Off Site Forum Establishment Law
- Thread starter Westwind
- Start date
Outer Kharkistania
TNPer
Seconded.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Why withdraw it?
The only thing that needs fixing in the first sentence, which really should be saying that the current regional forums, remain the official off-site regional forums until and unless changed in the manner provided in the Law.
The only thing that needs fixing in the first sentence, which really should be saying that the current regional forums, remain the official off-site regional forums until and unless changed in the manner provided in the Law.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
L&C, if you aren't willing to go forward with this, I'm prepared to.
During the two rogue Delegacies this autumn, comments were made that the presence of this process as a provision in the Constitution protected the elected Delegacy system and made the restoration of the elected Delegate much simplier than might otherwise have been the case. The region learned its lesson during Pixiedance that movement of the official forums without the express prior approval of a clear majority of the residents of the region re-enfoced dictatorship and authoritarianism.
Reinstating this procedure (which never should have been dropped from the Constitution in the first place) is in my opinion a necessity.
During the two rogue Delegacies this autumn, comments were made that the presence of this process as a provision in the Constitution protected the elected Delegacy system and made the restoration of the elected Delegate much simplier than might otherwise have been the case. The region learned its lesson during Pixiedance that movement of the official forums without the express prior approval of a clear majority of the residents of the region re-enfoced dictatorship and authoritarianism.
Reinstating this procedure (which never should have been dropped from the Constitution in the first place) is in my opinion a necessity.
Joshua
TNPer
I am skeptical of the utility of this law.
If we get another rogue delegate and they are to gather the will of the people here what is to stop them from switching forums with the necessary approval?
And god forbid a rogue delegate was able to gain enough support from the RA and the cabinet to lawfully change forums. A real possibility? Maybe not, but a possibility nonetheless.
If we get another rogue delegate and they are to gather the will of the people here what is to stop them from switching forums with the necessary approval?
And god forbid a rogue delegate was able to gain enough support from the RA and the cabinet to lawfully change forums. A real possibility? Maybe not, but a possibility nonetheless.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Maybe you weren't here, but it has worked as intended when the region voted to move from Old Blue to here two years ago. IIRC, Haor Chall (and others) credited the predecessor of this proposal in part with protecting the authority of this region to have a delegate elected off-site and preventing the manipulation and chaos that would have existed with rump fora here and there.
Joshua
TNPer
I'm not against this proposal, just looking at the possibilities and I think your previous post was a bit to harsh towards L&C.
I remember that, I was around and mildly active in TNP during the Pixiedance era.
What would if the folks who elected a new delegate on the forum were the minority, and the rogue delegate remained in power because they mustered more support?
I remember that, I was around and mildly active in TNP during the Pixiedance era.
What would if the folks who elected a new delegate on the forum were the minority, and the rogue delegate remained in power because they mustered more support?
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
I agree with this proposed law. There needs to be a means to provide stability of the off-site forum for this region and facilitate seamless change of forum locations in the event such a change is needed. This is a very useful and utilitarian law.
Namyeknom
TNPer
I totally agree. The trouble with allowing the RA to decide anything is that sometimes it makes the wrong decision.
Also how can a delegate be rogue but also have the support of the RA?
I wouldn't worry though. There aren't that many people round here willing to jump into bed with the first rogue delegate to come along...
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Keep in mind that the previous version of this provision required a maority of all RA members (and not a majority of those participating) to approve a change in the forum. That was designed to make certain that any change in the location of the official forums would be a decision of the community as a whole, and not of a small group or an individual.
If for no other reason than that -- to assure the agreement and support of the community as a whole to a change in forum location -- I think we need to carry this provision forward into the current system.
If for no other reason than that -- to assure the agreement and support of the community as a whole to a change in forum location -- I think we need to carry this provision forward into the current system.
I think that providing for a majority of all RA members only works if a strict RA membership activity requirement is in place. Like a two week activity requirement.
There are and will be RA members that just don't participate. Those that are active and participating should not be held back by an inactive majority.
There are and will be RA members that just don't participate. Those that are active and participating should not be held back by an inactive majority.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
As long as I've been in TNP, there have always been a lage number of people with voting rights (first as registered viters, and then as the merge RA members) who never show up except to vote in elections. The only except was the forum move from Old Blue to here, and far more than the required majority of RA members participated and voted. IIRC, we had the required number cast -- in December, no less -- within the first three days, although we kept the vote open for the required week. In the meantime all of the work here was put into place and readt once the vote was official.
Activity requirements for RA members probably violate the Bill of Rights, so I'm not sure that is even a viable solution.
The choice of forum location should not be a RA perogative but a community perogative, which is why the "majority of all RA members" rule should be part of the proposal.
Activity requirements for RA members probably violate the Bill of Rights, so I'm not sure that is even a viable solution.
The choice of forum location should not be a RA perogative but a community perogative, which is why the "majority of all RA members" rule should be part of the proposal.