RA Membership Proposal

AlHoma

AlHoma

TNPer
Based on the somewhat mediocre turnout in RA matters and the lack of jurrors available for jury duty, I question what the purpose of the RA is for? I know that it is the next step up from being a schmoe that can fog a mirror, but seriously, when we have dificulty forming a jury of active RA members and legislation that fails because we failed to make quorum we have to ask what the non-participating members of the RA are up to?

I propose the following Regional Assembly Rule

1. That all regional assembly members must vote in at least 1 out of every 4 pieces of legislation

2. That all regional assembly members must be available within 72 hours for jury duty from the summons given by the court.

3. Exemptions may be given at the discretion of the Speaker of the RA or the Presiding officer of the court for publicised notices of absense not to exceed more than one half of the election term

4. Any regional assembly member that fails to meet either of these requirements will be stripped of membership untill such time that the member applies again.
Click to expand...

What does this do? It ensures that the RA will have people voting and ensures that there will be a timeley response to jury summons from the court.

How will this effect me? For the majority of the region, it wont. You vote fairly frequently, you check the forum frequently. It only seeks to remove those RA members who seem to only show up during election season and not when we need them.
 
I don't see a problem with this, outside of the fact that, at the moment, jury duty is non-compulsory, so I don't believe that availability for it should be a determining factor.
 
I really fail to see the gains in forced voting, sure it will keep people active, but if that is your aim it would be easier to have a list of RA members and try to pass a bill to require they log in on the fourms. Forcing people to vote was never really something I approved of, sure you can vote "abstain", but thats not really a vote at all (unless it is in elections).

Second of all, I wouldn't mind jury duty, but not every one is willing to do it showing from the lack of jurrors. I think that jury duty should remain optional for people who may feel uncomfortable in judging on TNP laws, when not every one has the time to learn all of our laws.

I am open minded in this law that you proposed, but I will vote nay untill you or someone shows me why I shouldn't.
 
The primary purpose of this rule is to prune the RA membership roster of nations that show up only during the election season.

My other reason for this legislation is that it apparently took over a week to select juries for some of the cases before the courts. If we have the potential to hear several cases at the same time, perhaps forming a jury pool of 15 RA members who promise to be available with 72 hour notice. Having the jury selection go on through an entire month is ludacris.

Postscript: Pardon my typing and spelling as I had a wart frozen today.
 
AlHoma:
1. That all regional assembly members must vote in at least 1 out of every 4 pieces of legislation
Click to expand...
Eh. Not liking the idea of compulsory voting much. "Must vote" kind of implies you have to say yea or nay, not just "abstain", which really isn't a vote. My opinion: maybe.

2. That all regional assembly members must be available within 72 hours for jury duty from the summons given by the court.
Click to expand...

And if they're on vacation, we kick them out of the RA? Needs an exception for cases like that, but that's probably ok.

3. Exemptions may be given at the discretion of the Speaker of the RA or the Presiding officer of the court for publicised notices of absense not to exceed more than one half of the election term
Click to expand...

:duh: Helps to read ahead.
 
Actually, there may be changes forthcoming in the jury system, after the last round of trials. But there will be more official info put out there later on that portion. But yes, we realize that the system, or at least its implementation at present, is broken.
 
I, personally, am in favor of activity requirements. However, I do understand that forcing people to "vote" is a bad idea, as all three current options--nay, aye, and abstain--influence the outcome of the vote. (Even abstain, as we see in the current Prime Minister run-off)

What about a fourth option that simply counts toward their absentee list? Something like "present" or "quorum" that shows that yes, the RA member is there, but no, they don't want to vote on it. But argh. That would make "abstain" pretty worthless. *sigh*

I dunno. Maybe extend the time limit. Maybe base it off number of issues at vote or real time elapsed or a combination of both.

I think a real boon to activity would be to set up the Speaker with a mass PM list of everyone in the RA. Whenever something comes to vote, the Speaker can mass PM the list, and I believe that most people are like me in that they receive email notification of PM's. Sure people are lazy, but oftentimes they're just forgetful. They forget that there was this little thing called the RA that they signed up for. "Oh look! A PM on the forum! What does it say? Something's up for vote, and I can vote? Might as well look. *vote*"

*rambling*
*late*
*sleepy*
 
Good idea, AH (original post) but the book keeping would be a b*stard. That is, unless we hold a role call in each vote thread, before the vote, where it can be tabulated.
 
My other reason for this legislation is that it apparently took over a week to select juries for some of the cases before the courts. If we have the potential to hear several cases at the same time, perhaps forming a jury pool of 15 RA members who promise to be available with 72 hour notice. Having the jury selection go on through an entire month is ludacris.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there, and would support something to attempt to fix this problem, I just do not see this piece of legislation fixing the problem.(original). However what I have bolded would have my support, but measures for vacation and illness need to be in.

As far as an activity legislation goes, forced voting is something I will not approve of.
 
Instead of a 'must vote' clause, perhaps a role call on a periodic schedule would suffice. Perhaps set up a once per month rule call thread and if someone doesn't post in the role call or elswhere in the RA forum for one month's time, their RA membership would be dropped.
 
Limi once had the idea of if they(an RA member) dont log on the fourms in a month, they got the axe, which to me is the best kind of activity law
 
I would also support the activity clause idea, in general. It's the specifics I'm still vacillating over.

I do think, if an activity clause is instituted, that all RA members should be informed via PM of items requiring their attention.

It would mean more work for some, but that's why we elect them, ain't it?
 
You know that, I know that, but I've still heard complaints when this has been brought up before. Any work is more work for some. :P
 
Romanoffia:
Instead of a 'must vote' clause, perhaps a role call on a periodic schedule would suffice. Perhaps set up a once per month rule call thread and if someone doesn't post in the role call or elswhere in the RA forum for one month's time, their RA membership would be dropped.
Click to expand...
The roll call sounds more like it would be the key, however a pop rollcall would be more appropriate in my opinion (72 hrs to respond, not called more than 2x per month (max of 6 per elected term)). If people are aware and paying attention they'll catch the rollcall (or have one of their friends watching for it).
 
Um I think that may be a bit much Alhoma, I still support RA members must log in fourms once a month for roll call, with a nice pm to remind them.
 
Let's consider the issue from another angle. The problems within the RA structure have been defined as failure to meet the quorum requirements, and difficulty seating a jury. It there anything else?

Perhaps we can look at modifying the rules as to what constitutes a quorum. Does it need to be at 20? If so, why? Have we considered doing away with it altogether? What would be the downside to it?

I know there is work underway to improve the responsiveness of the judiciary, and the current arrangement for jury selection has been deemed less than effective. How about drawing only the names of those who voted in the last election? Or having a sign-up sheet? Have we considered doing away with juries altogether, and just letting the panel of judges decide?

There are certainly a lot of ways we can go, and I'm sure we can think of more if we put our heads together.

I think activity requirements are fine for player-created regions, but I'm not at all keen on them for TNP.
 
At the time the jury system was introduced, it had never been tried. Gusses had to be made as to how to make it work fairl, and the only way to find out was to try it in practice. I'm not aurprised adaptation might be needed.

As to the RA, keep in mind that prior to the RA/RV merger, lack of participation by RVs by definition was not an issue, since election turnout was not quorum based, just participation in the RA.

I believe it fair to say that support for the merger was in part based on the understanding that RVs who had not wanted RA status should not be punished because they chose not to be active in the RA after the merger. While I would support activity clauses for the elected offices/positions, including the Court, I don't support it for the RA for this reason.

The quorum requirement isn't a problem when an effort is made to made sure all RA members are aware of a opened voting period. PMs through the forum (especially with email notification) has always been an effective notification tool. Until I see evidence that such notifications don't work, then I'll be willing to discuss a change in the quorum. (The quorum figure comes from real life study of group participation, and oddly enough it does work in real life.

I would prefer the adoption of a RA rule directing the Speaker or some position within the RA with the duty to notify all members of each vote by PM when such voting opens. I think that could very well solve the RA participation issue. Assuming that the players always check every subforum and thread every time they log in is not a realistic assumption. IIt would be far easier, and in the long run, more productive for a process to be in place that a PM is sent (and triggering the email notification) when the RA takes a vote. Based on my experience in overseeing the legislative process prior to the constitutional convention, I believe that would resolve the problem.
 
I fail to understand what is so horrid about "You must log in once a month to retain your RA status", which, I believe, was suggested not too long ago and for some reason just disappeared. It's hardly revoking or stepping on anyone's rights, they can rejoin if they decide to come back, and they haven't lost anything, since they weren't around to participate anyway.

I do agree that the Speaker should send out PMs notifying people of upcoming votes, however, I also believe that activity requirements would be a good change, simply for housecleaning purposes. I see no reason to keep people as officially being in the RA when they, for all practical purposes, aren't.

(I also support removing juries, but I believe that discussion is in another thread)
 
I support this!!

Perhaps a better wording would be participate in votes, this would cover abstentions!!

Also, rather than require 1 in 4, it may be easier if we have a requirement not to miss 2 or 3 votes in succession without prior notification to the speaker outlining an absence!!

Tygaland had something similar in the blessed region of New Sparrow and it worked!! (yay duality!!)
 
Heft:
I fail to understand what is so horrid about "You must log in once a month to retain your RA status",
Click to expand...
Perhaps some bit of a history lesson is in order. Way back when, before there was an RA, or RVs we still liked to do things democratically. Things would come up and we would take a vote. Who would vote? Anyone who wanted to! Whose vote counted? Everybody's!

Well, with concerns about making sure only "natives" voted and the desire to have a more organized system for elections, we instituted the structures we have now.

Yes, we have more control now. But gone are the days when any newcomer or passerby can just jump into the debate and instantly be a part of the workings of this region. And so we "insiders" begin proposing legislation to govern the standards to which one must adhere in order to be a member. Why, I've even heard talk of an interview process for RA membership.

The more laws and restrictions we have about who can and who cannot participate, the less open and inclusive we will be. Is that our vision for building a bigger and stronger TNP?
 
I concur with everything Heft said in his last post (except the juries part--well, maybe not).

P.S:
GBM:
Yes, we have more control now. But gone are the days when any newcomer or passerby can just jump into the debate and instantly be a part of the workings of this region. And so we "insiders" begin proposing legislation to govern the standards to which one must adhere in order to be a member. Why, I've even heard talk of an interview process for RA membership.

The more laws and restrictions we have about who can and who cannot participate, the less open and inclusive we will be. Is that our vision for building a bigger and stronger TNP?
Click to expand...

I don't know how much actual support RA interviews would garner. The RA is not the Meritocratic Senate, nor should we strive to be.

Anyways, I don't see how newcomers can't basically just jump in. All they need to join the RA is a nation in TNP, make a post stating their intent, and wait a few hours for the MoIIA to approve it. I got my RA mask in under 24 hours. That's a day. And that's just to post in the super-duper-uber-special RA boards which are publically viewable (except the empty private on, of course) to all. Until then, they're still free to post whatever their opinions are anywhere else they want--MoC, NS News, Cabinet discussions, etc. Sure, we could probably use a subforum where we can allow foreigners or non-RA members to post their opinions regarding RA actions, votes, and attitudes, but that's easily remedied.

If they want back in, they can just ask the MoIIA to be put back in. Wait another few hours, and poof! A renewed RA member! If we let anyone and everyone vote who hasn't even been given any bit of a background check (i.e. post the name of your TNP nation), we open our region to a huge security risk. A month-long absence allowance is good so that we can keep the RA rolls tidy and neat. Otherwise, a year from now, we'll find that someone that hasn't been active in TNP for 8 months (and has declared war on us) is an RA member still. Oops.

However, I do say that active communication with RA members regarding any change in status is vital. It should be the Speaker's or MoIIA's job to remind RA members when they're about to go over the absence limit or any change in RA status. PM's are a good thing and make people check on them. It's a good thing.
 
I still say the bottom line is a communications problem.

Since the PM system does have an option permitting mailing the same message to a group (as I understand it), I cannot think of a reason why the Speaker or someone designated by the Speaker could not be given access to that PM option to notify the entire RA of any votes when they start.

As to verification of continued elgibility, the Legal Code already places that duty in the hands of the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs, and the solution to that issue is for the MIIA to follow the law, even if he or she has to appoint more than one deputy, so that a deputy is responsible to the MIIA and the entire government for performing this task.

Until these two things are done consistently for a period of time, there is no basis that I can see that justifies any type of activity clause for the RA, even assuming that is a legitimate solution.
 
It is entirely acceptable for individuals who propose legislation to lobby the other RA members. In fact, I would expect a PM from a bill's supporters encouraging me to cast my vote.

If I thought a bill I had proposed was in danger of failing to reach quorum, you can bet I would be knocking on some doors, sending PMs, TMs, carrier pigeons.. whatever it took!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I still say the bottom line is a communications problem.

Since the PM system does have an option permitting mailing the same message to a group (as I understand it), I cannot think of a reason why the Speaker or someone designated by the Speaker could not be given access to that PM option to notify the entire RA of any votes when they start.
Click to expand...
I've been unable to get it to work!!

Help!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Since the PM system does have an option permitting mailing the same message to a group (as I understand it), I cannot think of a reason why the Speaker or someone designated by the Speaker could not be given access to that PM option to notify the entire RA of any votes when they start.
Click to expand...
There is? I only know of the cc box, but if you can get the option to send a PM to everyone of a certain masking, that'd go a long way toward solving this problem.

*looks in the direction of the forum admins*
 
Mass PM's or emails wouldn't solve all the problems. Namely, that of people who register, sign up, then never come back or hvae any intention of coming back for whatever reason, and who would just ignore any message they got, not even bothering to reply with "Please remove me from the RA" or somesuch.

There is no reason to keep them on the RA rolls, and I suspect quite a number of people would fall under that category. Also, I have to question the wisdom of having ten or twenty nations only showing up to vote, but not participating in or paying any attention to discussions or campaign threads. Having an active electorate is good and all, but only if they're informed. Someone that logs in once a month and casts a vote and then leaves again isn't exactly an asset to the region, and could very well be a hindrance, if anything.

Hence, I support at least some activity requirements, even if it is just "Sign in on the forums once a month". The issue about the Speaker contacting members shouldn't be legislated, it is simply something the Speaker should take care of on their own.
 
Heft:
Mass PM's or emails wouldn't solve all the problems. Namely, that of people who register, sign up, then never come back or hvae any intention of coming back for whatever reason, and who would just ignore any message they got, not even bothering to reply with "Please remove me from the RA" or somesuch.
Click to expand...
No one's arguing that it would solve everything but rather it would go a long way to keeping people reminded of this little game called NationStates.

Personally, I advocate a generous activity (or at least log-in) requirement, as well as increased communication.

Heft:
Someone that logs in once a month and casts a vote and then leaves again isn't exactly an asset to the region, and could very well be a hindrance, if anything.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind me saying, many real-life politicians are like this. We're not the Meritocracy. We do not select for the "best" and "brightest" that we think would advance TNP more. We accept everyone even remotely competent because, well, we're a more open, inclusive government than others.
 
Why do we have to wipe peoples' backsides for them?! If they register and then do not participate, that is their problem as far as I'm concerned!! How about making people just a tiny bit responsible for themselves?!
 
good goal..but here is a problem


The RA is joined by virtue of meeting requirements.

In the Merit and in TWP you have to be voted into the Senates...thus if you are removed it is tough to get back in.

So say I am a nation who never does anything and does not vote. You boot me off, but then come elections i apply with hers or whomever is the moiia and get back in.
 
GBM I disagree with what you said, it took me less then 24 hours to enter the RA, and I felt as soon as I was in the RA I was pretty much able to jump right in to the debates. I agree with people who support activity, we are not making the RA an exclusive club by doing this, we still are not voting people in like in other regions. We are just riding the RA of inactives, who can get back in the RA within a day.
 
freedom and pride:
right...let's pass it.

when can we vote mr. speaker?
Click to expand...
Er, let's not be so hasty. Many people have expressed reservations regarding the first provision of AlHoma's bill. Being forced to vote is not cool. Instead, I get the feeling that people would be more amenable to a general activity clause that is based on forum activity (i.e. 30 days) instead of RA voting activity (which is highly variable).
 
I am supporting this, especially as it is nice, simple, and short. This is a rarity in TNP law and should be encouraged.

It also helps make the RA more functional-- clearly a good idea.

:2c:

EDIT: Whoops, broken smiley :ermm:
 
I support this. I'm all in favor of keeping the RA rolls clean.
 
I support the bill in principle, but it is too exclusive. Mandatory forced voting is essentially authoritarian democracy. It's a bad precedent to set.

I think that simply going over the RA rolls and removing RA status from those individuals that have not logged into their accounts for 30 days would be sufficient to trim out inactive members. If someone is in the RA, never votes, but is active on the forum, then their RA status should hold. But if someone hasn't logged in a month, their RA status should be removed. Let them re-apply when they log into their account again if they want to participate in the RA. If they are absent on the forum without explanation for a month, then it can be safe to assume that they are interested in being in the RA. If they were absent for a reason, then they can just re-up in the RA, no harm, no foul.
 
I agree with Roman. Also, let's keep in mind that RA votes are sporadic. We don't have any set "voting period". If we get a sudden flurry of legislative activity and five votes start and end on the same day, is the person that was otherwise indisposed for that week (and has voted consistently on other bills previously) shit out of luck? I'd hope not, personally. That's why I prefer an activity requirement that is static, as in "x days inactive".
 
Also, not everyone gets in the RA for the legislative end of things. Some may join just so that they can be eligible to run for office, or join the NPA, DC, NPIA, etc. Or maybe they just want the orange badge... (could happen). Forcing them to vote when they really don't want to isn't something we should be doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top