Why can't we set it to "must participate in debate" instead? Frankly, that's a far better bar for how active someone is in the Great Council than voting participation.

Ignoring the arguments on whether this would be a good idea or not for a second, how would you even achieve this? I'm pretty sure any requirement along these lines would be fairly arbitrary.

(This post was last modified: 08-30-2022, 04:24 PM by Jebediah.)

Reply

Why can't we set it to "must participate in debate" instead? Frankly, that's a far better bar for how active someone is in the Great Council than voting participation.

Ignoring the arguments on whether this would be a good idea or not for a second, how would you even achieve this? I'm pretty sure any requirement along these lines would be fairly arbitrary.

To make the GC into an episode of Big Brother?

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

Reply

By this point, if someone hasn't voted on any of the proposals, or been active in debate, then why should they keep a seat at the table that they clearly aren't at?

-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

(This post was last modified: 08-31-2022, 10:01 AM by Griffindor.)

Reply

Why can't we set it to "must participate in debate" instead? Frankly, that's a far better bar for how active someone is in the Great Council than voting participation.

Ignoring the arguments on whether this would be a good idea or not for a second, how would you even achieve this? I'm pretty sure any requirement along these lines would be fairly arbitrary.

We could trust our able and judicious Chair to make such a determination. Sure, it gives the Chair a lot of power, but they have the trust of the GC. Not to mention, the GC convening resolution creates procedure to overrule Chair membership decisions.

It's desirable because the alternative is a GC driven by disengaged spectators rather than people who are being thoughtful and considerate about the legislative process. If you can't make a post to explain your perspective, then why should we consider you an important part of the process of making decisions?

All the comparisons to "Big Brother" are, frankly, overhyped. It's not saying "you can only say X", rather it's saying "you must contribute in some way".

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

Reply

I’m not opposed to an actual debate requirement, and I would actually prefer it. But it would fall on the Chair to go through every thread and check for posts made by each participants and then judge whether those posts are substantial enough to be considered participation. (I wouldn’t support something that allows posting “this is my participation post,” which is what people did back in the days of posting requirements for citizenship.) Not impossible, but probably a heavy burden.

(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 10:43 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I’ve issues with rule changes mid stream because people don’t like the initial rules everyone agreed to. Some people may have interest, but haven’t found an issue they’re passionate about, or maybe just nervous about being shot down.

Reply

Your issues are noted and I’ll point out that the organizing resolution anticipates and provides for changing the rules. The world isn’t static and sometimes changes are warranted.

(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 02:00 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Your issues are noted and I’ll point out that the organizing resolution anticipates and provides for changing the rules. The world isn’t static and sometimes changes are warranted.

Cyclic yes, static no. And my concern is with those who haven’t voiced anything in argument, but have voted. If someone hasn’t participated in any way, then I can understand the desire to deal with that. But let’s not arbitrarily throw out the baby with the bath water.

Reply

In our first vote, a quarter of participants failed to vote. They should be removed from the Great Council, as this is a body meant to be a vehicle for active debate and consideration of constitutional changes. Inactive participants are not upholding their duties.

After each vote, those who failed to cast a vote should be removed from the participant roster. I bring to the floor the following amendment to our rules of order:

3. Mandates that legislators of the Assembly holding valid status at the time this resolution is motioned to vote shall automatically qualify for participation in the Great Council, and that all participants must maintain order and decorum and actively participate in all proceedings.
a. Determines that non-legislators may petition the Chair of the Great Council to participate, and that those petitions shall be granted upon determination of the Chair (or Deputy Chair, in the Chair's absence) that the petitioner does not pose a threat to the security or decorum of the Great Council, and that the petitioner does not possess significant conflicts of interests or the appearance of bad faith.
b. Requires the Chair of the Great Council to publish and maintain a list of qualified participants. The Chair will remove from the list and disqualify any participant who fails to cast a vote or explicitly abstain on a measure, at the conclusion of voting on the measure.
c. Permits any participant to raise a point of order that another participant is violating order or decorum, including acting on behalf of a foreign influence, to be judged by the Chair of the Great Council who may then expel a violating participant.
d. Further permits any participant to motion to overrule the Chair of the Great Council (or Deputy Chair, in the Chair's absence) in regards to their determination under 3(a) or 3(c.), which shall be adopted by majority vote.
e. Reasserts that all extant proscriptions and administrative bans remain in effect throughout the Great Council, and that participation in the Great Council shall not be used in defense against any proscription or administrative or moderator action.

What about people who were away from NS? Just like, eff 'em?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Yes, that’s their issue. Why would this be important if NS as a whole isn’t?

Reply