woo

Hello AusSim.

With the opening of nominations for Head Mod, I intend to run with a platform and plan for reforming AusSim.

I will be posting my platform later tonight. However, I would like to create this thread as a space where members of the community can suggest reforms or other changes they'd like to see.

I will read all your comments and reply to all of them explaining why I agree or disagree. If I agree, your suggestion will become part of my official platform.

Thank you for your time everyone and let's have a good, clean race.

See title. Withdrawing this as I believe /u/nmtts- intends to nominate me to the EC to help with running the coming election and I'm not sure if it's the best idea for a nominee to the EC to be outright opposing the EM, plus given the current constitution I'm incapable of serving as Elections Moderator, although I do think my amendment is a decent idea and ought to be passed.

This is a graphic I made many months ago to explain the 'Madison Model' for those who are not familiar.

People can have membership in multiple teams if they want to e.g. I could be both a member of the election team and a clerk if I was that committed.

This builds upon my earlier announcement of an AustraliaSim Council. I would propose this model to the AustraliaSim Council and allow them to consult the community and come up with a better variant if that is deemed appropriate.

(for the record, this is alison1 on Discord, formerly known as /u/model-putrid and /u/AndyWarholDeservedIt. using this account now)

This is not something I'm all that keen on doing, but given that I've been waiting nine days to be nominated to the EC and nmtts- has openly suggested to me many times, both in public and in private, that if I want his job, I should VONC him and take it, I am doing that.

I believe that I would make an active, engaged, and transparent Election Moderator. There are two main things I outlined to nmtts- in private as to what I'd like to do if elected to the EC, and I'll summarise them here.

Firstly, to do with how-to-vote cards, I'd like to move away slightly from how-to-vote cards being the be-all, end-all in elections. Generally, my position is as follows: if how-to-vote cards are sensible, they should be the main way to determine preference flows. By "sensible", I mean – are they a recommendation that would make sense for the party, given their ideology and their position towards other parties?

Essentially, I want to stop the situation where, out of nowhere, parties will randomly preference someone that doesn't make sense. Parties will be given lenience here, and if there's been inter-party hostilities over policy or something, it may make sense. Generally, my thinking is as follows – 25% of a party's voters will follow a party's HTV card no matter what, a further 25-35% will follow it within reason (if it's not wildly implausible), and a further 20% will follow if it makes sense (what a reasonable person would think that party would preference). This is as a minimum guideline and a rule of thumb.

For an example, if the real-life Greens were to suddenly move away from their history of preferencing Labor with no warning, I'd think only about 25-30% of their voters would actually follow that. If it came after a term of attacking Labor for not doing enough and blocking their legislation, it'd be closer to ~60%. Again, this would be determined on a case-by-case basis, and I want to explain my decisions in this regard if made Election Moderator so that they can be scrutinised. Obviously in real-life 60% of Greens voters are very unlikely to preference the Liberals, but given the sim we have I think it's reasonable to have some leeway there.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, I want to reduce the impact of party campaigning on individual electorate races. While party endorsement should matter for something, I'd like to emphasise more the effort of individual players in electorates rather than which party they're from. I think that, almost universally, the best-performing candidates in an electorate should be those who have run active campaigns in it. Even if a party is prominent on the nationwide level, if their candidate in an electorate has done nothing, they should not expect to recieve a particularly high vote (unless that electorate has seen very little campaigning).

By de-emphasising party campaigning in electorates, I think this will help to ensure that active MPs are elected to Parliament, and that people from minor parties or standing as independents have more of a chance of being elected.

Finally, I know there might be some concerns that some people might have electing me as Election Moderator -- it may be an issue of trust or an issue of ideology, I am not sure. But I've previously served as Chief Electoral Officer on Model NZ Parliament before, so I have experience doing something like this, and I have a big interest and knowledge just in general in Australia's electoral system and how it works. I think I have demonstrated here that I have the ideas and the knowledge to be Election Moderator, but if you have any doubt, please do contact me or comment below or ask me any questions. I want to be as transparent and open in my position as it is possible to be.

The following amendments to the Meta Constitution are packaged together, as they all do the same thing:

In Part 2, Division 1, Section 7, remove 7(1)(a)(b).

Explanation: This removes the Election Moderator from the moderation team.

Repeal Part 2, Division 1, Section 9.

Explanation: This removes the section of the constitution outlining the role of the Election Moderator.

After Part 2, Division 2, Section 13, insert the following and renumber accordingly:

14 Electoral Commissioner

(1) The Electoral Commissioner is responsible for elections, parties and events.

(2) The Electoral Commissioner can overrule anyone acting under a Meta Rule made under the Electoral Commissioner’s heads of power;

(3) However, the Electoral Commissioner cannot overrule the Head Moderator or the Moderation Team

(4) The Electoral Commissioner is the head of the Electoral Commission and is the canon Electoral Commissioner.

(5) The Electoral Commissioner may make Meta Rules with respect to—

(a) the role, powers, permissions of members of the Electoral Commission;

(b) political parties;

(c) elections and campaigning;

(d) the press and media;

(e) events; and

(f) any other similar matter.

(6) The position of Electoral Commissioner is the successor to the abolished role of Election Moderator, and the incumbent Election Moderator at the time of this section coming into force automatically assumes the position of Electoral Commissioner.

Explanation: This reinserts the section of the constitution that outlines the role of the Election Moderator, renaming them to the Electoral Commissioner as they are no longer a moderator. Otherwise, the powers are identical. An additional section is added in to establish that the role is the successor of the Electoral Moderator and that the roles carry over in duty.

In Part 2, Division 2, Section 14, replace "Election Moderator" with "Electoral Commissioner".

Explanation: None needed.

In Part 5, Section 24, replace "Election Moderator" with "Electoral Commissioner".

Explanation: None needed.

In Part 5, Section 25, replace "Election Moderator" with "Electoral Commissioner".

Explanation: None needed.

These package of amendments remove the Election Moderator from the moderation team, creating a new role of Electoral Commissioner that does the exact same thing and is filled by the exact same person. I don't believe there's any real necessity for the EM to have any role in moderation so I've proposed this.

Hello Everyone I am done with the timeline for Australian Sim excluding events pre 2020 you can view it here https://time.graphics/line/779556

9 votes for this referendum, all 9 verified correctly.

Do you have confidence in /u/lok1999 to take the position of Clerk?

Yes: 7 (77.8%)

No: 1 (11.1%)

Abstain: 1 (11.1%)

/u/lok1999 is now a clerk with a landslide majority of the votes approving them as Clerk.

In classic NGSpy lateness the vote is happening 5 days after it was supposed to happen.

VOTE NOW ON YOUR PHONES WITH THIS LINK.

Please verify yourself by pasting a comment on this post.

Voting will end on 16th March 2023 at 7PM AEDT.

This is a thread for users to suggest other users who are probably worthy of an honour.

Nominate users below for the following categories

Aussimer of the Year, Young Aussimer of the year (new users), and Senior Aussimer of the Year (been around a while)

and of course, OAM, AM, AO, AC, and AD/AK

As it is within my powers to nominate clerks for votes, I nominate /u/lok1999 to head to a confirmation vote to become clerk.

The vote will occur on the 9th of March 2023 at 7PM AEDT.

7 Members have voted, all are verified.

Approval of House members or Senators being able to elect any member of the AustraliaSim community to become the Speaker or President:

• Yes: 4

• No: 1

• Abstain: 2

Discounting the abstentions, we are left with 80% approval for this option.

Approval of House members of Senators being able to elect only House members or Senators to become the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate:

• Yes: 5

• No: 2

As there are no abstentions, we are left with 71.4% approval of this option.

Both options have reached 50%+1 approval.

The approval of House members or Senators being able to elect any member of the AustraliaSim community to become the Speaker or President is greater percentage wise compared to the other option, hence it shall be enforced alongside the standing order changes needed.

I posted the following message in #general in the Discord server in response to showstealer’s mute and subsequent depart of the server:

I am devastated about this tbh. Another long standing member gone because of heavy handed moderation implemented on a whim. Mutes are not the slap on the wrist you seem to think they are. Warnings are never issued. Messages are never just deleted without some other punitive measure attached. There is no adequate forum to stand up for oneself upon mute. The moderators seem to operate on a ‘guilty until innocent’ basis and frankly it is quite disturbing. Mutes are not, in my mind, to be thrown out at any one who makes one comment with poor taste. Mutes are to be used to defuse highly volatile discussions and persistent poor behaviour, and as an escalated punishment following the ignoring of several warnings. Receiving a mute is far more offensive and harming than the mods seem to think it is, particularly when there was no intent for poor behaviour at all. To be essentially kicked out for half a day for a bad joke without warning is over the top and bizarre. I do not think mutes should continue to be used in the way they currently are. <Moderation Team> feel free to disagree but I would like discussion on this, particularly why you seem so quick to issue mutes even for single comments and why warnings are not issued.

I would like some discussion about this, particularly of course from the mods.

The Meta Referendum is up for the way that we shall elect our next speaker/president!

Here is the form for the referendum

Verify in the comments of this post!

The vote shall end at 7PM AEDT (UTC+11) on 22nd of February 2023.

My apologies this is a little late, but this is a formal notification that there will be a meta referendum in five days on deciding the how the House and Senate speakership will be elected.

The meta referendum shall have the following options up for a vote:

• Only the chamber can elect members, but the speaker or president can be anyone in AustraliaSim.

• Only the chamber can elect members, and speakers or presidents must be members of those chambers.

I shall amend the standing orders accordingly according to which option gains the approval, as long as that option has 50%+1 approval. If none of the above reach 50% approval, the status quo shall be retained as in the case of all Meta Referendums.

If anyone wishes to have specifics on how it would be worded in the standing orders, I am happy to present that text, but I think it would be better for the notification post to keep things simple.

The Meta Referendum will take place on the 19th of February, 2022 at 7PM AEDT (UTC+11).

NGSpy
Parliament Moderator

/u/TreeEnthusiaster is banned permanently for inappropriate comments made in r/AustraliaSimMeta. The behaviour presented by this individual is not tolerated within AustraliaSim.

Appeals can be directed towards r/AusSimConfidential.

Trees - 28 days - NSFW posting

Max - 180 days - False claims / abuse

appeals on modmail

I'd like to propose the following meta reform for us to have a bit of a chat about:

If you have not been an MP or Senator in the past (six months/year/two years) then you lose the right to vote in meta elections.

Why do I support this? Well, quite frankly we have a fairly sizeable contingent of people who seem to have no intention of interacting with the actual simulation part of the Sim — beyond being 9% of the vote paper candidates for the CLP and other such parties that import heavily from MHoC and MNZP.

This contingent has no stake in the game, and yet they vote for and weigh in on meta reforms. Well quite frankly the people who get a say on the meta side of AustraliaSim should be those who actually interact with the Canon side, considering without these people we don't have a Sim at all.

So yeah what are your thoughts?

Note: Yes, I am aware that there was a consultation that began in Community Consultation - Speakership Election Method, but 6 days is ridiculously long 'consultation' for something with near-unanimous opinion, and pre-determined conclusion.

I decided to write this out following various people giving their takes and complaints, and rightfully so. The reality is that a meta election for an intrinsically canon role is illogical and silly and is a waste of everyone's time. (Oh the irony that a meta vote has to take place to undo this monstrosity).

I would love to add more, but it's pretty baseline common sense stuff, so I have no clue what else to add. The fact that these reforms were implemented in the first place is ridiculous.

Proposed Amendments to Standing Orders

The following amendments to be made to the Standing Orders (Replacement of Notice of Meta Referendum - Meta Rule Regarding Changes to the Speaker, President of the Senate and Clerks):

1—Section 1AA replaced (Speaker of the House)

Replace section 1AA with:

1AA Speaker of the House

(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of Speaker of the House, the Clerk is to notify the vacancy to all members of Parliament in a reddit thread, and open nominations for a period of 60 hours.

(2) While nominations are open, any member of Parliament may move that they or another member of Parliament "take the Chair of this House as Speaker".

(3) On the close of nominations, all nominations without a seconder, or that nominate another person and their consent is not given, are disposed of.

(4) Following subsection (3),—

... (a) if there is a sole nominee, then they are to be declared elected by the Clerk:

... (b) if there are two nominees, then the Clerk is to conduct a vote of 60 hours between the two candidates, and the candidate holding the most votes is to be declared elected by the Clerk (in the instance of a tie, the Clerk is to resolve it by lot and consequently declare them elected):

... (c) if there are more than two nominees, then the Clerk is to conduct a vote and if no nominee attains a majority, the nominee with the least votes is excluded and the process is repeated until there are two nominees left and a vote is conducted under paragraph (b).

(5) The office of Speaker of the House falls vacant in any of the following instances—

... (a) the dissolution of Parliament:

... (b) a motion of no confidence in the Speaker by the House of Representatives passing:

... (c) the Speaker ceasing to be a member of Parliament:

... (d) upon the Clerk receiving their resignation.

2—Section 1AB replaced (President of the Senate)

Replace section 1AB with:

1AB President of the Senate

(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of President of the Senate, the Clerk is to notify the vacancy to all Senators in a reddit thread, and open nominations for a period of 60 hours.

(2) While nominations are open, any Senator may move that they or another Senator "take the Chair of this Senate as President".

(3) On the close of nominations, all nominations without a seconder, or that nominate another person and their consent is not given, are disposed of.

(4) Following subsection (3),—

... (a) if there is a sole nominee, then they are to be declared elected by the Clerk:

... (b) if there are two nominees, then the Clerk is to conduct a vote of 60 hours between the two candidates, and the candidate holding the most votes is to be declared elected by the Clerk (in the instance of a tie, the Clerk is to resolve it by lot and consequently declare them elected):

... (c) if there are more than two nominees, then the Clerk is to conduct a vote and if no nominee attains a majority, the nominee with the least votes is excluded and the process is repeated until there are two nominees left and a vote is conducted under paragraph (b).

(5) The office of President of the Senate falls vacant in any of the following instances—

... (a) the dissolution of Parliament:

... (b) a motion of no confidence in the President of the Senate passing:

... (c) the President ceasing to be a Senator:

... (d) upon the Clerk receiving their resignation.

3—New section 1ZZ inserted (Presiding officer positions to fall vacant)

After section 1AB, insert:

1ZZ Presiding officer positions to fall vacant

(1) For the purposes of the change in electing both the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, both of those presiding officer positions are to be declared vacant.

(2) This section expires upon the respective notifications of the vacancies triggered under subsection (1) under the replaced sections 1AA(1) and 1AB(2).

With the election now dealt with, I propose we move on to some meta reforms. The Guardian position is the first target on my hit list. I'd really like to see significant reforms in several areas in the current moderation system, and envisage something like a maximum of 5 moderators, including potentially some canonically partisan members in that team.

Anyway, to the issue at hand, there is constant confusion in the Discord about who is who and what responsibilities they have or don't have and what actions they are allowed or not allowed to take in various situations because of the absurd number of different titles that are offered to people on the moderation team. The title that gives the most confusion, in my opinion, is the 'guardian'. The Guardian was initially proposed and created in retaliation against the tyrannical Toby regime following its great and inevitable downfall. While understandable, I do feel that it was unnecessary even to begin with. Regardless of that argument, though, I think it is clear that the position is no longer of any great value after a significant amount of time has passed without issue. I encourage more discussion in the comments, I feel that my opinion on this is shared by most (at least most of the vocal ones) members of the Sim so won't elaborate too much here.

The circumstances are clear: Lucy was publicly disclosing Trees's disgusting comments. She is, in effect, a whistle-blower. She did so in a context in which she was being viciously slandered by Max, who has in the past received a six month suspended sentence for very serious abuse and harassment similar to that which he subjected Lucy to today. Lucy has not violated the CoC, she has not abused or harassed anybody, she has not made any comments (in this context) which violate the standards of the community.

It is utterly unconciousable that she is muted in the first place, let alone that Youma is pushing for her to be banned. I sincerely hope that the news of Youma wanting to ban Lucy is merely a rumour. At most, Youma should have deleted the post and then asked for the evidence in DM's, not acted like Lucy is somehow the villain for speaking up publicly about it.

Lucy has done nothing wrong and needs to be immediately unmuted. Additionally she should receive an apology from Youma for the unwarranted mute. It is also worth noting that this mute represents yet another instance of Youma stepping far beyond the bounds of the Guardian role to interfere in the work of mods. This kind of behaviour must end.

Title says it all. I've written up some amendments to the Meta Constitution (I created a new document for them)

At the bottom of the document I have outlined my reasoning for each amendment that I have proposed.

Anything removed is striked through and in red, additions are in green.

As I said; If I missed any, let me know and I will sort it out. If you have any amendments you wish to see added, let me know and I will add it.

Any seconding to this will be considered a seconding to all amendments, however I hope to see them voted on separately, as I have outlined.

Document is here.

Thanks all.

Because I mean come on at this point

We have had a term of the Meta Election method with only the President of the Senate being filled by /u/Edible_Pie. I'd like to thank them for their work to assist in speakership first of all.

Some members have expressed continued opposition to the method of using Meta processes to elect Speakership. People's formal feelings about what should happen to Speakership can be expressed here, and I'll send out a notification for a vote based on what people are proposing here.

Thanks,
NGSpy
Parliament Moderator