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

I have what may be a controversial idea (one that I neither support or oppose myself).

What if there was a requirement that everyone voting on a topic had to have participated in the discussion about it beforehand, even if it was just one post saying they supported or opposed it for x reasons? Hopefully that would allow things to come up before voting so that the people who debated and put together a bill aren't blindsided when it goes to vote.

Eh, Honestly I don't think that's a good idea Wintermoot.

The main reason are that it won't help bandwagoning, it may actually make it worse because people that are afraid of speaking up will not, and then be denied a voice. Also someone may not post because of the fact that someone else has already said what they think, and possibly done so better than they could (or feel they could), as such they don't respond to not make a 'useless' post or to simply repeat something already mentioned.

Further if the ability to debate is something that can be taken away be the OA, then that would block someone out completely, because they were both unable to debate and unable to vote, when one could just have something to temporarily remove them from the OA...

Eh, Honestly I don't think that's a good idea Wintermoot.

The main reason are that it won't help bandwagoning, it may actually make it worse because people that are afraid of speaking up will not, and then be denied a voice. Also someone may not post because of the fact that someone else has already said what they think, and possibly done so better than they could (or feel they could), as such they don't respond to not make a 'useless' post or to simply repeat something already mentioned.

Further if the ability to debate is something that can be taken away be the OA, then that would block someone out completely, because they were both unable to debate and unable to vote, when one could just have something to temporarily remove them from the OA...

The bolded is my biggest worry.  If people are afraid to speak up, pushing them to debate by denying them a vote otherwise isn't going to solve that problem.  I'd rather see people hiding their votes and not speak in debates rather than seeing less people vote now because they didn't have the courage to speak in the debates.

Is it at all possible to have some sort of area of the forum where all posts are anonymous?

EDIT: If not that, then some sort of bot similar to Zaphyr on IRC that has its own account, that just forwards PMs sent to it anonymously?

Also if not that, then simply sending our thoughts to the monarch and having him forward it while protecting our identities.

Is it at all possible to have some sort of area of the forum where all posts are anonymous?

Not without using a forum mod.

It doesn't take away the ability to debate...if anything it enforces the responsibility to debate. The main problem we have now is that many people didn't voice their dissent of the Amendment until the very end vote...to be fair, some did, but nobody had any clue that it was anything other than a very small minority. You have to admit, even the people opposed to it were surprised that there were others that were opposed.

If at some point those people had made just one post saying they opposed the Amendment for x reason, everyone would have known that support for the Amendment as written wasn't as strong as everyone thought, and we could have essentially had this debate beforehand and saved a lot of time, work, and hurt feelings. Maybe it would be a little redundant for someone that has nothing to add, but at the very least the fact that they support, oppose, or are on the fence about a bill is valuable for everyone else to know.

I'll be honest, I consider what happened this week to be a much bigger issue than the specifics of what's in this Amendment, and perhaps one of the biggest issues the region has faced. We're a community-based, non-political region for good reason, because we don't want the division, conflict, and drama that politics invites. A blowup like this that hurt people's feelings and divided the community is what led to the fracturing and later decline of Spiritus...trust me, we want to be very careful not to allow this to go that route.

Well, I will admit that I was surprised that a number of people suddenly appeared to oppose the act.

My worry though isn't that it will take away the ability to debate, but if anything it'll just give those who aren't wanting to speak in the debate even less reason to vote.  After all...the reason they're not speaking up is because they're afraid to voice their opinions for fear of getting overwhelmed by the other side (at least, from what I've been hearing from people).  So pushing them to debate if they even want to have a vote?  You're going to find people less inclined to jump on that, and our voting turnout will most likely be hurt for it.

There has to be some alternative that we can touch on that encourages people to speak up...not force them to.

And the last thing I want to see is for Wintreath to get divided because of something like this.  I was actually genuinely surprised to see the toll that this whole thing is taking upon some of you guys...but I guess I just don't get so passionate about Wintreath politics to that degree (I'm more passionate about the cultural side of things rather than the political side), so it doesn't affect me as much as it is affecting others.

It's not the politics or even the act that took its toll, it was the feeling of wasted time and energy and personal insult.

I myself am strongly against removing the option to abstain, or adding a requirement that one must participate in discussion before being allowed to vote.  I tend to be personally indifferent on a significant amount of legislation, but I'd like to be able to retain my right to serve in judicial proceedings, or run in elections, or whatever the amendment that passes (be it this one or another) requires voting in the last vote/election to participate in.  Abstaining permits that by logging my participation without logging my not-really-present support or opposition.

I also appose a pre-vote discussion requirement for the reasons outlined so clearly above.

@Laurentus: Either way, it's something you and a few others are very passionate about, and I'm both surprised and disappointed to see that it's taken such a toll to where it's affected you guys negatively to a specific degree that it has.

No matter what, you guys are and have always been exceptional members that put a lot of thought into what you do.  The last thing I want to see is this ordeal causing a divide/wedge like it's started to, because Wintreath really benefits by having you guys...and likewise I don't want to see this giving you guys a negative mindset when this is supposed to be a place of warmth and friendship for all of its citizens, which includes you.  You guys are very valued citizens here, even if sometimes it doesn't seem like it because of actions people may take.

Seconding Colby's opposition to removing the Abstention vote - we've rectified the issues with it and hopefully there'll be no more rules-lawyering from Chanku in the Open Assembly.

@Wintermoot - I think there's some potential in your idea of requiring debate, but I don't think an enforced post-to-vote requirement works for what we want. We've said already that the primary aim of this legislation isn't to promote activity, which I feel that might be seen as trying to do.

The Whip seems to be getting a majority of positive support in this thread so far, so perhaps extending the purview of any Whip Officers created in the future to promoting debate as well as vote threads? That might be a good compromise without making people feel like they're forced into speaking out just to secure a vote.

Upon creating the post of the Whip officer, do we incorporate the position in the Storting Procedural Rules wen we create it or as part of the Fundamental Laws Amendment we have now?

@Weissreich

There will ALWAYS bee rule-lawyering from me...as long as we have rules I will lawyer them and be their lawyer

@Weissreich

There will ALWAYS bee rule-lawyering from me...as long as we have rules I will lawyer them and be their lawyer

That doesn't really paint you in a positive light going forward all things considered :p

If North can do a Spoilered Rant, so can I!

Anyway, people! I am not very experienced with NS, and one of the biggest concerns raised seemed to be a security issue against raids or hostile takeovers. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I KNOW MUCH ABOUT. I am trying my damned hardest here to come up with suggestions for people to base further suggestions and improvements on, but I DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH FOR THE SECURITY MATTER. Please, those of you who DO have experience, come forward and make suggestions. It's all well and good to say "Oh, well this leaves our legislative open to attack!" and then fuck off without suggesting a way to rectify that gaping hole in regional security.


Come on, people. GET INVOLVED, GET THOSE BRAINS I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE WORKING AND COME UP WITH IDEAS. I voted Nay on an Act I otherwise supported because I damn well thought there were going to be serious changes made, and as Mootles has pointed out those changes have not manifested. I do not want to have wasted the hard work of some of our most active and able legislators because of the fact some of you cannot be fucking bothered to spend 5 minutes thinking about a problem!

Ok, rant over. Sorry if I've offended anyone, but I needed to get that off my chest Please forgive me my foibles.



So, post count requirement doesn't = security, nor does a waiting period because apparently that'll put people off. What else do we have? Could we look at people's NS accounts and see if they're newly registered? That runs the risk of new, fresh recruits getting the short end of the stick, so probably wouldn't work. Is there a way to tell if flood accounts (making new accounts to take over a region) are linked to an aggressor? How could we find a way to prevent people joining who mean harm to the region? Is there a way?

These questions need to be answered. Our Overhusen had these concerns, and they're put in place by Mootles because they're smart and sensible individuals. We need to address these concerns. Let's get to it folks.


Please?

I would like to specifically hear from these people:

@Samwise Gamgee: In your vote, you mentioned that you were voting because an open assembly led to a lack of activity in Ainur. Are you completely against an open assembly, or are there some measures in this topic (or other measures) that would change your mind?

@Govindia: You mentioned the same in the Kodiak Republic...same questions to you as to Samwise Gamgee.

@tatte: In your vote, you...interestingly mentioned...that trying to solve some ideas may end up causing more harm, and that the current system was in some ways more worthwhile than an open assembly would be. You also said that we should make sure that the Amendment serves the region in the best way before it's passed. Is there anything in this topic that you think has improved it? Do you have any specific ideas for improvement, or do you think we should keep the current system instead?

@Lychgate: You're a relative newcomer to the region, so I'd just like to know your thoughts in general. What would you like to see?