There's honestly reasons we don't bother to tell people that they can't vote in the current election ongoing as they just signed up...if you're only signing up to vote in an election for what you conceivably don't have much basis for voting in..then you seem to be signing up in bad faith.

Unfortunately, TSP has in the past gone through multiple instances of attempted voter fraud or rigging elections most noticeably in the MoFA election with Wolf in which a horseload of people with foreign interests and aims joined just to vote in that election (and as was proven during that time many only voted in that specific position election to prop up their shill piece).

Therefore, while we may look at the election timeline and time frames maybe so there is less "freeze time,"  but otherwise there are plenty of things to do in TSP while you're waiting. If we want to put in a message that links to MoRA, Treasure Island, SPSF, MoFa activity threads we can do so. Although I'd prolly be like "umm explore the forums a bit? like show some initiative?"

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

 

(This post was last modified: 11-09-2017, 11:10 PM by Escade.)

Reply

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.

The bill does address that as well, by requiring a response within 48 hours, requiring responding with the final determination via TG as well, etc.

Also, I whole-heartedly agree with Drall's first paragraph, and the idea in the second paragraph is worth talking about and exploring.

Reply

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.

I'd be in support of this. I've actually argued for something like this at some point.

It's easy to close a forum or a thread for a bit during the election which would make it clear things aren't being considered. 

On the other point of a timeline — what happens if it's ignored? I'm opposed to useless periods because all it does is put a sword over an officials head. If something is extraordinarily long, we can recall or whatnot, but we're not just going to open the floodgates and let everyone in so setting a timeframe is a bit moot.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Further work:

• Formatting
  
• Pimped Article 1 to please Glen
  
• Noted explicitly that applications must include at least the information stated
  
• Rephrased the suspension thing such that the CoA may explicitly order a suspension without the commission having a say in the matter
  
• Added the necessary charter amendment.
  

Legislator Committee Act
An act to establish a commission to manage legislators

1. Scope

(1) The Legislator Committee is the commission responsible for granting and revoking legislator status to members.

(2) The Legislator Committee comprises three legislators that have each been appointed by the cabinet and approved by the assembly via a simple majority vote.

(3) A member of the Legislator Committee is removed from the committee if
a. a reconfirmation vote held every four months does not achieve a simple majority, or
b. the member resigns, or
c. the member loses legislator eligibility,
d. the member is recalled by the Assembly through regular order.

2. Legislator Applications

(1) Any member of the Coalition is eligible to attain legislator status if
a. the Legislator Committee does not opine that they are seeking membership in bad faith,
b. they have a nation in the South Pacific,
c. are not attempting to join with multiple nations or identities, and
d. are not considered by the Council on Regional Security to be a significant risk to regional security.

(2) A member of the Coalition may attain legislator status through an application with the Legislative Committee. The Committee shall confirm the reception of an application within 48 hours. The Committee will determine the eligibility of the applicant, consulting any other institutions of the Coalition as needed to inform its decision, and shall strive to accept or deny each applicant within a week.

(3) An application for legislator status must include at least
a. the current nation in the South Pacific,
b. any colloquial aliases of the individual in use within the last year, or in prominent use longer than a year ago,
c. the current World Assembly nation of the individual (in case of a floating World Assembly membership, the applicant may list multiple nations such that World Assembly membership can be traced throughout the application process), and
d. a pledge to uphold the laws of the Coalition of the South Pacific.

(4) The Legislative Committee may request additional legitimation steps from applicants, such as requesting a telegram from a World Assembly. An applicant may choose to publicly withhold some information and only disclose it to the Council on Regional Security in case of reasonable concerns of confidentiality.

(5) Upon acceptance or denial of an application, the Legislative Committee shall post the result (including a sufficient reason in case of a denial) both in response to the application as well as per telegram to the applicant nation.

(6) Anyone admitted to legislator status during a forum election in which only legislators may vote, from the time nominations begin until the conclusion of forum voting, may not stand for election nor vote in that forum election.

3. Legislator Checks

(1) Continued legislator status requires active membership and good behaviour.

(2) Within the first week of each calendar month, the Legislator Committee will remove legislator status from a legislator if they failed the voting requirement in the past month, if applicable, or otherwise no longer meet the eligibility requirements as described herein. The Legislative Committee may exercise discretion and not remove legislators under reasonable extenuating circumstances.

(3) A legislator fails the voting requirement if they are absent for more than half of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, if a minimum of two votes occurred. Legislators who have an approved leave of absence from the Chair shall not be considered absent for votes in the given time frame.

(4) The Chair of the Assembly may order the Legislator Committee to suspend legislator privileges for disruptive members. Frequent suspensions may be grounds for ineligibility, if found appropriate in a fair trial by the High Court.

And the associated edits to Article IV the Charter:

Legislator Eligibility

5. All residents of the Coalition are eligible to attain legislator status through application with the Chair, predicated on the Chair ensuring they have a nation in the South Pacific, are not seeking membership in bad faith, are not attempting to obscure their identity, are not attempting to join with multiple nations, and the Council on Regional Security does not declare them a significant risk to regional security. Any legislator may publicly petition the Chair for or against a prospective legislator’s admission. Anyone admitted to legislator status during a forum election in which only legislators may vote, from the time nominations begin until the conclusion of forum voting, may not stand for election nor vote in that forum election.

6. Continued legislator status requires active membership and good behaviour. Within the first week of each calendar month, the Chair will remove legislator status from any person no longer maintaining a nation in The South Pacific, or absent for more than half of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, if a minimum of two votes occurred. The Chair may exercise their discretion and not remove legislators under reasonable extenuating circumstances. Legislators who have an approved leave of absence from the Chair shall not be considered absent. Additionally, the Chair may suspend privileges for disruptive members. Frequent suspensions may be grounds for ineligibility, if found appropriate in a fair trial by the High Court.

Legislator Eligibility

5. A standing commission of legislators will be tasked with granting and revoking legislator status. All residents of the Coalition are eligible to attain legislator status through application. Continued legislator status requires active membership and good behaviour.

Reply

On separate threads per application: This is also a good idea for several reasons. First, you could then push finished applications can be moved into an "archive" forum without clogging up the regular forum (you'd probably have a grace period, so something like 4 weeks -> archive).

Second, it means we can make a very easy to see and fully transparent application process. Let me demonstrate what this could look like:

Thread: Hi, I'm New Person!

Name: New Person
Nation: The Republic of New Person
I pledge to uphold the Charter and all that stuff!

Welcome! Your application has been received and we're working on it quickly. While you wait, you can already participate in the assembly, link here: <blah>

Step	Progress
Admin Check	OK
CRS Check	OK
Committee Check	OK

Last edited by CommiteeMember3 on 12/34 56:78. Edit Reason: Marked CRS check as OK on the table.

No problems admin-side.

Welcome, nice to see you on the forum! The CRS sees no issue.

The Committee approves too, which means you've been accepted. Welcome, Legislator! You can now access the private hall and vote and all that jazz.

Thanks, so excited to be here :3

Yay, a quick and transparent application process <3 <3 <3

Reply

:dodgy:  TFW someone is being more passive aggressive then you ever could be.

In other news, yes. I think we should do this. Once Glen clears the current thread, I think we move to that option — as long as the chair is supportive.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Yeah, I'd like to get Glen's opinion on this, but coming from a military background, I know that processing applications is easiest when they're all in separate threads, for the exact reasons Roavin mentioned.

Signed,

Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific
King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance
Citizen of The East Pacific

Former Positions:

Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA
Talon of Firehehlm
Munifiex of The Roman Empire

Reply

I don’t really think it’s realistic to expect real-time progress reports on applications (esp coordinated across 3 different groups), but I don’t have any problem with each application being posted in a new thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017, 11:45 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I don’t really think it’s realistic to expect real-time progress reports on applications (esp coordinated across 3 different groups), but I don’t have any problem with each application being posted in a new thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well maybe not with the table style, but there's no reason why the groups couldn't just post approvals there.

Reply

I don’t really think it’s realistic to expect real-time progress reports on applications (esp coordinated across 3 different groups), but I don’t have any problem with each application being posted in a new thread.

I don't think real-time progress reports are even necessary, as they're far more hassle than they're worth. Progress reports, however, even if they don't give a specific answer, are absolutely required.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

Reply