But this isn't passing a law -- that's my point. There is no alternative to it passing. We're not going to come up with a new solution -- the review is, what it is.

At this point, you're twisting my words to whatever end. It's been pointed out — by you, nonetheless — that nothing happens if the resolution doesn't pass. Which is the same thing that happens if it does pass. At this point, the outcome is the same, who this whole effort is futile.

To be clear: I'm not saying ALL laws are useless. But when we have a vote and the outcome doesn't matter -- that's the definition of pointless.

I, for one, respect everyone's time and wouldn't ask them to undertake a regularly scheduled exercise in futility.

Alright, let's assume we don't vote on a review report. The report we are currently voting on was initially drafted by Farengeto and Henn, and later on I made extensive reviews to the text, while keeping the basic ideas that Far and Henn thought of. Who did it? Certainly not the Assembly, as the law requires, since the Assembly wouldn't have approved the report through voting. The Chair, the Army Minister and a Deputy MoRA would have presented the report, and that is not what the law requires. It asks that the report be made by the Assembly, and that happens by voting on it.

I'll say another thing. What if we don't vote on anything, and we get two people submitting their own reports. Which one is the official review? Or what if only one person submits a report, but that report doesn't show the consensus that we reached in the discussion thread? My point is that voting has a point: it is the only way the Assembly has of formally approving something, and if we are going to issue recommendations, the Assembly as a whole, then official approval is needed. Otherwise, anyone can make suggestions to the MoA at any moment, but the law provides for a special mechanism, so we can get some agreement on how our military is going.

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

Why don't we just remove the part that says we have to write a review and replace it with a discussion on the current state of the SPSF?

Darkstrait  :ninja:

Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek

"Hats is very fashion this year."

RP Info

The Socialist Federated Democracy of Darkstrait
Ruled by Archchancellor Ridcully
Member nation of the United Front
[Image: 4ma0p5y.png]

Reply

I like having to draft a review because it forces the Assembly to do something constructive. Often our discussions on military gameplay and alignment have ended in a less than desirable way. A report requirement ensures we stay focused on the issues that matter.

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

The motion passes 12-4 (75%).

Reply

Alright, let's assume we don't vote on a review report. The report we are currently voting on was initially drafted by Farengeto and Henn, and later on I made extensive reviews to the text, while keeping the basic ideas that Far and Henn thought of. Who did it? Certainly not the Assembly, as the law requires, since the Assembly wouldn't have approved the report through voting. The Chair, the Army Minister and a Deputy MoRA would have presented the report, and that is not what the law requires. It asks that the report be made by the Assembly, and that happens by voting on it.

I'll say another thing. What if we don't vote on anything, and we get two people submitting their own reports. Which one is the official review? Or what if only one person submits a report, but that report doesn't show the consensus that we reached in the discussion thread? My point is that voting has a point: it is the only way the Assembly has of formally approving something, and if we are going to issue recommendations, the Assembly as a whole, then official approval is needed. Otherwise, anyone can make suggestions to the MoA at any moment, but the law provides for a special mechanism, so we can get some agreement on how our military is going.

I see what you're saying, but in practicality the one that gets drafted and voted on will always been the one OK'd by the CoA. Why don't we just say that the CoA is responsible for collecting and complying the report?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Because the CoA won't always share the sentiment of the Assembly.

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