+- 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: [PASSED] Amendment to the Political Parties Act (/thread-5917.html)
[PASSED] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - Nakari - 01-22-2018
Quote:3. Benefits to Active Political PartiesChanges include:
(1) Political parties that maintain an accurate public membership roster, and field at least one member for public office in an election per year, qualify for a dedicated public and private subforum.
(2) Political parties may petition the Chair of the Assembly for approval for a subforum. The Chair of the Assembly will verify the qualifications of the party, and if the party meets those qualifications, notify the Forum Administration to create the party's dedication dedicated subforums.
(3) Dedicated party subforums will consist of two parts--
a. a public top-level subforum where the party must post pin an up to date version of its membership roster;
b. a password-protected subforum, which will have the necessary permissions to ensure non-members cannot read threads without authorization.
(4) All political party subforums are to be contained within a single catch-all forum designated for political parties in an appropriate forum section of the official offsite forums of The South Pacific.
(5) The subforums of political parties are to be sorted by order of registration.
- removing the requirement for top-level subforums to lessen the crowdedness of the forum's front page
- specifying that all subforums must be equal (was already enforced by them being top level. With that removed, we should still ensure equality)
- a couple grammar tweaks that I can't believe I didn't see before
+ Tim and Griffin's suggestions
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - Omega - 01-22-2018
Looks fine to me, as such as soon as debate time on this bill expires I move that the Chair immediately bring it to a vote.
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - Griffindor - 01-22-2018
(01-22-2018, 04:48 PM)nakari Wrote:Quote:3. Benefits to Active Political Parties-snip-
(1) Political parties that maintain an accurate public membership roster, and field at least one member for public office in an election per year, qualify for a dedicated public and private subforum.
(2) Political parties may petition the Chair of the Assembly for approval for a subforum. The Chair of the Assembly will verify the qualifications of the party, and if the party meets those qualifications, notify the Forum Administration to create the party's dedication dedicated subforums. All party subforums shall be on the same level.
(3) Dedicated party subforums will consist of two parts--
a. a public top-level subforum where the party must post pin an up to date version of its membership roster;
b. a password-protected subforum, which will have the necessary permissions to ensure non-members cannot read threads without authorization.
I took the liberty of adding a small amendment to the draft. It is simply a holdover from my attempt to reform it a couple of months ago. This way, we can always see current members, in an easily accessible spot.
Also, do we want to address what Glen pointed out about the number of forum membership party members required?
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - Nakari - 01-23-2018
I like this addition.
I think having some subforums that have few active members wouldn't be as much of a problem if they aren't on the front page, so I'm not sure if that's necessary to add. However, if we did, what would be a good threshold? I'm thinking either three members or over half the members.
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - Drall - 01-23-2018
It seems somewhat hard to quantify the number of active members any given party has without having an impartial observer in all party threads and discord channels, which presents its own problem.
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - Nakari - 01-23-2018
Ideally, it would measure by number of party members who have forum accounts.
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - sandaoguo - 01-24-2018
Treating parties differently based on how large they are doesn't seem very fair. I also agree with something Tsu said on Discord, that forums off the index aren't really seen and thus suffer in usage.
My honest opinion: some TSPers freaked out over TIL's private off-site forums and decided that all political party forums should be here. We have to live with that, now, even if the index gets bloated with a bunch of parties that only have 4 members each.
It doesn't make sense to me that we've made a cultural taboo that forces parties to get subforums here, but now we might be trying to decrease the visibility of those forums.
[DRAFT] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - Omega - 01-24-2018
Quite frankly if a party's membership is active the members will go to the sub forum no matter where it is. If a party is good at recruitment it shouldn't need to have its subfoum top level. The way I see it, a healthy party should be just fine under the proposed changes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - Nakari - 01-24-2018
I'd argue that having such a bloated subforum makes people less likely to pay attention to the individual forums anyway
You pointed out yourself that it's a little redundant to have a whole subforum for only two forum members. While I'm not keen on treating subforum applications differently based on forum membership, I think that it may be necessary unless we start putting the subforums in slightly less visible places. Four parties already take up more room on the front page than the entire Assembly and every roleplay forum put together.
ETA: Plus, this doesn't enforce subforums being moved. It simply enables it. If this passes, admins can still keep the party forums top-level, but have the freedom to remove them from the top level if the bloat becomes too much.
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to the Political Parties Act - sandaoguo - 01-24-2018
(01-24-2018, 06:58 PM)Omega Wrote: Quite frankly if a party's membership is active the members will go to the sub forum no matter where it is. If a party is good at recruitment it shouldn't need to have its subfoum top level. The way I see it, a healthy party should be just fine under the proposed changes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let's see how APC likes it when their forums are effectively hidden from the index *shrugs*
Party subforums are status symbols at best. They're barely used for any real organizing, and APCRC internal elections don't count. If the admins decided last week to take them off the index, there would've been a ton of complaints. If APC's forums get pushed below the fold, I can easily see the Assembly pushing a bill exempting parties based on their size. Because again, they're status symbols more than they're actually organizing platforms.
I was never a fan of the Political Parties Act or the McCarthyism that brought it about. I wrote it to stave off something worse. That being said, if we're going to all but force parties to have forums here, then hiding them under the fold isn't a great idea. It's kinda sending mixed signals-- we want party forums here on TSP's forum, but don't want to see them?
My comment about this new party, the Island Democratic Party, was that half the members weren't even forum users. It's an RMB party. That they even requested a subforum goes to show that it's all just a status symbol. And as long as subforums are treated as status symbols, it's not really fair imo to push them further down just because more people want them.
I have no clue what Tsu or Kris has to say on this topic. But I don't think I'll be supporting throwing parties under the fold.