View Topic

Hey there colleagues.  So I'd like to get right down to it and start discussing some potential areas of interest for our focus this term.  Additional ideas are always welcome, and I'd like to share this with the public to get their input on ideas presented in here, as well as ideas that they may have as well.

First, as I'm sure you knew it was going to come up in here, I'd like to discuss the proposal I had about requiring explanations for when we vote without discussing topics.  Naturally, I do understand reservations with this one, such as the reservations North has about forcing people to add description.  However, I do think that something has to give and we do need to figure out at the very least how to keep our fellow skrifa motivated enough in the discussions.  Even if you feel like it doesn't require your involvement, that reflects on how others see it when you vote--mainly that you don't care, which I doubt is normally the case.  I'd like to get everyone's input on this one, and see if we can at the very least catch some ideas on how to keep interest in discussions if we're not creating a law centered around getting your views on laws out into the open.

Secondly, I wanted to bring up the Election process.  Mainly, because the last elections brought up some questions (my bad  ), I wanted to see how people feel about it as a whole.  Pretty much to get an idea if you think there's anything that we should change, any loopholes we need to close, that sort of thing.  Ideally, I'd love to see it a little less airtight to where if there was only the number of candidates to fit the seats, that we could allow a 24-48 hour extension to the nomination process.  Or, as this last one was handled, leave that at the Monarch's discretion.

Thirdly, I've been seeing the idea float around a bit, and I've been thinking about it a bit...but I think the UH should have IRC meetings.  That being said, I think it should be mainly 1 meeting a month, just to get an idea of where things are at in the UH, as well as to give people the chance to talk to us in a sort of public forum.  As people do have lives and busy schedules, this is why it'd strictly be once a month.  We'd get our schedules together and figure out a time beforehand, and we'd advertise it to the forums so that people could pop on and ask questions.  We could also ask people who can't make it to PM their questions to the Speaker, and they could be brought up in the meeting.  I just think this would make it more personal, which is what we need to be more of.

On that note, fourth...is there anything we can do to become more involved with the citizenry (outside of the previous note)?  From what I witnessed when I was around last term (and it seems like this is an ongoing issue), there seems to be a general disconnect between the UH and the citizens.  I think this is the biggest issue to where the UH starts to become a relic that loses its way...since our main focus is supposed to be centered around those citizens.  So what else can we do to become more involved?

Lastly, two members who have significantly contributed to the region that have been inactive for quite some time....I'm talking of course of Laurentus (inactive for 3 months now), and Colberius X (inactive for 206 days now).  Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to talking about Paragon status for either of them at this point since it can't be questioned how they've helped the region (Laurentus even being recognized and elevated to nobility for his contributions).  But I'd like to hear from you guys on this one.   They're both considered Former citizens at this point which is why I'm bringing it up specifically.

@Mathyland
@North
@Crushita
@BraveSirRobin

On the first note, my personal thoughts are known, I do not support forcing people to explain their votes. However, a procedural amendment to tge UH might be in order.

To the 2nd point, we should probably just endorse what Wintermoot did and codify that into law.

To the 3rd point, I like the premise, however, in practice it woukd be difficult to implement given our different timezones and the fact that some of us have never used the IRC.

Last point, Im not entirely sure what more we can do. The disconnect seems to be with the citizenry. Case in point would be the attempted implementation of an Open Legislature. Is there really more we, the UH, can do?

-I completely respect that, which is why I'm open to at least figuring out a solution without having to force the Skrifa to do anything.  A procedural amendment is something I could be on board with depending on how that's handled.  I just want to see a more active and lively UH, since that will normally negate any questions about their views on the matters they vote on.

-I can get with that.  I do like the idea that there's a set schedule for elections so that the terms can be fully fulfilled before the next upcoming elections, but I do think elections should be more encouraged as well.  I know Wintermoot does his best to notify the people that they're happening, but I think we're starting to see losing interest in actually taking part.  This last election pretty much solidifies that thought considering we had 17 voters, but only 6 candidates.  So we're talking 10 (not counting actual candidates or Wintermoot) voters that didn't take part...and you can bet that there were more citizens around that didn't even vote.

-This is true.  If anything, if a majority of us can get together and have an open forum, then that's really all that matters to me.  And considering a term is 2 months, that's only 2 meetings.  We could even knock it to 1 since the first month is normally getting set up (to use this month as an example, since we're 13 days in).  So that's really only 2 days we'd have to sit down and get our schedules together and then get on IRC.  The days don't have to bet set each month, it'd really just be the ideal day and time that we decide will work best for the majority of us.  And this doesn't have to be codified into law, although I do think that it should be required at least once a term (so the least being once every 2 months).  And if it's impossible to use IRC, then I can understand the issue, as I do know for some people it's impossible to get on it.  But if it's just a scheduling thing, we do have the entire month to figure it out before the next meeting would have to happen (or, if it's decided that once a term is enough, we could set it to the 2nd month and we'd have the first month to iron out a schedule).

In short, really, it's just an idea that I think we should try.  If it's decided that we shouldn't, then I'm okay with it.

-Well, I mean with an Open Legislature, you have to remember the thought process: If the UH is going to go dead because nobody is doing anything, what's to prevent an Open Legislature from doing the same?  Think of it like Werewolf....people didn't start wanting to be a part of it until they started feeling more involved with it.  We got some people that were interested in hosting when they got a feel for it after a bit, and it became more like a group process. The minute that process began to try to build and expand too quickly, it fizzled and became quiet (with the last game long since ended since 5-6 months ago).  The idea was admirable and ambitious because it was opening it to more of the general players and attempting to get them to take initiative...but it came too soon to a game that was taking baby steps to get people interested enough in to take the next step.

That's what it has to be before we can expand the UH to a full fledged Open Legislature: baby steps.  Those baby steps begin with getting the citizenry interested in the process.  That interest lies with us doing what we can to actually get them interested...which I feel lies with us becoming more involved and likewise letting them get more involved with us.  Whether this means becoming more active on the Platform, hosting Questioning sessions on the IRC (from one or more of us), or even having an ATUHA (Ask the Underhusen Anything) thread/discussion, we have to build their interest before we can build the numbers.

Another tidbit of discussion has been added to the OP.

On the first 3 points, we understand each other. On the last point, I should clarify.

As members of the UH, all the tools to get the citizenry involved are readily avaliable now. Im not sure adding more tools would do much. In your IRC proposal, you said that people who did get to the IRC during the proposed sessions could PM the speaker. They can do that now. But with a Citizens Corner almost bereft of life (take your initial requirement proposal, only me, a member of the UH, you, the guy who put it forward and Doc and Gerrick, who comented once, said anything) most people do not get involved.

Take when we tried for an OA. Almost no citizen said anything until the ratification. So Im skeptical that implementing easier access would do anything for citizen participation.

And as for makibg Colby and Lau Paragons, full steam ahead I say.

On the first 3 points, we understand each other. On the last point, I should clarify.

As members of the UH, all the tools to get the citizenry involved are readily avaliable now. Im not sure adding more tools would do much. In your IRC proposal, you said that people who did get to the IRC during the proposed sessions could PM the speaker. They can do that now. But with a Citizens Corner almost bereft of life (take your initial requirement proposal, only me, a member of the UH, you, the guy who put it forward and Doc and Gerrick, who comented once, said anything) most people do not get involved.

Take when we tried for an OA. Almost no citizen said anything until the ratification. So Im skeptical that implementing easier access would do anything for citizen participation.

I think I should clarify on that bit.

Yes, it's possible to PM the Speaker now with questions.  However, how many would without some kind of prompt?  For our meetings, it would be known to the citizens via topic and pings/messages beforehand that it was going to happen.  I'm not saying that it's going to be the ideal situation where everyone is going to be completely on board and in talks with each other...because it isn't.  This would just be another step.

As for the Platform...that's because nobody pays attention to it on its own.  None of the topics, even the important ones are linked on the RMB, or posted in the IRC when people are on, members that may be interested aren't pinged or messaged, and overall they get passed by.  This is especially true when it's multiple topics at once since members will only see the most recently created/replied to topic.  If more people were informed about the topics as opposed to it just being posted, then there'd be more input.

As for the OA, there was never going to be an ideal situation for that either.  You had people despising the idea of the UH at the time because of inactivity, so the idea of opening it up to potentially more inactivity wouldn't appeal to them.  Likewise, you had others like Chanku who were vehemently against the idea of changing anything.  Finally, you had people that didn't completely understand what was going on in the first place, and even explaining into oblivion until you were red in the face didn't help them completely comprehend the entire thing.

So really, it wasn't destined for good things, as much as some (especially the authors) were really hoping for.  Was the timing terrible?  Absolutely, but that's the quiet base for you.  Imagine what that'd be like in an OA, though...complete silence when it comes to a topic that you think is going well, and then out of nowhere overwhelming opposition when it's time to vote.

I generally like all these ideas, and I'd like to add fixing grammar mistakes in the laws to the end of the list.

I think North had some good points and there's not much left to discuss, but here's my feedback:

1. I believe members of the UH and OH should be required to explain their vote on a proposal unless it's an abstain, in which case it's only recommended.

2. I agree with North that extending the nomination period and voting period should be at the digression of the monarch, and that just needs to be put into law.

3. I like the idea of IRC meetings, even if not all of the UH members can attend. It would also help make the IRC less dead.

4. Baby steps seems like the best way to go and an ask the UH anything thread would be a great first step

5. I'll admit I didn't know Colby and Lau well (probably because I haven't been a big RPer here), but if others think they deserve paragon status, I'm all for it.

I generally like all these ideas, and I'd like to add fixing grammar mistakes in the laws to the end of the list.

I think North had some good points and there's not much left to discuss, but here's my feedback:

1. I believe members of the UH and OH should be required to explain their vote on a proposal unless it's an abstain, in which case it's only recommended.

2. I agree with North that extending the nomination period and voting period should be at the digression of the monarch, and that just needs to be put into law.

3. I like the idea of IRC meetings, even if not all of the UH members can attend. It would also help make the IRC less dead.

4. Baby steps seems like the best way to go and an ask the UH anything thread would be a great first step

5. I'll admit I didn't know Colby and Lau well (probably because I haven't been a big RPer here), but if others think they deserve paragon status, I'm all for it.

That's another thing we can talk about, because there's always going to be grammar mistakes and open-ended lines that could be closed a bit to make them less ambiguous/vague.

We've done our share of grammatical fixes in the past...but there's been countless new laws and I'm sure errors that we've missed.

Going back though, I think if we required it for Aye/Nay votes, then it should be applied to vocally abstaining as well.  As much as it's usually because there's a personal stake in it, sometimes it's not always clear as to what that stake is.  Likewise, that's not always the reason, so it's nice to know why they're just opting out.  Naturally, though, absences are a different story since those can't always be controlled, let alone explained.

But what happens if I do not post a reason to my vote? Serious question, things like this we must consider.

But what happens if I do not post a reason to my vote? Serious question, things like this we must consider.

That's a valid question, since there's really no punishment procedure for Skrifa...otherwise the previous UH who didn't follow other laws would have turned out differently.   

But that's part of my problem: it shouldn't even have to be considered into a law in the first place.

And this thread is what I'm getting at.  Look how much discussion has already been happening, and the thread hasn't even been up a full day.  And I'm sure the other members will get involved too, which is what people should be seeing: full UH involvement in our own discussions.

If discussion topics can generate discussion like this, then simple votes aren't an issue.

If you're getting a point across in the discussion and people see where you're coming from, that's really all that matters.

It's just when that's not happening, and you (not you specifically) appear out of thin air with just an "aye/nay/abstain." that it becomes an issue.

And as mentioned before...when it comes to simple matters (IE grammatical fixes/UH seats), then again it's not an issue.  But when it's the more vital laws that have an affect on the region/people/roles that it becomes one.

So even if we don't actually make it a requirement, again, something's gotta change.

And we should discuss a UH procedural amendment.

Like I said, I'm down for that.  Anything we can do to improve our current procedures, I'm down to discuss.  What did you have in mind?

I honestly do not have much of an opinion one way or another. I feel fine with the UH being as it is, a reactive force to problems that arise and a way for people to have a voice in government. What changes, other than your requirement idea, would you suggest?