Assembly Constitution Act (Debate)

Members of the assembly are invited to this debate:

An Assembly was created by an executive order of mr. president:

We, Members of free Society and members of this forum, declared:

1) A Free Society Assembly (FSA) is created.
2) All members of this forum who is also a member of Nationstate WebGame is a member of FSA.
3) All members have the right to show their opinions, in the limit of debates;
4) All members have a vote on questions submitted to the Assembly;
5) All members can submit a proposal to the region.
3) This FSA is a sovereign level of authority and cannot be abolished, except by a vote of 80% of members of this Assembly.
4) The FSA can make a vote of recall on any Executive Order.

This topic is for debate. Endorsement can be done. End of debate to be defined Sunday, based on answers to the topic.

batiska wrote:
2) All members of this forum who is also a member of Nationstate WebGame is a member of FSA.

I oppose this. I think the assembly should be only the active, long standing members of FS. Not the region hoppers who are here for a few and leave. I feel you must be here for a certain amount of time and be an active forum user to bee in the FSA.

mmm Not easy to defnie what is an active members. Many of us are vary actives something and during a period are too busy in real life to participate.

No, I think the fact to be members of the forum is enough. This way, you can debate and vote to the assembly as you wish.

Brian- Novalands wrote:

batiska wrote:
2) All members of this forum who is also a member of Nationstate WebGame is a member of FSA.

I oppose this. I think the assembly should be only the active, long standing members of FS. Not the region hoppers who are here for a few and leave. I feel you must be here for a certain amount of time and be an active forum user to bee in the FSA.

I would agree with Brian in this. While it may prevent people like me from actually voting, I don't care. If I wasn't going to stay in this region long I wouldn't expect to be able to influence it's politics - it's not right.
I think a certain period of time must be extablished to acertain their loyalty. It won't be one hundred percent effective, but it's better than nothing.
As for being busy in real life, well if someone can give a plausable enough excuse as to their absence then we can always make exceptions, right?

Otiunos wrote:

Brian- Novalands wrote:

batiska wrote:
2) All members of this forum who is also a member of Nationstate WebGame is a member of FSA.

I oppose this. I think the assembly should be only the active, long standing members of FS. Not the region hoppers who are here for a few and leave. I feel you must be here for a certain amount of time and be an active forum user to bee in the FSA.

I would agree with Brian in this. While it may prevent people like me from actually voting, I don't care. If I wasn't going to stay in this region long I wouldn't expect to be able to influence it's politics - it's not right.
I think a certain period of time must be extablished to acertain their loyalty. It won't be one hundred percent effective, but it's better than nothing.
As for being busy in real life, well if someone can give a plausable enough excuse as to their absence then we can always make exceptions, right?

Isn't this from the other debate/proposal?

What do you mean peecekeeper?

Other members:I understand your point. What is for you the timeframe before being member of the Assembly?

They should need like 50 posts or 3 weeks, for examples.

Im not sure, I just feel there should be some requirement.

I think we must based this rule on weeks of membership and not on number of post. We must respect the fact that all memers don't have same time opportunity to write mesages.

What do you think about the fact to accept them right away as Members of the Assembly, but getting the ability to votes only after 2 weeks as members of the Assembly? This way, they can participate, providing their opinion.

we just need to change point 4 of the act. Or your idea is to exclude themof the debate too?

No, they should be able to debate. You never know what valuable point they might bring up. But voting, the actual real impact - that should be earned.

Alternative: I propose an addendum be made that creates a Chairman (separate from the President) whose "extra powers" will simply be to approve people to the Assembly. That way, each new member could be judged by their potential: what they could do, rather than what they have done in their short time in our region. Appointment of the Chairman (or whatever title you wish) would be made by majority vote of current Assembly members.

I'd prefer that a panel votes on who gets in rather than a "chairman".

I had considered that, but for such a simple process as approving new Assembly members, we don't need to have a group of people to all give their consensus, because that could add another layer of bureaucracy to this government, and we want to get members integrated as soon as possible. That's why the Chairman would be appointed by the majority of his/her peers; ideally they would pick the right person for the job, and trust the Chairman's decision on who to let in, and who to deliberate on.

Well if we're nominating for chairman, which I approve of, I would have to nominate batiska.
If you disagree make your opinion known.

Second

I believe we'd have to make a bill that creates a chair position before we could nominate anyone.

That does make sense....

This can be an amendment to the Constitution Act (which is why I posted it here, in the Debate thread) or a separate bill, but we need to not rush into hasty decisions.

batiska wrote:What do you mean peecekeeper?

Other members:I understand your point. What is for you the timeframe before being member of the Assembly?

I mean that the mandatory registration is from another debate, why make another debate there when its already included here?

peecekeeper: no, they are different. Registratio act is about the fact og being members or not of the forum. Here, it is Consitution of an Assembly, a level of decision for members of the region who are members of the forum. No matter if registration is mandatory or not.

RR: I know users had disucssion about a constitution. I don't find it now. Yes this act can be added to a Constitution. What I suggest is adopting this act to make Assembly as an official decision stage and the Assembly will vote a constitution where the Assembly act will be included as a part of the constitution.

About Chairman: I think an Assembly needs a Chairman (honored you think to me). He must be lected by all Members of the assembly (without campaign and stuff like that, just a vote).

I see the Chariman as the personn who will present final result on votes, will declare based on this result if the proposal is adopted, rejected, etc, by the Asssembly. He will make sure as all membres of the assembly can show thier opinion freely but with respect for other members.

I don't think the Chairman must have the right to decide who can vote and not. It is too much subjective. A Chairman can decide to not accept a members only for different political ideas.

What I suggest: A member who join the forum is at this moment members of Assembly and can participate to debates, not voting. Around 2 weeks after, the Chairman must announce to the assembly that this new members has now (or will have inn few days) the ability to vote, and asking if a vote is required. At this moment, a member can asking a vote from the assembly to accept or not accept the voting right of the new member. If no vote is asking, the member is accepted and can vote. Chairman will accept requested vote also by telegram or MP if a member doesn't want to make it in public It can be unconfortable for someone.

Last thing, the chairman can submit proposal, participate to the debate, but will not vote, to keep a neutrality in assembly decision. he will vote only is votes are equals. President, Ministers and all other function can vote as any other members of the assembly.

what do you think?

I would have to agree.

This is a good idea.

And while I agree with Batiska being the Chairman I would also add that - and I do not mean to offend by this - that someone with, shall we say sub-standard English might reflect badly upon our comunity. It also makes the sometimes complex Acts all the more difficult to get your head around. Now this is not an arguement against Batiska, I would simply advise that he appoint a, shall we say assistant who can look over Acts and other posts of importance to make amends to the small errors in grammar. Someone like ...me?
Just a suggestion.

As far as I have been able to tell, no one has had a problem with batiska's linguistics until you.

It is really easy to interpret and even keeps you on your toes.

I don't have much of a problem, it's just nice to have things done properly. We'll se what Batiska thinks. If he doesn't approve, so be it.

I'm cool with this.