As per my campaign for Chair, I plan to regularly have group review sessions focusing on various sections of the Charter and Code of Laws to try to improve these. The first of these is focused on Article 10 of the Charter: Forum and Forum Administration. With the current issues we are having with x10, it is probably a good time to look at this section, especially with talk of switching hosts.

The current version of Article 10 is as follows:

---

Article 10: Forum and Forum Administration


1. The Coalition's official Regional Forum is located at http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/index.php.
2. Should the Regional Forum cease to exist or otherwise become permanently unavailable then the Cabinet is authorized to establish a replacement Regional Forum.
3. Barring circumstances outlined in Section 2 the Assembly reserves the sole right to authorize the creation of a new Regional Forum.
4. The Regional Forum is administrated by the Admin Team and moderated by the Moderation Team.
5. The Admin Team must create both Administrative Procedures and Moderation Policies and present them to the Assembly for discussion and feedback.
6. Any proposed alterations to the Administrative Procedures or Moderation Policies may not be implemented until a minimum of seven days after such presentation.
7. The Moderation Team will be responsible for enforcing the Moderation Policies.

---

As part of this review I would like everyone to consider each clause in depth. The following questions may give you a starting point of some things you may want to consider:

• Does each clause make sense? Is it really necessary to be included?
  
• If XXX situation happens, is this covered sufficiently with this Article? If not, do we need to add a clause?
  
• Does a clause contradict with another part of the Charter/Code? How can this be remedied?
  
• Does a clause need clarification due to being too vague or ambiguous? Can the clause be simplified and have the same intent?
  

I do expect there to be disagreements between people in these threads, which is fine, but keep it civil. I won't hesitate to delete posts if you get too far out of line - there is no need to do so (as has happened often previously).

Remember the purpose of these reviews is to improve the legislation for the good of everyone, not just to get your own way at any cost. The aim of this review is to create an improved version of this Article, a version which has a reasonable level of consensus, and which stands a good chance of passing a vote at the end. 

Feel free to add anything to the discussion, no matter how minor you think it may be. Too often in the past legislation has been dominated by 1 or 2 individuals. We should get a much better result with a collaborative effort, so any contribution, no matter how minor is appreciated. 

Just as a side note with this particular Article: this review is NOT for determining if we stay with the current site or relocate elsewhere. Do not try to argue that here, we have another thread already on this, and I will move any posts on that to the thread HERE.

I will add my thoughts a bit later btw, didn't want to make the original post any longer.

Frankly, I don't see anything until clear about this.

However, it might be a bit limited in light of currently events.

I believe the administration should be in a rotation of several people that are highly trusted in the community.

They also shouldn't have the capacity to create a new forum or move hosts without approval from the assembly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for starting the discussion on this, Aram.

I disagree with Henn. The administration team, as is, comprises of the most trustworthy people in TSP. I see no reason to change that.

(04-08-2015, 02:47 PM)TAC Wrote: I disagree with Henn. The administration team, as is, comprises of the most trustworthy people in TSP. I see no reason to change that.

To prevent them from going mad with power and possibly trying to use their administrative powers for their own benefit.

Power can corrupt anyone, given enough time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-08-2015, 02:47 PM)TAC Wrote: I disagree with Henn. The administration team, as is, comprises of the most trustworthy people in TSP. I see no reason to change that.

Seconding this.

In terms of the charter itself, on first glance it seems fine. We've had discussions about whether or not to have the URL in the charter. Will look at it again later and see if something comes up but otherwise it seems fine.

(04-08-2015, 02:49 PM)ProfessorHenn Wrote:

(04-08-2015, 02:47 PM)TAC Wrote: I disagree with Henn. The administration team, as is, comprises of the most trustworthy people in TSP. I see no reason to change that.

To prevent them from going mad with power and possibly trying to use their administrative powers for their own benefit.

Power can corrupt anyone, given enough time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Considering Tsu has tolerated TSP's drama for over a decade and hasn't lost his sanity, I think that rules him out.

Despite the criticism GR faces on almost a daily basis, both personal and professional, he hasn't went rogue like Stujenske, I think that rules him out.

Kris is the last person to abuse his power in any capacity, so that rules him out too.

Brutland and Norden.

Me, even.

Milograd.

QuietDad.

Hobbes.

There's a lot of impartial people, and I know I am not too involved in the daily proceedings of the assembly or the court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk