Advertisement
by Bananaistan » Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:05 am
by Tzorsland » Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:14 am
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Why 4-2 to remove and not 4-2 to keep? Why not an odd number and a simple majority required either way?
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:18 am
Tzorsland wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote:Why 4-2 to remove and not 4-2 to keep? Why not an odd number and a simple majority required either way?
If a proposal has been submitted to the council, it will still require a mod operation to remove. Thus the positive action would be for the council to suggest that it be removed. The default action would be to let it continue to vote. Therefore the majority vote would be required to remove, not to keep.
This is a trial period. I'm not really worried about a 3-3 split. Like the Supreme Court, this would then, in theory hand the decision to the mods with the understanding that this is a complex issue in the first place. Ideally, this should be allowed to continue to a vote and let the member nations decide it. In the past resolutions have gone to the floor and people were able to convince the majority not to pass them.
Let us first of all recall, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." We don't want a "perfect" system ... this is the trial period. We just want a good one. I'm hoping that we can get a lot of 5-1 decisions and the occasional 4-2. If we start getting a lot of 3-3 decisions, there are a lot more things to think about the council than just adding one more member.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:03 pm
by Wallenburg » Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:37 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yes. 6 members seems like a bad idea in the case of a tie.
by Tinhampton » Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:01 pm
by Wallenburg » Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:09 pm
Tinhampton wrote:For telegrams, there are already tags where telegrams, campaign or otherwise, can be sent to all WA members (tag:WA) or just the delegates (tag:Delegates). Are there any plans for a similar tag for Secretariat members (perhaps tag:Secretariat or tag:Council)? Justify your decision if possible.
by Talkistan » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:22 pm
Tinhampton wrote:For telegrams, there are already tags where telegrams, campaign or otherwise, can be sent to all WA members (tag:WA) or just the delegates (tag:Delegates). Are there any plans for a similar tag for Secretariat members (perhaps tag:Secretariat or tag:Council)? Justify your decision if possible.
by Mousebumples » Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:37 pm
Talkistan wrote:Tinhampton wrote:For telegrams, there are already tags where telegrams, campaign or otherwise, can be sent to all WA members (tag:WA) or just the delegates (tag:Delegates). Are there any plans for a similar tag for Secretariat members (perhaps tag:Secretariat or tag:Council)? Justify your decision if possible.
Interesting, because the sending of TGs to Councilors for discussion purposes should probably not be encouraged. We really don't want people thinking that it might be more effective to telegram the Councilors than conduct a tag:Delegates or tag:WA campaign against a proposal.
by Araraukar » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:05 am
Mousebumples wrote:Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Bears Armed » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:24 am
Araraukar wrote:Mousebumples wrote:Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.
Maybe setting it as a rule that the Council members can't be bugged about Council stuff via TGs, just like the mods can't be bugged about mod stuff?
by Kryozerkia » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:00 pm
Araraukar wrote:Mousebumples wrote:Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.
Maybe setting it as a rule that the Council members can't be bugged about Council stuff via TGs, just like the mods can't be bugged about mod stuff?
by The Blaatschapen » Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:27 am
Mousebumples wrote:Talkistan wrote:Interesting, because the sending of TGs to Councilors for discussion purposes should probably not be encouraged. We really don't want people thinking that it might be more effective to telegram the Councilors than conduct a tag:Delegates or tag:WA campaign against a proposal.
Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.
Araraukar wrote:Mousebumples wrote:Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.
Maybe setting it as a rule that the Council members can't be bugged about Council stuff via TGs, just like the mods can't be bugged about mod stuff?
by Araraukar » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:36 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:Mentors and Mods get Postmaster-General accounts. We have to talk to the boss, but giving them to Councillors (do Editors have them? I dunno) is perhaps not out of the quesiton.
For we simply do not moderate per TG.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Excidium Planetis » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:04 pm
The Blaatschapen wrote:Mousebumples wrote:Also it could possibly lead to Councillors having other TGs being forced out of their inboxes that they wanted to keep if many people try to use their TG boxes for this purpose.
Mentors and Mods get Postmaster-General accounts. We have to talk to the boss, but giving them to Councillors (do Editors have them? I dunno) is perhaps not out of the quesiton.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Mousebumples » Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:11 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:
Mentors and Mods get Postmaster-General accounts. We have to talk to the boss, but giving them to Councillors (do Editors have them? I dunno) is perhaps not out of the quesiton.
You mean I could have saved $10 if I just worked towards becoming a Mentor? I feel cheated.
by Maljaratas » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:48 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:Mentors and Mods get Postmaster-General accounts. We have to talk to the boss, but giving them to Councillors (do Editors have them? I dunno) is perhaps not out of the quesiton.
Mousebumples wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:You mean I could have saved $10 if I just worked towards becoming a Mentor? I feel cheated.
Welcome to the club. I noted after being modded that my "site supporter" badge disappeared ... but that's because the Moderator badge overrides it. Not sure if the same happens for other groups, provided larger mailboxes are given out to them too ...
... But we're getting off-topic.
by States of Glory WA Office » Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:09 pm
Sedgistan wrote:IEs have Postmaster status. There's no reason that Secretariat members wouldn't also.
by Araraukar » Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:25 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:28 am
Araraukar wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote:Now I'm going to be confused whenever someone says that the Secretariat has ruled their proposal to be (il)legal.
I'm still hoping it'll be named as something that does not shorten to SC. I think that's why most of us are talking about Council and councilors.
by Araraukar » Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:29 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:29 am
by Araraukar » Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:34 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Nope. The term Appellate should be in there. It sounds neat.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:42 am
Araraukar wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Nope. The term Appellate should be in there. It sounds neat.
It sounds alien. "Appeal" would be better; yes, it means the same thing, but "appeal" is normal English.
Altough the way the council would work, it wouldn't be handling appeals, but rather legality requests/concerns/submissions, and presumably their decisions might be appealable (I say might, because I don't know how the mod team hopes to deal with it on their end).
EDIT: An appellate court rules on decisions made by other courts. The council would be the first court to make the decision, not the second.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Marcmen
Advertisement