[Draft] Deshret Activity Requirement Amendment

[Cormac]

Okay, here's where we're at.

The current system -- loss of membership after missing four consecutive votes -- has received a plurality of votes in the consultative poll. However, there are actually more votes for one of the other options than for keeping the current system, it's just that nobody can settle on which of the other options is better. This doesn't offer any clear guidance on which way to go, to say the least.

There have, however, been discussions on Skype in which some of those in favor of a posting requirement, and some of those in favor of keeping the current system, have also suggested they would be open to no activity requirement at all. In light of those discussions, I think eliminating the activity requirement altogether is the option most likely to achieve majority support. I've revised my proposal in the OP to eliminate the activity requirement, leaving the original, discarded proposal under a spoiler.

I would still like to go ahead and discuss this for a day or two before moving for a vote. It's possible I've overestimated willingness to eliminate the activity requirement based on Skype discussions, so if you won't support that option, please say so now and we'll go from there.

[Festavo]

I will support it. Only requirement should be maintaining citizenship.

[Cormac]

I will further add, in support of this new proposal, that even though we would be relaxing membership activity requirements under this proposal, there would remain two important safeguards:

1. The Deshret could still move for a vote on any application for the Deshret accepted by the Keeper, which means any individual could be blocked from Deshret membership by simple majority vote [State Code of Osiris, Section 3.1(b)].

2. The Deshret could still, by two-thirds majority vote, remove a Councilor for conduct unbecoming of a Councilor of the Deshret [Procedure of the Deshret, Section 1.4]. This could, in theory, be used to remove someone from the Deshret who is egregiously inactive and only casts votes, if two-thirds of Councilors voting agree that is conduct unbecoming of a Councilor.

So really this proposal would only affect automatic membership activity requirements, while still preserving the Deshret's power to deny membership or to remove someone from membership. It's a decent argument to say that we should handle these issues on a case by case basis with a democratic vote anyway, rather than making activity requirements automatic. A Guardian of the Atef who has made significant contributions to Osiris since it was founded in 2011, and who has been rendered less active by real life circumstances, is not the same as an inactive person who came here less than a year ago and seems only interested in influencing our voting.

[The Almighty Jesus Whale]

Would option two be able to be used if they don't debate?

The way you phrased it seems as if inactivity is synonymous with only voting.

[Ridersyl]

I was going to stand with the current system primarily due to eliminating the activity requirement all-together was something I thought would leave us with no safeguards. However, Cormac's most recent post has made me realize I was wrong in that notion. We still have safeguards in place if this amendment is passed. Are they perfect? Of course not. There are no perfect safeguards. Are they enough? For now.

So, I now support this amendment. I would also like to commend Cormac for his willingness to adapt his amendment to the feedback of his fellow Osirans.

[Cormac]

Would option two be able to be used if they don't debate?

The way you phrased it seems as if inactivity is synonymous with only voting.

The second option can be used on anything the Deshret considers conduct unbecoming of a Councilor of the Deshret, as expressed in a two-thirds majority vote. I was just giving an example of a possible use, and to be clear, I'm not saying that necessarily is conduct unbecoming of a Councilor or proposing that we should treat it as such -- I was just saying that we could, and the only thing we'd be eliminating in this proposal is the automatic activity requirement.

Thanks for asking about this, I didn't realize I was being unclear in my previous post.

I was going to stand with the current system primarily due to eliminating the activity requirement all-together was something I thought would leave us with no safeguards. However, Cormac's most recent post has made me realize I was wrong in that notion. We still have safeguards in place if this amendment is passed. Are they perfect? Of course not. There are no perfect safeguards. Are they enough? For now.

So, I now support this amendment. I would also like to commend Cormac for his willingness to adapt his amendment to the feedback of his fellow Osirans.

Thanks for supporting the proposal Syl.

[Cormac]

We've had about another day of discussion with no major concerns expressed. I move for a vote.

[Koth]

Second.

[Kajan]

Seconded

[Jakker]

The amendment has been moved to a vote and seconded by two councilors. Due to the proposal being updated on February 21st, I want to wait until at least February 24th before moving this vote if no more changes are made. That date may change depending on how the discussion goes. This is my interpretation as Keeper of Section 2.1 of the Procedure of the Deshret which states: "Section 2: Operation of the Deshret "a proposal will go to vote only after a mandatory consideration period of three days."

Additionally, I would like to bring up the point that loses the activity requirement will make it easier for citizens who have other interests ahead of Osiris' interests to influence elections. What I mean by this is that if someone wanted to get specific people into office to push a certain agenda, this would make it easier for them. Just get a few people to apply for the deshret once and now they just need to maintain citizen activity rather than actually voting.

I know citizens have complained in the past about citizens who don't ever vote unless it is an election. I would want to see some expectations for our deshret in regards to activity. Perhaps require that a councilor needs to have voted in 50% of the past 5 votes or something. That is just an example. This would also not allow for new people to come in right before an election, become a deshret, and then immediately influence the results.

EDIT: To add, the deshret can in theory vote to remove a councilor who does this, but I don't see that happening unless in extreme cases. Also, it would require deshret to keep track of others' activity, which I also don't see happening. Therefore, this puts more work on the Keeper not less.

I understand the desire to be more inclusive, but we also need to balance that with security and the integrity of the region. Removing the current activity requirement is a dangerous precedent. Especially, if we don't supplement its removal with something else.