| [PASSED] Amendment to the Political Parties Act |
Given that the goal is to take parties off the index and ensure they’re *still* treated all equally, the second option makes the most sense. There can only be so many subforums listed under the Civic forum on the index, so doing that will give certain parties a lot more visibility than others. It’s not really equal to be hidden by “and X others” while other parties still get a link on the index.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why should parties get preferential treatment? I mean, if parties get these visibility privileges, why not do the same for the ministries? Or for the various sections of Treasure Island? Parties are important civil associations, but they are not a be all end all that needs this kind of special treatment.
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
If you have them directly under the Civic forum, some parties will be getting preferential treatment. It will look like this on the index for example:
-> Civic and Political Center —>Alliance for the Preservation of the Coalition, The Island League, Southern Progress Party, and 2 others. -> Embassy Row Vs having them all under a “Political Parties” category underneath the Civic forum: -> Civic and Political Center —> Political Parties -> Embassy Row There’s also the possibility of simply disabled subforum displays altogether on the index, so that they could be placed under the Civic forum but not linked to. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's not really preferential treatment though, that's just equal treatment to other areas of the forum. Parties are getting a guarantee of forum space, not of fully equal treatment in all respects. It's on them to ensure they make the most of the space they have, just like each ministry and each RP organisation does.
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’m not sure how that *not* unequal. Older parties get the benefit of appearing on the index. Equal treatment has been mentioned many times in this thread.
If we have a choice between a setup that advantages some parties over others, and one that doesn’t, isn’t it prudent of us to choose the one that doesn’t? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On that basis I would prefer a political parties subforum within CPOC.
Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
Why does it have to be a matter of advantage though? It's not the death of a party if it doesn't get listed on the index, just as it isn't the death of a ministry if it doesn't appear on the index. I keep saying this, the guarantee is for them to have forum space. How they use that space is up to them and their members. It's not the job of the Assembly to ensure they get all the advertising possible, that's each party's job.
As things stand, what we are proposing is: The Civil and Political Organisation Centre: meant to house civil organisations and political parties (which it has done for over 4 years now). A political parties subforum: meant to house political party threads? Except we already have that in the CPOC! Individual party subforums: meant to house the discussions of each party. This creates unnecessary duplication, and will likely result in empty space. We should just follow the example of the NS Discussion Centre, which simply lets newspapers have space that is their to use or misuse, rather than try to make subforums upon subforums to enforce some notion of equality. 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
When writing the additional clauses, I was thinking it to be its own subforum. However, I'm perfectly fine with housing our Political Parties in CPOC and would be okay leaving that particular point up to Administrative Discretion unless they want us to be more specific in the language.
(01-26-2018, 03:18 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Why does it have to be a matter of advantage though? Because those advantages are real, and we're talking about the exercise of political speech & association. Ministries have power no matter what. New political parties will eventually be on an unequal footing starting out, so we really should do something to prevent that. Like I said before, it's possible to do the first option I posted and just disable subforum display for the CPOC forum. (01-26-2018, 06:27 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:(01-25-2018, 06:55 PM)Drall Wrote: Given Glen's obvious disapproval to this, I think we should alter this amendment so that the admin team is required to locate all political parties under a subforum. Otherwise, we aren't forcing the admin team to do anything – and since Glen is very clearly a biased member of that same team this seems like a necessary requirement to this amendment. Oooh, look! Another classic response from Glen with very little substance whatsoever! To be fair, you do have a couple points in there – but then again they're buried under a load of insults and rhetorical tricks. How nice. So anyone who disagrees with you is Imki? Cool, guess I'm good with graphics now. Despite all of your claims that I'm sticking it to the man, you respond to me, rather than those who actually proposed the amendment. Sounds like somebody's after the man. Just so you know, the APCRC wholly supports this amendment, with a 4-0 vote in its favor. Public opinion in the party is also largely in favor. That includes people who've been with the APC since it's inception, and they fully support this amendment. Sure looks like we've considered this and the effects it may have. Who would've guessed expressing one's opinion would be considered trolling? Well, I guess if that opinion is in opposition to yours, anything goes. Marius Rahl Fortitudine Vincimus! |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
translate
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |