Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 12-12-2016, 03:09 PM

As one of those other two LC members, I disagree.

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

Zak6858 · 12-12-2016, 03:41 PM

sandaoguo has a point.

I am Zadiner/Zak. Part of Assembly, some other stuff, Founder of some other region.
Hey, I have a bunch of issues. You don't need to care.
Emoji of the week: :dodgy:

***Roavin*** · 12-12-2016, 05:24 PM

Indeed, he does. It's worth discussing a bit more.

Still, though, seeing as Bel disagrees and Nahuelm is, as far as I'm aware, quite okay with this approach, I'd suggest passing this one so we can get Bullbasra's vacancy out of the way, then have the discussion on how to do this in the future (hoping Nahuelm or Bel don't CTE in the meanwhile Tounge

). Using the Delegate as the appointer seemed to me like the most natural and "game-side" way of moving forward for now.

***sandaoguo*** · 12-13-2016, 07:40 AM

I don't like the precedent this sets. What's the point of home rule if the LC becomes impotent in handling its own affairs? Bel doesn't want to do it, probably because Bel is far more interested in forum governance than having a home rule LC anyways.

The Assembly shouldn't be putting its fingers on LC affairs. Any changes should really be coming from them. There's no reason why the LC can't pass its own regulations on how to deal with a vacancy. We need to stop treating the LC as some kind of junior house of a bicameral legislature. The LC is its own government, just as Ohio is to the US.

(This post was last modified: 12-13-2016, 07:43 AM by sandaoguo.)

**Belschaft** · 12-13-2016, 08:18 AM

Glen, you need to stop saying "home rule" like it means anything, as it really doesn't. The LC doesn't have any of these powers you claim it does, and until such time as the Charter is amended to grant it them won't. The reality is that the LC has as much legal authority to "pass its own regulations" as any individual citizen does; none whatsoever. The process for electing Local Councillors is set out in a Constitutional Law; the Charter is pretty clear in regards to the process for changing those, and the body invested with that power sure as hell isn't the LC. I'm also fairly sure that you don't want me creating and altering Constitutional Laws by the simple expediency of persuading one other person that it's a good idea, which is what you're essentially proposing.

The idea of the LC being it's "own government" is patently absurd, as is the comparison of Ohio to the US; Ohio has it's own local government, but only covers a small part of the US. The area that the LC would be "governing" is the totality of TSP; we're only one region. This forum is the government forum of TSP, created by TSP, because trying to run a GCR from an RMB doesn't work. It's not an independent entity separate from the region, it's a tool created by the region.

The reality is that the LC is part of TSP's government structure, and just like every other part is governed by the Charter and Code of Laws. You can say "home rule" as much as you want, but it will not change that reality.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 12-13-2016, 08:37 AM by Belschaft.)

***sandaoguo*** · 12-13-2016, 12:14 PM

Yes, it means something. It means nothing *to you*, because as everybody knows, you don't really want to be in the LC. You want to be in the Cabinet, or Delegate. So your tenure in the LC has been dominated by your desire to make it a lower chamber in a bicameral system, focused almost entirely on issues of forum governance. The fact that you're turning down the opportunity for the LC to have almost complete autonomy in its affairs proves this.

That's not what the LC is or should ever be. Home rule does mean something. It means a local government that's concerned with the issues of the RMB community. Your lack of imagination or desire to see it blossom into a real local government doesn't change its purpose. It's literally right there in the Charter.

(This post was last modified: 12-13-2016, 12:16 PM by sandaoguo.)

**Belschaft** · 12-13-2016, 12:45 PM

It's not a lack of imagination, it's a lack of legal reality. I know this is something I've asked before, but could please point me to the part of the Charter giving the Local Council all these powers and responsibilities you seem to think it has? I hate to keep asking, but you never seem to give me an answer....

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 12-14-2016, 09:45 AM

No matter what we do, we'd need to hold a gameside vote on this, no?

The problem — as has been historically — is that there's isn't a great place to establish precedent on the gameside. Like block voting, one "administration" could do it differently than the next.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***sandaoguo*** · 12-14-2016, 07:37 PM

(12-14-2016, 09:45 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: No matter what we do, we'd need to hold a gameside vote on this, no?

The problem — as has been historically — is that there's isn't a great place to establish precedent on the gameside. Like block voting, one "administration" could do it differently than the next.

There's nothing at all, except Bel's own interpretation I suppose, preventing the LC from writing its own binding laws. The LC isn't just some polling operation. They're supposed to be setting up their own community. That's why I wrote home-rule in there and left everything very open.

(12-13-2016, 12:45 PM)Belschaft Wrote: It's not a lack of imagination, it's a lack of legal reality. I know this is something I've asked before, but could please point me to the part of the Charter giving the Local Council all these powers and responsibilities you seem to think it has? I hate to keep asking, but you never seem to give me an answer....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule

The Charter: "Establishing home rule for the in-game region residents"

The Local Council portion of the Charter has two different parts:

1. A definition of the size of the LC and a very broad description of its purpose. The mandate is wide open, and it's the LC's job to figure out how to go about fulfilling it.

2. A list of powers the LC holds, so that the Assembly or the Delegate can't deny them those powers.

There is nothing whatsoever saying that the LC cannot regulate itself. That's, in fact, the entire damn point of it all! You don't need the Charter to outline how to pass a law in the LC. It's called home rule. You're supposed to figure it out yourself. The Assembly has those regulations in the Charter because it was written on the forum, where us forum-goers figured out for ourselves how we want to pass laws. The same thing needs to happen in the LC. As long as it doesn't, and as long as the LC is treated as an impotent public polling operation and not a local government, the LC is going to be worthless.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say many times again. You being in the LC is a problem, because you don't care about creating an on-site community. You care about wielding power here, and everything you've done in the LC has been targeted towards giving the LC more forum-related powers and building a base with which you can hop to a better, more forum-oriented position. That's not what the LC is for. And that its inaugural authority has such a faithless view of what the LC can and should be has set a bad precedent that could render the whole project useless forever.

(This post was last modified: 12-14-2016, 07:49 PM by sandaoguo.)

***Tsunamy*** · 12-14-2016, 08:31 PM

Glen — I was talking about technical logistics ... nothing more.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 12-15-2016, 09:46 AM by Tsunamy.)