I hope that doesn't happen either

Well it won't if we don't give somebody the power to do it...

(09-16-2015, 12:48 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:

(09-16-2015, 12:23 PM)FederationOfTheRK Wrote: So, it's just a formality that essentially changes nothing from what we do normally? Except slightly less organized?

The purpose of a Great Council is to bypass the traditional systems, in order to introduce and consider major changes to the way the region works. Think of it as a constitutional convention. Rather than propose a bunch of amendments to existing laws, you have the opportunity to do something entirely new from the ground up. While these things could be done through the normal Assembly process, the other purpose of a Great Council is to provide an environment where new and bold ideas are strongly encouraged, rather than people thinking they have to stick to the existing framework of our Charter and laws.

@Awe: What I don't want happening is for the Delegate or Chair to feel that they're in charge of anything. Because they aren't. It's a citizen initiative. What I can see happening is that the Delegate or Chair gets fed up with debate and decides to end the GC on their own volition, because they've been given that power for whatever reason.

GR -- your argument is patently ridiculous. There needs to be someone who's job it is to pull the proposals together and get the proposals up for the vote. That doesn't just happen.

ACTUALLY: To extend this point, Unibot was a moderator of the last Great Council and worked to try and find application solutions and pull people together. Without someone in charge, we're going to get competing legislation and contradictory results.

I think there clearly is a difference between someone stepping up to find common solutions (which is good) and someone imposing the agenda, and deciding when discussion is not needed anymore. Glen is opposing the latter.

(09-16-2015, 08:43 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I think there clearly is a difference between someone stepping up to find common solutions (which is good) and someone imposing the agenda, and deciding when discussion is not needed anymore. Glen is opposing the latter.

But again ... this doesn't just arise. People set up these things — and often set up a schedule.

For example, check the previous Great Council that I called, the 2012 Great Council where Hile ran and dictated the schedule, the 2007 Great Council where CR called and dictated a schedule, and even the original Great Council where CR and Fudge asked for suggestions and set the schedule.

Now, I realize we like to make up history, but I've just showed examples from the past decade where were had someone from the government call and dictate how the Great Council will be run — and when it would end.

Let me be clear:
I don't care if you think this is inappropriate.
Nor do I particularly care if you think it would be run better in a different fashion.
What I care about is the revision of history that has become clear in arguments as of late.

When GR is arguing that "GCs aren't supposed to be controlled by anyone in government" — that is patently untrue.

The original Great Council was set up by the government to stymie criticism. There was no intent to make it a free for all.

As such, if you want the Great Council to be a free for all — argue for that. However, you don't get to make that argument with some vague "This is how it's always been" statement, when that's not true.

Links:

2012 Great Council — http://s2.zetaboards.com/theSPacific/topic/954011/1/
2007 Great Council — http://s2.zetaboards.com/theSPacific/topic/950844/1/

I don't see the point in another GC currently.

Since I was the one who revived the Great Council when I was Delegate, I can assure you that the Government was indeed very involved in the progression of the Great Council. It wasn't a free for all in the sense that nobody was in charge. The Delegate and Chair led the discussions. Topics were open and you could discuss whatever you wanted.

I'm in support of a Great Council and support the idea of having it guided with discussions and topics left open for everyone to decide.

Had a longer post here, but I don't really feel like arguing over inconsequential BS. It doesn't matter how past GCs were held.

Nobody should have the power to unilaterally end a GC, because you know they're going to the moment they don't feel like things are going their way or they're annoyed debate is going on too long. There's no point to a GC if it's not a fully open and citizen-directed process.

Then how about something like this:

Great Council Act of 2015

1. In accordance with Article 11.2 of the Charter, a Great Council has been called.
2. The Great Council will begin in the first week of October 2015 and will continue until deemed complete by the Delegate or Chair of the Assembly. all discussions have concluded in accordance with the following:
a)All proposals have either been motioned to table with a second or motioned to vote with a second. Both the act of putting forward a motion to vote/table or a second cannot come from the Chair of the Assembly or the Delegate.
b)All voting has concluded.
c)All threads have been closed in compliance with Section 3 of this act.
3. If there has been no response to a discussion in three days (or 72 hours), the thread will be automatically closed.
4. The Delegate and the Chair of the Assembly will be responsible for the mediation of  debates and honoring voting and tabling motions.
5. All special elections, ongoing or otherwise, are to be suspended until the end of the Great Council, unless said position ceases to exist.
6. Should the need to fill a vacant position arise, the Cabinet may appoint a replacement to serve until the completion of the Great Council, without Assembly approval.
7. Should no cabinet member remain the highest individual in the line of Succession will become Acting Delegate, and will be granted the powers given in Article 4 of this resolution.

It's a start at least. It kinda fixes the problems Glen brings up, but with some items that make it so the GC doesn't go on forever.
I put this up in hopes of some kind of middle ground. To at least try to figure out a compromise.
Just an idea I'm throwing out there. Comments/Criticisms of course are all welcome.

Edit: adding on a c) to Sec.2 to avoid a potential misinterpretation on the closure of a GC.