Scientific Council Transcript March 31 / April 3

[Claude Desmoulins]

Note: Though he started the recorder that day. Justice was not in fact chairing the meeting on 31 March.

Meeting on 2008-03-31
Those present:
Justice Soothsayer is in the chair.
ThePrincess Parisi: shes here i see her on radar ill tp her
ThePrincess Parisi: i sent her a tp
ThePrincess Parisi: said hurry
Claude Desmoulins has indicated consent to be recorded.
ThePrincess Parisi: will you clarify that no new factions can be in this election?
Claude Desmoulins: Let's wait for Gwyn to climb the stairs
Claude Desmoulins: She crashed out again.
ThePrincess Parisi: back
Claude Desmoulins: Has the RA set a date for the by election?
ThePrincess Parisi: yes
ThePrincess Parisi: we set a date
ThePrincess Parisi: we also reset the size fro new factions
ThePrincess Parisi: and that there will be no more eleiminating factions when we vote
Justice Soothsayer: Princess, do you have a notecard on that amendment?
ThePrincess Parisi: i doubt it
Justice Soothsayer: Its a little confusing follwoing the transcript and discussions
ThePrincess Parisi: it happened yesterday ill d look
Claude Desmoulins: What is the date for the polls to open?
ThePrincess Parisi: jamie didnt have notecards
ThePrincess Parisi: i don thave it cos they didnt have notecards
ThePrincess Parisi: it is on theforum
ThePrincess Parisi: he gave us a link to the forum let me look
Justice Soothsayer: well, the amendment on changing how we count votes was from the 24th March meeting, but the idea of faction size rule changes is news to me.
Justice Soothsayer: Also, havent heard anything about "no new factions"
Claude Desmoulins: Has someone posted it. though I am not sure I can hold up a browser and SL on this machine.
ThePrincess Parisi: ok faction size was sonjas amendment is saying ten percent of the pop rounding down
Claude Desmoulins: One thing at a time, please.
ThePrincess Parisi: im gong to see if it is posted
Gwyneth Lewellen: hi sorry
Claude Desmoulins: First, what's the date for the poll opening?
Claude Desmoulins: NP
Gwyneth Lewellen: my main account is having SERIOUS problems logging in...
ThePrincess Parisi: the other issue is whether or not CSDF can suddlenly come up with candidates to "refill" the seat s they left and make us vote again for them..
ThePrincess Parisi: if they have a candidate they have to fill the seat right?
ThePrincess Parisi: hi gwyn
Gwyneth Lewellen: hi Princess
Gwyneth Lewellen has indicated consent to be recorded.
ThePrincess Parisi: im up early
Gwyneth Lewellen: so I see hehe
Claude Desmoulins: Can we please start with the dates?
Claude Desmoulins: When does the RA wish the polls to open?
ThePrincess Parisi: we voted on it yesterday
ThePrincess Parisi: i dont even remember
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hmm
ThePrincess Parisi: lol i think it was asap
ThePrincess Parisi: why is gwyn in a wall
Gwyneth Llewelyn: happens
ThePrincess Parisi: oh.............lol i am not here to officially represent the RA
ThePrincess Parisi: i was just awaye
Gwyneth Llewelyn: didn't Jamie post the transcript yet?
ThePrincess Parisi: awake
Justice Soothsayer: gwyn, were you at the RA meeting yesterday?
ThePrincess Parisi: gwyen was there
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes, but the voting was... confusing
ThePrincess Parisi: im pretty sure it was that the campaign was now
Claude Desmoulins: /Cn't find it/
ThePrincess Parisi: omg it was when you said gwyen
Gwyneth Llewelyn: at one stage, they suggested starting the campaign *now*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: for 15 days
ThePrincess Parisi: i think thats how it ended
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and then one week for voting
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Then a second motion was proposed,
ThePrincess Parisi: i dont save chat anymore so i dont have it
Gwyneth Llewelyn: one week of "setup", allowing candidates to step forward
Gwyneth Llewelyn: then 15 days of campaigning, and one week of voting
ThePrincess Parisi: ive sent MT a blackbery he knows
Claude Desmoulins: I do wonder if allowing the RA to set the date would allow sitting members to choose either a snap election or leaving a seat vacant for political advantage.
ThePrincess Parisi: what?
Justice Soothsayer: not that there is anything wrong with that, Claude.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so the polls would close on the 26th
Claude Desmoulins: True
ThePrincess Parisi: leaving a seat vacant for political advantafe of what?
Claude Desmoulins: Just a thought.
ThePrincess Parisi: how is being vacant an advantage
Justice Soothsayer: Parliamentary democracies do it often.
Claude Desmoulins: What about giving candidates at least a day or two to declare themselves.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Claude ? it's the RA that sets the dates
ThePrincess Parisi: we set the date
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes
ThePrincess Parisi: hey!
ThePrincess Parisi: i have MT in skype
Justice Soothsayer: Seems to me that our election procedures must require time for the candidates to notify the Dean of their intent to stand for election.
ThePrincess Parisi: he knwos what we did
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The SC can only interfere if no dates are set, but this is not the case
ThePrincess Parisi: he has the chat
ThePrincess Parisi: wait
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly, Justice, that's what was discussed yesterday
Claude Desmoulins: If you think someone who will oppose you will win the special election, you leave the seat open as long as you can
Gwyneth Llewelyn: one week for notification to the Dean
Claude Desmoulins: We have to give the candidates some time. I'd be OK with less than a week.
Claude Desmoulins: But they need at least three or four days.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ok, then the calendar would be as follows:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: - time for candidates to show willingness to serve: until Apr 5th
Gwyneth Llewelyn: - campaigning: Apr 5 - 19
Gwyneth Llewelyn: polls open on 19
ThePrincess Parisi: is that what we set
Gwyneth Llewelyn: - booth close on 26
Gwyneth Llewelyn: well
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that was one of the three motions
ThePrincess Parisi: hes looking
Gwyneth Llewelyn: goodie
Claude Desmoulins: Anyh objections to that calendar?
ThePrincess Parisi: i have MT in skype hes at work
ThePrincess Parisi: well it has to be what we set
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer: yes, the schedule should be based on what the RA set -- as long as the RA did it correctly, leaving a reasonable amount of time for candidates to come forward.
ThePrincess Parisi: new factions?
Claude Desmoulins: The setting of dates by the RA is by tradition. The constitution itself sets the date for general elections and merely specifies that special elections occur without enumerating a timetable.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mmh
ThePrincess Parisi: and can CSDF run xomeone?
Claude Desmoulins: Let's start with CSDF
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Things are complex, "who runs"?
ThePrincess Parisi: if they have a cadndidate then they fill the seat they left; no election
Claude Desmoulins: My read is that if the CSDF has willing candidates, they would steo in and we don't need a by election.
ThePrincess Parisi: if they have someone one second before the polls open then
Claude Desmoulins: *step
ThePrincess Parisi: exactly
ThePrincess Parisi: ok done
Claude Desmoulins: What about Gwyn and Justice?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, it's timing, Claude
ThePrincess Parisi: if they wanted to sit then they need to say and sit
ThePrincess Parisi: now
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let me explain,
ThePrincess Parisi: or spin
Gwyneth Llewelyn: at the moment the two CSDF members left the RA,
Claude Desmoulins: It does create a sticky wicket and potentially allow them to stop a process in motion.
ThePrincess Parisi: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: there were no candidates willing to serve
Claude Desmoulins listens to Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so the only choice was to call for new elections
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but... we know how things are
Gwyneth Llewelyn: time passes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: people's RL re-arranges
ThePrincess Parisi: well gwyen if you come now and say i can sit then the seats are yours
Gwyneth Llewelyn: people who had no time a month ago might have time now... and so on
ThePrincess Parisi: you dont need a election the ppl voted those seats are yours as CDSF now
Claude Desmoulins: So the question is, at what point (if any) is that decision irrevocable?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly, Claude
ThePrincess Parisi: one second before the polls open
ThePrincess Parisi: \
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That can't be,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it's when the RA sets the dates...
Claude Desmoulins: I meant what did Justice and Gwyn think about the CSDF participation question.
ThePrincess Parisi: so you can play a game and make our community suffer
ThePrincess Parisi: i think if you let them run inth e election you are fools
ThePrincess Parisi: and you are making the citizens votes a scam
Claude Desmoulins: Seems reasonable to me. Justice?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Princess, the SC can only exclude parties based on constitutional irregularities,
ThePrincess Parisi: how can you let them do this to our community
Gwyneth Llewelyn: not because the SC is a "fool" or not
ThePrincess Parisi: that is totally absurd
ThePrincess Parisi: you are lettingt them be griefers with our community
ThePrincess Parisi: and play silly games
Justice Soothsayer: Princess, you seem to be arguing hypotheticals that may or may not happen.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hush dear
Gwyneth Llewelyn: this is NOT the RA ? we have rigid rules here
ThePrincess Parisi: they dont have ppl to fill seat s then fine we have an election
ThePrincess Parisi: but if they have ppl we dont need one
ThePrincess Parisi: it cannot be both ways
ThePrincess Parisi: they are playing silly games with MY LIFE and everyone elses
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I kindly request the Dean that we leave politics out of this august body
Justice Soothsayer: The question Claude posed is a good one. At what point must a by-election be called?
ThePrincess Parisi: to "point make"
ThePrincess Parisi: its nto pliticds
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly. That's the question
ThePrincess Parisi: [2008/03/30 13:43] Beathan Vale: let's say three days for new factions; 7 days for candidates, 2 week campaign, 1 week vote
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Constitution does not say.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It only says "as soon as the seats are vacant"
ThePrincess Parisi: welli say that many ppl think that if they have ppl one second before the plls open they sit in the seat the ppl already voted for
Justice Soothsayer: I think the common sense is that once the seats are vacant means when the faction has no one willing to fill the seats.
Justice Soothsayer: And that is the point we are at now, and where we;ve been at since the CSDF resignations.
Justice Soothsayer: That means that the RA is free to set election dates, which apparently they have done.
Justice Soothsayer: But as Gwyn says,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Once the elections are called for, even if 'suddenly' that faction has willing candidates, the elections should not be interrupted.
Justice Soothsayer: CSDF candidates may very well now come forward, and should be free to compete in the by-election.
ThePrincess Parisi: LMAO
ThePrincess Parisi: what a fricken joke
ThePrincess Parisi: a stupid playing games joke
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Princess
Claude Desmoulins: So is it at the point of setting dates that that faction loses the right to find people to fill those seats?
ThePrincess Parisi: yu must be kidding
Claude Desmoulins: without their standing in the election?
ThePrincess Parisi: what a joke to let them grief this community this way
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, conditions change all the time, Claude
ThePrincess Parisi: that is not what you said gwyen your faction
ThePrincess Parisi: YOu know said that this is a "stunt"
ThePrincess Parisi: and a game to 'make a point"
Justice Soothsayer: No, I think it is the point at which the seats are "vacant", in other words, when the faction doesn't have anyone to claim the seats, which is precisely what CSDF decided.
ThePrincess Parisi: gwyens faction has done this they say to "make a point"
ThePrincess Parisi: and grief our communtiy
ThePrincess Parisi: whatever
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it's not my faction, Princess, and you're out of order; I kindly request the Dean to stop these accusations in this august body
ThePrincess Parisi: you are too CSDF
Gwyneth Llewelyn: if you wish to bring anything against me, Princess, appeal the SC for ADR
Claude Desmoulins: Ms. Parisi. As has been pointed out the question at hand is one of the vacancy.
ThePrincess Parisi: the question is do you jerk the voters around to upset the flow of our community and allow this kind of childish griefing
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *My* understanding, Claude, is that the *moment* the RA notices there are vacant seats, it *should* immediately call for 'special elections'
Justice Soothsayer: May we please move on? My position is clear: the "vacancy" occurred when CDSF members resigned with no successors; the RA has apparently set the dates for the by-election to fill those vacancies.
Claude Desmoulins: This body has a sense of decorum outside of which you have already arrived or are headed to.
ThePrincess Parisi: they did this intentionally
Claude Desmoulins: Do you have evidence of that?
ThePrincess Parisi: read the forum
Gwyneth Llewelyn: wait wait
ThePrincess Parisi: they say they are :making a POint"
ThePrincess Parisi: they had a person to sit
ThePrincess Parisi: pat was at every meeting
ThePrincess Parisi: beging out of order
ThePrincess Parisi: he coudl have sat
Claude Desmoulins: Even if they did, there's no advantage to them. Best case scenario is they will and fill the seats they vacated.
ThePrincess Parisi: pat was at teh meetigns.. he was playing a GAVE
ThePrincess Parisi: \GAME
Claude Desmoulins: *win - best case for them.
ThePrincess Parisi: their advantage is what htye have already done .. DISTURB and DISRUPT
Claude Desmoulins: Why they did it isn't an SC concern.
ThePrincess Parisi: to stall
Gwyneth Llewelyn: At least it's not a concern of the SC *now*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (not on this meeting at least)
Claude Desmoulins: I'm going to have to move us on in order to consider the faction size amendement that apparently passed yesterday.
Claude Desmoulins: Does anyone actually have text?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Wait ? what was decided on that point, after all?:)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: on the *previous point
Justice Soothsayer: As to the election calendar, it seems to me that we have two vacancies in the RA, to be filled by a by-election.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok.
Claude Desmoulins: The seats are vacant as of the RA noticing, and once a date is set, the faction which had held the seats can't step back in and has to run for them.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, agreed.
ThePrincess Parisi: ridiculous
Claude Desmoulins: Now we have dates. 5th to declare and polls open 19th
Justice Soothsayer: Exactly right.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Agreed as well
Claude Desmoulins: Next.
Justice Soothsayer: Yes, dates are fine and should be announced immediately.
Claude Desmoulins: What happened with faction size yesterday.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The "factions have to have 10% of the population to be valid"
ThePrincess Parisi: we voted then percent of the population rounded down
ThePrincess Parisi: we need a new census to dertermine pop size though
ThePrincess Parisi: we had four new citizens last week
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Census is defined just twice a year though...
Claude Desmoulins: This troubles me. Bye bye small parties.
ThePrincess Parisi: ok fine
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It troubles me as well, Claude
ThePrincess Parisi: no it will be fine calude
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: small parties can form coalitions to run.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: also,
ThePrincess Parisi: no small parties now will be eliminated it protects from grieefing with tiny parties
Gwyneth Llewelyn: as of yesterday,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: all 4 parties had at least 8 members on their groups
ThePrincess Parisi: we also dont eliminate factions now
Justice Soothsayer: uh, which came first, voting the faction size amendment or setting the by-election dates?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it remains to be seen if all those were valid at the last census
ThePrincess Parisi: faction size
ThePrincess Parisi: it was done first
Gwyneth Llewelyn: seems that we can't trust the RA to publish transcripts hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but yes, I think that Princess is right
ThePrincess Parisi: who controls the forum? jamie is having trouble
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the 10% rule was decided first
Justice Soothsayer: we don't need to decide on validity of the 10% rule this morning, especially without actually seeing it; but if its constitutionality is in question, that question should be decided before the polls open,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so... in my opinion, this applies to the by-election too
Claude Desmoulins: Considering that many RL democracies allow parties to win seats with a lower threshhold.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is complex...
ThePrincess Parisi: we arent a rl democracy
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The *current* method of assigning seats,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: was planned to give small parties overrepresentation ? deliberately
ThePrincess Parisi: not being able to eliminate a party is why we changed the faction size
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "small party" = 3 persons (the lowest limit a group could have in SL)
ThePrincess Parisi: no it was about parties getting seats they CANNOT or WONTfill
ThePrincess Parisi: its to protect having five by elections a term
ThePrincess Parisi: your "rotation: theory of sl residents
Justice Soothsayer: this whole issue could be moot for the upcoming by-election if there are no changes to the current faction memberships, and no new factions are formed.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ah wait
Gwyneth Llewelyn: this is complex again ?
ThePrincess Parisi: i agree justice
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the whole 'calculation' procedures,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: are made per term
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and this is fixed...
Claude Desmoulins: OTOH we have a significant history of vacant seats in the RA . Remember when the SDF left the RA?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie. the factions that were valid at the beginning of term,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and yes, of course, Claude )
Gwyneth Llewelyn: will continue to be valid factions throught the term
Gwyneth Llewelyn: unless they fall below the "Old" rule
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so
Gwyneth Llewelyn: what the SC needs to determine,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: since the new rule yesterday,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: is if any of the 4 factions valid to run for office this term,
Claude Desmoulins: If a new faction forms, which rule applies?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: has less members than 10% of the population
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mmmh
Gwyneth Llewelyn: factions are valid for a term
ThePrincess Parisi: and can we eliminate
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the constitution does not talk about validation requirements for 'special elections'
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so, either one assumes that the validation requirements are for the term,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or for the election
Gwyneth Llewelyn: if we assume they're for the term,
ThePrincess Parisi: should the RA fix that before the elections? we set the dates, we can unset them?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the 4 parties were validated
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the RA can set and unset the date at will
Claude Desmoulins: Would that preclude a new faction forming?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes
Claude Desmoulins: Justice, thoughts?
ThePrincess Parisi: new factins have to declare before the six months elections
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes, as Princess says
ThePrincess Parisi: we did when we had nuCARE we had a deadline, not making sense to allwo them to just form in the mid term with less restirction than at the big election
Justice Soothsayer: Events move quickly in SL, and I would not like to preclude new factions forming before an election.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Note that in the past this was made differently: there were no "special elections", just regular elections
Justice Soothsayer: But to compete in an election, the faction has to be formed before the polls open.
ThePrincess Parisi: but why make it easier to make a new faction in a by election than in a big election
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, Justice ? I'd suggest that to the RA then. That they amend the Constitution calling for a new census before by-elections
ThePrincess Parisi: no the faction had to be stated WAY before the polls open in a big election
Claude Desmoulins: I also worry about the efect of the 10% on small parties and our culture of coalition.
ThePrincess Parisi: claude dont worry
Claude Desmoulins: *effect
Justice Soothsayer: "way before" = 15 days before a general election, per the constitution.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I worry too... but it's not fundamentally anti-constitutional
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes, Justice
ThePrincess Parisi: it will be fine.. i worry about callign a by to get 'snap" new parties in that dont qualiifyin a big election
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the census are taken actually a bit before that
Claude Desmoulins: Here's a question.
Claude Desmoulins: If a faction wins seats, then drops below the 10% threshhold, does it lose them?
Justice Soothsayer: This is all a moot point if the current factions remain in place for the April by-election.
ThePrincess Parisi: the rules for a by election cannot be less restictive than in a new election
ThePrincess Parisi: not if they can fill the seats they won
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, Claude, since the "validation requirements" are set by the census
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that's my opinion
ThePrincess Parisi: its more about candidates than members really
Justice Soothsayer: No, Gwyn, the constitution says "1) If the faction no longer meets the constitutional requirements or if no members of the faction are willing to serve, there shall be a special election to fill, for the remainder of the term, the seats left vacant. "
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ahhh
Gwyneth Llewelyn: wait
ThePrincess Parisi: ahjhh
Gwyneth Llewelyn: two things,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: one is willing candidates to serve
ThePrincess Parisi: requirements to "run" though or to remain
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the other is faction size
Claude Desmoulins: But that only triggers, Justice, if a seat vacates.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But I see your point, Justice
Claude Desmoulins: Coorect?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, as I read it, Claude
Justice Soothsayer: No, I think not, Claude. The seat is vacant if one of two things happens.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
ThePrincess Parisi: well the size to "run" or the size to "remain" they can be different..............
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let me re-read it
Justice Soothsayer: First, if the faction "no longer meets constitutional requirements" or
ThePrincess Parisi: but does our new bill say that you need 10 percent to BE a d faction or to Run
Justice Soothsayer: "if no members of the faction are willing to serve".
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (btw guys, a side note, I was pointed out that we have two constitutions posted on the wiki which do ot agree with each other hehe)
ThePrincess Parisi: lol oh no
Claude Desmoulins: But that test only triggers...
Justice Soothsayer: That's yet another reason why the RA needs to have a competent archivist, Gwyn.
Claude Desmoulins: "in the event that a faction...exhausts its list...."
Gwyneth Llewelyn: In the event that a faction, via resignation or impeachment, exhausts its list of eligible RA members drawn up at the previous general election during the course of an RA term: 1) If the faction no longer meets the constitutional requirements or if no members of the faction are willing to serve, there shall be a special election to fill, for the remainder of the term, the seats left vacant.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that applies to "eligible RA members"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: not necessarily "faction membership"
Claude Desmoulins: So validity only comes into play when seats are vacant.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes
Claude Desmoulins: and of course at the general.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Do you read it that way too, Justice?
Claude Desmoulins: We have five minutes.
Claude Desmoulins: and two items.
Claude Desmoulins: THe Mar 24 amendment.
Claude Desmoulins: I'm blanking here.
ThePrincess Parisi: elimination
Gwyneth Llewelyn: btw Claude
Claude Desmoulins: What did the RA vote to do? I remember that Pat objected on conflict of interest grounds.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: we did not flag that amendment in due time,
Justice Soothsayer: Yes, Gwyn, I agree, this is triggered by "resignation or impeachment"
ThePrincess Parisi: which amendment
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so technically the SC cannot talk any longer about the 24th march amendment
Claude Desmoulins: I guess I can live with the 10% rule.
Claude Desmoulins: Please remind me what it was
Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, we can talk, but not act upon it
Justice Soothsayer: Didn't I "flag" it timely? I thought I did so promptly after it was posted.
Justice Soothsayer: BTW, I'm not sure the actual text of the amendment has EVER been posted.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ah
ThePrincess Parisi: which one is it
Gwyneth Llewelyn: sorry
Gwyneth Llewelyn: if you did, then we can act upon it, Justice
ThePrincess Parisi: which amendment are you talkign about
Justice Soothsayer: The March 24th amendment, deleting the clause on counting ballots.
Claude Desmoulins: Ah eliminating faction elimination.
Justice Soothsayer: Indeed
ThePrincess Parisi: ahh
ThePrincess Parisi: t was valid in the prior term how can it not be valid now
ThePrincess Parisi: lol
ThePrincess Parisi: its just a roll back
Claude Desmoulins: Pat's only question was can one change rules midterm and effectively have some seats elected under one method and others on another.
ThePrincess Parisi: we change voting rules constantly
Justice Soothsayer: I've thought about this a bit, and I really don't see any constitutional problem with eliminating faction elimination. It will mean we will have two methods for selection of RA members in the same assembly.
Justice Soothsayer: But I don't think that violates anyone's rights.
Claude Desmoulins: Even he acks that one should use the rollback at the next general.
Gwyneth Llewelyn doesn't see that flagged for review....
Claude Desmoulins: Although we just said that faction validity is per term.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes.
ThePrincess Parisi: but that 10percent was changed mid term
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes, it was
Claude Desmoulins: When did it actually get posted?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ah, on the wiki ? on the 28th!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so, Justice, you're right
Claude Desmoulins: And is a forum transcript appropriate notice of the text of a legislative act or constitutional change.
Claude Desmoulins: Justice flagged on 29th
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ok, objection removed
Gwyneth Llewelyn: SO hmm
ThePrincess Parisi: everyone who will run in the by election will have teh same rules applied to them right?
Justice Soothsayer: In any event, even though I flagged this for our review, I think it is consititutional, and will apply to the April by-election.
Claude Desmoulins: Now what about it, but quickly please unless we prefer to recess until the same time tomorrow?
Claude Desmoulins: Pat mentiond conflict of interest, but it was hypothetical. At least I didn't see him as claiming it was happening, Merely that it might.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: well
Gwyneth Llewelyn: my argument was only that I dislike democratic systems,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: where citizens cannot vote NO
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It was answered to me: "then abstain"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but that's not a valid answer
ThePrincess Parisi: so you dont like it but its constitutional
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (I subscribe to the Prokofian philosophy that good democratic systems should have a way to vote NO)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well
Claude Desmoulins: But there isn't anything fundamentally wrong about restricting is meaninful ways how people vote.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I argue that the right to vote NO is embodied in the UDHR
Justice Soothsayer: TP's summary is an accurate statement of my view.
ThePrincess Parisi: well we had this fro the election before last
ThePrincess Parisi: validlly
ThePrincess Parisi: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, we had a way to vote no
Gwyneth Llewelyn: just vote... without ranking any faction
Claude Desmoulins: We for a long time had no way to vote no.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mmh not really
Gwyneth Llewelyn: FR's system allowed that
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jon's didn't
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ulrika's, I can't remember
Claude Desmoulins: You had to rank all factions back in the day. Didn't you?
ThePrincess Parisi: does the constitution say we have to be able to vote no
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, it's a minor point
Justice Soothsayer: Will we be asking Jon to prepare a revised system to run this by-election, or go back to using FR's system?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not the constitution, Princess
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but... it's a fundamental principle
Gwyneth Llewelyn: let me give you an example
Gwyneth Llewelyn: let's assume that due to new faction size restrictions,
ThePrincess Parisi: but not relevant here
Claude Desmoulins: I'm sorry, but I have to get ready for work.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: only parties with 75% of the citizens can vote
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *run
Gwyneth Llewelyn: then you'd probably have just a single party
Gwyneth Llewelyn: since you can't vote "no"
ThePrincess Parisi: i have a question though.. who can vote in this election, you have to be a citizen when?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: they'd always have 100% votes
ThePrincess Parisi: i am american i cannot vote no
ThePrincess Parisi: i either vote or not
Claude Desmoulins: I'm inclined to agree with Justice. Despite Gwyn's interesting point.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, I'm an European, and I most surely can vote no!
Claude Desmoulins: 28 days before the 19th I
ThePrincess Parisi: i can vote yes
Claude Desmoulins: d assume.
ThePrincess Parisi: so we need alist from sudane
Gwyneth Llewelyn: about 5% of our population votes no all the time
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ahhh Claude
Gwyneth Llewelyn: well
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that's not clear
ThePrincess Parisi: well we need to get a list from sudane
Claude Desmoulins: Can we schedule another meeting to consider the lra QUESTION?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'm fine with more meetings hehe
ThePrincess Parisi: we nneeed to knwo who can vote
Gwyneth Llewelyn: wait
Gwyneth Llewelyn: sorry
ThePrincess Parisi: no one is up at four am
ThePrincess Parisi: lol
Justice Soothsayer: I'm very flexible this week.
Claude Desmoulins: ie. after the seats are filled, do they have any efect on the LRA.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'm confusing things, the census and the people allowed to vote
Gwyneth Llewelyn: aha yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Claude, that's a very important issue!!
ThePrincess Parisi: we change teh LRA
Claude Desmoulins: Tomorrow I can meet after 3:30 pm slt
ThePrincess Parisi: there is a new way to get the LRA
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh nice
ThePrincess Parisi: the RA vootes for it
Justice Soothsayer: But do we need to consider the LRA issue before the election, or after it?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (that would be an excellent suggestion for the RA )
Claude Desmoulins: When did that happen?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it didn't
ThePrincess Parisi: i dont know, we have been very busy
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but it would be nice
ThePrincess Parisi: it will
Claude Desmoulins: shall we meet tomorrow afternoon?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: good, I love the idea
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And I'm fine with tomorrow at 3:30 PM
Claude Desmoulins: wHAT TIME.
ThePrincess Parisi: the bill has been around a while
Claude Desmoulins: 3:30 IT IS.
Justice Soothsayer: tomorrow 6:30 is ok for me.
Claude Desmoulins: am or pm.
Justice Soothsayer: sorry, I mean 3:30 SLT
Claude Desmoulins: am or pm?
Gwyneth Llewelyn:
Justice Soothsayer: PM, you said.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I read PM
ThePrincess Parisi: tommorow you are meetng at 330 pm sl time.. in the afternoon
ThePrincess Parisi: is that right
Claude Desmoulins: 3:30 PM SLT TOMORROW
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ok!
Claude Desmoulins: see you then
Gwyneth Llewelyn: see you Claude and thanks
ThePrincess Parisi: thank you welcome back claude
The meeting closed at 5:13 Linden time.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Meeting on 2008-04-03
Those present:
Claude Desmoulins is in the chair.
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Claude Desmoulins: I believe everyone got Pat's email.
Patroklus Murakami: (and pls return it once you're done )
Patroklus Murakami has indicated consent to be recorded.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: pfft
Gwyneth Llewelyn: let me open Pat's email
Patroklus Murakami: there were two
Gwyneth Llewelyn: exactly!
Patroklus Murakami: one on the constitutional amendment not allowing voters to eliminate factions in future i.e. returning to the old electoral system
Patroklus Murakami: and a second one relating to the change in the minimum faction size
Jamie Palisades: Now just so we're clear "everyone" means SC members, hm? As I know of no such messages. May I assume this is not public record matters?
Patroklus Murakami: i sent my first email to the SC members and posted it on the forums
Patroklus Murakami: the second i sent just to them
Patroklus Murakami: (wow, claude is able to copy 'no-copy' items. big voodoo )
Claude Desmoulins: As was discussed in part one of the meeting Monday morning, the issues of elimination and faction minimums affect each other.
Jamie Palisades: ah understand:) saw the post, thanks - though I confess I know little of how mush the SC feels it ought to advise affected parties of its plans or inputs
Claude Desmoulins merely found his recorder.
Jamie Palisades: *much, pardon
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Patroklus Murakami: aah, ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, public requests to the SC,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: tend to be discussed among the SC
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and the results published publicly.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: By its *own* iniciative, the SC does not often do anything besides flagging bills for review...
Claude Desmoulins: Gwyn pointed out Monday that a very high minimum size plus no elimination could create in effect a one faction system.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, there is the risk of a precedent here
Claude Desmoulins: OTOH,....
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Starting with 10%... going to 20%... etc. You see the point.
Claude Desmoulins: Very low limits could encourage a faction to fragment to get more seats.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly.
Claude Desmoulins: Let me throw out several questions.
Patroklus Murakami: it's not so much the change in faction size i have a problem with. that's perfectly legitimate for the RA to set
Patroklus Murakami: the problem is doing this before a by-election
Claude Desmoulins: Go ahead, Pat.
Patroklus Murakami: it changes the playing field
Claude Desmoulins: We discussed but did not vote on on monday...
Patroklus Murakami: the playing field should remain level while we replace the vacant seats
Patroklus Murakami: or the remaining members are allowed to influence the result of the by-election
Claude Desmoulins: ...the idea that since a census is only provided for in the constitution before each general election...
Claude Desmoulins: ....any faction that was valid at that point would have to remain valid for the duration of the term.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Except on the cases provided for in the Constitution
Gwyneth Llewelyn: which is just the self-same one that 'forces' a 'special election' really
Claude Desmoulins: I'm not bothered by the 10% prima facie.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so changing the rules mid-term is... well... 'cheating'
Jamie Palisades: hmm all "must remain static"-- in cases where the constitution is silent -- or a constitutional amendment is passed in a procedurally valid manner-- is a rule derived with reference to what principle, Pat? Is that constitutional? UDHR? "smells right"?
Patroklus Murakami: jame, because changing the rules in a manner which benefits the incumbents is wrong
Claude Desmoulins: But I don't want it to be seen as a statement by the SC that they have no proviso to consider the faction size limit later, should the RA approve a later change.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: AH, now we'll discuss WHICH constitution we should follow hehe (since two different ones are posted on the wiki )
Jamie Palisades: ha ha tough job!
Patroklus Murakami: i don't know if that's udhr, constitution or what. but it's wrong and anti-democratic
Jamie Palisades: res ipsa
Claude Desmoulins: At some point faction size could be used to squash dissent that was fragmented.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *sigh*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, if I remember my own words correctly,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that the RA should consider that the current system has flaws ? but also balances
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and it **purposefully** was created to allow small parties to have a chance.
Patroklus Murakami: i don't dispute the RAs right to change the minimum faction size (though i oppose it on principle) but i think it's a deliberate attempt to infuence the by-election by preventing the formation of new parties. that's wrong and restricts voters' choice
Gwyneth Llewelyn: However, this is not "written in stone". The RA *can* change it
Patroklus Murakami: the factions contesting the by-election should follow the same rule the ones who fought the january elections followed
Gwyneth Llewelyn tends to agree on that
Patroklus Murakami: i understand why they've taken that stance
Patroklus Murakami: they're worried about rumours about ballot rigging and forming fake factions
Claude Desmoulins: In 32 hours it may well be a moot point.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree Claude, hehe
Patroklus Murakami: but... the path to hell is paved with good intentions
Gwyneth Llewelyn:
Patroklus Murakami: i'm not sure i understand the 32 hours point
Patroklus Murakami: oh
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Deadline for candidates, pat
Patroklus Murakami: i see
Jamie Palisades: Pat, I suppose if you could show *either* intent *or* a reasonable proof of who's in fact advantaged, there's be an argument for a neutral panel to consider. But are you also prohibited from arguing against it if you think it *disadvanages* a faction? Doesn't *every* election rule change *always* probably change the various array of advantaged parties? And why would a Poorly motivated" change be out of bounds before a by election, but not for the next general election?
Patroklus Murakami: even so, it's the principle that's wrong
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, Justice arrives
Jamie Palisades: How are by elections special? or are you saying the RA NEVER can do so?
Justice Soothsayer: sorry to be SO darn late
Justice Soothsayer has indicated consent to be recorded.
Patroklus Murakami: yes jamie. every change potentially affects the outcome of a by-election so the RA should take great care in passing any changes
Patroklus Murakami: but they havent'
Jamie Palisades: well -
Patroklus Murakami: they' have passed partisan legislation to affect the outcome - deliberately
Patroklus Murakami: hi justice
Jamie Palisades: what level of failure to act to your liking rises to the level of being properly repealed by the SC?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's ok, Justice ? in fact, we've barely begun.
Jamie Palisades: and, er, sorry, as your replacement I object to suggesting it's any more poorly motivated than ... any other RA act
Gwyneth Llewelyn is basically just having fun seeing Janie and Pat argue and watch as a spectator
Patroklus Murakami: jamie, it's not about me. and it's not about my liking. it's whether it potentially affects the outcome
Jamie Palisades: as every election rule does
Jamie Palisades: (me too Gwyn, Pat's an opponent worthy of my steel)
Jamie Palisades: (a luxury in SL )
Patroklus Murakami: jamie, you don't change the election rules to benefit incumbents halfway through a term. it's just plain wrong
Jamie Palisades: why do you say that it happening here?
Patroklus Murakami: i don't care much about the faction rule. that is secondary. the big issue is changing the elimination rule
Jamie Palisades: SUrely not to the disadvantage of the largest faction in the last election?
Patroklus Murakami: that is forcing voters to give votes to factions they don't agree with. that's not what happened in the january election
Patroklus Murakami: it's blatant manipulation
Patroklus Murakami: IMHO
Jamie Palisades: Poor SC - sorry folks I think you have a basic question preceding all this - to what extent must you reject *all* changes to *any* rule just because it's a by-election?
Jamie Palisades: Pat - back that up. Manipulation to what end?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jamie, the problem we have is just one.
Patroklus Murakami: jamie. here's how it works...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The "special election" is not very well defined.
Jamie Palisades rolls his eyes: god knows
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, in absence of more precise clarification (eg, new bills)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: we have to assume
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that it is EXACTLY like the "general election"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: which is quite well defined
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and abides by EXACTLY the same rules
Patroklus Murakami: in the january election NuCARE recommended that voters should eliminate other factions and a third of them did so
Jamie Palisades: heh but Pat's view would prohibit us fromn passing any such bills
Gwyneth Llewelyn: EXCEPT on the number of seats.
Patroklus Murakami: so that led to a certain result
Claude Desmoulins: But for the fact that those bills have been passed.
Patroklus Murakami: now, the ra has decided to prevent elimination
Claude Desmoulins: Thus making the question...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes..
Patroklus Murakami: so, i have to give some of my vote to NuCARE but I do not wish to do so
Patroklus Murakami: the choice i had in the january election is denied to me as a voter
Claude Desmoulins: ....does doing so mid term create a too unlevel playing field?
Patroklus Murakami: by the people who benefitted from the eleciton rules that pertained there
Patroklus Murakami: that's wrong!
Jamie Palisades slowly sees a small light dawn over his head - Pat wants to do to Prin what Prin did to Pat last time. Got it. Sorry
Justice Soothsayer has caught up to the transcript
Patroklus Murakami: oh jamie. that's not even the point
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, Claude, the point here is just ? are the "special elections" to be held in the exact conditions as the "term elections", or not?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If not,
Claude Desmoulins: The chair would remind all present....
Gwyneth Llewelyn: under which conditions are they to be held? Do we (the SC that is) know them?
Claude Desmoulins: ....that this body holds itself to a high level of decorum.
Jamie Palisades nods
Justice Soothsayer: Surely it must be a principle that the rules can't change once the polls are open?
Claude Desmoulins: Does that then extend back to the rules don't change within a term?
Patroklus Murakami: claude, i agree. but if there's a problem with lack of decorum, spell it out. if i overstep the mark, tell me. i will respect you as chair of this meeting
Claude Desmoulins: I think it's solved itself.
Justice Soothsayer: So if we assume that there IS a point at which the electoral rules must be fixed, at what point in time is that point? When the term begins? Before an election is announced? When the seats are vacated?
Claude Desmoulins: That's the question.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, Justice. Those are, effectively, the reverse questions I've asked hehe
Jamie Palisades: Forgive my ignorance - wouldn't one look for that in the text first?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (but we've left with them as the conundrum to solve)
Claude Desmoulins: There is some merit to Pat's point that those who passed the changes do not have to stand for election under them.
Justice Soothsayer: But the text as to special elections is quite noticeably silent.
Claude Desmoulins: This time, anyway.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly, it says nothing about the "special elections" ? except that they are "for the vacant seats"
Justice Soothsayer: So, are the rules of the special election frozen at the time the vacancy occurs?
Jamie Palisades: Then is the RA disabled from changing them ever,as 'overly interested parties" ?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, a fundamental principle is that the RA can change everything, so long as it sdheres to the UDHR and the founding documents.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's clear
Justice Soothsayer: In other words, Jamie, is the RA limited to making only prospective electoral rules rather than retrospective ones?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The issue is just "when" hehe
Moon Adamant waves silently to everyone
Justice Soothsayer: Hi Moon
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ahhh ? good point Justice
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and hi, Moon!
Moon Adamant: hi hi
Claude Desmoulins: My read of Article IV suggests that the creation of a vacancy does cause factions to be reevaluated for viability.
Jamie Palisades: anbd more poignantly, when does 'rertospective' kick in ?
Gwyneth Llewelyn:
Justice Soothsayer: Indeed, Jamie.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, what ARE the special elections?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: A new term?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (albeit a shorter one)
Jamie Palisades: and who says? assuming no law speaks and there's no textual authority for it
Claude Desmoulins: Since it specifically states that the originally holding faction's non viability triggers a spexial election.
Justice Soothsayer: RA term 7.1?
Gwyneth Llewelyn smiles at Justice
Justice Soothsayer: Or, in SL terms, RA 7.1.14.19?
Claude Desmoulins: Doesn't it say to fill the vacant seats?
Jamie Palisades waves hello at the black wings
Claude Desmoulins: I take that to mean two things.
Claude Desmoulins: 1) only the vacated seats are being contested.
Claude Desmoulins: and although the textual authority is scant,...\
Claude Desmoulins: ...that the winners of this by election sit only until the end of this term.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's the only thing that is clear.
Justice Soothsayer: Leading to the related issue of the effect of a by-election on the LRA position. Does the by-election disrupt the calculation of which faction has the burden of assuming the LRA position?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (exactly, which was my other issue)
Jamie Palisades smiles a small smile
Claude Desmoulins: Let's go there in a minute.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, agreed
Gwyneth Llewelyn: one thing at a time.
Justice Soothsayer agrees w Gwyn & Claude, and apologizes for mixing apples with oranges, or Gaia with Granny Smith apples.
Claude Desmoulins: A very literal reading I think would suggest that only the CSDF's viability can be checkked at this time.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok... so my reading of the constitution is simpler. We have just ONE method defined on the constitution for how the elections have to be run,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but two different elections are possible:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 1) a full RA
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 2) a partial RA
Claude Desmoulins: How is a full RA election possible?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The RA sets the election date
Justice Soothsayer: Each term, no?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, each term
Justice Soothsayer: The general election.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "Officials in the Government are elected for a period of time according to the general principles of democratic rotativity to ensure proper representativity in a changing society, whose duration will be fixed by the RA by passing appropriate "
Claude Desmoulins: Wait amoment
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ...appropriate laws."
Patroklus Murakami: but we're not talking about a general election, are we?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Constitution doesn't specify much... it talks about "elections" (for the full RA) and "special elections" (for a number of seats left vacant)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And it defines one method ? one method only ? for elections.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It also says that the RA defines the *dates* for the elections
Justice Soothsayer: But, Gwyn, can you answer a question for me?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It has done so ? for the "term elections"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I hope I can, Justice, but I have far more questions than answers lol
Justice Soothsayer: heh
Justice Soothsayer: Does the RA's power to set election dates for a "special election" also include the power to set the rules under which such an election is run?
Claude Desmoulins: LOOK at Art I sec 2
Jamie Palisades: Hm. Not sure how this spins -- but I thought Gwyneth's interpretative point was this: The Conatitution only describes one kind of phenomenon - "an election" - two cases of which are 'special' and 'general' - but both of which otherwise might partake of the same rules, unless otherwise provided.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Justice: yes, by changing the constitution.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jamie, yes ? unless the constitution is changed to make a difference between both
Justice Soothsayer: And if a sufficient number of RA members vote to amend the Constitution BEFORE calling such a special election, then don't we as the SC have to honor that change?
Claude Desmoulins: Unless we believe it contravenes founding documents.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (claude, yes, the term is set there on Art I Sec 2)
Patroklus Murakami: No, not if doing so is, in effect, ballot-rigging
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Like Claude says.
Justice Soothsayer: And where in the founding documents is "ballot rigging" prohibited?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oooh
Patroklus Murakami: what if the RA, in it's current state, decided to outlaw all political parties from contesting elections whose names did not begin with 'N'? would that be okay? if not, why not?
Claude Desmoulins: Unless it violates UDHR Article VII
Dnate Mars: The RA could do that, but what kind of support would they get from the general public one that?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (hi Dnate)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and no
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination" etc
Patroklus Murakami: dnate, the point is 'Would the SC allow them to do this?'

[Claude Desmoulins]

Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would claim it is discriminatory
Gwyneth Llewelyn: very discriminatory
Dnate Mars: As Gwyn said, that is disctiminatory
Dnate Mars: That woudl be liek saying only Blue Avatars could vote
Justice Soothsayer: So, the question before is is whether the 10% rule violates the UDHR provision "Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. "
Patroklus Murakami: ok, so we have established the principle that the RA cannot simply do as they please
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That same argument is what, I think, prevents any election ? general or special ? to discriminate candidates
Jamie Palisades: Indeed. Where's the discrimination? (Not voter preferences, but a disadvantage to some definable class of people who ought intrinsically to have equal power.) And is there an assettion of intent?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But this is philosophical
Patroklus Murakami: the 10% rule is a minor issue though still an important one. the main issue is changing the voting system by which the replacements are elected
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hi Princess, welcome
Justice Soothsayer: Does a law that will in effect apply to only a part of the eleced seats of the RA (those in the by-election) violate the anti-dscrimination provision sof UDHR?
ThePrincess Parisi: hello thank you
Justice Soothsayer: *elected
Claude Desmoulins: My question was does this create a legal inequality between those who now sit and those who are candidates in the by election?
Patroklus Murakami: another example - what if the RA changed the electoral system to first-past-the-post for these elections. would that be okay?
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: if it's a constitutional change, sure
ThePrincess Parisi: if it was constitutional i guess so
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it would
Justice Soothsayer: In other words, if the 10% rule applied to a general election, would it pass constitutional muster in a way that such a law might not if applied in a by-election?
ThePrincess Parisi: i dont see how actuaaly
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I know I'm reverting my own position on Monday, lol
Jamie Palisades: I thikn Claude has it right, FWIW - and I do not see a "disparate" effect as among the two sets.
Patroklus Murakami: i argue it would not. it would be an example of the incumbents rigging the election to favour themselves
Patroklus Murakami: that cannot be allowed
ThePrincess Parisi: which incubants
Jamie Palisades: again, Pat, sorry, but how so?
ThePrincess Parisi: fyi we arent running
Dnate Mars: Not in the least
Patroklus Murakami: the by-election should proceed by the same rules that pertained in the january election
Justice Soothsayer: But Pat, would a 10% minimum size be constitutional if applied in a general election?
Jamie Palisades: uh huh. Why?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well. The point here is simple, actually ? let's get practical
ThePrincess Parisi: cos it benefits him jamie
ThePrincess Parisi: and their big scheme was based on that
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Can the RA exclude a party from elections at whim?
ThePrincess Parisi: no whim .. no
Patroklus Murakami: justice, we're talking about two problems simultaneously
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (even if it does so by changing the constitution)
Claude Desmoulins: Define whim.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: By passing a constitutional change to exclude a party.
ThePrincess Parisi: this has to do with population size
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or a candidate.
Claude Desmoulins: At some point, very exclusionary rules would violate UDHR Art 21
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So IMHO, the RA cannot pass laws that exclude factions on the next elections.
ThePrincess Parisi: we didnt
Justice Soothsayer: Point of order, Claude. Might I suggest that having 4 conversations at once may be problematic?
Claude Desmoulins: By causing the elections to cease to be "genuine"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Which is a problem by itself
Patroklus Murakami: the 10% change prevents new parties from forming. it is unconstitutional. if they had set it at 15% only the CSDF woudl be able to stand!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes.
Dnate Mars: But they didn't set it at 15%
Justice Soothsayer: Maybe we could engage in a discussion with Jamie first, then with Princess, then Pat, or whatever order might be appropriate.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So they allow some, but not others.
Dnate Mars: 10% means the party has to be as large as the RA
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, yes, Claude ? let's put some order
Dnate Mars: How is that unfair?
Patroklus Murakami: dnate, no. but they prevented any new parties from forming
Dnate Mars: No
Claude Desmoulins: Hold on everyone,
Dnate Mars: you get 7 people, you have a new party
Patroklus Murakami: sorry. i'll defer to claude as chair
ThePrincess Parisi: no we set it at a fair play
Claude Desmoulins: Does anyonr on the SC want to speak before we go to the rest of the room for comment?
ThePrincess Parisi: no we didnt
ThePrincess Parisi: any party can form
ThePrincess Parisi: five ppl
Claude Desmoulins: Dnate and Process, please/
Claude Desmoulins: *princess
Dnate Mars: sorry
Justice Soothsayer: Process, lol!
ThePrincess Parisi: we didnt prevent them from forming at all
ThePrincess Parisi: what
Claude Desmoulins: We're going to try to take turns
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes
Claude Desmoulins: SC members first, please.
ThePrincess Parisi: please excuse me
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well. As said before, we have a paradox, lol ? and I have more questions than answers.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Issue #1 ? The RA can change all rules, so long as they are non-discriminatory to any faction
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Issue #2 ? Any change of the election rules, will discrimnate some, and benefit others.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: SO...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Does this mean that the RA can change all rules except the election rules? (obviously the answer has to be no...)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or does it mean that we simply have to accept that if the RA is allowed to change the election rules,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it will indce discrimination ? always ? since it's not possible to do otherwise? (a rule change means exactly that: some get advantages; some lose them)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *induce
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I have no answer! ... and will let the next SC member talk.
Claude Desmoulins: Justice
Justice Soothsayer: Thanks, Claude
Justice Soothsayer: First, Gwyn, I'm not sure that any rule changes would "per se" be discriminatory if it advantages or disadvantages some but not others, as long as such changes are "applied" equally.
Justice Soothsayer: But I am troubled by one aspect of the new 10% rule.
Justice Soothsayer: It seems to me that the spirit of the founding avatars was that small factions are to be protected
Justice Soothsayer: and even disproportionately rewarded
Justice Soothsayer: by seats in the RA; electoral changes that disadvantage small factions must therefore be viewed with some skepticism.
Justice Soothsayer: Such skepticism is enhanced by changes made moments before a special election is called.
Justice Soothsayer: Careful now, I'm not saying that I'm against such changes, just that my skepticism level has been enhanced.
Claude Desmoulins: Would changes appled equally be non discriminatory even if such changes created a de facto one party system?
Gwyneth Llewelyn would like to have an answer to that
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I don't know, really.
Justice Soothsayer: The creation of a one party system, Claude, would be discriminatory even if applied equally, because of the effect.
Claude Desmoulins: For the record, I tend to agree with Justice's assesment of the support of the founders for small factions.
Patroklus Murakami: could i present an example?
Claude Desmoulins: Justice, were you finished?
ThePrincess Parisi: i have a response too
Justice Soothsayer: yes, i'll return the floor.
Claude Desmoulins: Let's go to Jamie next.
Jamie Palisades looks up: Ok w all?
Claude Desmoulins: Now Princess
Jamie Palisades: Um Claude?
ThePrincess Parisi: how a thing affects one party is irrlelvant .. it changed it for everyone... two:it was in response allso to community growth as well as no elimination rule, cos now a few ppl can have a party that will def get a seat.... and the definition of small is relative and five ppl is smaller now thanthree was at one time.. justice......
Jamie Palisades: I was askeing, not assenting, sorry, may I?
ThePrincess Parisi: oh jamie go on
Jamie Palisades is happ to wait 'til next
ThePrincess Parisi: im done
Jamie Palisades: OK:
ThePrincess Parisi: i know what our intentions were and they were for the good of the sims
ThePrincess Parisi: osrry
Jamie Palisades: Ahen If the SC has any questions of me as Interim LA, I'm happy to answer them. I have four points.
Jamie Palisades: (a) Generally I believe that (a) RA acts - including consitutional changes - should be respected by the SC as legitimate democratic output unless they clearly violate a stated and clear rule, UDHP or otherwise - which would require a *showing* of some *actual* discrimination. Here no such effect has even been described. A bald assertion's not enough, and I assert to you that there was, from the RA as body, no intent to hurt anyone in particularly. (In fact I regard the rules as sufficiently complex that wise people would not be sure HOW such a rule will affect the outcome.) ..
Jamie Palisades: (b) Nontextual "Spirit" and "founder's intent" as an appeal bothers me, frankly: it seems too easily bent to individual preference, and --as we've learned in RL politics where it is freely invoked to bad effect -- should be invoked sparingly, in case of obviously bad acts only. The "balance of power" in the constitution is NOT a UDHR matter it is a constitutional one - and therefore, eligible for change. How else would a community grow? Claiud'e "de facto one party" example night recah that. I just so not see how this mild perturbation, which will affect us all in Lord only knows what minor way, and can not be reasonabley views at pointed at ANYONE so far as I know, seems to me different. If that latter view is thought wrong: offer proof.
Justice Soothsayer: Jamies, as to (a), doesn't the 10% change "hurt" small factions?
ThePrincess Parisi: did you read what i said
Jamie Palisades holds up on "c"
ThePrincess Parisi: small is relative
ThePrincess Parisi: small is a term that is undefined we defined it
ThePrincess Parisi: and when the place started three wasnt as small as five is now
Justice Soothsayer: small, for our purposes, can be defined as greater than 3 but less than 10% of the populace.
Justice Soothsayer: in other words, those factions which may be affected by the RA's change in the rules.
Dnate Mars: 9%, 8%? 2%?
Patroklus Murakami: point of information: the faction size was set at 3 because that was the minimum SL group size
Jamie Palisades sighs and waits to answer as best he can..
Justice Soothsayer: sorry, Jamie.
Patroklus Murakami: it had nothing to do with population size
ThePrincess Parisi: but small is releveant.. and who cares why
Patroklus Murakami: sorry jamie
ThePrincess Parisi: if ll changed that would we have one member parties
ThePrincess Parisi: huh pat?
Jamie Palisades: Justice, on some level all numbers including 1, 3 and 4 and X percent "hurt" someone -- and a statute that pounishes people hurts them too. The Q ius whetehr it is *incorrectly* distinguishing betwene thigns to disavdantage them..
Justice Soothsayer waits for Jamie to either answer my question as to (a), or defer answering and go on to (c) and (d).
Jamie Palisades: is 10% better than 3? Dunno. I appeal to democracy .. and suggets that's NOIT a 'founders' level issue
Jamie Palisades: Justice, I just tried to answer you and plan to go on to (c)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 10% is a lot, Jamie ? the RA is 10% of all population
Jamie Palisades: 3 is a lot too, shrug
ThePrincess Parisi: and if LL changed group rules to be that if one person can be a group woudl we have one member factions? anser that
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it was set because of LL's limits
Jamie Palisades smiles and waits
ThePrincess Parisi: so how is that relevant?
Jamie Palisades: well then LL is in violation of UDHP for discriinating agains 2-person factions. Repeal them too?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Princess, that's the wrong question. The correct one is: *if* the group limits in 2004 were just 1 person, would we have 1-person-parties? The answer would very likely be "yes"
Jamie Palisades:
Patroklus Murakami: ThePrincess, 3 is an arbitrary number
Jamie Palisades: ready for (c)
ThePrincess Parisi: we say it should be a percentage not a arbitrary nuber
Justice Soothsayer is waiting eageryly for (c)
ThePrincess Parisi: because small is always a relative term
Patroklus Murakami: you can change it. that's fine. but
ThePrincess Parisi: lol
ThePrincess Parisi: we did
Patroklus Murakami: not before a by-election!
ThePrincess Parisi: why not
ThePrincess Parisi: of course we can
Justice Soothsayer: ORDER!
Claude Desmoulins: One could argue that voters should be allowed to decide on small factions by voting for them or not, but if you don't allow exclusion...
Claude Desmoulins: Sorry.
Claude Desmoulins: Was typing other sentence
ThePrincess Parisi: may i ask?
Claude Desmoulins: We're circling here.
Justice Soothsayer: Let's let JAmie get to (c) and (d) then open up to questions for him from SC members, please.
Claude Desmoulins: Yes
Patroklus Murakami: claude, i'd really like to present my example at some point. it will illuminate the issue. but i will wait until jamie has spoken and you give me the floor
Claude Desmoulins: Jamie, please/
Jamie Palisades: me watches tyupe-y gestures subside
Jamie Palisades: With respect, a rply to Gwyn, then my (c) and (d). Gwyn: "Must the 2008 polity are represented by the RA handle minority repreentation in EXACTLY the same way as the 2004 founders, to the point where we prohibit a constitutional amendment validly approved?" .. and "Is there an unwritten rule that they can't any of that stuff with an effective date prior to the next general election?"
Jamie Palisades: and thank you, Claude.
Jamie Palisades: (c) ...
Jamie Palisades: (c) A minor point on constitutional amendment changes, in particular: I fear it's suspect reasoning to invalidate a constitutional change on the ground of violating that same constitution as unchanged. .. andf inally ..
Jamie Palisades: (d) just this: .. I have some addittionalviews on the LRA succession calculation, if you reach that issue. Thank you.
ThePrincess Parisi: i have something when its my turn
Claude Desmoulins: Do SC members have questions for Jamie
Claude Desmoulins: ?
Justice Soothsayer: Yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (I have more a "comment" than a question)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (after Justice though)
Justice Soothsayer: Jamie, doesn't the 10% change "hurt" small factions? "small" being those that have 3 members but less than 10%?
Claude Desmoulins: Justice then Gwyn
ThePrincess Parisi: NO
Justice Soothsayer: Maybe even your own?
ThePrincess Parisi: it protects factions that are small
Claude Desmoulins: Princess, you're out of order.
ThePrincess Parisi: oops
Justice Soothsayer: Jamies only, please.
ThePrincess Parisi: oh ok
Claude Desmoulins: Jamie?
Jamie Palisades: Well targeted, Claude, thank you. Only in the same sense that a dadline for applying "hurts" those who come late. Yes it denies some eligibility to some - but so does thecurrent rule. Personally I thikn your Q is whetehr that increment is either malicious, or directed at some one in some improper way ...
Jamie Palisades: .. or is *significant* enough in disenfrachisement that it violatesd something higher than the current (amendable) constitutional scheme
Jamie Palisades: done
ThePrincess Parisi: i have one thing to make clear
Claude Desmoulins: Princess, please
Justice Soothsayer: So if you faction has fewer than 10% of the populace, would it be able to compete in the by-election, Jamie? (And Jamie only, please).
Jamie Palisades: hm - you are askiong me for an interp of the effect of this new law ink wstill drying
Jamie Palisades: I will go look and then answer- please go on in the interim
Claude Desmoulins: Welcome to oral arguments
Justice Soothsayer: aye, but while we are considering whether to let it take effect before the ink dries.
Claude Desmoulins: Gwyn, your comment
Jamie Palisades: Claude - had I been told to defends < i would be prepared
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, the biggest issue the SC always has
Gwyneth Llewelyn: is when the Constitution *or* the laws are not clear, or, more often, totally lacking any information about an issue whatsoever
Gwyneth Llewelyn: In the past, we have held to this point on "Constitution A":
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "Members of the Philosophic branch are not bound by a strict literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, or the strict adherence to legal precedence. Rather members of the SC are required to draw upon their individual fields of expertise to solve complex social issues."
Jamie Palisades smiles
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This managed the self-elected meritocracy to be able to pronounce a decision,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: on things like: "are constitutional changes possible that render the constitution unconstitutionable?"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: which was the point Jamie made
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and that I in a sense also alluded)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If you look on the Wiki,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "Constitution B" does not have tha paragraph any more

[Claude Desmoulins]

Claude Desmoulins: Nevertheless....
Gwyneth Llewelyn: During the wild days of the Judiciary Act,,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the SC was obliged only to make literal interpretations.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: What happened in those cases,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: is that if the SC had no way to solve an issue,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: outside a constitutional interpretation (which was made, uh, "forbidden),
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it simply said to the RA: "We don't know. You decide."
Gwyneth Llewelyn:
Claude Desmoulins: ....no law or constitution will be perfectly unambiguous.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Of course.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: To finalise,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the SC is also made of human beings
Gwyneth Llewelyn: usually selected with a certain goal in mind
Gwyneth Llewelyn: namely, that they are seen by the citizens
Gwyneth Llewelyn: as people with good common sense
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and hopefully employ that common sense to get out of tricky situations
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nevertheless ? as humans,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: they fail
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So ? this means that we're not omniscient. We can either do one of two things:
Claude Desmoulins cannot see typing anims today. Please tell him when you're done.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: a) interpret the constitution to "protect" small factions, because we believe (and that's a belief; not a factual argument...) that doing otherwise 'hurts' the citizens
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or b) ignore our beliefs,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and simply tell the RA: "the Constitution is omissive on this point. You decide".
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (that's it, thanks, Claude)
Claude Desmoulins: Although there is the question of whether a change mid term would create a conflict of interest.
Claude Desmoulins: Princess
ThePrincess Parisi: yes
ThePrincess Parisi: thank you
ThePrincess Parisi: first of all about the "small faction paranoia"
ThePrincess Parisi: the RA members are mostly of "small factions
ThePrincess Parisi: and in fact i propose and know it to be true that the new rule actually protects smaller factions do you wanna know why
ThePrincess Parisi: and do you find it odd the LARGE factions more concerned than the small ones
ThePrincess Parisi: who voted for it? i am heres why
ThePrincess Parisi: hello?
ThePrincess Parisi: the RA that passed the bill ..in order to and IN FACT protect "smallish" factions ....... if there is too liberal a way to be a faction the way it is now ,
ThePrincess Parisi: all a larger.. say, the largest one has to do .. is split in several mini factions and then all be guaranteed a seat with the way
Claude Desmoulins listens
ThePrincess Parisi: no eliminitaion is in play now
ThePrincess Parisi: his infact, protects small existing factions and assures new ones are valid
ThePrincess Parisi: for example
ThePrincess Parisi: the next term .. the monster faction
ThePrincess Parisi: can split into mini factions and get five seats
ThePrincess Parisi: voila
ThePrincess Parisi: that is if you wanna be fear based.. fear that
ThePrincess Parisi: so

ThePrincess Parisi: i know that the RA thought that in mind of the expansion of the community
ThePrincess Parisi: we needed to make sure our rules did inded protect the "real " small parteis.. that infact are the relative sisze that a faction had to be in the early days
ThePrincess Parisi: so we only clarificed the SAME percentage
ThePrincess Parisi: that was in deed in place then
ThePrincess Parisi: and made it a rule that would grow tierefore with us
ThePrincess Parisi: end
Justice Soothsayer: Princess, if you could answer a question?
ThePrincess Parisi: ys
Cindy Ecksol thinks the math might support what prin is saying...would have to work it out
ThePrincess Parisi: yes
ThePrincess Parisi: ty cin
Justice Soothsayer: Isn't there are difference between seems to me there is a difference between the elimination of the elimination rule, and the 10% faction rule. The "elimination of elimination" applies to all, the elimination of factions between 3 people and 10% applies only to those small factions.
ThePrincess Parisi: the elimination rule came first.. us getting rid of elimination in the election .. indeed to PROTECT small parties
Dnate Mars: I too would like to speak on this
ThePrincess Parisi: and against a two or one party system
ThePrincess Parisi: and
Patroklus Murakami: i would like to speak on this too
Gwyneth Llewelyn: me too
ThePrincess Parisi: so we had talked about party size already and then when elimintion was prohibited as it had been before tehlast RA term
ThePrincess Parisi: then we knew it was time to do the faction size bill
ThePrincess Parisi: does that answer your question
ThePrincess Parisi: i have a question for you
Justice Soothsayer: thanks, TP
ThePrincess Parisi: how on earth does makign five ppl be in a party "hurt " them
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ty, that was quite clear indeed.
ThePrincess Parisi: no parties have less than that
ThePrincess Parisi: and any five ppl can be a party now
ThePrincess Parisi: done
Dnate Mars: (10% would be 7, no?)
Jamie Palisades: Thanks for your patience -- here's the text: "The minimum size requirement for a faction to participate in RA elections shall be 10% of the total CDS population, rounded down." Yes, to answer, that would remove the right to run candidates from parties who have fewer than that many *members* as you now choose to count them. SOme have said with the current voting census, that number would be 4 -- a matter I expect this body as election authority would determine.
ThePrincess Parisi: rounded down dnate
Patroklus Murakami: minimum faction size would be 7 under the new rules (unless we lost 27 citizens...)
Justice Soothsayer: maybe more like 8 people needed to make a faction if we have 80 citizens as of when the polls open?
Jamie Palisades: but census as of now, or as of last general?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (heh Jamie)
ThePrincess Parisi: i have a list
Patroklus Murakami: as of last general - 7
ThePrincess Parisi: some have left
ThePrincess Parisi: sudane gave me it today

ThePrincess Parisi: ppl who left since the census cant count
ThePrincess Parisi: omg another can of worms
ThePrincess Parisi: so non citizens count?
ThePrincess Parisi: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: indeed
Dnate Mars: What is the current count as of March 2008?
ThePrincess Parisi: for a by election then, you take the cencsus minus who left
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ah... let me check, Dnate
ThePrincess Parisi: no new
Patroklus Murakami: mmm, where do you get that rule from theprincess?
Patroklus Murakami: i don't see that rule anywhere
ThePrincess Parisi: no im just saying.. :{
ThePrincess Parisi: i made it up pat
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 81
Patroklus Murakami: claude, who may speak now?
Claude Desmoulins: Pat had asked for the floor.
Claude Desmoulins: Then Dnate.
Patroklus Murakami: ThePrincess' example is ridiculous. it's generating a phantom reason for a restrictive practice preparing laws to deal with paranoia is not good practice
ThePrincess Parisi: thank you pat
Patroklus Murakami: there is no evidence that anything theprincess has outlined is being planned by anybody
ThePrincess Parisi: your thing was paranoia
ThePrincess Parisi: not mine..
Patroklus Murakami: and, even if it were, they would need to *get votes from citizens* which sucha blatant attempt at vote-rigging would fail to do
ThePrincess Parisi: sheesh
ThePrincess Parisi: how can you rig a vote?
Patroklus Murakami: i have an example that might illuminate the question
Patroklus Murakami: let's imagine an alternative scenario:
Patroklus Murakami: imagine the CSDF won four out of seven seats last time
Patroklus Murakami: imagine NuCARE won two and resigned after a few weeks and left the seats vacant
Patroklus Murakami: imagine the RA passed a law making the minimum faction size 12 and changing the election system to two seats - each elected by 'first-past-the-post'
Patroklus Murakami: the outcome would be that both seats would probably be won by the CSDF
Patroklus Murakami: that would be shameless ballot-rigging. it would not represent the will of the voters
ThePrincess Parisi: lol if we left we wouldnt care cos we wouldnt come back
ThePrincess Parisi: lol
Patroklus Murakami: but if you allow these changes, this would surely be permissible?
ThePrincess Parisi: no the malice is on a party that leaves to just come back and grief us
ThePrincess Parisi: of course
ThePrincess Parisi: you left
Patroklus Murakami: theprincess. could you let me finish?
ThePrincess Parisi: well you didnt leave you were at every RA session
Gwyneth Llewelyn: May I remind our friendly citizens that the SC, on this session, is not really interested in personal squibbles? We can set up special sessions for that if you wish ? but not today.
Patroklus Murakami: the question is whether the RA is permitted to make changes before a by-election that benefit incumbents.
ThePrincess Parisi: we wouldnt do that analoygy moot
Patroklus Murakami: i don't think it can be. that's the principle at stake here
Claude Desmoulins: Princess.
ThePrincess Parisi: and the anser is if you care then why did you leave
Claude Desmoulins: You don't have the floor
Patroklus Murakami: that's precisely the point at question. the RA is changing the rules to advantage the incumbents in teh election and disadvantage any current or potential competitiors
Patroklus Murakami: it would be wrong if the CSDF were doing it, and it is also wrong for the current RA members to do it
ThePrincess Parisi: i have to be able to respond to his attacks
Patroklus Murakami: if you allow this to pass, you allow the scenario i outlined to be permissible. surely that cannot be right?
Patroklus Murakami: that's all
ThePrincess Parisi: you, unlike the rest of us are playing a game...............and sorry .. you are not in a game here, we are a community
Patroklus Murakami: i resent that accusation. it is unfounded and untrue
ThePrincess Parisi: lol
ThePrincess Parisi: mirrors baby
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Please
Gwyneth Llewelyn: if you have issues between yourselves,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: either ask for the SC to settle them on a pivate session
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or take it to someplace else.
Patroklus Murakami: gwyn, i'm not the one making personal attacks here
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The comment was to both of you
Bjerkel Eerie: these are ad hominum constructs that illucidate nothing
Claude Desmoulins: There is the issue of whether changing rules midterm creates conflict of interest.
Claude Desmoulins: wanted the floor
Claude Desmoulins: Dnate did.
Claude Desmoulins: Go ahead Dnate.
Dnate Mars: Ok, this 10% rule was sort of my idea, so let me explain what my thought was
Dnate Mars: When we were small and just a single sim, we made the minimum faction size 3 people because that is what was required to form a group
Dnate Mars: We just have stuck with it because it just was easy to not change
Dnate Mars: but since that time the CDS has grown quite a bit
Dnate Mars: we are now up to 81 citizens, and I have a great fear that as we grow we can have the situation were we have 100's of parties of three people each
Claude Desmoulins: point of information... 9
Dnate Mars: Could you imagine trying to rank many many parties in an election?
Claude Desmoulins: oops ...27
ThePrincess Parisi: ikes
Dnate Mars: people wouldn't want to spend hours trying to rank that many parties
Dnate Mars: Voting would grind to a halt
Dnate Mars: so, there are 2 ways to go forward
Dnate Mars: 1) allow people to not vote for factions
Dnate Mars: or 2) increase the party size so that there are a limited number of parties that can form and RUN
Dnate Mars: A party can still exsist with less then the 10% of the population, they just can't run for RA
Dnate Mars: They can still go for SC or Chancellor
Dnate Mars: This rule is to try and protect the RA and the citizens from fracturing too greatly
Justice Soothsayer: But isnt it just then an incumbent protection rule, Dnate?
Dnate Mars: Then why do we have the min of 3 people? That is just as random
Dnate Mars: Parties will come and go
Justice Soothsayer: Restricting the rights of citizens to form new factions to complete in the by-election?
Dnate Mars: they have in the past when the rules were much less
Dnate Mars: I don't see it as so
Patroklus Murakami: it is random. based on the old min group size. the min faction size should be 1
Dnate Mars: What is the differance between having apply to this election or the next one?
Dnate Mars: Nothing really
Patroklus Murakami: dnate, there's a world of difference
Justice Soothsayer: Patroklus Murikami, party of one, your table is ready.
ThePrincess Parisi: lol it messes up your game thats what
Gwyneth Llewelyn: There is indeed
Patroklus Murakami: i can't believe i have to explain this to you
Dnate Mars: The RA could have said if the party didn't exsist when the general was held, they couldn't run this time
Jamie Palisades: HEY.
Justice Soothsayer: Isn't that in effect exactly what they did, Dnate?
Patroklus Murakami: there are *incumbents* and they are *changing the rules* so their candidates win
ThePrincess Parisi: our candidates wont run sir
Dnate Mars: No, they are changing the rules from this day forward
Jamie Palisades sighs & apologies - this one's your unruly mtg Claude, not mine
Claude Desmoulins: Dnate is answeing questions from the SC
Dnate Mars: It is not just a rule for the special election, it is a change to the was ALL elections are held going forward
Claude Desmoulins: Any other SC questions to Dnate?
Dnate Mars: Hearing this meeting, it appears that the SC thinks that 10% is too high, but if you can't even get enough people to match the RA do you really have the support needed to run?
ThePrincess Parisi raises her hadn..
ThePrincess Parisi: hand.. its brief
Dnate Mars: Also, as we grow, we may need to look at this rule and see if it doesn't need to be changed
Claude Desmoulins: Dnate are you finished?
Dnate Mars: but as it stands now, 10% is a fair number
Dnate Mars: I am if there are no more questions
ThePrincess Parisi: i do since it was your idea dnate?
ThePrincess Parisi: or just sc?
Dnate Mars: I will answer any questions
Claude Desmoulins: If the Sc is done w/ dnate...
Claude Desmoulins: Cindy, do you have anything to say?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (no questions from me)
Justice Soothsayer: (none from me)
Cindy Ecksol: no, I think everything I might have said has been mentioned since I came in. there are definitely some issues with the current system, and as I said, I think the math bears out what prin was saying
Claude Desmoulins: Princess....briefly, please.
Jamie Palisades: When all are done and if it's felt to be in order, I am going to ask to make one more comment also.
ThePrincess Parisi: well.. i have another question of dnate and its that .. well a motivation as well was that we have problems it seems ith even the largest party keeping ppl in seats.. how canyou expect us to have a givt
ThePrincess Parisi: govt
ThePrincess Parisi: where a six month term cannot be filled by a faction
ThePrincess Parisi: if we have this kind of disrutpion over and over
Dnate Mars: That is another issue all together
ThePrincess Parisi: our commukity suffers
ThePrincess Parisi: the ten percent protects us from this sort of evil
ThePrincess Parisi: five bi elections a term?
ThePrincess Parisi: done
Dnate Mars: I hope in the future this never happens again
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry guys ? I really would like to ask my fellow SC members, if we allow direct questions between citizens attending the meeting
ThePrincess Parisi: its griefing
Patroklus Murakami shrugs. just try to be nicer to ppl in future
Gwyneth Llewelyn: since I really don't agree on that
Claude Desmoulins: Please don't
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We're suggesting the following...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: While you were having your nice chat, we have been counting who is a valid citizen of each faction, as of today
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Effectively,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: all factions right now have 8 or more valid citizens
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie. all validate the 10% rule
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's thus clear that if the law is in effect as of today,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: no current faction is being discriminated against it
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We have also established, that 30 hours or less before the end of the period where candidates have to show willingness to serve,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: no new factions were announced
Gwyneth Llewelyn: either publicly
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or by contacting the Dean
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I propose that the SC votes on deciding that the 10% rule is in effect for the by.election
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and of course, this will also mean it'll be valid forever since ? until the RA changes it again )
Claude Desmoulins: Discussion among the SC?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The major point is that *this* law does really not change the rules for the by-election, de facto (if not de jure)
Justice Soothsayer: I'll second Gwyn's motion. I am a little suspicious of the timing of the rule change, but it does not seem to harm any current parties, and no new parties are forming.
Claude Desmoulins: There does seem to be no provable harm.
Justice Soothsayer: So I'll concur that the 10% rule should be in effect for the by-election.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: de jure there is a change ? it goes against the founding principles. But, alas, Dnate & Jamie very well put that that things should not be "written in stone"
Claude Desmoulins: As do I.
Patroklus Murakami: awful, awful decision
ThePrincess Parisi: actions speak
Claude Desmoulins remind all
Claude Desmoulins: ...that the deadline for declaring candidacy is tomorrow.
Claude Desmoulins: Please contact me if you intend to stand.
ThePrincess Parisi: for the election?
Jamie Palisades: may I aske dthat you work that reminder into a Forum post tonight (as election authority)?
ThePrincess Parisi: nuCARE has NO candidates claude

[Claude Desmoulins]

Justice Soothsayer: Let me add that the "elimination of faction elimination" rule would also be in effect for the by-election.
ThePrincess Parisi: neither does the SP
Claude Desmoulins: Yes. Princess.
Jamie Palisades is referring to the filing deadline
ThePrincess Parisi: yes i agree jamie
ThePrincess Parisi: we have no candidates
Claude Desmoulins: Candidates have until Saturday.
ThePrincess Parisi: we have two RA seats and chancellor and that is enough
Jamie Palisades smiles and declines to opine on planned candidates
Bromo Ivory nods
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, Mr Dean, shall we go to the next point?
Claude Desmoulins: The no elimination woul be a return to previous status quo, and would apply equally to all participants inthe by election.
Claude Desmoulins: Last item for this meeting.
Claude Desmoulins: The LRA.
Claude Desmoulins: The constitution is silent on what happens if the faction holding the LRA leaves the RA entirely.
Patroklus Murakami: sorry, have you voted on the 'no elimination' rule?
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor of allowing the return to no elimination...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: aye
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Claude Desmoulins waits for Justice
Justice Soothsayer: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: Now...
Claude Desmoulins: I see three options on LRA.
Dnate Mars has indicated consent to be recorded.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *sigh* ? that one should get a whipping by whoever put the amendment in there
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *to
Claude Desmoulins: 1) The decision made by the voters at the last general election remains valid and if the CSDF wins a seat inthe by election, they get the LRA.
Patroklus Murakami: good night all
Claude Desmoulins: 2) The by election represents the latest and most accurate popular will and the faction winning it should get the LRA.
Claude Desmoulins: 3) The RA's internal selection of Jamie should stand.
ThePrincess Parisi: even if they win only one seat back
Claude Desmoulins: Other possibilities, SC?
ThePrincess Parisi: oh sorry gosh
Justice Soothsayer: Yes, one other possibility.
Justice Soothsayer: (4) Question is not ripe until after the election.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thus side-stepping the issue
Jamie Palisades makes the "eventual desire to comment" hand sign in the Dean's direction, about LRA re-calculations
Dnate Mars: If I may, I would liek to suggest one other option
ThePrincess Parisi: we have a LRA bill that was in before teh by elections became necessary though
Gwyneth Llewelyn: There are a few more, yes
ThePrincess Parisi: ikes
Claude Desmoulins: Is there any way it could remain unripe even after the election? Or would we just put it off until late April.
Claude Desmoulins: Sorry Gwyn
Justice Soothsayer: On ripeness, can I be heard before we more to Jamie?
ThePrincess Parisi: it is moot cos there wil be a new bill passed by then
Claude Desmoulins: If gwyn is done--- back to Justice.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The most hard bit to decide is: how to compare votes. They will be totally different.

Justice Soothsayer: If CSDF doesn't win any seats in the by-election, then the results of the last general election awarding the LRA to CSDF would not apply.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly, Justice, but even if it wins...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... it would win with far more votes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: in fact,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: any seat won on the by-election
Justice Soothsayer: and there would be no need for us to decide the issue.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: will have FAR more votes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and seats ? and the "most voted seat" ? is calculated by the # of votes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So this is Very Hard.
Michel Manen: Hi all
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie. if the DPU wins just one seat out of the two,
Justice Soothsayer: Right now all we are doing is considering hypotheticals. Much better to wait.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: they will have far more votes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree with Justice on this
Justice Soothsayer: Too many possible permutations to consider; let the election results winnow down the possibilities to one.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and I'll take Princess' promise to introduce a new change on how the LRA is going to be, uh, "appointed/nominated" as being perhaps a good way out of this.
Gwyneth Llewelyn seconds Justice on that
Claude Desmoulins: So If CSDF wins a seat the gen elect results hold and they get LRA back?
Jamie Palisades: sigh
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I propose that we answer that after the elections
Claude Desmoulins: Voters have some right to understand how their votes this month will or won't affect the LRA.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Justice Soothsayer: I think that woud probably be true if cSDF won both seats
Gwyneth Llewelyn takes her ace out of her sleeves
Gwyneth Llewelyn notices she has no sleeves!!
Jamie Palisades: Voters affect the LRA? heh. One may hope. Still waiting for a comment time.
Cindy Ecksol says "Me too!"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, Art I
Claude Desmoulins waits for Gwyn's ace.
ThePrincess Parisi: all voters, no, now just teh dominant party does
Dnate Mars: I need to go, see you later and, waiting is good
ThePrincess Parisi: that will change
ThePrincess Parisi: soon
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sec 3
ThePrincess Parisi: all voters will get a say
Gwyneth Llewelyn: There is a provision
ThePrincess Parisi: by ednate
Gwyneth Llewelyn: if we can't "decide" who the LRA is
ThePrincess Parisi waves to dnate and pulls his tail
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "we" being mostly ??the citizen's votes.
Jamie Palisades waves at Dnate
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's the old trick of the ROck, Papers, Scissor game
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So ?
Claude Desmoulins: Only in the event of a borda tie which we don
Claude Desmoulins: don't have
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's hard to compare borda ties, Claue,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: on two completely different vote counts
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, in question of doubt....
Justice Soothsayer: I would like to hear Jamie on this.
Claude Desmoulins: The saem art. defines LRA as the leader of the faction with the highest borda w/o specifying in which election.
Claude Desmoulins: Jamie...
Jamie Palisades: Thanks. ...
Jamie Palisades: First, for what it is worth, having read through the test, I find the various options logically available to you as a matter of interpretation somewhat, well, awkward and hard to justify. AND: I could easily describe a ludicrous undemocratic result, I think, depending on faction sizes, proceeding from EACH of the 3 choices Claude correctly identified. For the reason Gwyn said - it's apples-and-ranges to merge the two Borda counts, and sugly to ignore either one. Asked myself to have a view, I read the text - and shrank from the thought, frankly. ...
Jamie Palisades: *oranges ... *ugly
Jamie Palisades: So, second, I wish to tell you that I've posted those views -- and that I plan myself to bring a bill to make the LRA selection *after* a by-election - and only then - an act to be determiend by simple LRA vote. My own take -- perhaps different from ThePrincess -- is that we need more time as a community on the "dorect election" question generally, as applied ot general elections. But this by-election thing is a special case, and a tangle, and needs a simple answer.
Jamie Palisades: ...
Jamie Palisades: And finally, third, on ripeness, I think our polity will be better off solving it before the factions are populated into the RA than after SC picking the LRA? hee hee -- you think *I* have rule of order, or conflict of interest, problems? However: Prin and I are going to bring bills, well we can come back here here before the election, with a riper question framed by a bill.
Jamie Palisades: done, thx
ThePrincess Parisi: jamie what you didnt know abou t "prins" bill is that it was written by all three factions..
Jamie Palisades:
ThePrincess Parisi: i am just the bad messenger
Claude Desmoulins: SC responses?
Jamie Palisades: I know of four, but obviously, a topic for further chat
ThePrincess Parisi: no sp dpu and nucare
Moon Adamant turns on her CSDF title
ThePrincess Parisi: lol moon
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I stick to Justice's suggestion
Moon Adamant turns it off again .)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and take Jamie's and princess' word on proposing bills in the next 4 weeks to solve the LR tangle
Justice Soothsayer: I continue to think we are still dealing with hypotheticals, including Princess/Jamie's hypothetical bills. We'll deal with them when they become real.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly.
Gwyneth Llewelyn continues to second Justice
Claude Desmoulins: Certainly RA action could clarify this. I do think there's a need to address it before the polls open.
Justice Soothsayer: It would be helpful if the RA dealt with it before the polls open.
Claude Desmoulins: And I will be very much unavailable the 19th
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If people are worried on who should be the next LRA, make sure you vote correctly
Claude Desmoulins: That said I'm willing to...
Claude Desmoulins: ...table and defer to the elected representatives.
Justice Soothsayer: Agreed.
Claude Desmoulins: Having no other business....
Claude Desmoulins: .....let us adjourn.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yay
Jamie Palisades: thanks.
Jamie Palisades: Informally, on the timng of an RA bill on LRA selection -- thanks for that input on RA timing - I was sort of hoping to have a week of Forum colloquy first, so it's not another - er - not "a" rush to judgment - but we'd have to do it faster, or try, to get it into the public view maybe.
Justice Soothsayer enthusiastically votes for adjournment.
The meeting closed at 18:09 Linden time.