Warning Act:
RA Warning Act
- Thread starter plembobria
- Start date
Andrew
TNPer
Do you really think an Bill is necessary? I do believe it could just be left to the discretion of the Speaker. If memory serves me correctly, during Speaker Zyvetskistaahn tenure, he had a policy where Regional Assembly members could sign up to receive a weekly newsletter that would inform individuals of current legislative activity as well as a reminder on bills that are currently at vote.plembobria:
PaulWallLibertarian42
TNPer
Or people could you know -- take responsibilty for themselves and pay attention to their activity level. Not everything needs a law passed or for people to be coddled and hand held.
Democratic Donkeys
TNPer
Yeah.PaulWallLibertarian42:
I'm guessing this bill was inspired by Aba's removal as vice delegate - just to note, having this in the law would not have avoided his removal in this case, as he has missed two closed votes and then two which closed nearly simultaneously.
If there is a deeper concern as to removal practices, I'm open to hearing it, but based solely on the Aba removal I think this isn't necessary.
If there is a deeper concern as to removal practices, I'm open to hearing it, but based solely on the Aba removal I think this isn't necessary.
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I was just about to post this.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
I really don't mind a warning provision.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The Speaker could adopt a procedure (or have the RA do so) that does not require an amendment to the Legal Code. In fact, such a course would be preferable to this be added in the Legal Code.
One problem with PMs is that when we migrated to the Zetaboards platform from Invisionfree a few years ago, we lost the ability to have emails sent when an account received a PM. If a user doesn't log in to their forum account, then it doesn't matter if a PM is sent or not, the user still doesn't know about the message or the situation.
One problem with PMs is that when we migrated to the Zetaboards platform from Invisionfree a few years ago, we lost the ability to have emails sent when an account received a PM. If a user doesn't log in to their forum account, then it doesn't matter if a PM is sent or not, the user still doesn't know about the message or the situation.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
This could be added to Standing Procedures or added to the RA Rules, yes.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I agree with PWL. The Speaker does enough for the region, I don't think we should be expecting him to warn inactive people that they are about to be removed.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I agree.Lord Nwahs:
We need to take into consideration the fact that certain RL situation beyond anyone's control need to be taken into account.
Look at it this way: every position has a vice or assistant position which hopefully is intended to fill in the gap should an unforeseen absence be involved. That is why the Delegate has a Vice Delegate and the AG has Assistant AGs.
If we simply applied the theory of 'Seconds' to various positions, we could avoid unnecessary 'Special Elections' and all the associated BS. If an elected official goes AWOL for legitimate reasons, they could simply just assume their position when they return. This is why we have Vice Delegates and Assistant whatevers.
That way, a returning official never has to ask the question of his successor, "would you jump into my grave that quickly?"
Sounds like a logical solution to me.
Yes, RL circumstances can arise, but the region doesn't just stop ticking in peoples' absence (I mean, until we reach some critical threshold of absences, that is). Removing somebody from office for inactivity isn't being mean or unfair to them, it's just looking out for the wellbeing of TNP as a whole.
There is a mechanism already for avoiding being removed for violating voting requirements - get a leave of absence. This doesn't account for people who don't log in for 30 days, and it doesn't account for those who are unable to request a leave for whatever reason, but in the majority of RL instances it will be possible to do so quickly.
If someone disappears without warning for a month because something terrible has happened to them, I think the region will understand and be sympathetic when they return, and not hold it against them when considering future elections - but that doesn't mean we have to just hold things in place in their absence (particularly because we don't know in advance when people disappear whether it's because RL got busy, or because something terrible happened, or they just wandered off. We also don't know what the length of that absence will be - Elu has disappeared for months at a time at times, including at least one period while he was the sitting delegate). How long can the region be expected to wait? We've already answered that question - we're willing to wait between 20 and 30 days, which is a relatively generous period of time.
If the current speaker is up for PMing each and every member once they miss three legislative votes (note that it's legislative only that count for removal) or who haven't voted within fifteen days, I think that's a policy he should adopt independently. There are two significant problems I see with putting it into the Legal Code though - one, if the RA has a period of lower legislative activity (which happens), the current phrasing would require the Speaker to PM the entire RA just because fifteen days have gone by with no vote opening. Two, it's not unimaginable for the Speaker's office to have an occupant who is significantly less on the ball than the last three have been, and implementing a strict requirement like this means that if any RA member doesn't receive these mandated warnings, we have to slap the Speaker with Gross Misconduct charges. If it's an independent policy instead, the Speaker has the discretion to avoid silliness in the first case, and to simply drop the policy in the future if they don't want to keep up with it.
I still don't think it's necessary - pruning inactive members is critical to keep the RA a functional size - but if the current Speaker wants to take it on himself to keep them in the fold I can't really stop him.[note]The IRCabal, on the other hand...[/note]
There is a mechanism already for avoiding being removed for violating voting requirements - get a leave of absence. This doesn't account for people who don't log in for 30 days, and it doesn't account for those who are unable to request a leave for whatever reason, but in the majority of RL instances it will be possible to do so quickly.
If someone disappears without warning for a month because something terrible has happened to them, I think the region will understand and be sympathetic when they return, and not hold it against them when considering future elections - but that doesn't mean we have to just hold things in place in their absence (particularly because we don't know in advance when people disappear whether it's because RL got busy, or because something terrible happened, or they just wandered off. We also don't know what the length of that absence will be - Elu has disappeared for months at a time at times, including at least one period while he was the sitting delegate). How long can the region be expected to wait? We've already answered that question - we're willing to wait between 20 and 30 days, which is a relatively generous period of time.
If the current speaker is up for PMing each and every member once they miss three legislative votes (note that it's legislative only that count for removal) or who haven't voted within fifteen days, I think that's a policy he should adopt independently. There are two significant problems I see with putting it into the Legal Code though - one, if the RA has a period of lower legislative activity (which happens), the current phrasing would require the Speaker to PM the entire RA just because fifteen days have gone by with no vote opening. Two, it's not unimaginable for the Speaker's office to have an occupant who is significantly less on the ball than the last three have been, and implementing a strict requirement like this means that if any RA member doesn't receive these mandated warnings, we have to slap the Speaker with Gross Misconduct charges. If it's an independent policy instead, the Speaker has the discretion to avoid silliness in the first case, and to simply drop the policy in the future if they don't want to keep up with it.
I still don't think it's necessary - pruning inactive members is critical to keep the RA a functional size - but if the current Speaker wants to take it on himself to keep them in the fold I can't really stop him.[note]The IRCabal, on the other hand...[/note]
I've removed the fifteen days provision.SillyString:
Where in the RA rules do you suggest I add this to?Lord Nwahs:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
I guess a new Section 4, since none of the sections currently pertain to any of the issues related to what you're raising as far as I can tell.
Edited. Dr. Speaker, I move for a vote.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
Motions to vote on legislation are not required to have a second.The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
The bill is now in formal debate for five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.
Supreme Libertas
TNPer
I was pleasantly surprised to receive the Weekly Digest! The information contained therein should be enough to remind RA members to vote. (and that's coming from someone who missed three consecutive votes due to inactivity 
) If I fail to vote on this proposal when it reaches the voting floor the outcome would be rather ironic though.
) If I fail to vote on this proposal when it reaches the voting floor the outcome would be rather ironic though.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
Formal debate on this bill has ended. It shall be put on a vote lasting five days in two days time.
My RA membership lapsed too recently. My own fault for misininterpreting the law. I thought my electoral votes counted. They do not.
I do not think the Speaker should have to track this as people should - as many of you have said - take responsibility for themselves. We task the speaker with a lot as is and individual RA members should be able to police themselves.
I do not think the Speaker should have to track this as people should - as many of you have said - take responsibility for themselves. We task the speaker with a lot as is and individual RA members should be able to police themselves.
I do not like this shift of responsibility from the individual to the speaker. I think it will put an intolerable administrative burden on the Speaker.