| [Draft] Local Government Reform Amendments |
Or, simply, the Assembly doesn't legislate on the game side. I don't really understand why this is such a hard concept to get across.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (03-25-2017, 05:52 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Or, simply, the Assembly doesn't legislate on the game side. I don't really understand why this is such a hard concept to get across. I understand your frustration. Can you revise the parts that you don't like with amendment? Other than the block voting which if we're determining that the two are separate. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
Just going to point out, again, that elimination of the block vote is unlikely to pass if not accompanied by some compromise. Currently, the extension of the Article XIII amendment procedure to constitutional laws that directly affect the game-side local community is that compromise. If we remove it, I don't think the elimination of the block vote will pass, bearing in mind that it will have to be voted on game-side.
I'm also just not sure I even agree with Glen. Sure, we should avoid legislating on matters that solely affect game-side -- and we already can't legislate on any such matter -- but it's not possible to stop legislating on anything that directly affects game-side. Unless we would like to stop legislating on how the Delegate is elected, what the Delegate can and can't do, how Regional Officers are selected, what Regional Officers can and can't do, whether to have an endorsement cap and how to set it, whether and under what circumstances people can be ejected or banned game-side, etc., etc. It's not practical to create a firm separation between game-side and forum without becoming the West Pacific. Anyone up for becoming the West Pacific? Me neither. Under circumstances in which constitutional legislation affects both the forum and game-side communities, let's let the game-side community vote, so the Local Council can focus on actual local government instead of focusing on the Assembly and casting a block vote on legislation that has nothing to do with game-side. For what it's worth, while I like the concept of game-side local government, I don't like the concept of game-side voting on regional government matters. I don't see any reason people who are interested in participating in regional government can't register on this forum and apply to become legislators, which is the way things have been done in just about all regions for a decade and a half. But Pandora's Box has already been opened; voting on Charter amendments that affect game-side has already been extended to the game-side community. Now, in order to eliminate the Local Council's block vote, we're going to have to get the game-side community to agree to that. That is going to require compromise. So the choice is whether to extend voting on constitutional laws that directly affect game-side to the game-side community, or keep the Local Council's block vote and ensure that the Local Council remains an avenue for pursuing Assembly agendas rather than being an effective local government. You may not like those choices, but there they are.
I can't support further muddling the clear lines that are supposed to separate the LC and the Assembly. The Assembly shouldn't be passing laws about the RMB. And if you guys think that language isn't clear, we can make it more obvious, rather than taking steps backwards in a clear delineation of territories.
I have no issue with the status quo. So I won't supporting changing it at the expense of messing things up further. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is the status quo working because if we are having "crises" or arguments over it then perhaps we need to fix the language and make it more clearer. I do think we should get rid of block voting in exchange for LC making RMB related decisions.
Also the demarcation isn't clear but I'm almost afraid to bring up examples. I mean we already have done some non-binding polls. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
Glen, no one is suggesting that the Assembly should be passing laws about the RMB. But, but the Assembly does legislate on matters that do directly effect the in-game region.
Cormac's proposal that where this occurs the in-game region has to ratify the decision of the Assembly makes perfect sense, as this is already the case some of the time; all that changes is that this becomes consistent. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) (03-26-2017, 12:14 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I can't support further muddling the clear lines that are supposed to separate the LC and the Assembly. The Assembly shouldn't be passing laws about the RMB. And if you guys think that language isn't clear, we can make it more obvious, rather than taking steps backwards in a clear delineation of territories. There are no clear lines separating the Assembly and the Local Council. The Local Council currently has a block vote on all Assembly matters. What I'm proposing is that we eliminate that block vote, and instead extend voting on constitutional laws that directly affect game-side to the game-side community. So if anything this proposal would more clearly delineate that game-side only votes on constitutional matters that affect game-side, instead of the current situation in which the Local Council can cast a block vote on any matter whether it affects game-side or not. The kind of delineation you're looking for is impossible. Like I've already said, it's one thing for the Assembly not to legislate on matters that solely affect game-side, and quite another for the Assembly not to legislate on matters that directly affect game-side. The latter would prevent the Assembly from legislating on a whole host of issues including the Delegate, Regional Officers, endorsement caps, and game-side ejection and ban. Game-side security is a matter that directly affects game-side. Should we stop legislating on the CRS too? How about security powers? Those directly affect game-side. We should be focused on improving the Local Council and creating a healthy relationship between game-side and the forum. You seem instead to be focused on stubborn refusal to compromise. Maybe you're fine with the status quo, in which you and Belschaft keep your feud going over this issue and both regional and local government suffer as a result, but there is no reason the rest of us shouldn't come up with a compromise solution that would resolve these issues and force the two of you to find something new to feud about. You're both creative, I'm sure you'll come up with something.
