| [PASSED] Amendment to the Political Parties Act |
Quote:3. Benefits to Active Political PartiesChanges include: - removing the requirement for top-level subforums to lessen the crowdedness of the forum's front page - specifying that all subforums must be equal (was already enforced by them being top level. With that removed, we should still ensure equality) - a couple grammar tweaks that I can't believe I didn't see before + Tim and Griffin's suggestions
Looks fine to me, as such as soon as debate time on this bill expires I move that the Chair immediately bring it to a vote.
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
(01-22-2018, 04:48 PM)nakari Wrote:Quote:3. Benefits to Active Political Parties-snip- I took the liberty of adding a small amendment to the draft. It is simply a holdover from my attempt to reform it a couple of months ago. This way, we can always see current members, in an easily accessible spot. Also, do we want to address what Glen pointed out about the number of forum membership party members required? -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
I like this addition.
I think having some subforums that have few active members wouldn't be as much of a problem if they aren't on the front page, so I'm not sure if that's necessary to add. However, if we did, what would be a good threshold? I'm thinking either three members or over half the members.
It seems somewhat hard to quantify the number of active members any given party has without having an impartial observer in all party threads and discord channels, which presents its own problem.
Marius Rahl Fortitudine Vincimus!
Ideally, it would measure by number of party members who have forum accounts.
Treating parties differently based on how large they are doesn't seem very fair. I also agree with something Tsu said on Discord, that forums off the index aren't really seen and thus suffer in usage.
My honest opinion: some TSPers freaked out over TIL's private off-site forums and decided that all political party forums should be here. We have to live with that, now, even if the index gets bloated with a bunch of parties that only have 4 members each. It doesn't make sense to me that we've made a cultural taboo that forces parties to get subforums here, but now we might be trying to decrease the visibility of those forums.
Quite frankly if a party's membership is active the members will go to the sub forum no matter where it is. If a party is good at recruitment it shouldn't need to have its subfoum top level. The way I see it, a healthy party should be just fine under the proposed changes.
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
I'd argue that having such a bloated subforum makes people less likely to pay attention to the individual forums anyway
 You pointed out yourself that it's a little redundant to have a whole subforum for only two forum members. While I'm not keen on treating subforum applications differently based on forum membership, I think that it may be necessary unless we start putting the subforums in slightly less visible places. Four parties already take up more room on the front page than the entire Assembly and every roleplay forum put together. ETA: Plus, this doesn't enforce subforums being moved. It simply enables it. If this passes, admins can still keep the party forums top-level, but have the freedom to remove them from the top level if the bloat becomes too much.
(01-24-2018, 06:58 PM)Omega Wrote: Quite frankly if a party's membership is active the members will go to the sub forum no matter where it is. If a party is good at recruitment it shouldn't need to have its subfoum top level. The way I see it, a healthy party should be just fine under the proposed changes. Let's see how APC likes it when their forums are effectively hidden from the index *shrugs* Party subforums are status symbols at best. They're barely used for any real organizing, and APCRC internal elections don't count. If the admins decided last week to take them off the index, there would've been a ton of complaints. If APC's forums get pushed below the fold, I can easily see the Assembly pushing a bill exempting parties based on their size. Because again, they're status symbols more than they're actually organizing platforms. I was never a fan of the Political Parties Act or the McCarthyism that brought it about. I wrote it to stave off something worse. That being said, if we're going to all but force parties to have forums here, then hiding them under the fold isn't a great idea. It's kinda sending mixed signals-- we want party forums here on TSP's forum, but don't want to see them? My comment about this new party, the Island Democratic Party, was that half the members weren't even forum users. It's an RMB party. That they even requested a subforum goes to show that it's all just a status symbol. And as long as subforums are treated as status symbols, it's not really fair imo to push them further down just because more people want them. I have no clue what Tsu or Kris has to say on this topic. But I don't think I'll be supporting throwing parties under the fold. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |