(05-13-2022, 06:33 PM)The Allied States of Bistritza Wrote: I can speak only for myself here. Mentioning the following again, on this thread, as it is the thread most active and followed - ensuring that it will be seen by most people. I have explicitly stated my reason for applying as legislator to be ''discussion''; I have explicitly stated to members of the Local Council that I have no aspirations towards participating in a government office.

This is not the problem we have - in fact, legislators getting involved in government is exactly what we want (the naming is a bit strange if you think about how legislatures and executives are completely seperated in real life). There is also nothing wrong with wishing to become a legislator to do exactly what a legislator is supposed to do.

* * *

The problem (and this is an argument pointed not at you but those who were already in the debate) - at least by my understanding, there may be additional arguments - is twofold. The first is that people who may want to weaken The South Pacific may become a legislator upon seeing the Great Council proposal specifically in order to influence the votes in the Great Council, which naturally will have a great impact on the region thereafter. The second is that people who may be inexperienced in The South Pacific who join right as an important vote is happening may not have much knowledge on how The South Pacific works and so would be influenced more easily.

The former is, in my opinion, a reasonable concern and I imagine the main reason why, in elections, we have provisions making ineligible for vote or for candidacy those legislators who had their applications accepted after the nomination period of the election starts (the earliest part of an election). The latter is much less of a concern - there have been many arguments about it, but from my reasoning, there are plenty new members regardless. This would only be an issue if the proposed deadline was in the middle of or just before a voting period - in which case, such activity and influencing could go by without an opponent having the chance to give their own view before voting, which is why many real life countries ban campaigning on election day and the days just before. This is not the case for the GC, whose voting periods will be at least several weeks from now.

So as for the regional security concern - this could perhaps be compared to the aformentioned provision we have against elections, but those are reguarly scheduled, and as such anyone who might want to influence the election seriously would simply make all of their accounts join before the deadline. For elections, the reasons why such restrictions exist is to allow those accounts to be checked for any such possible motivations or connections, and also to make sure that the Legislator Committee isn't under any unreasonable pressure to process as many applications as possible during the election period as quickly as possible lest a couple legislators miss the election due to lack of time on legcomm's part.

Using that line of reasoning, you could argue that putting the deadline at the time this proposal goes to vote is as reasonable a deadline as putting it at the time this proposal was proposed, as there is plenty of time between either time and the time when the GC is even allowed to start voting, but you could also argue that the Great Council's heightened importance over any election proves that this additional restriction is warranted.

So, since both proposals are reasonable and the difference between them minor, it follows that we should simply put to vote both of them, and then use whichever is approved more, if either are at all.

* * *

If I may insist, I believe it has been nearly forty-eight hours since the original second motion, and I wish to petition the Chair of the Assembly for a response.