Osiris Fraternal Order

Weast Jurmany wrote: That's a good point, I'm certainly guilty of being inactive on discord and prefer to interact with people on here and on the RMB. I think I would like the minimum to be specifically on here but that may be self-serving. I would definitely be open to a discord post requirement if others are for it. I don't know if there's a way to see monthly discord post though?

I do not know of a way to know exacts on discord activity other than knowing how often someone's name pops up in the feed. With that problem, we may need it based solely off forum activity.

USMC.LT.hopeful wrote:Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:27 am

Weast Jurmany wrote: That's a good point, I'm certainly guilty of being inactive on discord and prefer to interact with people on here and on the RMB. I think I would like the minimum to be specifically on here but that may be self-serving. I would definitely be open to a discord post requirement if others are for it. I don't know if there's a way to see monthly discord post though?

I do not know of a way to know exacts on discord activity other than knowing how often someone's name pops up in the feed. With that problem, we may need it based solely off forum activity.

If someone really wanted to set that up, I believe you could use the search function for Discord to find out if someone has posted in a given time period. However, someone would have to check all 14-15 channels in Osiris, and the only people that can really do that are Koth and Syberis. It would be a pain. The forum post requirement would be better.

Adytus wrote: Ifvsomeone really wanted to set that up, I believe you could use the search function for Discord to find out if someone has posted in a given time period. However, someone would have to check all 14-15 channels in Osiris, and the only people that can really do that are Koth and Syberis. It would be a pain. The forum post requirement would be better.

Given that for the most part, the average citizen is posting in two channels of importance, and possibly two others of less significance, then I believe that by checking the two main citizen channels would be plenty, if we even decide to go that route though.

I don't think a Discord activity check is practical. It's much easier to track forum activity. Aside from that, I don't think we should be requiring people to participate in Discord -- the forum is supposed to be the main hub for what we do, not the Discord server.

As an aside, I haven't given up on this, I just haven't had time yet to make all the revisions to the OP. Thanks everyone for your patience!

Weast Jurmany wrote:Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:03 pm

Kylia Quilor wrote:Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:59 pm

Weast Jurmany wrote:This, I’m not comfortable with, imagine getting through all the rigors of campaigning to win the election for Chief Vizier and then the Pharaoh just has the ultimate power to remove you immediately if he wishes. There should be some limitations here. Perhaps approval from an outside group (CS maybe) or they have to have displayed clear negligence or threat to security (as supported by the council of guardians). It feels like too great of an unchecked power otherwise, especially because they can then appoint someone in their place until a new CV is appointed.

Kylia Quilor wrote: A smart pharaoh isn't going to abuse this power on a regular basis, and if there is such a divide in the region that the Pharaoh is abusing the power, then we may have bigger problems.

Although I don't think one of our Pharaohs would do something like this (all those I've served under have been great!) the point is to provide power checks for a worse case scenario. From my viewpoint, I was concerned that the pharaoh can both remove a CV with absolutely no needed criteria and then choose their temporary replacement. Anyway, thanks for commenting I get where you are coming from and I hope you get me too!

I get you, but I don't see any point in a Monarchy if the Monarchy doesn't have real power - or at least, in pretending the monarch does, As it stands, the region sort of pretends the Monarch has real authority over the executive, but they really don't. If we want the Delegate-Monarch to be largely a figurehead ala Balder, fine, but if we want a Delegate to have real power, then giving them some ability to control who the executive is, without giving them total control (at which point we may as well just stop having a CV)

I see where you're coming from, and usually I'd agree with you, but at some point, we have to decide if we want a de jure figurehead or not.

(3) Citizens admitted to citizenship during a vote in the Council of Scribes or during an election period, or within seven days prior to the opening of a vote in the Council of Scribes or the opening of nominations in an election period, will not be permitted to vote in that vote or election.

Can we add something like "to vote or run in that vote or election."

(5) To be eligible for senior government office, a citizen must have maintained a WA nation in Osiris endorsing the Pharaoh or active participation in the Sekhmet Legion for two months or longer, or have held citizenship for a cumulative total of six months or more.[/quite]

Never mind, this covers it.

I hope this is still a thing.

Sygian wrote:Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 pmI hope this is still a thing.

I hope so too. I am going to post a contributing post here soon. There are a lot of points in this thread and I don't want to miss any.

Sygian wrote:Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 pmI hope this is still a thing.

Agapiosia wrote:Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:18 am

Sygian wrote:Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 pmI hope this is still a thing.

I hope so too. I am going to post a contributing post here soon. There are a lot of points in this thread and I don't want to miss any.

I'm not going to be pursuing this any further, for a couple of reasons. First, I just don't have time to be honest, and my NS activity is going to be significantly reduced moving forward. I'm basically only going to be doing admin work and whatever other low intensity tasks I might be able to contribute to. Secondly, I don't think this draft is the right direction to go in after all. I think we would be far better off with a more radical overhaul of our constitution in which we shift to a Delegate-based model of governing, e.g., a constitution in which the Delegate is clearly supreme -- at least over the executive. Insofar as this draft moves in the opposite direction, it's not something I want to continue pursuing. So I'm done with it.

That said, I don't believe in any kind of "intellectual property" when it comes to NS legislatures, so if someone else would like to take up this draft and make some of the revisions that have been suggested, please be my guest. Though I will probably vote against it.