Users browsing this thread:

W. Charlesfort · 05-02-2016, 04:41 PM

(05-02-2016, 02:33 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(05-02-2016, 01:44 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote: The inherent flaw of that train of thought is, to assume that the number of WA-Nation in TSP would continually rise. Which is under the actual conditions at which the Assembly operates rather delusional, to say the least. Therefore we actually have no ground to base a cap-increase on a percentage model.

It's not a flawed-model — the idea behind switching to the model proposed is, in part, to increase the number of WA members. In fairness, I believe TNP were using this model when they were much lower ... in like the mid 400s? (Someone who's better informed could provide better info.)

There's the theory behind this and then there's the hard numbers. It's easier to get a force of 10 people together than it is a force of 100 and a force of 300. The fact that I've literally watched a nation raise to 170-plus endos in a matter of days says we need to a bit careful here.

If you wanted to increse the number of WA-Nations, you had to completely reform the WA in itself. That´s about that. Away from that I want to remind You and all others here, that a regulatory-concept which works for a certain region does not necessarily work for another one too.

***sandaoguo*** · 05-02-2016, 04:49 PM

As for the LC, I'm opposed to anything that basically creates a regional referendum requirement. I don't think we should have a goal of polling everybody in the region. I don't like where that logic goes, either.

A block vote for the LC in the Assembly is actually far more representative than other proposals that simply create a list of subjects that get devolved to a regional poll. The LC would get a say in *every* vote. Criticizing the LC as a popularity contest is just criticizing representative government entirely. We cannot have a functioning "lower house" of thousands of players. That's just a system that will be manipulated by TG campaigns, meaning those with money or those with scripts will have a large amount of control.

Granting a block vote to the LC balances the goods of RMB representation against the bads. The LC may elect to hold polls to determine its block vote. It's up to them, as a devolved government.

Asking RMBers what they want is largely useless. They're going to want as much power as you will give them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 05-02-2016, 04:52 PM

(05-02-2016, 04:49 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: As for the LC, I'm opposed to anything that basically creates a regional referendum requirement. I don't think we should have a goal of polling everybody in the region. I don't like where that logic goes, either.

A block vote for the LC in the Assembly is actually far more representative than other proposals that simply create a list of subjects that get devolved to a regional poll. The LC would get a say in *every* vote. Criticizing the LC as a popularity contest is just criticizing representative government entirely. We cannot have a functioning "lower house" of thousands of players. That's just a system that will be manipulated by TG campaigns, meaning those with money or those with scripts will have a large amount of control.

Granting a block vote to the LC balances the goods of RMB representation against the bads. The LC may elect to hold polls to determine its block vote. It's up to them, as a devolved government.

Asking RMBers what they want is largely useless. They're going to want as much power as you will give them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can see the logic behind that argument, but if we're going to go along those lines I'd prefer to see us granting each LC member an extra vote rather than one of them an extra 2-3.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 05-02-2016, 04:55 PM

A block vote would require negotiation among the LC in how to cast it. That promotes more debate and cooperation among them, and also incentivizes the LC to consider what position they take vis-a-vis the RMB community that they're supposed to represent.

Granting them each a separate votes just makes them normal legislators. They would also end up with diluted representation in the Assembly during periods of increased forum participation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 05-02-2016, 04:58 PM

Hmm... valid points.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Omega · 05-02-2016, 06:15 PM

Very good job but a few potential problems.

* puts on lawyer hat (watch out)*

Why can the High court not declare a Constitutional Law void if it violates the charter but can declare a General Law void if it violates the charter?
Why is it that the provisions for election would be put into a general law and not into a constitutional law?

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 05-02-2016, 06:15 PM by Omega.)

***Tsunamy*** · 05-02-2016, 07:21 PM

(05-02-2016, 04:39 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Would lower requirements make the region more secure, or is the goal simply to increase the size of the CRS?

As for the endorsement cap, it's not actually tied to the application. The endorsement cap can be higher. The 200 endorsement/half the Delegate's isn't a cap-- it's a minimum for what we would consider to be nations that would improve security by being in the CRS. The endorsement cap would be separately set by the CRS, and enforcement would be lenient.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm ... not exactly sure what this is in reference to? Who's asking about lower requirements other than me asking about legislator status?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Farengeto** · 05-02-2016, 07:29 PM

(05-02-2016, 06:15 PM)Omega Wrote: Very good job but a few potential problems.

* puts on lawyer hat (watch out)*

Why can the High court not declare a Constitutional Law void if it violates the charter but can declare a General Law void if it violates the charter?
Why is it that the provisions for election would be put into a general law and not into a constitutional law?

Well for one, the Charter inherently can not violate the Charter. Second, you're suggesting the ability declare the Charter void which I won't even explain why that's bad.

Thirdly, if you bothered to read the next clause we have a clause to address those contradictions already:

Quote:5. The High Court may reconcile contradictions within the Charter, constitutional laws, and general laws, maintaining the least amount of disruption to the intended purposes of the contradictory parts.

Also that's not new, those are copied from the current charter.

***Roavin*** · 05-02-2016, 07:30 PM

(05-02-2016, 06:15 PM)Omega Wrote: Why can the High court not declare a Constitutional Law void if it violates the charter but can declare a General Law void if it violates the charter?

The Charter defines the constitutional laws. So if the High Court were to declare a constitutional law void, then against what reference frame would it do that?

What the High Court can explicitly do is resolve conflicts in constitutional law (VIII.5).

(05-02-2016, 06:15 PM)Omega Wrote: Why is it that the provisions for election would be put into a general law and not into a constitutional law?

What would be the benefit of having it in constitutional law vs. general law?

Omega · 05-02-2016, 07:46 PM

(05-02-2016, 07:30 PM)Roavin Wrote:
(05-02-2016, 06:15 PM)Omega Wrote: Why can the High court not declare a Constitutional Law void if it violates the charter but can declare a General Law void if it violates the charter?

The Charter defines the constitutional laws. So if the High Court were to declare a constitutional law void, then against what reference frame would it do that?

What the High Court can explicitly do is resolve conflicts in constitutional law (VIII.5).

(05-02-2016, 06:15 PM)Omega Wrote: Why is it that the provisions for election would be put into a general law and not into a constitutional law?

What would be the benefit of having it in constitutional law vs. general law?

Okay I'm missing something here. What is the point of having 2 different tiers of laws?

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021