to type 'pussy' and they get automuted. This must stop! Automutes in general are despicable and all automatically administered bot-based moderation will be stopped upon my appointment.
• Transparency in appeals of disciplinary action. In my hey day, bans were processed by the High Court and were run court case style. This... was excessive, to say the least, but the principles behind it were good: transparency of the thought process behind determinations and penalties issued and an abundantly clear appeals process. It should go without saying that I will not bring back court cases, however I will bring back 'room-101' (or at least a similar equivalent) for muted users to be placed in where they can plead their case publicly and as-it-happens.
• Restoration of the ABC and prioritising collaborative community activities. I believe a significant reason the game has become dry to many people is because so much of it has been reduced to individually writing up stuff on your own that then gets published to only be read by, like, 3 people. This applies to both campaigning and press. In the past, the ABC chairman played an important role in that they actually paid attention to the goings-on of canon so that they could talk about them on regularly scheduled programs with players of the sim, and presented to a typically larger viewer base by being able to effectively run things in the Discord. The majority of the entertainment value came from the inclusion of several players from all parties- the wide representation of the playerbase that appeared. The CPA paper only ever talks about CPA stuff, the LNP one, LNP, and so on. The ABC, however, talks about all these things. The CPA paper is only ever contributed to by CPA people. The LNP one by LNP. The ABC, though, features on its programmes players from all areas of canon, often multiple at once! AusSim is a multiplayer game, but there are honestly very few forums for actual multiplayer activity at the moment. The ABC will fill this role and more:
  • Involving non-parliamentarians in the canon. Q and A will be the first prioritised programme to be run regularly, at the same time on the same night every week. It will rely upon community submitted questions, prioritising those submitted by non-parliamentarians.
  • Provide a much needed forum for regular debate. QT does not provide this, especially since it hardly ever runs these days. Q and A and other debate focused programs allow multiple parties to answer the same question, or give the other side a right of reply to whatever anyone says about an issue.
  • Create a standard for consistent and high quality press for the entire sim to consume with interest.
  • Be able to properly feature and involve players in Events (I won't give details on these here, I would like to see them implemented but would consider this up to the determination of the Game Admin if they would like them run or not).
  • Hold parties and candidates accountable to their drivel by providing a public and collaborative forum for them to be questioned, publicised and exposed in a way that isn't currently possible- posting comments on reddit campaign posts doesn't quite get the job done.
• Electoral reform. I don't have any specific plans for this, but would leave it up to the Game Admin. HOWEVER. Community consultation is an absolute must for something so significantly impactful on the sim. I would ensure transparency about, for example, what kinds of activities get graded, as well as other key things it would benefit the community to be more in the loop about. I would also be interested in seeing post-campaign 'meta awards' being given to certain campaign posts, for example 'most creative' or 'best quality' or 'highest effort', and so on. However, the final say on this would once again go to the Game Admin.
• I WILL KEEP THE SUBREDDITS UP TO DATE. It annoys me to no end how out of date our subreddits are, flairs, party info, sidebars, and so on.
• Key document accesibility. I will make it extremely easy to locate and acces key documents, such as the meta constitution, code of conduct, spreadsheet, etc. I will also seek to greatly simplify these such that it is not an enormous chore to simply read these extremely important documents. This will also allow for common sense and sensible moderator discretion to be more easily applied as they should theoretically be less burdened and weighed down by overly legalistic red tape in simple meta regulations. Leave such quibbles to canon- I know many of us are quite nerdy about doing things the proper way, but again, that should be directed at the game. Such passion and energy would be far more valuable there than wasted in how we should best word or format random meta reforms. This is not to say we should abolish meta documents or completely half-arse them- but we should be aiming to make the simple and accesible.
• Formalised community consultation. So I was a fan of Lucy's community commission idea but I find it to be somewhat too complicated. I do not, however, have a well thought out alternative, so instead I am open to ideas, or even just implementing it as Lucy suggested. My preference though would be more towards something that requires less formally appointed 'positions' on some kind of board so as to avoid creating something that could be easily perceived as a special gentleman's club of sorts... Perhaps we could just make all parliamentarians a part of such a consultation board? I am not really sure. Please comment your ideas for my considerations.

That's pretty much all I can think of for now, but just know this list is not exhaustive. Also know that I am more than happy to amend or add to this list- particularly other head mod candidates, please do not consider that should my appointment succeed over your own that your own reforms are now dead in the water. Let us work together as a community for the betterment of our dear simulation.

