| No more Great Councils |
Wouldn't the charter only be thrown out if the Great Council voted to adopt a new one?
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
Third Roavin's proposal. A GC is a last ditch effort, we should be focused on fixing what we have instead of razing everything to the ground and starting over because so far each GC has resulted in the same mess.
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest (05-30-2017, 03:59 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Guys... no... Great Council's aren't bound by the Charter, because they're literally throwing the Charter out and starting over. Quote:4. If a Great Council fails to pass a new constitution and set of laws to replace the existing ones, then the existing laws will remain in place.
Yeah, because when you call one and nobody agrees on anything, you can't just sit there in anarchy.
But to say "everything needs to be passed according to the Charter" directly contradicts the idea that the Charter is being thrown out and completely rewritten. "Passing new laws according to the Charter" is literally just the "amendment party" that GCs were before, and the language specifically moved us away from that.
There's no reason not to allow the Charter to dictate how a Great Council may proceed. Yes, a Great Council is intended to throw out the Charter, but until it does that we need to determine how the Great Council is going to work. Instead of doing that at the beginning of each Great Council, we might as well codify it in the Charter to give people more confidence in the Great Council process.
Glen is simply wrong that Great Councils aren't bound by the Charter. Everything is bound by the Charter until the Charter is repealed and replaced. Any of the suggestions put forward earlier in this thread absolutely can be amended into the Charter and would be binding upon future Great Councils. That Glen doesn't want future Great Councils bound by the Charter doesn't mean they can't be. I like Tsu's suggestion, and I also agree that we need to keep the one year provision.
Whatever, guys. I literally wrote the Charter. I literally wrote how Great Councils are supposed to go. But don't listen to me about it. I have no clue what I'm talking about.
Feel free to set the clock back 3 years. I'm sure we'll have some great fun with people calling GCs just to push through their pet projects. I support Roavin in this 100%. I sure as hell don't want our most important tradition to be changed at the behest of our current Chair. (05-31-2017, 07:22 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Whatever, guys. I literally wrote the Charter. I literally wrote how Great Councils are supposed to go. But don't listen to me about it. I have no clue what I'm talking about. How is this at my "behest"? I haven't proposed a single thing in this thread, I've just agreed with proposals other people have put forward. Is this going to be your new tactic, using my agreement with anything you disagree with as a means to tar and feather the idea by association with me? It's funny how you accuse us of trying to change "our most important tradition" while supporting its abolition. You act like Great Councils are a cherished tradition in the same breath as you state your agreement with making sure there is never again another Great Council. How does that work, exactly?
We can start over whenever the hell we want, regardless of this article. Good luck telling a supermajority of players "but you can't!"
I oppose placing GCs in the framework of a pre-existing Charter, because it's idiotic. GCs are called most often when our existing systems aren't working. Force us to be bound by those systems while holding a GC because they don't work? Great idea!! As for your involvement, I think there's more than couple laws that have been changed for the worst because you demand some kind of competing legislation. I think it's very likely you'll revert to your mean and end up a fleeting part of TSP. In the intervening time, I'd like to avoid as much damage to our institutions as possible. Roavin's original proposal had plenty of approval until you came along and made a fuss. That's the proposal I'm going to vote for, if we're forced to vote on one or the other. (05-31-2017, 09:34 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: We can start over whenever the hell we want, regardless of this article. Good luck telling a supermajority of players "but you can't!" Do you think you could try to put forward arguments without insulting and flamebaiting people? You don't need to be calling your fellow legislators' ideas "idiotic," and your opinion that I am going to "end up a fleeting part of TSP" is both flamebaiting and completely irrelevant to legislative debate. Your tendency lately to jump straight to insults, not just with me but anyone with whom you disagree, has gotten way out of hand. I'm not going to moderate this myself because most of what you said was directed at me, but I believe your post to be in violation of Rules 1, 3, and 4 of the Forum Moderation Policy and I would appreciate another moderator reviewing your post for rules violations due to my conflict of interest. I am receiving an error message saying that the report is invalid when I attempt to report it, so I am publicly requesting review. In addition, I will not be responding to your posts anymore if you can't remain civil and on-topic, and I encourage others to deal with your incivility by reporting it and refusing to engage with it. Enough is enough. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |