| Preparatory Debate |
(07-12-2022, 03:23 PM)The Haughtherlands Wrote: At least the way I've read it, glen's argument I quoted is, "Evi's philosophy [according to Glen] is wrong, therefore his argument is wrong." So how exactly does that attack Evinea's character? (07-12-2022, 03:23 PM)The Haughtherlands Wrote: The Discord message is more telling, "This is really a problem with a specific LC councilor, who has unrealistic expectations and feels they need to be catered to. So much that they think a workday or a night of sleep is no excuse to their pings going unanswered..." At least where I'm from, this is frowned upon. To be honest, that still reads to me the same way Glen put it — it's not saying the problem is a specific LC councilor, it's saying the problem lies with what Glen feels are unrealistic expectations voiced by Evinea. Sure, some of his rhetoric is strongly worded. Maybe it's been frowned upon in your past experience. Maybe it makes you, and possibly others, less likely to agree with Glen. But I don't think it's nearly as much of an ad hominem attack as you seem to be suggesting.
I don't expect, or may I say no one expects someone to be online 24/7. I don't even know why the opposite is being assumed when I haven't said nor alluded to the opposite of that. I myself am not online 24/7, so I can't nor would assume so.
(07-11-2022, 12:48 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: --snip for brevity-- The answer to is it worth moderating at all is yes. Is it a wise use of limited resources, the answer is yes. The answer to ' Are the rules good' is they are. They have always been flexible to tailor to the most part for the community at the time. they were undermined to some extent by assembly votes (to the effect of limiting the LC) and a move into the court system (with the effect of limiting LC and their ability to implement rule changes), and partially through the disintegration of MoRA and the powers of the Delegate (which had the effect of further separating gameside and offsite sections of the community). These together could be seen as a fundamental undermining of gameside to such a point that were now having a grand council, in which some seek to dissolve gameside altogether. If, as you suggest, we acknowledge rmb is low quality/high engagement, and were happy with that, the question is how do we pluck the quality out of that environment and move it to offsite. That, IMO, requires a move towards a stronger delegate, stronger LC and a return to a heavy MoRA.
The question is not “is the RMB worth moderating?” I wrote “heavily moderating” for a reason.
You aren’t going to “pluck” anything out of the RMB. The WFE, Dispatches, and TGs are how we advertise. The RMB itself is not, it moves too fast, literally 75-100 post an hour. I’d also note that *you* were a Delegate “from the RMB” so to speak. We did not see much activity in the RMB-to-offsite pipeline during your tenure. (07-13-2022, 10:08 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: The question is not “is the RMB worth moderating?” I wrote “heavily moderating” for a reason. I'm sorry I missed the "heavily". I'm OK with heavy moderation if its in line with policy. And noone has come forward yet to say the moderation policies aren't suitable. I'll argue I was plucked out of the rmb... but I'll let that one slide.... as I assume you're talking quality which I never have been. I'll say my experience as Delegate was that I got more support from vola and dry as LC than offsite MoE/MoM in the attempts to engage people through that "pipeline", and whilst very few stayed, there were a few that came that were frightened off by the more combatitive, toneless or robust nature of offsite. Let's also not forget its not LCs role to do that.... rather its MoEs My question for clarification has to be, taking the thought to its illogical conclusion, are we saying RMB no longer falls within purview of the South Pacific. If we abolish LC, they cant moderate; CRS doesn't moderate; executive rarely to be seen - so we leave moderation the NSMods? If the statement is we want to change the rmb to something.... what do we want to see? My comments as to a more robust LC remain and I'll be drafting up a section on that. Further to the general principles of the reform, we need to think about the judiciary too and whether it's robust and fit for purpose.
(07-13-2022, 10:58 AM)Beepee Wrote: Further to the general principles of the reform, we need to think about the judiciary too and whether it's robust and fit for purpose. Could you please expand on this and provide context on what concerns you have on the judiciary? Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (07-13-2022, 11:15 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:(07-13-2022, 10:58 AM)Beepee Wrote: Further to the general principles of the reform, we need to think about the judiciary too and whether it's robust and fit for purpose. I have very limited concerns.... The major concern i have is you've always shouldered so much of the burden. The other point for discussion is the ability for an lower court of some kind for non-important cases... since this is a grand council however everything's up in the air...
What do you consider to be “non-important cases”?
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (07-13-2022, 12:27 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: What do you consider to be “non-important cases”? On a facetious note, my criminal complaint against Amerion from November 2018 still outstanding... and North Prarie v. Varanius, September 2020 [2001.OC] In terms of sensible suggestions, the cycle of 2018/2019 with some of the actions by NHC, had a number of matters the High Court could have done without. Furthermore the case of Nakari v North Prarie and Concrete Slab highlighted some flaws in the system.
I would like to debate whether we think the current thresholds for certain things to pass are best. Is a 60% vote for constitutional amendments too high/low? Are confirmation votes thresholds too lenient? Debate may bring an answer to it.
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016 |
![[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/esfalsagov/esfalsa-graphics/main/flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: rank_officer.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/rank_officer.min.svg){kind=icon}
![[Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/updates_lifetime_2.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/detags_lifetime_3.min.svg){kind=small}
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 7 Guest(s) |