Regarding Citizens' Assembly Masking

Realistically, the name has to be cross checked against a list anyway in many cases. Anyone who is President, Vice President, a Minister, a Deputy Minister, a Justice, etc. can be a CA member, but will not have "Assembly Member" listed as their group. Similarly, without making a formal ruling on the matter, I would suspect that merely being a member of the CA group is not legally sufficient to make someone a CA member. That' a question of the CA ordinance and the acts of the Chair, not what the admins have correctly or incorrectly done.
 
The masking currently is a useless signifier, as it can easily be trumped (by the President, VP, Justices, or Ministers, or possibly Deputy Ministers).

I agree with Drecq.
 
HM King David I of Cokeland said:
I am against removing the mask. It would be harder (at least for me) to distinguish between who is a CA member and who is not.
I think removing the mask might encourage more people to use the signature. If the mask changes no posting rights then it's not really very useful. And as others have said, a higher-up office like the President can be in the CA too, so the mask isn't always the best way to identify a CA member.

It doesn't make sense to me to overload admins with work that's ultimately unnecessary.
 
Do away with the assembly mask: I know I have. One level of support that can exist (and be phased out) is the functionless joinable group. That way a membership list exists that is tied right to the forum itself.
 
Let's do away with it!
 
Malashaan said:
Regarding a joinable group, we could set that up if there was a forum-access differentiation to give it meaning. For example, if the CA wanted to enforce voting rights technologically rather than manually, it could have a separate voting hall (similar to the voting booth in the oval room) that only members of the group could post in. However, under the current set up, a joinable group would be pointless because there is no masking difference between CA members and non-CA members, and, unlike the current "regular" group, a joinable group can't change a member's "member title" (the group listed on the left under the poster's avatar).

So a joinable group would be bad? Or a pain? What does the Chair think about it?

 
We do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

I think the mask makes us look better, but do what you must. There must be sacrifices to make things better sometimes.
 
Isaris said:
Malashaan said:
Regarding a joinable group, we could set that up if there was a forum-access differentiation to give it meaning. For example, if the CA wanted to enforce voting rights technologically rather than manually, it could have a separate voting hall (similar to the voting booth in the oval room) that only members of the group could post in. However, under the current set up, a joinable group would be pointless because there is no masking difference between CA members and non-CA members, and, unlike the current "regular" group, a joinable group can't change a member's "member title" (the group listed on the left under the poster's avatar).

So a joinable group would be bad? Or a pain? What does the Chair think about it?
I think it depends. It would be bad if it meant the Chair had to maintain a group that made no difference, but if the CA restructures its forums in a way where the group actually does something, it could be very useful.
 
I'd be against having that joinable group do something, since that would restrict non-members from viewing the CA in a way that the CA should not do, in my opinion.

EDIT: This means I am also against having a joinable group, for clarification.
 
Since almost everyone is in agreement, I think it's fair to move forward with removing the masking while the CA decides how it wants to set up its internal workings.
 
Just to be sure CA leadership would still have it's joinable group correct.

This would put extra pressure on Chair to actually keep the list updated.(which is a good thing :p)
 
The leadership doesn't even have a forums anymore. That was done away with by...some Chair or something. I've no idea why.

I've had no reason to place it back yet.
I was mistaken. Apparently I wasn't part of the group. Everything is normal. Back to your worship of Nethel people!

Frankly I think we should remove the masking...and then see what happens. I am fine with maintaining membership, as I said, and if someone else...isn't...well...that's part of the CA Chair job, so I don't have that much sympathy.
 
Back
Top