[Awaiting Approval] Controlling Conservatorships

[Polemar]

Controlling Conservatorships

I put forward this proposal in the hopes of promoting civil rights of those under the care of a conservatorship. No matter their age or health, they should be afforded the right to redress grievances through the judiciary.

In short, this resolution:

Defines all the relevant terms for conservatorships.
Empowers conservatees to hold a court hearing in order to address their grievances.
Empowers judges to dissolve or modify conservatorships, with the input of the conservatee.
Will prevent abuse of people under conservatorships.

I hope I can rely on your approval.

[Tinhampton]

The fact that you submitted this without drafting does not help your case for this being anything other than jumping on the #FreeBritney bandwagon. I will support this at vote nonetheless.

[In Insulam Autem Sanguis Et Magia]

The fact that you submitted this without drafting does not help your case for this being anything other than jumping on the #FreeBritney bandwagon. I will support this at vote nonetheless.

Can you explain this for folks new to WA writing? The rules of proposals do not say that posting here is a requirement, so I feel that folks may not be aware that their legislation will be impacted negatively. I understand the value that drafting here first has and agree that it should be encouraged. Nevertheless, if it is a de facto requirement, it should be made more explicitly.

[Jedinsto]

It is not a requirement. However, I can not remember any resolution passed in my time that was not drafted on this forum.

[Bears Armed]

The fact that you submitted this without drafting does not help your case for this being anything other than jumping on the #FreeBritney bandwagon. I will support this at vote nonetheless.

Can you explain this for folks new to WA writing? The rules of proposals do not say that posting here is a requirement, so I feel that folks may not be aware that their legislation will be impacted negatively. I understand the value that drafting here first has and agree that it should be encouraged. Nevertheless, if it is a de facto requirement, it should be made more explicitly.

OOC: It isn't a "requirement" as such, this is just a point that might prejudice some voters -- because they might feel that you have deliberately been "shunning" them -- against you & your proposal. It is generally advisable for "quality control" purposes, too, unless you have done your drafting in one of the offsite forums where experienced players provide help... but you have produced a well-enough-written proposal anyway: Congratulations!

However, I can not remember any resolution passed in my time that was not drafted on this forum.

I can remember several, although admittedly those tended to be written by already-established authors.

[Outer Sparta]

Your submission isn't even posted here.

[In Insulam Autem Sanguis Et Magia]

OOC: It isn't a "requirement" as such, this is just a point that might prejudice some voters -- because they might feel that you have deliberately been "shunning" them -- against you & your proposal. It is generally advisable for "quality control" purposes, too, unless you have done your drafting in one of the offsite forums where experienced players provide help... but you have produced a well-enough-written proposal anyway: Congratulations!

However, I can not remember any resolution passed in my time that was not drafted on this forum.

I can remember several, although admittedly those tended to be written by already-established authors.

Thank you both for your replies. I was genuinely asking because I've seen it said a few times in the forum. I appreciate your insight and feedback <3

[Araraukar]

OOC: What was it submitted as? It's not in the submissions list.

And what are conservatorships?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: What was it submitted as? It's not in the submissions list.

Where did it go? I thought that it had reached quorum.
IIRC, 'Civil Rights - Mild'.

And what are conservatorships?

From the context, apparently court-appointed legal 'guardians' for people who otherwise would have been regarded as legally competent to manage their own affairs.

[Araraukar]

OOC: What was it submitted as? It's not in the submissions list.

Where did it go? I thought that it had reached quorum.
IIRC, 'Civil Rights - Mild'.

And what are conservatorships?

From the context, apparently court-appointed legal 'guardians' for people who otherwise would have been regarded as legally competent to manage their own affairs.

OOC: Did the proposal actually have all the stuff the blurb says it had or was the blurb the proposal in its entirety?

[Bears Armed]

Where did it go? I thought that it had reached quorum.
IIRC, 'Civil Rights - Mild'.


From the context, apparently court-appointed legal 'guardians' for people who otherwise would have been regarded as legally competent to manage their own affairs.

OOC: Did the proposal actually have all the stuff the blurb says it had or was the blurb the proposal in its entirety?

The proposal was maybe 3 or 4 times as long as that blurb, and did seem to cover the matter well enough. I would have voted 'for'.

[Jedinsto]

There is a link at the top of OP that now links to a non-existent proposal as this has failed to reach quorum.

[TESDAI]

Controlling Conservatorships

I put forward this proposal in the hopes of promoting civil rights of those under the care of a conservatorship. No matter their age or health, they should be afforded the right to redress grievances through the judiciary.

In short, this resolution:

Defines all the relevant terms for conservatorships.
Empowers conservatees to hold a court hearing in order to address their grievances.
Empowers judges to dissolve or modify conservatorships, with the input of the conservatee.
Will prevent abuse of people under conservatorships.

I hope I can rely on your approval.

You may want to repost the entire proposal and draft it here on the forums. While not recquired, it is highly encouraged to draft and would likely help it reach quorom next time. The link at the top of your post is also now broken due to the fact that the proposal no longer exists.