Every LC election seems to bring up whether LC should be disbanded or not. Some of those who are active on RMB or held/holding the LC Position seems to strongly disagree with the notion of it, claiming the LC is already working on improving their game-side governance. A term passes, and nothing changes, only for the debate pop up again, and the same arguments popping against abolishing LC in its current form.

The Assembly declaring its intent to consider amending the charter offers nothing. It is not like the LC have hundred members that are unaware of the 'abolish LC - don't abolish the LC' debate that pops up every four months. And the LC has done near to nothing to change the perception of why they should not be abolished. 

With all that in mind, I don't see why this resolution is better than what for example philipmacaroni offered when he proposed Amendments for the Abolition of the Local Council Act. 

Further, the Assembly should not be able to abolish the Local Council on its own without the consent of the residents of the region, per Charter, Title 3, Section (5). I would very much rather see the Cabinet running a regional poll for WA natives to see whether they want to see a. No change, b. LC abolished, apolitical moderation team, c) Option B, but with Ministry for RMB Affairs, d) whatever else people can come up with.

It would allow this Assembly to see what the residents think of/want, and take actual action from thereon.

(03-31-2022, 05:59 PM)LFP Wrote: Further, the Assembly should not be able to abolish the Local Council on its own without the consent of the residents of the region, per Charter, Title 3, Section (5).

I don't see where anyone implied otherwise?

(03-31-2022, 05:59 PM)LFP Wrote: I would very much rather see the Cabinet running a regional poll for WA natives to see whether they want to see a. No change, b. LC abolished, apolitical moderation team, c) Option B, but with Ministry for RMB Affairs, d) whatever else people can come up with.

I think Glen said this at some point, but it's naive to think that people won't always vote for the option that lets them keep power, even if they do absolutely nothing with it. In that sense, I don't really see much value in a poll.

(On that note, I don't see value in a Ministry of Gameside/RMB Affairs either. Anything that would be done by it could also be done by existing ministries. I know some have said that this would make no sense because ministerial staff doesn't know the RMB, but I think this is a silly argument because:

1. So far the government has been operating under the assumption that the LC is the primary institution in charge of the gameside, so there is little incentive to get to know it.
2. It presumes that ministerial staff can't even get to know the gameside.
3. It presumes that either ministries won't recruit from the gameside or that gamesiders won't join ministries. In the latter case, then I would wonder why even have gameside governance in the first place.)

(03-31-2022, 06:20 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

Quote:Further, the Assembly should not be able to abolish the Local Council on its own without the consent of the residents of the region, per Charter, Title 3, Section (5).

I don't see where anyone implied otherwise?

It was both a preamble for the very next sentence and a reason why we should consider a poll in the region to gauge what the gameside wants. 

Yes, the people may vote for the option that keeps them in power. And if that happens, and if the region votes against abolishing the Local Council, we would at least know that whatever we pass, the gameside won't approve it for it to take effect. 
 

(03-31-2022, 06:20 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: (On that note, I don't see value in a Ministry of Gameside/RMB Affairs either. Anything that would be done by it could also be done by existing ministries. I know some have said that this would make no sense because ministerial staff doesn't know the RMB, but I think this is a silly argument because:

They were just some throwaway options, but I have no feelings for or against a Ministry for Gameside/RMB/etc. Options could be worded better if there is to be a poll in the region.

(04-02-2022, 08:45 PM)LFP Wrote: Yes, the people may vote for the option that keeps them in power. And if that happens, and if the region votes against abolishing the Local Council, we would at least know that whatever we pass, the gameside won't approve it for it to take effect. 

I don't agree with that reasoning. Of course people will vote to keep the power they have. That's just human nature. The idea should be to have a specific alternative in place, present it to the gameside, make a compelling case for it, and let them vote based on that additional information.

(04-02-2022, 09:36 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

Quote:Yes, the people may vote for the option that keeps them in power. And if that happens, and if the region votes against abolishing the Local Council, we would at least know that whatever we pass, the gameside won't approve it for it to take effect. 

I don't agree with that reasoning. Of course people will vote to keep the power they have. That's just human nature. The idea should be to have a specific alternative in place, present it to the gameside, make a compelling case for it, and let them vote based on that additional information.

Than the Assembly should establish specific alternatives for abolishing the Local Council, some of which already discussed both on different thread and on Discord, and bring a rough outline for a regional poll. Because offering just two option (first option being whatever the Assembly decides, with the other one being status quo) is antithetical to our democratic principles where the forum-side would be ruling top down like a colonial government. 

We already have several rough ideas out there. The Assembly should hear what the RMB says before moving onto any legislative measure.

I don't see the equivalency. Gameside is an integral part of the region and the Assembly is the supreme legislative body in the region. It isn't a colonial government any more than a national legislature is by passing laws that apply to regions with devolved governments.

(04-02-2022, 09:56 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I don't see the equivalency. Gameside is an integral part of the region and the Assembly is the supreme legislative body in the region. It isn't a colonial government any more than a national legislature is by passing laws that apply to regions with devolved governments.

It is a national legislature that is trying to disband the devolved government, not passing laws that effect it. And worse, the national legislature is doing so without any feedback from the devolved government. Refusing to involve the game-side in these discussions through at the very least regional polling makes no sense. 

And the Charter clearly imposes restrictions to the Assembly and the Local Council via not allowing either side to pass laws that effect the opposite without the consent of the other. It can not be the supreme legislative body of the 'region' if it requires consent of the game-side on matters that effects the game-side. And to impose the will of the forum-side on the game-side without their input is indeed more colonial than national-devolved governments argument you make.

I'm not entirely sure how we are going to "impose the will of the forum-side on the game-side without their input" (as much as I strenuously believe those terms are misnomers) when, as you note, "the Charter clearly imposes restrictions to the Assembly and the Local Council via not allowing either side to pass laws that effect the opposite without the consent of the other."

(04-03-2022, 11:48 AM)Pronoun Wrote: I'm not entirely sure how we are going to "impose the will of the forum-side on the game-side without their input" (as much as I strenuously believe those terms are misnomers) when, as you note, "the Charter clearly imposes restrictions to the Assembly and the Local Council via not allowing either side to pass laws that effect the opposite without the consent of the other."

My argument is that the RMB should be involved in the discussion on how best to proceed with restructuring our current Local Council system, and that there isn't a reason why the Assembly should unilaterally work on a legislative solution without RMBs input. 

That can be achieved via regional polling, using Google Forms, or any other medium. 

But to legislate with such a disconnect from RMB, and to put that Act before the RMB for them to vote 'aye' or 'nay' with no other sensible options available for differing opinions -- I don't believe that is the right way to go about doing this.

I think we need to refocus a bit… the point of this thread is to draft a resolution that acknowledges that there is a problem with the LC in its current form, and gives the LC a chance to address the problems over the next four months.

IF they can’t come up with a solution, the resolution states we (the Assembly) intend to fix it. No one in this thread is advocating for removing the LC at this very moment.

It seems silly that we are insisting on getting the RMB’s involvement for the resolution, when the RMB/LC will get four whole months to do it first shortly after passage.