+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: South Pacific International Airport (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-99.html)
+----- Forum: Treasure Island (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-82.html)
+------ Forum: Southern Cooperation Organisation (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-158.html)
+------ Thread: [OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation (/thread-1520.html)
[OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - ProfessorHenn - 02-22-2016
(02-22-2016, 08:29 AM)rhinotaz Wrote: Can Noctenos get edited into the observer list? Been a while since we were admitted as such.
You'd have to file an application for observer status.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: [OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - rhinotaz - 02-22-2016
Already did so and already got accepted. :\
http://tspforums.xyz/thread-1476-post-76082.html#pid76082
http://tspforums.xyz/thread-1476-post-79132.html#pid79132
RE: [OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - Kris Kringle - 02-22-2016
No, we hate Noctenos. >_>
RE: [OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - Qwert - 02-22-2016
(02-21-2016, 09:05 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: We need to elect a Council President and look at the SecGen situation. I'm fine with OOCly continuing to serve, but ICly I'm sure the members should elect the SecGen as mandated by the Charter.
I'm not particularly interested in handling the bureaucracy. If you want to continue, I'm fine with letting you roleplay as a Sedunner or someone from another nation who is elected
(02-21-2016, 09:05 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: There are, but we don't have an IC reason to expel them. How would that work, if at all?
There is no harm in keeping them there I guess, but we could, like Cathalea said, claim "inactivity with regards to SCO obligations".
RE: [OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - Kris Kringle - 02-22-2016
The only possible harm I would see is for two-thirds votes. It's not clear whether that is for all members or for all voting members. If we have too many inactive members, passing amendments or admitting new members could become difficult.
[OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - ProfessorHenn - 02-22-2016
Aye. They have been too lax in their SCO obligations, and following a request for a return to them (make it now so we have a reason to remove them before a vote), they'll be removed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: [OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - Qwert - 02-22-2016
(02-22-2016, 11:59 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: The only possible harm I would see is for two-thirds votes. It's not clear whether that is for all members or for all voting members. If we have too many inactive members, passing amendments or admitting new members could become difficult.
Ah. Yes. Spontaneously I would have interpreted it as "2/3 of the votes cast".
RE: [OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - Kris Kringle - 02-22-2016
I mean, I interpret it that way too. But you could realistically make a case for the other interpretation too, and that would cause problems. There is also the fact that it wouldn't be ideal to have the SCO be mostly composed of inactive members, right?
In fact, while we're at it, we probably should pass the Council rules, to clarify all that stuff and be sure of what our debating and passage standards are.
RE: [OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - Kris Kringle - 02-24-2016
Regarding the election of a SecGen and Council President, I think the Charter says we can submit one nominee each. I think leaving Bazzoli right where he is would be fine (for now). He could administer the vote to elect a Council President, which I think is more immediately urgent. Thoughts?
[OOC] Southern Cooperation Organisation - Resentine - 02-24-2016
Good enough for me.