View Topic

Also, I get the distinct impression that some sort of misunderstanding has popped up. No one has any objections to people voting against the Act. What we have a problem with is people not saying what they really think and feel, because then we can't communicate effectively and come to some sort of understanding. I'm glad to see people voting Nay, and giving actual reasons for that vote. Abstaining while you're actually against the act just doesn't help anyone, because then the problem can't be fixed, and everyone's time and energy gets wasted, not just ours.

And @Pengu, no, actually. This whole thing began to find a way to preserve a legislative for when we actually need it, but to do it in such a way that we don't have the worst problems of the UH: the political bullshit.

And @Pengu, no, actually. This whole thing began to find a way to preserve a legislative for when we actually need it, but to do it in such a way that we don't have the worst problems of the UH: the political bullshit.

While that's also true...if you recall, talks started happening about changing the system right after our term, when we had the term that was completely dead.

The excuses were that there was nothing to talk about since we had taken care of the major stuff in our term, and talks began about possibly changing things up since the UH wasn't getting its shit together.

And in our next term, talks continued and became a bit more serious.

Yeah, but you're missing the intervening few months after that. The consensus became that we couldn't do anything for the activity without it leading to the aforementioned political bullshit, and we thus opted for something that would allow us to still pass legislation when it actually becomes important, but doesn't have the same political nature as the UH, and could be more easily handled when nasty fights broke out.

Yeah, but you're missing the intervening few months after that. The consensus became that we couldn't do anything for the activity without it leading to the aforementioned political bullshit, and we thus opted for something that would allow us to still pass legislation when it actually becomes important, but doesn't have the same political nature as the UH, and could be more easily handled when nasty fights broke out.

No.  I'm just saying how this all originally started.  The original reasoning WAS because of activity issues with the UH.  However, that completely branched out later on, when some of us decided later that it would be better to just dissolve the entire UH.

Remember, I talked about how completely on board with it I was. 

Ah, but then you have to qualify the statement "how this all began," because otherwise we assume you're talking about the beginning of the Act, or of the Convention itself.

NINJA EDIT: I meant bill, not "act," obviously. Just noting this here before Weissreich kills me.

Ah, but then you have to qualify the statement "how this all began," because otherwise we assume you're talking about the beginning of the Act, or of the Convention itself.

NINJA EDIT: I meant bill, not "act," obviously. Just noting this here before Weissreich kills me.

I did say "the original point" at the beginning, which is true.  The original point at the beginning was to fix the activity problem.  Later it moved into just the political drama and other factors. 

Again though, that's so vague as to be meaningless.

EDIT: Beyond that though, you were commenting on Gerrick's post, in which he actually made it clear that he was referring to this bill, so by contrasting him, that gave the impression that you were commenting on this bill and its point as well.

How rude.   

Anyways, others should have the chance to speak and vote in here.

So back to that. 

As for why I am voting nay, I have been principally opposed to an open assembly since it's inception. I was a member of the GRA, up to it's current state of death, and the Open Assembly did not really help it.

Further I am also opposed to the way this passed, as I have serious disagreements with it's passing.

Activity--which is quite negligible in the current system anyway when we're not discussing things regarding the Constitutional Convention--just isn't worth it when the way that activity gets generated leaves everyone feeling negative and unwilling to work in that system again. There are things that are a hundred times more active to engage in, and the UH and OH are far from the only advancement opportunities we now have.

EDIT: That's not even taking into account that the Open Assembly could well be active, which would be great. And if it is, we'll finally have the power to prevent people from throwing their shit at each other.

Laurentus, purely wondering, have you ever actually been in a region with an Open Assembly?

To be honest, activity isn't really the issue here at all. I've seen several people voice their concerns that a switch to an Open Assembly killed Region X's political activity, but I think it's safe to say that won't happen here for several reasons.

1) We're all pretty active on the forums anyway, in other areas, and I highly doubt that if something came up in the OA people would simply ignore it.
2) There will be a flurry of activity surrounding the set-up of the new OA, meaning we'll have some stuff to work on for the foreseeable future (amending the judicial system to work with the new OA, that kind of thing).
3) Legislative activity was already pretty low - we're an established region with much of our legal system already in place.

What we DO need to worry about is making sure that the OA, in whatever form it eventually takes, represents the best wishes of the people, not just the UH or a specific subset of our population. No one is at fault here - it's easy to get caught up in things and forget to take a step back and reassess.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is WINTREATH WILL LIVE LONG AND PROSPER and there's fuck all kind of impact switching legislative systems is going to have on that

@ Chanku: No, and I'm going to counter your next argument with this one: we are not a politically driven region. We have hundreds of other things for the community to engage in. On top of that, just because some other regions have failed with an OA, doesn't mean we have to, especially if we learn from their mistakes. I'm sure some region somewhere has failed with a bicameral legislature too. It's all in the way it gets handled.

It's not just the UH who have voted aye here, though. Nine people have done so. And that's opposed to 8 who've voted nay. So the point remains that this isn't as clean as we would have hoped.

Those who've voted nay, at least try to come up with some solution to the very real problems we've outlined with the current system, and post about it in the Constitutional Convention, otherwise this will drag on forever.

I know this is annoying request, but as a skrifa, could you simply outline the problems of current system for me? The Constitutional Convention has been going on for quite some time and is quite a lot to take in. Compressing everything achieved in it would benefit every voter.