[DRAFT] Amendment to Article 3 of the Elections Act |
Sorry, could we use forward slash instead of backslash?
(07-18-2018, 10:02 PM)siames Wrote:(07-18-2018, 08:40 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: “Non-justiciable” does not mean “non-enforceable.” It means the court either doesn’t have jurisdiction, can’t usurp the judgement of the Cabinet/CRS/LegComm/etc, or it’s a political question that can’t be answered by judicial interpretation. I’m aware of what a COI form is. They aren’t actually all that informative. A list of regions doesn’t really do anything to inform voters of the actual conflicts that could arise, nor does it explain the severity of those conflicts and how they would be prevented or resolved. I would venture to guess that 9 out of 10 voters aren’t familiar enough with NS Gameplay history to understand, just by looking at a disclosure list, which regions should even raise red flags. We have a lot of new players, roleplayers, and TSPers who just don’t have an interest in that stuff. So while requiring COI forms is a good idea, it doesn’t actually increase information for many TSPers in a meaningful way. It’s just a data dump that only a handful of players would be able understand the entirety of without further explanation. I would find it incredibly worrying for our Delegate to have significant conflicts, particularly if they’re in power across various Gameplay regions. I would still find it worrying even if they won with 80% of the vote. An election should not be our sole check on conflicts of interests. An election doesn’t make anything okay— voters are not infallible, we have plenty of real-world evidence of that. Our laws should do the work of protecting the region, first and foremost. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (07-19-2018, 01:34 AM)Awe Wrote: Sorry, could we use forward slash instead of backslash? Yepsies (I would also love to know the difference or explanation of it) (07-18-2018, 10:31 PM)Escade Wrote: Amendment to Article 3 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
(07-19-2018, 05:25 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I’m aware of what a COI form is. They aren’t actually all that informative. A list of regions doesn’t really do anything to inform voters of the actual conflicts that could arise, nor does it explain the severity of those conflicts and how they would be prevented or resolved. I would venture to guess that 9 out of 10 voters aren’t familiar enough with NS Gameplay history to understand, just by looking at a disclosure list, which regions should even raise red flags. We have a lot of new players, roleplayers, and TSPers who just don’t have an interest in that stuff. So while requiring COI forms is a good idea, it doesn’t actually increase information for many TSPers in a meaningful way. It’s just a data dump that only a handful of players would be able understand the entirety of without further explanation. You're not wrong, but those handful of players will (hopefully!) call out those red flags in the debate thread. (07-20-2018, 12:30 AM)Escade Wrote:(07-18-2018, 10:31 PM)Escade Wrote: Amendment to Article 3 I think the language is fine, but there are a few loopholes/issues:
“Calling out red flags” is not a valid constitutional insurance policy. You know intimately how well merely calling something out works.
I’m also confused as to why y’all keep saying things are unenforceable. This stuff is not hard to wrap your mind around. “Unenforceable” is not synonymous with “I think this goes too far.” (07-18-2018, 10:31 PM)Escade Wrote: Amendment to Article 3 I disagree about founder because for example BT founded a region that isn't doing any FA or anything like that but is focused solely on this Western roleplay immersion. His role as founder doesn't give him any clout or power beyond the region itself. If the region did develop a functioning government and then all the associated workings that would be different. Then founder comes in at least two types (the first disappears or is no longer active in the region so numerous such examples) and the second is active and has some level of control (maybe let's say like Augustine). Added a bit to address points of time and also points of pursuing a position afterwards. 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
Motion to Vote?
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
(07-27-2018, 01:02 AM)Escade Wrote: Motion to Vote? I second the motion. The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe. Complete Conflict of Interest
Still opposed as it still continues to block founders.
You could make a very reasonable argument that any Founder position is a "position of influence", even if it's of an RP region, or some po-dunk puppet dump, or whatever. Given the mental gymnastics that some TSPers tend to do at times regarding what constitutes certain things and what doesn't, not to mention that I'm not even sure how you could effectively enforce and define "position of influence" in a way that doesn't by-default include Founder, or even RO simply protecting a founderless region. By failing to offer protection for the ownership of stuff such as trophy regions, RP regions, jump points, small GP-uninvolved hangout spots, etc, this law is basically disenfranchising a fuckton of people, including those who own stuff such as SPSF trophies (which are technically outside of The South Pacific, by game definition).
I understand your concerns and feel that we discussed this to some degree.
Founders are not inherently political, and I think that could be handled on a case by case basis by a judge. For example, founder of a region where the founder is not involved in FA or other decisions or founder of a region where there is no FA or founder of a region where the government makes all such decisions. I'm not sure how I would refine "position of influence" any further? Or I suppose we can offer a definition? 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 |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |