Arnhelm: A Sacred Cow City

[HEM]

​

"Arnhelm: A Sacred Cow City"
Written by HEM
ENN Editor-in-Chief

By the summer of 2019, it was clear that the Citizens' Assembly wasn't operating at a full clip.

Actually, that was clear significantly before the summer of 2019. But discussions about an "executive split" had consumed all the energy for reform, and it took a few months after that work was done to turn back to the Assembly.

The Citizens' Assembly had a long history in Europeia — originally christened as "The City Council." It served as a junior legislative body that provided training (and some political power!) to any new member who sought to join. Walking through the different eras of the Citizens' Assembly, and its successes and failures, would be a whole in of itself. But assume that there were impressive stretches of time where the Assembly made truly impactful contributions to Europeia, and times where it sat deathly idle.

So, in that spirit, on June 2019, I secured the blessings of several other people who were thinking about the future of the Assembly, and proposed a new City Council that would govern a roleplay city in Europeia.

The region took my idea and largely made it their own. Many of my original thoughts, including having the Mayor elected in a "king of the hill"-style legislative race were abandoned, but the idea steadily gained traction until the Senate (very, very, slowly) passed legislation encoding a new RP-centric City Council in Europeia.

**

It took nearly two months for the City Council Act — forwarded by the soon-to-be-defunct Citizens' Assembly — to be passed by the Senate and signed into law. After that, the new Arnhelm body went to work writing a city charter, and anointed Olde Delaware to serve as Steward of the body in this interim period. This process took another three months.

Finally, it was another month or so to elect the body's first Mayor (Prim, who ran unopposed) and get the administrative minutia out of the way.

All in all, it had been a seven month process to go from the pitch of the idea, to the opening of Arnhelm's doors. Regions had surely been founded and died in that time period. Europeia had had at least two Chiefs of State and two First Ministers.

The elongated incorporation period can't be blamed on any one thing, but there's no doubt that a lack of interest in the concept didn't help the situation. When discussing the Charter there were multiple instances where a week or more would go by without comment.

So, when Calvin posted his now infamous Arnhelm: A City in Ruin on February 11th, on paper, it looked quite early to be making assessments about the new body — but there was legitimate cause for concern. I did not agree with Calvin's conclusion that Arnhelm was failing (it was just too early) but I pointed out that improvements had to be made and some were being a hair too defensive:

I disagree with Calvin that the project is fundamentally flawed, or should be shuttered, or is even on a failure track. But I agree that after months of writing the founding document and now weeks of slow-and-steady (but mostly slow) on-ramping, we do need to apply some constructive criticism if the project is going to succeed.

Part of this is definitely marketing, which Olde Delaware pointed out. I think to some degree someone needs to be Alan Lee in a Haven sandwich suit talking about this place to new members wherever they are.

I also think the nature of the Arnhelm "world" needs to be expanded on a little more. I had conversations with Prim about Councilors being able to post bio's going into their "background" to introduce a little bit of a roleplay element. I also think random "events" that Councilors have to respond to with legislation like Nationstates.net issues could be cool, and also something new members easily understand because of NS issues.

**

An increase in activity around the "Drew boom" staved off any skepticism around Arnhelm. The City was seeing unprecedented activity. Calvin would release a revised article on Arnhelm called, Arnhelm: A City in 2in, which admitted the successes of the past few months while also pointing out the subsequent slowdown and missteps.

Scrutiny on the body, and subsequent scrutiny on the scrutineers, didn't truly erupt again until late June, when a group of Senators suggested forming an Arnhelm Investigatory Committee. All Senators involved pledged that the abolition of Arnhelm wasn't their goal. They just wanted to ask questions. But the idea wasn't rolled out smoothly. What was the point of asking questions about the health of Arnhelm if you weren't going to do anything in response? Senators had inconsistent answers, with Calvin suggesting that changes could be made in the mold of his City in 2in proposal. Other Senators demurred, and it quickly became a dogpile. The belief became that this committee was a cover for the anti-Arnhelm Senators to maliciously sweep the city away.

Polling showed that two-thirds of the region said they opposed the creation of the committee.

As the dogpile grew, so did the intensity of the mob. Suddenly, opposition of the committee morphed into opposition into any oversight. That Arnhelm was above reproach. That it should be fully independent, and left alone. At best, considering Arnhelm was a "waste of time."

I came out against the committee but tried to lower the hostile temperature, saying: "I think some of the assumptions of bad faith here are going a step too far, to be quite honest. [...] Arnhelm is the most successful regional roleplay we've ever run, full stop. And it has been, from my vantage point, a significant community development tool and political development tool. Think of all the Councilors who held Mayor Cara accountable after their long absence? That's relevant experience and training for the main gameplay of Europeia, and people are apparently having fun while they are at it."

24 hours after the committee was proposed, the Senate moved to withdraw and table the discussion.

**

This article is long, and I haven't even gotten to my main point.

Everything I wrote above serves two purposes: One, to give a brief overview of the history of Arnhelm's controversy to those who may be newer to the region. Two, to stress and cite my pro-Arnhelm bona fides before I say what I'm going to say next.

I have always been supportive of Arnhelm. I was the one who initially proposed Arnhelm. I constructively stood up for Arnhelm in the "City in Ruin" article. I was opposed to the Arnhelm Investigatory Committee. But I am not supportive of the bizarre "third rail" status being conferred onto the city — to such an extent that proposals around Arnhelm are considered "scandals."

In the last election, candidates took pledges upfront to not take any steps to deal with anything related to Arnhelm. And today, conspiracy theories were abound as a part of a discussion to recall Mayor Sopo.

Out of nowhere, it was suggested that the inactivity of the body might inspire a secretive cabal of Senators to rise up and abolish Arnhelm. A group of hardworking Senators were, once again, caricatured into villains, to such an extent that rumors circulated that the newly elected Senators were considering passing an informal resolution to pledge not to legislate Arnhelm.

For some reason this city of Arnhelm has inspired more distrust and conspiracy theories than anything in recent memory. Arnhelm-skeptics pledge to not abolish Arnhelm, and people call them liars. Citizens propose new innovations for the body and they are shouted down and made pariahs. Questioning Arnhelm is a "scandal." This isn't just Calvin, but long-time participants in Arnhelm like GraVandius as well.

Let me be very clear on my opinion: The notion that Arnhelm should be above scrutiny, oversight, feedback, and criticism from any person or any body in the region because it operates as "autonomous" is wrong. And the notion that people should be vilified for applying scrutiny is truly perplexing.

I've tried to make excuses for it in the past. Arnhelm has spent a lot of time under the gun, and it's a pretty novel and unique concept, so those who enjoy it may feel they have to fight doubly to protect it. But the events of the last 24 hours or so have compelled me to speak up.

Every institution in Europeia has received due scrutiny. All of them.

In 2017, a major movement pushed for the Supreme Chancellery to be abolished. At the end of the day it took a personal appeal from Lethen and some significant power concessions to stave off the populist movement.

After significant failures, in 2010, we very nearly upended our Navy by making Grand Admiral an elected role to be competed over by raiders and defenders.

And, of course, in 2018 and 2019 we split the President in two offices — only to fuse them together again after public discussion.

If the Supreme Chancellery isn't a sacred cow; If the Navy isn't a sacred cow; If the Presidency itself isn't a sacred cow — then the City of Arnhelm is not a sacred cow.

I have been broadly supportive of Arnhelm, which I have proven time and time again. But I encourage every single citizen of this region to opine to the heart's content on Arnhelm. Propose your ideas. Give your critiques. You do not have to be a member of Arnhelm to have an opinion. You absolutely do not.

The exceptionalism of Europeia is that there are no sacred cows. Everything is up for debate. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

-30-​

 

[Olde Delaware]

As one of Arnhelm's biggest supporters and vocal one at that, let me just say that HEM is absolutely right. As much as we'd like for Arnhelm to be left independent, it isn't. It exists at the pleasure of the Senate. It is open to oversight just as any IC thing is in our region and we have to trust our elected Senators and take them at their word that they have its best interests in mind. As I said in private this evening to now former Mayor Sopo, I believe that Arnhelm is in the position where it doesn't know exactly what it wants to be and I'm not sure if that's because it was legislated that way or we've tried to make it into something that it isn't or wasn't designed to be and are worried that our "thing" is going to be taken by people who aren't even involved so we make off the cuff decisions, etc.

I'm not in Eurochat so I can't speak for what went down there, but I think its time that those of us who have Arnhelm's best interests at heart step aside a little, open her up to the light of day and give the people of Europeia a chance to help and offer suggestions and new ideas.

 

[Klatonia]

Our Region has endured for a long time. And HEM, kids, is an important part of why this has been.

Thank you, Sir.

 

[GraVandius]

For some reason this city of Arnhelm has inspired more distrust and conspiracy theories than anything in recent memory. Arnhelm-skeptics pledge to not abolish Arnhelm, and people call them liars. Citizens propose new innovations for the body and they are shouted down and made pariahs. Questioning Arnhelm is a "scandal." This isn't just Calvin, but long-time participants in Arnhelm like GraVandius as well.

I will say that it has been intensely frustrating and some degree hurtful to have my motives as a Senator but more importantly just as a person repeatedly questioned either directly or indirectly on Arnhlem. I've contributed a fair bit to the city-state creating a budgetary system, and incorporating real life events into the region through the CARES act alongside penning and improving numerous other ordinances. In many cases, I've contributed more than the people accusing me of lying or secretly trying to destroy something that for all intents and purposes I helped create.

It is a uniquely toxic mindset to respond to something that as completely limited to Arnhelm, a recall petition on the mayor, and suggest that the secret cabal of Senators might seize this opportunity to destroy Arnhelm. Senators that presumably you know and perhaps even voted for. Senators that did not comment or even note the recall petition until jabs started being thrown at them accusing a plot to destroy the City-State. Senators who pretty explicitly wanted nothing to do with whatever the heck was going on. A shadow was created out of complete thin air and then jumped at. If that's going to be the standard reaction going forward I heavily encourage you to take a massive chill pill and do some introspection.

 

[Lethen]

All this controversy over Arnhelm? Really? I barely pay attention to the thing, truth be told. Good article, HEM.

 

[HEM]

As one of Arnhelm's biggest supporters and vocal one at that, let me just say that HEM is absolutely right. As much as we'd like for Arnhelm to be left independent, it isn't. It exists at the pleasure of the Senate. It is open to oversight just as any IC thing is in our region and we have to trust our elected Senators and take them at their word that they have its best interests in mind. As I said in private this evening to now former Mayor Sopo, I believe that Arnhelm is in the position where it doesn't know exactly what it wants to be and I'm not sure if that's because it was legislated that way or we've tried to make it into something that it isn't or wasn't designed to be and are worried that our "thing" is going to be taken by people who aren't even involved so we make off the cuff decisions, etc.

I'm not in Eurochat so I can't speak for what went down there, but I think its time that those of us who have Arnhelm's best interests at heart step aside a little, open her up to the light of day and give the people of Europeia a chance to help and offer suggestions and new ideas.

Thanks for saying this, OD. I think now is honestly the perfect time for there to be more voices about the future of Arnhelm.

To be honest, the appeal to me was it being a zanier place for some amount of silliness — but I backed off my character when I picked up cues that others might not feel the same way. At the end of the day, when I'm uncertain I'll always defer to those who participate in and care for Arnhelm the most, but if I feel strongly about an idea I will also speak out (which I am known to do ).

 

[Olde Delaware]

Euro is a better place when you speak out buddeh.

 

[McEntire]

Forgive me if this has already been proposed or talked to death, but just an idea here.

I wonder if there's a more creative solution to this idea of the Arnhelm/CA hybrid. Just as the people can bring a bill to referendum by petitioning to withhold their assent, what if people could directly petition to introduce legislation on the Senate floor? Similarly to a petition to withhold assent, people could put a bill directly on the Senate floor with a number of signatures representing a certain percentage of Senate votes.

Then the "CA" could function less as a legislative body and more as a public square where people present their proposals to get signatures, and discuss and refine them. That public square could be housed within Arnhelm, or within the Senate or GH. People wouldn't worry about if the public square was inactive, because it wouldn't be a formal body with a lot of expectations on it, it would fluctuate in and out of activity based on what was needed.

 

[Olde Delaware]

Forgive me if this has already been proposed or talked to death, but just an idea here.

I wonder if there's a more creative solution to this idea of the Arnhelm/CA hybrid. Just as the people can bring a bill to referendum by petitioning to withhold their assent, what if people could directly petition to introduce legislation on the Senate floor? Similarly to a petition to withhold assent, people could put a bill directly on the Senate floor with a number of signatures representing a certain percentage of Senate votes.

Then the "CA" could function less as a legislative body and more as a public square where people present their proposals to get signatures, and discuss and refine them. That public square could be housed within Arnhelm, or within the Senate or GH. People wouldn't worry about if the public square was inactive, because it wouldn't be a formal body with a lot of expectations on it, it would fluctuate in and out of activity based on what was needed.

I believe this can be done already by gaining enough signatures from a petition in the GH on a piece of potential legislation. Unless I am completely misremembering.

 

[McEntire]

Forgive me if this has already been proposed or talked to death, but just an idea here.

I wonder if there's a more creative solution to this idea of the Arnhelm/CA hybrid. Just as the people can bring a bill to referendum by petitioning to withhold their assent, what if people could directly petition to introduce legislation on the Senate floor? Similarly to a petition to withhold assent, people could put a bill directly on the Senate floor with a number of signatures representing a certain percentage of Senate votes.

Then the "CA" could function less as a legislative body and more as a public square where people present their proposals to get signatures, and discuss and refine them. That public square could be housed within Arnhelm, or within the Senate or GH. People wouldn't worry about if the public square was inactive, because it wouldn't be a formal body with a lot of expectations on it, it would fluctuate in and out of activity based on what was needed.

I believe this can be done already by gaining enough signatures from a petition in the GH on a piece of potential legislation. Unless I am completely misremembering.

I thought maybe so too and was trying to find the statute. But if that's the case and it already is allowed, then maybe creating a formal space for it would be a helpful resolution to this question?

 

[Olde Delaware]

Forgive me if this has already been proposed or talked to death, but just an idea here.

I wonder if there's a more creative solution to this idea of the Arnhelm/CA hybrid. Just as the people can bring a bill to referendum by petitioning to withhold their assent, what if people could directly petition to introduce legislation on the Senate floor? Similarly to a petition to withhold assent, people could put a bill directly on the Senate floor with a number of signatures representing a certain percentage of Senate votes.

Then the "CA" could function less as a legislative body and more as a public square where people present their proposals to get signatures, and discuss and refine them. That public square could be housed within Arnhelm, or within the Senate or GH. People wouldn't worry about if the public square was inactive, because it wouldn't be a formal body with a lot of expectations on it, it would fluctuate in and out of activity based on what was needed.

I believe this can be done already by gaining enough signatures from a petition in the GH on a piece of potential legislation. Unless I am completely misremembering.

I thought maybe so too and was trying to find the statute. But if that's the case and it already is allowed, then maybe creating a formal space for it would be a helpful resolution to this question?

It would probably be a neutral workaround, but like you I can't find the statute either. So it may have been suggested or stripped out of a final draft.

 

[Prim]

Forgive me if this has already been proposed or talked to death, but just an idea here.

I wonder if there's a more creative solution to this idea of the Arnhelm/CA hybrid. Just as the people can bring a bill to referendum by petitioning to withhold their assent, what if people could directly petition to introduce legislation on the Senate floor? Similarly to a petition to withhold assent, people could put a bill directly on the Senate floor with a number of signatures representing a certain percentage of Senate votes.

Then the "CA" could function less as a legislative body and more as a public square where people present their proposals to get signatures, and discuss and refine them. That public square could be housed within Arnhelm, or within the Senate or GH. People wouldn't worry about if the public square was inactive, because it wouldn't be a formal body with a lot of expectations on it, it would fluctuate in and out of activity based on what was needed.

I believe this can be done already by gaining enough signatures from a petition in the GH on a piece of potential legislation. Unless I am completely misremembering.

I thought maybe so too and was trying to find the statute. But if that's the case and it already is allowed, then maybe creating a formal space for it would be a helpful resolution to this question?

Section GI5. of the Constitution.

 

[Olde Delaware]

Forgive me if this has already been proposed or talked to death, but just an idea here.

I wonder if there's a more creative solution to this idea of the Arnhelm/CA hybrid. Just as the people can bring a bill to referendum by petitioning to withhold their assent, what if people could directly petition to introduce legislation on the Senate floor? Similarly to a petition to withhold assent, people could put a bill directly on the Senate floor with a number of signatures representing a certain percentage of Senate votes.

Then the "CA" could function less as a legislative body and more as a public square where people present their proposals to get signatures, and discuss and refine them. That public square could be housed within Arnhelm, or within the Senate or GH. People wouldn't worry about if the public square was inactive, because it wouldn't be a formal body with a lot of expectations on it, it would fluctuate in and out of activity based on what was needed.

I believe this can be done already by gaining enough signatures from a petition in the GH on a piece of potential legislation. Unless I am completely misremembering.

I thought maybe so too and was trying to find the statute. But if that's the case and it already is allowed, then maybe creating a formal space for it would be a helpful resolution to this question?

Section GI5. of the Constitution.

Best Bear

 

[HEM]

For some reason this city of Arnhelm has inspired more distrust and conspiracy theories than anything in recent memory. Arnhelm-skeptics pledge to not abolish Arnhelm, and people call them liars. Citizens propose new innovations for the body and they are shouted down and made pariahs. Questioning Arnhelm is a "scandal." This isn't just Calvin, but long-time participants in Arnhelm like GraVandius as well.

I will say that it has been intensely frustrating and some degree hurtful to have my motives as a Senator but more importantly just as a person repeatedly questioned either directly or indirectly on Arnhlem. I've contributed a fair bit to the city-state creating a budgetary system, and incorporating real life events into the region through the CARES act alongside penning and improving numerous other ordinances. In many cases, I've contributed more than the people accusing me of lying or secretly trying to destroy something that for all intents and purposes I helped create.

It is a uniquely toxic mindset to respond to something that as completely limited to Arnhelm, a recall petition on the mayor, and suggest that the secret cabal of Senators might seize this opportunity to destroy Arnhelm. Senators that presumably you know and perhaps even voted for. Senators that did not comment or even note the recall petition until jabs started being thrown at them accusing a plot to destroy the City-State. Senators who pretty explicitly wanted nothing to do with whatever the heck was going on. A shadow was created out of complete thin air and then jumped at. If that's going to be the standard reaction going forward I heavily encourage you to take a massive chill pill and do some introspection.

@Kuramia, I notice you liked this post. I'm wondering if that's an acknowledgement that you've done the very thing that GraV is talking about in his first paragraph here and whether that means similar rhetoric will be tamped down going forward? Or?

 

[HEM]

Forgive me if this has already been proposed or talked to death, but just an idea here.

I wonder if there's a more creative solution to this idea of the Arnhelm/CA hybrid. Just as the people can bring a bill to referendum by petitioning to withhold their assent, what if people could directly petition to introduce legislation on the Senate floor? Similarly to a petition to withhold assent, people could put a bill directly on the Senate floor with a number of signatures representing a certain percentage of Senate votes.

Then the "CA" could function less as a legislative body and more as a public square where people present their proposals to get signatures, and discuss and refine them. That public square could be housed within Arnhelm, or within the Senate or GH. People wouldn't worry about if the public square was inactive, because it wouldn't be a formal body with a lot of expectations on it, it would fluctuate in and out of activity based on what was needed.

I believe this can be done already by gaining enough signatures from a petition in the GH on a piece of potential legislation. Unless I am completely misremembering.

I thought maybe so too and was trying to find the statute. But if that's the case and it already is allowed, then maybe creating a formal space for it would be a helpful resolution to this question?

Section GI5. of the Constitution.

Hey, I see you've noticed this article. Not sure if you were able to read the whole thing and had any other thoughts?

 

[Kuramia]

For some reason this city of Arnhelm has inspired more distrust and conspiracy theories than anything in recent memory. Arnhelm-skeptics pledge to not abolish Arnhelm, and people call them liars. Citizens propose new innovations for the body and they are shouted down and made pariahs. Questioning Arnhelm is a "scandal." This isn't just Calvin, but long-time participants in Arnhelm like GraVandius as well.

I will say that it has been intensely frustrating and some degree hurtful to have my motives as a Senator but more importantly just as a person repeatedly questioned either directly or indirectly on Arnhlem. I've contributed a fair bit to the city-state creating a budgetary system, and incorporating real life events into the region through the CARES act alongside penning and improving numerous other ordinances. In many cases, I've contributed more than the people accusing me of lying or secretly trying to destroy something that for all intents and purposes I helped create.

It is a uniquely toxic mindset to respond to something that as completely limited to Arnhelm, a recall petition on the mayor, and suggest that the secret cabal of Senators might seize this opportunity to destroy Arnhelm. Senators that presumably you know and perhaps even voted for. Senators that did not comment or even note the recall petition until jabs started being thrown at them accusing a plot to destroy the City-State. Senators who pretty explicitly wanted nothing to do with whatever the heck was going on. A shadow was created out of complete thin air and then jumped at. If that's going to be the standard reaction going forward I heavily encourage you to take a massive chill pill and do some introspection.

@Kuramia, I notice you liked this post. I'm wondering if that's an acknowledgement that you've done the very thing that GraV is talking about in his first paragraph here and whether that means similar rhetoric will be tamped down going forward? Or?

What? This is confusing to be singled out for. I liked his post because, as I stated in Rot's thread to recall Sopo, we shouldn't be basing anything we do on whether or not the Senate will react like some big, scary boogeyman. I've also said as much in Arnhelm's discord channel.

Lol, where did this come from? I not only told Grav I was impressed with his Senate platform, but said I would like to see him run for a shot at Senate Speaker.

I don't think we should be jumping to conclusions when someone likes a post. Generally that means I agree with a statement made and they've said it far better than I could at the time.

 

[HEM]

For some reason this city of Arnhelm has inspired more distrust and conspiracy theories than anything in recent memory. Arnhelm-skeptics pledge to not abolish Arnhelm, and people call them liars. Citizens propose new innovations for the body and they are shouted down and made pariahs. Questioning Arnhelm is a "scandal." This isn't just Calvin, but long-time participants in Arnhelm like GraVandius as well.

I will say that it has been intensely frustrating and some degree hurtful to have my motives as a Senator but more importantly just as a person repeatedly questioned either directly or indirectly on Arnhlem. I've contributed a fair bit to the city-state creating a budgetary system, and incorporating real life events into the region through the CARES act alongside penning and improving numerous other ordinances. In many cases, I've contributed more than the people accusing me of lying or secretly trying to destroy something that for all intents and purposes I helped create.

It is a uniquely toxic mindset to respond to something that as completely limited to Arnhelm, a recall petition on the mayor, and suggest that the secret cabal of Senators might seize this opportunity to destroy Arnhelm. Senators that presumably you know and perhaps even voted for. Senators that did not comment or even note the recall petition until jabs started being thrown at them accusing a plot to destroy the City-State. Senators who pretty explicitly wanted nothing to do with whatever the heck was going on. A shadow was created out of complete thin air and then jumped at. If that's going to be the standard reaction going forward I heavily encourage you to take a massive chill pill and do some introspection.

@Kuramia, I notice you liked this post. I'm wondering if that's an acknowledgement that you've done the very thing that GraV is talking about in his first paragraph here and whether that means similar rhetoric will be tamped down going forward? Or?

What? This is confusing to be singled out for. I liked his post because, as I stated in Rot's thread to recall Sopo, we shouldn't be basing anything we do on whether or not the Senate will react like some big, scary boogeyman. I've also said as much in Arnhelm's discord channel.

Lol, where did this come from? I not only told Grav I was impressed with his Senate platform, but said I would like to see him run for a shot at Senate Speaker.

I don't think we should be jumping to conclusions when someone likes a post. Generally that means I agree with a statement made and they've said it far better than I could at the time.

I appreciate that you stood against the even more bizarre conspiracy-ladden rhetoric yesterday, but GraV's post was also broadly about how it's been "frustrating and to some degree hurtful" to have his motives as a Senator and "just as a person repeatedly questioned." You were someone with some of the hottest rhetoric during the AIC debate, including telling Senators you believed there was some secret, nefarious purpose to the committee.

You said, across multiple posts to Senators that included GraVandius: "I doubt your motives. No one collects data for no reason, least of all people questioning the usefulness of Arnhelm. Frankly this just pisses me off. You can do better! and "I do see most Senators being awfully cagey about answering questions or focusing on arguments that make no sense. The perception looks baaaaad, guys."

So since you've contributed to the experience that GraV is talking about, I was wondering whether liking the post was an acknowledgment of that?

 

[Prim]

Forgive me if this has already been proposed or talked to death, but just an idea here.

I wonder if there's a more creative solution to this idea of the Arnhelm/CA hybrid. Just as the people can bring a bill to referendum by petitioning to withhold their assent, what if people could directly petition to introduce legislation on the Senate floor? Similarly to a petition to withhold assent, people could put a bill directly on the Senate floor with a number of signatures representing a certain percentage of Senate votes.

Then the "CA" could function less as a legislative body and more as a public square where people present their proposals to get signatures, and discuss and refine them. That public square could be housed within Arnhelm, or within the Senate or GH. People wouldn't worry about if the public square was inactive, because it wouldn't be a formal body with a lot of expectations on it, it would fluctuate in and out of activity based on what was needed.

I believe this can be done already by gaining enough signatures from a petition in the GH on a piece of potential legislation. Unless I am completely misremembering.

I thought maybe so too and was trying to find the statute. But if that's the case and it already is allowed, then maybe creating a formal space for it would be a helpful resolution to this question?

Section GI5. of the Constitution.

Hey, I see you've noticed this article. Not sure if you were able to read the whole thing and had any other thoughts?

The question of Arnhelm being abolished or forced to take on CA-like pre-legislation was a key criteria for how I chose to vote in this past Senate election.

That being said, I do not think there are any pressing concerns about the Senate altering Arnhelm at the moment. I supported GraV's campaign in this election, and I do not hold his position on the AIC against him at all. I don't hold any of the Senator's positions on the AIC against them. I've voted for GraV and Dark in other Senate elections after that. I am, however, still offended about Calvin's A City in Ruin article, which was supremely rude, but that's up to him, it's his newspaper. I didn't vote for him in the election, but he's not a villain. I believe I was actually his AG at the time, and we continued to work together after that just fine.

I'm open to having a GH discussion on Arnhelm, or about what people are looking for in RP in general. We've had internal changes within Arnhelm as well, based on input from people with new ideas. I have tried several ideas within Arnhelm itself to try to find a new footing, political party RP, a newsletter, these new RP issues. Hell, I even voted for brand new member Sopo hoping to see a more RP-focused Mayor role from someone who was Arnhelm-skeptical, I'm very sad that fell apart.

[Edit: Looking back, as far as I'm aware, none of my responses on the AIC thread or the Op-Ed about the AIC were inflammatory or overly personal. I was a member of the Senate at the time, I did not devolve into personal attacks during the discussions.]

 

[Sopo]

I was disappointed with my experience in Arnhelm. I had hoped when I joined to be able to have some fun and do something a bit silly - people bought into it harder than I expected, and the whole recall effort and many off the discussions around it were very off-putting. As I said elsewhere, I think Arnhelm needs to decide what it is so that people don't have similar experiences where expectations don't meet reality.

 

[Prim]

I was disappointed with my experience in Arnhelm. I had hoped when I joined to be able to have some fun and do something a bit silly - people bought into it harder than I expected, and the whole recall effort and many off the discussions around it were very off-putting. As I said elsewhere, I think Arnhelm needs to decide what it is so that people don't have similar experiences where expectations don't meet reality.

An overwhelming majority voted you in and supported your ideas. One person posted a recall petition, which, as far as I'm aware, no one else supported. I'm very sorry with how that situation played out and that you didn't have a good experience, but where is this responsibility on the whole of Arnhelm? We chose you, we decided to follow your vision in your platform, a more RP-focused term. That's what we decided to be.