View Topic

The more there is on the table the better, it's supposed to be a debate. Barnes even presents his thoughts in a form that ought to promote just that.

I can't speak for Gerrick, but when I suggested that this should be brought to the candidates, my point was to get the discussion going before the new Skrifa was actually chosen, not to use this just as another election play. That can't happen if Skrifas don't get involved.

Yes, I meant for this to be more of a discussion than as a campaigning thing. Perhaps I should have posted it in another subforum, but I wanted all of the candidates and others to really see it. And I would have commented on all that's been said yesterday, I just got busy, however I have thought about it all.

1. I don't know, which is why I asked you guys . The only thing would be as Pengu said: changing the wording if we have some requirement to join. Also, if we end up adding the code of conduct (see below).

2. I would be ok with having no requirement, and all citizens are able to vote. However, if we were to have a waiting period for security, I think it should just be for if there is a bill in the debate or voting periods -- meaning a new citizen would not be able to vote on a bill that is currently being debated or voted on. This would prevent outsiders coming in just to vote on a bill. If a new citizen comes in before a bill has been introduced, though, I think they should be able to vote on it. This could be put on top of a week waiting period if that's what's wanted, but I don't really think it's necessary.

Point Breeze, if a citizen CTEs or moves out of the region, then they cease to be a citizen, so they would automatically lose their right to vote, right? If they want to vote again, they’d have to reapply for citizenship, and -- if we used waiting periods, etc. – they’d have to wait just like newcomers. If you’re talking about Paragons, I thought the whole point of them was that they always have citizenship? Do you mean to say you think they should still have to petition to have their voting rights given to them after they CTE, rather than they just have them forever as they would now?

Weissreich, I don't think I understand the point of suspending someone's voting right due to inactivity. If they were inactive, then they wouldn't be there to vote anyway. Also, how/who would decide this? Would anyone who hasn't be on the website for a designated amount of time get their right suspended? Or is it a case-by-case matter?

I also don't really understand the trial period. Would the people in the trial period be able to lose voting rights based on the Code of Conduct? Who determines this – the speaker? Or would there be a literal trial? (By the way, others – not just Weissreich – can try to answer these questions. Discussion is good.)

3. I think it's in agreement that some sort of code of conduct should be put in place, though nobody can really agree how to do so. I honestly don't know the difference in criminal laws, statutory laws, fundamental laws, etc., and I don't really know where to find them. Perhaps that's something that should be made more clear and open to the public, or perhaps I might just be blind to where they're located.

Also, nobody has really outright stated the consequences of breaking this code, though I suspect it might depend on what kind of law it's made into.

The more there is on the table the better, it's supposed to be a debate. Barnes even presents his thoughts in a form that ought to promote just that.

I can't speak for Gerrick, but when I suggested that this should be brought to the candidates, my point was to get the discussion going before the new Skrifa was actually chosen, not to use this just as another election play. That can't happen if Skrifas don't get involved.

True enough, and now for my responses! I was in no state to politik yesterday.

1) I think the best option would be to have the CoC as part of the Procedural Rules of the new assembly, much like PB is suggesting. I don't think it should be separate legislation after some thought simply because then it's open to the accusations North/Chanku have raised against CoC's in their past encounters elsewhere. Having it tied intrinsically to the new body means it's directly responsible for the behaviour within the open chamber and nowhere else, meaning people are free to continue to go about their activities without real limitation elsewhere in the forum.

2) I suppose it depends on the Paragon. For myself, an active and involved member of the community again, I'd want voting rights as a matter of course because I'm trying to play a part in the region again. For others, those who aren't active, I'd say my previous suggestion of an Inactive List the members of which have their voting rights suspended works best. That way, active and involved Paragons have voting rights but those who have that status and aren't involved don't, or would have to come back and apply for them again. Obviously, the Open Chamber can decide on a case-by-case basis if someone deserves their voting rights reinstated, that kinda thing.

Aussi, fuk u PB tryna restrict my rites!

Point Breeze, if a citizen CTEs or moves out of the region, then they cease to be a citizen, so they would automatically lose their right to vote, right? If they want to vote again, they’d have to reapply for citizenship, and -- if we used waiting periods, etc. – they’d have to wait just like newcomers. If you’re talking about Paragons, I thought the whole point of them was that they always have citizenship? Do you mean to say you think they should still have to petition to have their voting rights given to them after they CTE, rather than they just have them forever as they would now?

I don't think that Paragons should get a say in the legislation of a region in which they don't actively participate.  If they don't have a citizenship nation in the region, they shouldn't have voting rights.  I like Weiss' idea about having an inactives list that people must petition or notify their intent to participate in order to get off.

As I've stated above, I don't agree with any kind of trial period or waiting period.

The reason I want it as part of the procedural rules is: they're the easiest to change.  What we're discussing is a constitutional amendment, which is the hardest and most complicated to pass.  It also takes the most time.  Not that the code of conduct is trivial, but I don't think it needs to be enshrined in the same place as our fundamental rights as citizens.  If the assembly needs to make quick changes to their code, it can be done in a matter of days.

And I suppose trivial infractions would involve a suspension of voting rights for a period.  The most serious offense would have to be dismissal from the assembly or PNG from it (i.e., indefinite dismissal, no right to speak/vote in the assembly).

Nothing personal Weiss. 

What would your alternative be to a waiting/trial period? I'm interested, do you think it's fine for someone to join and straight away start voting on legislation that could change the shape of the entire region?

I'm all for giving everyone as much freedom as possible, but I've been in enough communities (and run the applications side of thing in a few of them) to know that when it comes down to it, trust only gets you so far.

Beyond that, I suppose I'll have to recreate my nation of PB gets his way

What would your alternative be to a waiting/trial period? I'm interested, do you think it's fine for someone to join and straight away start voting on legislation that could change the shape of the entire region?

I'm all for giving everyone as much freedom as possible, but I've been in enough communities (and run the applications side of thing in a few of them) to know that when it comes down to it, trust only gets you so far.

Beyond that, I suppose I'll have to recreate my nation of PB gets his way

The safeguard against giving individual nations more power is by giving EVERY nation that power. The value of the individual vote is diminished. There's only so much damage ignorant citizens can cause if the majority are still well informed. That should be the priority in my opinion - making sure citizens have the tools to inform themselves, instead of placing arbitrary limits on informed and ignorant citizens alike.

What would your alternative be to a waiting/trial period? I'm interested, do you think it's fine for someone to join and straight away start voting on legislation that could change the shape of the entire region?

I'm all for giving everyone as much freedom as possible, but I've been in enough communities (and run the applications side of thing in a few of them) to know that when it comes down to it, trust only gets you so far.

Beyond that, I suppose I'll have to recreate my nation of PB gets his way

The safeguard against giving individual nations more power is by giving EVERY nation that power. The value of the individual vote is diminished. There's only so much damage ignorant citizens can cause if the majority are still well informed. That should be the priority in my opinion - making sure citizens have the tools to inform themselves, instead of placing arbitrary limits on informed and ignorant citizens alike.

I see where you're coming from, but I suppose I'm more referring to a defence against raids and the like. I don't really know how that works on NS, nor whether or not it would include raiding the forums for an inside take-over, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

That said, a trial period is always a good idea with new members for reasons we've very recently had demonstrated to us. A little wait to get to know someone, and for them to get to know us, never hurt nobody *bursts into song and leaves*

1. I'll be honest, I don't actually see something that needs adding right now. When this act comes into effect, I believe the simplest thing to do as an OA is give the Speaker the power to close down topics for maybe 2 hours when things get a bit too heated, thereby giving everyone a chance to cool down and come back thinking more clearly. I think the fact that we require a super-majority as it is to revoke someone's voting and posting rights is enough of a failsafe, and giving the Speaker the power (in the Procedural Rules) to do as I've suggested would solve the immediate problem and give the citizenry a good indication of who participated in the discussion, and what they did or said that resulted in the topic getting closed down, and from there they can themselves decide whether said individuals need a time-out from the legislature. This is something that can be delegated to any office the Storting deems fit to create, as well. I think all this talk of a Code of Conduct is certainly useful, and should be included, but it shouldn't have any weight beyond being a tool the Storting can use to decide its own course of action. I'd like your feedback on this point. But in case it wasn't clear, I don't actually think anything major should be changed now.

2. Eh, to be honest, I don't actually see the point of a waiting period. It won't prevent someone committed to doing harm from doing so, and people can show their true colours long after implanting themselves firmly in the region. At best, it gives us a bit of a buffer against inactives, but it's a lot of complication with very little pay-off, as at worst, we scare off people who could have been a major asset. Trial periods really don't add much to security either, in my opinion.

3. See my first point, but I'll just reiterate a CoC is probably best left outside of this act, and that it should only be there as a guideline which the Storting and it's officers may choose to implement, not actual law. Beyond what I've described with the Officers closing topics temporarily and leaving any more lasting action up to the OA itself, I don't think such a CoC should have any immediate and binding consequences. It's a bit controversial, and the same can in effect be applied without adding the fear that some Officer completely abuses it, and gains too much power.

So from what I've gathered (and correct me if I'm wrong), the majority think that:

there should be no waiting/trial time requirement to join the new Storting -- all citizens will automatically be joined, and

some sort of code of conduct should be included in the new Storting's procedural rules (and not this act) meant to be more as behavioral guidelines than a way to punish, and the current UH should be the one to implement it.


What hasn't really had a consensus is how to implement the ability to revoke voting rights of citizens -- whether for inactivity or breaking the code of conduct.

A. Some have suggested that people who go inactive get their voting rights suspended and then they have to petition to get them back. Would this petition be basically the same thing as when a new person applies to become a citizen? It doesn't really make sense to me for it to be more difficult as we should be less wary of people who have just become inactive than new people. I am again going to state that I don't see the point in revoking the voting rights of inactive citizens (those who haven't CTE'd); if they aren't here, then they aren't voting -- what's the point of taking away their voting rights?

B. Paragons are another story. In my opinion, Paragons should forever be allowed citizenship and, thus, voting rights. I thought that was the whole point of Paragon. I understand Point Breeze's position on this, but what are others'?

C. Laurentus has suggested the officers' use of temporarily locking threads rather than giving out suspensions for breaking the CoC, and a super-majority would be required to revoke voting rights (by the way, Laurentus, I don't think this is currently a part of the act). I'm in favor of this as it doesn't give as much power to the officers, and allows the citizens' say in the matter. What does everyone else think?

A. Some have suggested that people who go inactive get their voting rights suspended and then they have to petition to get them back. Would this petition be basically the same thing as when a new person applies to become a citizen? It doesn't really make sense to me for it to be more difficult as we should be less wary of people who have just become inactive than new people. I am again going to state that I don't see the point in revoking the voting rights of inactive citizens (those who haven't CTE'd); if they aren't here, then they aren't voting -- what's the point of taking away their voting rights?

The idea was originally mine and goes roughly along the line of: a member goes inactive for X amount of time, thus they are moved to the Inactive Whatever It Ends Up Being Called group. When they become active again, the member has to petition (see: PM) the presiding Officer of the Open Assembly to touch base and reaffirm their active status. If there's no issues, they have their voting rights reinstated without further ado, if there are it comes down to Administration to decide (or for the Storting to decide on how to deal with it itself once it forms). It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than CTE'ing inactives.

B. Paragons are another story. In my opinion, Paragons should forever be allowed citizenship and, thus, voting rights. I thought that was the whole point of Paragon. I understand Point Breeze's position on this, but what are others'?

I think it's case specific, really. For example, I'm active and thus would assume I'd have voting rights in the Open Assembly; other Paragons might only drop in once every few weeks and thus maybe shouldn't have voting rights? I'm not sure on this one, as it seems to be either too much of one or too much of the other.

C. Laurentus has suggested the officers' use of temporarily locking threads rather than giving out suspensions for breaking the CoC, and a super-majority would be required to revoke voting rights (by the way, Laurentus, I don't think this is currently a part of the act). I'm in favor of this as it doesn't give as much power to the officers, and allows the citizens' say in the matter. What does everyone else think?

I'm actually very much in favour of this idea having seen Mootles put it into effect in the Harassment thread in the CitPlatform. I'm still in favour of the possible ability to remove voting rights for a day/three days/a week/however long based on the severity of an INDIVIDUAL breach of CoC, but in the case of a general devolution into a shouting match I think it's a great power for the presiding Officer to have in order to keep things civil.

That was @Gerrick as post-edit doesn't allow you to tag users for some reason.
The database value you're trying to insert does not exist: notice_text - is the message I get, for future reference.

The idea was originally mine and goes roughly along the line of: a member goes inactive for X amount of time, thus they are moved to the Inactive Whatever It Ends Up Being Called group. When they become active again, the member has to petition (see: PM) the presiding Officer of the Open Assembly to touch base and reaffirm their active status. If there's no issues, they have their voting rights reinstated without further ado, if there are it comes down to Administration to decide (or for the Storting to decide on how to deal with it itself once it forms). It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than CTE'ing inactives.

Hmm, I guess if it's as simple as that, then it wouldn't hurt. We should put something in place to ensure that the person gets their voting rights back in a timely manner, however, to prevent the officer from essentially preventing them from voting.

I think it's case specific, really. For example, I'm active and thus would assume I'd have voting rights in the Open Assembly; other Paragons might only drop in once every few weeks and thus maybe shouldn't have voting rights? I'm not sure on this one, as it seems to be either too much of one or too much of the other.

Perhaps the Paragon should just have to petition the same as other inactive members.

I'm actually very much in favour of this idea having seen Mootles put it into effect in the Harassment thread in the CitPlatform. I'm still in favour of the possible ability to remove voting rights for a day/three days/a week/however long based on the severity of an INDIVIDUAL breach of CoC, but in the case of a general devolution into a shouting match I think it's a great power for the presiding Officer to have in order to keep things civil.

I don't know, I'm kinda against suspending voting rights for a specific time as it could be abused to prevent certain people from voting. As of now, I would only support the Assembly's ability to remove voting rights indefinitely (then perhaps the disenfranchised person would have to petition to the Assembly itself to get voting rights back) or the Administration's (rare) ability to ban, thus removing their voting rights.

The idea was originally mine and goes roughly along the line of: a member goes inactive for X amount of time, thus they are moved to the Inactive Whatever It Ends Up Being Called group. When they become active again, the member has to petition (see: PM) the presiding Officer of the Open Assembly to touch base and reaffirm their active status. If there's no issues, they have their voting rights reinstated without further ado, if there are it comes down to Administration to decide (or for the Storting to decide on how to deal with it itself once it forms). It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than CTE'ing inactives.

Hmm, I guess if it's as simple as that, then it wouldn't hurt. We should put something in place to ensure that the person gets their voting rights back in a timely manner, however, to prevent the officer from essentially preventing them from voting.

I think it's case specific, really. For example, I'm active and thus would assume I'd have voting rights in the Open Assembly; other Paragons might only drop in once every few weeks and thus maybe shouldn't have voting rights? I'm not sure on this one, as it seems to be either too much of one or too much of the other.

Perhaps the Paragon should just have to petition the same as other inactive members.

I'm actually very much in favour of this idea having seen Mootles put it into effect in the Harassment thread in the CitPlatform. I'm still in favour of the possible ability to remove voting rights for a day/three days/a week/however long based on the severity of an INDIVIDUAL breach of CoC, but in the case of a general devolution into a shouting match I think it's a great power for the presiding Officer to have in order to keep things civil.

I don't know, I'm kinda against suspending voting rights for a specific time as it could be abused to prevent certain people from voting. As of now, I would only support the Assembly's ability to remove voting rights indefinitely (then perhaps the disenfranchised person would have to petition to the Assembly itself to get voting rights back) or the Administration's (rare) ability to ban, thus removing their voting rights.

To the first: I think it's the best way of dealing with the matter of inactivity beyond having a Thread saying "post here if you'll be inactive from X to Y", but the thing about that is oftentimes people won't post because, you guessed it, they're inactive :p

To the second: Yeah, that could work too, I guess. I don't think there's gonna be much precedence for active Paragons in the region, so it shouldn't be a problem either way.

To the third: I see where you're coming from on this one, so perhaps a general consensus on locking a thread for 12 hours? If it's only for a two/four/six hour period or whatever it would mean time zones come into play for activity, and that could be a bad thing as you've pointed out. When I say suspending voting rights for an individual, I more mean in the way of they've done something obviously wrong, not a "oh this person is being an ass/finicky/pedantic", because otherwise Chanku and Gov would never get to vote on anything. That's the kind of behaviour that'd lead to a thread lock for X time if anything.

No offence, you two <3

Do we really need to remove voting rights for inactive citizens? Couldn't we just tie citizenship to voting rights? So that you only lose voting rights when you lose citizenship?

A. Meh. Inactives are no real harm. If someone loses his citizenship due to CTE-ing, then obviously he should lose voting rights. If he gains citizenship again, then he should once more have voting rights.

B. As for Paragons, I believe that someone who gets Paragon status is someone whom the Storting feels would use that indefinite citizenship (and thus voting rights) wisely. If you aren't going to trust that person to vote wisely as a Paragon, then don't make him a Paragon. If he abuses his Paragon status, then revoke his Paragon status. I for one am all to glad to have Weissreich here campaigning and, in the future, voting.

C. I don't have much to say on this, since it was my suggestion. I'll just say that this is already in the Act:

3. The Storting shall have the authority to suspend a member's voting rights for a period of no more than three months at a time with a 3/4 supermajority vote of those voting. At the conclusion of the three-month period, the Storting may consider an additional suspension.

So a provision would simply be put in place in the Procedural Rules to allow the Speaker or whatever to close a topic for however many hours (we can discuss this length of time) for people to calm down, and the citizenry then decide for themselves whether they wish to take further action. This is in addition to a CoC that would be included in the Procedural Rules.

I think it's the best way of dealing with the matter of inactivity beyond having a Thread saying "post here if you'll be inactive from X to Y", but the thing about that is oftentimes people won't post because, you guessed it, they're inactive :p

So you're saying that the Inactive List is to prevent inactivity? Like, "if you want to vote, then you gotta stay active"? I could see the reasoning in that, but it just seems kinda unnecessary. If people are going to become inactive, I doubt losing their voting rights for the duration of their absence would prevent the inactivity.

When I say suspending voting rights for an individual, I more mean in the way of they've done something obviously wrong, not a "oh this person is being an ass/finicky/pedantic"

I feel if someone does something obviously wrong, then the Assembly would vote to remove their voting rights. If it's unforgivably wrong, then Wintermoot would kick them. I just don't see a situation that would call for the swift removal of voting rights that wouldn't lead to their removal of citizenship. I think that would give too much power to only a few people. If someone can think of a situation when it'd be necessary, I'd like to hear it.

3. The Storting shall have the authority to suspend a member's voting rights for a period of no more than three months at a time with a 3/4 supermajority vote of those voting. At the conclusion of the three-month period, the Storting may consider an additional suspension.

Wow, I must have forgotten that. I think it was because we have an error with the numbering in the Act (I posted it in the UH thread, Barnes). But, yeah, I think that is the best way to go with this.