Elegarth

I've been willing to do this since before the personal attacks started, curiously not only from Llamas if I remember correctly PD...But I'm game if EVERYONE else is game, and if we ALL stop trying to degrade others images around NS based in former regions... Also, you don't "admonition" me. I'll asume you meant advise, as it is highly disrespectful in my culture to try to admonition someone you are not the parent of or supervisor.

Sounds like a threat

Eh, no. People who loves complex liberal democratic systems is naturally attracted to TNP. And that is nice. Honestly, if you are so in love with their system, why don't you go there instead of trying to turn twp into a copy? It feels forces. All GCRs are different and THAT IS A GOOD THING. Cormac understood that this time around, man, yet you keep coming back in most of your arguments to Laz this, TNP that... get over those. Stop thinking "how can twp do what tnp did" and start thinking "how can twp create a thing of its own"

I agree with Resu and (oh my) Cormac

SPOILERS!

Then there is no need to open HGA sign-ups, and everyone should be sign-ins to the Convention itself.

Since I asked an administrative question, I'll wait for the administrative answer. However, HGA membership is pointless at this point, as the HGA no longer exists We should also have a chair manage this, and I'd like to propose Vlagh as chair of the Constitutional Convention, since it technically falls within his area of expertise.

Admins, Who currently can / has access to the Constitutional Convention forums? Is any new member that registers here able to see the sign-in thread? Are we being 100% open with sign ins to the Constitutional Convention? Thanks!

Last I saw, she criticized the assumption that the delegate would have to forcibly make polls, and any future delegate should have the right to say no if she/he so pleases, and hence if the design we made depends on that, then it is fundamentally flawed.

It looked ok enough to me, I mean, he is the Avenger we knew less about, and I didn't minded the extra minutes.

If Captain America: Winter Soldier is my 10, and Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy my 9s, Age of Ultron has a 9.5 Highlights: Spader as Ultron, The Vision, Hulk vs Hulkbuster Armor Low points: No Pepper, someone dies , a heart is broken

Right now... I'll let you know my opinions later or tomorrow! Ubber-Geek Mode: ON!

Yeah, fail, I didn't noticed Cormac's lines regarding the polls.

Why would this call for an open rebellion? The Delegate owes no service to the forum government in ANY way or form. As much as the Delegate can't force us to pass or not pass a specific law related to forum matters, you can't pretend to FORCE the delegate to do the biding of the forum government....

Can they be restricted anyway?

Except this is not the case, as puppets of a single user can't have WA status unless he goes through a very very complex system of proxies that would surely not be worth the effort. While polls are universally open, as far as I remember

I insist, voting in in-game polls allows for easy not even hard to perform puppet manipulation of the results

My problem with that is that, by having the discussion here, and voting in the site, we basically made all voting null. People who can vote simply votes without coming to the discussion unless the discussion is moved over to the RMB which is undesirable... Plus, the obvious puppet bleeding: anyone who want to influence a vote in-game simply needs to create any number of puppets and either keep them dormant until the vote, or keep them eternally semi-active to vote anytime several times :/

Same here

I'm gonna comment on the parts I have comments for only. What will be the difference between "rules of order" and laws per se? And what is the idea to avoid a proper legislature? I'm not against this, I'm curious as to the mail goal of this specific change. Simplification comes to my mind, somehow... That also means that embassies and in-game and forum embassies are separated and independent. Some issues here, in my view: 1) I would advocated for the Advocate to have a minimum time of active membership in the Voice, as it would give us candidates best prepared and knowledgeable about the forum community. 2) Too short a term. With elections lasting a minimum of 10 days and options for run-off, 2 months is WAY to short. I'd like it to be at least 3 months, and I found 4 months ideal, since it allows for people to run programs and projects and plans. I'm also personally against limiting someone's legal rights in any manner different than judicial, hence I'm opposed to the re-election limit. 3), 4) and 5) No issues 6) Whatever officials he likes? Shouldn't the structure of the officials be limited somehow? I see how not limiting them would allow for more flexibility. 7) I'd say that would require both a quorum and a supermajority... Else, it would be too destabilizing... Doesn't that seems awfully complicated? I'd rather have a small body, say 3 members of the voice, who can also be either elected or selected some other way tht judges this in the manner of a tribunal? Then appeals could be heard by the voice as a whole. But I feel this option implies too many votings, and too many runarounds to hear a complaint. We would also require some code of possible repercussions to people find guilty?

I like the timetable

Yeah no, still sounds like a terrible idea, personally. If we are the forum government, then the forum MUST be the tool to make our work and voting and etc.

Well, yes, is more of the fact that he has usually trusted my judgement, in general, PD, lol. But yes, it still surprised me.

I still think the region needs some sort of consultative body that is both allowed and charged with interpreting our codes and laws when there is differences between members...

I must be honest and say I'm surprised about Uni's reaction and heavily negative view of it all.