Due to the broken recording for the General Elections October 2017 debate, here is a list of full party statements organized by issue. We hope this clarifies all the parties’ stances on issues.  There are 9 issues. They are:

1. Economic Reform
2. Stealing in Survival
3. Higher punishments for tourists
4. More wiki staff
5. Increase architect threshold
6. Performance in Parliament
7. Reliability of party members in parliament
8. Removal of inactive player shops to make way for newer player shops
9. Tightening of immigration and introduction of Permanent Residency rank as an interim rank between tourist and citizen

Issue #1: Economic reform:

Party Code	Statement
CEN	We are for an economic reform starting at fifth haven.
DEM	DEM supports economy reform. We wish to implement two tax systems: Proportional Tax system and ibdirect taxes i.e sales tax, permit taxes
HGP	Taxes and/or a reset may or may not be needed (Neutral), it doesn’t fix the underlieing issue with how money is earned on the server. We should look into more ways to earn money and more ways to balance earnings out.
NAT	Against total reset of economy Concern about veterans’ financial security and currency strength For retaining current system but with amendments For adaptive (case-by-case) taxation and more admin shops as money sinks Enforce monitoring of large transactions to combat graft
NCP	We think the economy should be reset and have higher taxes for different people who have different amount of money
PFG	The Party for Gardellia believes very strongly in the introduction of a full Economy Reset, if we are voted in as government, we will enter with a mandate to perform this Economy Reset and do so by investigating, planning and scrutinizing a bill to introduce this economy reset. We believe that the way to Perform this economy reset will be to entirely abolish the Pangaea jobs system and replace it with a new system where a government exchange is set up for people to sell their blocks to be used in admin-shops. So as to instigate competition in the retail sector, Items will be bought by the admin-shop for very low amounts of money and sold at high amounts, meaning that players have an incentive to establish their own shops for players to buy items in for cheaper prices.
RCP	Agree
SGNP	In Agreement. Why? Because at the moment, the economy is extremely unbalanced. Over half of the money circulating around WH belongs to the top 8 richest people, out of 2,303 players (most of them are inactive though). Also, the only way to get lots of money in a short time is by playing in the survival world, which most people don’t really want to do. The only way to get money without playing in survival is by driving metro trains, which isn’t very well paid. Those who actually do a lot to the server, such as staff , MPs and architects receive no money.

Issue #2: Stealing in Survival

Party Code	Statement
CEN	Our party is neutral on the topic of stealing in survival.
DEM	Keep current rules. As to keep the scavenging survival aspect. Gray zones such as protected structures breach shall be dealt case by case
HGP	Legal, but if in an enclose room illegal. Clarification need to be made to what happens to items stolen from a locked room.
NAT	For keeping stealing from unsecured containers legal Acknowledge the server’s roots as an SMP world Acknowledge uniqueness of server gameplay due to legal stealing (Extrapolation: legal stealing actually increases awareness of security) Emphasise that griefing is unpardonable and detrimental to the server (A citizen would forfeit their “right” to larceny if griefing is involved) Would cooperate with other parties to resolve legally ambiguous griefing cases
NCP	We think it should be allowed because the command needed to lock a chest it’s only a short command and players who want to lock their chests
PFG	We believe that, as we said in the previous debate, stealing in survival from unlocked chests should remain legal. It is an integral part of survival and plays a role in the experience of survival, therefore we believe that it would be detrimental to that experience if stealing were to be allowed. We still believe that stealing from locked chests is an offence and is punishable, therefore it is up to the player to lock their chests to keep their items safe. We do also believe that the rules regarding this issue must be more coherent. The rules system is currently under a revamp and we fully support this revamp and will do as a government.
RCP	Stricter Rules
SGNP	In Agreement. Why? Because, it’s your fault if you don’t lock the chests/furnaces/doors. Yes, it might seem bad that you can just steal from other people if they haven’t been cautious enough of the dangers of leaving your items without any security, but as i said, it’s their own fault. Life isn’t fair.

Issue #3: Higher punishments for tourists

Party Code	Statement
CEN	We are also neutral on the topic of higher punishments for tourists.
DEM	Agree, to filter out troublesome tourists who come here for the sake of trolling
HGP	I agree it should stay as it is now, it’s quite harsh, and that’s needed to filter out people who won’t fit in the community quite well
NAT	Introduce less permissive punishment protocols for non-citizens Two strike warning system or instant perm ban (deportation) Reasoning: Non-citizens cannot be trusted, rise in organised foreign criminals (spammers, hackers) Campaign to return the citizen policing plugin (with rollback at moderators’ discretion)
NCP	We think the current punishment for tourist is enough as Tourists will be scared if we give them punishment and won’t do it again.
PFG	We believe it is important to keep a closer eye on tourists entering WolvHaven since it is at this time that judgement is made on whether they are troublemakers or not. If tourists enter the server and immediately cause issues then it is clear they are going to be troublemakers and are not welcome here, therefore we believe that harsher punishments being placed on tourists is a common sense idea and would retain law and order on the server.
RCP	Agree
SGNP	–

Issue #4: More wiki staff

Party Code	Statement
CEN	Our party stands for the introduction of wiki staff.
DEM	Agree due to recent findings of unlawful edits and old pages
HGP	Wiki needs no staff, we need to be collectively responsible for maintaining wiki and fighting spam pages. (And need the permissions to do that.)
NAT	No specific stance, but acknowledge problems of vandalism and advertising Would appreciate more volunteers to help moderate the wiki Recommend that helpers commit 10+ mins to monitoring wiki every week Provide incentives for wiki page owners to maintain page quality (to reduce staff workload)
NCP	We think we need more wiki staff as the current server staffs don’t have all the time in the wiki or server. If we have wiki staffs, the wiki staffs can help the server staff do the work in the wiki.
PFG	We believe that having a new seperate role of wiki staff would be a good idea to keep the wiki in order, but as a party, we believe it is important to investigate this further to work out the necessity of this wiki staff and whether the introduction of such a role would be succesful and carry through. The wiki pas fallen out of repair a number of times in the past, but recently it has recieved a major overhaul and is now very much updated, therefore we would be obliged to keep this situation and maintain this quality on the wiki.
RCP	Agree
SGNP	Agree. Why? Because in the past months lots of spammers have come and created new worthless pages that dont have anything to do with WH.

Issue #5: Increase architect threshold

Party Code	Statement
CEN	–
DEM	Agree, to maintain the competitiveness of our city comparing to other city servers
HGP	I agree, Architects should only be architects if they are able to contribute a certain amount in a certain amount of time. What that amount is should be determined in parliament.
NAT	Strongly supports increasing marking threshold of architect application to reduce pass rate Reasoning: too many architects now, many shoddy designs, surge in ‘railtards’, polarised distribution of architect skills Maintain pass rate at 10% or less for maximum quality assurance and rank prestige Propose purging of architects that fail to deliver the contents of their curriculum vitae Propose impromptu (on-the-spot) design exam in laboratory as another criterion for obtaining architect rank
NCP	We think the current architect threshold is enough as the application can prove the building skills of the newly promoted architects
PFG	Recently, WolvHaven has seen a wave of new architects come about, much more than has been in the past, and we believe that this is a sign that we may possibly need to raise the threshold in order to become an architect. Standards in WolvHaven are raising, and with the imminent introduction of 5H, it is more important than ever before now to ensure that the quality of builds produced by architects meet the new standard that will be set in 5H. Too many architects also reduces the individuality of the rank and makes it see more obtainable, therefore by increasing the expected standards of architects, we are putting more weight and importance on the architect rank and giving it the individuality that makes it appealing.
RCP	Agree
SGNP	Agree. Why? Because most architects leave after a short time and to be completely honest, most of them don’t build too well.

Issue #6: Performance in Parliament

Party Code	Statement
CEN	We are all happy with our attendance rate in parliament.
DEM	Parties with members who are inactive, short tempered and not even care about this server is utterly disgraceful. Parties with instability means the party failed to manage its own business. It is a party’s responsibility to gain support for bills
HGP	HGP has done things wrong in one of the recent parliamentary meetings and that is inexcusable. I sincerely apologize. Between then and now more issues with the party came to light and I will try my best to get my party back in line for the elections in 6 months time. I do not expect people to vote for HGP based on our performance, but if you do vote for us, we will continue to represent our views as promised.
NAT	Apologise for failure to meet expectations in the first formal parliamentary term (as PHN) Acknowledge that this party consists only of grown-up members who prioritise real life over minecraft Explain that most of the party’s intentions for the first term were resolved before the term began Apologise for failure to veto the establishment of the Gard Council, willing to work with them to prevent political crises Report: proposed two bills in first term (one passed), proposed one bill in second term (passed) Unable to guarantee expected performance in third term, but would try our best
NCP	We have a 100% attendence rate and 1 member attended all the meetings.
PFG	–
RCP	Should not be used to determine performance of player
SGNP	We, the SGNP performed quite okay. We submitted less bills than we planned though… we were quite tired at some occasions which lead to us being affected by other people’s childish behavior.