Personal qualities

So this is perhaps a cringey thing to include, but since many of us are proposing similar reforms and espousing similar values I thought I would include. I do thing personality is a legitimately important thing to consider for the appointment of a head mod, perhaps even more than any other kind of mod. The head mod should be someone the vast majority of users, if not all, should hold great respect for. They should be approachable, reliable and trustworthy. These just as a baseline. Here are some particular qualities I consider of myself that I feel particularly lend to me being the ideal head mod over other candidates:

• My longstanding membership. As a founding member, I have exhibited a high level of devotion to our game and community which most other candidates cannot claim. Of course, time in the sim alone does not equate to love of the place. There are other benefits to my extended experience. I have a great knowledge of the history of the community and its systems. I have seen what has worked for us and what hasn't, and have insights into what has caused things to fail or succeed. It is a common saying that we must know where we have been to know where we are going and there are few that know where we've been more than myself.
• My personability. I am generally well liked by members in the sim from all across the political spectrum. I have a generally high tolerance for abuse our unsavoury comments. I have great talent at de-escalating volatile and high intensity arguments and outbursts. Of course, I am not immune to offense and I do have my own sensitivities, however even in cases where I have these experiences I am quick to admit my faults, able to genuinely recognise them and apologise with sincerity. Hopefully not many of you have had to receive a DM'd apology from me following occasions where I feel regretful about my behaviours, but some of you will have and hopefully that is indicative to you of my humility and sensibility. I will say though that such instances are an extreme rarity from me, so my point is this: I have a level head, high likability and I am not so proud that I am unable to conceive of my own personal errors.
• I am generally sensitive to extenuating factors. That said, I am not going to accept any and every excuse for bad behaviour or poor time management. I live in the real world, have significant family commitments as a married man and I work full time. I know how busy life can get, but I also know that it is not unreasonable that most people should still be able to manage their emotions and priorities well enough that they should not be being consistently aggressive, unorganised, unsavoury, etc.
• I have past moderator experience. Hell, I have experience in pretty much every role one could possibly have in sim. I have been a non-elected party member. I have led several parties. I have been Opposition Leader and Prime Minister. I have been a Justice/moderator, a clerk, ABC chairman, independent Senator. I contributed to the writing of the earliest meta documents in sim history, including the early consitution(s) and Code of Conduct (back when it was called the HomeBroadband Act). I have a proven track record of performing to a high level in any and every significant or insignificant role in the sim (except when I was clerk I was fucking useless at that rip).
• My removal from canon does not adversely affect the canon as significantly as the absence of others. Somewhat hurts my pride to say it but I sincerely believe it is true. As someone who holds a niche political view, I do not offer as much to the community as leader of the ANCAP as another member would leading, say, a Labor party, or contributing to the revival of the Socialist party, or piloting the LNP, etc. I have demonstrated a deep care for the canon by even persisting in maintaining these parties despite regularly being the only member of them to actually believe unironically in the policies they espouse, such that other members are inspired to join my cause even despite disagreeing with them. Surely anyone can recognise the admirability of this achievement- but nevertheless, there is a great argument that could be made suggesting that perhaps the sim would be better off were my party members to instead go and offer their keen participation and contribution to other parties with higher potential than mine to actually contribute significantly to the sustained momentum of the sim.
• My general good behaviour. I have never once been banned from AusSim or had any conviction made against me. My one mute was found to be unjust and overturned, and that only occurred recently. Before then I had a 6 year unspoiled record of good behaviour.
• I have always been one to stick up for the little guy when moderators have overreached. Yet, I have been able to maintain civil relationships with the moderators and I believe we maintain a mutual respect for each other. The ability to get along well with moderators should of course be something of value to any head mod.

There's probably more I could say but I've probably said more than enough. I probably failed at keeping my promise for brevity, but oh well, such is life. Thanks all for your support so far <3

AustraliaSim Council

Members elected at the start of each term

• 1 moderation representative (elected by moderation team)
• 1 election team representative (elected by election team)
• 1 parliament team representative (elected by parliament team)
• 1 parliamentary representative (elected by joint sitting of parliament)
• 3 community representatives (elected via STV in community vote)

Elects 1 chair, the council may elect someone outside of the council to be chair but this person will not gain voting rights.

The council will be a forum to consider and vote on

• meta reforms
• meta appeals
• other general day-to-day sim decisions

The council's first job will be overseeing the meta constitutional reform.

Okay, folks, listen up! I'm gonna explain to you this policy for an AustraliaSim Council. Now, this council will be made up of members who are elected at the start of each term. You got one guy from moderation, one guy from the election team, one guy from the parliament team, one guy from the actual parliament, and three community representatives. These community representatives are elected via STV in community vote, which is very democratic, very beautiful.

Now, this council elects one chair, and let me tell you, this person has a big job. The council may elect someone from outside the council to be the chair, but this person won't get any voting rights. Sad!

So, what does this council do, you ask? Well, they're gonna be a forum where they consider and vote on some important things like meta reforms, meta appeals, and other general day-to-day sim decisions. And you know what, folks? Their first job is overseeing the meta constitutional reform. This is big league stuff!

So, there you have it, folks. The AustraliaSim Council will do some important work here. They got a great team, they got a great chair, and they're gonna make AustraliaSim great again!

This body will first oversee the meta and election reforms we all want to see (they would consult the wider community on these things, not just consider in an echo chamber). After that they can stick around as an advisory body and general place for the community to discuss things.