Overhaul of TNP Law 28: Regional Assembly Registration and Membership

Gulliver

Gulliver

TNPer
The current drama over missed votes, the waiting I was myself subjected to when trying to gain entrance to the RA, and timidness and apparently stalled state of Eluvatar's omnibus reform bill has given mean unusual motivation to actually try and whip together a radical reform proposal for the laws on RA membership and registration.

I considered burning it all and starting from scratch, but decided the present document was salvageable with a very liberal application of deletions. This proposal has several aims, namely:
  • To eliminate redundancies and text with no legal force;
  • Say things which should be there in less words;
  • Change the rules on registration so people don't have to wait just because a vote happened to be going on at the time;
  • Change the rules for activity from something less impractically strict as just missing 2 votes;
  • Change the RA oath from something less enormous and intimidating; and
  • Fix minor mistakes here and there I found along the way.
Deletions are in red, insertions in blue. You'll no doubt notice that there's a lot of red. So much red. Far as I can tell it's all removable, either stated in other laws, implied logically by other clauses or not really saying anything at all, but I'm sure someone'll find something I missed or wasn't aware of. Also, footnotes have been included in some places. Anyway:

Article I

Membership Requirements

Section One

Membership in The North Pacific Regional Assembly does not require WA membership, in accordance with the TNP Bill of Rights. However, the following requirements must be met and confirmed for membership.1

1. Assembly member applicants must maintain a nation in The North Pacific.

2. Each member Nation will by oath, abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.

3. Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific.

4. Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or Intelligence Agencies, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet.2

5. The use of a proxy server by an applicant for Regional Assembly member status is grounds for automatic denial of Regional Assembly member their application.

a. Proxy server usage is defined as the use of an IP connection with the intent of rendering a forum user anonymous, aka proxy spoofing, or any such practice designed to allow a member to have multiple accounts on the TNP forum.3

Section Two

All Assembly applicants are required to post the following Oath, as their application to join. The Oath will be posted by the applicant in the thread provided by the Speaker of Tthe Assembly.

Your TNP Nation's name
Your WA Nation's name

I, (forum user name), as the leader of The North Pacific nation of (your TNP nation's name), pledge loyalty to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Laws of The North Pacific Region, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I understand that if my Nation leaves The North Pacific region for reasons other than for official government business, that I may be stripped of my right to vote and required to reapply. I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific. I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. I further understand that if any nation under my control directly wages war against the North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against the North Pacific, this shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region.4 In this manner, I petition the Speaker of The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific region for membership in the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
Article II

Registrant Processing and Membership Confirmation

Section One

The Speaker of the Assembly, or a deputy so appointed by the Speaker, shall be responsible for processing and confirming the Assembly membership of applicants.

1. The Speaker shall provide and maintain a forum thread for the posting of Assembly applications.

2. The Speaker or assigned deputy, shall respond to applicant requests within 14 days. Failure to respond to the applicant within the specified period will result in automatic admittance of the applicant to the Assembly.

3. The Speaker will work with the forum Administrators and any Intelligence information provided to the Speaker, to ensure applicant compliance with membership eligibility.

4. The Speaker or assigned deputy will be responsible to for maintaining and posting an updated list of Assembly members. The list shall be updated no less than once a month.

5. No one shall be admitted or re-admitted to the Assembly when a vote is in progress on any legislative matter within the Assembly. Admission shall be effective at the conclusion of such voting.

6. No one shall be admitted or re-admitted to the Assembly when an election or special election is in progress. Admission shall be effective once the election results are announced.5

5. No Assembly member may vote in any vote or election which began before their admittance to the Regional Assembly.

6. The Speaker may appoint a deputy to exercise the duties in this article on their behalf.

Article III

Member Removal

In accordance with Article II, Section Three of the Constitution, providing for the removal of unelected government members, the following methods and instances are provided for removal of Assembly members.

Section One

Violation of the Constitution or Laws of The North Pacific

1. Any Assembly member that has been found by due process to be in violation of the Constitution and or Laws of The North Pacific shall be removed with immediately effect by Tthe Speaker.

Section Two

Inactivity

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

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

3. Assembly members who have missed two four6 consecutive votes opened at least 3 days apart on any Regional Assembly items shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker, unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before two consecutive votes occur.

4. Assembly members shall be excused from requirements to post and vote if they submit a notice of absence to the Speaker. Such a leave of absence may be no longer than 28 days.

4. As used in this Section.

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

Section Three

Proxy Use

Use of a proxy server by an Assembly member, without specific official TNP permission for Army or Intelligence purpose, is forbidden and is grounds for immediate removal from the Assembly.

1. Forum administrators shall inform the Speaker in the event that if an Assembly member is found to be engaged in the useing of a proxy server to access the forum.

2. Upon notification, the Speaker shall immedately remove the offending member from the Assembly.
Click to expand...
1. This does nothing. There is no place requiring WA nations that would have to be negated. And the following requirements are already law, saying they have to be met doesn’t make it doubly law.

2. I may be missing something, but to the best of my knowledge this is all already said in the enumeration of prohibited acts and thus redundant.

3. This is already in the proxy server usage law verbatim. Redundant.

4. This oath, oh dear god the oath. I think this imposing monster doesn’t sell RA registration very well. It already says they swear to follow the law, do they really need to swear to avoid specifically every single law?

5. These clauses have been the most egregious for me personally, and is certainly something which kills activity and participation by imposing arbitrary wait times.

6. This is an overly strict participation requirement and a severe hindrance to RA participation.
 
There should be a provision that states the speaker does not have to vote unless to help maintain either A. quorum, or B. to break a tie.
 
Govindia:
There should be a provision that states the speaker does not have to vote unless to help maintain either A. quorum, or B. to break a tie.
Click to expand...
I know that is the tradition around here but I don't exactly care for that being a law. The Speaker is a member of the RA and should vote on things or lodge an abstain vote.
 
Gulliver:
6. This is an overly strict participation requirement and a severe hindrance to RA participation.
Click to expand...

I would like to propose that we abandon the two consecutive votes entirely and instead decrease the number of dates between post to 15 days.

I was the one that designed this overly complicate two consecutive votes clause. In the past, RA's member nation tends not to participate in RA matter and maintain membership by posting a spam once every month just to vote in election. Given that the situation had change in TNP, I think it's no longer necessary to have this clause.

As for 15 days instead of 30 days, it's just my standing opinion that allowing a nation to be inactive for a month at time is stupid. Since we also allow a leave of absence, I would like to shorten the time before the nation is declare inactive.

Govindia:
There should be a provision that states the speaker does not have to vote unless to help maintain either A. quorum, or B. to break a tie.
Click to expand...

It's a tradition, not a law, that the Speaker doesn't vote in bill. The problem on your membership status arise because abstain is not a valid vote during the time and you decide not to vote. Since abstain is now a valid vote, it shouldn't be a problem in a future.
 
Felasia:
Gulliver:
6. This is an overly strict participation requirement and a severe hindrance to RA participation.
Click to expand...

I would like to propose that we abandon the two consecutive votes entirely and instead decrease the number of dates between post to 15 days.

I was the one that designed this overly complicate two consecutive votes clause. In the past, RA's member nation tends not to participate in RA matter and maintain membership by posting a spam once every month just to vote in election. Given that the situation had change in TNP, I think it's no longer necessary to have this clause.

As for 15 days instead of 30 days, it's just my standing opinion that allowing a nation to be inactive for a month at time is stupid. Since we also allow a leave of absence, I would like to shorten the time before the nation is declare inactive.

Govindia:
There should be a provision that states the speaker does not have to vote unless to help maintain either A. quorum, or B. to break a tie.
Click to expand...

It's a tradition, not a law, that the Speaker doesn't vote in bill. The problem on your membership status arise because abstain is not a valid vote during the time and you decide not to vote. Since abstain is now a valid vote, it shouldn't be a problem in a future.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the Speaker is to moderate and keep things going in an orderly fashion.

He should not have to vote on bills except to help keep it to a quorum or when there is a tie. I have seen other speakers act this way elsewhere.
 
Govindia:
The purpose of the Speaker is to moderate and keep things going in an orderly fashion.

He should not have to vote on bills except to help keep it to a quorum or when there is a tie. I have seen other speakers act this way elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see that past Speaker have done this before, but it is by their own decision. I'm not going to hinder the Speaker right as stated in the Bill of Rights to cast a vote if he wants to.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...
 
My problem with a 15 day period now, has it has been consistently, is that there are periods in Nationstates where overall activity drops next to zero, especially during the period from late November into mid-January. There are other periods as well where this has always been a problem.

I think it is foolhardy to ignore that reality. And sometimes things arise without warning and makes it impossible to give any notice. (One example were the floods in the northeastern U.S. that were the result of Hurricane Irene last year, other forms of severe weather and disruption of power and communications.

15 days is not a reasonable period unless there is a way to better account for these cyclical patterns. So far the only reasonable way that has gained acceptance in the R.A. is 30 days. I have no problem jettisoning thr two consecutive vote rule; it has been a problematic provision that has served no purpose and has alienated new players in the region. And it is a hellish job trying to keep track of voting periods in proper sequence in order to apply it.

One idea might be to give notice after 15 days that a member is headed into inactivity and give them 10 to 15 days to provide a notice of absence or otherwise address the matter, and after that time, remove them.

A second idea might be to just "suspend" members after that notice, and then reinstate them once they've become active again; this would avoid the constant removal and readmission of the same members over and over and over. The 15 day period is going to create a lot of unnecessary and needless paperwork, and unless you have been an admin here or served as Speaker since this responsibility was shifted to the R.A., you have no real idea how complicated it can get. Time limits can be a fine thing, except when they are impractical. The 15 day one is impractical to administer, period.
 
My problem with a 15 day period now, has it has been consistently, is that there are periods in Nationstates where overall activity drops next to zero, especially during the period from late November into mid-January. There are other periods as well where this has always been a problem.
Click to expand...

I think that it is not too much to ask for a Regional Assembly member to check the forum and post once every 15 days. I'm not saying that these periods doesn't exist, but I'm saying that it's 15 days between post. That's 2 weeks. If you can't be bother to check in once every 2 weeks then it at least shown that you have lost interest in TNP.

I think it is foolhardy to ignore that reality. And sometimes things arise without warning and makes it impossible to give any notice. (One example were the floods in the northeastern U.S. that were the result of Hurricane Irene last year, other forms of severe weather and disruption of power and communications.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, this is the 20th century. That would have been true in the past, but the Internet is everywhere now this day and communication had improve dramatically from the past. I am not saying that these events should not be taken into account, but I think 2 weeks is more then enough for communication to be restored.

One idea might be to give notice after 15 days that a member is headed into inactivity and give them 10 to 15 days to provide a notice of absence or otherwise address the matter, and after that time, remove them.

A second idea might be to just "suspend" members after that notice, and then reinstate them once they've become active again; this would avoid the constant removal and readmission of the same members over and over and over. The 15 day period is going to create a lot of unnecessary and needless paperwork, and unless you have been an admin here or served as Speaker since this responsibility was shifted to the R.A., you have no real idea how complicated it can get. Time limits can be a fine thing, except when they are impractical. The 15 day one is impractical to administer, period.
Click to expand...

Agreed with the notice idea, but that is what the Speaker should have done anyway. I am, however, vehemently against the idea of suspension. Our law is as complicated as it is so I think we should just keep it simple. Either 15 or 30 days.
 
I believe what the appropriate route to take is depends heavily on how streamline the admission process is. If we make it involve less waiting, for example by getting rid of the rule in which people can't be admitted during votes and elections, then it shouldn't be an issue for someone who because of problems in RL had to drop away for a while to reapply, and there'd be no need for a suspended category because reapplying would be as simple and ending suspension.
 
Felasia:
Govindia:
The purpose of the Speaker is to moderate and keep things going in an orderly fashion.

He should not have to vote on bills except to help keep it to a quorum or when there is a tie. I have seen other speakers act this way elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see that past Speaker have done this before, but it is by their own decision. I'm not going to hinder the Speaker right as stated in the Bill of Rights to cast a vote if he wants to.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's not hindering, it's making them impartial and neutral. The Speaker should be allowed to not vote unless to break a tie or to help maintain quorum. They shouldn't have to vote unless necessary.
 
Regardless, I don't believe in restricting the right of the Speaker to make his own decision. If we are to regulate how the Speaker vote based on tradition then we should also forbid candidate from voting for him or herself instead of abstain in the election since it's a "tradition".

I imagine you will keep shouting ideas about impartial and neutrality, but guess what? The Speaker duty is to regulate the vote, not to be impartial. The Speaker is allow to have an opinion.
 
Would it be radical for me to suggest that TNP LAW 28, Art. III, Sct. II, c.3., should be removed from the bill altogether? Any limit seems to just be, in practice, a constraint on our activity -- not an encouragement.
 
I don't particularly care. But many people seem to value such activity requirements, and I can see some of the reasons people might have. For the sake of argument, here are some which I understand:

1. People shouldn't be rewarded with a vote (and election eligibility) for squatting and not actually contributing.
2. Booting such people helps limit the ability of groups to infiltrate the region, limiting the ability to take over the region by people who don't actually care enough to meet the requirements.
3. Creates a pressure for people to remain active consistently.
4. Helps ensure quorum is usually met by keeping the size of the RA down.
 
Having both a short activity period and the "two vote" rule creates a lot of excessive paperwork and frankly, is proving to be unworkable. My long held belief has been that in the long term activity restrictions on RA membership is counterproductive; but if there are going to be such things then they need to be simplified enough to be workable and practical. Simplication means easy to administer, and reducing processes in enforcement. For these reason, I prefer a 21 or 30 day activity (login and not posts specific to the RA); and if there is to be voting requirement it needs to reflect practicality and not impede the work of the assembly on legislative and election votes. By that I mean that we need to recognize that there are frequently multiple votes that need to be opened at the same time; sometimes there are matters that have to take place almost immediately (privileged motions and special elections) and may overlap other voting, including voting in regularly scheduled elections.
One way to address the admission timing issue is to require a 12 hour window for admissions and removals to take place before opening other votes. The other element that needs to be clearer is that the R.A. should continue votes during the nominations period, the blackout period for regularly scheduled elections should only apply to the actual voting period and not the nominations period. Otherwise the backlog on votes will be worse immediately after elections, as we will have at last five such periods every year under the current election schedule and if the are each for 17-19 days, that wipes out over a quarter of the year.
The other concern I have is the removal of protections to prevent a player from having multiple votes in the R.A. through separate nations, and the removal of language that even allows enforcement of the "one player, one vote" concept that underlies the entire democratic system in TNP. From what I can see in this draft, this issue is simply not addressed and it needs to be or this bill will be a total failure.

There are several issues I see with the draft.
 
unibot:
Would it be radical for me to suggest that TNP LAW 28, Art. III, Sct. II, c.3., should be removed from the bill altogether? Any limit seems to just be, in practice, a constraint on our activity -- not an encouragement.
Click to expand...
Well it's to stop the RA end up being 500 members strong but with only 10 actively taking part, quorum might become an issue...

More to the point it means that people like you have to actually contribute occassionally, rather than just turning up every couple of months to vote on things which effect your outside-of-TNP interests and then disappearing again.

Personally I'd favour Felasia's suggestion, I think the two (or x many) votes creates unnecessary issues and complications and a 15 day activity requirement is a workable alternative. It also means the Speaker can decline from voting completely if they so choose, without needing anything added into the law to cover that specifically (which, as most agree, would be silly).
 
Nice work, Gulliver. The simpler, the better. Absolutely let's ditch the 2 consecutive vote thing. The RA isn't just for supervoters. I like the 30 day activity rule better than 15, but that's more for selfish, personal reasons. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had to re-apply to the RA.
 
Grosse:
The other concern I have is the removal of protections to prevent a player from having multiple votes in the R.A. through separate nations, and the removal of language that even allows enforcement of the "one player, one vote" concept that underlies the entire democratic system in TNP. From what I can see in this draft, this issue is simply not addressed and it needs to be or this bill will be a total failure.
Click to expand...
Since you haven't pointed out what you're specifically referring to, I'm forced to speculate your referring to the "I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific" which I wouldn't care about keeping, though since that's just an oath how legally binding it is might be in question, and if it really is necessary a brief absolutely legally binding clause would be better.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Nice work, Gulliver. The simpler, the better. Absolutely let's ditch the 2 consecutive vote thing. The RA isn't just for supervoters. I like the 30 day activity rule better than 15, but that's more for selfish, personal reasons. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had to re-apply to the RA.
Click to expand...
I agree. It makes managing the RA masking a lot easier and prevents a lot of over-complication of matters.

I still like the idea of holding a 'role call' before a vote on each bill to determine a quorum. The procedure would be simple. A bill comes up for a vote, for the first two or three days you have a role call to determine the quorum and then hold the vote. That way, if RA members vanish for a couple of weeks, inactivity of a number of the RA members won't cause everything to come to a grinding halt.
 
Haor Chall:
More to the point it means that people like you have to actually contribute occassionally, rather than just turning up every couple of months to vote on things which effect your outside-of-TNP interests and then disappearing again.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, Emperor Palatine? People like, me? I think I've been a RA member long enough not to be lumped into the category of pseudo-citizens.

You're burning a straw-man; if you think removing the two consecutive vote policy will cause 500 members to magically remain when the dust of inactivity is cleared, you really overestimate how many people can keep a nation alive and a forum account active every thirty days.
 
Gulliver:
Grosse:
The other concern I have is the removal of protections to prevent a player from having multiple votes in the R.A. through separate nations, and the removal of language that even allows enforcement of the "one player, one vote" concept that underlies the entire democratic system in TNP. From what I can see in this draft, this issue is simply not addressed and it needs to be or this bill will be a total failure.
Click to expand...
Since you haven't pointed out what you're specifically referring to, I'm forced to speculate your referring to the "I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific" which I wouldn't care about keeping, though since that's just an oath how legally binding it is might be in question, and if it really is necessary a brief absolutely legally binding clause would be better.
Click to expand...
So, I have to assume you'd want to allow every player as many votes as they can cram into the region?

That is not a basis for a democracy. This isn't supposed to be like American Idol, The X Factor or the city of Chicago in the 20th Century, or New York City in the era of Boss Tweed.

Some sort of protection needs to be added that allows enforcement. At least with the oath, a breach was considered enforceable, and the oath specified what the penalty was.

Going to take it out of the oath; then put it somewhere else. Otherwise the entire democratic society is turned into a total farce.
 
Felasia:
Regardless, I don't believe in restricting the right of the Speaker to make his own decision. If we are to regulate how the Speaker vote based on tradition then we should also forbid candidate from voting for him or herself instead of abstain in the election since it's a "tradition".

I imagine you will keep shouting ideas about impartial and neutrality, but guess what? The Speaker duty is to regulate the vote, not to be impartial. The Speaker is allow to have an opinion.
Click to expand...
What are you kidding? Govindia stated "Does not have to" meaning the speaker can legally uphold tradition or not. Meaning it's okay to do it either way, otherwise that RESTRICTS the rights of a Speaker.

In Govindia's posting here, he has not at all stated that the Speaker must uphold tradition, so on the contrary you would be restricting Speaker rights with exactly what you just said Felasia.

The key language here is "does not have to" which means a choice or am I wrong?
 
I see no reason to make a special case out of a Speaker position, especially one based on Govindia's case. The law specifically state that a government official is not exempted from his or her duty as Regional Assembly Member. If the Speaker choose to abstain based on principle(which had been done in the past) then it's his right, but I will not support a law that sets a precedent that a government official can neglect his duty to this assembly.

The fact is that this is unnecessary. Abstain was just allow again so there should be no similar case in the future.
 
Felasia:
I see no reason to make a special case out of a Speaker position, especially one based on Govindia's case. The law specifically state that a government official is not exempted from his or her duty as Regional Assembly Member. If the Speaker choose to abstain based on principle(which had been done in the past) then it's his right, but I will not support a law that sets a precedent that a government official can neglect his duty to this assembly.

The fact is that this is unnecessary. Abstain was just allow again so there should be no similar case in the future.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
I Think removing RA members after missing 4 votes is reasonable and fair. we also need to Make RA membership compulsory for any sitting delegate so he/she loses his membership he will be automatically recalled from office but that's another issue
 
How about a change in semantics to:

Should a Assembly member not vote during a period of time of at least 14 days during which at least two Assembly votes took place (both beginning and ending during the period in question) without overlapping, they will be removed by the Speaker.

Because currently it's unclear what happens if we have 3 votes, A overlaps with B and B overlaps with C but A does not overlap with C -- Say someone misses A and C but votes in B...

Also I'm not sure with the current proposal what happens if there are votes that are started near simultaneously.
 
Either go for a general activity requirement, or a missed consecutive votes requirement, but not both.
The reason for the definition of the two vote rule was to prevent simultaneous or near simultaneous votes from being used for missed votes, because it turns the general activity rule into a farce.
As it is the missed vote rule in its current form is difficult to track or administer. It's not always possible to avoid starting new votes when a vote is in progress.
I think it might be better to define things in terms of voting periods and that in order to be used in the requirement, the voting periods do not overlap at all. This will eliminate the problem of the different length of some voting periods, and the problem caused when a vote is required to start before an ongoing vote is completed.
 
Let's just move to a simple activity (i.e. posting) requirement rather all this whether you've vote on x, dependent on how close it was to y, except if it was a Tuesday or it was raining. I really don't see why it's necessary.
 
I first need to applaud Gull for attempting to 'trim the fat' so to speak on the juggernaut of laws.

I second need to ask a few questions. I used to excuse these things away by common sense, but after my absence I've learned little can be taken for granted as far as just fixing things and moving on.

Inactivity

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

Say an RA member moves out of the region just to talk with someone over in TWP on their RMB, then comes back in a few hours. It's not official business, as he's just talking to a close friend over on the RMB. But, it seems to me like someone could be kicked out of the RA just for doing this. Am I missing something on it?


I also don't know about the whole two, three, four, etc voting periods. Wouldn't it just be easier to have a weekly security check to be administered at random over a five-day window by the speaker?
 
Also I should say, if we're defining majority votes based on 'of those voting' rather than absolute numbers, we can survive with having the inactivity removal clauses relaxed.
 
Todd McCloud:
Also I should say, if we're defining majority votes based on 'of those voting' rather than absolute numbers, we can survive with having the inactivity removal clauses relaxed.
Click to expand...
There's still a quorum requirement.
 
Eluvatar:
Todd McCloud:
Also I should say, if we're defining majority votes based on 'of those voting' rather than absolute numbers, we can survive with having the inactivity removal clauses relaxed.
Click to expand...
There's still a quorum requirement.
Click to expand...
True but have we recently had a bill dropped because it failed to reach quorum?
 
Todd McClound:
Say an RA member moves out of the region just to talk with someone over in TWP on their RMB, then comes back in a few hours. It's not official business, as he's just talking to a close friend over on the RMB. But, it seems to me like someone could be kicked out of the RA just for doing this. Am I missing something on it?
Click to expand...
I'd imagine if they wanted to chat with someone over in TWP they could use a puppet they keep in the region. This hypothetical situation seems a bit forced.
 
Gulliver:
Todd McClound:
Say an RA member moves out of the region just to talk with someone over in TWP on their RMB, then comes back in a few hours. It's not official business, as he's just talking to a close friend over on the RMB. But, it seems to me like someone could be kicked out of the RA just for doing this. Am I missing something on it?
Click to expand...
I'd imagine if they wanted to chat with someone over in TWP they could use a puppet they keep in the region. This hypothetical situation seems a bit forced.
Click to expand...
I had my main IDU puppet post something on their RMB the other day, but used the nation tag to sign it with GS here (my WA nation) as GS was Delegate there a long time back.
 
Pasargad:
I Think removing RA members after missing 4 votes is reasonable and fair. we also need to Make RA membership compulsory for any sitting delegate so he/she loses his membership he will be automatically recalled from office but that's another issue
Click to expand...
An excellent suggestion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top