Issue #7: Reliability of party members in parliament

Party Code	Statement
CEN	We also are neutral about the reliability of party members.
DEM	The party members should be active, care about the server and have knowledge of server current issues
HGP	It is the voters responsibility to vote for (reliable) party members. (I personally removed my unreliable people I had in my party from the listing.)
NAT	No data for NAT attendance in first and second terms High attendance rate for R0M, former speaker background Both NAT members have participated in debate
NCP	All of our members are active in the server and probably attending parliament all time if they don’t attend, it’s just real life and personal events.
PFG	Of course we also believe that the reliability of party members is crucial to a strong and reliable government. Our party structure is strong and united on the issues that concern all of WolvHaven. We have shown our capability to stay together professionally and vote together as a whole party. When party members are leaving their party and others have to forced out of their parliament positions, that does not convey a message of strength and unity, it conveys a message of weakness and disarray. The last thing that our Parliament needs is a broken government, and that is what our party wants to actively avoid for the future of WolvHaven.
RCP	Should not be used to determine performance of player
SGNP	So, we think that most party members here would’ve been more active if there weren’t so many irl obstacles for many people, such as school, work, vacation.

Issue #8: Removal of inactive player shops to make way for newer player shops

Party Code	Statement
CEN	The centre party is for the removal of old shops as long as it is a well thought out plan.
DEM	Disagree, some may be kept for historical and landmark wise
HGP	Inactive tennants should be evicted.
NAT	Against the indiscriminate purging of commercial establishments Concern for the businesses of inactive players, contributions of veterans Acknowledge the issue of unavailable or unaffordable prime land for business ventures Would support if case-by-case evaluation used, inclusive of contacting shop owner.
NCP	As some shops’ owner are inactive, we think that removing of old inactive shops can make the new players have shops, and earn money.
PFG	This issue is not majorly concerning but is still something that we as a party will want to look into and find out why these problems have been ocurring and what path of action to take to solve this issue. As members come and go and the shop system is revamped, shops which are not maintained do fall victim to abandonment quite quickly, and that is something that should be avoided so that citizens can trust shops more to actually be selling items.
RCP	Wants new rules
SGNP	Agree. Why? Because those shops are a waste of space. If the shops are out of stock and wont be refilled because the people are inactive the shop should be removed. We, the SGNP prefer that the shop spaces are used by active players.

Issue #9: Tightening of immigration and introduction of Permanent Residency rank as an interim rank between tourist and citizen

Party Code	Statement
CEN	Our party is against the introduction of the “Permanent residency“ rank.
DEM	Agree since some citizen are troublesome after knowing the rules. a new rank can mean a trust in more perks for PRs
HGP	HGP sees no use in adding yet another rank, especially not in this place in the rank system
NAT	Primary goals of NAT for this upcoming term Elaborate about the Discord Verified rank and its purposes as precursor for a proper player trusteeship system Explain about PR rank as a probational “buffer” rank to address the flaws of the current immigration system Would introduce new PR rank as provisional reward for successful “citizen test” candidates Extension: Rename “citizen test” to “declaration of immigration clearance examination (DICE)” PRs would retain most current citizen privileges (sans public housing and the right to vote, also subject to tourist punishment protocols) Impose maximum quota of monthly citizenship promotions to reduce admin workload and maintain sustainability Propose citizenship ban for tourists/PRs with active warnings or from blacklisted servers Enforce citizenship revocation for citizens convicted of treason or espionage for foreign servers Propose a written self-introduction statement or essay as requirement for citizenship promotion.
NCP	We think introducing a permanent residency rank is needed, as some players only online once per month.
PFG	We believe that these policies may not be entirely in the interests of WolvHaven right now. Immigration into WolvHaven has been continually restricted over the past years to a point now that we can safely assume that most players joining will be trouble free, and that has been the case recently apart from a select few, therefore we believe that WolvHaven can still maintain its safety and security without a further unnecessary tightening of immigration, after all, the server cannot survive if the amount of new players entering the server is constricted to a very few amount. We also believe that there is currently no largely concerning reason as to why a new rank between Tourist and Citizen is necessary apart from confusing the system. The difference between the two ranks of Citizen and Permanent Residency is too little to justify the introduction of such a rank, therefore we do not support this move and believe that it will not be for the betterment of WolvHaven.
RCP	Agree
SGNP	Agree. For many years we have had rivals that have tried to take the server down by DDoS and spam attacks. It’s also quite easy to recieve citizen at the moment. Therefore the SGNP thinks that the Permanent Residency rank would be a very good thing to use on new people for probational periods.

 

• Category: Elections, Parliament