+- 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: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: RMB self-governance (/thread-4688.html)
RE: RMB self-governance - sandaoguo - 12-28-2016
What's the alternative, though? Either way, if the Assembly doesn't vote for an amendment, the LC is going to need to explain why it wasn't voted for and then try to reach an agreement. That's not difficult logic for most people to understand. They just need someone in the job who can explain it to them.
I don't know how to legislate into existence the right kind of people who should be in the LC. But I don't think we can write our laws to make it happen.
There are already 3 people elected to do a single job-- communicate. If that's not being done, then the wrong 3 people keep getting elected! I don't see how adding more people is going to solve anything. What the LC needs is guidance from somebody experienced, who won't be biased or attempt to push through their own agenda.
RE: RMB self-governance - Tsunamy - 12-28-2016
What if we legislate something stating that the delegate will be the (formal or informal) head of the the LC? Maybe that can help.
RE: RMB self-governance - Kris Kringle - 12-29-2016
How can you legislate that someone informally lead something? That seems, well, contradictory.
--
I have to be honest. I think people are making mountains out of molehills with this particular topic. If there are issues with how the Local Council is working, then is certainly has enough leeway to modify its performance without purely legislative changes like having an informal head or adding more people. In fact, it is vastly preferable to avoid those changes.
Why?
Because these aren't issues related to structure. Let's start by acknowledging that the Local Council wasn't formed solely to run polls on bills, it was formed to find out how the gameside community could be better interested. Sure, running polls can be one part of that, but it can't be the only part. Issues in the Local Council will stop when we realise it's members aren't just messengers between Gameside and the Forum, they are supposed to lead within their own community.
That is the kind of change we need. It's something related to how we approach the job, not something they can be legislated away.
--
I have to be honest. I think people are making mountains out of molehills with this particular topic. If there are issues with how the Local Council is working, then is certainly has enough leeway to modify its performance without purely legislative changes like having an informal head or adding more people. In fact, it is vastly preferable to avoid those changes.
Why?
Because these aren't issues related to structure. Let's start by acknowledging that the Local Council wasn't formed solely to run polls on bills, it was formed to find out how the gameside community could be better interested. Sure, running polls can be one part of that, but it can't be the only part. Issues in the Local Council will stop when we realise it's members aren't just messengers between Gameside and the Forum, they are supposed to lead within their own community.
That is the kind of change we need. It's something related to how we approach the job, not something they can be legislated away.
RE: RMB self-governance - sandaoguo - 01-01-2017
Given this has been motioned and seconded, can a poll be created?