| For Something a Little Different |
|
You've missed my point entirely Glen; I'm not a fan of the subtextual language. I'm not talking about specific areas, though I have already identified some of them, but the language as a whole.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
What subtext?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(05-11-2016, 03:14 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: This is an admittedly thrown together proposal. Tsu posted it because he was frustrated with the speed of the Great Council. Just for the record — because I don't really like this being dismissed as "thrown together" — he majority of this proposal came from laws that had been written, adapted and altered over years of SP history. I meshed parts to fix the problems circulating, but didn't just "throw this together" without thought. In fact, I'd argue that starting from scratch was an illogical move since we already had a working governmental structure. (Of course, I had been shouting that for months to no avail.) We don't have to use this draft — as I've been saying. But, I don't appreciate it being dismissed out of hand because I didn't think the previous charter was a complete mess and assemble a team behind closed doors to write an entirely new draft. Finally, as I mentioned, I gave the in-game active nations the power they want. If we aren't giving them full bicameral-ness then we're not going to get the activity — voting or otherwise — from the LC that we want. Giving them a say in the delegate is a better way to give them a say without going down excessive paths.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Just a head's up: I made some adjustments to my draft give the feedback here.
First, I restored the Cabinet being elected independently. Second, I adjusted the administration removal process to be done by court order. I KEPT the idea of the PM and delegate selecting a new root admin, but put restrictions on it. As to the concern about voting on legislation to keep your seat, I think that's something we all agree on needs to change — and is in the other draft — so I left it as is. All my changes are in blue. I'm happy to change more if we want.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Two changes to that I would suggest:
Quote:2. If, due to forum change or root administration removal, the Delegate and Prime Minister may select a new root administrator.That sentence doesn't parse right  This should probably be something like:2. If necessary due to forum change or root administration removal, the Delegate and Prime Minister may select a new root administrator. Quote:3. During this time, the administrator’s powers will be suspended until cleared of the charges.With this, somebody could just continually file charges against an administrator, leading to a de-facto recall without a correct trial. I'd suggest letting the justice hearing the case choose if a suspension of the administrator's powers are necessary on a case-by-case basis: 3. During this time, the presiding justice may order the suspension of the administrator’s powers until cleared of the charges. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
I have done one last read through here, I like how we do keep a lot of the old process and thank you for including a leave of absence for legislators. I also agree with Roavin on the last point he made above though I doubt someone would try to do that it would be good if we made sure they couldn't.
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
Both changes are made. Thanks for reading guys
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I might suggest a new forum root admin goes to vote in the assembly. Having a Delegate of the moment pick a root leaves open politics of the day or a Delegate that really doesn't know what a root admin needs to be. A root admin needs to want to be a root admin and know how to be one.
I'm not saying anything about anyone here. Speaking in generalities. But the wrong root admin is a bad idea.
(05-14-2016, 04:17 PM)QuietDad Wrote: I might suggest a new forum root admin goes to vote in the assembly. Having a Delegate of the moment pick a root leaves open politics of the day or a Delegate that really doesn't know what a root admin needs to be. A root admin needs to want to be a root admin and know how to be one. I totally agree with you QD. But, I would sooner leave it up to the PM and the Delegate rather than the Assembly — I actually think it would be *less* political that way. And, I would hope all involved would be willing/able to step back from politics to to make the decision. Not to mention, what happens if the forums go down and something needs to be down in short term, when the Assembly can't actually vote? If we have time, we can write in for approval. Although, I'm really only seeing that line get used in extraordinary circumstances, a la the move to these forums.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Just seems to me the way it's worded, The whole incident of the forum move by Hileville that started all this becomes very very legal and hard to overturn. Root admin's/account holders can't just be appointed by someone. Yes, it's very easy to go to a cPanel and pick a forum to install, but I just get nervous letting someone "pick"who gets it. If anything it needs major discussion by everyone.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |