Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - Printable Version +- 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: Great Councils (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-234.html) +----- Forum: 2022 Great Council (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-588.html) +----- Thread: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants (/thread-10791.html) |
Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - sandaoguo - 08-27-2022 In our first vote, a quarter of participants failed to vote. They should be removed from the Great Council, as this is a body meant to be a vehicle for active debate and consideration of constitutional changes. Inactive participants are not upholding their duties. After each vote, those who failed to cast a vote should be removed from the participant roster. I bring to the floor the following amendment to our rules of order: Quote:3. Mandates that legislators of the Assembly holding valid status at the time this resolution is motioned to vote shall automatically qualify for participation in the Great Council, and that all participants must maintain order and decorum and actively participate in all proceedings. RE: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - Kris Kringle - 08-27-2022 Um…I take it this would also force the Chair to cast a non-abstention vote? RE: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - sandaoguo - 08-27-2022 (08-27-2022, 11:56 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Um…I take it this would also force the Chair to cast a non-abstention vote? Not sure where you’re seeing that. RE: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - Kris Kringle - 08-27-2022 Oh, my bad. I'd initially misread that as requiring the Chair to remove anyone who either failed to vote or abstained. If we're changing the rules, could we consider also allowing legislators to register? Right now only non-legislators can do that, which would prevent anyone who did become a legislator after May 31 from participating. RE: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - sandaoguo - 08-27-2022 The intent of “locking in” a date of eligibility was to prevent tourists from rushing in. I’d expect more subjectivity and overt judgment from the Chair if it open up registration any more than it is, rather than just letting anyone in after a cursory check of their status. Not against it, but also I wouldn’t want to bog this proposal down with debate about it tbh RE: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - Kris Kringle - 08-27-2022 (08-27-2022, 03:15 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: The intent of “locking in” a date of eligibility was to prevent tourists from rushing in. I’d expect more subjectivity and overt judgment from the Chair if it open up registration any more than it is, rather than just letting anyone in after a cursory check of their status. Not against it, but also I wouldn’t want to bog this proposal down with debate about it tbh I suppose I'm not sure I see why we'd let non-legislators register but not legislators. Surely both should have a chance, subject to Chair review? RE: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - sandaoguo - 08-27-2022 Because we were forced to allow non-legislators to register to win over the support of certain people who aren't even participating, unfortunately. RE: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - HumanSanity - 08-30-2022 Why can't we set it to "must participate in debate" instead? Frankly, that's a far better bar for how active someone is in the Great Council than voting participation. RE: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - maluhia - 08-30-2022 (08-30-2022, 02:16 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: Why can't we set it to "must participate in debate" instead? Frankly, that's a far better bar for how active someone is in the Great Council than voting participation. I’m a little confused, however, if you are forcing people to take part in the GC I wouldn’t support that. RE: Rules Change: Remove inactive participants - Comfed - 08-30-2022 (08-30-2022, 02:16 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: Why can't we set it to "must participate in debate" instead? Frankly, that's a far better bar for how active someone is in the Great Council than voting participation. We should not force people to participate in debate. That would make this solely a group of active, legalistically-minded players imposing their will on the region and would destroy the Great Council's status as an inclusive constituent assembly. Glen's proposal also does this, but to a lesser extent. |