Please correct me if the tag is incorrect.
I feel that 7 days waiting time for a vote to pass is too long and a shorter period of 3 or 4 days would be better and allow the Magisterium to accomplish more things quickly.
Does anyone disagree or have any other thoughts on the matter?
Can see the benefits and withdrawals from this proposal. Solid “maybe”
I don’t think most legislation is particularly urgent or fast, but I would not be opposed to shortening the voting period.
The current 7 days seems to be fine.
To me, it looks long. I don’t see why it couldn’t be shorter so we can enact legislation quicker. I want to see things move at a quicker pace around here.
The only problem I see with shortening the period is that people only available to vote on the weekends could miss out on votes that took place from Monday or Tuesday to Thursday.
Agreed with GE. Having a week long vote ensures that every Magister will theoretically have at least one chance to vote (if they don’t have a chance all week, chances are they shouldn’t be a Magister and will get suspended soon) - it keeps voting accessible while not taking up too much time IMO.
Not to mention that a week is often not enough for most Magisters to vote anyways. Hell, without pings I’d bet most of our legislation would fail at qurorum. A week is a good balance between ensuring people get time to vote and ensuring we aren’t spending ages just voting on something.
I disagree. Seven days is a sluggish pace.
Voting takes a minute at most since they will have likely had time to read the proposal before it hits voting. If they haven’t had the time to read the proposal, it was either too minor to need much deliberation and can be read in likely no more than ten minutes, or they are too inactive to be a Magister.
Quorum is something related that I’ll take the chance to bring up. What does it try to do? Is it necessary or useful? Can we do without it?
7 days is a sluggish pace to you. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that.
As for qurorum, the purpose is to ensure a minority of Magisters aren’t making a decision without the majority of the body being at least present during a vote.
Is this needed? Is this a good and useful thing for the Magisterium? It seems unreasonable to me that the Magisterium can be deadlocked if a percentage of Magisters have abandoned their duties. The legislative should continue to function with whatever active Magisters remain.
IMO, yes. Otherwise we get a possibility wherein 5 Magisters can make decisions for a Magisterium of 20, or etc. If there’s concerns of inactive Magisters then we have removal proceedures available to “weed” them out.
yeah this was proposed a few months ago and indeed i agree with the fundamental need for speed and the cited examples of TSP’s legislature, but we have seven days so that (a) it always includes weekends for students/workers who are busy on Mon-Fri and (b) it gives time to remind people who weren’t immediately able to vote and might’ve forgotten. yes its slow. yes its slower than most other regions. but with the amount of magisters we have, the amount of activity we have from each, and simple acknowledgement of IRL factors, i think seven days remains a strong choice.
Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.
I don’t see this as a problem. If 5 can decide because 15 are inactive, then why would that be an issue? They are inactive, their inactivity shouldn’t ground the Magisterium to a halt. Until they are suspended, the Magisterium is stuck.
As I said before, voting takes a minute at most. If the matter was moved to vote quickly and they didn’t have time to read the topic, then it was probably so minor that reading will take only ten minutes. If the matter is more important and they didn’t have time to read, they are too inactive to be Magisters. Either case, a shorter voting period works out.
I don’t understand what this means.
Or you can just suspend them if they really are that inactive, then repropose the legislation in question. Aka, dont assume Magisters are inactive until you can actually suspend them via the SOM - and thereby don’t let a minoroty of the body make a decision for the majority when the Magisters you presume are inactive are not yet suspended and thusly considered active until they meet suspension requirements.
But I feel like that the overall issue is that you seem to want a Magisterium thats passing legislation as fast as possible, and you’re willing to sacrifice measures that slow down the process but improve accessibility by arguing that Magisters who can’t take 10 minutes out of their day to decide on a vote shouldn’t be Magisters.
The problem is that I fundamentally disagree with that vision, for the purposes of our overall regional security. What you view as a reasonable standard for Magisters is in reality an extremely high bar for our region’s currrent levels of activity and the people we can pull, and it has been for three years. If we start expecting Magisters to be able to vote in 3 day time or 4 day time periods and remove qurorum, very quickly it’ll become so that only a select few of the Magisterium is making decisions, assuming the “inactive” Magisters arent removed. This presents a problem because it decreases the number of Magisters who vote - which makes it easier for coupers to stack the Magisterium in their own favor. Case in point, a Magisterium focused on high quality and active legislating had 30 people in 2018… and dwindled all the way down 6-8 people in 2019. 4 of those people were verified coupers who went on to attempt a coup in October 2019.
That’s why I dont support removing qurorum or shortening the voting period. Both serve as measures to enable Magisters to be able to give their voice (qurorum ensures we still let as many people have a say as possible, and only suspend individuals when absolutely nessecary i.e. qurorum is repeatedly failing; 1 week voting period allows more Magisters to vote - whether you think they shouldnt be Magisters or not doesn’t change that). Removing said measures favors highly active Magisters, which are a always a small minority. And a legislature with a smaller number of participants, shorter voting times, and no regard for ensuring a majority of said legislature actually votes makes our legislature more conducive to stacking. Being 4-8 days faster with legislation that usually sits for at least a month in debate is not worth sacrificing the objectively greater worth in security our current legislature model is built upon, IMO. So proposals to shorten the voting period or remove qurorum or other similar proposals are, from the get-go, a no-go for me.
This to me, is just bureaucracy. It’s very slow. Why should legislation take 14 days or more because quorum failed as most Magisters are inactive? If you think seven days is good time then quorum is just useless since you think seven days is plenty of time to participate. It just freezes the Magisterium for some abstract of “we want a majority opinion before we do something”. If 15 out of 20 are inactive and can’t maintain a minimum of activity, then the opinion of the inactive 15 doesn’t matter. Just get all those who have a minimum of acceptable activity to do things. I oppose quorum regardless of seven days or three days.
10 minutes over 3 or 4 days is not an extremely high bar. I deny that. And this assumes that a motion to vote was done immediately, which will almost assuredly never happen. Issues that are larger and more complicated are going to take more time to resolve so the 3 or 4 day voting period doesn’t affect a Magister’s ability to know what they are voting on unless they are so wildly inactive that they can’t view a thread in at least five or six days, which is what my recent amendment to would have taken to enact under the proposed system. They will have had time to read the discussion thread before it ever hits the voting floor. And in these cases, which will be almost every case, the amount of time required to simply jot a vote is a literal minute. Even if that 1 in 1 million case happens where two people are brash enough to motion immediately, 10 minutes is not unreasonable.
A small number of active malcontents isn’t going to be stopped by a quorum and a long voting time if normal Magisters are inactive. Your own cited example shows that the Magisterium call fall prey with even with long voting periods and quorum.
And this does far more to encourage activity than a longer voting period. If people know thag the voting period is shorter, they will aim to be more active.
If we have to fundamentally disagree, which is what I think we have to, then let’s let other Magisters mull this over before it just turns into irreconcilable a back and forth.
Quorum will stop proposals from passing if normal Magisters are “inactive” but a minority of active malcontents are.
Agreed.
Tabled on request of the Sponsor via Discord 16/6/2023