| [PASSED] Are legislator applications on hold? |
Quickly slapped together before going to bed. More fixing up and formatting and responding to discussion and adding the appropriate companion charter amendments tomorrow.
Quote:Legislator Committee Act ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
Could we define whether or not members on the Legislator Committee may also occupy another Office of the Coalition?
Marius Rahl Fortitudine Vincimus!
The intent is that they are not firewalled. I'm not sure it needs to be made explicit, given that the Elections Act very explicitly outlines which offices are affected.
I have some thoughts.
First, the bill needs to define who appoints members. Appointments are mentioned in the vacancy clause, but not independently. Second, I don’t think it’s wise to legislate the application questions. We’d have to vote every time we want to change them. We’ve never done this, and there have been some times where application questions needed to be changed quickly in response to some security issue. Also, something like this will tend to get missed when legislating other security/COI things. Third, I generally remain opposed to opening applications during elections. It’s something we never should’ve allowed in the first place, in retrospect. I think it’s more trouble than it’s worth to for the EC to have to cross-check when people became legislators. If we’re that concerned about elections hampering activity, then we can shorten elections so that consecutive elections don’t block out a month of application time. Lastly, I’m not sure if this committee should have a role in removing disruptive people. The Chair is in charge of moderating the Assembly, not this committee. So it doesn’t make sense to me that the Chair has this moderation responsibility but then has to get people not involved in moderation to sign off on booting a disruptive player. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(11-07-2017, 11:37 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: First, the bill needs to define who appoints members. Appointments are mentioned in the vacancy clause, but not independently. I'm not sure that's necessarily needed - the committee is brought into existence with three vacancies which then must be filled. What could be considered is to fill one of the vacancies as part of a continuing resolution. (11-07-2017, 11:37 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Second, I don’t think it’s wise to legislate the application questions. We’d have to vote every time we want to change them. We’ve never done this, and there have been some times where application questions needed to be changed quickly in response to some security issue. Also, something like this will tend to get missed when legislating other security/COI things. Fair enough, though I wrote the language specifically to just have things that must be included. The Committee can, at any time (for example at prompting of the CRS) add an additional item, or reformulate an additional item such that at least those things required by law are queried. (11-07-2017, 11:37 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Third, I generally remain opposed to opening applications during elections. It’s something we never should’ve allowed in the first place, in retrospect. I think it’s more trouble than it’s worth to for the EC to have to cross-check when people became legislators. If we’re that concerned about elections hampering activity, then we can shorten elections so that consecutive elections don’t block out a month of application time. Feirmont, who has been EC multiple times, mentioned yesterday on Discord that "It's not difficult at all to check anyway". If given the choice of the minor inconvenience of the (11-07-2017, 11:37 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Lastly, I’m not sure if this committee should have a role in removing disruptive people. The Chair is in charge of moderating the Assembly, not this committee. So it doesn’t make sense to me that the Chair has this moderation responsibility but then has to get people not involved in moderation to sign off on booting a disruptive player. Good point - how would you suggest changing that?
Of course defining the composition is needed... It’s usually the first thing we do!
 Anyways, Feirmont isn’t always going to be EC. Just because he says he’s okay with something doesn’t mean it should be enshrined in our laws. We’ve avoided this kind of two-track system for years, because it’s unnecessarily confusing for those running elections and those who *can* technically cast a vote, but end up being told it’s not legal. I don’t think we should be making things more tedious and complicated on the off chance that somebody applies during an election and ends up being a long-time active member. None of us playing currently became citizens or legislators during an election. And in this last freak election for ChIr, it’s just not the case that there were a ton of applications during the actual election— there was a backlog of apps *before*. And I feel like it bears repeating: the problem isn’t the application freeze. The problem is that Cabinet elections were 2 weeks long. Then Chair election happened to line up right after. There’s a simple fix to that: cut Cabinet elections by a week and extend a chair’s term on a case by case basis. As for the moderation issue, just leave the Chair as the one who removes disruptive people. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It might help in future to actually tell applicants that they cannot vote in the current election, if there is one occurring. This time legislators were accepted without being told they couldn't vote, and a couple did. I think this could be resolved by just letting applicants know more obviously that they are not allowed to vote in the current elections without expecting new people to read all the laws immediately. Not that they shouldn't familiarize themselves with the laws - but this particular law is not exactly in an obvious place to look for election-related laws, and we can't expect new people to remember and recognize the applications of every law immediately.
Maybe through the CoA just saying "Accepted, welcome to the Assembly. Bear in mind that as you were admitted during an election, you are not allowed to vote." Maybe through an addition to the voting thread saying "Legislators admitted since the start of the nomination process are not permitted to vote." Perhaps be a little strict, remind them that voting when they know they aren't allowed to is considered bad faith. Either way, I think the major reason that it could be confusing is because of a lack of information without first going through all the laws. So why not provide that information more easily? (11-08-2017, 06:22 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: None of us playing currently became citizens or legislators during an election. I really dislike the sentiment here that new people aren't worth accepting quickly because it's too much bother. Maybe that's why nobody currently playing became a legislator during an election - because they felt TSP was ignoring them and gave up on joining? I agree with you that it's rare that new people end up being active long term, but that should be a reason to try and encourage them to be active long term, not to just assume "they won't be active long term anyway, so they can wait until they get bored and leave".
(11-08-2017, 06:22 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Anyways, Feirmont isn’t always going to be EC. Just because he says he’s okay with something doesn’t mean it should be enshrined in our laws. We’ve avoided this kind of two-track system for years, because it’s unnecessarily confusing for those running elections and those who *can* technically cast a vote, but end up being told it’s not legal. I don’t think we should be making things more tedious and complicated on the off chance that somebody applies during an election and ends up being a long-time active member. None of us playing currently became citizens or legislators during an election. And in this last freak election for ChIr, it’s just not the case that there were a ton of applications during the actual election— there was a backlog of apps *before*. I don't think it matters that Feirmont is "okay" with it - what matters is that Feirmont states it isn't much additional work, in other words that it's perfectly reasonable to expect the EC to do it. Besides, accepting people during elections but then not allowing them to vote in said election isn't something particularly new in NationStates. (11-08-2017, 06:22 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: And I feel like it bears repeating: the problem isn’t the application freeze. The problem is that Cabinet elections were 2 weeks long. Then Chair election happened to line up right after. There’s a simple fix to that: cut Cabinet elections by a week and extend a chair’s term on a case by case basis. I absolutely disagree (and agree with @Nakari) - the issue I have had the entire time is the full (and almost defiant) lack of communication with applicants, who did not get informed that their application had been received, that it was being processed, or on hold for various things, or whatever else. A Legislator Committee, as drafted above, would be bound by law to respond appropriately so that even if we do have the application freeze (though I'm against it), it's being communicated. (11-08-2017, 06:22 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: As for the moderation issue, just leave the Chair as the one who removes disruptive people. That works for me, though under the proposed model the Chair wouldn't necessarily have the powers to unmask legislators anymore, and so will have to go through that channel either way. Not a problem, just a consequence worth considering.
It’s not a sentiment, Nakari. The fact is that we have closed applications during elections for years, and yet we still have an active and relatively large population of forum players. People have a tendency to look at a unique situation and legislate as if that’s the norm. Through a confluence of events, we had elections spanning an entire month. That doesn’t *usually* happen, and we don’t *usually* have a lot of applicants during elections. The fact that nobody currently in thread gained legislator status during an election is a genuine point that we’re not actually facing some kind of crisis that requires making the process harder and more complicated.
Feirmont is free to have his opinions, but again.... he’s not going to be running every election for the foreseeable future. I’ve run quite a few of them, too. So if Feirmont’s opinion here is somewhat authoritative, then so is mine, presumably. Having to cross check when voters got their status *is* more work in an already tedious process. Muddying the waters will increase the likelihood of mistakes. And with those mistakes can come legal battles, especially if it’s a contentious election; See Glen v Wolf. It’s simpler for everybody that applications remain closed during elections. We’ve done a lot of work to emphasize the fact that Assembly participation *isn’t* the only thing to do in TSP. Those awaiting acceptance aren’t at a total loss with things to do. They can even participate in Assembly threads that aren’t in the private section (so, the vast majority). Point being, it isn’t an injustice to wait until an election is over. On the rest of your reply, Roavin... How is this (opening apps during elections) going to solve what you perceive to be the central problem: communication? It seems extraneous to the bill, if that’s the core issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (11-09-2017, 12:52 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: It’s simpler for everybody that applications remain closed during elections. We’ve done a lot of work to emphasize the fact that Assembly participation *isn’t* the only thing to do in TSP. Those awaiting acceptance aren’t at a total loss with things to do. They can even participate in Assembly threads that aren’t in the private section (so, the vast majority). Point being, it isn’t an injustice to wait until an election is over. I'll throw my two cents in. We've discussed the need inform players that their application is on hold pending the end of elections, and that there are other ways to participate, but I feel that we should elaborate with this. Informing pending applicants of each of the Ministries (and linking them to the sign-up thread), along with highlighting the fact that they can voice their opinions in the public Assembly threads (and perhaps providing a link to that as well), would be an excellent way to make it clear to them just how they can participate, rather than just a vague statement. To totally throw something out there - it might be interesting if we switched applications to a make your own thread style (still following the usual question format), and then allowed any other players to comment in those threads. Whilst this makes for a less formal and concise process, it also create a very personalized feel, especially if, and hopefully when, other players in the community extend their welcome to the applicants, encourage them to check out X, or just say hello. Marius Rahl Fortitudine Vincimus! |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |