View Topic

I'm not sure what the point is. We're quite successfully upholding the principles of the court system.

Also, if members of houses are allowed to join the general house, my question stands: what is the point?

It would have several restrictions on it.

Besides again Proposal 2 would probably be the best, plus it would probably be able to get everyone on board, or at least get me on board

I have a HIGH dislike for open assemblies as well....

I'll be honest, 1 and 2 don't appeal to me at all.

Could you explain why?

Honestly I feel as if it's the best compromise generally. It has the perks of an Open Assembly for the most part (in the feeling that it is, well open to anyone at nearly any time and it is also representative of the population in size), while also combining it with the perks of very few changes and the perks of our current system.

And if you don't like the dynamic-ness of 2, then what about 3?

1 still leaves the existence of a small, largely inactive and largely pointless body in place. 2 does the same. 3 does the same, but becomes an awkward half-way point between an open assembly and the status quo, and in so doing creates annoyance for both the citizenry and the body itself, since it expects a lot of citizen involvement, but won't give them any real power.

Honestly I feel this is the best system proposed because it is probably one of the least political systems there. An Open Assembly would increase politicization due to it's nature. Meanwhile this system removes the main point of politicization, elections, and moves it to an infrequent system. This allows people who want to get into politics to do so, while effectively allowing those that couldn't care less to go on their way.

How would an open assembly be more political?

The same way elections are political, except now you have people that don't care about politics possibly being tagged in order to help defeat or pass a proposal.

No, in an open assembly, the community itself decides its level of involvement. They could end up doing just about anything. They could leave it to a few people who they trust to come up with legislation, and then simply vote on it, or they could fully embrace their power and use it effectively, while shutting out those who cause trouble, and they can do it free from such divisive politics as the UH has been known for.

EDIT: As I've said, my only real concern is security, but realistically, all it would take is one incident where our security is compromised for it to be addressed appropriately, and before such a thing ever happens, votes could be held to sharpen our security anyway.

I'm quite a fan of the Familial Representation idea, although I agree there do need to be regulations in place to prevent them from simply sitting in the House for months and months potentially being obstructionist. It definitely incentivises House formation and involvement by the members, which would be a good thing as it'd draw more people into the communal aspects of Wintreath as well.

Open Assembly is I think superior at the moment, but I would like to see some kind of Familial involvement, just because I was so involved in the Familial aspects of Wintreath from the outset. I guess I've become a conservative!

You and @HannahB are both conservative, though you're trying to conserve different things.

EDIT: As I've said, my only real concern is security, but realistically, all it would take is one incident where our security is compromised for it to be addressed appropriately, and before such a thing ever happens, votes could be held to sharpen our security anyway.

As long as Wintermoot or someone trustworthy remains in charge, I think Article VI of the Fundamental Laws will protect from any such incidents.

So I guess Hannah, Weiss, and I are all conservatives for the most part

If your proposal is trying to emphasize House participation and communal cooperation, how does your proposal accomplish that without people trying to join houses for political gain or causing house rivalry?

Familial Houses can choose not to participate. Also Proposals 1-3 lack the familial stuff.