Amendment to Law 28, Article III Section 2

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
Given the continuing discussion on the topic even after a law passed the R.A. reducing the inactivity period for R.A. members to 15 days, it seems that we do need to revisit that specific issue and revert it back to the earlier language,

Law 28, Article III, Section Two

Inactivity

1. Assembly members whose nation has CTE'd (Ceased to Exist) or who have moved out of The North Pacific when not on official business shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.

2. Assembly members who fail to indicate their activity on the forum by posting for over 15 30 days shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before the absence takes place.

3. Assembly members who have missed two consecutive votes on any Regional Assembly items shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker, unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before two consecutive votes occur.

4. As used in this Section.

A. "Two consecutive votes" are defined as two votes on any items that are conducted at different time intervals of at least 3 days between the start of each vote, but are voted one after another. Votes on two or more items at the same time are not defined as two consecutive votes.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer to combine it with the bill that seeks to amend Law 28 that is currently pending in formal discussion, but I'll bring this forward as a separate bill in the meantime.
 
Nope, I think this only serve to reinforced the belief by other feeders and UCRs that TNP is so inactive that it is alright not to do anything for 30 days.
 
15 days should be changed to 30 days.
Nope, I think this only serve to reinforced the belief by other feeders and UCRs that TNP is so inactive that it is alright not to do anything for 30 days
Click to expand...
Actually TNP is inactive and that's the truth
 
No other GCR has this stringent of policy regarding activity, even TRR, where activity is a virtue.. still does not have such a tight policy.

Clearly, the way to promote activity is not by law but by projects and genuine reasons to log in.

I support the revert.
 
While I share the sentiments of others like Unibot regarding the need for projects, it seems TNP's government has plenty to take care of lately; if that isn't incentive for RA members to log in and keep tabs on things at least once every two weeks, then they ought not to be taking up space in the list.

The policy may be stringent, but I still find it appropriate.
 
It is not appropriate given the current levels of activity. That law combined with our situation is going to result in a disaster of democracy ending proportions.

The law must be changed.
 
Blue Wolf II:
It is not appropriate given the current levels of activity. That law combined with our situation is going to result in a disaster of democracy ending proportions.

The law must be changed.
Click to expand...
Clearly it is most important for there to be many candidates in the elections, even if that means we hand it to people who will only be around every few weeks, primarily when elections come around again. I agree with this posters sentiments in pure jest.

As for actually changing the law, I don't particularly mind if a regular regional assembly member takes a three week break. The region won't face problems because of that. But if the speaker/delegate is gone for three weeks... And the Vice-Delegate's day to day responsibities are low enough we could survive an inactive VD, but it would defeat the purpose of having a VD (someone to be around when crisis comes up). That's going to be a problem. Therefore the idea that the reason the law needs to be changed so that people who don't log in every week can be delegate or speaker or VD is laughable at best, self-serving at worst.

I think the law should be changed back for regular RA members, but require Del/Speaker/VD/Chief Justice/maybe even justices to log in every 15 days to keep their positions and require a special election to replace those who fail.
 
As of right now, we don't have candidates based off merit or skill, we have candidates based off who can dodge elimination from the RA due to activity laws and nothing else, just to put it into perspective.

We're not being given a choice for candidates but rather the "choice" is being forced upon us.
 
I abstained on the law change from 30 to 15 days because of the very consequences that have already happened.

We have taken steps to provide for temporary substitutes for officeholders including the Speaker and the Court. We haven't been as clear cut about the Delegate, but some of the recent changes do have provisions that provide for another officer to act in some instances when the Delegate has not acted. We may need to add something that permits the V.D. to act in executive areas under the Constitution in the absence of the Delegate; similar to the rule we now have in the RA for an acting speaker or speaker pro tempore when the Speaker hasn't logged in after a 24 hour period.

These are the sort of gaps we have to iron out so it will be easier to encourage more activities that will generate activity. The long term problem has been that every time we have a Delegate go off the constitutional reservation, we end up losing activity. Mass ejection of residents is not the sort of thing that encourages activity.

The key issue is finding ways to contact people that ends up with an email being sent to them; I know Zetaboards does not have that ability, and I can't recall the last time I got an email from NS because I received a TG. So that's part of the problem. This is another thing we need to address, but it's not as if that hasn't been brought up; it has, we just haven't found a workable solution.

This proposal does not revert the change that made the time period requiring posting as opposed to showing activity by logging in. Most recent log in is easy for any RA member to verify; last posts are not, especially for those who have permissions beyond the R.A. So we might need to agree on reverting that language as well.
 
Question should this amendment also revert to the original language of showing activity on the forums (which the forum itself tracks automatically) as opposed to posts (where there can be posts in private areas that may be unseen?)

There's no question that the 15 day period is creating more problems and a lot of "paperwork" for the Speaker and forum administration with very little benefit.
 
I will oppose the change as I think it will not solve the problem. It will only increase the period peoples are allow to be inactive and increase non participation in the region.
 
Felesia, people got used to an RA where months would go by with no legislation. So they do check in as often as you think they should. We've already seen adverse consequences of the 15 day change, in both creating a lot of processing for the Speaker with re-admissions, and in the election process.

The problem we need to fix from my experience is being able to have RA members receive an email when they get PMs When we were still with Invisionfree as a platofrm, we had that ability, I and others who served as Speaker used it very effectively. That changed, and since then it has been much harder.

Nationstates had that ability with Telegrams before they moved away from Jolt, and that also changed. If a constructive change is needed it is finding a way to contact players so they will check into the forums. 15 day periods in and of themselves won't do that. The other thing to remember is that people have lives. Real life can interfere for days at a time. Some people do not organize their time and plan out everything we think they should be doing. The only thing I wish people would do that they often don't is give fair warning beforehand if they know they might not be able to log in for a period of days, or weeks, or months. At least that way we know they'll be back and we won't have to wonder if they died. But beyond that, I think you're trying to impose on other players the way you think they should behave, and that is not usually a successful proposition.

Thus, I believe we need to put this issue back to what is was before it was changed. The 15 day rule is not progress, it is not something that moves things forward, and I think had people better understood this when the original change came up for a vote, it would not have passed.

It's obvious to others that the change did not work; it created problems and did not have its intended effect. One of the issue is whether to undo both changes your earlier bill made or undo them separately. But both of them are creating more work for everyone involved, and that energy could be better spent working on other things.
 
Felesia, people got used to an RA where months would go by with no legislation. So they do check in as often as you think they should. We've already seen adverse consequences of the 15 day change, in both creating a lot of processing for the Speaker with re-admissions, and in the election process.
Click to expand...

Activity law as currently doesn't require the post to be made in the Regional Assembly, but that a post is made on the forum. I think it is not too much to ask for esteemed RA member to make a post once every 15 days on any part of this forum to let us know that they are still interested in the region's affair. Personally, I think 15 days law didn't create the problem with re-admissions and election process, but it is the current constitution which specify that it is forbidden to accept new member, but not remove one during an election. It should also be noted that I have not receive clarification from the court after I made a request on this issue, but the court instead attempt to authorize an unconstitutional injunction.

The problem we need to fix from my experience is being able to have RA members receive an email when they get PMs When we were still with Invisionfree as a platofrm, we had that ability, I and others who served as Speaker used it very effectively. That changed, and since then it has been much harder.

Nationstates had that ability with Telegrams before they moved away from Jolt, and that also changed. If a constructive change is needed it is finding a way to contact players so they will check into the forums. 15 day periods in and of themselves won't do that. The other thing to remember is that people have lives. Real life can interfere for days at a time. Some people do not organize their time and plan out everything we think they should be doing. The only thing I wish people would do that they often don't is give fair warning beforehand if they know they might not be able to log in for a period of days, or weeks, or months. At least that way we know they'll be back and we won't have to wonder if they died. But beyond that, I think you're trying to impose on other players the way you think they should behave, and that is not usually a successful proposition.
Click to expand...

This is forum moderation problem and not the law, if you were to suggest a change to the law to resolve this problem then wouldn't in also be reasonable to suggest a change to administrator for not resolving this problem sooner. The current amendment to the law you proposed doesn't resolve this problem at all and neither will changing the admin.

Thus, I believe we need to put this issue back to what is was before it was changed. The 15 day rule is not progress, it is not something that moves things forward, and I think had people better understood this when the original change came up for a vote, it would not have passed.
Click to expand...

It is a change to the attitude the region need. If this region continue to allows people to spend several days from the forum then I guaranteed you it will be no time before this high level of activity we enjoy following the election is lost.

It's obvious to others that the change did not work; it created problems and did not have its intended effect. One of the issue is whether to undo both changes your earlier bill made or undo them separately. But both of them are creating more work for everyone involved, and that energy could be better spent working on other things.
Click to expand...

I think it have an intended effect. The law is warning everyone that if you are not here then you can be removed from the R.A. which is the message that the law should be sending to each and everyone of us. To change it now is to risk going back to the inactivity before this, one that result in an inactive delegate easily couped by others because no one is around to help or warn him.
 
Felasia:
I will oppose the change as I think it will not solve the problem. It will only increase the period peoples are allow to be inactive and increase non participation in the region.
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top