The block vote is a concession to those who argue that the Assembly needs to be more representative. If it were my choice, I would also get rid of it.
My problem here is that you're muddling something I just attempted to clearly delineate. The point of completely rewriting the LC part of the Charter was to make this exceedingly clear: the Assembly doesn't legislate the RMB, and the LC doesn't legislate the Assembly. If you think the language allows the Assembly to write laws about the RMB, I'll propose making that language more clear. What I'll strongly oppose is running with a misinterpretation of the intent of the Charter changes, and returning us to a messy system where people here are trying to pass laws and be heavy handed with the RMB and the LC. If the LC/RMB won't agree to removing the block vote, then we simply won't remove the block vote. Using constitutional laws as a compromising concession is nonsensical--- the Assembly shouldn't be writing laws, constitutional or otherwise, about the RMB in the first place And no, just because something incidentally touches on a game-side technicality doesn't mean it "directly affects the game-side." A security law saying the CRS can eject a nation isn't an RMB issue. I won't, as Chair, ever consider that correct and won't require gameside votes on merely incidental actions. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. Actual RMBers get it! The only people who have a hard time are forumites. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (03-26-2017, 02:35 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: The block vote is a concession to those who argue that the Assembly needs to be more representative. If it were my choice, I would also get rid of it. We need to remove the block vote. This feud between you and Belschaft, which is monopolizing too much time and energy in both regional and local government, needs to end. It may amuse the two of you, but I think pretty much everyone else is sick of it. In regard to your talk of delineation, it would be nice if you would stop ignoring the points I've been making and actually address them. No one disagrees with you that the Assembly shouldn't be legislating on matters that solely affect game-side. The issue is over legislating on matters that directly affect game-side but don't solely affect game-side. I've given numerous examples of such matters and you have never once addressed them. It's not possible or desirable for the Assembly to stop legislating on any matter that has a direct effect on the game-side community. That leaves four choices: 1. Don't let the game-side community vote on any matter. They can join the forum. 2. Let the game-side community vote on every matter. 3. Let the game-side community elect representatives to cast a block vote on every matter. 4. Let the game-side community vote only on constitutional matters that affect them. I'm going to be honest, my preference would be for the first option, because it's worked well enough for just about every other region for the past decade and a half. But the first option isn't going to happen. Pandora's Box has been opened and there is no closing it. Option two is out of the question because it's too easy for people to manipulate game-side voting mechanisms. Option three is proving to be a terrible option that is just providing you and Belschaft with new material to feud over. That leaves option four. Let's do option four. It's the option that makes sense and stops the ridiculous drama.
Given enough time, I think we could even get support for 1. However, in the interim we need to figure out what small change would help right now.
Having spoken to almost every prominent gamesider about this issue - the common thread has been the lack of awareness of what the LC is, who they even are, and what they are supposed to be doing. I mean I will screen cap the TGs and post them here. Instead of LC trying to straddle two ships, it needs to actually work with the people its supposed to represent. The LC cannot and should not be a tool for those who are already forum power users to gain power for themselves. If the first step is just removing block voting, let's start with that. Put it to vote and then it will either fail or pass. At least we can move on to the next step. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES | Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |