Constitutional reform

[Jovial Monk]

With the deserved failure of Aussie’s attempt to entrench himself in the Admin position I hope we can forget the constitution for a bit. Next time I would hope some amendment would be released for discussion and amendment before a Referendum thread is started.

I can think of much more urgent tasks than changing the constitution at the present time.

I would also like less threads moved to the Cess Pit. I started a complaint thread—that got moved. I started a complaint thread about the first complaint thread being moved—that thread got moved.

I thought the Cess Pit was to show what sort of thread is not acceptable. Nothing unacceptable about either of my complaint threads.

I prefer to complain in open Forum, let everyone see complaint and response I reckon.

[freediver]

Some ideas:

1) The idea of basing voting elligibility on recent posts is unacceptable. Voting rights should be based on the contribution a person has made, not when they made it. As the referendum vote demonstrated, people have very valid reasons for not posting for periods of time.

2) Referendums should require the word referendum in caps in the thread title

3) Referendums should be posted up for 4 weeks before voting opens, and pinned. This starts from when the petition succeeds and the referendum is posted, or from when exhalted leader posts it.

4) Voting should be open for at least a week.

5) I think we should limit the rate at which exhalted leader can start referendums - one at a time (including 4 week viewing period and voting period) and 8 nweeks wait if the referendum fails, unless it is withdrawn before voting starts.

6) Referendums can be withdrawn during 4 week period, either by person who started petition, or exhalted leader if he started referendum.

7) This is an interesting one: no comments or discussion allowed in voting or petition threads. There are some details to work through on the implications of this.

[Aussie]

1) Why is it unacceptable that voting eligibility be partially based on a recent posting history? What is the criteria for determining a 'voting contribution as opposed to a 'non-voting contribution.' All discretionary in the hands of whom? How did the recent vote demonstrate that people have valid reasons for not posting for periods of time.

2) No big deal one way or the other.

3) "Referendums should be posted up for 4 weeks before voting opens." Why the delay?

4) "Voting should be open for at least a week." Why? When you introduced a whole document as a draft Constitution, voting was limited to just SIX days.

5) People are quite capable of voting on multiple issues.

6) "Referendums can be withdrawn during 4 week period, either by person who started petition, or exhalted leader if he started referendum." Others may have thought the subject was a great idea, not to be lost at the whim of one person.

7) I agree. There ought be a voting Thread separate from a comments thread. Voting in one, comments in the other.

[Jovial Monk]

Even before a referendum thread is posted the amendment needs to be up for debate and amendments to the amendments suggested, then voted upon. One Petition at a time is a good rule.

And, yup, I immediately smelled skunk as soon as Aussie floated the idea of a Petition on a franchise—Aussie wants to exclude certain people from being able to vote!

[Aussie]

Even before a referendum thread is posted the amendment needs to be up for debate and amendments to the amendments suggested, then voted upon. One Petition at a time is a good rule.

You also need to read the current document and learn to understand the difference between a Petition and a Referendum.

And, yup, I immediately smelled skunk as soon as Aussie floated the idea of a Petition on a franchise—Aussie wants to exclude certain people from being able to vote!

Sure do, just like you according to what have been posting concerning Kiwi Dave. It is ironic that freediver now espouse the view that voting ought be limited to those who have made a 'contribution.' It seems he must have changed his mind after allowing Kiwi Dave to vote on a Petition Thread....and her sole prior contribution to PA was exactly nothing.

[Jovial Monk]

Don’t live in the past Aussie.

[Aussie]

Don’t live in the past Aussie.

If we don't heed the lessons History provides, and make corrections when weaknesses are exposed, we are just plain dumb.

[freediver]

4) "Voting should be open for at least a week." Why? When you introduced a whole document as a draft Constitution, voting was limited to just SIX days.

Please show where I limited it to six days.

We need the time period so people get a chance to vote. I would have thought this would be obvious.

[Aussie]

4) "Voting should be open for at least a week." Why? When you introduced a whole document as a draft Constitution, voting was limited to just SIX days.

Please show where I limited it to six days.

We need the time period so people get a chance to vote. I would have thought this would be obvious.

I did not say you limited it to six days. I would have thought that was obvious. Six days is too short, but you did not complain about it at the time, did you.

I would go with a provisions along the lines of: Voting shall close seven days from when Admin announces that voting is open, or at such later time as Admin. may advise.

[Jovial Monk]

Yes the kiwi_dave whatsit is still unresolved, thanks to you being dishonest and selfcentered and lying about your amendment. I will now make sure it is not you that resolves that precedent because you cannot be trusted.

That is what happens when people rumble to the stupid games you try to play.