View Topic

If this fails, we sit down and figure out where to go from there, simple as that.

If you're seeing this as people only appearing to dissent when you try to pass something...then there's an issue here far bigger than this act.

Extending on what Pengu said, with our current system we can contact our preferred Skrifas with our views in private in attempt to get our views heard, with an OA we would have to do that ourselves which can be far harder than for our voted representatives.

Our legislative system needs to grow, no question there. But our regular elections for skrifas provide very private way to bring out opinions, which would not be possible in OA.

Dissent is good. It's just useless when it's not given before we get to vote, because by then, we've wasted a lot of energy and time pouring our talents into something based on very limited information, and then we only receive the full story when we finally try to do something with it. I don't appreciate your suggestion that I'm viewing the dissent as non-genuine, Pengu.

Dissent is good. It's just useless when it's not given before we get to vote, because by then, we've wasted a lot of energy and time pouring our talents into something based on very limited information, and then we only receive the full story when we finally try to do something with it. I don't appreciate your suggestion that I'm viewing the dissent as non-genuine, Pengu.

Do people disappear again and only give their dissenting opinions when we try to pass it?

I was merely questioning that statement, Laurentus.  That's not fair to say that people disappear and then only appear to cock-block when we want to pass something.

As I said, sometimes it's difficult for people to appear and express their opinions for fear of being judged/criticized on it.

And that's a problem that we need to fix, since nobody here should ever have to feel like they can't express a differing opinion until others do it first.

Again, you're completely misconstruing my comment, now even going so far as to say I'm viewing this as "cock-blocking."

I'm just concerned that when we fail this (which has become inevitable now) people are going to fall into that same pattern again, where they deny the UH their valuable input for whatever, and then criticise the next solution again when it comes time to vote, at which point the UH would have poured months of their time into something that didn't work out again. You of all people should know how deeply we analyse this stuff. It's not fun when we try our best with something and people don't contribute while we can still easily do something about it, and then only when it comes to a vote, share their actual opinions. That wastes a lot of time and energy.

I'll clarify.

If people are afraid to express their opinions because of a vast majority thinking otherwise, that's a problem that will translate poorly into the OA.

Either we're going to get people that will blindly bandwagon in fear of opposing the majority, or they're simply not going to take part for that same reason.

Nobody likes having their opinions shot down, and not everyone is of the personality to where they feel brave enough to speak out with an opposing opinion.

if the OA is going to succeed, we need to encourage people that their opinions matter, regardless if it's an opinion that matches yours, or mine, or Chanku's, or is one of their own.

At point blank, the statement that I quoted of yours is a statement that shuts people down from wanting to oppose your opinions.  Because that statement suggests that the people who dissent against this are only on here to do just that, as if that's just what they enjoy doing.

You may have meant more within it, but again, at point blank, that's how it comes off.

If you're concerned, then as we always tell other people...do something about it.  Weiss has provided a thread for the people who are not exactly for this to come up with ideas and get their input in.

Likewise, we've been discussing in IRC what we can do as well.

The purpose is to work together and figure out what to do, as we would have to if this passed.  If we want to go the route of an OA...we need to do it correctly with the support of at least most of the citizenry behind it, since it affects ALL of us.  The only way to do that is to actually sit down with the citizens and figure that out in a neutral setting.

Again, you're completely misconstruing my comment, now even going so far as to say I'm viewing this as "cock-blocking."

I'm just concerned that when we fail this (which has become inevitable now) people are going to fall into that same pattern again, where they deny the UH their valuable input for whatever, and then criticise the next solution again when it comes time to vote, at which point the UH would have poured months of their time into something that didn't work out again. You of all people should know how deeply we analyse this stuff. It's not fun when we try our best with something and people don't contribute while we can still easily do something about it, and then only when it comes to a vote, share their actual opinions. That wastes a lot of time and energy.

I think this pessimism is undue, until now I (at least) hadn't realized anyone shared views similar to mine, now I know, I am more willing to speak up.

Previously I feared that criticizing an act with such momentum in the citizen's platform, would have simply had me being put down and dismissed, as I considered my voice the only dissenting one.

Now, now we know that people want to see it done differently and we can incorporate that into reworking it, actively engaging people more, and (in my case) being less fearful to speak our minds.

I'm just going to say this—we have been working on this for at peas four months now, the entire while with the voting populace being quite supportive of the idea of an open assembly, because it allows for everyone's opinions to be expressed, and only now does there seem to be considerable opposition to the measure. If we haven't been voting people in on their merits and ideas as legislators, then we've basically just been wasting our time here for months now without this input. We intentionally left a lot of stuff open to the new assembly, yes. Just like the US Constitution left a lot of stuff for congress to sort out. We're leaving the decision in the hands of the people.

Also, if people fear having an unpopular opinion, they could still bring it up via PM to the Speaker or Speaker PT, which is what most people do in this system anyway.

Finally, by no means is the whole open-assembly thing permanent. If something goes horribly wrong, we can pretty easily return to our current system at any time, realistically. If anyone has any questions of me/my opinion, feel free to ask, either with PMs or just on here!

I'm just going to say this—we have been working on this for at peas four months now, the entire while with the voting populace being quite supportive of the idea of an open assembly, because it allows for everyone's opinions to be expressed, and only now does there seem to be considerable opposition to the measure. If we haven't been voting people in on their merits and ideas as legislators, then we've basically just been wasting our time here for months now without this input. We intentionally left a lot of stuff open to the new assembly, yes. Just like the US Constitution left a lot of stuff for congress to sort out. We're leaving the decision in the hands of the people.

Also, if people fear having an unpopular opinion, they could still bring it up via PM to the Speaker or Speaker PT, which is what most people do in this system anyway.

Finally, by no means is the whole open-assembly thing permanent. If something goes horribly wrong, we can pretty easily return to our current system at any time, realistically. If anyone has any questions of me/my opinion, feel free to ask, either with PMs or just on here!

Honestly, if this took even a year I wouldn't complain since this is a pretty big deal that's going to change our political system completely...so I'd rather take as much time needed to get it to be something perfect and approved by most before getting it out there.  We've endured the UH/OH system for longer than a year now, and we can endure it longer until we get this system perfected.

But right now we're being shown that the support for this isn't as overwhelming as we'd thought.  It was received widely in the UH, but only by half of the members in the OH both times it went through.  Likewise, we're now getting people posting in here about being against it...and I highly doubt it was something that happened overnight.  People can be opposed from something since the beginning, but hesitant to talk about it until now because of the overwhelming support from a majority of others...especially from some of our more vocal and well-known members.

Don't get me wrong, because I've always supported going the way of an OA, and I still do.  However, I want to see it succeed and be something that most of us can agree on even having...because the only way for an OA to do well is if more than a simple majority of the people even want it in the first place.  If not, then we need to sit down and figure out a different approach.

If the only reason people are against this act is because they feel like they will always be up against a majority that does not allow opposing views to be heard, then perhaps as Weissreich proposed, someone (perhaps an officer?) would be required to play devil's advocate on each bill to promote both sides of an issue to be heard, causing people who would otherwise not speak up to be heard. We could further promote the message that everyone's voices count and not tolerate personal attacks, etc.

This, however, (as far as I know) wouldn't be included in this bill since it amends the Fundamental Laws, and the above would be included in the Procedural Rules or something similar, which would require this act to be passed first. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.

I'm not sure that the problem is that people were afraid of voicing their opinions. Back when I stepped in and started contemplating legislation to write, I asked what sort of legislature people wanted...unfortunately, only 6 people replied, and out of those only North voiced any real opposition to an open assembly. We then had a lengthy discussion as I wrote the legislation itself, and again there was little response.

The point of the Convention was so that it was a focal point just for this sort of discussion, so why was there so little response, long before there was any real excitement about this legislation?

I for one wasn't here during the formative stages of this legislation and went along with majority decision aunder the assumption it was both finalised to everyone's satisfaction and that everyone was happy with the suggestion as it stood. Seeing as this isn't the case, I'm now working to rectify the problems as perceived by the citizenry

This thread is experiencing great amounts of not directly enough related discussion. There are alternatives for the discussion.

tatte, you mentioned earlier that it's easier to privately contact your preferred Skrifa, so why didn't that happen here?

But a number of other people were here, and they had five months to voice and rectify any problems...so where were they?

As I've said before, I don't have any particular love or hate for this exact piece of legislation, but it disturbs me greatly that five months of discussion and work have been thrown down the drain because people waited until the last minute to bring up issues. The whole point of a democratic portion of government is for people to voice their opinions, and for whatever reason that portion of government has failed, so before we have any further discussions on the makeup of the legislature, we need to know exactly why it failed. Right now, I'm not sold on the 'tyranny of the majority' argument because even the early discussions were fairly inactive. Even if I were sold on it, I would point out that that's long been a complaint about democratic governance in general. It's one reason I don't actually care for democratic governance, and that outside the Underhusen the government is not democratic.

I'm not necessarily opposed to having a more open assembly, but if this is a harbinger of what's going to happen then I'm very concerned. We need to get to the root cause of this.