Amendment to Law 28

Dalimbar

Dalimbar

Your Friendly Neighbourhood Despot
-
TNP Nation
Angel of Wine
Looking over the TNP Legal Code, I noticed that the word 'not' was missing from a section in Law 28, as noted below in my amendment. At this point, that section without the word 'not' makes little sense in my mind.

I would also like to propose in this amendment an accountability and transparency measure also be tacked on, requiring said postings in order to maintain status in the Assembly to be in a public area, that being, an area where a regular RA member can also see it.

TNP Law 28:
2. Assembly members who fail to indicate their activity on the forum by not posting for over 15 days in a publicly viewable area shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before the absence takes place.
Click to expand...

TNP Law 28:
B. "publicly viewable area" refers to any section of the forum visible to any person with the Regional Assembly membergroup masking.
Click to expand...

I hope that this isn't too controversial for everyone.
 
While I don't much care for such paper-pushing, I have no objection per se.

I will be present to help fill quorum for this proposal.
 
Could just make it a "public" area. :P
We really should try to avoid any wordiness when making edits to these documents. Wordiness is a great enemy of ours.
Otherwise, I approve of the changes.

EDIT: I second the motion to move to FD. If the wordiness can be eliminated beforehand, however, that would just be spectabulous.
 
"Member group" is two words not one.

And I think some more careful thought needs to be given to this proposed change. There are times when there is very little activity in the R.A. or the activity may involve an R.A. member with additional masking (such as the Court Justices, Ambassadors, or Security Council members, where the postings are always not publicly viewable.)

Disregarding those situations runs counter to the spirit of the posting requirement, and would be unfair to those R.A. members who actually do things even if not in immediate public view. We could always bring back the quorum call, which can be accomplished by an R.A. rule.

The forum software shows the date of last log in; and if there's noting to post about, then there's nothing to post about. Changing this requirement is not going to help that.
 
And I think some more careful thought needs to be given to this proposed change. There are times when there is very little activity in the R.A. or the activity may involve an R.A. member with additional masking (such as the Court Justices, Ambassadors, or Security Council members, where the postings are always not publicly viewable.)
Click to expand...
God help us if we have some accountability in this place, even a short post an elected official could make in less than a minute saying "Hey folks, no, I'm not hiding in my office and trying to avoid you, and here is what I've been doing". Is that asking for too much? One post in public over a 15 day period.

We all cry about the lack of activity in this place, and as much as I detest mandating it in a legalese format, you do need to use the cattle prod some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top