Second Inter-Regional Chat Poll Results and Analysis
How the Public Perceives the Inter-Regional Chat After Its Opening
Written by GrandfatherClock
From March 15 to March 17, the Europeian Broadcasting Corporation (EBC) polled citizens about the rollout of the Inter-Regional Chat (IRC) after many months of discussion and its opening to the public. This poll garnered 25 responses over a period of just over 48 hours, which will be used to draw conclusions about the varying points of debate concerning the IRC and the Europeian government.
The IRC is a place for friendly discussion under administration from many regions, notably Europeia, Balder, and four Pacifics (minus The South Pacific) as founding members. It was marketed as an alternative to the NationStates Gameplay (NSGP) server, which has a reputation for being harsh and unwelcoming. The treaty establishing Europeia's involvement was passed by the Senate on March 19.
Are you in the IRC server?
A vast majority of responses to this question indicated that they were in the server at the time of taking the poll, with only 20% of those polled stating they were not. Comments for this question included a fair number saying they were enthusiastic about their membership in the server, elaborating that it has been "fun so far" and that they "like it there."
Other comments, however, suggested that they were disappointed that membership was open to anyone, with one comment explaining, "I joined somewhat recently, but it wasn't what I expected when I joined... maybe I was a bit underwhelmed? But I left the server today ... I'm not going to continue to be involved in a server that doesn't reflect the vision that was sold to Europeia." This references the thread where the opening was announced. That "vision that was sold" is something discussed in the analysis of a more targeted question further on.
Are you satisfied with the way administrators and moderators for the IRC are chosen?
This question was targeted to gather responses based on a previous debate in this Grand Hall thread. When the IRC was debated in the Senate, many were of the opinion that Europeia should have a guaranteed seat on the board of the IRC, while others thought that having a veto power was enough. In the responses to this question, the satisfaction with the board of the IRC was measured to gauge how the opinions on this issue have evolved since that time.
A majority of 60% of respondents indicated their satisfaction with the current board and how it was chosen, explaining that the team selected "gives [them] confidence about any future additions." Conversely, 20% of respondents answered that they were in some way dissatisfied with the board, and some stated they were satisfied but suggested there is room for improvement, citing its perceived lack of transparency: "I don't think it's very publicly clear how the moderators are chosen," and, "I ... just wish they'd be a little more transparent."
Based on the responses and comments, the actual team chosen in the end has alleviated some fears about the moderation and administration of the server. Still, there are reservations in regards to the transparency of the system, a point of debate which goes back to the aforementioned Grand Hall thread, this article by HEM, and critical posts given in the announcement thread of the server itself.
Are you satisfied with the communication from the board of the IRC since the opening of the IRC server?
In the eyes of the Europeian public, communication has been an issue with the IRC as a project, with many questions being raised before the server was even opened. The responses to this question indicate that this is still a point of discussion in the region, with 52% of respondents indicating their dissatisfaction with the communication from the board of the IRC, whereas only 36% were satisfied. In the announcement thread for the IRC, it was mentioned that access to the IRC had originally been intended to be limited to member regions only, but in its final version anyone could join. This change was clearly not communicated to the public until it was already voted on.
The dissatisfaction with communication from the executive and other board members of the IRC has been a point of contention ever since it was discovered through a Senator's question that whether Europeia would be given a guaranteed member on the administration and moderation teams was never brought up in discussions with other IRC founding members. While Pichtonia claimed that this was brought up in the Senate thread, upon the assumption of presidential duties by Calvin Coolidge, it was revealed that this was not the case. This sparked the first of many discussions about the transparency of IRC discussions.
The controversy over access to the server seems to have begun when Senator GraVandius posed a question to then-President Pichtonia, asking whether anyone from member regions could join. Pichtonia responded, "Anyone who wanted to join, yes." In hindsight, this could be interpreted two ways: that anyone from member regions could join, or anyone at all who wanted to join could do so. This has left some Europeians feeling deceived, because they were not told it was going to be open to anyone. One commenter even left the IRC server after it was made known that it was open to anyone.
Who should have access to the IRC?
The final question sought to gather public opinion on the point of discussion in the vice president's announcement thread. Should the IRC remain open to everyone, or should it be restricted to members of member regions only? 56% of respondents indicated that the server should be restricted to member regions. The number of people in support of restricted access closely follows the percentage of people dissatisfied with the communication from the IRC board, perhaps indicating that some of their dissatisfaction may be motivated by the fact that it was not clearly communicated that a change would be made. Those who don't oppose the change, on the other hand, seem to be less likely to be dissatisfied.
"IRC privileges for IRC members only," states one comment, in line with the majority. Other comments, however, highlight arguments from an opposing viewpoint: "Unless someone is OOC banned from a member region I do not see why they shouldn't be allowed to join," reflecting a more open approach to IRC membership. Talks with the Europeian government and the board of the IRC have led to promises of discussion on the topic of access restrictions, though nothing has been announced yet.
Editor's note: The article mentioned "the five Pacifics" being founding members. Only four Pacifics are founding members, without The South Pacific. The article has been amended accordingly.
Last edited:
