Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 03-30-2017, 01:19 PM

(03-30-2017, 10:06 AM)Sam111 Wrote: It's not a 1% thing. You have one vote that month, which needs only last for three days, and if someone is in an accident, gets sick, has something preventing them getting on for three days, regardless of how active they were for the remainder of the month, they could have their citizenship stripped. If this person happened to be someone you don't like, with it being up to your discretion, it would be very easy for you to remove their citizenship.

Again, it doesn't HAVE to be black and white. "I was sick, so I missed the only vote we had." "Oh, I'm sorry, that sucks! Here, I've remasked you!" This is a game, after all. Also, don't presume that our laws need to be written around assumed bad faith. A Chair abuses their power? Recall them! We don't need complicated systems to address every possibility in the universe. If you think a Chair is being unfair, say so, and if it's serious enough, use the political process to fix it. Meanwhile, the Chair shouldn't need to spend hours trying to figure out whether or not people have met their activity requirements. That's why it doesn't get done. Then people complain that it's not getting done!

I don't care what the specific requirement is, as long as it's within a finite time period that's easy to count. "More than half", "at least half", "at least 1".. It doesn't matter to me.

As for WHEN it counts, the votes are considered to be in the month they STARTED in. That's why the auditing is done the week after.

I'm opposed to saying there needs to be a minimum of 3 votes in a month to even trigger an activity check. If we're going to check for activity, then we need to actually require activity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 03-30-2017, 01:28 PM by sandaoguo.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-30-2017, 01:50 PM

This is also the legislature portion of a roleplay government, and people will therefore inevitably want to roleplay the drafting of laws. That should be encouraged rather than stifled, particularly when the particular proposal has merit.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

**Farengeto** · 03-30-2017, 02:00 PM

(03-30-2017, 01:19 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 10:06 AM)Sam111 Wrote: It's not a 1% thing. You have one vote that month, which needs only last for three days, and if someone is in an accident, gets sick, has something preventing them getting on for three days, regardless of how active they were for the remainder of the month, they could have their citizenship stripped. If this person happened to be someone you don't like, with it being up to your discretion, it would be very easy for you to remove their citizenship.

Again, it doesn't HAVE to be black and white. "I was sick, so I missed the only vote we had." "Oh, I'm sorry, that sucks! Here, I've remasked you!" This is a game, after all. Also, don't presume that our laws need to be written around assumed bad faith. A Chair abuses their power? Recall them! We don't need complicated systems to address every possibility in the universe. If you think a Chair is being unfair, say so, and if it's serious enough, use the political process to fix it. Meanwhile, the Chair shouldn't need to spend hours trying to figure out whether or not people have met their activity requirements. That's why it doesn't get done. Then people complain that it's not getting done!

I don't care what the specific requirement is, as long as it's within a finite time period that's easy to count. "More than half", "at least half", "at least 1".. It doesn't matter to me.

As for WHEN it counts, the votes are considered to be in the month they STARTED in. That's why the auditing is done the week after.

I'm opposed to saying there needs to be a minimum of 3 votes in a month to even trigger an activity check. If we're going to check for activity, then we need to actually require activity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Discretion of the Chair is one thing. But that's not even mentioned in the clause. This is the Charter, it's not something we're allowed to ignore when we feel like it. The Charter is supposed to provide rules, recalls should not be a method of legal interpretation.

If we can't even decide what the thresholds are what's the point of even having them? It's either going to cause arguments when it inevitably does make a difference or force the court to pick a definition. It may not matter to you but we can't intentionally leave laws ambiguous.

And while encouraging activity is fine we inevitably have lulls in activity, especially in the summer. Sometimes maybe there's nothing that comes up to legislate. I personally think number of proposals passed is a terrible and limited way to judge regional activity.

**Belschaft** · 03-30-2017, 02:04 PM

How about making it really simple; to maintain legislator status, if not on a leave of absence, people must attend a roll call vote conducted by the Chair once each month?

I was going to suggest a set time for said roll call vote to occur, but that makes it to easy for people to just show up that once.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Farengeto** · 03-30-2017, 02:19 PM

(03-30-2017, 02:04 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about making it really simple; to maintain legislator status, if not on a leave of absence, people must attend a roll call vote conducted by the Chair once each month?

I was going to suggest a set time for said roll call vote to occur, but that makes it to easy for people to just show up that once.

That takes the main problem on the last couple pages and makes it worse though. Instead of the potential to lose your legislator status if you miss a few days, these situations would be happening on a regular basis with all other of activity you've done being irrelevant.

(This post was last modified: 03-30-2017, 02:23 PM by Farengeto.)

**Belschaft** · 03-30-2017, 02:21 PM

(03-30-2017, 02:19 PM)Farengeto Wrote:
(03-30-2017, 02:04 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How about making it really simple; to maintain legislator status, if not on a leave of absence, people must attend a roll call vote conducted by the Chair once each month?

I was going to suggest a set time for said roll call vote to occur, but that makes it to easy for people to just show up that once.

That takes the main problem on the last couple pages and makes it worse though. Instead of the potential to lose your legislator status if you miss a few days, these situations would be happening on a regular basis with all other of activity you've done being irrelevant.

Possibly, yes. It depends on how it's conducted really.

Honestly, I don't think there's a good solution to this problem.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 03-30-2017, 02:29 PM

On Discord, Bel suggested a monthly check-in thread. So how about we just have that during the first week of each month?

**Belschaft** · 03-30-2017, 03:54 PM

What about some kind of "service" requirement? Legislators must maintain a WA nation endorsing the Delegate, or be active in one of the three ministries?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 03-30-2017, 04:10 PM

(03-30-2017, 03:54 PM)Belschaft Wrote: What about some kind of "service" requirement? Legislators must maintain a WA nation endorsing the Delegate, or be active in one of the three ministries?

This could work. Potential drawbacks include Ministers not sufficiently weeding out inactive participants in their ministries, or not giving participants in their ministries enough to do. I could see the latter being a particular problem in FA in the absence of a diplomatic corps.

(This post was last modified: 03-30-2017, 04:14 PM by Cormac.)

**Griffindor** · 03-30-2017, 08:53 PM

(03-30-2017, 03:54 PM)Belschaft Wrote: What about some kind of "service" requirement? Legislators must maintain a WA nation endorsing the Delegate, or be active in one of the three ministries?

I like that! Increasing security and activity while being simple at the same time to check up on!

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016