Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Locked Topic
SO6- Statement of Assembly Intent
Topic Started: May 15 2015, 01:10 AM (138 Views)
Welsh Cowboy

Intent: To "make a clear statement of [Assembly] intent", pursuant to the power granted this Assembly in 3.11.7 of the First Constitution of Yukon, as amended by CA 1.

Order: Affirming the need for basic rules and enforcement of the same to maintain any worthwhile roleplay,

Recognizing, however, the importance of creativity, innovation and choice in high-quality and engaging roleplay,

This Assembly declares its intent to create a roleplay environment that grants the nations of the region:
(1) the authority and ability to roleplay their nations as they see fit without undue restrictions or regulations
(2) the chance to form multilateral partnerships or other cooperative efforts free from regional government interference.

Expiry: This Standing Order shall remain in force in perpetuity unless duly repealed or amended by the Assembly.


I feel that this Standing Order makes clear that the philosophy behind this Assembly's decisions regarding RP rules and policy will be maintaining an environment that is at its core individual-focused and which encourages the great role players of this region to harness their vast creativity and ingenuity in their RP.

To be clear: this is NOT a statement on any piece of legislation currently up for discussion. This is a statement of principle in discussions and debates going forward.

Pursuant to 3.10 of the Constitution, I ask that this Standing Order not be subject to debate and that voting begin immediately.

I vote AYE.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

Nay.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ajerrin

I understand the spirit of this SO, Welsh I really do. However, this region was founded because a nation believed he could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, with no repercussions to his actions. The constitution and its rules were created based on the fear to never allow that to happen again. This SO comes against the fears of a whole region. It's too drastic of a change and too early to propose something that resembles this right now.

I still believe creativity can be seen with these rules in place. Give it some time. See what these people can do. Show us your creativity!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
An objection to the act has been raised, therefore voting is suspended pending further debate.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy

Arcadia
May 15 2015, 11:16 AM
An objection to the act has been raised, therefore voting is suspended pending further debate.
Ajerrin, maybe this SO raises the fears of this region because they have undergone something I did not experience. If that is the case, I understand the hesitance and initial dislike of this SO. I can very much respect that. I feel, though, that it is a very lukewarm, moderate statement of support for both the rule of law and the importance of it but also that laws can't make RPing great; they generally do the opposite.

Regardless, I respect that this region has different experiences with RP rules, restrictions then I do, and I understand where the opposition to this SO comes from. There's no hard feelings; this chamber is designed to allow people to express is dissenting opinions.

With that being said, Arcadia, I would ask that voting be resumed, since there was no motion to open debate or suspend voting, and simply two dissenting votes. (Now if I missed a law or AO that requires unanimous votes on SOs that don't undergo debate, please please tell me. I tried to do this legally but certainly am not as knowledgable as you) thanks for being such an active moderator.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
POINT OF ORDER: Actually the law requires debate and the Code of Conduct requires a second on the motion to send a motion to vote in bypass of the debating period. If you wish for the voting to resume prematurely you will need to get that second, and since I am not entitled to vote I cannot give it.



From my point of view I simply do not think that this statement of intent is necessary; while this is a valid use of the SO system in this case in this case I feel an SO unduly ties the hands of the Assembly. While I agree that RP, creativity and innovation must take precedence (and as Ajerrin and others will tell you this has always been my view since we were back in NCON) I also believe strongly that the Assembly needs a free hand to act as it wishes as the supreme organ of government.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy

Arcadia
May 15 2015, 04:25 PM
POINT OF ORDER: Actually the law requires debate and the Code of Conduct requires a second on the motion to send a motion to vote in bypass of the debating period. If you wish for the voting to resume prematurely you will need to get that second, and since I am not entitled to vote I cannot give it.



From my point of view I simply do not think that this statement of intent is necessary; while this is a valid use of the SO system in this case in this case I feel an SO unduly ties the hands of the Assembly. While I agree that RP, creativity and innovation must take precedence (and as Ajerrin and others will tell you this has always been my view since we were back in NCON) I also believe strongly that the Assembly needs a free hand to act as it wishes as the supreme organ of government.
First, thank you for your reply. As I said before, I really appreciate your skill and zeal for moderating this chamber.

With that being said, I have a point of inquiry: 3.10 of the Constitution states "...Standing Orders may go directly to vote without debate and require a simple majority." Under this sentence, coming from the supreme governing document of this region, I believe Standing Orders are explicitly removed from normal debate procedures for regular laws (part of their appeal being the ability to pass them quickly). Am I misunderstanding this clause, or is there another clause in the Constitution that somehow conflicts with this (what I take to be) straightforward clause regarding the requirement of debate on Standing Orders?


Again, I understand your concern and many others. I have no problem with people voting nay as they wish to. I must take issue with the assertion that this order somehow restricts the ability of the RA to govern. It clearly states the necessity and crucial nature of having laws and regulations. It does not preclude the Assembly from making any type or sort of law (which I do not believe would fall under the purview of a SO, one reason I chose to pursue this course of action). It is, in my mind, simply a statement that all other interests being equal, creativity and innovation should be allowed to dictate RP policy in this assembly. Perhaps this is "tying our hands"; I however do not see it that way.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
The procedure allowing SOs to bypass debate still requires a second to the motion; I'm not saying that we can't bypass the debate period, I'm just saying that in order to do so someone has to second the motion.



The issue is this; not all members of the region agree fully with the notion that stats should be secondary to RP; now personally I do, I think there are only a limited number of statistics we should apply - however we have a significant number of citizens who do not. A lot of people prefer to play a stat game with RP as filler and that is their prerogative as RPers - thus far as the chief legislator here I have tried to strike a balance between the two which I hope you can understand. I believe that balancing the two approaches is the best way to proceed.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy

Arcadia
May 15 2015, 09:21 PM
The procedure allowing SOs to bypass debate still requires a second to the motion; I'm not saying that we can't bypass the debate period, I'm just saying that in order to do so someone has to second the motion.



The issue is this; not all members of the region agree fully with the notion that stats should be secondary to RP; now personally I do, I think there are only a limited number of statistics we should apply - however we have a significant number of citizens who do not. A lot of people prefer to play a stat game with RP as filler and that is their prerogative as RPers - thus far as the chief legislator here I have tried to strike a balance between the two which I hope you can understand. I believe that balancing the two approaches is the best way to proceed.
Just for my information, what requires a second of a motion to bypass debate. I'm not seeing it in the amendment or elsewhere and wonder where that's spelled out.


On the Standing Order itself, I appreciate all the comments and opinions I've received. I understand that I am not intimately aware with this region's history with RP rules and restrictions like so many of you are, and I appreciate that this gives us different perspectives and insights. I really do.

I also truly thank you for your final point, Arcadia. If this SO had the effect of discouraging RPers here who want to use stats and deadest rules, then that'd be the opposite of what I want to create. I don't think this SO does that, as in my mind it's a non-binding, mild statement. But if it gives off the impression of restricting others' right to RP as they want, I can't reasonably keep fighting for it.

Therefore, while I still support this SO, I don't see a viable way to passage and don't want to waste this Assembly's time wth a sure-to-fail SO.

I withdraw this SO from consideration.

Thank you all again.
Edited by Welsh Cowboy, May 15 2015, 10:32 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
The SO is withdrawn.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Legislative Archives · Next Topic »
Locked Topic


Theme created by vcd of the ZetaBoards Theme ZoneStyle District