highhealplz: and those were the last words the annoying warp begger ever heard (smile | trust me it goes to prontera)
Ashraf Salib ([personal profile] highhealplz) wrote in [community profile] exsilium2013-11-24 03:56 pm

video

Hi! Hi again, to people I know already, hello for the first time, to anyone I haven't met yet. I'm Ashraf Salib, one of the heads of the clinic, high priest, snazzy dresser… [ He waves a hand. ] General things like that.

So, I'll get straight to the point. In the wake of the mutiny, I've seen a lot of talk on the network that I haven't seen before. Establishing a code of conduct, uniting… there was even some discussion of who you personally look to as a leader. Whatever your opinion of the mutiny may be, you have to admit that it's sparked some new subjects for us. And I'd say they're things we've been needing to talk about.

It isn't just a matter of wresting control from the Initiative, I think that was overly hasty and shortsighted. I think what we should be looking at is how to take control of ourselves. We're a really big group up here, with over three-hundred of us. That's a lot of voices to be heard at once, especially when none of them have much in the way of a recognized authority.

So, I think that should change.

My suggestion would be a council, voted on by the entire Transport body from a number of nominations. The people that we most trust are the ones we should have speaking for us — deciding for us. Because someone needs to. That we're still locked in this base after over two months up here should be evidence enough that it's difficult to achieve much of anything with no one calling the shots.

I've got some specific ideas about the organization of this council, which I wrote down and can attach here, but I want to hear from you. How should we organize ourselves? How can we decide who to listen to? This won't work if we don't all agree to it, and we need to agree on something. We're in a precarious position up here that frankly can't last, and it's past time that we take it into our own hands to change that.

{attached: councilnotes.txt}
Choosing Council Members
- 11 members total, to allow for tie-breaking (do we need more?)
- Members should be elected from nominations (should it take 2 votes to nominate? maybe 3…)
- Every 3-4 months (more often? less?) we vote again, which is meant to keep our current members or replace them with new ones

Council Voting
- Anyone can propose an issue to the Council for voting
- Voting on routine issues should be monthly
- Emergency issues should have immediate votes

Potential Issues
- Being sent home by the Transporter! Members can be replaced in the quarterly(?) election, but if the group falls under a certain number (7?), we can hold an emergency election
- Decisions made the majority doesn't agree with: should a majority vote in the Transport population overturn a Council decision? Or only make the Council revote after open debating of it?
- What if someone is nominated and voted in, but unwilling to take the position?
- What should be done with those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of a Council?
- What boundaries can be placed on what the Council has the power to decide on, to avoid a tyranny of the majority?
- Can we perform audits, to be sure our Council members aren't becoming corrupt?

Suggestions received so far:

- Designated seats for established groups? DITR, clinic, non-humans, etc. This would assure they're given a voice, respectively as experts and those with different values
- Nominations should fit an agreed-upon criteria
- Background checks should be run before a Council member is accepted
- A 60% vote by the Transport population can overrule a Council decision
- Should voting on Council members be mandatory? We want as varied a vote as possible, but uninformed votes are worse than fewer votes
- Elections could run on cycles, replacing (or keeping) only 3-4 Council members at a time
- Pending return to Exsilium, this should be used as a civilian council, and a military council can be arranged as well
- A code of conduct: no one can be tried for a crime committed at home


red = ideas recently added from this post, thank you to everyone for them!
shelkethetransparent: (What's that?)

[personal profile] shelkethetransparent 2013-11-25 05:25 am (UTC)(link)
[There's a pause as Shelke listens to that conversation.]

...You are considering forcing people to be involved in your plan?

[That compulsory voting thing has her concerned.]
shelkethetransparent: (Distant Blue Eyes...)

[personal profile] shelkethetransparent 2013-11-26 09:16 am (UTC)(link)
If you force people to follow your ideas over whatever ideas they may have, what is the point of making them vote? You will have already established that you want control and believe you know better than others what should be done.

The voting would be a useless formality,
Edited (Really ipad? Thy voting?) 2013-11-26 09:16 (UTC)
thephix: max - gratuitous black and white icon (I'll make you top of the list)

voice

[personal profile] thephix 2013-11-26 09:32 am (UTC)(link)
[yo ashraf she's got this

because she wants to prove that she's useful]


A quick question, before I start an explanation: are you familiar with the concept of democracy?
shelkethetransparent: (I am not afraid of you.)

Voice

[personal profile] shelkethetransparent 2013-11-26 09:47 am (UTC)(link)
[aw. Babies first thread jacking! Shelke would be so happy if have....were...ever happy.]

I know of it.

It implies voluntary involvement.
thephix: max - gratuitous black and white icon (right in front of you)

voice

[personal profile] thephix 2013-11-26 09:48 am (UTC)(link)
How do mean, voluntary?
shelkethetransparent: (Diving into knowledge)

voice

[personal profile] shelkethetransparent 2013-11-26 09:53 am (UTC)(link)
You want people to show some involvement in choosing their leadership. But you want to force them to do so, in the method you've already picked out.

If you decide 'this is what we are doing, now vote on who you want to do it' you've already chosen what is going to happen.
thephix: max - gratuitous black and white icon (fill my heart with emptiness)

voice

[personal profile] thephix 2013-11-26 10:17 am (UTC)(link)
Ah, I see.

[She's silent for a moment, contemplating.]

I wouldn't say that we'd be forcing people into a method we've already picked out. What Ashraf has proposed right now is simply that, a proposal, and it will require at least a significant majority of Transports to put their support behind it before it can be enacted.

Should anyone else have another suggestion about how to organize and govern ourselves, I'm sure it will be listened to.

[Unless it's someone trying to crown themselves King of the Transports, but that's another story entirely.]

However, quite frankly we do need a system of governemnt, since the free-for-all we're currently operating under is clearly not working. If the council that Ashraf proposed - or something similar - is what fills our needs best, then the decisions they make should be enforced.

[Otherwise what's the point?]

As for compulsary voting, I made that suggestion because I come from a country where it isn't complusary, and I find that system disatisfactory. It is too easy for people to convince themselves that politics don't concern them. Every Transport should have not only a right to cast a vote on who they want to represent them, but a responsibility to.
Edited 2013-11-26 10:18 (UTC)
shelkethetransparent: (Distant Blue Eyes...)

voice

[personal profile] shelkethetransparent 2013-11-26 10:31 am (UTC)(link)
[Shelke might be convinced to follow a king of the transports if their argument was good.]

I was part of a council that led an army. Our decisions furthered our goals and were arguably the right choices, but still got hundreds and hundreds of people who chose to follow us killed. Including most of the council members. But the soldiers kept following their leaders. They were fools.

What makes you think any of us are qualified to choose who should lead us?
thephix: max - gratuitous black and white icon (I'll take you up)

voice

[personal profile] thephix 2013-11-26 10:44 am (UTC)(link)
I'm sorry for what happened in your world, but that is one experience amongst many, and does not mean the same thing would happen here.

I think all of us are qualified to choose who should lead us, as a group.

[Also she has faith in people???? Sort of???

Despite for disdain for people on an individual level.]
shelkethetransparent: (What's that?)

voice

[personal profile] shelkethetransparent 2013-11-26 10:53 am (UTC)(link)
Given how poorly the last attempt to establish leadership went, only a week ago, why would you think another try, even if it were less violent, would be successful?
thephix: max (hoping maybe)

voice

[personal profile] thephix 2013-11-26 10:56 am (UTC)(link)
I think you might be mistaken in assuming what occured last week was an attempt to establish leadership.

[Not that she can speak for them, but judging on how they discussed their purposes over the network, it didn't seem like they were so much trying to establish leadership as simply get people thinking.

Which is exactly what they've done.]
shelkethetransparent: (Do not stand in my way.)

Voice

[personal profile] shelkethetransparent 2013-11-26 11:12 am (UTC)(link)
They took over or destroyed whatever key systems they had access to and then kidnapped the representatives of our current leadership that they could.

It can hardly be called anything but.
thephix: sphinx (it's alarming truly)

voice

[personal profile] thephix 2013-11-26 11:16 am (UTC)(link)
I believe they were demanding equality, not control. I also wouldn't call the Initiative members as they exist now our leadership.

[juuuuuust saying]
shelkethetransparent: (Working)

voice

[personal profile] shelkethetransparent 2013-11-27 06:42 am (UTC)(link)
They were the closest thing we had until the mutiny.

Who would you propose as an alternative?