As for indefinite LoA, I don't like that in general. If someone is gone for 3 months or more it's not likely they are gonna comeback until outside matters are resolved in some way. It shouldn't take me 3 or more months to acclimate to a new job for instance. You have better things to do than worry about having to reapply again.

There is also the hypothetical issue of asking an indefinite or unreasonably long leave, like in the example you give, but still remaining with normal or lower levels of activity, which if left unchecked would result in indefinite immunity from activity checks. In the end the Chair needs to have a role, if not in approving leaves, at least in ensuring that they aren’t used in an undue manner.

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

(This post was last modified: 08-06-2021, 11:14 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I believe I’m the only one who has ever requested an indefinite LoA, and in that case it was as I didn’t know when what was going to be keeping me busy would come to an end. Whilst ideally people should be able to give firm timescales that isn’t always going to be the case.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

Whilst ideally people should be able to give firm timescales that isn’t always going to be the case.

I don’t agree with that. People always should provide a reasonable end to their leave. If necessary it can be renewed, but nobody should be allowed to be on leave indefinitely. That may be unfair for the applicant, but I don’t think it’s fair to all other legislators that someone could circumvent activity requirements that easily.

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

I'm fairly apprehensive about indefinite LOAs. I'm fine with renewals. Think you'll be gone for a week but something goes sideways and you need another week? It shouldn't be an issue to have that extended. I think that's reasonable enough for the requesting party while remaining the most practical option for the Chair and their deputies.

New Quebecshire,
Full Player Résumé
Discord: Cubic#1608

Reply

As for indefinite LoA, I don't like that in general. If someone is gone for 3 months or more it's not likely they are gonna comeback until outside matters are resolved in some way. It shouldn't take me 3 or more months to acclimate to a new job for instance. You have better things to do than worry about having to reapply again.

There is also the hypothetical issue of asking an indefinite or unreasonably long leave, like in the example you give, but still remaining with normal or lower levels of activity, which if left unchecked would result in indefinite immunity from activity checks. In the end the Chair needs to have a role, if not in approving leaves, at least in ensuring that they aren’t used in an undue manner.

I thought about that, but sometimes some people want a break from responsibility but still want to socialize. It doesn't matter to me if that's closed out or stays as is. I think opinions here will be mixed on that?

Reply

If you're around enough to socialise then you're around enough to at least click a button on Voting Chamber polls, however infrequently they happen. It's not like meeting activity requirements demands excessive amounts of time.

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

Err, I'm starting to become confused what exactly is being discussed in legislative terms. I think there are plenty of valid thoughts about LoAs, the philosophy behind them, contexts where they've been used in the past, etc. But, I'm confused how a lot of it relates to Qaz's original proposal or how it would be codified at all.

All of it, honestly, just leads me to the conclusion the Chair should grant LoAs and has discretion about potential outlier cases when an LoA is unreasonable. It's impossible to create a document which outlines all the possible contingencies, considering there's likely also some that haven't been thought of yet, so trusting an official we elect to make judgement calls seems most sensible to me. Yes, this is a fairly sensitive issue since it represents a gateway to Legislator status - but Chair decisions are reviewable by virtue of recalls. If someone's Legislator status were revoked for inactivity (regardless of whether, in someone's view, their LoA "should" have counted or not), then they need only reapply for Legislator status, and LegComm will readmit them.

So, overall, just confused on why we need this - or any derivative proposal. The law seems fine now, I expect it'll work fine in the future.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Err, I'm starting to become confused what exactly is being discussed in legislative terms. I think there are plenty of valid thoughts about LoAs, the philosophy behind them, contexts where they've been used in the past, etc. But, I'm confused how a lot of it relates to Qaz's original proposal or how it would be codified at all.

All of it, honestly, just leads me to the conclusion the Chair should grant LoAs and has discretion about potential outlier cases when an LoA is unreasonable. It's impossible to create a document which outlines all the possible contingencies, considering there's likely also some that haven't been thought of yet, so trusting an official we elect to make judgement calls seems most sensible to me. Yes, this is a fairly sensitive issue since it represents a gateway to Legislator status - but Chair decisions are reviewable by virtue of recalls. If someone's Legislator status were revoked for inactivity (regardless of whether, in someone's view, their LoA "should" have counted or not), then they need only reapply for Legislator status, and LegComm will readmit them.

So, overall, just confused on why we need this - or any derivative proposal. The law seems fine now, I expect it'll work fine in the future.

They shouldn't grant. Why would I need to have to ask permission if my grandma dies and I'm taking two weeks off (and who are whoever to tell me I need to take more time off than that)? People should think of it as an official notification, rather than asking.

For what's being discussed additionally, it's the idea of not allowing people indefinite LoA and/or having a LoA but being as active as before they posted it. Which is separate issue from OP's proposal but relevant.

Reply

They shouldn't grant. Why would I need to have to ask permission if my grandma dies and I'm taking two weeks off (and who are whoever to tell me I need to take more time off than that)? People should think of it as an official notification, rather than asking.

"Granting" the LoA is 99.99% of the time just a way to acknowledge the LoA was submitted. In the 0.01% of the time where someone submits an LoA request that would seem to be abusing the system, the Chair can exercise their discretion and, if the Chair is being unreasonable, they are checked both by a) LegComm simply readmitting the Legislator once they return from leave (after all, if someone is on leave they don't need their legislator status, and once they return from leave they can reapply and they'll be back in the door in a few days), or b) the Chair can be subjected to growling and potentially a recall by the Assembly at the Assembly's discretion. 

I sort of get the principle behind "no one should get to tell me what to do", but in actuality I don't see many scenarios where it would come into play and feel like giving a little bit of discretion to an official we elect to make a largely administrative decision is OK.
 

For what's being discussed additionally, it's the idea of not allowing people indefinite LoA and/or having a LoA but being as active as before they posted it

I think we could come up with increasingly unlikely scenarios for different LoA request permutations and whether or not they should be accepted and try to codify a uniform rule about it. However, I think any such effort is doomed to failure given the increasingly large number of permutations of "well what if this" items, so I'd rather just place a bit of trust with the relevant official.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

I support the amendment but I see how some people would be worried that it would make getting an LoA too easy granting inactive legislators a free pass. This is why I suggest giving the chair the power to revoke an LoA after it has been submitted. This would prevent people from submitting LoA's with ridiculous reasons or asking for an unreasonable amount of time for their LoA. For the people saying there is no point in changing the current system as it has worked just fine till now you are right but this amendment would improve the system preventing any future mistakes such as the chair misunderstanding an LoA and rejecting it or any other human errors from occurring

Reply