+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Great Councils (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-234.html)
+----- Forum: 2016 Great Council (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-248.html)
+------ Forum: Drafting and More Discussion! (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-251.html)
+------ Thread: Working Group Drafts (/thread-4023.html)
Working Group Drafts - sandaoguo - 05-04-2016
Why would that be the only way for him to keep his endos?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: Working Group Drafts - Tsunamy - 05-04-2016
(05-04-2016, 03:20 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Why would that be the only way for him to keep his endos?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because he's not a legislator and/or citizen.
Working Group Drafts - sandaoguo - 05-04-2016
The endo cap isn't set in the Charter. There's no reason why the CRS couldn't let him keep his endos.
If you're trying to say he wouldn't be able to be a member of the CRS, my thoughts on that are that it's important for members to be a real part of the forum community. They should be vested in protecting the legitimate forum government. Somebody who hasn't been active in the forum community probably isn't going to feel that way as strongly as they should, imo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: Working Group Drafts - Belschaft - 05-04-2016
That's crap Glen. You don't have to be active on these forums to be committed to defending and maintaining democracy.
Working Group Drafts - sandaoguo - 05-04-2016
(05-04-2016, 06:35 PM)Belschaft Wrote: That's crap Glen. You don't have to be active on these forums to be committed to defending and maintaining democracy.
No, but I do think somebody who is active on the forums is much more likely to have a vested interest in protecting the forum government against a coup. I don't think it's unreasonable to want members to be active here. Their powers have a lot of relevance to the forum community.
It's not really a case of forum activity being the litmus test for supporting democracy. We've had CSS members from both the forums and the RMB who ended in disappointment on that front. What I'm trying to do is ensure the people on the CRS have a good understanding what they're protecting and looking after.
RE: Working Group Drafts - Tsunamy - 05-04-2016
(05-04-2016, 06:41 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:(05-04-2016, 06:35 PM)Belschaft Wrote: That's crap Glen. You don't have to be active on these forums to be committed to defending and maintaining democracy.
No, but I do think somebody who is active on the forums is much more likely to have a vested interest in protecting the forum government against a coup. I don't think it's unreasonable to want members to be active here. Their powers have a lot of relevance to the forum community.
It's not really a case of forum activity being the litmus test for supporting democracy. We've had CSS members from both the forums and the RMB who ended in disappointment on that front. What I'm trying to do is ensure the people on the CRS have a good understanding what they're protecting and looking after.
But ... part of the problem here is that we also have "democracy" and government in two places. If we're keeping the LC, I think we should also let them be part of the CRS.
I'm not saying everyone, but someone who is holding a government position like that, I think we should make an exception for.
Working Group Drafts - sandaoguo - 05-04-2016
Well, that's brings us to the question of what a security council is for. To me, it's about protecting the legitimate forum government. Part of that is ensuring our elected delegate sits on the throne, so to speak.
I'm uncomfortable with non-forum people sitting on the body because a lot of the responsibilities center around the forum government. The only real gameside power they have is to set the endocap. Everything else is about monitoring security risks and threats who join the forums, pretty much.
Is there a way to blend that, without basically thrusting people into power who haven't ever had any experience with the forum community?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: Working Group Drafts - Tsunamy - 05-04-2016
(05-04-2016, 07:42 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Well, that's brings us to the question of what a security council is for. To me, it's about protecting the legitimate forum government. Part of that is ensuring our elected delegate sits on the throne, so to speak.
I'm uncomfortable with non-forum people sitting on the body because a lot of the responsibilities center around the forum government. The only real gameside power they have is to set the endocap. Everything else is about monitoring security risks and threats who join the forums, pretty much.
Is there a way to blend that, without basically thrusting people into power who haven't ever had any experience with the forum community?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well remember, under the new government, the in-game community would have a say in the delegate as well, making Local Councillors more relevant.
Honestly, I think saying something like "A citizen who has served as Local Councillor for more than two terms may be considered." It could even be without voting rights, if we don't want them to have to interact with the forum government. Maybe make a special status for them?
RE: Working Group Drafts - Belschaft - 05-04-2016
I think dividing TSP into two separate halves like that is a mistake, especially when we are trying to bridge the divide between forum and in game region and empower the later.
RE: Working Group Drafts - Griffindor - 05-04-2016
I suggest that the creators of the proposed Charters work together and fuse them together to create one very strong Charter. From there we will open up one more discussion over the final bugs, then a vote.