Don't you love it when your participation gets wholly ignored despite being a direct reply. Sarcasm apart, I would like an answer, please. As well as my questions from the previous pages, these questions were directed at the staff. Thank you very much.
(10-25-2023, 11:44 PM)Czechmate Wrote: -snip-
everything else is fluff. That fluff just got more difficult as everything is staff-controlled. He is right that unlawful don't really have much interest in the important stuff
I agree with the first part... however: the fluff (such as preparing a roleplay thread, or setting up a treaty, which will be the case in the near future), will have a roadbloack. Each time a decision is done by the government, we have the metaphorical equivalent of a road toll where we get scanned from A to Z before proceeding, on seemingly innocuous stuff. I find it useless, where, say for example, posts by the government account, could be reversed by a simple option: deletion - and the sender being warned about this, with a copy of the removed reply, and a recommendation about how the reply should be, from a developer's perspective. I assure you, a House govt. is, can, and should be much more than what you cited.
As for the second, it is/was... against the main principle of the new Gallic Assembly: we decided to have unlawful, and unofficial factions aboard the "ship", so they can share their opinions to us/now only Lemon is seems..., and propose solution.
This happened for the 20+ decisions we have had, and we hoped it would continue. The opinion of the "other side", of the "enemy side" is, for me, invaluable, as it can influence the decision of the House, so that playing in Gallia would be more enjoyable, with limitations proposed by the unlawful side on certain decisions, that will influence the final decision. Being too much "hard" on unlawfuls will make it even more difficult for them to play, especially if we make the laws even more akin to the IRL laws. If we factor in their thoughts, and opinions, we can make better ones, that will make the unlawfuls capable of playing as much as their could, reasonably, within both our House rules, and the server rules, without being too tight and limiting them to simple piracy, and thus allowing them for more opportunities. This is our point of view, and why we allowed them in the government.
One last question; when someone send an inRP question to the government, back then it was replied by the government account. Now, it won't. I am concerned by the reply time, and I usually reply to my question with my character who's part of the government, or the Office part of the License & Permit Office. As it is a question (inRP again, to make sure), can this still be the case?
Last affirmation on the behalf of the current government undergoing transition to respect the rules, despite my opinion on this being questionable, but understandable: every time a member is banned, or kicked, or otherwise recieve punishement which makes them unable to fulfill their duty - they is given the role "Suspended Member" which makes him/her/they totally unable to:
See the Motions (the word used in the Government, equivalent to Decision, taken from standard Parliamentary Procedure) threads;
Once again; unable to enact any moderator-related role (a representative is/was NOT capable of ANY moderator-role related decision, this was the: - "Union Militia" role (which was akin to a Global Moderator, now degraded, and used for bots (reminder that this is for Discord)), and the "Moderator" role (which is akin to "Discord Moderator", the role on the DiscoveryGC server.
Has absolutely no influence over any decision for as long as the punishment goes. For now, every suspended member will become an advisor at best.
I want to make sure as well than any permanently banned member will not have their ban revoked.
![[Image: 4YNVxKW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4YNVxKW.png)