We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Rules Change: Remove inactive participants
#1

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:
Quote: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.
#2

Um…I take it this would also force the Chair to cast a non-abstention vote?
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
#3

(08-27-2022, 11:56 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Um…I take it this would also force the Chair to cast a non-abstention vote?

Not sure where you’re seeing that.
#4

Oh, my bad. I'd initially misread that as requiring the Chair to remove anyone who either failed to vote or abstained.

If we're changing the rules, could we consider also allowing legislators to register? Right now only non-legislators can do that, which would prevent anyone who did become a legislator after May 31 from participating.
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
#5

The intent of “locking in” a date of eligibility was to prevent tourists from rushing in. I’d expect more subjectivity and overt judgment from the Chair if it open up registration any more than it is, rather than just letting anyone in after a cursory check of their status. Not against it, but also I wouldn’t want to bog this proposal down with debate about it tbh
#6

(08-27-2022, 03:15 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: The intent of “locking in” a date of eligibility was to prevent tourists from rushing in. I’d expect more subjectivity and overt judgment from the Chair if it open up registration any more than it is, rather than just letting anyone in after a cursory check of their status. Not against it, but also I wouldn’t want to bog this proposal down with debate about it tbh

I suppose I'm not sure I see why we'd let non-legislators register but not legislators. Surely both should have a chance, subject to Chair review?
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
#7

Because we were forced to allow non-legislators to register to win over the support of certain people who aren't even participating, unfortunately.
#8

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

[Image: rank_general.min.svg] [Image: updates_lifetime_3.min.svg] [Image: detags_lifetime_4.min.svg] [Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]

[Image: ykXEqbU.png]
#9

(08-30-2022, 02:16 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: 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.

I’m a little confused, however, if you are forcing people to take part in the GC I wouldn’t support that.
maluhia
minister of culture
ambassador to lazarus
roleplayer

 
 
#10

(08-30-2022, 02:16 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: 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.

We should not force people to participate in debate. That would make this solely a group of active, legalistically-minded players imposing their will on the region and would destroy the Great Council's status as an inclusive constituent assembly. Glen's proposal also does this, but to a lesser extent.
Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .