Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» We're all fine here, thanks. How are you? (Community thread for everything.)
Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:09 am by RorytheRomulan

» Turn 2-1069
Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:51 pm by JaxVaeus

» Turn 1-1069
Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:05 pm by Crensler

» Mass Effect 3, Your Edition
Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:40 pm by Braigwen

» Turn 12-1068
Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:20 pm by wolfking2k

» Player Houses
Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:50 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Battle of Scales
Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:52 am by SilverDragonRed

» Good morning!
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:41 pm by Galtori

» We started a Discord chatroom for the community. It's free to boot!
Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:14 am by Chatterbox1991

You are not connected. Please login or register

Rules of Procedure for the Council of Governors

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 4]

I don't want to repeat myself again; then again, my last couple of contributions to the Council's discussion fell on deaf ears, so perhaps I have to do so.

We cannot have a state where a discussion ends simply because someone else brings a new issue.
We cannot have a state where someone brings anyone just willy-nilly to the Council.
We cannot have a state where discussion is allowed to devolve into nothing more than a base fight.

We need proper rules of procedure for the Council.

I propose The Session Protocol of the Council of Governors.

Here you may propose your own solutions to the issue, as well as discuss these proposals. I personally will endeavour to answer questions pertaining to my SPCG as plainly as I can.

View user profile
I vote nay, 2 hours is not enough for those of us who have lives outside this council.

View user profile
2 hours is for the specific crafting of a counter-proposal. You have 36 hours in which to say you are going to do that. Don't say you're going to unless you have the time to create a counter-proposal.

e:woops missed the 2 hours for voting. Don't mind me. Yeah that seems too short.



Last edited by Governor WhiskeyWhiskers on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:06 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
Right, straight to votes.

Well, not that it changes anything, but each session would be planned. So people would know when it is, and they could make counter-proposal beforehand. Deliberation is kinda like the "last-minute" chance to do something.

Also, one thing, I will be like 50% OOC in this thread, as the matter is 50% OOC.

View user profile
1) In section 1.2, you say that members can expel council observers.  Can you add some specifics?  Like how many members are required before the observer has to leave or does there have to be a reason for kicking them?

2) What is the practicality behind allowing an observer to be the foreman?  Just wondering.

3) Acts are essentially bills, right?  It doesn't state this in the document so i wanted to make sure.

4) What about governors that dont vote?

Gollvieg, you cant immediately say Nay without asking for a change...

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:Right, straight to votes.

Well, not that it changes anything, but each session would be planned. So people would know when it is, and they could make counter-proposal beforehand. Deliberation is kinda like the "last-minute" chance to do something.

Also, one thing, I will be like 50% OOC in this thread, as the matter is 50% OOC.

OOC: I thought this is an "OOC:" Bill didn't we agree earlier that we will either be 100% OOC or 100% IC?

View user profile
It makes sense that this bill is different though... It is the IC and OOC protocol of the council.

View user profile
I can agree to this but I must press on specifics like how many votes it take for a vote of no confidence or to get rid of observers.


By the way Gollvieg that video you put up, I can't stop listening to it I love the song lol Very Happy

View user profile
1) that has to be specified in the observer status writ. Some Observers may be dismissed by 1 Governor's choice, some may be dismissed only by 7 or more Governors...

2) well, imagine the only guy who is willing to do it and who the Governors can agree on isn't a Governor

3) Act = Bill = Law if passed

4) Well... this act does not really solve that issue. It should be solved OOC if someone is really, really inactive and it's really, really a problem and there is a better replacement

To Gollvieg: this is 100% IC in the fact that it's written as a complete act. It's also 50% OOC in the way it deals with OOC stuff and is influenced heavily by it.



Last edited by Felix Clary zu Osegg on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:12 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
Governor Grifenknight wrote:It makes sense that this bill is different though... It is the IC and OOC protocol of the council.

OOC: God damn it, we're voting on how to vote again Mad

IC:

Section 3.4 - Voting
After deliberation, voting starts. Voting will last for 2 hours. 36 hours
If a counter-proposal is present, one cannot vote for both, but can vote against both.
Item passes if it reaches simple majority, unless stated otherwise in Law, and the quorum is 5 votes. If the quorum is not reached, item gets moved to the end of the agenda, when the process will resume. Should the vote fail to pass in the second round, it is moved to the beginning of the next session, when the quorum requirement is waived. Unless a Governor says differently, his vote is reset in each step of the process.
Votes that are not cast will not be counted as aye, nay, or abstain (Just like what we agreed on the rules stream)

View user profile
I'd suggest a motion and one other governor seconding it to remove an observer, with the foreman's consent.

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I'd suggest a motion and one other governor seconding it to remove an observer, with the foreman's consent.

That would create a situation where 4 Governors would want someone to stay and 2 want them to go and that 2 would win, just ask Admiral Krenzler

View user profile
I think Gollvieg's suggestion is the best one since absence isnt going to be an IC problem, therefore it shouldn't be dealt like one.

View user profile
Governor Grifenknight wrote:I think Gollvieg's suggestion is the best one since absence isnt going to be an IC problem, therefore it shouldn't be dealt like one.


Yeah I agree OOC problems must be factored in.

View user profile
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I'd suggest a motion and one other governor seconding it to remove an observer, with the foreman's consent.

That would create a situation where 4 Governors would want someone to stay and 2 want them to go and that 2 would win, just ask Admiral Krenzler

You were the only one defending him... So it was 2 v 1, not 2 v 4.

View user profile
To Gollvieg:
1) Time - 36 hours is impractical by the nature of the session process. An item must be sorted before another one is brought. Meaning we could do 1 vote in 36 hours. Meaning we could pass exactly 4 laws maximum with minimal discussion per turn.
I will add that each session starts 36 hours after and agenda and the time of a session is announced.

2) I don't understand the second edit. I do not count votes which are not cast, it does not say so in the act.

View user profile
Governor Grifenknight wrote:
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I'd suggest a motion and one other governor seconding it to remove an observer, with the foreman's consent.

That would create a situation where 4 Governors would want someone to stay and 2 want them to go and that 2 would win, just ask Admiral Krenzler

You were the only one defending him... So it was 2 v 1, not 2 v 4.


I imagine Gollvieg did not mind since he was for the bill same with Lorinbas and Cesander but that is beside the point it still allows the minority to dictate the majority

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:To Gollvieg:
1) Time - 36 hours is impractical by the nature of the session process. An item must be sorted before another one is brought. Meaning we could do 1 vote in 36 hours. Meaning we could pass exactly 4 laws maximum with minimal discussion per turn.
I will add that each session starts 36 hours after and agenda and the time of a session is announced.

2) I don't understand the second edit. I do not count votes which are not cast, it does not say so in the act.

Perhaps 16 hours? that would be more manageable time zone wise.

View user profile
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:That would create a situation where 4 Governors would want someone to stay and 2 want them to go and that 2 would win, just ask Admiral Krenzler

And the foreman could overrule the motion if he thought it was being abused. Having to get a full majority to oust interlopers is far too strict and introduces needless delays.

View user profile
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:I imagine Gollvieg did not mind since he was for the bill same with Lorinbas and Cesander but that is beside the point it still allows the minority to dictate the majority
It requires a 1/3 vote with one of those being the foreman. That's strict enough.

If we don't, the majority can bring in one observer each to shout down their opposition and waste time that could be used debating.



Last edited by Governor WhiskeyWhiskers on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:22 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:That would create a situation where 4 Governors would want someone to stay and 2 want them to go and that 2 would win, just ask Admiral Krenzler

And the foreman could overrule the motion if he thought it was being abused. Having to get a full majority to oust interlopers is far too strict and introduces needless delays.


It is still possible to abuse that system as it requires the foreman to be impartial which he clearly is not as he is still an active voting Governor. Damn I wish we have more players so we could have an impartial foreman just like the Speaker in the UK who is not allowed to vote.

View user profile
So for the time I see two options:

1) Have 36 hours between announcement of the agenda and time of a session, with votes being postponed if they don't reach a quorum requirement

2) Have each vote take 12 hours, but no quorum and no postponing votes and very little time before agenda and session time announcement and the session itself.

View user profile
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:
Governor Grifenknight wrote:
Governor Bradley3000 wrote:
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I'd suggest a motion and one other governor seconding it to remove an observer, with the foreman's consent.

That would create a situation where 4 Governors would want someone to stay and 2 want them to go and that 2 would win, just ask Admiral Krenzler

You were the only one defending him... So it was 2 v 1, not 2 v 4.


I imagine Gollvieg did not mind since he was for the bill same with Lorinbas and Cesander but that is beside the point it still allows the minority to dictate the majority

I don't want it get into an argument, but it doesn't matter if they "minded". That doesn't mean support. For all we know, they would not have minded him leaving. Since they didn't vocalize their defense of him staying, they will be counted as neutral.

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:To Gollvieg:
1) Time - 36 hours is impractical by the nature of the session process. An item must be sorted before another one is brought. Meaning we could do 1 vote in 36 hours. Meaning we could pass exactly 4 laws maximum with minimal discussion per turn.
I will add that each session starts 36 hours after and agenda and the time of a session is announced.

2) I don't understand the second edit. I do not count votes which are not cast, it does not say so in the act.

1) This is the reason why we have multiple topics so that we can work on multiple issues at the same time. The multi topic form also prevents issues where Bill that we do not have any say in stall the crap out of the Council where we wait over 36 hours to vote on another bill

2) Let's say I do not vote because I got shot by a gun IRL and is fighting for my life and Grifenknight has Finals. That means that a 4/3/0 vote gets stalled forever until one of you guys decided that I am not active anymore and kick me out which could take 2-3 months if you are generous.

The time limit makes it so that a majority in this situation is no longer 5/9 but 4/7 (If Grifen finishes his Finals in time it can be 5/Cool

View user profile
You can impeach a Foreman, and you can sue him if you feel he acts contrary to this act, which does state impartiality in exercising his duties as foreman.

And Foreman does not have to be a Governor.

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 4]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum