| [PASSED] Amendment to the Political Parties Act |
|
Why should each individual party, some with so few members each, deserve a top-level subforum to themselves while all the Ministries, arguably the most important functional part of the region, are stuck under just one subforum? That's ridiculous.
People don't join parties because they see them on the front page of the forum, they join them because they're looking around for an appropriate party. In some sense, grouping them all together under one subforum helps with finding them. Top-level forums are prime space - beyond that they appear at first glance, they functionally allow quick skimming of the most recent topics in each subforum. Because of that, a subforum with lots of activity should really be at the top level and not clumped in with others, because otherwise it can obscure the other forums in its group. A subforum with a post every month is completely useless on the top level because it provides no new information to someone checking the most recent posts to see what's up. ![[Image: AfI6yZX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/AfI6yZX.png){kind=small} ~ Aumeltopia ~
While I do not speak in any way for the APC I will say the forums do provide functionality to the APC that discord does not easily provide. First off I'm not sure why Glen is saying APCRC internal elections don't count as that is something that is simply easier to do on the forums. Second off the forums provide a platform where changes to our platform or charter can be easily drafted and debated so I would argue, at least for the APC there is functionality to the forum. In my opinion, as it is a tool given to parties, this bill would not change that fundamental concept of it being a tool for organization. The APC has, in my experience, not seen our forum as a status symbol as our status comes from what we do, not if we have a top-level subforum. That's just my two cents anyways, take that as you will.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 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
On Somyrion's point, I feel like smaller parties deserve a chance. Giving just the biggest ones their own subforum is almost like what we do in two-party democracies in irl.
That being said, Somyrion mentioned that it isn't fair to do this and keep all the ministries under one subforum. I think we should create a subforum for all political parties and then put each party beneath that. ![[Image: W9Gx775.png?2]](https://i.imgur.com/W9Gx775.png?2) Wintreath Thane of Diplomatic Officers Fmr. Local Councillor (9/9/15 - c. 10/15) Discord:Katie#3933
So long as parties get their own subforums, and they are all equal, I don't particularly mind where it's at.
-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
To Glen's point, I just don't see why political parties should get this hyper special treatment. Surely, if they are well run, they can survive without taking up valuable index space.
@Rikutso: We already have such a space; it's called the Political Organisation Centre. Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 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
I actually have SP Street folded down since I haven't had an interest in joining a political party, so didn't even realize that it took up any space. After a couple days in the forums people find the parts they like and enjoy and fold down the rest, so I don't think it's a big deal how things are, but I really don't feel strongly about it at all: if the folks interested in that part of the forums want a change then that's cool with me.
Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services
I didn't even know you could fold things down.
Anyway, I'll echo Somy's thoughts. It really doesn't make sense to give parties prime space while ministries are all in one sub-forum. Moreover, those parties which are active and actually use their space won't really be affected by this change, and while it might perhaps hurt less active parties that need advertising – well, if they need prime forum space to stay alive, they probably don't deserve to be around. Marius Rahl Fortitudine Vincimus!
(01-24-2018, 10:23 PM)Somyrion Wrote: Why should each individual party, some with so few members each, deserve a top-level subforum to themselves while all the Ministries, arguably the most important functional part of the region, are stuck under just one subforum? That's ridiculous. Because Cabinet ministries weren’t accused of treason for voluntarily making their own third party forums so that we wouldn’t have these debates, and then basically forced to have these sub forums if they wanted a forum at all. We could easily move ministry forums back to the index, if you’d prefer. Frankly, the Assembly can’t on the one hand force political parties to use limited subforums (and all but legally prohibit them creating their own private forums), and then on the other renege on the deal by pushing them off the index. The law specified top-level forums precisely to discourage the creation of third party forums. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(01-25-2018, 12:51 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Frankly, the Assembly can’t on the one hand force political parties to use limited subforums (and all but legally prohibit them creating their own private forums), and then on the other renege on the deal by pushing them off the index. The law specified top-level forums precisely to discourage the creation of third party forums. That's rather misleading though. The deal was that parties should use forum resources, not that they should get index privileges. Sure, the Political Parties Act says it, but that's not really what the deal was about. And even if that were so, circumstances change, and it makes sense to adapt to them. It may have made sense to have party forums on the index when it was just APC and TIL, but we can't realistically be listing all parties on the index. What happens when there's more than now? 6 maybe? Will they each take up index space? We should move them to the Civil and Political Organisation Centre, and let each party be responsible for growing its base. Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 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 |
![[Image: fKnK6O4.png]](https://i.imgur.com/fKnK6O4.png){kind=small}
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |