|
|
|
The East Pacific brought to you by, | |||||||||||||
|
Social
Roleplay
|
|
| Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here! I'm registered. Where do I start? When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Citizen Hotline | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 17 2010, 09:54:36 PM (2,927 Views) | |
| Free Pacific States | Aug 17 2010, 09:54:36 PM Post #1 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Citizens of the East Pacific are not prohibited from participating in regular debate in the Magisterium. But if you've any general thoughts, not relating to a matter under discussion, please feel free to post them here. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Aug 21 2010, 04:33:06 PM Post #2 |
|
Planet Telox
|
I'd like to comment on the World Assembly Representation Act that's currently being discussed by the Magisters here, if that's okay. I think it'd be a bad idea to regulate delegate votes beyond just having them vote by how the people tell him or her to vote. Part of what makes TEP interesting is its ability to have 'personal touches' in certain areas. One area we've had this in is WA voting, or rather, when the delegate casts the vote. We've had a delegate who voted early on for some resolutions, and one that voted later towards the voting end. Both had their respective reasons for it. That's the beauty of opinion and being free to make those choices without harming the integrity of the region or the people inside it. But to force a delegate to vote within a certain framework could lead to a lot of problems. Like, if the delegate does not do this, what do we do about it? How would this be enforced? As long as the final vote that is cast reflects the voice of the people, I don't really see a problem. If we try to relegate that further, I think it we're only setting up for disappointment. I encourage the Magisterium to consider this. I know some have invested a lot of time into this, and I understand the reasoning and that makes sense, but to force this upon a delegate isn't something I think should be done. That's just me though - you Magisters will have to decide where you stand. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Aug 21 2010, 06:34:49 PM Post #3 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
Where is it written that comment by non-Magisters is prohibited during the regular operation of the Magisterium? Concordat states, "Each nation shall have the right to free speech and the government shall take no action to limit this except when a nation is determined to be acting deliberately to cause a public nuisance by the Conclave." I can recall no determination by Conclave that a citizen posting in Magisterium regarding proposed legislation is public nuisance. Citizens may post in Conclave or Executive unless they are being nuisance - like interrupting a trial. |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Aug 21 2010, 10:10:25 PM Post #4 |
|
Number One Drone
|
That does indeed appear to be correct. The Rules of the Magisterium do not, in fact, prohibit debate by non-Magisters. I can see no reason, as such, to continue the previous policy of preventing such. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Kandarin | Aug 21 2010, 11:30:22 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Ferret princess
|
Hasn't there already been a vote going on for some time? |
"Torpored Caitiff Antediluvian"
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Aug 22 2010, 08:45:44 AM Post #6 |
|
Number One Drone
|
There hadn't prior to that post; I started it after that motion. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Nalt | Aug 22 2010, 04:50:36 PM Post #7 |
|
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
|
Yes, we were all just discussing how we were going to vote for him. :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Aug 25 2010, 03:46:59 PM Post #8 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
OMD wrote:
OMD is correct. There is a real risk of too few active Magisters, which is why the commitment to being a Magister is important. Magisters and Arbiters may only be removed by the Magisterium for absence or a high crime. Just speaking as citizen Barb, being a lump on a log who chooses to do nothing is disappointing but unlikely to be deemed a high crime. As a matter of legal precedent, both Magisterium and Conclave "keep their own house" with regard to their own definition of absence. It's a matter of internal discipline for Provost and Viceroy. If Magisters are all absent and government has ground to a halt then Viceroy may simply hold new Magisterium elections. Concordat doesn't say Viceroy MUST wait three months to hold a new election, it just says your term as Magister is three months. If you cease to be a Magister in one month for any reason like resignation, your term of service was a month. If Magisterium shrinks towards zero and the last one or two Magisters left with a pulse during your three month term agree that they are no longer part of a functioning body of government, they may choose to come to Viceroy and resign, which would trigger a new election. I would never ask Magisterium for such a thing, but if you thought it was in the best interest of the region, Viceroy certainly would honor that. No modification to existing law or Concordat is required for Viceroy to hold an election under these circumstances. |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| Chancellor Shaw | Aug 26 2010, 01:09:54 AM Post #9 |
|
Bill Stickers is Innocent
|
I would like to extend my most sincere thanks to the Magisterium as a whole for the support they have shown me. Thank you for trusting that I will sufficiently fill the roll of Arbiter, I am thrilled to see that no Magisters voted against my nomination. I shall strive to fulfil and surpass the expectations that have been placed upon me, and I expect to be held to my word. Once again, thank you for your trust, it is not misplaced. |
|
Thank you for your time Chancellor Shaw, of the Free Land of Moafin Moafin Wiki: under construction Moafin Q&A
| |
![]() |
|
| Warr | Aug 26 2010, 08:32:43 PM Post #10 |
|
Warr
|
Resigning. Don't count me towards any votes or needed input. Have a nice time, guys. Hope you have a productive term. |
"Last Arrow in Necessities Quiver."![]() Survival is victory; because the last one standing is the one who tells the tale. The High Kingdom of Warre on NSWiki | |
![]() |
|
| Oh My Days | Aug 27 2010, 05:37:44 PM Post #11 |
![]()
You got blood on my Suit.
|
It's sad to see you go, I'm sure you would have been great for the Magisterium. May I ask why?
So, essentially, the Magisterium can force a snap election by resigning en-masse (although, it would require everyone's agreement), or the Viceroy could force a snap election. However, I see a few problems with this. The Viceroy may not want to do so, as s/he might deem it unfair. The fact that s/he has the constitutional authority to do so does not necessarily mean that s/he would have the conviction to do so, or would want to get involved with something potentially controversial. With the Magisterium route, one hostile Magister could hold up the whole process. In short, the ideal situation would enable the Magisterium to remain seated, but add to their numbers, when Magisters fall inactive. This would also be more likely to win the Magisterium's support, as Magisters wouldn't have to run for re-election. |
|
Skype name: ohmydays4 MSN/email: nsomd1@hotmail.co.uk | |
![]() |
|
| Nalt | Aug 27 2010, 06:01:34 PM Post #12 |
|
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
|
He wrote why in the thread in the Administration Announcements and I guess didn't want to waste time re-writing the whole reason. As for all the radical election changes, I like that we have to be re-elected. And while I would like to see inactive magisters replaced I don't see why we should replace magisters that were removed for inactivity and not those that just resign (like Warr). If we do amend the concordat on this issue, I think we should simply make it so that if 7 people are elected this magisterial term, then the magisterium has 7 seats, and they should be filled for the rest of the term by special elections if they become empty for whatever reason. But even that has me worried that special elections would have difficulty getting candidates. I mean if a regular election has 8 candidates and 7 are elected, and then there is a resignation we already know the one that didn't get elected will likely run and get a seat unless there is someone new (who wasn't around at the regular election) to run against said person. Which would just be a way for people who didn't win the big election to get a seat anyway. I don't know, it's a difficult issue with a body that has no set number of seats.
|
![]() |
|
| Oh My Days | Aug 27 2010, 06:12:50 PM Post #13 |
![]()
You got blood on my Suit.
|
We could have a minimum number of Magisters (I'd say 5), so that it can shrink a little if there aren't enough candidates. Generally, though, I don't think people miss out on election. |
|
Skype name: ohmydays4 MSN/email: nsomd1@hotmail.co.uk | |
![]() |
|
| North Harmoneia | Aug 28 2010, 10:01:31 AM Post #14 |
|
Kilroy was here
|
Although having a minimum could also pose problems that may still, also cause inactivity. I have experienced this in a few other regions when people run just to fill in the seats and then they become inactive because of the lack of passion, and it becomes difficult to achieve majority. hmm. But then again. This a difficult situation that imposing a minimum might be the most reasonable resolution. I honestly can't think of anything better without twisting the Magisterial system. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Aug 28 2010, 04:02:01 PM Post #15 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
It is true that if there were no Magisters left, it would be the responsibility of Viceroy to hold an election, but there is no SNAP election. Nothing that big happens in a snap. Kandarin and Todd and I worked many hours on the last election.
Me too - mostly because I never said Viceroy could force anything. In fact, I said the opposite. I would honor what a dwindling number of Magisters wanted to do - remain in office or to resign. I said that IF they resigned, it would trigger an election.
If there is NO ONE in Magisterium, Concordat calls for an election. The NO ONE scenario isn't unique, it happens every 3 months. There is nothing controversial or unfair about that. There were no Magisters when the Concordat was initially adopted - so Viceroy then held an election per Concordat. Anyone with the authority of Concordat to fulfill a duty who shirks that duty may be removed from office per Concordat. Because Magisters are elected officials and expected to be more worried about the best interests of the region than themselves, I suggested resignation would be one graceful way of reinvigorating a Magisterium with one or two Magisters left. I didn't recommend it. I specifically stated I would NEVER ask for it. All I said was that Magisters had that power. No laws have to be written for that to happen. This "what if there are not enough Magisters" discussion is not contemplated by Concordat - which states there may be as many or as few elected Magisters as the voters deem acceptable. Topid is absolutely correct: there is no set number of seats in Magisterium. There may be 3, 30, or 300. 300 isn't a good number and 3 isn't a bad number. There are no bad numbers. That's not an oversight: that was the intent. As Concordat is written, there are already 6 statutory elections a year. I question the advisability and practicality of adding more. |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| Oh My Days | Aug 28 2010, 06:03:19 PM Post #16 |
![]()
You got blood on my Suit.
|
My apologies, I meant an election outside of the normal schedule.
You've said that you wouldn't, but the Viceroy does have the power to call for an election at any time, even if some Magisters remain, so a future Viceroy might. Please tell me if I've misinterpreted this.
I was referring to the potential controversy of a Viceroy deciding to call an election before 3 months is up, without the remaining Magisters agreeing. As I understand it, a Viceroy could do this. As I said before, if I am wrong, please correct me. |
|
Skype name: ohmydays4 MSN/email: nsomd1@hotmail.co.uk | |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Aug 28 2010, 06:49:04 PM Post #17 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
You're a Magister - an elected official - and Conclave can't interfere in any way with your legislative body except as prescribed (and limited) by Concordat. It has always been the legal precedent of each body to determine the definition of absence. As for high crime, that is reserved for Conclave. AFAIK, there has never been such a trial. Viceroy runs the elections: every 3 months for Magister, every 6 months for Delegate. There is no interim election, so special election, no snap election. If there is a manifest vacancy in a elected government office, Concordat states Viceroy is responsible hold an election to fill a vacant office. If DFD quit tonight (she better not or I'll hound her to the end of days), I would start preparing for an immediate election to replace Delegate. Magisterium is elected en masse (as a group or team) for three months. Concordat would only allow a Magister election prior to three months if there were no Magisters left. Viceroy cannot call an election prior to three months as long as one elected Magister is in place. That would be a violation of our separation of powers. So your answers are no and no. Viceroy does not have that power. As current Viceroy, I do not want that power. |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Sep 2 2010, 08:55:53 PM Post #18 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
I'm confused. Provost posted:
but SIX of the eight Magisters didn't vote for that. They voted for this version:
Which version of standing orders did Magisterium enact - what was published in Magisterium by Provost August 31st or what was published by Provost and approved by Magisterium in the voting thread? |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Sep 2 2010, 09:05:35 PM Post #19 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Post #1 of the "Magisterial Rules" thread contains the updated rules (which were recently voted to be adopted). All following posts are archival records. The rules you first quoted, if you'll look, are notated as "version to August 31, 2010," signifying that they were the rules until August 31, 2010, and are not included in the first post of the thread. The second rules you quoted, if you'll look, are noted solely as the Standing Rules, indicating their current enforcement, and are in the first post of the thread. The second quoted rules, as indicated in post #1 of the standing orders thread, are the current rules. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Der Fuhrer Dyszel | Sep 2 2010, 10:00:55 PM Post #20 |
|
Cool like Snakes
|
Yet I was not given an opportunity to refrute this....hmm... |
|
Official Approval by Terasu MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY You can't ignore my girth. Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe" :lol: ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Sep 3 2010, 11:29:32 AM Post #21 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
I didn't see the new standing orders yesterday, just the old ones. Now I see both. Thanks. No longer confused. As for the amendment to Concordat distinction in the new standing orders, I am once again confused. If a proposed amendment to Concordat is not considered a law subject to Concordat Article B, Section 7, I dunno what you'd call it. Does it have to be enacted by an citizen election held by Conclave? Yep. But I'd call it a law passed by Magisterium yet to be enacted (or rejected) by the citizens. If you want to call a Concordat amendment a "proposal" rather than a law then all legislation passed by the Magisterium is a proposal for the first 10 days because, "If the Delegate does not veto a law passed by the Magisterium within ten days, it shall be enacted." An amendment to Concordat has one path to being approved and a law has another path, but both then become law unless rejected. I don't see a distinction that would disallow a delegate to veto a proposed amendment to Concordat. |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| Der Fuhrer Dyszel | Sep 6 2010, 05:55:30 PM Post #22 |
|
Cool like Snakes
|
For what it counts for I do not support the standing orders. :lol: |
|
Official Approval by Terasu MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY You can't ignore my girth. Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe" :lol: ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Kandarin | Sep 6 2010, 10:53:54 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Ferret princess
|
I feel that it's worth observing that the Magisters currently most interested in using the Magisterium to increase the overall level of regulation in TEP are the same players whose greatest concern only a few months ago was a perceived unnecessarily high level of regulation in the World Assembly. I realize that you have by and large reconciled that earlier example...but you may not wish to repeat it. |
"Torpored Caitiff Antediluvian"
| |
![]() |
|
| Nalt | Sep 6 2010, 11:46:42 PM Post #24 |
|
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
|
First off, the two things are completely unrelated. Secondly, I also oppose strict regulations on drugs... But I hardly think that should mean I can't argue for regulations on anything. And third, I wasn't concerned with the level of regulations in the WA, I was concerned that one existing regulation was shitty. A rule in the World Assembly was established that would have made me role-play if I wanted to use the SC. I will never role-play. That was a shitty rule. I couldn't use the SC (the thing I loved the most) anymore. Luckily, I and others worked with the mods to change the way the rule was written to be more workable, and then I was satisfied. I was satisfied even though the 'level of regulation' wasn't reduced because that was never what I took issue with. I'm not sure how closely you follow the NS Forums but I also requested a rule based on ideology, and I am the one who asked for the tit-for-tat rule in the first place. So I wouldn't say that I've ever had any issue with level of regulation.Now, it would be hypocritical for me to back a law that requires all members of this board to be active in the role-play forums here... But that is about the only way that situation would ever be applicable to here. Our delegate is going to be pressured from time to time not to vote the way the region wants him/her to until the end of voting. That's just how WA Authors are. "Hey, I know your region-mates want you to vote against my resolution, but just wait a day or two before you vote please! It'd be a big help, and we've always been close friends!!" As of right now, it is totally legal for the delegate to accept that request. For whatever reason, be it because the delegate personally disagrees with what the region thinks or because he/she is being pressured by someone to do it, the delegate shouldn't be allowed to delay voicing the opinion of the region until long after the fate of the resolution is decided. All that being said, I'm starting to realize now that the interest level in the WA is much lower than I ever would have dreamed. Which makes this rule almost useless seeing as it is based on the same level of interest in my other regions. (There will never be large majorities when only 3 people usually vote. The delegate will never be failing to vote when there is a large majority for one side since the largest majority I can see being possible is two or three. :lol:) The low interest in the WA is a shame, since that is usually at least two debates per week (four if the GA and SC both are acting at max) which is a lot of lost activity that I wish we took advantage of. But, that's just something for other people to think about since personal interest is as it is (and admittedly, the same could be said for all my other regions which miss out on RP activity because role playing isn't part of our personal interests). EDITed out a few sentences regarding my past as WA Author. Basically I was explaining why WA authors would want to make requests like the one I made up in quotes above, and that even though I've asked delegates to do the same, I was acting in the role of WA Author then where as now I'm acting in the role of TEP Citizen and WA Member. |
![]() |
|
| Allegheny | Sep 6 2010, 11:59:05 PM Post #25 |
|
Partly Cloudy
|
Implying our delegate would actually do that and not be the proper rep he/she is supposed to be. have a little faith. |
![]() There was a hole here. It's gone now. | |
![]() |
|
| Der Fuhrer Dyszel | Sep 7 2010, 12:02:08 AM Post #26 |
|
Cool like Snakes
|
First, I have taken the liberty to add a musical component to enhance the quality of this post. In fact, I think I might just leave it as my response. Please Listen to Me! :lol: |
|
Official Approval by Terasu MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY You can't ignore my girth. Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe" :lol: ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Der Fuhrer Dyszel | Sep 7 2010, 12:20:10 AM Post #27 |
|
Cool like Snakes
|
As for a serious response, I think it is rather pretentious to insinuate that our delegates have another agenda in this game. Topid, and before you respond about how amazing the idea is OMD's, I think you both need to learn what a delegate does in a feeder region before you continue to make these ludicrious suggestions, propositions, and continue to speak your misguided and terribly informed ideas. Feeders are not UCR's....there is an entirely different approach to handling these affairs. The delegate HAS to represent TEP in this region as established in the Concordat and they have always voted on what the region's majority vote had been. The difference has always been a matter of WHEN they voted, not how they voted. People who are spineless weaklings do not take delegacy. It is hysterical that you would think someone who can be so easily influenced by the opinions of others can become delegate in the first place. Either you are foolish enough yourself to believe this or you have absolutely no faith in our delegates or even any faith in ANYONE in our region. Do you really believe that our region would allow a total pushover to take delegacy? After all, we VOTE our delegates into position. The people who take delegacy in any feeder are the type of people who hold their ground and EARNED their position. So again, I am just going to cut to the chase and quit playing the role of the nice guy. I suggest you guys shut up and learn what the job entails before you keep running your mouths about what the delegate should do. I encouraged you to run, you did not step up to the plate, now stand down and shut up before you really piss the wrong people off. |
|
Official Approval by Terasu MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY You can't ignore my girth. Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe" :lol: ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| East Malaysia | Sep 7 2010, 12:25:36 AM Post #28 |
|
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
|
A delegate is a leader of the region and from time to time will be pressured but must take the authority of the situation. I don't exactly see what your point is implying. Regulation where no regulation is required. In my eyes even if it were to happen, it really would not matter. You vote at the start, middle, or end the results would still be more than likely the same. If a delegate does get out of line I am sure the whip would be cracked out and they would be put in their place. My on the matter.
|
|
Question with Boldness >Sovereign Empire of East Malaysia [url]East Malaysia @ NSWiki[/url] - WIP The Eastrovia Times wwt.et.em Embassy - Coming Soon Character List - Updating Soon >Forum Support ![]() >>>Forum Descriptions Rework<<< >>>Tapatalk Migration Information<<< #forum-help-center \ Mod/admin requests \ Board Rules \ Internet Safety & You \ ZB TOS & TOU Emergency Contact: east.malaysia@mail.theeastpacific.com (forwards directly to my personal email)
| |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Sep 7 2010, 12:33:44 AM Post #29 |
|
Planet Telox
|
A law such as the WA voting one you proposed may have worked in a userite region where there's a few people who work together to basically form the government, but I don't think it would have worked here. The delegate in a feeder region must vote how the region votes - putting any stipulations on time frames would be unreasonable to delegates. You say that TEP doesn't have too much interest in WA affairs here. Trust me, dfd and I can attest that in the many telegrams and countless people asking 'why did you vote on ___' or 'why haven't you voted on ____ yet??' points that many people in this region do in fact care about the WA vote (maybe not enough to post on these forums regularly, but regardless). The delegate does not need to be regulated in this department. In a small region, alright, I can see it working, but in a large region, placing restrictions or time frames on voting does not really solve problems. It opens up disappointment. What if a delegate chooses to totally disregard the time frame? Do you move to impeach him or her? Is it really on that level to impeach a delegate for? I'm not trying to say anything you propose will be mashed to the ground, but I feel that if you spent time trying to get to know the region, ask questions, gather opinions, etc, you might have a better idea of what you're working against. I feel that if you would've asked the citizens of this region what they'd think of it, many would probably have said no. Kind of like what happened in the proposal thread. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Nalt | Sep 7 2010, 12:50:19 AM Post #30 |
|
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
|
There have only been two delegates of TEP in my time in NS (well there was another for about a week because I came around right before Todd became delegate but I don't remember his/her name and never talked to them. Both of those delegates did their jobs as they should. However you are flat out wrong DFD, I've heard Unibot getting feeder delegates to delay voting before... It would be foolish to think we won't eventually get a delegate who will give in to others wishes. And as I said, even if they aren't giving in to others wishes there are numerous other situations that present themselves, a condemnation of a delegates long-term close friend in NS. I can see that being something a delegate might hesitate to vote for in a timely manor even if the decision to vote for it was unanimous by everyone but him. Or a commendation of a long term enemy/rival. A repeal of a resolution our delegate wrote or co-authored campaigned for or even just strongly supported. There are many reasons a delegate might want to withhold the regions vote even if there is a clear majority and I have yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn't require a delegate to vote as soon as there is a clear majority as long as he/she is online. That's what we do now, that's what you are saying every single delegate would do anyway, so what is wrong with requiring it? Is a rule that we will apparently never break really such a harmful rule? If you are right, and TEP never gets a delegate that intentionally delays a vote, GREAT! But that doesn't mean this rule would be a problem, it just wouldn't be used. But if we did get a delegate in office that bends rules and does things to advance himself then we should have rules in place to prevent him from doing so. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2

















on the matter.


7:42 PM Jul 10