[Draft] Deshret Activity Requirement Amendment

[Andrew]

It could be that the past two keepers had enough non-osiran responsibilities to keep them from going the extra mile for the deshret.

Umm....well not for me. I haven't had anything time consuming in any other region since around September. And I do hope my tenure as Keeper isn't considered inactive, as that would be a massive disappointment, but it was obvious by the end I was kinda burnt out.

But regarding the discussion at hand, I personally didn't find the duties of being Keeper too strenuous. Yes certain aspects were tedious, eg. seeing who did and didn't vote, (which resulted in me making the Voter Registry for ease of access and transparent record keeping) yet I didn't find it so overwhelming I felt too relied upon. I mean I did serve 3 terms. But I think that, by looking the most recent comments regarding the Keepership, I get the impression that people are blaming past Keepers for the Deshrets activity, is this correct?

If so I will say what I said when I last ran for Keeper; that one person cannot do it alone. A Keeper alone cannot drive activity. Yes an inactive Keeper would result in things grinding to a halt, but an active one doesn't guarantee legislative activity. A Keeper can do all his legal obligations, as well as promote and advertise the Deshret as has been done in the past - going the extra mile - to try and get people in the Deshret and participating in the region. But that has shown some low returns. When I was running I said that complexity in our laws would most likely generate activity but upon revision, I see that is wrong. I would say that change would be what would cause some activity. Like right now, we are debating change in hope the change will bring activity, and in the process there is activity. When the last Pharaoh elections were held, the idea of change in leadership brought more people to activity. Right now, you could say the change in TSP is what makes it one of the most, if not the most politically active GCR.

However I don't think your wrong in saying that non-Osiran obligations have a part, but I think its more the other way around: the Deshret is inactive, so either the Keeper tries to bring it to activity they way they know how, become burnt out and/or they in turn become less active. Trying to point the finger at one individual for a lack of legislation and debate is a poor and not a very thought out way of trying to address this.


Now, my opinion on this proposal. I think its safe to say that everyone thinks that something has to change. And this may be among what needs to be amended, yet both sides have significant and worthy reservations. On the one had you've got those saying that it will ease the burden on the Keeper and possibly stimulate activity by bring us closer to an all-citizen legislature while on the other hand they cite an increased burden on the Keeper for going around and checking if each Councillor is active compared to the tick and cross system we have now and security concerns i.e manipulation of votes and elections. Well the first question I ask is which is more pressing right now activity or security: we're pretty secure right now and as Cormac said there are plenty of GCR's still standing with an all-citizen legislature. But that does not mean we become ignorant to the concerns raised. So the second question question I ask is how will these potential issues be tackled to which Cormac rebutted that the Deshret has the ability to remove Councillors for unbecoming conduct. However the Procedures dictates a two third majority and a rejoin ban of 4 months. A two third majority could be difficult to attain and a ban of 4 months could be counter productive, especially if a citizen was kicked out for inactivity but they later return to activity. That inclines me be to be more against this proposal.

Yet, should the relevant clause be amended to remove said ban or a similar prerogative be fashioned for this purpose, the only question I'll have left is, in practice, how will we ensure this prerogative is utilised for the discussed reason and what would be defined as 'activity'. That done, I may be more inclined to be in favour. Thats my two cents.

[Rogamark]

Something is certainly keeping our past Keepers from being active. If it isn't the vote tracking requirement, I would certainly like to hear from them what it is.

I've never been Keeper here, but this problem is in no way exclusive to Osiris. In my experience, the chairperson of a legislative body is quite active as long as they have some sort of legislative agenda on their own. If they don't, or once they're through with it, the office itself provides little incentive to stay active. I mean, frankly, it comes with a lot of formal responsibilities, but little glory and even less actual power, which is a marked departure from the usual convention in NS that any meaningful offices should have both.

I've been swaying back and forth on the activity requirements issue, but I think I'm preferring to keep things the way they are, simply because there is no better option on the table. I'm forced to disagree with Cormac's point that the Deshret is free to remove inactive Councilors through "conduct unbecoming", seeing as the proposal itself contains the suggestion that there should be different definitions of inactivity applied to different people. Either somebody is inactive or they aren't, I fail to see how that's dependent on the Councilor in question... and our current system, despite the fact that it's a rather unelegant solution, is at least objective. And that's only in cases where the system works the way it's supposed to, never mind the potential for abuse.

I do agree, however, that it might help to make things easier for the Keeper. And if we find a solution for the activity requirement problem, that's two birds with one stone. But I can't really think of anything better than what we have now, unfortunately. Is there maybe any other way to cut down on the Keeper's paper-pushing responsibilities?