Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 12-27-2016, 03:58 PM

(12-27-2016, 02:52 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(12-27-2016, 02:49 PM)Roavin Wrote: I believe what Glen meant was that the Local Council decides for itself how it goes about proposing charter changes, writing the text, when and if it does it, etc.; but ultimately it still has to be proposed to the assembly. That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

That was my interpretation. My own view is that this would essentially mean that the LC could put proposed Charter or Law changes to vote by the in-game region and then send them to the Assembly, rather than the other way round.

Ok ... but we know what happens in the Assembly. Who wants to explain to the 100-plus voting WA members why their legislation was radically altered?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***Roavin*** · 12-27-2016, 04:08 PM

(12-27-2016, 03:58 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(12-27-2016, 02:52 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(12-27-2016, 02:49 PM)Roavin Wrote: I believe what Glen meant was that the Local Council decides for itself how it goes about proposing charter changes, writing the text, when and if it does it, etc.; but ultimately it still has to be proposed to the assembly. That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

That was my interpretation. My own view is that this would essentially mean that the LC could put proposed Charter or Law changes to vote by the in-game region and then send them to the Assembly, rather than the other way round.

Ok ... but we know what happens in the Assembly. Who wants to explain to the 100-plus voting WA members why their legislation was radically altered?

Erm ... The Local Councillors? [emoji14]

Gesendet von meinem Xtouch mit Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 12-27-2016, 04:09 PM

(12-27-2016, 03:58 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(12-27-2016, 02:52 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(12-27-2016, 02:49 PM)Roavin Wrote: I believe what Glen meant was that the Local Council decides for itself how it goes about proposing charter changes, writing the text, when and if it does it, etc.; but ultimately it still has to be proposed to the assembly. That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

That was my interpretation. My own view is that this would essentially mean that the LC could put proposed Charter or Law changes to vote by the in-game region and then send them to the Assembly, rather than the other way round.

Ok ... but we know what happens in the Assembly. Who wants to explain to the 100-plus voting WA members why their legislation was radically altered?

*shrugs*

Who wants to explain to them that the very act of drafting the legislation in the first place was pointless, as the Assembly refuses to allow them a genuine say in such matters?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 12-27-2016, 04:10 PM

(12-27-2016, 04:08 PM)Roavin Wrote:
(12-27-2016, 03:58 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(12-27-2016, 02:52 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(12-27-2016, 02:49 PM)Roavin Wrote: I believe what Glen meant was that the Local Council decides for itself how it goes about proposing charter changes, writing the text, when and if it does it, etc.; but ultimately it still has to be proposed to the assembly. That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

That was my interpretation. My own view is that this would essentially mean that the LC could put proposed Charter or Law changes to vote by the in-game region and then send them to the Assembly, rather than the other way round.

Ok ... but we know what happens in the Assembly. Who wants to explain to the 100-plus voting WA members why their legislation was radically altered?
Erm ... The Local Councillors? [emoji14]

Gesendet von meinem Xtouch mit Tapatalk

For some reason I doubt you'll want me providing the explanation....

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 12-27-2016, 05:12 PM

What's so outrageous? Neither the Assembly nor the Local Council should be able to unilaterally amend the Charter. If the LC sends an amendment that the Assembly disagrees with, then it shouldn't pass. Much the same, if the Assembly sends an amendment to the LC that *it* disagrees with.

Perhaps the two ought to simply communicate and not blindly throw amendments at each other? We shouldn't have to codify that. The only reason I'm doing this now is that I don't believe I can effectively organize a debate of this on the RMB, without support from the current LC. And that's obviously lacking, given there's a vacancy and Bel and I are currently in a death match over the purpose of the LC altogether.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tim · 12-27-2016, 06:16 PM

While I'm still not sold on any sort of RMB governance, as I continue to maintain that our goal should be to integrate the RMB community into the forum community given that the off-site forum is a far better arena for all of our regional matters, I concede that I've not been around here long and a significant amount of my experience with RMB governance has been involving a recent controversial proposal by Belschaft. From what I've understood, this is simply a re-clarification of the rules that the in-game arm of the government, and therefore a positive step for it.

As for this:

Quote:Who wants to explain to the 100-plus voting WA members why their legislation was radically altered?

Hell, I'll do it myself if there's such a fit being thrown around. We disagreed with their legislation, and we therefore amended it and sent it back to them. It's the way the world works, and, as Glen points out, actually communicating and cooperating on amendments would go a long way towards that. If the WA members are truly disappointed with this, they are of course always welcome to join the forum and attain Legislator status so they may also debate the topic here and become more involved in our community.

Nonetheless, I'd like to think that's a bridge that we can cross when it happens, and I'd prefer we have actual voices from the in-game community then come forth about it rather than one self-appointed vox populi.

(This post was last modified: 12-27-2016, 06:16 PM by Tim.)

**Belschaft** · 12-27-2016, 06:45 PM

I didn't appoint myself "vox populi" Tim, I stood for election for the damn job. If we're going to have a position based around representing the in-game region then people shouldn't act surprised when those elected to it do so.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 12-27-2016, 06:46 PM by Belschaft.)

Tim · 12-27-2016, 08:03 PM

(12-27-2016, 06:45 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I didn't appoint myself "vox populi" Tim, I stood for election for the damn job. If we're going to have a position based around representing the in-game region then people shouldn't act surprised when those elected to it do so.

From reading the RMB and the various sentiments I've been seeing expressed, regardless of election to the role you are certainly pursuing what seems more like a personal agenda for power rather than an accurate representation of the regional World Assembly population's views.

(This post was last modified: 12-27-2016, 08:03 PM by Tim.)

Omega · 12-28-2016, 01:49 AM

As I realize we are debating the actual interpretation of this what if we asked the PJ how this would be interpreted by the Court?

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

***Tsunamy*** · 12-28-2016, 06:22 PM

(12-27-2016, 06:16 PM)Tim Wrote: Hell, I'll do it myself if there's such a fit being thrown around. We disagreed with their legislation, and we therefore amended it and sent it back to them. It's the way the world works, and, as Glen points out, actually communicating and cooperating on amendments would go a long way towards that. If the WA members are truly disappointed with this, they are of course always welcome to join the forum and attain Legislator status so they may also debate the topic here and become more involved in our community.

Nonetheless, I'd like to think that's a bridge that we can cross when it happens, and I'd prefer we have actual voices from the in-game community then come forth about it rather than one self-appointed vox populi.

I don't disagree, but the problem is that the RMB players just don't fully understand how the sausage is made, so to speak. I don't want them to be further dissuaded, if, as Bel suggests, they already feel like they aren't being heard.

As we've discussed elsewhere, this is why I'd sooner we increase the number of Local Councillors so we have more people to discuss/inform/interface between the Assembly and the RMB-active nations. If several people do a little, it's a lot better than having one or two do a lot.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]