Activity Clauses

GoalVA

GoalVA

TNPer
Right, I was going to propose some basic activity clauses to keep people active and give us a nice and easy reason to remove people who disappear for a while.

Problem is, I can't really decide how long they should be...

Here's what I got, feel free to propose your own ideas.


RV: One Month's Unannounced Absence before removal. Aim for 10 posts a week

RA: Login Weekly/Must take in part of every vote/Two Week's Unnannounced Absence before removal.

Cabinet/Deputies: Login Daily/Must Provide Bi-Weekly Report/Aim for 10 posts a day. Removal after Two Week's Unannounced Absence

CJ: Same as RA without provision for voting.
 
If every vote must be compulsory despite RL concerns then I think personal messages must be sent to every RA member about the date of each vote. Also I think this idea is ludicrious but there's my :2cents:

it reminds me of compulsory voting, death penalty for attempted suicide? Can people really be forced to be free?

Though a successful counterpoint would be they signed up for this so they better live up to it.

However I think it will seriously depress RA membership, I feel we need to be more inclusive about the assembly and basically have as many members as we can.
 
Not bad but RL can take over at time. Some might think this a bit too harsh. I meet the requirements every week but others might not be able to... Drop the 10 to 7 a week for RV and the 10 is fine for Ministers. We're suppose to be more active is my thinking...

Hmm, this is going to be a hard one to get an agreement on I think. Also, can you imagine trying to keep tabs of everyone to see if they make requirements? If you add something like this, it will have to be inforced on all levels or some will cry foul.

-WWW
 
Yes, this is going to be difficult to agree on!! I like what Goal has proposed because people sign on to become RV, join the RA or become a Minister/Deputy Minister!! When you sign on for these things you agree to a certain level of activity and commitment!!

Nobody is forced to become RV or join the RA so the argument of forced freedom is not a valid one!! If people choose to participate then they should participate!! If RL becomes a problem then communicating this to a member or government or someone who can relay it to the government will alleviate any problems for that nation!!

It will be a sad day when popular legislation is blocked because inactive nations are inflating the RA population meaning quorum is rarely met!! all well and good to have as many RVs and members of the RA as possible, but not much use if they do not contribute and as a result, hinder progress!!
 
Without thinking *too* much this early in the morning, what about having clauses that are in effect if someone raises an objection, but aren't necessarily policed regularly? As in... people are given the benefit of the doubt until an objection is raised by an RV, at which point a determination of activity would be made.
 
prehaps it could be the same as a judicial review, 2 RVs complain about a minister, RV or RA member etc, the PM or MoIIA takes over and investigates?
 
As far as CJs, I think it would be more appropriate to have a participatory requirement in the form of handling those cases to which they are assigned via the rota, or any set to go before the court en banc. In reality, it seems the purpose of an activity clause should not be to make sure the official is logging into the forum, but to make sure that they are discharging those duties they accepted when they took the oath of office. This covers that for the Justices.

This assumes that CJ stood for Court Justice, and not Chief Justice. We need to get some new acronyms.
 
I think that any RV who has not been active on the forums for a month (without notice) should be X off the list. If a minister is inactive for two weeks I without notice the job should be given to the deputy for the duration of their absense.


PS. I hate quorums
 
GoalVA:
RV: One Month's Unannounced Absence before removal. Aim for 10 posts a week
Click to expand...
Or nation CTE, but that's already in the Constitution. Not really sure if we should include anything about posts per week - I know that you don't have that written as a requirement, but some people like to lurk. Having that in there might scare them away.

RA: Login Weekly/Must take in part of every vote/Two Week's Unnannounced Absence before removal.
Click to expand...

Don't really like the compulsory voting. Especially if an unannounced RL absence less than two weeks happens to be right over the voting period.

IMO, an RA member isn't much more than an elite RV. So I'd say basically the same requirements for them. Maybe the log-in weekly bit as well.

Cabinet/Deputies: Login Daily/Must Provide Bi-Weekly Report/Aim for 10 posts a day. Removal after Two Week's Unannounced Absence
Click to expand...

Daily, maybe not. Say three times a week (about one every two days)? And again with the post target thing. We just need to make it clear that this isn't impeachment - we're removing them, but no trial is required. And if they should return, they get their job back.

CJ: Same as RA without provision for voting.
Click to expand...

Again, if it's to be the same as RA, I'd like it same as RV with the log in weekly bit. Maybe twice weekly for the Justices. Although I do like Byard's suggestion as well.

As for how this gets policed, I don't think we need to go into quite as much bureaucracy as FH is suggesting - If an RV or someone thinks someone's inactive, they can have the [PM in the case of a gov't official / MoIIA in the case of RV's / SoRA in the case of RA members] look it up. (BTW, I'm more than willing to help with any of this)


Post summary, 'cuz all that's a bit much...

For purposes of ending inactivity in gov't, blah, blah, blah... these activity clauses are put into place:

Registered Voters: Should an RV's nation Cease to Exist or they are inactive on the Official Regional Forums for a previously unannounced period of at least one month, they shall be stricken from the membership rolls, and must re-apply upon return.

Regional Assembly: Should an RA member's nation Cease to Exist or they are inactive on the Official Regional Forums for a previously unannounced period of at least one month, they shall be stricken from the membership rolls, and must re-apply upon return. RA members are strongly encouraged, but not required, to vote on proposed legislature.

Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers (Including PM, Del, VD, and SoRA): Should a Cabinet Minister or Deputy Minister fail to log into the Official Regional Forums at least three times per week for a previously unannounced reason or fail to provide at least a bi-weekly report for a previously unannounced reason, they shall be temporarily removed from their position. Ministers shall be replaced by their respective Deputies, and Deputies shall be replaced by an appointee of their respective Minister. In the cases of the Prime Minister, Delegate, Vice Delegate, or Speaker of the Regional Assembly, they shall be replaced through a referendum election. Upon return, the Minister or Deputy shall regain their position unless removed from the RV rolls as stated above.

Court Justices: Should a Justice of the Court of The North Pacific's nation Cease to Exist, or they are inactive on the Official Regional Forums for a previously unannounced period of at least one month, they shall be removed from office and replaced through a referendum election.

Any Registered Voter may request an activity review of any other nation. Should the nation fail to meet the proper activity clause, they shall be removed from office by the appropriate authority:

Speaker of the Regional Assembly: May review and remove Regional Assembly members.

Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs: May review and remove Registered Voters, or any of the SoRA's charges in their absence.

Prime Minister: May review and remove Cabinet Ministers (or equivalent), Deputy Ministers (or equivalent), and Court Justices, or any of the MoIIA's charges in their absence.

Delegate: May review and remove the Prime Minister, or any of the Prime Minister's charges in their absence.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, before anyone else attacks me, I really did pull those figures out of my backside for the discussion.

The fact of the matter is we need some kind of clearcut way to remove people who simply got bored and left. If RL is going to be a problem, then I don't see what is wrong with informing us so we know why you are not around.
 
GoalVA:
Yeah, before anyone else attacks me, I really did pull those figures out of my backside for the discussion.

The fact of the matter is we need some kind of clearcut way to remove people who simply got bored and left. If RL is going to be a problem, then I don't see what is wrong with informing us so we know why you are not around.
Click to expand...
Hey, we needed something to pick at. :D

True. I think most of us are fairly good about letting everyone know when they're not going to be here, especially when you're flat-out leaving, but then we do get the occasional "Where'd he go?" like we have now with DM.
 
I agree that activity requirements should be put in. Here are my thoughts:

RVs: May be taken off list if absent for over a month without notice.

RAs: May be taken off list if absent for over 2 weeks without notice. Must post once a week at minimum.

Cabinet members: May be taken off list if absent for over 1 week without notice. Must post at least 10 times a week on average. If they do not fulfil the requirements, they may be asked to resign their position. If they decline and do not become active again, or do not respond to the request, the cabinet may have a vote (majority ruling) to make the deputy minister the minister.
 
A distinction needs to be made between inactivity clauses, and requiring activity.

I'm not sure it is appropriate to have anything more than a statutory determination that an unannounced inactivity period of say, a month, constitutes a resignation; and perhaps a shorter period for the Cabinet Ministers. As a matter of due process, it should be a statute that takes effect with the next election so that all officeholders take office knowing that provision will apply to them, and avoid any appearance of a retroactive application of such an inactivity requirement. I'm not in favor of an affirmative activity requirement, because RL issues and schedules can and do arise, and can sometimes be unanticipated. I would also favor a provisions that an announced absence (such as a Minister going on vacation for a set time period) followed by a inactivity period that exceeds the announced period should also be covered, that is, if the player is unaccounted for a time after the announced period of absence, and that unannounced time period is equal to the inactvity periof, then that will also be treated as an abandonment of office.

It's next to impossible to forecast judicial activity, but a mechanism could be provided to use "court hearing officers" in the Court tules, and as the administrative head of the judicial branch, I would take the position that the Chief Justice ought to have that authority anyhow. Since the appeal process is entirely Court-rule defined, I suspect a provision can be included in the final Court rules permitting the appointment of temporary justices for purposes of an en banc or appellate proceeding.

The problem here is defining when an appointed or elected official has abandoned their office, and that such abandonment for a period of time is treated as a resignation.

(And for the record, a vacancy in the Court is filled by an appointment submitted to the RVs for approval at a referendum.)
 
:iagree: Although I would have written it in less sentences, Grosse's post basically represents my opinion.
Mandatory post counts will scare some people away. Especially when beginning as RV/RA, maybe as a new player in the game and depending on personality, you will need to acquaint yourself with all that new stuff by just watching.

*goes off wondering why he agreed with FH once again :tb1: *

edit: typo
 
GoalVA:
Yeah, before anyone else attacks me, I really did pull those figures out of my backside for the discussion.

The fact of the matter is we need some kind of clearcut way to remove people who simply got bored and left. If RL is going to be a problem, then I don't see what is wrong with informing us so we know why you are not around.
Click to expand...
I've been absent for about 2 weeks. We suffered a family bereavement and coming to announce it here wasn't the first thing on my mind. I think the whole point of absenses due to RL is that RL is taking priority, so I'm not sure your suggestion would work.

I probably won't be around much in the near future either.
 
Conneticun:
GoalVA:
Yeah, before anyone else attacks me, I really did pull those figures out of my backside for the discussion.

The fact of the matter is we need some kind of clearcut way to remove people who simply got bored and left. If RL is going to be a problem, then I don't see what is wrong with informing us so we know why you are not around.
Click to expand...
I've been absent for about 2 weeks. We suffered a family bereavement and coming to announce it here wasn't the first thing on my mind. I think the whole point of absenses due to RL is that RL is taking priority, so I'm not sure your suggestion would work.

I probably won't be around much in the near future either.
Click to expand...
I see the point that Conneticun made with that statement but we must realise that, although RL does take priority over NS (of course) we should still be able to promptly get a back-up on here. Registered voters and RA being inactive doesn't bother me much. However, when a minister goes inactive that is a different issue.
 
If a nation is removed from the RV/RA rolls for inactivity, they can be reinstated by resubmitting their application!! The removal of inactive nations is more to keep track of the numbers of RV and RA that are active rather than punishing the inactive!! If you are away for whatever reason, you are not missing out on anything if you are removed from the RV/RA rolls as you are not here to miss out!! Upon return, your reapplication can be dealt with quickly enabling nations to resume duty!!

With Ministers, there is a greater responsibility and commitment involved and therefore a greater emphasis on activity requirements!!
 
Poltsamaa:
If a nation is removed from the RV/RA rolls for inactivity, they can be reinstated by resubmitting their application!! The removal of inactive nations is more to keep track of the numbers of RV and RA that are active rather than punishing the inactive!! If you are away for whatever reason, you are not missing out on anything if you are removed from the RV/RA rolls as you are not here to miss out!! Upon return, your reapplication can be dealt with quickly enabling nations to resume duty!!

With Ministers, there is a greater responsibility and commitment involved and therefore a greater emphasis on activity requirements!!
Click to expand...
:iagree:

If we let RVs and RAs just apply and then leave for a long time, it really is hard to keep track of them for votes, etc. And when they come back they can just easily re-apply again. But I do think post count monthly requirements should be put in for Ministers, because if you want to be minister, you should take some responsibility too. But this way if you are away for a week, two weeks, or even three, you could still make up, say, your 20 monthly posts in a week. And an announcement of absence could excuse the minister from this responsibility.
 
I think the deputy should take over for the minister if they announce that they will be away for a bit. Then, when they come back, it will be right back with the Minister.

[size0]I just said that because nobody had actually mentioned what we are to do if someone announces that they will be away.[/size]
 
Fedele:
I think the deputy should take over for the minister if they announce that they will be away for a bit. Then, when they come back, it will be right back with the Minister.

[size0]I just said that because nobody had actually mentioned what we are to do if someone announces that they will be away.[/size]
Click to expand...
Yeah, :iagree: , but I think that happens already right now IIRC.
 
Are we still considering minimum posting requirements? :unsure:

If we are, I'd like to throw myself behind the "nay" group. I don't even know if I make ten posts a week (I had....maybe 1500 over 8 months or so on s2). However, I read most everything, and manage to check the forum almost every day. Besides, my particular job doesn't really require posting. If anything, I would just end up hanging in the OoC some just to reach minimum posting requirements.
 
I don't think minimum post limits will help activity!! I think accessing the forum is an activity measurement and also participation in votes!!

For the voting participation requirement, perhaps a member of the RA would be asked to explain their inactivity after missing 2 consecutive votes!! If the nation does not respond to the request for explanation then their RA status is suspended until such time as they become active again and reply to the request for explanation!!
 
I think minimum posting might be good, not just because of activity but because it helps newcomers especially when they see that the ministers are activly posting. It then encourages them to post, and we get an active participating forum.

Also, it could be a monthly minimum so that it would be fairly easy to fill. 10-15 posts a month is not hard to fill.
 
Here's an alternative that might prevent a lot of 'paperwork' in the removal/adding RAs from and too the list.

How about a pinned RA sign in thread? Once a week you require that all RA's post a simple "Present" in that thread. At the end of the week, those who have posted are put on an open list. If they fail to sign for two consecutive weeks, they are removed from the roles of the RA. Then they can re-apply as Poltsy suggests should they turn up again.

To keep the thread organized, the speaker or some assigned RA member can post a 'divider' thread with some kind of optical divider (like a row of asterisks) and the tally for that week. Anyone who hasn't posted their presence for two weeks is simply demitted from the RA. This way, a compulsory voting rule can be eliminated and the job of cleaning up the RA list is done over time and not all at once (lower work load for whoever does it).

Any thoughts?
 
I kind of like that idea. But perhaps bi-weekly instead? Not for any real reason, but I might forget it if it doesn't happen when something else is happening, like the reports- which I can't forget about. Not that I would be inactive, but forgetful is a definate possiblity.
 
I have no problem with the list idea. However, I think it should be AT LEAST before every vote.

That is to say, when an issue is in formal discussion, a thread is opened for people to "sign in" as being present and wishing to vote on the issue when it comes up. If someone who posts in this thread FAILS to vote, then they will be stricken from the RA list automatically (and will not be counted for purposes of determining a quorum or whether the bill passes). Those who do not post in the initial thread but do show up to vote will still be counted.

I would prefer something like this over the bi-weekly thing simply because it guarantees that for votes we try as hard as we can to have a quorum. A month or so ago, two consecutive votes didn't even pass quorum, and that (in my mind) should never be allowed to happen on any well-thought out proposal.
 
It seems like you're garenteeing the meeting of quorum with that so my question becomes why must there even be a minimum if you work things that way?
 
Believe me, it is by no means a "guarantee" if we attempt to work it in the way I've suggested. What I am TRYING to do is to maximize the chance that a quorum will be met.

The fact of the matter is, no well-written proposal, that has been discussed both formally and informally, deserves to be torpedoed merely because people are too lazy or inactive to vote. Now, if one group of people is purposely boycotting a vote, then I could see a legitimate no-quorum result, but when decent bills that add to TNP Law are deprived of a yes/no decision simply because not enough people show up, I think that is a crying shame.

Even if we implement my suggestions, we would not be "forcing" people to vote. We would essentially be saying: if you declared your intent to vote on the "sign up" thread, then that is legally binding, so to speak.. and if you do not vote on that proposal, barring any immediate RL emergencies, then you will be removed from the RA rolls.

However, I frankly admit that in practice, this may result in no one posting on the signup thread for fear of being removed. The alternative would be forcing everyone to post on the signup thread, and those who do not will simply not have their vote counted in the voting thread. I personally wouldn't like this since I believe it would narrow the rights of the voter.
 
On a separate note:

If we consider Roman's idea, then I think it is worthwhile to actually stipulate somewhere that the Speaker of the RA must do these bi-weekly signup threads as part of his/her job. I am perfectly willing to do such threads, but we should put it into law as part of the Speaker's responsibilities in order to ensure that it is part of the process.

The second question I would have is, what if these signup threads fall in the midst of an RA vote? A very problematic example would be: Person A votes in the voting thread, but s/he neglects to "sign in". Now, Person A is clearly present because s/he voted -- how would that be handled?

Secondly, in a situation where the sign-in window overlaps with an RA vote window, would the sign-in results apply to that RA vote? Or merely all subsequent RA votes until the next sign-in period?

EDIT: I have somewhat of a radical idea.. What if we said that applications to be an RA member be funneled through the Speaker? It might make things more streamlined, and reduce the burden on the MIIA. In fact I have to say I admire all MIIA's since they have to process both RV and RA applications. MY reasoning is this -- even if we had a proposal where RA members have to "sign in" every X days, then it would still require considerable coordination between the MIIA and the Speaker: the MIIA has to adjust/remove names from his/her list so they're up to date (and in case the people who were removed re-apply), and the Speaker has to adjust/remove names for the purposes of determining valid votes, etc. If the Speaker processed all RA applications, we could consolidate the RA part of it a bit. This shouldn't be a problem in terms of logistics, since you can only apply to be an RA once you're an RV anyway.
 
A good point about sign ups in the midst of an RA vote.

I think that it might be wise to disallow anyone who signs up after the actual voting has begun (and this might also be good for general elections) from voting in that particular election.

The idea is that if a vote is scheduled, anyone who is not already or has applied to be member of the RA/RV before the voting begins should not be permitted to vote in that particular RA vote or general election. This might help to prevent RA/RV loading after a vote has begun with the intent to change to general composition of the electorate for nefarious reasons.


About obtaining a quorum -

How about, when an item goes to a vote, each RA member will be PMed prior to the begining of a vote on legislation. The number of responses made to those PMs establishes the quorum benchmark. Meaning that if there are 70 RAs and 50 respond to PMs, then the quorum will be deternimed by the total responses to the PMs (50) and not the total (70).

Any nation that fails to respond or vote for two consecutive items should be removed from the RA role or the RV role for general elections.

I think we need a means to compensate for voter apathy in general or rather a means to remove those who only popped in for an election and then vanish into thin air.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of a situation where we have a bi-weekly sign-in thread in place, meaning every 2 weeks people re-announce their presence in the RA.

If the start of such a sign-in period is supposed to begin on January 6th, for example, and a vote is scheduled for January 5th-12th... in such a situation, if one person votes but neglects to do the sign in, what should happen? (And suppose this is the 2nd failed sign in by this person, or whatever number such that it's his last offense before being removed from the rolls). Would his vote count?

I personally think that a failed sign-in in this scenario should still result in the person's vote still being counted. I would further state that in any situation where a "sign in period" overlaps with an RA voting period that this should be the case.

Regarding PM's -- That might work; my only fear would be to have the PM system break down as it has on a number of occasions. It would also be somewhat comical and dangerous if, say, the first few times we try this out, only 5 people respond who may wind up "controlling" the election results.
 
I still think the idea of a sign-in for the sake of having a sign-in is unnecessarily bureaucratic and does not really serve a useful purpose. Let's deal with inactivity, creating unnecessary activity is not the way to address it.
 
Unfortunately, I think many people in this discussion are feeling that promoting activity doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of encouraging people to participate. Of course it would be fantastic if we badgered people and they showed up. But the lack of success at promoting activity should not mean that the participating members are held hostage by inactive RA members, for example, that result in lack of quorums.

EDIT: As I said before, I would personally have no problems to doing a sign-in thread and/or a PM system before votes. The length of such things would be a problem though. Perhaps a monthly sign-in would be better, if we decide to do a sign-in, and give people one week or 10 days to post. A "PM before vote" system to determine quorum might be more complicated. If we give people a reasonable length of time to PM back to me, that would delay voting threads by at least a few days. However, the CJ has a point in that it would cause more work, which future Speakers may slack off on.

Anyone else consider my idea of havnig all RA applications funneled through the Speaker instead of the MIIA? The proposed ideas so far have dealt with MAINTAINING activity by people that already have signed up, but as we have seen, it is a problem (no matter who is Speaker and who is MIIA) as far as NEW members go (getting those people in and counted).
 
Just a quick thought, but is there a quick way to PM everyone in a group? Because my settings are that when I receive a PM I get an email, and since I regularly check my email, I would know that I had a PM. Therefore, if a PM was sent when there was something to vote on, then I would vote. (it's what kept me voting on s2 when I was away).
 
Lets not make it burdensome for nations to continue their status in the RA. It will serve to narrow the body rather than enlarge it.

If you want a bill to pass, do what they do in congress or parliament: lobby! If it were my legislation up for a vote, I would be actively engaging the RA members thru PM, TM, mental telepathy and anything else at my disposal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top