(08-14-2016, 05:54 PM)Belschaft Wrote:

(08-14-2016, 05:38 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(08-14-2016, 04:19 PM)Belschaft Wrote: My problem with "push legislative agendas" is that I was elected to the LC on a platform to do exactly that.

Bel — there's a way to do that without riling up an angry mob to do it. As we've been discussing on Discord, giving good information and allowing where you're presenting both sides of the debate is fine. Hell, it's desirable!

But I don't think the region elected you to give selective information in an attempt to rally people around personal causes. (Not saying you did/would, but again, let's stretch what the next Local Councillor might want to do.) This potential is what I'm trying to fix here.

I agree with you Tsu, which is why I support legislation along these lines. But my concern is that the language is too broad - I am 100% in support of prohibitions on defamatory, misleading or false communications. But it must be recognized that the LC is a political and representative role, and that opinion is part of that. I'm not going to support language that restricts the ability of the LC to operate.

If people don't like my legislative agenda - an agenda I have always been clear about - then they're welcome to run against me next time. But I was elected to strengthen the voice and power of regional WA members, and if that means recommending they vote a certain way sometimes that's what I'll do.

My office is not administrative - it is fundamentally political.

I'm making this argument in an attempt to bring you into the process. You are actively saying that this is a problem and there is something that could be done, but when you say that your role is inherently political without explaining how we can narrow this in scope to help this, it just ends discussion.

All roles here are political, but can be done without causing a riot. If you see — or could possibly see — a situation where you whip up the in-game nations into a frenzy over potential legislation or government action, we have a problem.

If — as I suspect — this is not what you're advocating, then I'll ask again you to help narrowing this down appropriately.

What if we make it so that people aren't both authoring legislation and mass TG-ing support of it?