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!

Abolish the Local Council
#1

I am introducing legislation that will abolish the Local Council and have the Administration Team assume the responsibilities of the then-abolished Local Council. My reasoning for introducing this proposal is simple, the Local Council has become a group of glorified moderators who shouldn't be elected. Some will claim that this is anti-democratic, but I call this a sensible move.

Politics should have no part in the moderation of the Regional Message Board. We don't elect people to the Administration Team because we want them to be an apolitical institution responsible for the moderation of our region's means of communication. The Administration Team is a well-trusted group of longtime residents who have responsibly moderated our forum and Discord server. We should extend this responsibility to the RMB.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jay Coop's post:
  • Ryccia
#2

Why don't we just remove border control (or, I mean requesting power) from the LC? And have some apolitical Admins with border control?
#3

Full support.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)


#4

The Local Council has the right to be more than a moderation team, but they have elected to remain like that. Very well. There is no need to abolish the Council because they chose a path that some members of the Assembly dislike.
ProfessorHenn
Legislator
[-] The following 5 users Like ProfessorHenn's post:
  • Aga, Omega, Rebeltopia, Seraph, Volaworand
#5

I don't think abolishing the LC will achieve anything meaningful other than to piss off those who frequent the RMB. I'm against.
Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.
Salma 145:8
[-] The following 6 users Like Seraph's post:
  • Amerion, Encaitar, Rebeltopia, Tsunamy, Volaworand, Witchcraft and Sorcery
#6

The gameside has two moderation teams, really: the LC and NationStates moderators. Currently our function offsite is more like the NS moderators - they are the ones who respond to things like flaming or egregious spam and can issue lasting warnings or permanent bans from NS. The Local Council handle some of this, mostly calling for people to be banned, either by mods or BC, or by suppressing posts, but from what I've seen the majority of their moderation activity is on the rules they make.

What happens to those rules in this case? Is there any way for the gameside to decide whether they want double posting or roleplay? And if they don't want those, but they're not really OOC offenses, do we have the power to enforce anything against them? None of the moderation team signed up to hang around the RMB and suppress double posts, unlike the LC who have volunteered for that.

I'm in favor of the BC amendment. Not sure on the rest.
#7

As ProfessorHenn has rightly argued, the Local Council is a creation of its own desires. It could very well exceed its present mandate and evolve into a fully self-functioning gameside government complete with its very own mini-Admiral General. However, that it has chosen to regulate the behaviour of South Pacificans on the RMB and enforce these rules is its prerogative and one which this body must respect.
[-] The following 6 users Like Amerion's post:
  • Rabbitz, Rebeltopia, Seraph, Tsunamy, Typhonka, Volaworand
#8

As Henn and Amerion both noted, the LC has *decided* to become moderators; it could choose to do other things.

If anything, it shows the admins (and lets not even get started on that suggestion) weren't/aren't doing enough of it anyhow, which requires the LC to do it.

Beyond the fact that this would need to be vote on by the in-game community, I think this would have disastrous effects.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
[-] The following 5 users Like Tsunamy's post:
  • Encaitar, Rebeltopia, Seraph, Volaworand, Witchcraft and Sorcery
#9

I feel like the direction of travel has been to grant the gameside greater autonomy over its own affairs (such as the recent amendment allowing the LC to pass constitutional laws). This would be a step in the opposite direction, and not a welcome one.
[-] The following 2 users Like Bleakfoot's post:
  • Rebeltopia, Volaworand
#10

(09-21-2020, 06:40 AM)Nakari Wrote: I'm in favor of the BC amendment. Not sure on the rest.

The Border Control Authorization is what the LC uses to pre-authorize the CRS to expel spammers. 

Would you prefer the RMB to wait around until the Delegate makes the request?

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

[-] The following 1 user Likes Volaworand's post:
  • USoVietnam




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .