But they don’t get involved with the Council.

I mean... isn't that their problem?

Sure. It is. But I think we need to start from scratch if we want more engagement in our political process.

Not really sure what can we do about people who have voluntarily chosen not to get involved here. At that point, it stops being our problem, because the GC has been advertised pretty extensively over the last couple of months and if the idea of being given the opportunity to re-shape the fricking future of the region with their own ideas and concepts isn’t enticing to them, I don’t know what else would be.

Reply

I’m not opposed to abolishing Great Councils as they currently exist and returning them to being constitutional conventions I think when we changed GCs from being complete constitutional rewrites to this “amendment” BS, the people who never wanted a GC in the first place got what they wanted. By denying the ability of the community to engage in creative destruction, we’ve foreclosed imagination and ingenuity, stifling everything that doesn’t fit into the predefined box of what the Charter already is. It was always a way to stop the GC from being any kind of effective vehicle for change and transformation, and we’re seeing that fully in play.

I wrote the current article in a way that technically allows starting from scratch. But the whole message from the get-go has been we can’t and shouldn’t do that. And then people are surprised that few are inspired to branch out and come up with the new ideas. We should go back to language that promotes complete overhaul, true constitutional conventions.

Wait, I'm confused. Who decided that Great Councils need to be "amendments"? Did I miss something?

I can't help but feel like you're taking aim at me (?) from previous Great Councils, but I always thought the point of Great Councils was to reimagine the government from the ground up? The only alignment with "amendments" is the voting threshold?

Edit: That's also not how the Charter spells out a GC? So are you blaming the Assembly discussion? Or the heavy structure built into these proceedings?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 06:14 PM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

In order to convene this Great Council, we had to amend the Charter itself to turn GCs into “amendment parties” instead of constitution rewrites. Certain vocal people, like Roavin, wouldn’t vote in favor otherwise.

That amendment happened here: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-4111-post-2...#pid231507

(This post was last modified: 09-02-2022, 10:27 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I’m not opposed to abolishing Great Councils as they currently exist and returning them to being constitutional conventions I think when we changed GCs from being complete constitutional rewrites to this “amendment” BS, the people who never wanted a GC in the first place got what they wanted. By denying the ability of the community to engage in creative destruction, we’ve foreclosed imagination and ingenuity, stifling everything that doesn’t fit into the predefined box of what the Charter already is. It was always a way to stop the GC from being any kind of effective vehicle for change and transformation, and we’re seeing that fully in play.

I wrote the current article in a way that technically allows starting from scratch. But the whole message from the get-go has been we can’t and shouldn’t do that. And then people are surprised that few are inspired to branch out and come up with the new ideas. We should go back to language that promotes complete overhaul, true constitutional conventions.

This inspires me with an idea. What I've bolded but a step beyond; introducing a mechanism such as a "legal coup" and "constitutional assemblies". I've had a draft titled "Burn it all down" declaring the end of the Coalition^{(officially!)} and requiring a completely new set of laws & institutions be created; scrapped it because I hadn't the patience to discuss it as a proposal.

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

Reply

introducing a mechanism such as a "legal coup" and "constitutional assemblies". I've had a draft titled "Burn it all down" declaring the end of the Coalition(officially!) and requiring a completely new set of laws & institutions be created

AKA a Great Council.

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

Reply

Uh huh.

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

Reply

Uh huh.

Functionally the only difference between your idea and what a Great Council is supposed to be is that in your idea, we are no longer called "the Coalition".

That said, one thing I would have preferred to see is that the default for the GC be that we don't keep our old laws and instead have to write new ones.

Spoiler

Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)

Reply

Uh huh.

That said, one thing I would have preferred to see is that the default for the GC be that we don't keep our old laws and instead have to write new ones.

Mhm?

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

Reply

In order to convene this Great Council, we had to amend the Charter itself to turn GCs into “amendment parties” instead of constitution rewrites. Certain vocal people, like Roavin, wouldn’t vote in favor otherwise.

That amendment happened here: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-4111-post-2...#pid231507

Oh ok. So not me.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply