There's a difference between opportunities to put the gameside 'at the same table,' and the actualities of what this amendment does.

Under this amendment:

• Under the regular amendment process, laws directly affecting the gameside require gameside approval.
  
• Under the the Great Council amendment process, laws directly affecting the gameside do not require gameside approval.
  

Putting the gameside at the same table isn't a guarantee. There's nothing stopping the Assembly from limiting a Great Council to Legislators and passing amendments to laws that would normally require gameside approval. That's because under this amendment, the Assembly and only the Assembly has the power to set the terms of who actually sits at the table.

I'm not necessarily opposed to that, in general. If the Assembly wants to overhaul laws that don't require gameside approval to amend anyways — sure, give the Assembly the power to do that. But if the Assembly wants to overhaul laws that would normally require gameside approval to amend, that's a different story.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

(This post was last modified: 05-20-2022, 10:22 PM by Pronoun.)

Reply

I think it's a mistake to write in any further conditions to Great Councils. As we've see over and over again these last several years, the "Gameside" as a whole (not just individual examples) is by and large not interested in playing the legislature game. We need to separate actual realities from abstract notions of how "democracy" exists IRL. Just because it sounds right and good and moral to force game-side into Great Councils doesn't mean it's actually a workable idea. Offering a maximal framework allows the community to hold Great Councils under the contexts that exist at the time-- maybe a GC is called when the game-side is super involved in TSP government and politics, then the GC can include them (indeed, the ramifications of not doing so would likely be large). Ensure the framework exists, but stop trying to force realities that don't.

It's part of the habit of people to try and force through ideas that don't necessarily have majority support, because they otherwise wouldn't get what they want. If forcing game-side participation in GCs is wildly popular, then it'll be added in any convening resolution. I think part of the motivation for wanting it written in stone, aside from the just thinking it should be because that's "democracy", is the fear some might have that it's not popular. You don't see me writing in the amendment that you must be a legislator for over a year and have actively participated in debate!

(This post was last modified: 05-24-2022, 12:01 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Motion to vote

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Seconded.

New Quebecshire,
Full Player Résumé
Discord: Cubic#1608

Reply

This has been brought to vote.

Reply

So... if this passes, what happens to the old Great Council resolution?

If the court ends up reversing the actions by the Chair, and if that leads to the vote passing, that would mean that there would be a Great Council happening now anyway as if everything had gone as the resolution had intended.

I currently see three possibilities with how this would go forwards, then: we go along with the Great Council with the old rules since it was called before this amendment, we decide that this amendment changes how the already called Great Council will work, or we vote to repeal the resolution starting the previous Great Council and then vote to call a new one (with the logic that since the Great Council mechanism as a whole has been changed, it doesn't count as being a new Great Council in the same year as another one since the other one wasn't what we now call a Great Council). That is, unless I'm not seeing something which excludes one or more of these possibilities and/or includes a further possibility.

Reply

I currently see three possibilities with how this would go forwards, then: we go along with the Great Council with the old rules since it was called before this amendment, we decide that this amendment changes how the already called Great Council will work, or we vote to repeal the resolution starting the previous Great Council and then vote to call a new one (with the logic that since the Great Council mechanism as a whole has been changed, it doesn't count as being a new Great Council in the same year as another one since the other one wasn't what we now call a Great Council). That is, unless I'm not seeing something which excludes one or more of these possibilities and/or includes a further possibility.

I'll be more than fine with repealing the old resolution to go ahead and call a new Great Council according to an amended Article XIV, if it comes to that. While I still stand by my original statements codified in the text, I would very much prefer to have a fully fair and credible convention, rather than one whose existential legitimacy has been challenged by a significant portion of our community.

Reply

So... if this passes, what happens to the old Great Council resolution

If the old GC Res is passed - it's passed as it was voted
If it isn't - next GC calls follow this amendment's formula
Simple rly

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

Reply

The following amendment to Article XIV with regards to Great Councils has been passed by the Assembly.

Voting thread - Click Me!

Signed
BlockBuster2K43

Find out more about me here!

Reply