Progressive Party

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: Charter

Article 1: Values

Liberty:
All persons have the right to freedom from unjustified or arbitrary use of state power, in particular all persons have the right to act and think freely. Governments must be organized to defend these liberties from all threats.

Security:
The security of a polity against external threats is paramount, and must be ensured.

Justice:
All persons have a right to equal treatment in both the public and private spheres. Individuals must all be equal before the law and government policy. Government must ensure that private business is conducted fairly.

Democracy:
Government must be directly accountable to those it serves. Its business must be transparent and open to public scrutiny.

Reason:
Decisions should be informed by reflection and evidence.

Article 2: Membership
1. Any citizen of The North Pacific who accepts Progressive values may become a member of the Progressive Party with the sponsorship of 3 current members.
2. Any member who is convicted of a criminal offense by the Court of The North Pacific will cease to be a member.
3. Any member who ceases to have a known nation in The North Pacific will cease to be a member.
4. Any member of the Progressive Party may resign their membership.
5. A two thirds majority party vote may remove any member from the party at any time, for violating this charter or otherwise.

Article 3: Party Congresses
1. If a majority of party members are in #ncpp, they may convoke an immediate Party Congress by a majority vote. Else, any member may convoke a Party Congress with at least 72 hours warning.
2. Party Congresses must be held in the official party channel, #ncpp, on Esper.net.
3. No Congress may propose new business without either a majority of party members present or 72 hours notice.
4. If multiple congresses are convoked to take place during the same period of time, they will be folded into one Congress which will address the combined list of business.
5. The deliberations of a Party Congress will be logged and publicly displayed. The deliberations may only be censored by vote of the Congress for personal privacy reasons.
6. Any Party Congress may propose any Party vote.
7. For any part of the final statement of a Party Congress, if the relevant fraction of all party members excluding abstentions vote in favor it will take immediate effect. Otherwise, a seven day vote must be held on the forum, and those who fail to vote in that time will be considered to have abstained.

Article 4: Party Offices
1. There will be a Secretary, responsible for administering the records, votes and elections of the party and a Spokesperson, responsible for administering the recruitment, campaigning and public relations of the party.
2. Any member may convoke a Congress whose business shall be to elect one or more Officers at any time to any office to which the Congress calls an election.
3. All offices will be elected by a Condorcet vote. Any ties will be broken in favor of the most senior member.
4. Any officer may tender a letter of resignation to the Secretary, initiating an immediate election to that position. Until a replacement officer is elected, the most senior party member who is not an officer will execute the duties of the vacant office.

Article 5: Selection of Candidates for Regional Elections
1. A week prior to any scheduled regional election, the selection of candidates to run in the election will begin. The first five days of this period will be allotted for the selection of potential candidates. After this, another two will be for voting on the final candidates.
2. The candidates to put forward will be selected and ordered by a Condorcet vote. Any ties will be broken in favor of the most senior member.
3. For any unscheduled regional election, the Party may select candidates by a majority vote of attendees of a Congress convoked for that purpose.

Article 6: Resolutions
1. Any member may convoke a Party Congress whose business will be the adoption of a resolution on a subject.
2. Any resolution will require a majority. No resolution may contradict the provisions of this Charter.
3. A resolution may establish party aims, party statutes, or amend or repeal a previous resolution.
4. The Secretary will maintain a public listing of active resolutions.

Article 7: Amendments
1. Any member may convoke a Party Congress whose business will be the adoption of a particular amendment to this charter.
2. An amendment to this charter will require a two-thirds majority.

Spoiler: Resolutions

1: Fundamental reform of the Constitution and Legal Code is the top priority of the party.
2: Party color is red.
3:

is the party logo.
4: The Progressive Party does not allow its members to also be members of other political parties.
5: Party members not selected in the primary shall be listed as an independent should they run in the subsequent election.
6: Primaries shall include a "None of the Above" option.

Membership Roll

Spoiler: North Pacific ProP Congress #1

[28 Sep 22:12] <Eluvatar> I declare the formation of the New Civil Progressive Party
[28 Sep 22:12] <Limi> the law covers the breaking of the oath already I think
[28 Sep 22:12] <Eluvatar> I join the Party
[28 Sep 22:12] <Gulliver> Your name is too long
[28 Sep 22:12] <Gulliver> >_>
[28 Sep 22:12] <Eluvatar> I propose the Party allow anyone who wishes to enter
[28 Sep 22:12] <Eluvatar> can be renamed
[28 Sep 22:12] <Gulliver> Fine
[28 Sep 22:12] <Gulliver> I join
[28 Sep 22:13] * Dali might join
[28 Sep 22:13] <Gulliver> I move we elect Eluvatar chairman
[28 Sep 22:13] <Eluvatar> I move we wait some more seconds to let more people join
[28 Sep 22:13] <Dali> I will join only if the official colour of the party is Red
[28 Sep 22:13] <Gulliver> You could just
[28 Sep 22:13] <Gulliver> Not second
[28 Sep 22:13] <Eluvatar> aww but I prefer orange
[28 Sep 22:13] <Gulliver> If you're making the color orange why not just go all out andmake it he progressive party
[28 Sep 22:13] <Wham> TNP law needs to be burned. Right now it's too complicated. Takes hours to figuere out if you can legally take a poop in the first toilet before labor day, when the sun is at half zenith
[28 Sep 22:13] <Eluvatar> Agreed.
[28 Sep 22:14] <Eluvatar> Wham, I think your opinions would be welcomed in NPCC
[28 Sep 22:14] <Gulliver> Very
[28 Sep 22:14] <AMOM> people are going to learn pretty quickly that they can't fuck around with me as Speaker
[28 Sep 22:14] <Limi> I'd propose changes but I'm not allowed in the RA right now
[28 Sep 22:14] <Eluvatar> right.
[28 Sep 22:14] <Eluvatar> actually
[28 Sep 22:14] <AMOM> all this bullshit with people moving their nations around
[28 Sep 22:14] <AMOM> what the hell
[28 Sep 22:14] <AMOM> Elu
[28 Sep 22:14] <AMOM> did you demask BS>
[28 Sep 22:14] <Eluvatar> for matters of bookkeeping, I would like to request that Gulliver, Limi, Dali, and AMOM permit me to share this log

Permission was granted. Subsequently, discussion moved to #NCPP

[28 Sep 22:16] --> You joined the channel
[28 Sep 22:16] --- eldridge.esper.net changed mode: +nt
[28 Sep 22:16] --- Eluvatar changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum
[28 Sep 22:17] --- Eluvatar changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum. Speaking is agreement with Rule 1.
[28 Sep 22:19] --> Wham joined the channel
[28 Sep 22:23] --> AMOM joined the channel
[28 Sep 22:23] <AMOM> ENN SEE PEE PEE
[28 Sep 22:23] --> Haxstree joined the channel
[28 Sep 22:24] <Eluvatar>
[28 Sep 22:24] <AMOM> WELL CUM TOO THEE ENN SEE PEE PEE
[28 Sep 22:24] --> Gulliver joined the channel
[28 Sep 22:24] <Eluvatar> WELL COME
[28 Sep 22:24] <Gulliver> Oh this is much better
[28 Sep 22:24] <Haxstree> I can really help actually
[28 Sep 22:24] <Eluvatar> awesome!
[28 Sep 22:24] <Haxstree> I just need to read all the laws first
[28 Sep 22:24] <Haxstree>
[28 Sep 22:24] <AMOM> i falconkats am now ncpp not constitutional i declair an injunctin
[28 Sep 22:25] <Haxstree>
[28 Sep 22:25] <Haxstree> roleplay
[28 Sep 22:25] <Haxstree> Who do I get to be?
[28 Sep 22:25] <AMOM> kurd
[28 Sep 22:25] <Haxstree> I don't know enough about him
[28 Sep 22:25] <Haxstree> but I can try
[28 Sep 22:25] <Eluvatar> I must remind people
[28 Sep 22:25] <Kurd> I IZ CRAZY
[28 Sep 22:25] <Eluvatar> that this channel is public
[28 Sep 22:25] <Eluvatar> and logged
[28 Sep 22:26] <Wham> Why is gross complaining that it took years to clear up the over simplification of TNP law. That's the last thing TNP law is
[28 Sep 22:26] <Eluvatar> don't do anything you would'nt want forever mocking you on a forum
[28 Sep 22:26] <Kurd> logged where?
[28 Sep 22:27] <Eluvatar> TNP forum
[28 Sep 22:27] <AMOM> rofl
[28 Sep 22:27] <Eluvatar> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/
[28 Sep 22:27] <AMOM> public never stopped me from mouthing off
[28 Sep 22:27] <Haxstree> can Durk join?
[28 Sep 22:27] <Eluvatar> Motion to allow any TNP nation to join the party
[28 Sep 22:27] <Eluvatar> regardless of Assembly membership or legal status
[28 Sep 22:27] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure if I'm in favor but we should consider it
[28 Sep 22:28] <Gulliver> Second
[28 Sep 22:28] <Gulliver> <__<
[28 Sep 22:28] <Haxstree>
[28 Sep 22:28] <Gulliver> It would be nice to discuss it first >_>
[28 Sep 22:28] <Eluvatar> Right.
[28 Sep 22:29] <Eluvatar> So, problem is, it could open the doors to loads of people flooding the party
[28 Sep 22:29] <Eluvatar> but we could always just kinda say no
[28 Sep 22:29] <Eluvatar> we don't have formal rules binding us yet, really
[28 Sep 22:29] <Haxstree> wait
[28 Sep 22:29] <Gulliver> Don't we want people?
[28 Sep 22:29] <Haxstree> why not just have invite only?
[28 Sep 22:29] <Eluvatar> I mean, non TNP people
[28 Sep 22:29] <Gulliver> Oh
[28 Sep 22:29] <Gulliver> Non TNP people doesn't make sense
[28 Sep 22:29] <Eluvatar> Right
[28 Sep 22:29] <AMOM> you know what is nice
[28 Sep 22:29] <AMOM> not having formal rules binding us yet
[28 Sep 22:29] <Eluvatar> How about anyone who is or has ever been in the RA?
[28 Sep 22:29] <Eluvatar> I drop my motion
[28 Sep 22:30] <AMOM>
[28 Sep 22:30] <AMOM> that sounds fine
[28 Sep 22:30] --> Dali|afk joined the channel
[28 Sep 22:30] <Eluvatar> ok
[28 Sep 22:30] <-- Dali|afk left the channel
[28 Sep 22:30] <Haxstree> is Dali in this party?
[28 Sep 22:30] --> Dali|afk joined the channel
[28 Sep 22:30] <Eluvatar> uh
[28 Sep 22:30] <Haxstree> :O
[28 Sep 22:30] <Eluvatar> ok, so
[28 Sep 22:30] <Eluvatar> The quetion to decicde
[28 Sep 22:30] <Eluvatar> Whether to A) restrict party membership to RA membership
[28 Sep 22:30] <Eluvatar> or B) restrict party membership to anyone who is or has ever been in the RA
[28 Sep 22:31] <Eluvatar> or C) other
[28 Sep 22:31] <Wham> I say B
[28 Sep 22:31] <Eluvatar> I vote (B)
[28 Sep 22:31] <Haxstree> B
[28 Sep 22:31] <Eluvatar> 0:2:0:2
[28 Sep 22:31] <Eluvatar> er
[28 Sep 22:31] <Dali|afk> It would be nice to provide an incentive to get people to be RA so they can vote with us
[28 Sep 22:31] <Eluvatar> 0:2:0:4
[28 Sep 22:31] <Eluvatar> It seems that if they want to join the party they have some interest in getting things done
[28 Sep 22:32] <Eluvatar> The original question was: JAL?
[28 Sep 22:32] <Wham> well we can have it where you can join the party as soon as your application is made
[28 Sep 22:32] <Dali|afk> but yeah, B for me
[28 Sep 22:32] <Eluvatar> 0:3:0:3
[28 Sep 22:32] <Wham> or in cases such as JAL, or LIMI then exceptions can be made, that's why B makes more sense
[28 Sep 22:32] <Dali> and what was this about JAL?
[28 Sep 22:33] <Eluvatar> 22:27 < Haxstree> can Durk join?
[28 Sep 22:33] <Gulliver> Elu, I'm making a post, but
[28 Sep 22:33] <AMOM> JAL's a clown though
[28 Sep 22:33] <Gulliver> I worry my wording is going to be too strong
[28 Sep 22:33] <Eluvatar> True
[28 Sep 22:33] <AMOM> how's about we appoint him position of Jester
[28 Sep 22:33] <AMOM> and he never enters the RA again
[28 Sep 22:33] <Gulliver> B
[28 Sep 22:33] <Eluvatar> 0:4:0:2
[28 Sep 22:33] <Haxstree> but his vote
[28 Sep 22:33] <Eluvatar> motion carries
[28 Sep 22:33] <Eluvatar> So I've kind of been assuming chairmanship
[28 Sep 22:33] <Eluvatar> but that's not really kosher
[28 Sep 22:34] <Dali> I vote Elu for Chair
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> we shoudl select a chairman to make them do this shit
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM> you're right
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM> I'm the king
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM> oh, wait
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM> "make them do this shit"
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> I hear a motion to select me as Chair
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM> yeah, you can have the job
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM>
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> and a motion to select AMOM as chai-
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> damn
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> Is there a second?
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM> teehee
[28 Sep 22:34] <Haxstree> Second
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM> who what where
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM> um
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> Vote on motion to select Eluvatar as Chair of the NCPP
[28 Sep 22:34] <Haxstree> Elu for Chair
[28 Sep 22:34] <AMOM> I VOTE FOR ELU.
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> 2:0:4
[28 Sep 22:34] <Dali> Elu!
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> 3:0:3
[28 Sep 22:34] <Haxstree> o/ Elu!
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> I abstain
[28 Sep 22:34] <Eluvatar> 3:0:1:2
[28 Sep 22:35] <Eluvatar> Motion carries
[28 Sep 22:35] <AMOM> oh, no you don't
[28 Sep 22:35] <AMOM> vote for yourself
[28 Sep 22:35] <Eluvatar> motion carries
[28 Sep 22:35] <Eluvatar>
[28 Sep 22:35] <AMOM> heh
[28 Sep 22:35] <Eluvatar> OK
[28 Sep 22:35] <Dali> Don't make us drag you to vote Aye
[28 Sep 22:35] <Eluvatar> So, motion to declare fundamental reform of the Constitution and Legal Code to be the top priority of the NPCC
[28 Sep 22:35] <Eluvatar> Is there a second?
[28 Sep 22:35] <Haxstree> Second
[28 Sep 22:36] <Dali> Third
[28 Sep 22:36] <Eluvatar> Vote
[28 Sep 22:36] <Eluvatar> Aye
[28 Sep 22:36] <Dali> Aye
[28 Sep 22:36] <Eluvatar> 1:0:0:5
[28 Sep 22:36] <Eluvatar> 2:0:0:4
[28 Sep 22:36] <Haxstree> Aye
[28 Sep 22:36] <Eluvatar> 3:0:0:3
[28 Sep 22:36] <AMOM> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/633979/14/#new
[28 Sep 22:36] <AMOM> YES
[28 Sep 22:36] <AMOM> YES YES YES
[28 Sep 22:36] <Eluvatar> 4:0:0:2 motion carries
[28 Sep 22:36] <AMOM> yes to that
[28 Sep 22:36] <AMOM> yes, by the way
[28 Sep 22:36] <AMOM> also, yes
[28 Sep 22:36] <AMOM> and yes
[28 Sep 22:37] <Gulliver> There eluvatar
[28 Sep 22:37] <AMOM> eloovatah
[28 Sep 22:37] <Gulliver> I posted in your thread
[28 Sep 22:37] <Gulliver> I hope you're happy
[28 Sep 22:37] <AMOM> hey, eloovatah
[28 Sep 22:37] <AMOM> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/633979/14/#new
[28 Sep 22:37] <Eluvatar> Motion to make the party color Umber
[28 Sep 22:37] <AMOM> ask your kwestchin
[28 Sep 22:37] <Eluvatar> *Burnt Umber
[28 Sep 22:37] <Gulliver> What the fuck is umber
[28 Sep 22:37] <Eluvatar> #8A3324
[28 Sep 22:37] <Eluvatar> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umber#Burnt_umber
[28 Sep 22:37] <Eluvatar> er
[28 Sep 22:37] <Eluvatar> bad motion
[28 Sep 22:37] <Eluvatar> not made
[28 Sep 22:37] <Haxstree> wait I need to answer your question to get accepted into the RA...
[28 Sep 22:37] <Eluvatar> trying to select a reddish orange here
[28 Sep 22:38] <AMOM> lol yes
[28 Sep 22:38] <AMOM> you do
[28 Sep 22:38] <AMOM> unless you'd like to wait 14 days
[28 Sep 22:38] <AMOM> and get accepted automatically
[28 Sep 22:38] <Haxstree> no thanks
[28 Sep 22:38] <AMOM> ...after 14 days.
[28 Sep 22:38] <AMOM> |
[28 Sep 22:38] <AMOM> teehee
[28 Sep 22:38] <Gulliver> Very dull color
[28 Sep 22:38] <Gulliver> Let's just go with orange
[28 Sep 22:38] <AMOM> it'll be fun jerking people around XP
[28 Sep 22:38] <Eluvatar> Burnt orange
[28 Sep 22:38] <Eluvatar> #CC5500
[28 Sep 22:38] <Haxstree> If I answer tomorrow when I am more educated on the laws will that be okay?
[28 Sep 22:39] <Eluvatar> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_(colour)#Burnt_orange
[28 Sep 22:39] <Gulliver> I don't think it's worth getting educated on them
[28 Sep 22:39] <Gulliver> They're beyond reform, they have to be rewritten entirely
[28 Sep 22:39] <Dali> I like that burnt orange
[28 Sep 22:39] <Haxstree> Well MOM is asking me questions about them
[28 Sep 22:39] <Gulliver> The fundamental style and structure of them is inherently byzantine
[28 Sep 22:39] <Gulliver> Well, I won't stop you
[28 Sep 22:39] <Eluvatar> OK
[28 Sep 22:40] <Haxstree> I'll just say legal reform and outreach
[28 Sep 22:40] <Eluvatar> Motion to make the party colour burnt orange
[28 Sep 22:40] <Eluvatar> is there a second?
[28 Sep 22:40] <Dali> Though, I typically have thought of the main TNP factions as Blue (Old Guard) vs. Red (progressives/revolutionaries)
[28 Sep 22:40] <Haxstree> I like red
[28 Sep 22:40] <Wham> how about a motion to set the constitution on fire?
[28 Sep 22:40] <Gulliver> That's
[28 Sep 22:40] <Gulliver> Coming up
[28 Sep 22:40] <Eluvatar> That would be illegal
[28 Sep 22:40] <Gulliver> Be patient
[28 Sep 22:40] <AMOM> lololol
[28 Sep 22:40] <Eluvatar> however, there are other things than burning
[28 Sep 22:40] <AMOM> UH GUYZ
[28 Sep 22:40] <AMOM> I PROPOZE A MOSHIN
[28 Sep 22:40] <AMOM> TO BLOW UP THE GOVURNMINT
[28 Sep 22:40] <Eluvatar> So, I hear Burnt Orange, I hear Red
[28 Sep 22:40] <Haxstree> :O
[28 Sep 22:40] <Wham> what we boil it then?
[28 Sep 22:40] <Haxstree> Mom
[28 Sep 22:41] <Haxstree> this is all being LOGGED
[28 Sep 22:41] <Eluvatar> Any other colours?
[28 Sep 22:41] <Haxstree> :S
[28 Sep 22:41] <AMOM> lol
[28 Sep 22:41] <AMOM> I know
[28 Sep 22:41] * Haxstree protects mom from retribution
[28 Sep 22:41] <AMOM> FTR: THAT WUZ JOKE. KTHX.
[28 Sep 22:41] <AMOM> I AM NOT TERRIST.

TO BE CONTINUED...

 

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: North Pacific ProP Congress #1 Continued

... NOW

[28 Sep 22:41] <Haxstree> LOL
[28 Sep 22:41] <Dali> I could support Orange, if worse comes to worse.
[28 Sep 22:41] <Eluvatar> lol
[28 Sep 22:41] <Haxstree> I don't like organge
[28 Sep 22:41] <Gulliver> Red is a big communist
[28 Sep 22:41] <Eluvatar> Any seconds?
[28 Sep 22:41] <AMOM> a BIG communist?
[28 Sep 22:41] <Gulliver> How about
[28 Sep 22:41] <AMOM> I prefer the small ones
[28 Sep 22:41] <Gulliver> Octarine
[28 Sep 22:42] <AMOM> what are we even discussing?
[28 Sep 22:42] <Eluvatar> http://atlasobscura.com/place/the-giant-lenin-head-of-ulan-ude
[28 Sep 22:42] <Haxstree> Party Color
[28 Sep 22:42] <Gulliver> Apparnetly
[28 Sep 22:42] <Wham> Hax are you implying that AMOM is your mother?
[28 Sep 22:42] <Gulliver> It's important we have a color
[28 Sep 22:42] <Gulliver> RIGHT NOW
[28 Sep 22:42] <Eluvatar> Let's get this doen quickly
[28 Sep 22:42] <Gulliver> THough
[28 Sep 22:42] <Gulliver> I'm too tired to
[28 Sep 22:42] <Eluvatar> so as to never discuss it again
[28 Sep 22:42] <Haxstree> I imply nothing!
[28 Sep 22:42] <AMOM> DARK RED
[28 Sep 22:42] <Haxstree> AMOM = A mom
[28 Sep 22:42] <AMOM> it is a purty color.
[28 Sep 22:42] <Haxstree> that is that
[28 Sep 22:42] <Wham> you keep calling him mom
[28 Sep 22:42] <Eluvatar> so we have burnt orange, red, dark red, and octarine
[28 Sep 22:42] <Gulliver> I'm actually fine with Red
[28 Sep 22:42] <Dali> I second AMOM's choice.
[28 Sep 22:42] <Gulliver>
[28 Sep 22:42] <Eluvatar> is there a second for holding a vote?
[28 Sep 22:42] <AMOM> yeah, probably because I called him Anus-Sanus when I was tipsy one day
[28 Sep 22:42] <Gulliver> If it doesn't hurt use by making us look communist
[28 Sep 22:42] <Gulliver> Good bold vibrant color
[28 Sep 22:43] <Gulliver> The color of the poppy, a nice flower
[28 Sep 22:43] <Eluvatar> vote?
[28 Sep 22:43] <Haxstree> I second Red
[28 Sep 22:43] <Gulliver> Aye
[28 Sep 22:43] <Dali> I second a vote, Elu
[28 Sep 22:43] <Eluvatar> ok
[28 Sep 22:43] <Wham> I used to wonder where the missing s on AS was...
[28 Sep 22:43] <AMOM> I like red
[28 Sep 22:43] <Eluvatar> A VOTE
[28 Sep 22:43] <Eluvatar> I vote Burnt Orange, Octarine, Red, Dark Red
[28 Sep 22:43] <AMOM> A WILD VOTE APPROACHES!
[28 Sep 22:43] <AMOM> Dark Red, reserve the right to change mah vote
[28 Sep 22:43] <Gulliver> Orange, Red, Dark Red, Octarine
[28 Sep 22:44] <AMOM> oh wait
[28 Sep 22:44] <Dali> Red, Dark Red, Orange, Octarine
[28 Sep 22:44] <AMOM> we're doing it in order
[28 Sep 22:44] <AMOM> uh
[28 Sep 22:44] <Gulliver> Preferential vote AMOM
[28 Sep 22:44] <Haxstree> Red, Dark Red, Octarine, Orange
[28 Sep 22:44] <Gulliver> Find the option that a majority supports one on one to all others
[28 Sep 22:44] <AMOM> Dark red, red, orange, octarine
[28 Sep 22:44] <Wham> Dark red
[28 Sep 22:44] <AMOM> need other options wham
[28 Sep 22:44] <Gulliver> Not necessarily
[28 Sep 22:44] <Gulliver> You can leave optoins out
[28 Sep 22:44] <Wham> red orange
[28 Sep 22:45] <Gulliver> Though it's not recommended
[28 Sep 22:45] <Eluvatar> ok
[28 Sep 22:45] <AMOM> OKAY THEN MR. COMPLICATED
[28 Sep 22:45] <Gulliver> It's not that comlicated
[28 Sep 22:45] <Eluvatar> EluvatarBurnt Orange, Octarine, Red, Dark Red
[28 Sep 22:45] <Eluvatar> GulliverBurnt Orange, Red, Dark Red, Octarine
[28 Sep 22:45] <Eluvatar> DaliRed, Dark Red, Burnt Orange, Octarine
[28 Sep 22:45] <Eluvatar> AMOMDark Red, Red, Burnt Orange, Octarine
[28 Sep 22:45] <Eluvatar> WhamDark Red, Red, Burnt Orange
[28 Sep 22:45] <Eluvatar> correct?
[28 Sep 22:45] <Gulliver> Rank as many options as you want in order of preference
[28 Sep 22:45] <AMOM> yesh
[28 Sep 22:45] <Gulliver> Any you don't list are unpreffered to all listed ones
[28 Sep 22:45] <Haxstree> wait
[28 Sep 22:45] <Haxstree> my vote
[28 Sep 22:45] <AMOM> hax!
[28 Sep 22:45] <Gulliver> o:
[28 Sep 22:45] <AMOM> red or dark red
[28 Sep 22:45] <AMOM> you know you want it
[28 Sep 22:46] <Haxstree> I said " Red, Dark Red, Octarine, Orange"
[28 Sep 22:46] <Eluvatar> ok
[28 Sep 22:46] <Haxstree> recognize please
[28 Sep 22:46] <Gulliver> For shame de facto chairman
[28 Sep 22:46] <Eluvatar> HaxstreeRed, Dark Red, Octarine, Burnt Orange
[28 Sep 22:48] <Eluvatar> computing
[28 Sep 22:48] <AMOM> error: error: does not compute
[28 Sep 22:48] <Gulliver> PROCESSING
[28 Sep 22:48] <Gulliver> PROCESSING
[28 Sep 22:48] <Gulliver> He's finding the option that beats each one on one
[28 Sep 22:48] <Gulliver> And is therefore the overall preference of the majority
[28 Sep 22:48] <Haxstree> can we add Durk?
[28 Sep 22:49] <Haxstree> He might not do anything, but he adds to the "IT" factor. If you know what I mean...he's NS famous .
[28 Sep 22:49] * Haxstree wonders if he communicated this reasoning well enough...is tired
[28 Sep 22:49] <Gulliver> I can see where you're coming from
[28 Sep 22:50] <Gulliver> I'm not knowledgable enough mysself to say
[28 Sep 22:50] <Eluvatar> augh I should have done this at home lol
[28 Sep 22:50] <AMOM> dunno if we really want JAL to be part of our representation
[28 Sep 22:50] <Gulliver>
[28 Sep 22:50] <Gulliver> There's 6 votes
[28 Sep 22:50] <Haxstree> he'll just be on the posters
[28 Sep 22:50] <Gulliver> How hard is this D:
[28 Sep 22:50] <Gulliver> You can do this on a piece of paper
[28 Sep 22:51] <Haxstree> that's not the Elu way
[28 Sep 22:51] <Eluvatar> I misread instructions
[28 Sep 22:51] <Gulliver> Instructions?
[28 Sep 22:51] <Eluvatar> Red wins
[28 Sep 22:51] <Gulliver> Also octarine was a joke
[28 Sep 22:51] <Haxstree> yay!
[28 Sep 22:51] <Gulliver> Details
[28 Sep 22:51] <Gulliver> How much did it beat the others by
[28 Sep 22:51] <AMOM> eeeeh loooo
[28 Sep 22:51] <Gulliver> Help AMOM understand
[28 Sep 22:51] <AMOM> you need to make a question
[28 Sep 22:51] <AMOM> cackstree and mahujj need to reply
[28 Sep 22:52] <Eluvatar> I made the question in private to Mahaj
[28 Sep 22:52] <Haxstree> I did reply
[28 Sep 22:52] <Gulliver> Who are athese people
[28 Sep 22:52] <Gulliver>
[28 Sep 22:52] <Gulliver> Omg
[28 Sep 22:52] <Haxstree> you said it smelled like salmon
[28 Sep 22:52] <Eluvatar> I want it to be secret
[28 Sep 22:52] <Gulliver> I should make a logo
[28 Sep 22:52] <Gulliver> WHAT DO WE WANT ON OUR LOGO
[28 Sep 22:52] <Haxstree> JAL's face
[28 Sep 22:52] <Gulliver> >__>
[28 Sep 22:52] <AMOM> YES
[28 Sep 22:52] <AMOM> THAT IS PERFECT
[28 Sep 22:52] <Haxstree>
[28 Sep 22:52] <AMOM> A GREAT BIG JAL FACE
[28 Sep 22:52] <AMOM> and flag
[28 Sep 22:52] <AMOM> and motto
[28 Sep 22:52] <Gulliver> Does he have a face
[28 Sep 22:52] <Haxstree> Mom approves of my IDEA!
[28 Sep 22:52] <AMOM> and write J A L on it
[28 Sep 22:52] <AMOM> in really big letters
[28 Sep 22:52] * Haxstree is happy
[28 Sep 22:52] <Eluvatar> NOOO
[28 Sep 22:52] <Gulliver> Can we have
[28 Sep 22:53] <AMOM> in fact
[28 Sep 22:53] <Gulliver> A shorter name
[28 Sep 22:53] <Gulliver>
[28 Sep 22:53] <Eluvatar> A seal!
[28 Sep 22:53] <AMOM> let's be the JAL party
[28 Sep 22:53] <Eluvatar> A cute Seal
[28 Sep 22:53] <Gulliver> A seal?
[28 Sep 22:53] <Gulliver> o_o
[28 Sep 22:53] <AMOM> how about a seal with a top hat
[28 Sep 22:53] <Dali> really Elu?
[28 Sep 22:53] <Eluvatar> it's an aquatic mammal
[28 Sep 22:53] <Eluvatar> has whiskers
[28 Sep 22:53] <Eluvatar> makes adorable noises
[28 Sep 22:53] <AMOM> lol
[28 Sep 22:53] <Eluvatar> almost as adorable as JAL
[28 Sep 22:53] <AMOM> haha
[28 Sep 22:53] * Dali coughs out his beer

TO BE CONTINUED...

 

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: North Pacific ProP Party Congress #1 Continued

[28 Sep 22:53] --> Felasia joined the channel
[28 Sep 22:54] <Gulliver> Omg a Felasia
[28 Sep 22:54] <Dali> Comrade Fel!
[28 Sep 22:54] <AMOM> A wild Felasia appears!
[28 Sep 22:54] <Gulliver> Welcoem to the party with a name that's too long for my tastes still D:
[28 Sep 22:54] <Felasia> Morning >_<
[28 Sep 22:54] --- Eluvatar changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum. Speaking is agreement with Rule 1. | Chairman is Elu | Party Color is Red
[28 Sep 22:54] <AMOM> lololool
[28 Sep 22:54] <AMOM> my comment at the beginning of the log will be right at the top
[28 Sep 22:54] <Dali> <Gulliver> Welcoem to the party with a name that's too long for my tastes still D: <- Agreed.
[28 Sep 22:54] <AMOM> when it is posted
[28 Sep 22:54] <Felasia> I needs my coffee before any enthusiastic event
[28 Sep 22:54] <Felasia> >_<
[28 Sep 22:54] <Gulliver> CHairman needs to enforce better rules
[28 Sep 22:55] <Gulliver> Or I will take over D:<
[28 Sep 22:55] <Dali> Chairman, do you need a whip?
[28 Sep 22:55] <Eluvatar> I have one
[28 Sep 22:55] <Gulliver> Motion to discuss name
[28 Sep 22:55] <Dali> Ooooh? Excellent
[28 Sep 22:55] <AMOM> whip us, baby.
[28 Sep 22:55] <Gulliver> Is there a second?
[28 Sep 22:55] <Dali> I second
[28 Sep 22:55] <Eluvatar> Second
[28 Sep 22:55] <AMOM> SECOND!
[28 Sep 22:55] <Gulliver> Aye
[28 Sep 22:55] <AMOM> just to be that guy
[28 Sep 22:55] <AMOM> dammit
[28 Sep 22:55] <Eluvatar> 1:0:0:6
[28 Sep 22:56] <Eluvatar> Aye
[28 Sep 22:56] <Eluvatar> 2:0:0:5
[28 Sep 22:56] <Haxstree> wait what's happening? D:
[28 Sep 22:56] <Dali> Aye is what?
[28 Sep 22:56] <Eluvatar> Discuss name
[28 Sep 22:56] <Eluvatar> as primary topic
[28 Sep 22:56] <Dali> AYE
[28 Sep 22:56] <Eluvatar> I will enforce ontopicness I suppose
[28 Sep 22:56] <Eluvatar> 3:0:0:4
[28 Sep 22:56] <Haxstree> NAY
[28 Sep 22:56] <Eluvatar> 3:1:0:3
[28 Sep 22:56] <Eluvatar>
[28 Sep 22:56] * Dali grabs his flogger, and looks at Hax
[28 Sep 22:56] <AMOM> for?
[28 Sep 22:57] <Eluvatar> 4:1:0:3
[28 Sep 22:57] <Haxstree> whoops
[28 Sep 22:57] <Eluvatar> 4/7 majority
[28 Sep 22:57] <Haxstree> sorry Dali-o
[28 Sep 22:57] <Eluvatar> Motion carries
[28 Sep 22:57] * AMOM flogs his grabber, and hacks at look
[28 Sep 22:57] <Gulliver> I would prefer no more than 3 terms
[28 Sep 22:57] --- Eluvatar changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum. Speaking is agreement with Rule 1. | Chairman is Elu | Party Color is Red | TOPIC IS THE NAME OF THE PARTY
[28 Sep 22:57] <Gulliver> 2 si even better
[28 Sep 22:57] <Eluvatar> We could drop the "New" or the "Civil"
[28 Sep 22:57] <Gulliver> Where one of thsoe terms is party or league or allience or such
[28 Sep 22:57] <Dali> Progressive TNP?
[28 Sep 22:57] <Eluvatar> I prefer dropping Civil
[28 Sep 22:57] <Haxstree> Me too
[28 Sep 22:57] <Gulliver> Yes
[28 Sep 22:57] <Gulliver> That would make it?
[28 Sep 22:58] <AMOM> Northern Progressive Partay
[28 Sep 22:58] <Eluvatar> New Progressive Alliance would hit extant TNP TLAs
[28 Sep 22:58] <Dali> yeah... can't use NPA again
[28 Sep 22:58] <AMOM> lol
[28 Sep 22:58] <Gulliver> It could just be Progressive Party in short and Progressive Party of the North Pacific in long
[28 Sep 22:58] <Gulliver> If you want to be standard
[28 Sep 22:58] <AMOM> peepee?
[28 Sep 22:58] <Eluvatar> That would be standard.
[28 Sep 22:58] <Gulliver> No
[28 Sep 22:58] <Gulliver> ProP
[28 Sep 22:58] <Felasia> New Pacific Party?
[28 Sep 22:58] <Gulliver> That's what we use for Taijitu's
[28 Sep 22:58] <Haxstree> is there another word for progressive?
[28 Sep 22:58] <Gulliver>
[28 Sep 22:58] <AMOM> OMG I KNOW
[28 Sep 22:58] <AMOM> New Pacific Order!@
[28 Sep 22:58] <Eluvatar> XD
[28 Sep 22:58] * Dali snorts
[28 Sep 22:58] <Haxstree> progressive = boring
[28 Sep 22:58] <Gulliver> Brilliant
[28 Sep 22:59] <Haxstree> omg
[28 Sep 22:59] <Haxstree> GOOD IDEA MOM
[28 Sep 22:59] <AMOM> TOTALLY
[28 Sep 22:59] <Felasia> lol
[28 Sep 22:59] <Eluvatar> ProNP?
[28 Sep 22:59] <Gulliver> Peoples Socialist Communist Party
[28 Sep 22:59] <AMOM> I'll make a nation called DixiePants
[28 Sep 22:59] <AMOM> and we will make it delegate
[28 Sep 22:59] <Haxstree> LOL
[28 Sep 22:59] <Eluvatar> Progressive party of the North Pacific
[28 Sep 22:59] <AMOM> omg lots of words
[28 Sep 22:59] <Haxstree> hmmmm...nah
[28 Sep 22:59] <Gulliver> The Reform Party with Ross Perot
[28 Sep 22:59] <Eluvatar> ProNP
[28 Sep 22:59] <Haxstree> yeah
[28 Sep 22:59] <AMOM> how about the Party Party
[28 Sep 22:59] <Haxstree> how about Reform
[28 Sep 22:59] <Eluvatar> been done AMOM
[28 Sep 22:59] <Dali> Refoooooooorm!
[28 Sep 22:59] <Gulliver> How about we just use an abstract noun like
[28 Sep 23:00] <Eluvatar> how about just NCP
[28 Sep 23:00] <Gulliver> "Reform"
[28 Sep 23:00] <Eluvatar> New Civil Progressivse
[28 Sep 23:00] <Eluvatar> *Progressives
[28 Sep 23:00] <Haxstree> Reform Party
[28 Sep 23:00] <AMOM> Applesauce
[28 Sep 23:00] <AMOM> We should have a band name
[28 Sep 23:00] <Gulliver> Reform Party is probably the most honest name
[28 Sep 23:00] <Gulliver> But
[28 Sep 23:00] <AMOM> Satan's Fur
[28 Sep 23:00] <Dali> Dalist Party >_>
[28 Sep 23:00] <Gulliver> Ross Perot
[28 Sep 23:00] <Wham> the applesauce movement
[28 Sep 23:00] <Gulliver>
[28 Sep 23:00] <Gulliver> The Reds
[28 Sep 23:00] <AMOM> Five Car Pileup
[28 Sep 23:00] <Eluvatar> Reform Party or Reform Alliance?
[28 Sep 23:00] <Eluvatar> I suggest Reform Alliance
[28 Sep 23:00] <Haxstree> Party
[28 Sep 23:00] <Gulliver> Party
[28 Sep 23:00] <Felasia> Rum's Power!
[28 Sep 23:00] <Eluvatar> Alliance of Nations see
[28 Sep 23:00] <Gulliver> Why alliance
[28 Sep 23:00] <Eluvatar> for to better appeal to newbies
[28 Sep 23:00] <Gulliver> Bah
[28 Sep 23:00] <Haxstree> Alliance sounds like a war is going to happen
[28 Sep 23:00] * Haxstree hides
[28 Sep 23:00] <Eluvatar> hm
[28 Sep 23:00] <Eluvatar> Reform Coalition?
[28 Sep 23:01] <Dali> Bloc?
[28 Sep 23:01] <Haxstree> no
[28 Sep 23:01] <AMOM> The Reform Guys
[28 Sep 23:01] <Haxstree> too confrontational
[28 Sep 23:01] <Gulliver> Bloc sounds ominous and soviet
[28 Sep 23:01] <AMOM> OMG
[28 Sep 23:01] <Haxstree> Party
[28 Sep 23:01] <AMOM> I know!!!
[28 Sep 23:01] <Eluvatar> Coalition is less confrontational
[28 Sep 23:01] <AMOM> "Those Guys"
[28 Sep 23:01] <Felasia> Union?
[28 Sep 23:01] <Eluvatar> Coalition is what I would suggest
[28 Sep 23:01] <Gulliver> Coalition implies multiple parties
[28 Sep 23:01] <Haxstree> I vote Party
[28 Sep 23:01] <Eluvatar> Progressive Reform Coalition?
[28 Sep 23:01] <Gulliver> Progressive Reform is redundant
[28 Sep 23:01] <Haxstree> no
[28 Sep 23:01] <AMOM> The House Party
[28 Sep 23:01] <Gulliver> I'd pick one
[28 Sep 23:01] <Eluvatar> ok
[28 Sep 23:01] <Eluvatar> Motion to vote between Party and Other
[28 Sep 23:01] <AMOM> huh?
[28 Sep 23:01] <Haxstree> Reform Party that is
[28 Sep 23:01] <Gulliver> Second
[28 Sep 23:02] <Gulliver> Party
[28 Sep 23:02] <Eluvatar> Vote OTHER or PARTY
[28 Sep 23:02] <Eluvatar> OTHER
[28 Sep 23:02] <Dali> Party
[28 Sep 23:02] <Wham> hmm, the alleyway alliance (AA)
[28 Sep 23:02] <Haxstree> Reform Party Party
[28 Sep 23:02] <Eluvatar> 2:1:0:4
[28 Sep 23:02] <Haxstree> Party
[28 Sep 23:02] <Eluvatar> 3:1:0:3
[28 Sep 23:02] <Dali> <Wham> hmm, the alleyway alliance (AA) <- Yes.
[28 Sep 23:02] <Felasia> other
[28 Sep 23:02] <Eluvatar> 3:2:0:2
[28 Sep 23:03] <Eluvatar> Wham has not clearly voted
[28 Sep 23:03] <Eluvatar> nor has AMOM
[28 Sep 23:03] <Wham> party
[28 Sep 23:03] <Eluvatar> 4:2:0:1
[28 Sep 23:03] <Eluvatar> Party it is, at least for now
[28 Sep 23:03] <Haxstree> mom you know you want to join the party
[28 Sep 23:03] <Wham> though I still like the AA
[28 Sep 23:04] <Dali> That could be an internal faction name, Wham
[28 Sep 23:04] <Eluvatar> It could
[28 Sep 23:04] <AMOM> uh
[28 Sep 23:04] <Haxstree> why are we splitting into factions?
[28 Sep 23:04] <Haxstree> UNITY
[28 Sep 23:04] <AMOM> I'm confused
[28 Sep 23:04] <Eluvatar> Unity is good though.
[28 Sep 23:04] <Gulliver> You're always confused
[28 Sep 23:04] <Eluvatar> like me
[28 Sep 23:04] <AMOM> lol
[28 Sep 23:04] <Haxstree> be nice to mom
[28 Sep 23:04] <Eluvatar> so we're the something party
[28 Sep 23:04] <Gulliver> I sense romance
[28 Sep 23:04] <Eluvatar> or the party of something
[28 Sep 23:05] <Eluvatar> what's the something?
[28 Sep 23:05] <Haxstree> Reform Party
[28 Sep 23:05] <Eluvatar> Progressive? Reform?
[28 Sep 23:05] <Gulliver> I'm fine with Reform Party
[28 Sep 23:05] <AMOM> we're the PRETTY PARTY
[28 Sep 23:05] <Gulliver> I don't hink the vague association with Ross Perot is really that harmful
[28 Sep 23:05] <Haxstree> Reform Party official
[28 Sep 23:05] <Felasia> Progressive... we want to be progressive >_<
[28 Sep 23:05] <Haxstree> Reform Party Party informal
[28 Sep 23:05] <Eluvatar> I move that we exclude from consideration any names other than Reform Party and Progressive Party
[28 Sep 23:05] <Dali> I'm fine with Reform Party, even though up here in Canada the Reform Party was quite conservative back in the day
[28 Sep 23:05] <AMOM> progressive reform party party
[28 Sep 23:05] <Eluvatar> Is there a second?
[28 Sep 23:06] <Dali> second
[28 Sep 23:06] <Gulliver> Aye
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> Aye
[28 Sep 23:06] <Dali> Aye
[28 Sep 23:06] <Haxstree> Aye
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> 3:0:0:4
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> 4:0:0:3
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> Motion carries
[28 Sep 23:06] <AMOM> aye.
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> Vote between Progressive Party and Reform Party (RP or PP)
[28 Sep 23:06] <AMOM> brb
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> PP
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> 1:0:6
[28 Sep 23:06] <Gulliver> PP
[28 Sep 23:06] <Haxstree> RP
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> 1:0:5
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> 1:2:4
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> er
[28 Sep 23:06] <Gulliver> But I'd prefer ProP as our acronym >_>
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> 2:1:4
[28 Sep 23:06] <Felasia> PP
[28 Sep 23:06] <Dali> PP
[28 Sep 23:06] <Eluvatar> 3:1:3
[28 Sep 23:06] <Haxstree> PP? Really
[28 Sep 23:07] <Eluvatar> 4:1:2
[28 Sep 23:07] <Eluvatar> ProgressivE Party
[28 Sep 23:07] <Eluvatar> Motion to make ProP the official abbreviation
[28 Sep 23:07] <Gulliver> Second
[28 Sep 23:07] <Dali> Second, and aye
[28 Sep 23:07] <Eluvatar> Aye
[28 Sep 23:07] <Felasia> aye
[28 Sep 23:07] <AMOM> nay
[28 Sep 23:07] <Haxstree> Aye
[28 Sep 23:07] <Gulliver> Aye
[28 Sep 23:07] <Eluvatar> 5:1:0:1
[28 Sep 23:07] <Eluvatar> Motion carries
[28 Sep 23:07] <AMOM> bastards
[28 Sep 23:07] * Dali offers AMOM a beer
[28 Sep 23:07] <Eluvatar> Motion to consider the Taijitu ProP charter ( http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_Progressive_Party ) as a basis to work from for the party rules
[28 Sep 23:08] * Haxstree sniffs it for mom's safety
[28 Sep 23:08] * AMOM accepts bribe
[28 Sep 23:08] <Dali>
[28 Sep 23:08] <Eluvatar> (just something to go through as we adopt bits)
[28 Sep 23:08] <Gulliver> I have to go to bed
[28 Sep 23:08] <Gulliver>
[28 Sep 23:08] <Haxstree> yeah
[28 Sep 23:08] <Eluvatar> Motion to adjourn
[28 Sep 23:08] <Felasia> Let me read it first >_<
[28 Sep 23:08] <Haxstree> Motion to Time Out
[28 Sep 23:08] <Eluvatar> uh
[28 Sep 23:08] <Eluvatar> i'll call that a second
[28 Sep 23:08] <Haxstree> adjourn...yes that is it
[28 Sep 23:08] <Gulliver> I've wanted to refine some points in that charter for a while
[28 Sep 23:08] <Eluvatar> Aye
[28 Sep 23:08] <Gulliver> Aye
[28 Sep 23:08] <Eluvatar> Gulliver: will have that chance
[28 Sep 23:08] <Haxstree> Aye
[28 Sep 23:09] <Eluvatar> 2:0:0:5
[28 Sep 23:09] <Eluvatar> 3:0:0:4
[28 Sep 23:09] <Eluvatar> come on...
[28 Sep 23:09] * Eluvatar pings Dali AMOM Wham and Felasia
[28 Sep 23:09] <AMOM> was away for a moment and is now lost
[28 Sep 23:09] <Dali> er, what's this?
[28 Sep 23:09] <Eluvatar> Motion to Adjourn
[28 Sep 23:09] <Dali> Aye
[28 Sep 23:09] <AMOM> aye
[28 Sep 23:09] <Eluvatar> resume later
[28 Sep 23:09] <Felasia> aye
[28 Sep 23:09] <Eluvatar> Motion carries
[28 Sep 23:09] <AMOM> I'm going to sleep soon anyway,
[28 Sep 23:09] <Wham> aye
[28 Sep 23:09] <Eluvatar> Guten Nacht
[28 Sep 23:11] <AMOM> danke
[28 Sep 23:16] <AMOM> peace
[28 Sep 23:17] <Dali> have a good one
[28 Sep 23:17] <Dali> damn it
[28 Sep 23:17] <Haxstree> bye mom

Next congress scheduled for: SOON.

[size=-4]The above image is intended entirely as a joke. The Progressive Party's choice of Red as a color in no way endorses or supports Rouge activities. The Progressive Party seeks reform, not war.[/size]

 

[Govindia]

Does TNP allow for political parties?

 

[Eluvatar]

I initially proposed the New Civil Progressive Party because the Civil Progressive Party existed in the past, so yes.

 

[Govindia]

I initially proposed the New Civil Progressive Party because the Civil Progressive Party existed in the past, so yes.

Requirements to join / participate in IRC channel?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

You can think of political parties as caucuses, the law neither recognizes nor prohibits them here.

 

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: North Pacific ProP Congress #2

[01 Oct 01:51] --- Eluvatar () changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum. Speaking is agreement with Rule 1. | Progressive Party channel | Party Color is Red | Party Congress in session
[01 Oct 01:51] <Eluvatar> I open the Second Party Congress
[01 Oct 01:52] <Gulliver> Good for you
[01 Oct 01:52] <Eluvatar> At the conclusion of the last Congress, we had a motion to consider the Taijitu ProP Charter as a basis for our deliberations on a charter
[01 Oct 01:52] <Dali> Chairman, I would like to motion that Gulliver be officially charged with creating a party logo for ProP?
[01 Oct 01:52] <Eluvatar> Is there a second for either motion?
[01 Oct 01:52] <Felasia> Second for both
[01 Oct 01:53] <Eluvatar> Since the logo thing shoudl be quick to deal with, I will have us consider it first
[01 Oct 01:53] <Eluvatar> VOte: whether Gulliver be charged with creating a ProP logo
[01 Oct 01:53] <Dali> Aye
[01 Oct 01:53] <Eluvatar> Aye (1:0:0:5:2)
[01 Oct 01:53] <Felasia> Aye
[01 Oct 01:53] <Eluvatar> (2:0:0:4:2)
[01 Oct 01:53] <Gulliver> Aye
[01 Oct 01:53] <Gulliver>
[01 Oct 01:53] <Dali> hehe
[01 Oct 01:53] <Eluvatar> (4:0:0:2:2)
[01 Oct 01:53] <Eluvatar> >_<
[01 Oct 01:54] <Eluvatar> Agawork: Wham: wish to vote?
[01 Oct 01:54] <Agawork> Aye.
[01 Oct 01:54] <Eluvatar> Motion carries
[01 Oct 01:54] <Eluvatar> Vote: Whether to take up the Taijitu ProP Charter as a basis for deliberations on the North Pacific ProP Charter
[01 Oct 01:55] <Eluvatar> Aye (1:0:0:5:2)
[01 Oct 01:55] <Gulliver> Aye >_>
[01 Oct 01:55] <Dali> Chair, can you provide a link to their Charter?
[01 Oct 01:55] <Agawork> As clarification, if this passes, that does not mean we adopt the charter, correct?
[01 Oct 01:56] <Gulliver> No
[01 Oct 01:56] <Felasia> http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_Progressive_Party
[01 Oct 01:56] <Eluvatar> Agawork: you are correct
[01 Oct 01:56] <Dali> As a basis, I'll vote Aye. Not to adopt it all, though.
[01 Oct 01:56] <Eluvatar> of course
[01 Oct 01:57] <Agawork> Aye, then.
[01 Oct 01:57] <Eluvatar> (3:0:0:3:2)
[01 Oct 01:57] <Felasia> Aye
[01 Oct 01:57] <Eluvatar> (4:0:0:2:2)
[01 Oct 01:58] <Eluvatar> er
[01 Oct 01:58] <Eluvatar> (5:0:0:1:2)
[01 Oct 01:58] <Eluvatar> Motion carries
[01 Oct 01:59] <Eluvatar> Let us consider Core Values
[01 Oct 01:59] <Eluvatar> firstly, let us vote on whether we should have some set of Core Values
[01 Oct 01:59] <Eluvatar> Aye (1:0:0:5:2)
[01 Oct 01:59] * Dali secretly detests core values
[01 Oct 01:59] <Dali> I mean... sure
[01 Oct 01:59] <Eluvatar> if you want to have none of them, vote nay
[01 Oct 01:59] <Eluvatar> (2:0:0:4:2)
[01 Oct 02:00] <Gulliver> Oh god I can't decide D:
[01 Oct 02:00] <Gulliver> Aye
[01 Oct 02:00] <Gulliver>
[01 Oct 02:00] <Eluvatar> (3:0:0:3:2)
[01 Oct 02:01] <Dali> (Also, do we have to go through motions to say that our Party supports X for electable positions in TNP?)
[01 Oct 02:01] <Agawork> The delegate of Agamemnon is considering
[01 Oct 02:01] <Eluvatar> (I would think so)
[01 Oct 02:02] * Agawork does so detest democracy....
[01 Oct 02:02] <Wham> if we have core values can we keep them simple at least
[01 Oct 02:02] <Eluvatar> Of course we can
[01 Oct 02:02] <Gulliver> Isn't our only core value to rebuild TNP's institutions
[01 Oct 02:02] <Eluvatar> That's not a core value, that's a.. something
[01 Oct 02:03] <Wham> Honor, courage, commitment is the military core values for example
[01 Oct 02:03] <Eluvatar> IT's a top priority
[01 Oct 02:03] <Eluvatar> Well Wham have you looked at the Taijitu ProP charter?
[01 Oct 02:03] <Eluvatar> I think it avoids core value bloat
[01 Oct 02:03] * Eluvatar shrugs
[01 Oct 02:03] * Agawork actively suppresses the part of him that's screaming Francoism
[01 Oct 02:04] <Dali> Well, we certainly will need to include regional sovereignty is absolute
[01 Oct 02:04] <Dali> Will that help, Ag?
[01 Oct 02:04] <Agawork> That helps.
[01 Oct 02:04] <Eluvatar> Heh apparently that wasn't something the Taijitu party was worried about
[01 Oct 02:05] <Eluvatar> might have something to do with being a founded region
[01 Oct 02:05] <Dali> Feeders do have different interest.
[01 Oct 02:05] <Agawork> I'll vote Aye.
[01 Oct 02:05] <Eluvatar> (4:0:0:2:2)
[01 Oct 02:05] <Eluvatar> (Aye:Nay:Abstainresent:Absent) FYI
[01 Oct 02:06] <Wham> aye
[01 Oct 02:06] <Eluvatar> (5:0:0:1:2)
[01 Oct 02:06] <Eluvatar> Motion carries
[01 Oct 02:06] <Eluvatar> Unless there is an objection I will begin by going through the 5 Taiji ProP values
[01 Oct 02:06] <Eluvatar> dropping or amending
[01 Oct 02:06] <Eluvatar> and then open the floor to adding core values
[01 Oct 02:07] <Eluvatar> Liberty:
[01 Oct 02:07] <Eluvatar> "All persons have the rights to life, property and to act and think freely. Governments must be organized to defend these liberties from all threats. "
[01 Oct 02:07] <Dali> Question: In a NS context, what is 'property'?
[01 Oct 02:07] <Eluvatar> It seems reasonable to have some discussion of this value
[01 Oct 02:07] <Eluvatar> Nations, nation locations, regional currencies, maps, flags?
[01 Oct 02:08] <Dali> Then what is 'life'?
[01 Oct 02:08] <Eluvatar> I'm... not sure
[01 Oct 02:08] <Dali> Oh, all persons, not all nations.
[01 Oct 02:08] <Eluvatar> It's still supposed to be in some kind of NS context
[01 Oct 02:09] <Agawork> Is a person considered a nation in this context?
[01 Oct 02:09] <Eluvatar> Taijitu doesn't really have duality
[01 Oct 02:09] <Eluvatar> it largely treats its government as mostly OOC
[01 Oct 02:09] <Gulliver> D:
[01 Oct 02:09] <Eluvatar> The situation may be different here
[01 Oct 02:09] <Gulliver> I want to treat it a bit IC >_>
[01 Oct 02:09] <Eluvatar> necessitating a different language, so to speak
[01 Oct 02:09] <Agawork> Or are we talking person in the context of a member of the regional forum?
[01 Oct 02:09] <Gulliver> Off topic
[01 Oct 02:10] <Gulliver> I'd say
[01 Oct 02:10] <Gulliver> Any regular resident of the region
[01 Oct 02:10] <Eluvatar> It seems clearer to define that people /nations have a right to be left alone
[01 Oct 02:10] <Eluvatar> well, not left alone
[01 Oct 02:10] <Eluvatar> but not to be kept from doing what they will, unless necessary
[01 Oct 02:10] <Agawork> All must be governed
[01 Oct 02:10] <Eluvatar> that's where the necessary comes in
[01 Oct 02:11] <Agawork> I hope we aren't too anarchist with ths.
[01 Oct 02:11] <Dali> Aye
[01 Oct 02:11] <Eluvatar> Freedom of action should be constrained as little as is reasonably possible / practicable?
[01 Oct 02:11] <Agawork> Going too anarchist *
[01 Oct 02:12] <Eluvatar> I understand the worry
[01 Oct 02:12] <Agawork> Only because it's too subjective.
[01 Oct 02:12] <Eluvatar> "Freedom of action should be constrained as little as practical."
[01 Oct 02:12] <Eluvatar> Going in the right direction?
[01 Oct 02:12] <Dali> Protect the rights of the individual but protect the security of the community. I think that's what we are going for?
[01 Oct 02:13] <Eluvatar> Well the next core value is Solidarity
[01 Oct 02:13] <Eluvatar> "Society and individuals depend on one another for success. Society, through government when necessary, must protect individuals from arbitrary hardship and aid them in their pursuits, and individuals who can must give back to society in return. "
[01 Oct 02:13] <Agawork> I think Dali is in the right direction
[01 Oct 02:13] <Gulliver> I don't solidtarity does much good in this context
[01 Oct 02:13] <Eluvatar> I mean that,
[01 Oct 02:13] <Eluvatar> the Liberty value if we have one should be about Liberty
[01 Oct 02:14] <Eluvatar> we can cover the flipsides, security and/or community, in another Value
[01 Oct 02:14] <Eluvatar> or Values
[01 Oct 02:14] <Eluvatar> This need not be through the actual Solidarity value I quoted; my point is that it seems silly to have the Liberty value be Liberty but
[01 Oct 02:15] <Eluvatar> does not serve well our support of Liberty or our support of Security or Community, to mix them up like that
[01 Oct 02:15] <Eluvatar> No?
[01 Oct 02:16] <Agawork> So we go with security of the individual in liberty and security of the region in solidarity?
[01 Oct 02:16] <Dali> Thing is, I'm a tad concerned about people trying to use our Core Values against us and to abuse the region.
[01 Oct 02:16] <Agawork> Agreed
[01 Oct 02:16] <Eluvatar> That's a reasonable concern
[01 Oct 02:16] <Eluvatar> if we commit to X and then violate it
[01 Oct 02:17] <Eluvatar> we can be called hypocrites
[01 Oct 02:17] <Eluvatar> which would be most unfortunate.
[01 Oct 02:17] <Eluvatar> Agawork: that was basically what I was thinking
[01 Oct 02:17] <Agawork> Been called worse.
[01 Oct 02:17] <Eluvatar> but perhaps the second value could simply be called Security
[01 Oct 02:18] <Dali> Yeah. Say one of our candidates in future is elected Delegate, but is forced to temporarily banject someone for being a security risk. I don't think they should be able to use ou Core Values of whatever against us in that regard by saying "Oh, now you are lying to everyone"
[01 Oct 02:18] <Eluvatar> I don't think that that would make sense
[01 Oct 02:18] <Eluvatar> if our values include the value of security
[01 Oct 02:18] <Eluvatar> one obviously has to balance them
[01 Oct 02:18] <Dali> I'd be happy with the inclusion of a Security value
[01 Oct 02:19] <Agawork> As would I.
[01 Oct 02:19] <Eluvatar> so the Taijitu 5 are Liberty, Solidarity, Justice, Democracy, and Reason
[01 Oct 02:19] <Eluvatar> the suggestion I made is to replace Solidarity with Security
[01 Oct 02:19] <Gulliver> Security sounds fine
[01 Oct 02:19] <Eluvatar> leading to Liberty, Security, Justice, Democracy, and Reason
[01 Oct 02:20] <Dali> I do like in the Solidarity section "and aid them in their pursuits, and individuals who can must give back to society in return." People who want to be part of TNP should be helped to participate and then give back.
[01 Oct 02:20] <Eluvatar> Yeah.
[01 Oct 02:20] <Eluvatar> Which is why I'm not sure.
[01 Oct 02:20] <Eluvatar> As Wham said, we want to avoid having too many
[01 Oct 02:21] <Dali> Perhaps at this point instead of scrapping Solidarity, add Security and then review?
[01 Oct 02:21] <Eluvatar> Sensible
[01 Oct 02:21] <Eluvatar> Perhaps we could merge some things later.
[01 Oct 02:21] <Eluvatar> so Security...
[01 Oct 02:21] <Dali> Yeah
[01 Oct 02:21] <Eluvatar> How about,
[01 Oct 02:22] <Agawork> Brb, making my rounds.
[01 Oct 02:22] <Eluvatar> hm
[01 Oct 02:22] <Eluvatar> "The security of a polity against external threats is paramount, and must be ensured."
[01 Oct 02:22] <Eluvatar> or something similar
[01 Oct 02:22] <Eluvatar> >_<
[01 Oct 02:22] <Dali> Not bad of a start
[01 Oct 02:23] <Dali> brb
[01 Oct 02:29] <Gulliver> D:
[01 Oct 02:40] <Gulliver> I think this is dead
[01 Oct 02:40] <Gulliver> And I have to go to bed
[01 Oct 02:40] <Gulliver> So far I've managed to combine fists, torches and sunrays in this logo thing
[01 Oct 02:40] <Eluvatar> So it seems.
[01 Oct 02:40] <Gulliver> WIthout it looking absolute horrific
[01 Oct 02:40] <Eluvatar> Motion to ADJOURN
[01 Oct 02:41] <Gulliver> SECOND

 

[Eluvatar]

Because there was some confusion on this subject during the Third Party Congress, I would first like to give a full roll of party membership.

Spoiler: Progressive Party Membership

1. Eluvatar
2. Gulliver
3. Dalimbar (Dali)
4. Whamabama
5. A Mean Old Man (AMOM)
6. Haxstree
7. Felasia
8. Greater Peterstan
9. Grimalkin (Agamemnon)
10. Blue Wolf II (Blue_Wolf)
11. Dyr Nasad (Dyr)
12. Oliver

A full list of party resolutions will be provided soon. While all these resolutions are clear from the logs of our Congresses, it will be convenient to have an organized list.

 

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: North Pacific ProP Congress #3

[04 Oct 17:12] <Eluvatar> We are in session.
[04 Oct 17:13] --- Eluvatar changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum. Speaking is agreement with Rule 1. | Progressive Party channel | Party Color is Red | Third Party Congress in session
[04 Oct 17:13] <Eluvatar> Motion to table discussion of Party Values for now.
[04 Oct 17:14] <Agamemnon> Seconded
[04 Oct 17:14] <Oliver> Are there any pressing issues with regards to Party Values that need discussion now?
[04 Oct 17:14] <Eluvatar> Eight of Ten party members being present, I think it is a good time to decide on the protocol for these congresses and adopt it.
[04 Oct 17:14] * Dali is officially here now
[04 Oct 17:14] <Eluvatar> We seem to be in agreement that we should review the language and add Security as a value.
[04 Oct 17:14] <Eluvatar> I'd like to amend my motion.
[04 Oct 17:15] <Eluvatar> Motion to task a committee of those interested in it to come up with a set of party values for us
[04 Oct 17:15] <Eluvatar> by, say, next wednesday.
[04 Oct 17:15] <Dali> I second that.
[04 Oct 17:15] <Oliver> I could support that.
[04 Oct 17:15] <Eluvatar> OK
[04 Oct 17:15] <Greater_Peterstan> Sounds good.
[04 Oct 17:15] <Gulliver> Yes
[04 Oct 17:15] <Eluvatar> We vote on tasking a committee with deciding on values and proposing them to us by wednesday.
[04 Oct 17:16] <Eluvatar> I count 5 votse in favor
[04 Oct 17:16] <Agamemnon> Aye
[04 Oct 17:16] <Dali> aye
[04 Oct 17:16] <Eluvatar> six, motion carries.
[04 Oct 17:16] <Eluvatar> Volunteers for the subcommittee?
[04 Oct 17:16] <Oliver> I
[04 Oct 17:16] <Oliver> whoops
[04 Oct 17:16] <Oliver> there was more
[04 Oct 17:16] <Oliver> I'll offer to look over a draft*
[04 Oct 17:16] <Eluvatar> The whole party will
[04 Oct 17:17] <Eluvatar> and there is the current Taiji values as *a* preliminary draft
[04 Oct 17:17] <Eluvatar> *crickets*
[04 Oct 17:17] <Eluvatar> Dali and Gulliver I am volunteering you two
[04 Oct 17:17] <Oliver> lol
[04 Oct 17:17] <Dali> Fine. Bastard.
[04 Oct 17:18] <Dali>
[04 Oct 17:18] <Eluvatar> The two of you can volunteer a third person to assist you.
[04 Oct 17:18] <Oliver> I would I'm just not sure if I have the time to do serious drafting atm.
[04 Oct 17:18] <Eluvatar> Right.
[04 Oct 17:18] <Gulliver> What
[04 Oct 17:18] <Gulliver>
[04 Oct 17:18] <Gulliver> I don't know enough about TNP's values D: but I guess I can help with language
[04 Oct 17:18] <Eluvatar> You're on the committee to propose the Values
[04 Oct 17:18] <Dali> Hence why I've been "volunteered"
[04 Oct 17:19] <Eluvatar>
[04 Oct 17:19] <Eluvatar> If you guys want some time to decide on who else to volunteer, we can move on to pressing party business.
[04 Oct 17:19] <Dali> Anyone *want* to be the third member?
[04 Oct 17:19] * Eluvatar timidly raises hand
[04 Oct 17:19] <Dali> REJECTED! I mean... if you want.
[04 Oct 17:20] <Eluvatar> XD
[04 Oct 17:20] <Gulliver> OKAY
[04 Oct 17:20] <Gulliver> IT IS DECIDED
[04 Oct 17:20] <Eluvatar> Let us proceed to http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_Progressive_Party#Article_2:_Membership
[04 Oct 17:20] <Eluvatar> What this would suggest is:
[04 Oct 17:21] <Eluvatar> Any citizen of the North Pacificwho accepts Progressive values may become a member of the Progressive Party.
[04 Oct 17:21] <Eluvatar> Any member who loses their citizenship, is convicted of a criminal offense by the Court, or violates this charter will cease to be a member.
[04 Oct 17:21] <Agamemnon> Yea, but then Gov could join.
[04 Oct 17:21] <Eluvatar> # Any member of the Progressive Party not serving as a party officer may resign their membership.
[04 Oct 17:21] <Eluvatar> # A member’s violation of this charter may only be recognized by a two thirds majority party vote.
[04 Oct 17:21] <Oliver> Should require an intention to join either. What if I generally accept the values you promote but want nothing to do with your party scheme.
[04 Oct 17:21] <Oliver> not either, wrong word
[04 Oct 17:22] <Eluvatar> Acceptance is styled formally
[04 Oct 17:22] <Eluvatar> in a context of intent-to-join
[04 Oct 17:22] <Eluvatar> but we could clarify
[04 Oct 17:22] <Oliver> okay, it's not clear by the language
[04 Oct 17:22] <Eluvatar> Agamemnon: we could change point 4,
[04 Oct 17:22] <Eluvatar> to allow us to keep people out for any reason
[04 Oct 17:22] <Eluvatar> by 2/3
[04 Oct 17:22] <Dali> Yes.
[04 Oct 17:22] <Oliver> Ooh, Gov'll love that.
[04 Oct 17:23] * Oliver has some experience with Nivvy
[04 Oct 17:23] <Oliver> I, uh, orchestrated his banning from Imperial Britain.
[04 Oct 17:23] <Eluvatar> Keep in mind this is going to be publicly logged
[04 Oct 17:23] <Eluvatar> as the Third Party Congress.
[04 Oct 17:23] <Oliver> It's a publicly known fact, but sorry.
[04 Oct 17:24] <Greater_Peterstan> I agree with this ... we need some element of party disipline, so we can act collectively, and bounce people who don't want to be part of the program.
[04 Oct 17:24] <Gulliver> DOesn't that mean the damage has already been done in terms of what we've siad >_>
[04 Oct 17:24] <Dali> Exactly, GP.
[04 Oct 17:24] <Gulliver> If we're basing it on the Taiji ProP
[04 Oct 17:24] <Gulliver> Resolutions can be passed
[04 Oct 17:24] <Gulliver> And violating them is considered grounds for removal
[04 Oct 17:24] <Gulliver> We just haven't gotten that far
[04 Oct 17:24] <Eluvatar> but "don't be govindia" is a terrible resolution
[04 Oct 17:25] <Agamemnon> Or maybe we just make it so that membership is only approved by a majority vote of the current party members.
[04 Oct 17:25] <Gulliver>
[04 Oct 17:25] <Eluvatar> I think needing majority approval to join is more restrictive
[04 Oct 17:25] <Eluvatar> *too
[04 Oct 17:25] <Gulliver> It is restrictive
[04 Oct 17:25] <Eluvatar> I think if a third of the party thinks you should be in
[04 Oct 17:25] <Eluvatar> it is enough.
[04 Oct 17:25] <Haxstree> a third?
[04 Oct 17:25] <Haxstree> UNITY
[04 Oct 17:25] <Eluvatar> DIVERSITY
[04 Oct 17:26] <Haxstree> do we want to admit someone that 2/3 of the people disagree with?
[04 Oct 17:26] <Eluvatar> No, we do not
[04 Oct 17:26] <Haxstree> that seems like a bad idea...
[04 Oct 17:26] <Eluvatar> that's why there's the 2/3 vote to remove
[04 Oct 17:26] <Dali> It's better than letting in everyone and their dog, though.
[04 Oct 17:26] <Eluvatar> Right
[04 Oct 17:26] <Eluvatar> Shall we have a vote on 1/2 vs 2/3 ?
[04 Oct 17:27] <Oliver> I'd suggest one be putforward as a motion, and we vote on that, and if not, we vote on the other motion, and if nothing on both, then we look for another option.
[04 Oct 17:27] <Eluvatar> Ok
[04 Oct 17:27] <Eluvatar> Motion to adopt:
[04 Oct 17:27] <Gulliver> Wait
[04 Oct 17:27] <Oliver> Wait wait, I have a suggestion as well
[04 Oct 17:27] <Eluvatar> A member may be removed by a two thirds majority party vote.
[04 Oct 17:27] <Gulliver> Are applications accepted routinely under this scheme unless objected
[04 Oct 17:27] <Gulliver> And then there's a vote?
[04 Oct 17:28] <Gulliver> Or is it always a vote for every applicaiton
[04 Oct 17:28] <Eluvatar> That's what I was going for Gulliver
[04 Oct 17:28] <Gulliver> Kay
[04 Oct 17:28] * Eluvatar waits for Oliver to explain his suggestion
[04 Oct 17:29] <Oliver> I'd propose that a member be admitted with sponsorship from at least three members of the party. It would force prospective members to actually talk to us, to get support for their application, and it would permit us to screen out people by deciding not to support them.
[04 Oct 17:29] <Oliver> Once they're in, they can be kicked by a 2/3 majority
[04 Oct 17:29] <Eluvatar> I withdraw my motion.
[04 Oct 17:29] <Dali> I like Ollie's idea.
[04 Oct 17:29] <Eluvatar> Motion: adopt Oliver's plan
[04 Oct 17:30] <Agamemnon> Second
[04 Oct 17:30] <Oliver> Hold up
[04 Oct 17:30] <Oliver> 3 members, or 1/3?
[04 Oct 17:30] <Eluvatar> wait
[04 Oct 17:30] <Eluvatar> I misread it
[04 Oct 17:30] <Gulliver> Whajt if the party has less than 3 members
[04 Oct 17:30] <Gulliver>
[04 Oct 17:30] <Eluvatar> 3 sponsorships?
[04 Oct 17:30] <Eluvatar> withdrawn
[04 Oct 17:30] <Eluvatar> I thought you were going for 2 sponsorships
[04 Oct 17:30] <Eluvatar> as 3 = 1/3 XD
[04 Oct 17:30] <Gulliver> Though I do like the idea in general
[04 Oct 17:30] <Haxstree> 3 sponsors
[04 Oct 17:30] <Eluvatar> 3 sponsors is alot
[04 Oct 17:30] <Haxstree> I like 3
[04 Oct 17:30] <Oliver> Right now, 3 = 1/3
[04 Oct 17:30] <Eluvatar> 'tis true
[04 Oct 17:31] <Oliver> but we have to assume things are not going to remain static
[04 Oct 17:31] <Haxstree> 3!
[04 Oct 17:31] <Eluvatar> 3!=6
[04 Oct 17:31] <Greater_Peterstan> If theParty gets smaller than 3, it is time for another congress.
[04 Oct 17:31] <Eluvatar> no way am I going for 6 sponsorship required
[04 Oct 17:31] <Eluvatar> Greater_Peterstan is right.
[04 Oct 17:31] <Agamemnon> And if the party gets bigger, are we going to say that, hypothetically, you have to gain 10 sponsors before we can admit you?
[04 Oct 17:31] <Oliver> where'd 6 come from?
[04 Oct 17:31] <Eluvatar> It's perfectly okay to assume at least 3 members.
[04 Oct 17:31] <Dali> Keep it at 3, and if we get in that situation, then we'll have to really review what we are doing.
[04 Oct 17:31] <Eluvatar> Oliver: a joke. Haxs said 3!
[04 Oct 17:31] <Eluvatar> 3! => 3 factorial => 6
[04 Oct 17:31] <Oliver> oh, factorial
[04 Oct 17:32] <Oliver> derp
[04 Oct 17:32] <Oliver> that was grade 12 man, I'm almost 24 now
[04 Oct 17:32] <Eluvatar> Does anybody else want 2 sponsorship rather than 3?
[04 Oct 17:32] <Haxstree> no
[04 Oct 17:32] <Dali> 3
[04 Oct 17:32] <Oliver> I'm not particularly troubled.
[04 Oct 17:32] <Haxstree> 3
[04 Oct 17:32] <Greater_Peterstan> Either - Or. Not a deal-breaker.
[04 Oct 17:33] <Haxstree> Let us vote, I think the 3s have it
[04 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> Agamemnon: sponsorships are being proposed as a flat requirement
[04 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> if no one else wants 2
[04 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> we'll just vote on adopting with 3
[04 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> OK
[04 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> I may vanish soon so...
[04 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> (10 min?)
[04 Oct 17:33] <Greater_Peterstan> Do WE need to get sponsorships, or a we excluded.. I'm not very popular.
[04 Oct 17:34] <Oliver> (Maybe? I just called for dinner)
[04 Oct 17:34] <Gulliver> That would retroactive
[04 Oct 17:34] <Gulliver>
[04 Oct 17:34] <Eluvatar> we are already party members
[04 Oct 17:34] <Oliver> (I just get called* no warning, really)
[04 Oct 17:34] <Eluvatar> MOTION: To adopt a system where one needs 3 sponsorships to join the party, and may be removed by a 2/3 vote at any time.
[04 Oct 17:34] <Haxstree> Second
[04 Oct 17:34] <Dali> Second
[04 Oct 17:34] <Eluvatar> I VOTE AYE
[04 Oct 17:34] <Greater_Peterstan> Aye.
[04 Oct 17:34] <Haxstree> hah
[04 Oct 17:34] <Dali> aye
[04 Oct 17:34] <Agamemnon> Aye
[04 Oct 17:34] <Haxstree> Aye
[04 Oct 17:34] <Eluvatar> (1:0:0:7:2)
[04 Oct 17:34] <Oliver> Aye.
[04 Oct 17:34] <Eluvatar> (5:0:0:3:2)
[04 Oct 17:35] <Eluvatar> (6:0:0:2:2)
[04 Oct 17:35] <Eluvatar> MOTION CARRIES
[04 Oct 17:35] <Dali> Boom.
[04 Oct 17:35] <Eluvatar> So membership is settled, and we can vote on an actual text later.
[04 Oct 17:36] <Eluvatar> Now let's informally agree to the congress protocol
[04 Oct 17:36] <Eluvatar> so we can use it while we settle things
[04 Oct 17:36] <Eluvatar> and not need massive attendance every single time
[04 Oct 17:36] <Eluvatar> =BEGIN MOTION=
[04 Oct 17:36] <Oliver> what are the two last colums on your 5-column vote counter?
[04 Oct 17:36] <Oliver> Aye/Nay/Abstain...
[04 Oct 17:36] <Eluvatar> 1. Any member may convoke a Party Congress with at least 72 hours warning, declaring the business and time of the Congress in advance, posting on the forums.
[04 Oct 17:36] <Gulliver> Abstan not voted voted
[04 Oct 17:36] <Gulliver> "voted voted"
[04 Oct 17:36] <Eluvatar> --interruption--
[04 Oct 17:36] <Eluvatar> No
[04 Oct 17:36] <Eluvatar> Aye:Nay:Abstainresent:Absent
[04 Oct 17:37] <Gulliver> >_>
[04 Oct 17:37] <Oliver> Ahh
[04 Oct 17:37] * Dali hands Elu a gavel
[04 Oct 17:37] <Oliver> See? Good to know these things.
[04 Oct 17:37] <Eluvatar> --end interruption--
[04 Oct 17:37] <Eluvatar> 2. Party Congresses must be held in the official party channel, #ncpp on Esper.
[04 Oct 17:37] <Eluvatar> No Congress may propose new business without 72 hours notice.
[04 Oct 17:37] <Eluvatar> (3.)
[04 Oct 17:37] <Eluvatar> 4. If multiple congresses are convoked to take place during the same period of time, they will be folded into one Congress which will address the combined list of business.
[04 Oct 17:38] <Eluvatar> 5. The deliberations of a Party Congress will be logged and publicly displayed on the forums. The deliberations may only be censored by vote of the Congress for personal privacy reasons.
[04 Oct 17:38] <Eluvatar> 6. If a sufficient fraction of all party members voted for the final statement of a Party Congress, it may immediately take effect.
[04 Oct 17:38] <Eluvatar> 7. Otherwise, the vote will be continued on the forum.
[04 Oct 17:38] <Eluvatar> 8. If a majority of the party votes for or against, the vote will end.
[04 Oct 17:39] <Eluvatar> 9. If a week has gone by since the Congress proposing the vote, the vote will fail.
[04 Oct 17:39] <Eluvatar> *close
[04 Oct 17:39] <Eluvatar> =END MOTION=
[04 Oct 17:39] <Eluvatar> so, that is:
[04 Oct 17:39] <Gulliver> I've found the originally convocation method to be awkward so far
[04 Oct 17:39] <Eluvatar> 1. Any member may convoke a Party Congress with at least 72 hours warning, declaring the business and time of the Congress in advance, posting on the forums.
[04 Oct 17:39] <Gulliver> Especially since even if
[04 Oct 17:39] <Eluvatar> 2. Party Congresses must be held in the official party channel, #ncpp on Esper.
[04 Oct 17:39] <Gulliver> Everyone's online
[04 Oct 17:39] <Eluvatar> 3. No Congress may propose new business without 72 hours notice.
[04 Oct 17:39] <Gulliver> We have to wait 3 days to do anything
[04 Oct 17:39] <Oliver> Slight issue with #8... if 5 people vote, the vote is ended, and the 6th vote is not officially recorded..
[04 Oct 17:39] <Eluvatar> 4. If multiple congresses are convoked to take place during the same period of time, they will be folded into one Congress which will address the combined list of business.
[04 Oct 17:40] <Eluvatar> 5. The deliberations of a Party Congress will be logged and publicly displayed on the forums. The deliberations may only be censored by vote of the Congress for personal privacy reasons.
[04 Oct 17:40] <Eluvatar> . If a sufficient fraction of all party members voted for the final statement of a Party Congress, it may immediately take effect.
[04 Oct 17:40] <Eluvatar> 7. Otherwise, the vote will be continued on the forum.
[04 Oct 17:40] <Eluvatar> 8. If a majority of the party votes for or against, the vote will end.
[04 Oct 17:40] <Eluvatar> 9. If a week has gone by since the Congress proposing the vote, the vote will close.
[04 Oct 17:40] <Gulliver> Also, sufficient fraction, I now know what the term "absolute majority" means
[04 Oct 17:40] <Gulliver> So that's more succint and clear
[04 Oct 17:40] <Eluvatar> sure
[04 Oct 17:40] <Greater_Peterstan> Agreed.
[04 Oct 17:40] <Eluvatar> 6. If an absolute majority of all party members voted for the final statement of a Party Congress, it may immediately take effect.
[04 Oct 17:41] <Oliver> absolutely majority just means 50% + 1 votes of all membes
[04 Oct 17:41] <Oliver> members*
[04 Oct 17:41] <Eluvatar> Yes
[04 Oct 17:41] <Gulliver> "votes" I think
[04 Oct 17:41] <Gulliver> Is better in legislative context like this >_>
[04 Oct 17:41] <Gulliver> Minor detail
[04 Oct 17:41] <Eluvatar> where?
[04 Oct 17:41] <Oliver> just makin' sure we're on the same page
[04 Oct 17:41] <Gulliver> "voted for the final statement"
[04 Oct 17:41] <Oliver> you wouldn't believe how many people in Euro don't get the concept of absolute majority
[04 Oct 17:41] <Eluvatar> ah
[04 Oct 17:42] <Eluvatar> 6. If an absolute majority of all party members votes for the final statement of a Party Congress, it may immediately take effect.
[04 Oct 17:42] <Gulliver> And instead of "may" if it's an absolute majority there's no reason it can't just be "will"
[04 Oct 17:42] <Eluvatar> Let's just adopt it
[04 Oct 17:42] <Gulliver> And the "immediately" may not be strictly necessary
[04 Oct 17:42] <Eluvatar> and worry about cosmetics later
[04 Oct 17:42] <Oliver> "may" and "will" are not cosmetic, though
[04 Oct 17:42] <Gulliver> Yes
[04 Oct 17:42] <Oliver> one confers a discretionary power, and the confers an obligation
[04 Oct 17:43] <Oliver> they're very, very different
[04 Oct 17:43] <Eluvatar> Ok
[04 Oct 17:43] <Eluvatar> 6. If an absolute majority of all party members votes for the final statement of a Party Congress, it
[04 Oct 17:43] <Eluvatar> er
[04 Oct 17:43] <Oliver> "may" always implies "or may not"
[04 Oct 17:43] <Gulliver> "will" is better
[04 Oct 17:43] <Dali> I agree.
[04 Oct 17:43] <Eluvatar> 6. If an absolute majority of all party members votes for the final statement of a Party Congress, it will take effect.
[04 Oct 17:43] <Eluvatar> I think I like the immediately there >_<
[04 Oct 17:44] <Eluvatar> 6. If an absolute majority of all party members votes for the final statement of a Party Congress, it will immediately take effect.
[04 Oct 17:44] <Haxstree> uh oh
[04 Oct 17:44] <Oliver> could also use "take immediate effect"
[04 Oct 17:44] <Haxstree> what havce I missed
[04 Oct 17:44] <Eluvatar> Committee to decide on values,
[04 Oct 17:44] <Haxstree> ah
[04 Oct 17:44] <Eluvatar> Membershiph admission protocol (3 sponsors, 2/3 to remove)
[04 Oct 17:44] <Eluvatar> Party Congress protocol under discussion
[04 Oct 17:45] <Eluvatar> so, FINALIZING
[04 Oct 17:45] <Haxstree> is BlueWolf not a member?
[04 Oct 17:47] <Eluvatar> CRAP I forgot him
[04 Oct 17:47] <Eluvatar> 6 is still a majority of 11, thankfully
[04 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> MOTION: http://pastebin.com/5rRQG5bi
[04 Oct 17:48] * Dali pat pats Elu
[04 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> IS THERE A SECOND
[04 Oct 17:48] <Dali> Second.
[04 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> AYE
[04 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> (1:0:0:7:3)
[04 Oct 17:48] <Dali> Aye
[04 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> (2:0:0:6:3)
[04 Oct 17:48] <Greater_Peterstan> Aye.
[04 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> (3:0:0:5:3)
[04 Oct 17:48] <Oliver> Aye.
[04 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> (4:0:0:4:3)
[04 Oct 17:49] <Haxstree> Aye
[04 Oct 17:49] <Agamemnon> Aye
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> (5:0:0:3:3)
[04 Oct 17:49] <Gulliver> I still don't like the 72 hours ):
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> (6:0:0:2:3)
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> DONE
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> CAN BE AMENDED
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> currently by SIMPLEMAJORITY
[04 Oct 17:49] <Dali> Yeah, I was thinking that was a bit... long.
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> MOTION TO ADJOURN
[04 Oct 17:49] <Oliver> Seconded.
[04 Oct 17:49] <Haxstree> Second
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> Current topic of Charter is still outstanding
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> AYE
[04 Oct 17:49] <Oliver> Aye.
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> (1:0:0:7:3)
[04 Oct 17:49] <Haxstree> Aye
[04 Oct 17:49] <Dali> Aye
[04 Oct 17:49] <Eluvatar> (4:0:0:3:3)
[04 Oct 17:50] <Eluvatar> majority of present
[04 Oct 17:50] <Greater_Peterstan> Aye. Good job gentlemen.
[04 Oct 17:50] <Eluvatar> CARRIES

 

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: North Pacific ProP Congress #3 part 2

[04 Oct 21:24] --> AMOM joined the channel
[04 Oct 21:24] <AMOM> WOOGIE
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> OSSIM
[04 Oct 21:24] <AMOM> THE BOOGIE
[04 Oct 21:24] <AMOM> possim?
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> AMOM: we passed som rules
[04 Oct 21:24] <Agamemnon> Do we have any idea what support we'll have for it?
[04 Oct 21:24] <Dali> I've endorsed near enough everyone without tgs, and I'm only at 108.
[04 Oct 21:24] <AMOM> OMG
[04 Oct 21:24] <AMOM> wut are they
[04 Oct 21:24] <AMOM> they better not be "AMOM can no longer talk"
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> 21:20 <@Eluvatar> A: to join party in future, need 3 sponsorships
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> 21:20 <@Eluvatar> B: party can remove by 2/3 vote
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> 21:20 < Gulliver> This article won't actually tell me whtehr or not the Speaker is formally not part of a party, it just says he's expected to be impartial
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> 21:20 <@Eluvatar> (members)
[04 Oct 21:24] <AMOM> because that would be the sux
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> 21:21 <@Eluvatar> C: some rules for party Congresses
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> and fuck I think the party has 12 members not 11
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> so when I counted 6 as passing...
[04 Oct 21:24] <Dali> Yes, AMOM, you can't speak.
[04 Oct 21:24] <Eluvatar> fuck it
[04 Oct 21:25] <Dali> Even though you are Speaker...
[04 Oct 21:25] <Dyr> pretend I voted for it too..in spirit
[04 Oct 21:25] <Eluvatar> AMOM do you agree to the stuff we all agreed to?
[04 Oct 21:25] <Eluvatar> there were no nay votes
[04 Oct 21:25] <Agamemnon> MOTION to impeach the Chairman for breach of procedure.
[04 Oct 21:25] <Eluvatar> ;_;
[04 Oct 21:25] <Eluvatar> Is there a second?
[04 Oct 21:25] <Dali> SECONDED!
[04 Oct 21:25] <Agamemnon> And for LYING
[04 Oct 21:25] <Eluvatar> ABSTAIN
[04 Oct 21:25] <Eluvatar> shit how many people in room
[04 Oct 21:25] <Gulliver> WHAT
[04 Oct 21:26] <Gulliver> NO
[04 Oct 21:26] <AMOM> SURE KTHX W/E BYE
[04 Oct 21:26] <Dali> YOU FAIL, CHAIRMAN
[04 Oct 21:26] <Eluvatar> (0:1:1:6:4)
[04 Oct 21:26] <Eluvatar> (Aye:Nay:Abstainresent:Absent)
[04 Oct 21:26] <Agamemnon> AYE
[04 Oct 21:26] <Eluvatar> (1:1:1:5:4)
[04 Oct 21:26] <Dali> Wait...
[04 Oct 21:26] <Agamemnon> MOTION To name Agamemnon Emper--- CHAIRMAN
[04 Oct 21:26] <Eluvatar> Agamemnon: can't do that yet
[04 Oct 21:27] <Dali> Because the party is not in session, and we need the 72 hours to propose shit, this can't count eh?
[04 Oct 21:27] <AMOM> KAYKAY
[04 Oct 21:27] <AMOM> I VOTE FOR EMPEROR AGGIE
[04 Oct 21:27] <Dali>
[04 Oct 21:27] <AMOM> HAEL
[04 Oct 21:27] <Agamemnon> HEIL
[04 Oct 21:27] <Eluvatar> Dali but that passed illegitimately
[04 Oct 21:27] <Gulliver> WHAT
[04 Oct 21:27] <Gulliver> You can't be Emperor I'm already King
[04 Oct 21:27] <Eluvatar> because I forgot Dyr was a party member
[04 Oct 21:27] <AMOM> HAVE YOU SEEG KYLE, HE IS THIS TALL
[04 Oct 21:27] <Dali> HAH, BURN
[04 Oct 21:27] <Gulliver> You can be my Arschduke
[04 Oct 21:27] * AMOM salutes
[04 Oct 21:27] <Gulliver> Maybe we should have a roster somewhere?
[04 Oct 21:27] <Agamemnon> Emperor > King
[04 Oct 21:27] <Eluvatar> GOING TO POST THAT
[04 Oct 21:27] <Dali> GOOD
[04 Oct 21:27] <Eluvatar> in log of congress 3
[04 Oct 21:27] <Eluvatar> anyway
[04 Oct 21:28] --- Eluvatar changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum. Speaking is agreement with Rule 1. | Progressive Party channel | Party Color is Red | Fourth Party Congress in session
[04 Oct 21:28] <Dali> If we have to do that shit again, I will vote to impeach you.
[04 Oct 21:28] <Oliver> whaa?
[04 Oct 21:28] <Eluvatar> so what's your vote now?
[04 Oct 21:28] <Dali> Undecided.
[04 Oct 21:28] <Dali> You can bribe me if you want.
[04 Oct 21:28] <Eluvatar> >_<
[04 Oct 21:28] <Dali> Ag and Gullie, what would I get if I voted to impeach Elu?
[04 Oct 21:28] <Gulliver> ELU
[04 Oct 21:29] <Gulliver> IT HASN'T BEEN 72 HOURS
[04 Oct 21:29] <Eluvatar> Oh yeah
[04 Oct 21:29] <Eluvatar> so impeachment can't happen yet
[04 Oct 21:29] <Agamemnon> New bra?
[04 Oct 21:29] <Eluvatar> wait no
[04 Oct 21:29] <Eluvatar> that didn't pass
[04 Oct 21:29] <Dali> Didn't you just say <Eluvatar> Dali but that passed illegitimately
[04 Oct 21:29] <Eluvatar> I did say taht
[04 Oct 21:29] <Eluvatar> DISTRACTIONS
[04 Oct 21:29] <Oliver> "Party Chairman Lost In His Own Congress"
[04 Oct 21:29] <Gulliver> See, my objections were well founded D:
[04 Oct 21:29] <Gulliver> Can't we just resume
[04 Oct 21:29] <Gulliver> The 3rd congress >_>
[04 Oct 21:30] <AMOM> I VOAT...WE MAKE UDL CONTROL TNP AND THE FEEDERZ, KGO
[04 Oct 21:30] <Eluvatar> sure let's call it that
[04 Oct 21:30] <Dali> OMG YUS AMOM
[04 Oct 21:30] --- Eluvatar changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum. Speaking is agreement with Rule 1. | Progressive Party channel | Party Color is Red | Third Party Congress in session
[04 Oct 21:30] <Gulliver> And we'll just bein the third congress forever?
[04 Oct 21:30] <Dali> TEE EN PEE!
[04 Oct 21:30] * Dyr turned away from the conputer for 2 minutes..and is now completely lost..
[04 Oct 21:30] <Eluvatar> what's still on the agenda is the party charter, logo, and reforming TNP constitution and law
[04 Oct 21:30] <AMOM> I've been lost this whole time
[04 Oct 21:30] <Eluvatar> those have been agenda since the beginning
[04 Oct 21:31] <Agamemnon> I vote that when we take over, we reform TNP into the EMPIRE OF THE PACIFICS
[04 Oct 21:31] <Agamemnon> And yes, the caps are required.
[04 Oct 21:31] <Eluvatar> The things I mentioned to you guys as A, B, and C as passing
[04 Oct 21:31] <Eluvatar> passed 6:0
[04 Oct 21:31] <Eluvatar> but 6 isn't an absolute majority of the party
[04 Oct 21:31] <Gulliver> I will support this if I can be Emperor of All the Pacifics
[04 Oct 21:31] <Eluvatar> becasue I forgot Dyr was in the party
[04 Oct 21:31] <Agamemnon> <Gulliver> I will support this if I can be Emperor of All the Pacifics <- Sorry, position is taken. By me.
[04 Oct 21:31] <Dali> Dyr, vote Aye.
[04 Oct 21:31] <Dyr> just pretend I voted for it
[04 Oct 21:31] <Gulliver> Or you could vote right now
[04 Oct 21:31] <Gulliver>
[04 Oct 21:31] <Dali> Huzzah!
[04 Oct 21:31] <Dyr> AYE!!!
[04 Oct 21:31] <Dyr> does that work
[04 Oct 21:32] <Gulliver> AS DUKE PEMBROKE I AM THE NLY LEGITIMATE HEIR TO THE THRONE
[04 Oct 21:32] <Dali> I approve.
[04 Oct 21:32] <Gulliver> Yes
[04 Oct 21:32] <Eluvatar> okay
[04 Oct 21:32] <Eluvatar> it passed
[04 Oct 21:32] <AMOM> for six long years I've been in trouble
[04 Oct 21:32] <AMOM> no pleasure here on Earth I found
[04 Oct 21:32] <Eluvatar> It is not however retroactive
[04 Oct 21:32] <Eluvatar> so let's settle the vote on impeaching me
[04 Oct 21:32] * AMOM votes to let Elu hang
[04 Oct 21:32] <Gulliver> o_o
[04 Oct 21:33] <Gulliver> Nay
[04 Oct 21:33] <Eluvatar> (1:1:1:5:4)
[04 Oct 21:33] <AMOM> HE IS A TRAITOR AND A SCOUNDREL
[04 Oct 21:33] <Eluvatar> (Aye:Nay:Abstainresent:Absent)
[04 Oct 21:33] <Eluvatar> Gulliver, Agamemnon, and I have voted
[04 Oct 21:33] <Eluvatar> (2:1:1:4:4)
[04 Oct 21:33] <AMOM> what exactly is going on and why are we impeaching you
[04 Oct 21:33] <Eluvatar> counting AMOM as aye
[04 Oct 21:33] <Dali> I'm waiting for my bribe.
[04 Oct 21:33] <AMOM> no, count me as nay
[04 Oct 21:33] <AMOM> I have no fucking clue what is happening
[04 Oct 21:33] <Eluvatar> Agamemnon moved to impeach after I realized Dyr hadn't been in the party
[04 Oct 21:33] <Oliver> Naye!
[04 Oct 21:33] <Eluvatar> so the stuff we'd passed didn't pass
[04 Oct 21:33] <Eluvatar> (1:3:1:3:4)
[04 Oct 21:34] <Dali> Elu, before I vote: Do we have to pass that shit again or no?
[04 Oct 21:34] <AMOM> fuckin' confused
[04 Oct 21:34] <Eluvatar> We don't
[04 Oct 21:34] <Dali> Nay then.
[04 Oct 21:34] <Eluvatar> Dali, Dyr said he's for it
[04 Oct 21:34] <Eluvatar> (1:4:1:2:4)
[04 Oct 21:34] <Eluvatar> 2 away from my being safe
[04 Oct 21:34] <Oliver> Ayenay?
[04 Oct 21:34] <Oliver> Abstainay?
[04 Oct 21:34] <Eluvatar> Nay: Gulliver, AMOM, Oliver, Dali
[04 Oct 21:34] <Eluvatar> Aye: Agamemnon
[04 Oct 21:34] <Eluvatar> wait, 1 away
[04 Oct 21:34] <Dyr> Nay? does that mean not hanging you?
[04 Oct 21:34] <Eluvatar> I forgot I abstained
[04 Oct 21:34] <Eluvatar> Nay means not impeaching
[04 Oct 21:35] <Eluvatar> not hanging
[04 Oct 21:35] <Eluvatar> I stay
[04 Oct 21:35] <Oliver> I don't actually want Elu impeached, I'm just being difficult
[04 Oct 21:35] * AMOM hugs Elu
[04 Oct 21:35] <Dyr> than Nay
[04 Oct 21:35] <AMOM> I ALMOST KILLED YOU MAN
[04 Oct 21:35] <Agamemnon> Can I change my motion to HANG instead of IMPEACH?
[04 Oct 21:35] <AMOM> DON'T DO THAT TO ME
[04 Oct 21:35] <Eluvatar> (1:5:1:1:4)
[04 Oct 21:35] <Eluvatar> no you cannot retroactively change motions Ag
[04 Oct 21:35] <Eluvatar> that woudl have to be a new motion
[04 Oct 21:35] <Agamemnon> Fine.
[04 Oct 21:35] <Agamemnon> Then I'll wait
[04 Oct 21:35] <Eluvatar> who's present who hasn't voted
[04 Oct 21:36] <Eluvatar> according to my count.. WHAM
[04 Oct 21:36] <Wham> nay
[04 Oct 21:36] <Eluvatar> excellent
[04 Oct 21:36] <Eluvatar> motion fails
[04 Oct 21:36] <Eluvatar> Now I have to leave
[04 Oct 21:36] <Eluvatar> Gulliver is temporary chair
[04 Oct 21:36] --- Eluvatar changed mode: +o Gulliver
[04 Oct 21:36] <Agamemnon> I DEMAND A RECOUNT
[04 Oct 21:36] <Wham> nay?
[04 Oct 21:36] <Eluvatar> for to possibly propose that amendment
[04 Oct 21:36] <Eluvatar> but first, discussion
[04 Oct 21:36] <Dali> No recount for you, come back in one year.
[04 Oct 21:36] <Gulliver> What
[04 Oct 21:36] <Gulliver> What
[04 Oct 21:37] <Gulliver> How long >_>
[04 Oct 21:37] <Wham> I motion for Elu to be ties to a tree, and horse whipped
[04 Oct 21:37] <Wham> tied*
[04 Oct 21:37] <Gulliver> Motion is not on the agenda, suppressed.
[04 Oct 21:37] <Dali> Supreme Overlord Gullie, what are we doing?
[04 Oct 21:38] <AMOM> I motion we tie Elu to a chair and Dali gives him a hickey
[04 Oct 21:38] <Dali> Hmm.
[04 Oct 21:38] <Dali> Can I use my flogger as well?
[04 Oct 21:38] <Gulliver> I'm not sure Elu didn't give me much to run on.
[04 Oct 21:38] <AMOM> Yes
[04 Oct 21:38] <Gulliver> We were discussing
[04 Oct 21:38] <Wham> while being horse whipped
[04 Oct 21:38] <AMOM> Then we all hit him with rubber hoses
[04 Oct 21:38] <Gulliver> The party charter before
[04 Oct 21:38] <Gulliver> I was also to report in on my assigned task of designing a logo
[04 Oct 21:38] <Wham> what about the party seal, and mascot?
[04 Oct 21:39] <Gulliver> I have a logo proposal to present
[04 Oct 21:39] <Dali> Huzzah!
[04 Oct 21:39] <Wham> I think the seal should have a whip in it
[04 Oct 21:39] <Gulliver> Since we're not using Taiji ProP's fox logo I can't say we have a mascot >_>
[04 Oct 21:39] <Dyr> Which you've been trying to present every day?
[04 Oct 21:39] <Agamemnon> I thought we were supposed to discuss the amendment.
[04 Oct 21:39] <Gulliver> You see why I didn't wnat to be made temporary chair?
[04 Oct 21:39] <Gulliver> Elu didn't give me the goddamn agenda
[04 Oct 21:39] <Gulliver> Let's discuss thelogo
[04 Oct 21:40] <Gulliver> For now
[04 Oct 21:40] <Agamemnon> I read that as theology
[04 Oct 21:40] <Dali> So...
[04 Oct 21:41] <Dali> <Gulliver> You see why I didn't wnat to be made temporary chair? <- Do you want me or someone else to improvise this shit?
[04 Oct 21:41] <Agamemnon> Can we get a link to the logo, please?
[04 Oct 21:42] <Gulliver> Yes looking for it
[04 Oct 21:42] <Gulliver> Rather I was just going to upload it to Taijitu's wiki then noticed the front page had been spam bot vandalized and was fixing it
[04 Oct 21:42] * Gulliver is not sure why that page isn't locked o_o
[04 Oct 21:43] <Gulliver> Bless the undo edit function
[04 Oct 21:44] * Dali coughs
[04 Oct 21:44] <Gulliver> Uploading now
[04 Oct 21:44] <Gulliver> There we go
[04 Oct 21:44] <Gulliver> http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/File:ProPNPLogo.png
[04 Oct 21:45] <Gulliver> Discuss
[04 Oct 21:46] * Dyr cant see anything
[04 Oct 21:46] <Agamemnon> Is that checker board pattern part of it?
[04 Oct 21:47] <Agamemnon> Not quite sure that I like that.
[04 Oct 21:47] <Oliver> Isn't that what a transparent background looks like in an image editor?
[04 Oct 21:48] <Gulliver> Yes
[04 Oct 21:48] <Gulliver> The checkered is
[04 Oct 21:48] <Gulliver> How transparency shows up on the wiki
[04 Oct 21:48] <Agamemnon> Ah okay
[04 Oct 21:48] <Gulliver> If you click on it you can see if on a white background
[04 Oct 21:48] <Haxstree> I like it
[04 Oct 21:48] <Haxstree> Who made this?
[04 Oct 21:50] <Dali> Gullie, it looks good.
[04 Oct 21:50] <Gulliver> I made it
[04 Oct 21:50] <Eluvatar> 21:36 <@Eluvatar> for to possibly propose that amendment
[04 Oct 21:50] <Eluvatar> amendment to expire constitution
[04 Oct 21:50] <Eluvatar> Nov 23 (?)
[04 Oct 21:50] <Haxstree> Good job Gulliver, I like it
[04 Oct 21:50] <Eluvatar> that is agenda
[04 Oct 21:50] * Eluvatar gets back to construction
[04 Oct 21:50] <Haxstree> A bold agenda, I support.
[04 Oct 21:50] <Dali> See, this is what happens when you leave us, Elu.
[04 Oct 21:50] <Gulliver> I should note that, it's possibly to have multiple version of the logo for different contexts
[04 Oct 21:50] <Gulliver> For example, a textless version
[04 Oct 21:50] <Gulliver> Or one with just an acronym
[04 Oct 21:51] <Haxstree> did you draw all that yourself?
[04 Oct 21:51] <Haxstree> or did you take bits from other images through a photoshop type program?
[04 Oct 21:51] <Dali> He is God. He imagined it, and it came to be.
[04 Oct 21:52] <Gulliver> Well, it's an SVG
[04 Oct 21:52] <Haxstree> oh
[04 Oct 21:52] <Gulliver> The rays are from an SVG of the Japanese navy flag
[04 Oct 21:52] <Gulliver> the hand is borrowed entirely
[04 Oct 21:52] * Dali prefers his explination better >_>
[04 Oct 21:52] <Gulliver> The torch is hand drawn, the flame is based on another SVG flame
[04 Oct 21:52] <Gulliver> >__>
[04 Oct 21:52] <Haxstree> I think it is nice that he explains
[04 Oct 21:53] <Gulliver> That is why SVGs are nice, it's easy to intergrate other parts into them from Wikimedia commons
[04 Oct 21:53] <Haxstree> Are we voting on it as the official flag?
[04 Oct 21:53] <Gulliver> <3 wikimedia commons
[04 Oct 21:53] <Haxstree> Or did that happen yet? :S
[04 Oct 21:53] <Gulliver> I was tasked to make a proposal
[04 Oct 21:53] <Gulliver> This is my proposal
[04 Oct 21:53] <Dali> For our party logo.
[04 Oct 21:53] <Gulliver> presumably we accept it or send me back to alter it or make a new one
[04 Oct 21:54] <Gulliver> Apparently the agenda is supposed to be finally burning all the laws though >_>
[04 Oct 21:54] <Dali> Did you motion that we vote on it, Gullie?
[04 Oct 21:54] <Haxstree> Do we have enough people?
[04 Oct 21:54] <Dali> Yes.
[04 Oct 21:54] <Haxstree> okay, proceed with the motion Dali-o
[04 Oct 21:55] * Dali is not the Chair.
[04 Oct 21:55] <Gulliver> Anyone can make a motion
[04 Oct 21:55] <Gulliver> And any one else can second it
[04 Oct 21:55] <Gulliver> If there's a second a vote is obligated
[04 Oct 21:55] <Gulliver> The chair is not an all powerful dictator >_>
[04 Oct 21:55] <Haxstree> there we go
[04 Oct 21:55] <Haxstree> go ahead Dali
[04 Oct 21:55] <Dali> FIne. I motion that we vote no Gulliver's design for the ProP logo.
[04 Oct 21:55] <Haxstree> Second
[04 Oct 21:55] <Dali> Wow, bad spelling.
[04 Oct 21:55] <Haxstree> oh wait
[04 Oct 21:55] <Gulliver> Abstain
[04 Oct 21:55] <Haxstree> Retract my second
[04 Oct 21:55] <Gulliver> D:
[04 Oct 21:55] <Haxstree> it said "no"
[04 Oct 21:56] <Dali> Let me try this again.
[04 Oct 21:56] <Haxstree> "we vote no"
[04 Oct 21:56] <Haxstree>
[04 Oct 21:56] <Gulliver> Oh
[04 Oct 21:56] <Dali> I motion that we vote on Gulliver's design for the ProP logo.
[04 Oct 21:56] <Dali> There.
[04 Oct 21:56] <Haxstree> Second
[04 Oct 21:56] <Gulliver> Abstain
[04 Oct 21:56] <Dali> Aye.
[04 Oct 21:56] <Haxstree> Aye
[04 Oct 21:56] <Agamemnon> Aye
[04 Oct 21:56] <Oliver> Aye.
[04 Oct 21:56] * Dali pokes AMOM, Dyr, and Wham
[04 Oct 21:57] <AMOM> argh
[04 Oct 21:57] <AMOM> whatchwe votin'
[04 Oct 21:57] <AMOM> oh
[04 Oct 21:57] <AMOM> aye
[04 Oct 21:57] <Dyr> aye
[04 Oct 21:58] * Gulliver eyes Eluvatar
[04 Oct 21:58] * Dali pokes Wham again
[04 Oct 22:01] <AMOM> What is love?
[04 Oct 22:01] <AMOM> Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.
[04 Oct 22:02] <Dali> Baby, don't hurt me.
[04 Oct 22:02] <Dali> damn
[04 Oct 22:02] <AMOM> heh
[04 Oct 22:02] <Dali> So, Acting Chair, did this pass or what?
[04 Oct 22:02] <Gulliver> Dun dun dun dun dun
[04 Oct 22:02] <Gulliver> Let's see
[04 Oct 22:02] <Gulliver> 6 of 11 potentially voting so I would say yes
[04 Oct 22:02] <Gulliver> Since I abstianed
[04 Oct 22:02] <Gulliver> And I think there's 12 people in the party?
[04 Oct 22:05] <Gulliver> You know I'll just change my vote to Aye
[04 Oct 22:05] <Gulliver> Then I'm certain it's passed >_>
[04 Oct 22:05] <Dali> Done.
[04 Oct 22:05] <Gulliver> Where did the chair go
[04 Oct 22:06] <Gulliver> I have made a smaller version convenient for posting in signatures of the logo
[04 Oct 22:06] <Gulliver> >_>
[04 Oct 22:06] <Dali> Excellent!
[04 Oct 22:06] <Gulliver> Probably should upload it
[04 Oct 22:07] <Haxstree> Yay for progress!
[04 Oct 22:07] <Gulliver> ELUVATAR GET BACK HERE SO WE CAN BURN STUFF FINALLY
[04 Oct 22:08] <Dali> I motion that we burn things.
[04 Oct 22:08] <Gulliver> Second
[04 Oct 22:08] <Gulliver> Aye
[04 Oct 22:08] <Oliver> Aye.
[04 Oct 22:08] <Dali> Aye.
[04 Oct 22:09] <Dyr> YES
[04 Oct 22:09] <Gulliver> http://i.imgur.com/Rmxgd.png there
[04 Oct 22:09] * Dali should post that in his Sig somewhere
[04 Oct 22:14] <Dyr> Now what
[04 Oct 22:14] <AMOM> NOW WE RULE THE WORLD
[04 Oct 22:14] <Gulliver> Now we discuss burning the constitution
[04 Oct 22:15] <Gulliver> >_>
[04 Oct 22:15] <AMOM> http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1903/mpafun.png
[04 Oct 22:15] <Gulliver> I've placed the logo in my sig D:
[04 Oct 22:15] <Gulliver> Oh god what
[04 Oct 22:15] <AMOM> lololol
[04 Oct 22:16] <Dali> TNP is not there. That is not valid.
[04 Oct 22:16] <Dali>
[04 Oct 22:16] <AMOM> it's the MPA
[04 Oct 22:16] <AMOM> TNP is in the trunk
[04 Oct 22:17] <Dali> Typical...
[04 Oct 22:17] <Dali> And TWP is on the roof?
[04 Oct 22:18] <AMOM> TWP is underneath
[04 Oct 22:18] <AMOM> getting turned around by the tires
[04 Oct 22:19] <Agamemnon> Aye
[04 Oct 22:19] <Agamemnon>
[04 Oct 22:20] <Gulliver> >_>
[04 Oct 22:20] <AMOM>
[05 Oct 00:00] <Eluvatar> hm
[05 Oct 00:01] <Gulliver> Hm?
[05 Oct 00:01] <Gulliver> Oh hello
[05 Oct 00:01] <Gulliver> We adopted the logo
[05 Oct 00:01] <Gulliver> If
[05 Oct 00:01] <Gulliver> 7 is enough >_>
[05 Oct 00:01] <Dali> mh
[05 Oct 00:02] <Eluvatar> It is
[05 Oct 00:03] <Eluvatar> but you did not follow my oh so clearly stated and trivial to execute agenda </joke>
[05 Oct 00:08] <Agamemnon> ANd good night
[05 Oct 00:08] * Eluvatar nods
[05 Oct 00:09] --- Eluvatar changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum. Speaking is agreement with Rule 1. | Progressive Party channel | Party Color is Red | Party Congress not in session

 

[A mean old man]

I am a paradigm of productivity in that last one.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Blackballing is neither democratic, nor progressive.

 

[Eluvatar]

Which is why we don't practice it?

It takes the objection of TWO THIRDS of the party to kick someone out. That's eight people, not one or two.

 

[Greater Peterstan]

A small degree of Party discipline is necessary for a party to function. By definition (in countries with a functioning party system) a political party is a group that share the same values and are able to act collectively. Therefore, there must be a mechanism for ensuring that happens. That isn't blackballing at all. Political parties are not designed to be open and accepting of any yahoo who wants in.

 

[Gulliver]

Need I also point out that we're a private organization which people join voluntarily, not a government which people are forced to accept the rules of, and therefore can be a bit less open? Or that as a political party it would be very hard for us to get anything done if people who completely disagree with were allowed to just come in and hijack our business?

 

[Eluvatar]

Grimalkin (Agamemnon) has submitted a motion to "hold a party vote for the elections".

Consider this notification that in 72 hours this will join the agenda of the Third Party Congress.

 

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: North Pacific ProP Congress #3 Continued Further

[05 Oct 16:47] --- Eluvatar changed topic: Rule 1: this channel is public and log may be published in TNP forum. Speaking is agreement with Rule 1. | Progressive Party channel | Party Color is Red | Third Party Congress in session
[05 Oct 16:48] <Eluvatar> So, the draft amendment:
[05 Oct 16:48] <Eluvatar> 1. This Constitution and any other laws except the Bill of Rights and any laws establishing a Constituent Assembly will be repealed on [November 23, 2011].
[05 Oct 16:48] <Eluvatar> 2. The Regional Assembly may by law determine the time and method of the election of a Constituent Assembly which may propose a new constitution.
[05 Oct 16:48] <Eluvatar> 3. Any proposal of the Constituent Assembly will come into force only if approved by a majority of those voting in a referendum.
[05 Oct 16:48] <Eluvatar> 4. Any person who is a member of the Regional Assembly or who has had a World Assembly nation in the North Pacific since October 1, 2011 may vote in any such referendum.
[05 Oct 16:48] <Eluvatar> Gulliver: does "laws establishing a Constituent Assembly" include that amendment?
[05 Oct 16:48] <Gulliver> No
[05 Oct 16:49] <Gulliver> Probably not
[05 Oct 16:49] <Eluvatar> so "Any proposal of the Constituent Assembly will come into force only if approved by a majority of those voting in a referendum.
[05 Oct 16:49] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> ELu, is there a place where these 4 points are written where they won't creep up the page?
[05 Oct 16:49] <Gulliver> Id' put
[05 Oct 16:49] <Gulliver> "This article"
[05 Oct 16:49] <Eluvatar> can put on pastebin
[05 Oct 16:49] <Gulliver> If you want to be sure
[05 Oct 16:49] <Eluvatar> We should do that
[05 Oct 16:49] <Eluvatar> Gulliver: could you revise that in the googledoc ?
[05 Oct 16:50] <Greater_Peterstan> This sounds fun .... I missed this idea when it came around the first time. Are you guys doing 24 hour-a-day congressing?
[05 Oct 16:51] <Eluvatar> no
[05 Oct 16:51] <Eluvatar> it was mentioned once earlier
[05 Oct 16:51] <Eluvatar> but not in an official congress
[05 Oct 16:52] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> was I around since October 1?
[05 Oct 16:52] * Hax|hmwrkandstuff goes to check
[05 Oct 16:52] <Gulliver> Can
[05 Oct 16:52] <Gulliver> I not do anything unless absolute necessary and vote sso I can do homework >_>
[05 Oct 16:52] <Eluvatar> Hax|hmwrkandstuff: RA is permitted to vote
[05 Oct 16:52] <Eluvatar> ok
[05 Oct 16:52] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> oh
[05 Oct 16:52] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> I see now
[05 Oct 16:53] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> I approve, whenever you put it to vote.
[05 Oct 16:53] <Eluvatar> altering it slightly
[05 Oct 16:54] <Eluvatar> Dali, Greater_Peterstan do you think this draft makes it clear that the constituent assembly's constitution
[05 Oct 16:55] <Eluvatar> can include the adoption of lesser, more malleable law as well?
[05 Oct 16:55] <Eluvatar> AMOM?
[05 Oct 16:56] <Gulliver> I would think, that the constitution can do whatever the fuck it wants
[05 Oct 16:56] <Eluvatar> indeed
[05 Oct 16:56] <Eluvatar> http://pastebin.com/ssQWiwNG
[05 Oct 16:57] <Dali> I like it.
[05 Oct 16:57] <Greater_Peterstan> I understand it. Politically, we're going to need to be very careful how we sell this. It kind of plays into GS's paranoia about a foreign takeover.
[05 Oct 16:58] <Dali|afk> Will be back in a few minutes.
[05 Oct 16:58] <Eluvatar> Well, I think the rule about RA or ..
[05 Oct 16:58] <Eluvatar> oh right Grosse thinks we're stacking the RA
[05 Oct 16:58] <Greater_Peterstan> We need to make it clear that we desire a whole-community process, and we're not pushing something through for our own agenda.
[05 Oct 16:58] <Eluvatar> Yes
[05 Oct 16:59] <Eluvatar> That needs to be made very clear
[05 Oct 16:59] <Eluvatar> There's a reason i want the Constituent Assembly to be elected by PR and not, say, bloc voting
[05 Oct 17:01] <Greater_Peterstan> Like I said, I get it, and approve of the general idea. Is this going to be our first big legislative push as a group? Go big, or go home I guess.
[05 Oct 17:01] <Eluvatar> Yeah
[05 Oct 17:01] <Gulliver> This is more or less are entire agenda right now >_>
[05 Oct 17:01] <Gulliver> One issue party o/
[05 Oct 17:01] <AMOM> OUR
[05 Oct 17:01] <Eluvatar> *our
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar> JINX
[05 Oct 17:02] <Gulliver> I
[05 Oct 17:02] <Gulliver> AM
[05 Oct 17:02] <Gulliver> FUCKING
[05 Oct 17:02] <Gulliver> TIRED
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar> I
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar> AM
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar> FUCKING
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar> TIRED
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar> TOO
[05 Oct 17:02] <AMOM> I AM FUCKING
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar>
[05 Oct 17:02] <AMOM> tired
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar> Motion *giggles* to allow us to censor obscenity
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar> from the log
[05 Oct 17:02] <Eluvatar> nevermind, retracted
[05 Oct 17:03] <Eluvatar> OK I think we can vote on proposing the Amendment..
[05 Oct 17:03] <AMOM> i secunt the motion
[05 Oct 17:03] <Eluvatar> but should we vote in party about any proposed alterations
[05 Oct 17:03] <Eluvatar> before accepting them?
[05 Oct 17:03] <AMOM> shar?
[05 Oct 17:04] <Eluvatar> like if Grosse says "hey you should add a comma tehre" or something
[05 Oct 17:04] <Eluvatar> *there
[05 Oct 17:04] <Eluvatar> and we decide "yeah sure"
[05 Oct 17:04] <Eluvatar> we should vote on it?
[05 Oct 17:04] <AMOM> we tell him to fuck off
[05 Oct 17:04] <Eluvatar> or no?
[05 Oct 17:04] <AMOM> then we add it
[05 Oct 17:04] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> her
[05 Oct 17:04] <AMOM> cuz we is working for TAIJITTU
[05 Oct 17:04] <AMOM> MUAHAHA
[05 Oct 17:04] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> especially me
[05 Oct 17:05] <Eluvatar> XD
[05 Oct 17:05] <Eluvatar> it's taijitu btw, only 2 ts
[05 Oct 17:05] <Gulliver> Let's empower
[05 Oct 17:05] <Gulliver> A committee
[05 Oct 17:05] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> cause I've never been there -_-
[05 Oct 17:05] <AMOM> I know that
[05 Oct 17:05] <Eluvatar> Why a committee?
[05 Oct 17:05] <Gulliver> To make grammatical correcttions to laws
[05 Oct 17:05] <Gulliver> >_>
[05 Oct 17:05] <Gulliver> I mean
[05 Oct 17:05] <Eluvatar> oh
[05 Oct 17:05] <Gulliver> Proposals
[05 Oct 17:05] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> no
[05 Oct 17:05] <Gulliver> D:
[05 Oct 17:05] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> that sounds like an uneeded committee
[05 Oct 17:05] <Eluvatar> But what if someone suggests an acceptable substantive change?
[05 Oct 17:05] <Greater_Peterstan> Gotta go for now. Quitting time. I'll be back when I make it home. Count my vote as an Aye.
[05 Oct 17:05] <Eluvatar> okay
[05 Oct 17:06] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> a committee to correct grammar? Just make the grammar right the first time...
[05 Oct 17:06] <Eluvatar> How about this.
[05 Oct 17:06] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> I thought we already had agreed on a method to ammend things...:S
[05 Oct 17:06] <Eluvatar> MOTION: The Party will propose http://pastebin.com/ssQWiwNG as an amendment to the Constitution. Alterations to the Amendment must be approved in a vote of the party to be considered friendly.
[05 Oct 17:07] <Eluvatar> Is there a second?
[05 Oct 17:07] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> if not, let's just go with 2/3 can support an alteration so we stick with the same number as kicking a sponsored out.
[05 Oct 17:07] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> oh
[05 Oct 17:07] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> or not
[05 Oct 17:07] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> is it just a majority vote?
[05 Oct 17:07] <Eluvatar> Yeah
[05 Oct 17:07] <Eluvatar> we're proposing it by majority vote anyway
[05 Oct 17:07] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> alright then
[05 Oct 17:07] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> Second
[05 Oct 17:07] <Eluvatar> we don't have non-majority vote for anything but member removal at this time
[05 Oct 17:07] <Eluvatar> AYE
[05 Oct 17:08] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> understood
[05 Oct 17:08] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> AYE
[05 Oct 17:08] <Eluvatar> (3:0:0:4:5)
[05 Oct 17:08] <Eluvatar> (counting Greater Peterstan as aye on his request)
[05 Oct 17:08] <Eluvatar> er
[05 Oct 17:08] <Eluvatar> (3:0:0:3:6)
[05 Oct 17:08] <Eluvatar>
[05 Oct 17:09] <Gulliver> Aye
[05 Oct 17:09] <Eluvatar> oh wait if Agamemnon is here... then there are still 6 in the room
[05 Oct 17:10] <Eluvatar> (4:0:0:3:5)
[05 Oct 17:10] <AMOM> so
[05 Oct 17:10] <Eluvatar> AMOM, Agamemnon, and Dali have yet to vote
[05 Oct 17:10] <AMOM> yeah, condense what we're voting on into one sentence plox
[05 Oct 17:10] <AMOM> '/
[05 Oct 17:11] <Eluvatar> Propose BURN IT amendment, allow party to accept changes to amendment before RA vote by party vote
[05 Oct 17:11] <AMOM> aye
[05 Oct 17:11] <Eluvatar> (5:0:0:2:5)
[05 Oct 17:12] <Eluvatar> Dali said he'd be back soon
[05 Oct 17:12] <Eluvatar> so the question is, am I being optimistic about Agamemnon
[05 Oct 17:12] <AMOM> nah
[05 Oct 17:12] <AMOM> he'll probs say yes
[05 Oct 17:12] <Eluvatar> I dont' mean his opinion I mean his presence
[05 Oct 17:12] <AMOM> oh.
[05 Oct 17:12] <AMOM> heh
[05 Oct 17:13] <AMOM> well, can't help you there
[05 Oct 17:13] <Eluvatar> I'm impatient and don't want a forum vote
[05 Oct 17:13] <AMOM> you could put this vote on "pause"
[05 Oct 17:14] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> no need to pause
[05 Oct 17:14] <Eluvatar> It's outstanding
[05 Oct 17:14] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> just carry on until he shows up
[05 Oct 17:14] <Hax|hmwrkandstuff> la la la
[05 Oct 17:14] <Eluvatar> we can just wait and see if Ag shows up yeah
[05 Oct 17:19] <Eluvatar> Dali: we are voting on a motion
[05 Oct 17:19] <Eluvatar> 17:06 <@Eluvatar> MOTION: The Party will propose http://pastebin.com/ssQWiwNG as an amendment to the Constitution. Alterations to the Amendment must be approved in a vote of the party to be considered friendly.
[05 Oct 17:19] <Dali> Aye.
[05 Oct 17:19] <Eluvatar> (6:0:0:1:5)
[05 Oct 17:23] <Dali> Can we just say Ag votes aye?
[05 Oct 17:23] <Eluvatar> we cannot
[05 Oct 17:31] --> Greater_Peterstan joined the channel
[05 Oct 17:32] <AMOM> wb
[05 Oct 17:32] <Dali> Did GP vote?
[05 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> Yes
[05 Oct 17:33] <AMOM> preemptively, too
[05 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> MOTION: The Party will propose http://pastebin.com/ssQWiwNG as an amendment to the Constitution. Alterations to the Amendment must be approved in a vote of the party to be considered friendly.
[05 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> for reference
[05 Oct 17:33] <Dali> Aye again.
[05 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> XD
[05 Oct 17:33] <Dali> Because I am that awesome.
[05 Oct 17:33] <Dali> I need two votes.
[05 Oct 17:33] <Greater_Peterstan> Aye !
[05 Oct 17:33] <Eluvatar> (6:0:0:1:5)
[05 Oct 17:34] <Eluvatar> the 1 is Ag

 

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: North Pacific ProP Congress #3 Continued Further part 2

[05 Oct 17:38] <Greater_Peterstan> The next question (whilst waiting for the last vote) is how we present this to the non-aligned RA members, and membership at large. Do we have the numbers for to press a constitutional amendment alone?
[05 Oct 17:39] <Eluvatar> I don't think I should answer that question in the congress
[05 Oct 17:41] <Greater_Peterstan> Not in detail, no. I think it is important to declare, on the record, that we are pursuing a general agenda of positive change, rather than a particular model, or power for ourselves.
[05 Oct 17:42] <Eluvatar> er, the second question
[05 Oct 17:42] <Eluvatar> the first one, is we argue that the current system is broken
[05 Oct 17:42] <Eluvatar> and that the region as a whole needs to come up with a new one
[05 Oct 17:42] <Eluvatar> We want a constituent assembly to fairly represent everyone in the region
[05 Oct 17:42] <Eluvatar> in coming up with a new, well-organized system.
[05 Oct 17:43] <Eluvatar> Also, the 23rd of November is *plenty* of time for the CA to do its work
[05 Oct 17:43] <Dali> For curiosity sake... why that day?
[05 Oct 17:43] <Gulliver> Elu, care to explain?
[05 Oct 17:45] <AMOM> Cuz Taijitu plans to invade the world on the 22nd, and having a new constitution any earlier or later could be a problem
[05 Oct 17:45] * Eluvatar goes to get it
[05 Oct 17:46] <Eluvatar> 6. The twenty-third day of November shall be known as Founders' Day, and shall provide an opportunity for Nations to commemorate and celebrate the establishment of the first official forum of The North Pacific, and the establishment through it of the community which has kept The North Pacific as the preeminent region in Nationstates.
[05 Oct 17:46] <Eluvatar> TNP Law 23
[05 Oct 17:47] <Eluvatar> eighth anniversary of TNP forums
[05 Oct 17:47] <Eluvatar> (s2 in particular)
[05 Oct 17:47] <Greater_Peterstan> Beautiful.
[05 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> We should mention that
[05 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> in our explanation
[05 Oct 17:48] <Eluvatar> damn I'm going to have to write it aren't I >_< I hate that
[05 Oct 17:48] * Eluvatar looks pleadingly at AMOM Dali and Greater_Peterstan
[05 Oct 17:49] <Greater_Peterstan> I'm in.
[05 Oct 17:49] <Dali> What?
[05 Oct 17:49] <Greater_Peterstan> Nice date choice - it will be like writing poetry.
[05 Oct 17:50] <Gulliver> What was the deadline for our committee >_>
[05 Oct 17:50] <Dali> Oh, I forgot we had holidays.
[05 Oct 17:50] <AMOM> huh
[05 Oct 17:50] <AMOM> distracted
[05 Oct 17:50] <AMOM> why are you pleading
[05 Oct 17:51] <Gulliver> He doesn't want to write an explanation
[05 Oct 17:51] <Gulliver> Because he's lazy and tired like me >_>
[05 Oct 17:52] <Eluvatar> wednesday
[05 Oct 17:52] <Eluvatar> yeah
[05 Oct 17:52] <Eluvatar> explanation to mention:
[05 Oct 17:53] <Eluvatar> 17:42 <@Eluvatar> the first one, is we argue that the current system is broken
[05 Oct 17:53] <Eluvatar> 17:42 <@Eluvatar> and that the region as a whole needs to come up with a new one
[05 Oct 17:53] <Eluvatar> 17:42 <@Eluvatar> We want a constituent assembly to fairly represent everyone in the region
[05 Oct 17:53] <Eluvatar> 17:42 <@Eluvatar> in coming up with a new, well-organized system.
[05 Oct 17:53] <Eluvatar> 17:46 <@Eluvatar> 6. The twenty-third day of November shall be known as Founders' Day, and shall provide an opportunity for Nations to commemorate and celebrate the establishment of the first official forum of The North Pacific, and the establishment through it of the community which has kept The North Pacific as the preeminent region in Nationstates.
[05 Oct 17:53] <Eluvatar> 17:46 <@Eluvatar> TNP Law 23
[05 Oct 17:53] <Eluvatar> 17:47 <@Eluvatar> eighth anniversary of TNP forums
[05 Oct 17:53] <Eluvatar> 17:43 <@Eluvatar> Also, the 23rd of November is *plenty* of time for the CA to do its work
[05 Oct 17:53] <Eluvatar> yeah
[05 Oct 17:54] <AMOM> sure, whatever
[05 Oct 17:54] <AMOM> I'm lazy too, no time to think atm
[05 Oct 17:54] <AMOM> go for it
[05 Oct 17:55] <Eluvatar> lol
[05 Oct 17:55] <Gulliver> Peterstan, you're party logo in the sig is not large and obnoxious enough.
[05 Oct 17:56] <Eluvatar> silly Gulliver
[05 Oct 17:56] <Eluvatar> he has more in hsi sig
[05 Oct 17:56] <Eluvatar> so it has to be smaller
[05 Oct 17:56] <Eluvatar> might even run afoul of the rules otherwise
[05 Oct 17:57] <Gulliver> That is not an excuse
[05 Oct 17:57] <Gulliver> Clearly, the other material must be purged for the glory of the Party
[05 Oct 17:57] <Eluvatar> lol
[05 Oct 17:57] <Eluvatar> BIG GULLIVER IS WATCHING YOU
[05 Oct 17:57] * Dali removed all of his titles for the Party
[05 Oct 17:58] <Greater_Peterstan> Mine DOES seem kind of small. Sig envy.
[05 Oct 17:58] <AMOM> what are the siggy rules in TNP's forums?
[05 Oct 17:59] <Gulliver> Omg
[05 Oct 17:59] <Gulliver> OMG
[05 Oct 17:59] <Gulliver> I have to make campaign posters for the referendum
[05 Oct 17:59] <Gulliver> "VOTE YES ON QUESTION 1"
[05 Oct 18:00] <Eluvatar> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/boardrules/
[05 Oct 18:00] <Gulliver> "VOTE YES ON THE ONLY QUESTION ON THE BALLOT"
[05 Oct 18:00] <Dali> DO IT!
[05 Oct 18:00] <Gulliver> I still like the vote no on prohibition one from Sweden.
[05 Oct 18:00] <Dali> Link?
[05 Oct 18:00] <Dali> OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN
[05 Oct 18:00] <Gulliver> "Crayfish require these drinks: vote no!"
[05 Oct 18:00] <Gulliver> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_prohibition_referendum,_1922
[05 Oct 18:01] <Gulliver> I think you can guess which one is the no poster >_>
[05 Oct 18:01] <Gulliver> "You must abstain from crayfish if you don't vote NO on August 27!"
[05 Oct 18:01] <Dali> That... is awesome.
[05 Oct 18:01] <Eluvatar> XD
[05 Oct 18:03] <Dali> But yes, we need posters.
[05 Oct 18:03] <Dali> Gullie... can you create a poster for our Judicial election slate?
[05 Oct 18:04] * Gulliver frowns on the abomination that is judicial elections.
[05 Oct 18:04] * Eluvatar feels uncomfortable
[05 Oct 18:04] <Eluvatar> about a judicial slate XD
[05 Oct 18:05] <Dali> I don't like it as well... but...
[05 Oct 18:05] <Dali> It's happening. Suck it up Princess.
[05 Oct 18:05] <Dali>
[05 Oct 18:07] <Greater_Peterstan> Right now I am running against a fellow Party member. Not much of a slate.
[05 Oct 18:08] <Greater_Peterstan> Which is okay too. For now.
[05 Oct 18:08] <Gulliver> We should figure out
[05 Oct 18:09] <Gulliver> Selecting candidates for offices in case we end up in a sitution in which vote splitting is an issue >_>
[05 Oct 18:09] <Eluvatar> Greater_Peterstan: not really
[05 Oct 18:11] <Gulliver> What's the method for the election in question
[05 Oct 18:11] <Eluvatar> You're running against Cakatoa and FALCONKATS
[05 Oct 18:11] <Eluvatar> That is a very good question
[05 Oct 18:11] <Gulliver> If me and elu get our way vote splitting won't be an issue or only a minor one but still >__>
[05 Oct 18:11] <Gulliver> ALWAYS BE PREPARED
[05 Oct 18:12] <Greater_Peterstan> There is also the question of the Special Election for VD.
[05 Oct 18:12] <Gulliver> Even if vote splitting isn't an issue it also looks nice for party unity if we can gree on a candidate colelctively
[05 Oct 18:12] <Gulliver> "colelctively"
[05 Oct 18:12] <Eluvatar> 8. Election of the Speaker of the Assembly and Judiciary officials shall require a plurality vote of the Assembly,
[05 Oct 18:12] <Gulliver> ):<
[05 Oct 18:13] <Greater_Peterstan> I don't have a problem stepping aside.
[05 Oct 18:13] <Eluvatar> Not sure what it means to elect 2 Associate Justices by plurality vote
[05 Oct 18:13] <Gulliver> SNTV?
[05 Oct 18:13] <Dali> usually it's been the top two get to be Associate Justices
[05 Oct 18:13] <Greater_Peterstan> There are two?
[05 Oct 18:13] <Gulliver> SNTV then
[05 Oct 18:13] <Dali> Yes
[05 Oct 18:13] <Eluvatar> I guess so Gulliver
[05 Oct 18:13] <Greater_Peterstan> That makes it easier.
[05 Oct 18:13] <Dali> And then Chief Justice as the third member
[05 Oct 18:13] <Gulliver> Since we can see the votes
[05 Oct 18:13] <Eluvatar> which makes an organized party win
[05 Oct 18:13] <Gulliver> We can
[05 Oct 18:13] <Eluvatar> yeah
[05 Oct 18:13] <Gulliver> If we vote correctly maximize our gains
[05 Oct 18:14] <Eluvatar> So we should vote on an actual slate if we want to do that
[05 Oct 18:14] <Greater_Peterstan> That makes sense.
[05 Oct 18:14] <Eluvatar> We would alternate
[05 Oct 18:14] <Eluvatar> find the last vote for a member of the slate and vote for the other one
[05 Oct 18:15] <Gulliver> And then vote by, if all people in teh slate are winning vote for the one with the least votes, else vote for the person not winning with the most votes or something similar
[05 Oct 18:15] <Gulliver> Or that
[05 Oct 18:15] <Eluvatar> It's just 2 positions
[05 Oct 18:15] <Dali> Elu, we get two votes for Associate Justice.
[05 Oct 18:15] <Eluvatar> there is only 1 opponent, presumably
[05 Oct 18:15] <Gulliver> Oh god
[05 Oct 18:15] <Gulliver> It's a Bloc Vote?
[05 Oct 18:15] <Gulliver> That's really easy
[05 Oct 18:15] <Eluvatar> That's not plurality voting that's bloc voting >_<
[05 Oct 18:15] <Greater_Peterstan> Easy.
[05 Oct 18:15] <Gulliver> Vote for our two candidates >_>
[05 Oct 18:15] <Eluvatar> I guess I should focus on precedent though
[05 Oct 18:16] <Dali> Indeed, Gullie
[05 Oct 18:16] <Gulliver> Bloc voting is such a hilariously bad system
[05 Oct 18:17] <Eluvatar> Yes
[05 Oct 18:17] <Gulliver> SNTV at least *can* produce proportional results if everyone knows how to vote
[05 Oct 18:17] <Gulliver> Bloc voting is just the plurality takes EVERYTHING
[05 Oct 18:17] <Eluvatar> Yes
[05 Oct 18:17] <Eluvatar> It's also how TNP has destabilized itself by stimulating conflict again and again and again
[05 Oct 18:17] <AMOM> queue me if you want me
[05 Oct 18:17] <Eluvatar> The old Security Council was elected by bloc voting
[05 Oct 18:17] <Gulliver> Queue?
[05 Oct 18:17] * Dali wants you AMOM
[05 Oct 18:18] <Eluvatar> so it never included "the opposition" such as there was
[05 Oct 18:18] <Gulliver> I feel like making an education pamphlet
[05 Oct 18:18] <Eluvatar> except for secret opposition, I suppose
[05 Oct 18:18] <Gulliver> "VOTING THEORY AND YOU: SPONSORED BY THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF THE NORTH PACIFIC"
[05 Oct 18:18] <Dali> hehehe
[05 Oct 18:18] <Gulliver> With inappropriately cute illustrations like it's from Jaapn
[05 Oct 18:18] <Gulliver> "Jaapn"
[05 Oct 18:19] <Eluvatar> Jaapn, like Japan but in Nationstates
[05 Oct 18:19] <Dali> Yes.
[05 Oct 18:19] <Eluvatar> J'Arrive Aux Pacifique-Nord
[05 Oct 18:19] <Eluvatar> JAAPN
[05 Oct 18:20] <Gulliver> o_o
[05 Oct 18:20] <Gulliver> "What is this Jaapn of which you speak?"
[05 Oct 18:20] * Dali claps
[05 Oct 18:20] <Gulliver> What are you clapping for?
[05 Oct 18:20] <Dali> <Eluvatar> J'Arrive Aux Pacifique-Nord
[05 Oct 18:21] <Dali> It amuses me.
[05 Oct 18:21] <Eluvatar> precedent is definitely bloc voting D:
[05 Oct 18:22] <Gulliver>
[05 Oct 18:22] <Gulliver> Well
[05 Oct 18:22] <Gulliver> I believe it's time to pass a resolutio
[05 Oct 18:23] <Gulliver> To pick a slate of candidates and all vote for it
[05 Oct 18:23] <Gulliver> Together, we're unstoppable comrades!
[05 Oct 18:23] <Dali> Hail the ProP!
[05 Oct 18:23] <Eluvatar> Let's follow our rules for new business for this
[05 Oct 18:23] <Eluvatar> we don't need to rush
[05 Oct 18:23] <Eluvatar> we have well over 3 days before the election XD
[05 Oct 18:25] <Gulliver> I would like to remove the 3 days clause >_>
[05 Oct 18:26] <Gulliver> It's awfully annoying when
[05 Oct 18:26] <Gulliver> We have a quoruom and everyone agrees to something but we can't do it
[05 Oct 18:26] <Eluvatar> What if someone absent
[05 Oct 18:26] <Eluvatar> would think of a really good counter-argument
[05 Oct 18:26] <Eluvatar> but they aren't present
[05 Oct 18:26] <Eluvatar> so they can't
[05 Oct 18:26] <Eluvatar> 3 days isn't long, but I would be open to reducing to 2 days
[05 Oct 18:27] <Gulliver> What if the person ends up absent from the congress anyway
[05 Oct 18:27] <Eluvatar> then that's okay
[05 Oct 18:27] <Eluvatar> but warning improves chances
[05 Oct 18:27] <Gulliver> If the person makes a good point, can't we just vote to repeal or amend on the spot?
[05 Oct 18:28] <Eluvatar> sensible when everything's by majority vote
[05 Oct 18:28] <Eluvatar> not so much with higher proportions
[05 Oct 18:30] <Gulliver> Should probably move to a room without a TV in which to homework >_>
[05 Oct 18:54] <AMOM> out
[05 Oct 18:55] <Eluvatar> Agamemnon:
[05 Oct 19:07] <Dali> mmm, wine
[05 Oct 19:08] <Eluvatar> damn Dali still has 2 more endos than me XD
[05 Oct 19:09] <Gulliver> I'm too tired
[05 Oct 19:09] <Gulliver> To gather endorsements right now ):
[05 Oct 19:09] <Dali> Elu, this is me being lazy with my endotarts
[05 Oct 19:09] <Eluvatar> I'm being lazy too
[05 Oct 19:13] * Dali frowns
[05 Oct 19:13] <Dali> Someone withdrew their endo from me.
[05 Oct 19:14] <Eluvatar> or CTEd
[05 Oct 19:14] <Dali> http://www.nationstates.net/nation=veejs
[05 Oct 19:14] <Dali> No.
[05 Oct 19:14] <Eluvatar> huh
[05 Oct 19:14] <Eluvatar> odd
[05 Oct 19:15] <Dali> Also, I'm sad that my team lost in the semi-finals today in the Equilism World Cup
[05 Oct 19:27] <Agamemnon> I'm here.
[05 Oct 19:27] <Dali> AG!
[05 Oct 19:27] * Agamemnon has been trying to sleep a little, being up for 24 hours + does not agree with his mood and temperment.
[05 Oct 19:28] * Dali hands Ag a glass of wine
[05 Oct 19:28] <Eluvatar> omg
[05 Oct 19:28] * Agamemnon adds some Jim Bean to it
[05 Oct 19:28] <Eluvatar> 17:06 <@Eluvatar> MOTION: The Party will propose http://pastebin.com/ssQWiwNG as an amendment to the Constitution. Alterations to the Amendment must be approved in a vote of the party to be considered friendly.
[05 Oct 19:29] <Eluvatar> vote stands at
[05 Oct 19:29] <Agamemnon> AYE
[05 Oct 19:29] <Dali> Huzzah!
[05 Oct 19:29] <Eluvatar> (6:0:0:1:5)
[05 Oct 19:29] <Dali> Now (7:0:0:0:5)
[05 Oct 19:29] <Eluvatar> MOTION CARRIES
[05 Oct 19:29] <Agamemnon> What's the empty number 6, Elu?
[05 Oct 19:30] <Agamemnon> Some sort of shadow proclamation you're trying to ram down our throats?!
[05 Oct 19:30] * Eluvatar blinks
[05 Oct 19:30] <Agamemnon> hm
[05 Oct 19:30] <Eluvatar> that's a line number from pastebin
[05 Oct 19:30] <Dali> <Agamemnon> Some sort of shadow proclamation you're trying to ram down our throats?! <- Yes.
[05 Oct 19:30] <Eluvatar> not a clause number
[05 Oct 19:30] <Agamemnon> I just noticed the godawful formatting from Pastbinm
[05 Oct 19:30] <Dali> All night long, sa well.
[05 Oct 19:30] <Dali> *as
[05 Oct 19:30] <Agamemnon> Kinky.
[05 Oct 19:30] <Eluvatar> I couldn't be arsed to use something better
[05 Oct 19:31] * Agamemnon needs a drink, then shall go tart again
[05 Oct 19:31] <Agamemnon> Also, it's awesome to see Gross fail so spectacularly.
[05 Oct 19:32] <Dali> It is
[05 Oct 19:32] <Gulliver>
[05 Oct 19:32] <Dali> But, lack of compromise and wild paranoid accusations will do that.
[05 Oct 19:32] <Gulliver> Eluvatar, what do I have to do get us to agree on a slate of judicial candidates and vote for them
[05 Oct 19:32] <Gulliver> And other candidates as well?
[05 Oct 19:33] <Dali> Can one of us just go "I motion that the Progressive Party fully support for Chief Justice: Dalimbar; for Associate Justices: Greater Peterstan and Cakatoa; for Attorney General: Blue Wolf II"?
[05 Oct 19:33] <Eluvatar> post in NCPP thread
[05 Oct 19:34] <Eluvatar> I think we should follow 3-day-rule
[05 Oct 19:34] <Eluvatar> we certainly have the time
[05 Oct 19:35] <Gulliver> I like Dali's idea better

 

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: North Pacific Progressive Party Resolutions

1: Anyone who is or has been in the RA may join. [OVERRIDEN]
2: Eluvatar is the chairman.
3: fundamental reform of the Constitution and Legal Code to be the top priority of the party
4: Party color is red.
5: Party name is Progressive Party (abbreviated ProP
6: The North Pacific ProP is working from the Taijitu ProP charter as a basis for discussion of its own charter ( http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_Progressive_Party )
7: Gulliver is tasked with coming up with a party logo ]COMPLETED]
8: A committee of Dalimbar, Gulliver, and Eluvatar are tasked with proposing a list of defined values for the party charter by Wednesday, October 12.
9: One needs 3 sponsorships to join the party, and may be removed by a 2/3 vote at any time. [SUPERSEDES 1]
10:

Spoiler: resolution

1. Any member may convoke a Party Congress with at least 72 hours warning, declaring the business and time of the Congress in advance, posting on the forums.
2. Party Congresses must be held in the official party channel, #ncpp on Esper.
3. No Congress may propose new business without 72 hours notice.
4. If multiple congresses are convoked to take place during the same period of time, they will be folded into one Congress which will address the combined list of business.
5. The deliberations of a Party Congress will be logged and publicly displayed on the forums. The deliberations may only be censored by vote of the Congress for personal privacy reasons.
6. If an absolute majority of all party members votes for the final statement of a Party Congress, it will immediately take effect.
7. Otherwise, the vote will be continued on the forum.
8. If a majority of the party votes for or against, the vote will end.
9. If a week has gone by since the Congress proposing the vote, the vote will close.

11:

adopted as party logo.
12: The Party will propose http://pastebin.com/ssQWiwNG as an amendment to the Constitution. Alterations to the Amendment must be approved in a vote of the party to be considered friendly.

 

[unibot]

Can I ask a question to the Progressive Party's leadership?

What is the Progressive Party's stance on inactivity policies? The North Pacific has a notoriously strict policy about inactivity on the forums and in-game; members are both harassed to keep active on the forum, to at least attend once every two weeks and their membership is compromised with two missed votes. A member can remain active throughout a proposal's discussion and miss the vote.. and this reflects on him as 'deadweight'. Furthermore, the strictness of the inactivity policy is unparalleled among feeders.. yet TNP is also notorious for inactivity.

I would argue these inactivity policies have done nothing to actually help the North Pacific since there is no causal relationship between these policies and activity, all they do is frustrate members. I would also argue we should move forward from these policies trying 'to catch deadweight' and focus on actually developing a region to enjoy since the only two things to do in the North Pacific seem to be: (1) constitutional make-work-projects and (2) couping.

How far off is my beliefs from the Progressive Party's platform on this matter?

 

[Eluvatar]

The progressive party appears not to have a consensus on this subject at this time. I myself think we should move away from the fifteen day rule, while others think that the fifteen day rule for posting is reasonable.

We have not much discussed the two vote rule.

 

[unibot]

Well I'm not a scientist by any means, but if I were a scientist I'd look at arguably the two most active GCRs, the South Pacific and the Rejected Realms and see that neither of them actually have any inactivity policies beyond nations dying... then I'd look at the East Pacific and Lazarus and see neither of them (I believe) have inactivity policies but I'd also note they're arguably the two most inactive GCRs in the game. I think the scientific term for this is a 'null hypothesis'.

Generalizing here, but I think activity is spurred by actually creating something to do, a bandwagon. One inspires people to get active and jump on the bandwagon, then things actually 'take off'. In most regions this is possible, but in the North Pacific with our body of laws, we shoot people before they get on the bandwagon. It sounds counter-intuitive, but I would argue this as a principle: a generous level of inactivity has to be tolerated to facilitate activity. I've argued a similar formulation of this principle before in the South Pacific before it received its boom of activity over the last two terms.

I'd like it if you pushed this issue in your next congress, since I think if you're not united with this principle and the new constitution continues the North Pacific's conservative policies on inactivity, your 'revolution' (perhaps the wrong word?) will be engineered improperly and actually suffocate itself like the current system.

 

[Eluvatar]

I think this is an issue best raised with the Constituent Assembly when convoked.

I do not intend for the Constituent Assembly to be particularly partisan. I think that on most details, the Party is not in lockstep.

One issue that there is largely consensus about in the party is that we should open up elections, at least, to a greater electorate then the RA. That alone partly addresses your concern, I believe. As for the legislature itself, I look forward to discussing and deciding on a better system. I certainly do not wish to attempt to prohibit inactivity again, that doesn't generally work.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Personally. I have preferred reliance on the ingame status of the TNP nation and its presence in the region, and removal or suspension with CTE status, and having a continuous record of a player's WA nation to enforce the ”one player, one vote” rule.

That said, there are very few requires for R.A. Membership. Posting an oath, keeping a nation in game in TNP and not trying to avoid the one player one vote.rule.by using a proxy server or undisclosed.duplicate forum accounts.

None of those inhibit R.A. membership. We have an R.A. because a plurality of the Constitutional Convention wanted an R.A. wanted one. I preferred.then, and still prefer the ”registered voter” system used in the North Pacific Confederation system, with the sole modification of an elected Speaker, which I offered at the Constitutional Convention.

 

[unibot]

Personally. I have preferred reliance on the ingame status of the TNP nation and its presence in the region, and removal or suspension with CTE status, and having a continuous record of a player's WA nation to enforce the ”one player, one vote” rule.

Then why do we have the most (?) strict guidelines out of all the feeders in regards to how one can maintain membership? (1) One must post on the forums every two weeks and (2) one must attend votes with two misses counting as a neglect of duties.. even though proper communication of votes hasn't even been formalized or mandated.

I think if these policies were applied to any other feeder, you'd see their assemblies reduced to a very small amount of people with the patience to log into the forum to do.. nothing at all and claim power. This dedication may be honourable, but it gets us nowhere if we're trying to develop a region and actually get it doing things as a community.

 

[King Durk the Awesome]

Activity requirements are a ridiculous concept. By removing inactive nations from your regional legislature you effectively make your legislature even less active - cutting off your nose to spite your face and all that. And frankly Nationstates is a game and not work; players should never feel obligated to be active. When I was running the Imperial Legion I never had to forcefully compel anyone to stay active, because I'm the best (and so was TIL).

 

[unibot]

I feel dirty when JAL and I agree on something, almost makes me want to go back and review my points.

 

[Todd McCloud]

This is quite interesting!

 

[FALCONKATS]

Wonder if i could be a member

 

[north harmoneia]

This is quite interesting!

It is!

 

[Greater Peterstan]

Question: is this the first example of a political party in TNP? Or is there other history I haven't heard yet.

I'm writing an article for the next Regional Update.

 

[A mean old man]

By removing inactive nations from your regional legislature you effectively make your legislature even less active

I don't get it.

 

[Dalimbar]

Question: is this the first example of a political party in TNP? Or is there other history I haven't heard yet.

I'm writing an article for the next Regional Update.

No. While I can't remember actual dates of this (I want to say 2006, as it was after Pixiedance and before my first Delegacy), Poltsamaa had a Civil Progressive Party while Romanoffia had an opposing party. I also remember Pope Hope running a mock party during that time with a few others, TNP Teddy Bear Alliance or something like that.

It should be noted that the Progressive Party of The North Pacific is not a successor party, nor affiliated with, the CPP of Poltsy's era.

 

[King Durk the Awesome]

By removing inactive nations from your regional legislature you effectively make your legislature even less active

I don't get it.

Fewer members = less activity. And just because a member is not active at the present time does not mean he won't be active in the (perhaps near) future.

 

[Greater Peterstan]

Thanks Dal!

 

[Greater Peterstan]

Because there was some confusion on this subject during the Third Party Congress, I would first like to give a full roll of party membership.

Spoiler: Progressive Party Membership

1. Eluvatar
2. Gulliver
3. Dalimbar (Dali)
4. Whamabama
5. A Mean Old Man (AMOM)
6. Haxstree
7. Felasia
8. Greater Peterstan
9. Grimalkin (Agamemnon)
10. Blue Wolf II (Blue_Wolf)
11. Dyr Nasad (Dyr)
12. Oliver

A full list of party resolutions will be provided soon. While all these resolutions are clear from the logs of our Congresses, it will be convenient to have an organized list.

Is this up-to-date?

 

[Govindia]

I would like to know what the party has done to discipline the personal attacks and taunting by certain party members of observers in the channel, particularly when they aren't even there to respond, because of attending work or class.

I find it very disgraceful and dishonourable that a party's membership cannot maintain ciivlity and continues to poke and verbally bully observers in the channel, especially because of some pointless Internet grudge from years or months ago.

 

[Grimalkin]

It's funny how you become everyone in these rants.

Tell you what, you admit your own hypocrisy and apologize to certain parties for the disrespectful things you have said to them, then come and plead your case.

 

[Whamabama]

Yes, I would have to agree with Grim here. Personal attacks, bullying, or poking fun of observers (plural) has not happened. Nor do I see it happening in the future.