Moderator: RP Committee
OOC Provision: This was done by members of the RP Team and Veteran RPers in the game to combat the often inactivity of SC members. This would allow for the SC members to remove inactive members of the SC. This is an IC mechanic for an OOC problem. The World Congress, notably the Security Council, is heavily reliant on player interaction. We understand if we are informed a player is going away or is possibly inactive for a few days but outright neglect cannot allow this system to function. Any issues involving this can be pointed to the RP Team's World Congress Member or Moderation. Consultation of Moderation is required before this measure can be invoked.
Zanz wrote:I'm unclear why I need to define "active status" and am further unclear on what exactly I should define it as. It's the absence of probationary status. I don't think it really matters as the corresponding conflict has ended now.
Zanz wrote:I'm unclear why I need to define "active status" and am further unclear on what exactly I should define it as. It's the absence of probationary status. I don't think it really matters as the corresponding conflict has ended now.
DEFINES "probationary status" as grounds for immediate removal from the Security Council (if applicable) and grounds for the consideration of removal, by 2/3rds vote of those representatives of the nations of the World Congress which vote within 18 months (OOC: 3 RL days) of the calling of the vote, from active status in the World Congress itself.
jamescfm wrote:[list][*]Resolution 29 may need a slight amendment or at least a clarification about what "active status in the World Congress itself"; it is enforceable, though, since it refers to the WC and not the GA
jamescfm wrote:[*]Resolution 30 has no issues as far as I can see and is absolutely enforceable
jamescfm wrote:Aquinas' post shouldn't be considered the rules which govern the WC, my 'Structure of the World Congress' post should.
Zanz wrote:We should have been given more advanced warning that what we were doing was not going to fly. When everyone started RPing in response to the resolutions we passed (particularly Resolution 29), we should have been given the benefit of the doubt - the rules also say that acknowledging RP means accepting its validity. Plenty of the most active RPers on this forum now acknowledged Resolution 29. What has effectively happened, regardless of your justification for it happening, is that one person's interpretation of rules written by someone no longer here has led us to void the active role play efforts of multiple people. Then, once that action to void was taken, we've gone about 3 days now without clarity on what exactly we can do going forward. I'm not questioning you in particular, because as I said, I think your intent is good, but your actions here have meant that several of us have been unable to continue the storyline we were undertaking.
CCP wrote:Who are "the nations of the World Congress?" Are they the members of the SC? Are the "members" of the GA? Do they include the GS? Does the GS get a vote?
[...]
the World Congress as currently constituted includes entities and persons in addition to the 58 game system nations
jamescfm wrote:The World Congress refers to the 58 nations eligible to vote in SC elections. The fact that the GA is open to other parties isn't relevant. Clearly, the World Congress is one organisation, composed of the 58 nations and the GA and SC are two organs of it, composed of different parties, nation etc. Either way, it can be ammended to read "the nations eligible to vote in SC elections" if you feel that's necessary.
jamescfm wrote:Regarding the Structure of the World Congress post, I wrote it as RP Team member but to formalise the rules which govern the WC. As far as I know, there are no contradictions between the original post and my later one but I apologise if I'm wrong about that. That comment was made in passing and can be addressed properly at some later date.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest