Before we get into specifics I'd like to see broad agreement on what we actually want to achieve. A consistent set of principles underpinning this Great Council will hopefully lead to more constructive debate and better-quality outputs. Some of the issues listed above read like a list of individual hobby-horses rather than a coherent set of proposals to resolve the problems identified in the convening resolution.

Personally, I'd like us to focus on improving player engagement, which is one of the major issues outlined in the convening resolution. How can we develop our structures to attract, and keep, new players? How does each proposal impact on engagement? If it's not going to bring in new talent, why are we doing it at all? These are the questions I would be asking as we move through this process - but I feel like it would be more fruitful if we were all agreed on those kinds of principles before we get started.

Reply

"Rights and freedoms" - Who has them? What are they? How are they enforced?

It is all right to wish to reform them, but right now I think they are clear in what they are - and, more specifically, in their protections of gameside institutions through gameside referendums for laws affecting them.

This is a common fault with all arguments demanding some kind of change to the Local Council and other gameside related issues. I'm not going to make an opinion on how or if the gameside institutions should be changed, but I am going to protest the insistence of this Great Council to proceed without any provision for upholding the gameside's existing rights, or without any regard for their opinion in the matter.

I would like to motion, then, to change the resolution for this Great Council to include a gameside referendum if the changes herein directly affect the gameside as detailed in the Charter regarding constitutional laws and amendments.

Reply

Before we get into specifics I'd like to see broad agreement on what we actually want to achieve. A consistent set of principles underpinning this Great Council will hopefully lead to more constructive debate and better-quality outputs. Some of the issues listed above read like a list of individual hobby-horses rather than a coherent set of proposals to resolve the problems identified in the convening resolution.

This is not really the purpose of this week and the Great Council isn't limited to a single "set" of proposals. People can propose any change they would like. I think it's clear, though, that there are a couple topics that have a lot of interest, the LC being one of them.

I would like to motion, then, to change the resolution for this Great Council to include a gameside referendum if the changes herein directly affect the gameside as detailed in the Charter regarding constitutional laws and amendments.

You need to create your own thread with your own proposed language for this. I'll note, though, that the Assembly has literally already debated this multiple times and passed an amendment to the Charter. You're just grandstanding over an argument you've already lost, in hopes that maybe an influx of RMBers into this GC could overturn the will of the great majority of the Assembly.

(This post was last modified: 07-10-2022, 04:03 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

If members of the gameside community would like to get involved with the Great Council, they can register in this thread here created by the Chair, in accordance with the organizing resolution. There's nothing stopping them from doing so. I personally don't see the point of calling a gameside referendum for this.

That being said, I would be interested in seeing what Jebediah proposes as an amendment to the resolution in this regard, in a seperate thread from this.

Before we get into specifics I'd like to see broad agreement on what we actually want to achieve. A consistent set of principles underpinning this Great Council will hopefully lead to more constructive debate and better-quality outputs. Some of the issues listed above read like a list of individual hobby-horses rather than a coherent set of proposals to resolve the problems identified in the convening resolution.

I actually like the current system we're following right now, as it would allow for more flexibility and openness when considering we want to do and not feel like we're being railroaded into solving specific things. There's no guarantee that setting a specific list of issues that we want to tackle is going to lead to "more constructive debate and better-quality outputs", as you put it.

This is meant to be an open convention to discuss the state of our region and what we can do to improve things. I think putting unnecessary constraints on ourselves would be the antithesis of the atmosphere we want to foster here.

(This post was last modified: 07-10-2022, 04:28 PM by Moon.)

Reply

Why must we continue the nonsense of gameside referendums? It's prone to voter fraud, and it's best to just leave such things in the past.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

You need to create your own thread with your own proposed language for this.

The same goes for pretty much every single other proposal in this thread, which apparently you don't have issue with. All of those other proposals are merely identifications of problems which will need their own threads, and the same goes with mine. Perhaps it could be differentiated on the fact that it is an amendment to this Great Council's resolution, but I would also propose to add this requirement to any Great Council mechanism in the new Charter, should the gameside still keep similar rights as they do now.
 

I'll note, though, that the Assembly has literally already debated this multiple times and passed an amendment to the Charter. You're just grandstanding over an argument you've already lost, in hopes that maybe an influx of RMBers into this GC could overturn the will of the great majority of the Assembly.

I'm doing this because I believe this isn't a matter of opinion - it's a matter of law, which this Great Council is presently ignoring. I do not have a problem with any of the proposals being made, and I do not oppose this Great Council deciding to abolish any gameside institutions. What I do oppose, however, are these changes being made through an obvious loophole which ignores the opinion of the many people in the gameside who would ordinarily have the chance to vote in a referendum on these topics, under the pretence that allowing non-legislators to join and vote in the Great Council now is an acceptable alternative to an in-game referendum on the final omnibus.

The Court ruled that this Great Council is legal only as it does not presently cause any harm to the gameside, and explicitly stated that if such harm were to be caused, it would be a far graver concern. It should be obvious that any results of this Great Council which end up affecting the gameside or the Local Council would be something that the gameside would ordinarily be able to hold a referendum on, and as such not holding one would violate their rights. It is also clear that the "in-game community" cannot be represented solely by legislators nor even by expanding the scope slightly (especially considering that the conditions of joining the Great Council are essentially identical to the conditions of becoming a Legislator - you need to be in the region, joining in good faith, not be an alt account, and not be a security risk) .

It seems, however, that a large number of people would be against such a proposal. Because of that, I will not take the effort of making one, though I won't make any apologies if this Great Council ends and a legal case is placed against the final omnibus (if changes are made to the gameside).

(This post was last modified: 07-10-2022, 05:35 PM by Jebediah.)

Reply

You need to create your own thread with your own proposed language for this.

The same goes for pretty much every single other proposal in this thread, which apparently you don't have issue with. All of those other proposals are merely identifications of problems which will need their own threads, and the same goes with mine. Perhaps it could be differentiated on the fact that it is an amendment to this Great Council's resolution, but I would also propose to add this requirement to any Great Council mechanism in the new Charter, should the gameside still keep similar rights as they do now.

I, for one, would personally prefer substantive proposed amendments to the procedure of this council be made in their own threads. Discussion and debate would be difficult in this thread given everything else going on here.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

The Court ruled that this Great Council is legal only as it does not presently cause any harm to the gameside, and explicitly stated that if such harm were to be caused, it would be a far graver concern. It should be obvious that any results of this Great Council which end up affecting the gameside or the Local Council would be something that the gameside would ordinarily be able to hold a referendum on, and as such not holding one would violate their rights. It is also clear that the "in-game community" cannot be represented solely by legislators nor even by expanding the scope slightly (especially considering that the conditions of joining the Great Council are essentially identical to the conditions of becoming a Legislator - you need to be in the region, joining in good faith, not be an alt account, and not be a security risk) .

I disagree with this assertion. Indeed, they used some arguments along the lines of "since there is no harm we will act". This does not translate to the idea that they would overturn actions made during this GC if they affected the gameside community. Rather, they say the amendment was lawfully enacted and all actions taken pursuant to it are lawful including this GC. Since the Charter has been lawfully amended any actions taken need not gameside consent, regardless of their substance or form.

Reply

You need to create your own thread with your own proposed language for this.

The same goes for pretty much every single other proposal in this thread, which apparently you don't have issue with. All of those other proposals are merely identifications of problems which will need their own threads, and the same goes with mine. Perhaps it could be differentiated on the fact that it is an amendment to this Great Council's resolution, but I would also propose to add this requirement to any Great Council mechanism in the new Charter, should the gameside still keep similar rights as they do now.

You want to discuss a specific amendment to the organizing resolution. Please do so in a separate thread, so as not to disrupt the rest of the discussion happening here. If you prefer to be disruptive and just want to grandstand, well, there's a point of order that could be raised regarding decorum and your participation in this GC.

If you're arguing that the organizing resolution is illegal, then go to the Court. Again. Or just stop being a sore loser and poor sportsman.

Reply

If the Chair will forgive a double post, does he have an intention of appointing a Deputy Chair pursuant 2.a of the convening resolution?

Reply