+- 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: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy (/thread-4795.html)
Pages:
1
2
Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Rebeltopia - 01-29-2017
Just some cleaning up of the Legislator Application that I cam across this morning...
Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter of the South Pacific:
Quote:4. Continued legislator status requires active membership and good behavior. The Chair will remove legislator status from any person absent for three non-concurrent Assembly votes; legislators who have an approved leave of absence from the Chair shall not be considered absent.
(06-17-2016, 07:10 AM)Awe - Legislator Applications Wrote: In accordance with Article IV, Section... 4 of the Charter of the South Pacific
Quote:4. Continued legislator status requires active membership and good behavior. The Chair will remove legislator status from any person failing to vote in the last two official Assembly votes held on separate days, unless the Chair has granted a leave of absence. Additionally, the Chair may suspend privileges for disruptive members. Frequent suspensions may be grounds for ineligibility, if found appropriate in a fair trial by the High Court.
I'd assume that this is just an easy admin edit (if Awe isnt around to edit his own post). Just wanted to throw it our there...
RE: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Spenty - 01-29-2017
I give my full support.
RE: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Omega - 01-29-2017
Yeah, so the laws were changed but the application wasn't. I don't have the power to fix it but that would need to be fixed.
RE: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Seraph - 01-29-2017
(01-29-2017, 06:17 PM)Omega Wrote: Yeah, so the laws were changed but the application wasn't. I don't have the power to fix it but that would need to be fixed.You could create a new and ask for the old one to be archived, but I imagine the admins can correct the opening post.
RE: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Tsunamy - 01-29-2017
(01-29-2017, 06:46 PM)Seraph Wrote:(01-29-2017, 06:17 PM)Omega Wrote: Yeah, so the laws were changed but the application wasn't. I don't have the power to fix it but that would need to be fixed.You could create a new and ask for the old one to be archived, but I imagine the admins can correct the opening post.
We could ... but I don't feel super comfortable doing that.
Can we close out the remaining apps and start a new thread, Omega?
RE: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Omega - 01-29-2017
(01-29-2017, 07:14 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:Sure. I can give y'all the go ahead when I am ready.(01-29-2017, 06:46 PM)Seraph Wrote:(01-29-2017, 06:17 PM)Omega Wrote: Yeah, so the laws were changed but the application wasn't. I don't have the power to fix it but that would need to be fixed.You could create a new and ask for the old one to be archived, but I imagine the admins can correct the opening post.
We could ... but I don't feel super comfortable doing that.
Can we close out the remaining apps and start a new thread, Omega?
RE: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Kris Kringle - 01-29-2017
(01-29-2017, 07:14 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: We could ... but I don't feel super comfortable doing that.
Merely out of curiosity, why? Isn't changing a couple of words easier and faster than having to write and post a whole new thread?
RE: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Tsunamy - 01-29-2017
Beyond the practical reason that I don't think we need threads with excessive amounts of pages, I don't feel comfortable editing Awe's post without him here. At the end of the day, it's his post and changing it without him is appropriately changing his words.
I'm more willing to say that the word change isn't that big of a deal and that if we don't want a new thread we can just acknowledge the change in a new post or ignore the discrepancy altogether.
RE: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Kris Kringle - 01-29-2017
My logic here is that this isn't really his post (as in, a statement solely him, reflecting his opinion) as much as a government post whose author he happens to be. It could've been made by whoever was Chair at the time, and the contents would've been the same. Same reason why the previous citizenship thread was updated to reflect changes to citizenship law.
We could always just switch post ownership, if anything.
RE: Charter v. Legislator Application discrepancy - Escade - 01-29-2017
I like the idea of creating a new thread too, multi=page threads that aren't spam can be a bit much for people scrolling through.