| Plebiscite Announcement |
Don't be too sure of that...
(01-20-2015, 07:14 AM)Darkstrait Wrote: Belschaft, you're screwed. There is still opposition to it. I haven't posted, because it's clear opposing these ideas doesn't actually change very much, and gets you labeled as anti-democratic. I imagine others have given up posting their opposition for the same reasons I have. I still intend on voting against bicameral measures, however, and voting in favor of the much simpler idea to create a new Cabinet post for game-side community affairs. (01-19-2015, 09:56 PM)Unibot Wrote: Drafters of bicameral proposals should try to formalize their proposals for January 23. This is your head's up. Good luck to everyone! Thank you for clarifying that. I'll make sure my final proposal is clearly marked before then. From reviewing the forum threads I think the final outcome of the plebiscite will be a close one. Obviously, I'm supporting a bicameral proposal but if we can't come to a consensus position then I wish everyone good luck! (01-20-2015, 03:15 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:(01-20-2015, 07:14 AM)Darkstrait Wrote: Belschaft, you're screwed. And to be fair, I think those in favour of a bicameral solution could point out the things they've been called in return. The debates have shown everyone's best and worst qualities at times but they've been important debates to have on an important issue. Hopefully, TSP will be a better place for having had them in the end. :cake: (01-19-2015, 09:57 PM)Unibot Wrote: In fact since QuietDad's proposal isn't a bicameral proposal, I think it's kind of unfair to put it in the running against the other bicameral proposals. I think QDs should still be there as all of these are for devolution and I think QDs is quite popular as well. Therefor I think his should stay in. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
QD's proposal is, as I understand it, an alternative to all the others. It's a proposal to explicitly not adopt any other proposal, but instead create a new Cabinet-level ministry for game-side affairs.
It may be intended as an alternative, but it's certainly possible for it occur at the same time as the other proposals -- it's not actually contradictory. It deals with different sections of the constitution. Meaning Article 3.3 does not apply to QD's proposal and we should vote on it separately when we vote on the other member's bills.
Voting on them all together as contradictory legislation would limit voters's choices more than the law permits or encourages. They're not contradictory legislation, therefore we'd have to consider each separately. My hope is to pursue the choice that enables voter choice, more than curtails it needlessly. Furthermore... there currently is no QD I -- he never wrote the text. Tsu wrote something, but it's unclear whether QD supports that attempt or not.
Err, I think it's very much intended to be mutually exclusive. QD can comment officially, but that's my understanding and that's why I've supported it.
My "idea" shouldn't really be included in this. Mine is more of a "Let's take baby steps" before we get to where this idea is going.
Maybe we should put other options below:
None of the above No change
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7) |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |