Actually, haveing skimmed through the Charter again, I'm inclined to agree with you. The Coalition is too poorly defined in the charter for the use of the term 'the Coalition' to be anything other than ambiguous in that context. It isn't helped by the fact that the region isn't always referred to as 'the Coalition' all the way through the document.

No wonder we've had numerous moments in the past year where newer players have misused the term.

Reply

"Coalition" is literally defined in Article II, Section 2 of the Charter. You guys are being annoyingly pedantic. Just use the damn term, ffs. There is literally no reason to change it.

New players don't know what they're talking about BECAUSE THEY'RE NEW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

"Coalition" is literally defined in Article II, Section 2 of the Charter. You guys are being annoyingly pedantic. Just use the damn term, ffs. There is literally no reason to change it.

I'm not continuing to use a term I know could lead to a judicial ruling determining that one doesn't need a nation in the region in order to be a legislator or maintain legislator status. That's the reason to change it. That isn't "pedantic"; it's refusing to go along with the tradition of writing ambiguous language into the law, ending up with judicial rulings that complicate everything and require amendments, and then blaming the High Court for "legalism" instead of writing better, clearer laws. It's time to break that cycle. Clear language is more important than symbolism that is still preserved elsewhere in the Charter.

If you want to vote against this legislation because it uses clear language that isn't going to lead to problems further down the road, feel free.

(This post was last modified: 05-09-2017, 01:41 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

@sandaoguo, I've changed the language to this:

3. 5. All residents of the Coalition are eligible to attain legislator status through application with the Chair, predicated on the Chair ensuring they have a nation in the South Pacific, are not seeking membership in bad faith, are not attempting to obscure their identity, are not attempting to join with multiple nations, and the Council on Regional Security does not declare them a significant risk to regional security. Any member of the Assembly legislator may publicly petition the Chair for or against a prospective legislator’s admission. Anyone admitted to legislator status during a forum election in which only legislators may vote, from the time nominations begin until the conclusion of forum voting, may not stand for election nor vote in that forum election.

4. 6. Within the first week of each calendar month, the Chair will remove legislator status from any person no longer maintaining a nation in The South Pacific, or absent for more than half of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, if a minimum of two votes occurred. The Chair may exercise their discretion and not remove legislators who have participated in assembly debate, but are below the voting threshold under reasonable extenuating circumstances.

Is that better?

(This post was last modified: 05-10-2017, 07:50 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

All residents of the TSP, being members or the Coalition, are eligible to attain legislator status through application with the Chair....
might solve the "discussion.

Real-life Girls

Reply

Given that this has been here for a week and there has been no debate for four days, and that we need to get some of these issues related to revocation of legislator status resolved before the beginning of June, I move for a vote on this.

(This post was last modified: 05-14-2017, 02:09 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

Second.

Reply

This is now at vote here.

Reply