View Topic

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.

It's a pretty reasonable request.  It's fool hearted to vote any way on an act without knowing the complete details as to why this act is even being proposed in the first place.

@ 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.

Yes, however here's the thing. You can't do much with an OA that's different, you can do a lot of things differently with a Bicameral Legislature though. Further look at the way people whom have been in regions that have (or changed to) an open assembly have voted.


EDIT: Also Laurentus where did you get 9 aye from?
When I counted it up I got 8 Ayes, 7 Nays, and 4 Abstains.

Again, this is a completely different region.

And as for the problem with the current system, I think these are the main ones:

1. Overly political, and a breeding ground for unnecessary drama that makes most people who serve on it very negative and sometimes even in need of a break that can last months.

2. There's not much activity to be found in it, and when there is, it's usually only regarding its own existence, and often of filled with the problem point one has presented. It's crazy to have people stand for election in it every two months, deal with the initial drama of getting in, and then dealing with a lot more drama once actually in, when it's so inactive anyway, and makes everyone so unhappy.

EDIT: I might as well add this 3rd one, since it's true:

3. Once actually elected, the Skrifa get a lot of flak from certain members of the community when they simply vote and act in the way they think is best for the community. That's not fair.

For these reasons, an OA seems to be a pretty good solution, especially since everyone has an equal voice and no one can complain about Skrifa only serving themselves anymore.

Again, this is a completely different region.

And so are the others...however you can't just justify something with: "This is a completely different region" all the time. The data we have shows that an OA doesn't really work.

And as for the problem with the current system, I think these are the main ones:

1. Overly political, and a breeding ground for unnecessary drama that makes most people who serve on it very negative and sometimes even in need of a break that can last months.

The OA wouldn't be much better, if anything would lead to this occurring faster.

2. There's not much activity to be found in it, and when there is, it's usually only regarding its own existence, and often of filled with the problem point one has presented. It's crazy to have people stand for election in it every two months, deal with the initial drama of getting in, and then dealing with a lot more drama once actually in, when it's so inactive anyway, and makes everyone so unhappy.

There wouldn't be much activity in the OA either. Further it's not as crazy as you think. It creates a decent amount of activity for us, so killing something that does that would be crazy in of itself. Further having elections for Speaker would be the same way in the OA...except with more people being upset and having resentment. Further the drama just wouldn't go away...if anything it would probably become amplified due to the fact that it's an OA.

You seem to be ignoring the measures we've put into place to make sure the Speaker is pretty much castrated, and the measures we've put into place to ensure that the drama doesn't reach the levels the UH historically has.

As for the "data" you're claiming proves that OAs don't work: that's an incredibly small sample size. It proves nothing. If you can actually go around the entire NS, collect in-depth data, and then say that the trend is for those regions to fail because of an OA, then we'd have something to talk about.

Guys, any debate/discussion/flaming (take your pick) about complaints against this Act or suggestions about how to improve it as it stands now should be taken to this thread.

Please try to be constructive and outline what you would like to see changed, what bits you think should be removed and how the concept of an Open Assembly could be improved upon.

Again, this is a completely different region.

And as for the problem with the current system, I think these are the main ones:

1. Overly political, and a breeding ground for unnecessary drama that makes most people who serve on it very negative and sometimes even in need of a break that can last months.

2. There's not much activity to be found in it, and when there is, it's usually only regarding its own existence, and often of filled with the problem point one has presented. It's crazy to have people stand for election in it every two months, deal with the initial drama of getting in, and then dealing with a lot more drama once actually in, when it's so inactive anyway, and makes everyone so unhappy.

I personally don't see why either of these are exclusively fixed by this act in it's current state, and I think there are certain new issues that could arise from this.

I can also easily imagine just as "dramatic" discussions taking place in this Open Assembly, and it could lead to new argument issues, like dogpiling against one person.

I actually think it might create slightly more activity with law when it's needed, and I am not intrinsically opposed to an Open Assembly, I just do not like it's current very Unicameral nature and I believe that how the process takes place should be more defined before it is passed into law. I dislike some of the "we'll just sort it when it's up" that's been going on; especially when it comes to definitions of majority and how the voting process is handled.

If anything this very topic and debate is a great example of what could happen, if the act is passed right now, it is clear that quite a few members of the region won't be satisfied.

We decided not to go into that precisely because it would be presumptuous of us not to leave such things up to the open assembly (the people). I find it troubling that people are only now criticising this act, when it's been a matter that's been up for discussion for months.

We decided not to go into that precisely because it would be presumptuous of us not to leave such things up to the open assembly (the people). I find it troubling that people are only now criticising this act, when it's been a matter that's been up for discussion for months.

When something this big gets overwhelming support, it becomes hard to have an opposing opinion for fear of being automatically shut down for it.

We decided not to go into that precisely because it would be presumptuous of us not to leave such things up to the open assembly (the people). I find it troubling that people are only now criticising this act, when it's been a matter that's been up for discussion for months.

But whatever it is is going to be voted on by the people any way, like right now, I fail to see why it is presumptuous for a legislative body to legislate.

And this is the first chance a lot of people have had to realize that they are not the only ones that don't approve of everything in the act.

The logic of, "why should an act that has already gone so far fail now" I find inherently flawed.

If anything this very topic and debate is a great example of what could happen, if the act is passed right now, it is clear that quite a few members of the region won't be satisfied.

Isn't this debate good? We're only just now hearing what everybody thinks even though we've been talking and working on this bill for weeks. The OA would always cause more people to give their thoughts. Currently, even though everyone can voice their concerns in the Citizens' Platform, only the UH's opinions matter as they're the ones who pass the laws. If there was an Open Assembly, all people can actually make an impact through debates and votes, and they'd also more likely say something against the popular thoughts since, again, they actually have a vote and can cause others to change their thoughts (and thus votes).

I'm not saying it should go through now. I'm just at my wit's end with people who complain that we're shutting them out and not considering everything when they don't want to voice their opinion beforehand. We can do nothing that pleases everyone. If we did define those things you're criticising us for now, we would have been criticised again for the way we defined it. It's an inherent problem of such a small amount of people supposedly representing so many, and when the people they're representing don't want to make their voice heard, we can't do anything either.

Gerrick's thoughts echo mine well.

If anything this very topic and debate is a great example of what could happen, if the act is passed right now, it is clear that quite a few members of the region won't be satisfied.

Isn't this debate good? We're only just now hearing what everybody thinks even though we've been talking and working on this bill for weeks. The OA would always cause more people to give their thoughts. Currently, even though everyone can voice their concerns in the Citizens' Platform, only the UH's opinions matter as they're the ones who pass the laws. If there was an Open Assembly, all people can actually make an impact through debates and votes, and they'd also more likely say something against the popular thoughts since, again, they actually have a vote and can cause others to change their thoughts (and thus votes).

The biggest issue being voiced, however, is the "Tyranny of majority" mentality like what is being questioned here as to why people waited to voice their opinions.

When you're in a room of people that are 100% completely for something that you yourself are against, it becomes harder to speak out for fear of criticism, judgment, and ridicule.  We've even had some members on here go so far as belittling others when they disagree with what that person agrees with.

Those members are very far and few between, but the criticism itself isn't.  Debates get heated, and it can be hard having an opposing opinion if the person you're debating is like a brick wall.

Likewise, when it's multiple members opposing your viewpoint, it can be even rougher, and some people will feel like they shouldn't even speak at that point.

Again, taking this act for example, it received widespread support aside from maybe one or two members when it was introduced.  It was talked up very highly, and people have been exceptionally excited for it.  At that point, others might have been afraid to express opinions against it because of how hugely it's been supported.

But now that some have finally spoken out against it, those members are starting to step up and find their voice to speak on their feelings about it.

If anything this very topic and debate is a great example of what could happen, if the act is passed right now, it is clear that quite a few members of the region won't be satisfied.

Isn't this debate good? We're only just now hearing what everybody thinks even though we've been talking and working on this bill for weeks. The OA would always cause more people to give their thoughts. Currently, even though everyone can voice their concerns in the Citizens' Platform, only the UH's opinions matter as they're the ones who pass the laws. If there was an Open Assembly, all people can actually make an impact through debates and votes, and they'd also more likely say something against the popular thoughts since, again, they actually have a vote and can cause others to change their thoughts (and thus votes).

I'm not saying it's not good, I want an open assembly for this very reason.

What I am saying is the fact that this is so close and contentious obviously means that we need to refine and be more definitive about the rules of the debate and voting in the open assembly, with the current state of this it would pass in the new Open Assembly, even with all this dissent. I don't like that, and I don't think it's something that should be addressed after the fact.

Of course this is all my opinion.

And when we fail this, what then? Do people disappear again and only give their dissenting opinions when we try to pass it?