| Discussion: Bicameral Legislature |
Pick one, Qvait, or else you'll have too much against the Legislative.
(10-19-2015, 06:20 PM)Qvait Wrote: Well, what if we implemented checks and balances. We already have an executive and judiciary. With the establishment of the legislative, the legislature can pass anything it wants, but it must be signed by the executive leader, then approved by the judiciary. We had checks and balances, and the people in power at the time were, with all due respect to them, paralyzed. Humans are fallible, especially when they have elections to worry about. If some of you guys want to find ways to include "RMB nations" (and I still argue that goal is meaningless), find a way to do it without putting a million holes in our community. Want to encourage people to join the forums? Advertise them meaningfully. Want to give non-citizens some place to discuss TSP and government? We can create a forum for discussion, and entice these players to become citizens and go through the proper channels to do so. We are not a country. We have no duty or obligation to enfranchise every account that happens to plop itself in the region. That is a terrible idea. This is a game, and we are a community defined by our laws and traditions. Citizenship is an acceptance of those laws and a way for us to keep track of who is and isn't part of that. It's our only way of protecting ourselves against those who would act in bad faith given an easy opportunity to do so. When NS actually makes it possible to do that, we can and should discuss major changes. But blindly granting legislative powers to any account that passes its way through our region is just inviting chaos.
(10-19-2015, 07:56 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: We are not a country. We have no duty or obligation to enfranchise every account that happens to plop itself in the region. That is a terrible idea. This is a game, and we are a community defined by our laws and traditions. Citizenship is an acceptance of those laws and a way for us to keep track of who is and isn't part of that. It's our only way of protecting ourselves against those who would act in bad faith given an easy opportunity to do so. When NS actually makes it possible to do that, we can and should discuss major changes. But blindly granting legislative powers to any account that passes its way through our region is just inviting chaos. Let me reiterate that there is an issue of who is protected. We can strip citizenship but we can't eject someone from the region. This is a whole in your argument, GR, because we believe that everyone is protected/under the charter, but not everyone should be able to be involved. Before we devolve into shouting over whether or not we are neglecting people, I say that in support of hashing out where exactly citizenship and charter protections come into play. Not as a support for the bicameral legislature. What powers can be attributed to the Local Council? Can they mass TG the region? Or can we get them that power? I think having the Local Council promote legislative/game discussions would be a great first step here.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
We should be able to ban those declared security threats in-game. That just makes sense to me. I'm not sure why we can't, or why we wouldn't be able to do that.
Instead of thrusting legislative power upon the gameside, which is an untested and unknown variable, I think we should incrementally involve them. That's why I voted for the Local Council. We all know the LC is a failure and barely does anything. I think that's because there's nothing *to do* on the gameside. The game of governing had always rested on the forums. Our laws have always regulated how the forum community acts, with the gameside being totally marginal (the concern being who is Delegate and who we should ban). It was probably a forgone conclusion that the LC wouldn't be that successful of an experiment. Instead of focusing on trying to meld together the two sides, I've always thought we should be focusing on getting those players who *are* interested in the game of government to come here and play it. While also recognizing that the vast, vast, vast majority of players won't be interested. There are things we can try doing to entice players to join the forums and gain citizenship. We can have an open discussion forum, where they can debate regional issues, but they just get citizenship to propose bills in the Assembly. If there's an issue making forum registration more odious than it needs to be, then we can address that. But we also need to realize that we simply aren't going have a hundred or more players on the forums, participating in our niche little game of pretend government. It's not for everyone. Forum communities have always been small in GCRs. It's a mistake to look at our regional population and think we're failing because our forum population pales in comparison. We should compare ourselves to other communities. While we are currently smaller and less active than those communities, I really don't think the problem is that we aren't totally open and giving the game side legislative powers. I think we'll find the answer in our culture and recent history, and I don't know how to address that. As for the LC, yeah, let's give them Mass TG power. I don't see anything wrong with that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(10-20-2015, 10:49 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: We should be able to ban those declared security threats in-game. That just makes sense to me. I'm not sure why we can't, or why we wouldn't be able to do that. According to my reading of the law, I don't think that's the case presently. I think I ejected one person in my eight months as delegate. Not that we should be ejecting a ton of people, but when we have declarations against NPO and The Empire, we should also eject them. I hesitate to call the LC a "failure," but am agreeing with your idea to stepping stones. If we can get the LC mass TG powers, they can discuss happenings and whatnot with the region thereby getting more people involved. When only the delegate (or people who have purchased the ability) to send TGs, it stymies the process. But if we can expand that to the LC and make that part of their duties, I think we'll be in a better situation.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
While we're on the topic of mass TGs, allow the MoA the ability to send mass TGs, for recruitment measures.
Sorry -- I know I'm the person who drug this thread off topic, but we should probably bring up Regional Officer stuff here: http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-3387.html
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Would it be simpler to just let the Delegate decide who can send mass TGs?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(10-20-2015, 01:53 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Would it be simpler to just let the Delegate decide who can send mass TGs? I'm not super sure who/what that's directed to. We certainly don't want a rash of mass TGs, but I think it could help the local council be more active in the region. The delegate might not always have the time.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |