FD: Amendment for a Constituent Assembly
- Thread starter A mean old man
- Start date
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I object to this proposal being moved to formal discussion.
I move that the Regional Assembly overrule the Speaker's action, because if these serious flaws and deficiencies until the sponsors address and resolve those problemsthat have not been addressed.
I move that the Regional Assembly overrule the Speaker's action, because if these serious flaws and deficiencies until the sponsors address and resolve those problemsthat have not been addressed.
A mean old man
TNPer
I move you remove the damn RA members I've been trying to remove for days.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
There's more than one Admin here, such as your party member. And he made such an issue about it and I agreednwith him days afo that he should be the first contact on R.A. membership matters. What? Eluvatar didn't tell you that? Did you even tell him you had remasking to be done?
And I think it is foolhardy to assume that all of that is going to happen by an arbitrary date seemingly pulled out of the air, unless of course, you already have the end product you want and you're planning to rim-rod it through with no changes....since your party policies won.t let any of you member show any dissent ordisagreement.
I'm not fooled by your tactics, nor is Blackshear, and nor are others of us who seen this before. Ill insist on my motion and having it voted upon by the members of the R.A. My bet is that yourlittle clique will never deal with those concerns becuase your plan is to subvert the region towards some sort of plan that only your little clique is party to.
In other words I do not believe you. I'm not from Missouri' but I'm close enough to take the position of you're going to have to shoe mw first.
And I think it is foolhardy to assume that all of that is going to happen by an arbitrary date seemingly pulled out of the air, unless of course, you already have the end product you want and you're planning to rim-rod it through with no changes....since your party policies won.t let any of you member show any dissent ordisagreement.
I'm not fooled by your tactics, nor is Blackshear, and nor are others of us who seen this before. Ill insist on my motion and having it voted upon by the members of the R.A. My bet is that yourlittle clique will never deal with those concerns becuase your plan is to subvert the region towards some sort of plan that only your little clique is party to.
In other words I do not believe you. I'm not from Missouri' but I'm close enough to take the position of you're going to have to shoe mw first.
Grimalkin
TNPer
You boggle my mind, Gross. You keep seeing conspiracies where there are none. Let me try and make this clear to you, Gross:
THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY TO TAKE OVER THE REGION.
We don't have a constitution ready. That would defeat the purpose of the Assembly. We don't have any changes ready. That would defeat the purpose of the assembly.
And show me where our party policy says that we can't dissent or disagree? Just because we haven't disagreed yet doesn't mean that we won't. You're grasping at straws and presenting crack pot theories and arguments without any inkling of evidence.
The funny thing, Gross, is that a lot of people can actually see through you. You're nothing but a paranoid old man who's afraid of seeing the region actually change for the better, and it's really sad. It's because of attitudes like yours that this region will never rise from the pit of apathy that you and yours rolled it into.
The only legitimate concern that you have, Gross, and one that, gasp, I actually agree with is the issue with the SC protecting the region during the transition. What you fail to see is that the amendment already takes care of that. And the point of the date (which isn't arbitrary, if I remember the conversation right. It's supposed to be a TNP holiday, yes?) is to force the Assembly to actually work together and get crap done instead of languishing.
I would, however, like to see some sort of safeguard put into the amendment in case that it doesn't happen.
Seriously, Gross, stop seeing Charlie in every tree. Everyone notices your paranoia, and, quite frankly, it's worrying.
THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY TO TAKE OVER THE REGION.
We don't have a constitution ready. That would defeat the purpose of the Assembly. We don't have any changes ready. That would defeat the purpose of the assembly.
And show me where our party policy says that we can't dissent or disagree? Just because we haven't disagreed yet doesn't mean that we won't. You're grasping at straws and presenting crack pot theories and arguments without any inkling of evidence.
The funny thing, Gross, is that a lot of people can actually see through you. You're nothing but a paranoid old man who's afraid of seeing the region actually change for the better, and it's really sad. It's because of attitudes like yours that this region will never rise from the pit of apathy that you and yours rolled it into.
The only legitimate concern that you have, Gross, and one that, gasp, I actually agree with is the issue with the SC protecting the region during the transition. What you fail to see is that the amendment already takes care of that. And the point of the date (which isn't arbitrary, if I remember the conversation right. It's supposed to be a TNP holiday, yes?) is to force the Assembly to actually work together and get crap done instead of languishing.
I would, however, like to see some sort of safeguard put into the amendment in case that it doesn't happen.
Seriously, Gross, stop seeing Charlie in every tree. Everyone notices your paranoia, and, quite frankly, it's worrying.
A mean old man
TNPer
I have, actually. It hasn't happened yet. However, I've asked you as well. Perhaps you could stop telling me to go bother the other guy and do the job yourself.
Really, Gross? Where is that final claim set in stone?
You are acting like a paranoid psychopath, Gross. I know you think you're some kind of morally superior and clairvoyant leader of an "old guard" of TNPers, but I have some news for you: you're not. Your legislation has hardly done anything to help this basket case of a regional government and your obsessive preservation of the utterly obsolete has held back the proceedings of this government for months. So get the fuck over yourself and let some others try their hand at fixing this region's problems.
Your ridiculous predictions mean nothing, and they will mean even less than nothing when they are proven wrong by what will happen if this amendment passes.
Also, I didn't stop your stupid motion. Full speed ahead - if someone seconds it. I frankly think it is just an attempt by you to stall the discussion of this topic and its eventual presentation on the voting floor.
I don't even know what the hell you just tried to say there.
A mean old man
TNPer
...also, it's not as if I've made it impossible to make any changes to this by moving it to FD. You're acting like I've just moved it to vote and that all hope for TNP is lost because you see what you believe to be some problems in its wording.
EDIT: Afterthought:
I personally have not been a huge fan of the CA idea. I've gone along with it because I cannot see any way to change the entire Constitution in one fell swoop simply by rewriting it in the RA forums and proposing the new Constitution as an amendment that doesn't involve some obvious problems, the first being that the person who proposes the idea has control over the draft. Although I don't know how the CA would work, either.
So like I said, there is still discussion to be had. I'd like it to be in the FD stage, though.
EDIT: Afterthought:
I personally have not been a huge fan of the CA idea. I've gone along with it because I cannot see any way to change the entire Constitution in one fell swoop simply by rewriting it in the RA forums and proposing the new Constitution as an amendment that doesn't involve some obvious problems, the first being that the person who proposes the idea has control over the draft. Although I don't know how the CA would work, either.
So like I said, there is still discussion to be had. I'd like it to be in the FD stage, though.
Whamabama
TNPer
I don't get the motion to have a vote to move this back to the PD, just so we can disscuss there, and then finally get to disscuss it back here before we can try to get this to a vote. Like many things in TNP this is a redundant process in my opinion. For a change I submit we actually be able to propose something, and get some meaningful change going, and improve the conditions of the region. At least we should give ourselves the chance.
Either that or the stalling in TNP is by design.......and yes, that needs to change as well.
Either that or the stalling in TNP is by design.......and yes, that needs to change as well.
Blackshear
TNPer
For the record, I've always thought dividing legislation into a preliminary discussion and final discussion phase to be a redundant waste of time. Discuss it once, in detail, and send it to a vote when the sponsor thinks it's ready to go. If it's good, vote yes. If it sucks, vote no.
Translation: nay.
Translation: nay.
A mean old man
TNPer
...and where is it actually written that we have to do things this way?
It actually seems that the current Constitution gives me a little bit of leeway as to how I choose to direct the discussions here.
"Speaker" is my job, not yours, Gross.
It actually seems that the current Constitution gives me a little bit of leeway as to how I choose to direct the discussions here.
"Speaker" is my job, not yours, Gross.
A mean old man
TNPer
Motion to return to preliminary discussion: Vote.
A mean old man
TNPer
Nay.
Greater Peterstan
TNPer
Nay on moving back to a pointless preliminary discussion.
But I would like to make sure we seriously discuss the possibility of a couple simple amendments, like the one suggested by El. in preliminary discussion, before rushing to vote this through. I'm not sure it will ease Grosse's shattered nerves, but there is no harm in tightening things up a bit, for those with some legitimate, sane, concerns.
One point is certainly well taken - the RA needs time to put together ideas about what this constituent assembly will look like, precisely, and how it will work: let alone what the end result ought to look like. I think some of those discussions can begin right away, and if people want to say their piece about this Amendment, go right ahead.
In the end it will pass, obviously, but there is no sense rushing until we are ready.
But I would like to make sure we seriously discuss the possibility of a couple simple amendments, like the one suggested by El. in preliminary discussion, before rushing to vote this through. I'm not sure it will ease Grosse's shattered nerves, but there is no harm in tightening things up a bit, for those with some legitimate, sane, concerns.
One point is certainly well taken - the RA needs time to put together ideas about what this constituent assembly will look like, precisely, and how it will work: let alone what the end result ought to look like. I think some of those discussions can begin right away, and if people want to say their piece about this Amendment, go right ahead.
In the end it will pass, obviously, but there is no sense rushing until we are ready.
Felasia
TNPer
I call for the Speaker to stop this attempt to silence a differenty opinion on the constitution and proceed with usual format of consideration of a legislation which is to maintain this amendment in formal discussion. It is not necessary or even possible for the RA to make a motion to relegated this amendment back to Preliminary Discussion.
Grimalkin
TNPer
Rushing? Really? Did this get sent to a vote already? Huh.
There it's no rushing! It's still in the discussion phase! It can still be changed! This is nothing more than an attempt to stall progress in TNP. Face it, you're afraid of change. You're afraid that people aren't going to buy into your failed policies.
Well, I have a news flash for you and Gross. You're too late. The people see you all for what you really are and they are sick and tired of it and are ready and willing to do something about it.
There it's no rushing! It's still in the discussion phase! It can still be changed! This is nothing more than an attempt to stall progress in TNP. Face it, you're afraid of change. You're afraid that people aren't going to buy into your failed policies.
Well, I have a news flash for you and Gross. You're too late. The people see you all for what you really are and they are sick and tired of it and are ready and willing to do something about it.
Felasia
TNPer
It's idiotic to think that this can be done. We are talking about a discussion here not a vote. You are proposing that we move it back from a step of discussion to another step of discussion because we haven't done enough discussion yet....
You are entitled to your opinion of this legislation, but it is wrong to block any attempt to bring it into force. If you don't like it then vote against it when it actually reach voting stage, don't stall it here with some lie about how it move to fast.
Greater Peterstan
TNPer
Would you like to join? You didn't even ask if I would sponsor you.Govindia:
Seriously though. With a relatively small group, we need the mechanism to control comings and goings, so as to not become hijacked. It's no big deal. No one who is sincere about joining will have much problem getting a sponsor, and obviously anyone can leave if they don't like it.
And, by the way, we still keep our freedom of speech. There is the expectation that we act together, as an effective party must, but I expect there will be a healthy internal debate moving forward.
Could we get back to business though?
A mean old man
TNPer
Felasia:
Gross's motion is ridiculous and unconventional, however I stated that I would put it to vote if it was seconded. I'm not going back on my word, and the motion will ultimately fail and any future attempts to damage the progression of this debate in a similar fashion will not be valid.
Simply because this is in FD doesn't mean that there will be a good few weeks (or longer) before it or something like it is voted on by the Assembly.
EDIT: I screwed up the quote somehow.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Yea on the motion.
There are in my view serious procedural and substantive issues with the proposed Constitutional amendment in its current text.
They need to be addressed. Elu saw tha several of my oncerns were on point even to him, that he proposed amendments, but I still think the process contemplated by this proposed amendment has not been thought through. I've highlighted several of them already but there are others that are lurking.
My point is that preliminary discussion operates on a much more informal process to address changes in proposals. Members other than the sponsir can prpose alternate laguage, even whole text, or other ways of reaching
When a proposal gets to formal discussion, that indicates that the drafting process is all but finshed, and that a final debate on the prosal is in order before the vote starts. I seriously do not believe this proposal is at that point. Not at all.
I think it is right to insist on a more through vetting of the proces this amendment contemplates is necessary before it starts. It is an open invite to a disaster not to insist on such a vetting.
I've been involved in shearding the last two wholesale revisons of the Constitution and Legal Code.
I was one of the global moderators of the Constitutional Convention at the s11 forums where the three factions (s2, s9 and s4) met jointly. The process took nearly three months, and much of that was trying to work out a process to proceed that was acceptable to all three factions. (We had to have voting at 2 separate forums at the same time, something that was complica ted and arkward and I wouldn't recommend it being tried again.
The current Constitution (and portions of the Legal Code it retained) was revised as a whole document within the R.A. using the amendment procedure of the previous Constitution. I became Speaker by special election in the middle of this
There are in my view serious procedural and substantive issues with the proposed Constitutional amendment in its current text.
They need to be addressed. Elu saw tha several of my oncerns were on point even to him, that he proposed amendments, but I still think the process contemplated by this proposed amendment has not been thought through. I've highlighted several of them already but there are others that are lurking.
My point is that preliminary discussion operates on a much more informal process to address changes in proposals. Members other than the sponsir can prpose alternate laguage, even whole text, or other ways of reaching
When a proposal gets to formal discussion, that indicates that the drafting process is all but finshed, and that a final debate on the prosal is in order before the vote starts. I seriously do not believe this proposal is at that point. Not at all.
I think it is right to insist on a more through vetting of the proces this amendment contemplates is necessary before it starts. It is an open invite to a disaster not to insist on such a vetting.
I've been involved in shearding the last two wholesale revisons of the Constitution and Legal Code.
I was one of the global moderators of the Constitutional Convention at the s11 forums where the three factions (s2, s9 and s4) met jointly. The process took nearly three months, and much of that was trying to work out a process to proceed that was acceptable to all three factions. (We had to have voting at 2 separate forums at the same time, something that was complica ted and arkward and I wouldn't recommend it being tried again.
The current Constitution (and portions of the Legal Code it retained) was revised as a whole document within the R.A. using the amendment procedure of the previous Constitution. I became Speaker by special election in the middle of this
A mean old man
TNPer
Article updated by sponsor:
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I have to finish what I am saying in a second post, due to technical limits in trying to use a tablet to edit a post on forums.
As Speaker I had to handle three different proposals for.complete revisions. (None of them were mind..) I established a process by which all three proposals were.finished in.their drafting stage, all three went to final.debate, and all.three were voted.on separately at the same time.
So my point is that a complete revision has been done.in the R.A., and it has been adopted and ratified. It just takes an open mind a.fair process and a well.thought out procedure in doing.it.
It.s Something this amendment does not yet show, especially being.sure there.is enough time to be sure the final product doesn.t create.more.issues than it solved. I don't have any confidence that this propsal can be said to hve well thought out what this process is, how fair it would be, nor whther it will be throughly vetted out before proceeding.
As Speaker I had to handle three different proposals for.complete revisions. (None of them were mind..) I established a process by which all three proposals were.finished in.their drafting stage, all three went to final.debate, and all.three were voted.on separately at the same time.
So my point is that a complete revision has been done.in the R.A., and it has been adopted and ratified. It just takes an open mind a.fair process and a well.thought out procedure in doing.it.
It.s Something this amendment does not yet show, especially being.sure there.is enough time to be sure the final product doesn.t create.more.issues than it solved. I don't have any confidence that this propsal can be said to hve well thought out what this process is, how fair it would be, nor whther it will be throughly vetted out before proceeding.
Grimalkin
TNPer
I think it's neat that you participated in those two Constitutional Conventions (maybe I should note the fact that, should this pass, you'll have been involved in two Constitutional Conventions that ultimately failed, hopefully you'll be able to see the obvious without me further explaining), but that doesn't lend you credence. You can stand there and beat your chest and bleat like a goat all you want, but it isn't going to change the perception you've helped create of yourself in just dealing with the Party.
Your point is that you have your own view of what the Prelims are for, and everyone else has their own view of the line between Prelim and FD. The problem is that you see only your view as correct, everyone else be damned. You say "NO IT CAN ONLY BE CHANGED IN PRELIM," and we say "Uh, we can change it here...." In all seriousness, I would support you 100% if this were being pushed to a vote right now. But when it's still in the discussion phase? Come on, Gross. All you're doing is trying to stall something you don't agree with. At least you aren't Speaker because then this would never make it off the ground.
Give me a 100% honest answer, Gross: Would you EVER support an amendment like this? Even if we addressed every single one of your concerns and changed it to fit your narrow view point, would you really ever support it? Somehow I doubt it.
Your point is that you have your own view of what the Prelims are for, and everyone else has their own view of the line between Prelim and FD. The problem is that you see only your view as correct, everyone else be damned. You say "NO IT CAN ONLY BE CHANGED IN PRELIM," and we say "Uh, we can change it here...." In all seriousness, I would support you 100% if this were being pushed to a vote right now. But when it's still in the discussion phase? Come on, Gross. All you're doing is trying to stall something you don't agree with. At least you aren't Speaker because then this would never make it off the ground.
Give me a 100% honest answer, Gross: Would you EVER support an amendment like this? Even if we addressed every single one of your concerns and changed it to fit your narrow view point, would you really ever support it? Somehow I doubt it.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
You haven't made the case that this approach is necessary. There are no formal barriers from using this Constitution to totally revise it.
If a real case with demonstrable proof had made the case first, then I could answer your question. As it stands, I do not see how some vague, ill defined "constituent assembly" could do any better than the R.A.
But y'all haven't explained how you are going to get sufficient proof that only the WA residents in TNP as of October 1st will have been here continuously so as to remain qualified to vote. Unless you are meaning something diffferent.
Nor have y'all explained how a constituent assembly will be chosen, who will choose it, and assuming you mean the same WA group, how elections would even work in principle without the opportunity for fraud in the process.
Part of my problem is that those who brought thi amendment forward claim these are barriers to entry in the RA when about the only requirements are maintaining a nation in TNP so as to be a resident, and elements to enforce a "one player, one vote" rule by not using proxy servers, not having duplicate forum accounts, and posting an oath. I do not see what unreasonable barriers even exist. This claim has been made, but no where has it been shown or demonsted.
From a time before I was here, the democratic TNP has insisted on a "one player, one vote" rule and that participants have and maintain residency in TNP. Any fewer requirement than that would make anyta link to NP meaningless, and we might as well not even be here.
If a real case with demonstrable proof had made the case first, then I could answer your question. As it stands, I do not see how some vague, ill defined "constituent assembly" could do any better than the R.A.
But y'all haven't explained how you are going to get sufficient proof that only the WA residents in TNP as of October 1st will have been here continuously so as to remain qualified to vote. Unless you are meaning something diffferent.
Nor have y'all explained how a constituent assembly will be chosen, who will choose it, and assuming you mean the same WA group, how elections would even work in principle without the opportunity for fraud in the process.
Part of my problem is that those who brought thi amendment forward claim these are barriers to entry in the RA when about the only requirements are maintaining a nation in TNP so as to be a resident, and elements to enforce a "one player, one vote" rule by not using proxy servers, not having duplicate forum accounts, and posting an oath. I do not see what unreasonable barriers even exist. This claim has been made, but no where has it been shown or demonsted.
From a time before I was here, the democratic TNP has insisted on a "one player, one vote" rule and that participants have and maintain residency in TNP. Any fewer requirement than that would make anyta link to NP meaningless, and we might as well not even be here.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I seek for the CA to include as its constituents nations not on our offsite forum.
I seek for the CA to increase linkage between the region and the government.
The rule about October 1 was to avoid people moving in to vote in the referendum, except by joining the RA which is subject to more scrutiny.
How the CA will be chosen, exactly, will be the subject of an Act the Regional Assembly will pass.
I seek for the CA to increase linkage between the region and the government.
The rule about October 1 was to avoid people moving in to vote in the referendum, except by joining the RA which is subject to more scrutiny.
How the CA will be chosen, exactly, will be the subject of an Act the Regional Assembly will pass.
A mean old man
TNPer
That's the one part of this idea that I've had a real issue with.Eluvatar:
EDIT: The better plan would be to encourage more members of the region to get involved in the forums. Those that care will join, those that do not will not. THEN create a CA, but only of region members involved in the forums.
People who don't give a fuck shouldn't be included in an assembly designing the region's next Constitution.
Greater Peterstan
TNPer
Consulting with offsite constituents, or getting them involved in some way in the CA is a good idea I think, especially as a feeder region. Their take on why they don't get involved here might be informative. How you get them involved is the more interesting question.
The problem, of course, is if they were even remotely interested in regional affairs, they would already have an account here, at least, even if it was largely inactive. So is the issue offsite vs. onsite, or active vs. inactive?
Ultimately, the representatives of the offsite constituency immediate cease to be part of that constituency by coming here to be part of the CA anyways, right? The work of the CA will be done here, and you need to register to participate.
So, couldn't we reasonably set the bar at: you must have a nation in the TNP and be registered on the forum?
Regardless, ultimately we face the problem of getting people involved who have largely demonstrated their lack of interest. To convince those people to become engaged in a debate about the minutia of Regional constitutional law might be a lot to ask.
Idea - maybe we should charge the CA with consulting that constituency, at the minimum, perhaps to set up polls or surveys to canvas the opinions of offsite regions?
And/or as a separate measure, include a strong Public Relations campaign to inform the all TNP nations - offsite, onsite, active, inactive - about the process and (as AMOM suggests) try to get them involved. I suspect the new Assistant Delegate for Communications might be supportive of that, in the public interest.
The problem, of course, is if they were even remotely interested in regional affairs, they would already have an account here, at least, even if it was largely inactive. So is the issue offsite vs. onsite, or active vs. inactive?
Ultimately, the representatives of the offsite constituency immediate cease to be part of that constituency by coming here to be part of the CA anyways, right? The work of the CA will be done here, and you need to register to participate.
So, couldn't we reasonably set the bar at: you must have a nation in the TNP and be registered on the forum? Regardless, ultimately we face the problem of getting people involved who have largely demonstrated their lack of interest. To convince those people to become engaged in a debate about the minutia of Regional constitutional law might be a lot to ask.
Idea - maybe we should charge the CA with consulting that constituency, at the minimum, perhaps to set up polls or surveys to canvas the opinions of offsite regions?
And/or as a separate measure, include a strong Public Relations campaign to inform the all TNP nations - offsite, onsite, active, inactive - about the process and (as AMOM suggests) try to get them involved. I suspect the new Assistant Delegate for Communications might be supportive of that, in the public interest.