View Topic

[What do you want from the Constitutional Convention?]

What do you want from the Constitutional Convention?

An Open Assembly, as per the current proposal.

9 (31%)

An Open Assembly, as per the amendments listed in this thread/any others suggested.

11 (37.9%)

A Bicameral Assembly, as per a post I will make in this thread.

3 (10.3%)

No change from the current Underhusen/Overhusen system.

6 (20.7%)

Other (please comment with details)

0 (0%)

No preference.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 21

You want to change human nature?

That's a little harsh of a statement there, Laurentus.  Just because something may be perceived as "human nature" doesn't mean that's how it actually is.

And there's a difference between being judgmental in your head and being outwardly so.  It's perfectly easy to have your opinions in your head, and express them tactfully outwardly.

It's not difficult for people to be civil and welcoming of differing opinions outside of their own.  And for what Wintreath represents, the last thing we want to do is turn people away because they feel like their opinions don't even matter.

Further hidden votes won't change anything about band-wagoning, aside from making it's effects harder to notice.

As a supporter of the Act, let me try and address the concerns people have.

1) My opinion on this is that it would do little to nothing to address people's concerns. If we are worried about another region invading, I doubt a week would deter them. If we are worried about creepy pricks like my former colleague then that to would be useless to. So any kind of waiting period would be unworkable.

2) Tyranny of the majority, also know as democracy.

3) Considering that Moot would still have to pass bills and acts, I see no problem. If we want someone else to have veto power, the OA can appoint someone.

4) I always thought abstaining was simple, not a vote for or against, just stating that you don't want to vote.

5) The role of officers can be decided by the OA. My personal idea would be a speaker to organize votes and other things, a vice speaker in case the speaker is unavailable and a whip to bring as many people as possible to vote.

6) Again, we are putting the cart before the horse, a COC can be decided by the OA.

I think an Open Assembly is the best way forward for all of us. If the people want more discussion or another way, however, I will oblige. I just wanted to get my two cents in.

1) I do agree that the waiting period really means little, just as post count does, in that department.  Someone could be active for a week, and then leave the region forever.  Same goes for a month.

2) No, North.  We're speaking of people who are afraid to speak up because the majority opinion is essentially the "only" opinion that matters.  Otherwise known as peer pressure or bandwagoning simply because you're afraid to go against the majority of voters.  That's something we don't want in the OA since it should be something where EVERYONE'S opinions matter.

4) It's supposed to be simple, but it never has been...especially concerning bills that require a majority.

I am a representative of everyone. I was elected by the people. Every time I proposed anything, I first put it up on the Citizens Platform to see public opinion. I saw exactly 6 people discuss what I thought was the best chance of compromise. Only 2 posted more than once.

Hell, the debate on the Act in the Citizens Platform was pretty much the same, a bunch of people posting once or twice, basically stating an opinion for or against and no more than 8 people being involved in the actual discussion.

Your worried about the Tyranny of the Majority? Quite frankly I don't think that people are involved in policy discussion anyway. The OA was one way to get people involved. Part of the reason why I think Robin, Laurentus and, I will admit, myself are so pissed is that when we ask people for opinions, few respond. When we go ahead and do what we wanted, then people come crawling out of the woodwork to criticize and, in some cases, belittle.

Maybe we shouldn't have a OA anymore. I thought that it would be the best way to serve the people. But now I'm not so sure anymore. Because I now think if everyone is asked to govern together chaos will ensue.


I don't even know if I want to stay here anymore.

People are judgmental. I'm not being harsh when I say that. You immediately decide whether you like someone or not. It's automatic. Of course, just as you can decide you don't like someone in an instant, your opinion can change--by judging them differently than you initially did.

At this point, it just feels like the benefits of public voting are far outweighed by the bad things that accompany it. How often have we ever actually gone past the point of agreeing to disagree when there are fundamental differences of opinion, often after a very harsh and personal debate? Why do you think actual elections also feature secret ballot?

Laurentus this isn't real life.

I don't even know if I want to stay here anymore.

I don't think that anyone is really happy at the moment, but it is just one incident...does that take all that I hope has been good since you joined the region? I hope not, and I would miss you if you left.

As a supporter of the Act, let me try and address the concerns people have.

1) My opinion on this is that it would do little to nothing to address people's concerns. If we are worried about another region invading, I doubt a week would deter them. If we are worried about creepy pricks like my former colleague then that to would be useless to. So any kind of waiting period would be unworkable.

2) Tyranny of the majority, also know as democracy.

3) Considering that Moot would still have to pass bills and acts, I see no problem. If we want someone else to have veto power, the OA can appoint someone.

4) I always thought abstaining was simple, not a vote for or against, just stating that you don't want to vote.

5) The role of officers can be decided by the OA. My personal idea would be a speaker to organize votes and other things, a vice speaker in case the speaker is unavailable and a whip to bring as many people as possible to vote.

6) Again, we are putting the cart before the horse, a COC can be decided by the OA.

I think an Open Assembly is the best way forward for all of us. If the people want more discussion or another way, however, I will oblige. I just wanted to get my two cents in.

1) I do agree that the waiting period really means little, just as post count does, in that department.  Someone could be active for a week, and then leave the region forever.  Same goes for a month.

2) No, North.  We're speaking of people who are afraid to speak up because the majority opinion is essentially the "only" opinion that matters.  Otherwise known as peer pressure or bandwagoning simply because you're afraid to go against the majority of voters.  That's something we don't want in the OA since it should be something where EVERYONE'S opinions matter.

4) It's supposed to be simple, but it never has been...especially concerning bills that require a majority.

I am a representative of everyone. I was elected by the people. Every time I proposed anything, I first put it up on the Citizens Platform to see public opinion. I saw exactly 6 people discuss what I thought was the best chance of compromise. Only 2 posted more than once.

Hell, the debate on the Act in the Citizens Platform was pretty much the same, a bunch of people posting once or twice, basically stating an opinion for or against and no more than 8 people being involved in the actual discussion.

Your worried about the Tyranny of the Majority? Quite frankly I don't think that people are involved in policy discussion anyway. The OA was one way to get people involved. Part of the reason why I think Robin, Laurentus and, I will admit, myself are so pissed is that when we ask people for opinions, few respond. When we go ahead and do what we wanted, then people come crawling out of the woodwork to criticize and, in some cases, belittle.

Maybe we shouldn't have a OA anymore. I thought that it would be the best way to serve the people. But now I'm not so sure anymore. Because I now think if everyone is asked to govern together chaos will ensue.


I don't even know if I want to stay here anymore.

Northy, I would be extremely sad to see you go. Please don't do it. I understand how you feel, and that's why I'm planning on taking a nice long break myself, but the negative memory bias is a dick that can make people like us behave rashly and impulsively when things get too heavy. If you take a step back, you'll see that outside of the UH, there's a lot of excellent things here.

I don't often agree with Chanku, but I do on this.

As you yourself said when it came to the Court system, this isn't real life.  We have to differentiate between the two.

In real life, what you say can't be edited.  You can backtrack and apologize and say differently...but once it comes out of your mouth, it's final.

On here, you can edit what you say before it's even sent out.

And North, please don't leave.  We like having you here.  ^_^

Laurentus this isn't real life.

This past day could have fooled me.

Pengu, with all due respect, there's a difference between the workings of an online court system and this, since this system has constant debate and tempers that flare.

Laurentus this isn't real life.

This past day could have fooled me.

Pengu, with all due respect, there's a difference between the workings of an online court system and this, since this system has constant debate and tempers that flare.

That doesn't mean we have to throw away any idea of a civilized debate between people in a setting to where everyone feels comfortable chatting.

Yes, people get heated, most definitely.  But if this is any indication as to what we're going to be facing in an OA where debates like this are going to be constant, then it's going to fail miserably.

One person is already talking about leaving, and you're talking about taking a break from Wintreath.  Is that really what we want to look forward to if the OA comes to fruition?  People leaving the forums or taking LOA because they can't handle the pressure (something we DIDN'T like about the UH's practices)?

We're feeling negative because all our hard work just got flushed down the crapper by people who didn't even bother to take part in the debate for months, and then proceeded to criticise us of things like not truly representing the will of the people.

Don't fucking push me right now. It's not because of any system, it's because of that, and only that. Whether that's actually true is beside the point, since at this stage it's all that we feel.

That is enough. This personal snipping isn't getting us anywhere and is unbecoming of everyone involved.

I don't care that this is Weissreich's topic, I'm hijacking it. And all I want to hear are specific objections to the legislation that's currently up for ratification.

Laurentus this isn't real life.

This past day could have fooled me.

Pengu, with all due respect, there's a difference between the workings of an online court system and this, since this system has constant debate and tempers that flare.

That doesn't mean we have to throw away any idea of a civilized debate between people in a setting to where everyone feels comfortable chatting.

Yes, people get heated, most definitely.  But if this is any indication as to what we're going to be facing in an OA where debates like this are going to be constant, then it's going to fail miserably.

One person is already talking about leaving, and you're talking about taking a break from Wintreath.  Is that really what we want to look forward to if the OA comes to fruition?  People leaving the forums or taking LOA because they can't handle the pressure (something we DIDN'T like about the UH's practices)?

Everyone needs to relax.  While I have been away most of the day as tensions came to the surface mainly due to IRC discussions because of IRL and my dad bothering me, this negativity had also turned me away as I am starting to catch up on things.

No one wants anyone to leave.  People just need to think things through in a rational and logical manner, and not with emotion.

"Decisions based on emotions are not decisions at all."  - Raymond Tusk, House of Cards, Season 1

I think it would also be easier if we can consolidate the discussion threads (mine, the split topic, and this) into one merged thread?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Definitely in agreement with Govindia, and also with Wintermoot. This thread exists for the purpose of hearing the suggestions everyone has to improve the current Act and for people to raise issues with its current form, if they have any. Let's not make this personal, and let's not have anyone leave over something so trivial as a disagreement on how our legislation should be structured

That aside, I would like to note that my numbered points in the OP are by no means a perfect solution to all of the problems we're finding/perceiving with the Act. They are merely the first step in that direction, and I would ask for people to NOT criticise but instead try to find ways to IMPROVE. If you see something I or others have said that you disagree with, explain why and PROPOSE HOW TO FIX IT.

Cheers! I'm afraid I'm still hung over as hell so I'll be replying in depth tomorrow

Again we have so few people even bothering to comment.