[onda]

(Original post by internetguru)
Funny everyone says the same thing about every single suggestion I make.

Because the house has more important things to do then change rules. These rules are there for a good reason. Why are you struggling to form a party?

[internetguru]

(Original post by onda)
Because the house has more important things to do then change rules. These rules are there for a good reason, but tell me why do you find it difficult to gather 10 people for your party?

Keeping 10 people active at the same time is difficult. Look at the current smaller parties on MHoC.

[JPKC]

Fishy.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[hines]

No; if the rules are simpler, there would end up too many parties, plus the 'trolls' that attempt to form parties too. It's still possible for good-willed people to form parties, the support makes their case more rigid.

[paperclip]

On a website with one million registered members i struggle to believe that if a party is good quality you wont be able to find members for it. Afterall, it didnt take blueray long to find his members, although his efforts were blocked IIRC.

[internetguru]

(Original post by paperclip)
On a website with one million registered members i struggle to believe that if a party is good quality you wont be able to find members for it. Afterall, it didnt take blueray long to find his members, although his efforts were blocked IIRC.

Okay i'll break down blueray's attempt down for you. 50% of them were members that I found before he thread hijacked and the other half were his friends already who he pmed. None of them ever posted on MHoC.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by internetguru)
Okay i'll break down blueray's attempt down for you. 50% of them were members that I found before he thread hijacked and the other half were his friends already who he pmed. None of them ever posted on MHoC.

Doesn't really detract from the fact that there were people willing to give it a go, though.

Oh, and no to this petition, for all the reasons everyone else has stated.

[barnetlad]

I am happy to keep it at 10, as someone who tried to form a party.

[paperclip]

(Original post by internetguru)
Okay i'll break down blueray's attempt down for you. 50% of them were members that I found before he thread hijacked and the other half were his friends already who he pmed. None of them ever posted on MHoC.

And? The party still found ten members. It doesnt matter who found the members; it doesnt matter who created the party because any party that still has to have a democratic election.

Moreover, he did not hijack the thread. You had what i can only describe as a breakdown due to your thirst for power, you explicitly stated that you wished to become an unremovable leader of the party and had no green policies. This made the members you recruited lose faith in you and decided to go with another member who created the same party but with different policies. In addition to this, the speaker also decided to block you attempts to form the party because of your obvious trolling.

Who cares if it was his friends? He got the members, end of. Witness the fitness was made of a clique from the fitness forum, the old MRLP was largely a mod party, the socialist party were also once a quite tightly knit party. If anything, working with friends guarantees activity (through social identity processes).

[internetguru]

(Original post by paperclip)
And? The party still found ten members. It doesnt matter who found the members; it doesnt matter who created the party because any party that still has to have a democratic election.

Moreover, he did not hijack the thread. You had what i can only describe as a breakdown due to your thirst for power, you explicitly stated that you wished to become an unremovable leader of the party and had no green policies. This made the members you recruited lose faith in you and decided to go with another member who created the same party but with different policies. In addition to this, the speaker also decided to block you attempts to form the party because of your obvious trolling.

Who cares if it was his friends? He got the members, end of. Witness the fitness was made of a clique from the fitness forum, the old MRLP was largely a mod party, the socialist party were also once a quite tightly knit party. If anything, working with friends guarantees activity (through social identity processes).

You can't claim he got close though when none of them post. Someone can just as easily make a thread right now add 10 fake names and you would be claiming that they got close.

[Matthew_Lowson]

I think that a hybrid could be found here and personally it can be argued that if a party needs ten active members to form then it should be having ten members who are genuinely active. How many parties here, who have less than ten seats actually do have ten members who are genuinely active all the time.

[paperclip]

(Original post by internetguru)
You can't claim he got close though when none of them post. Someone can just as easily make a thread right now add 10 fake names and you would be claiming that they got close.

The guidelines state for ten active members, ten fake names would not satisfy the guidelines.

Moreover, they are guideline, anyone that takes them seriously is daft. The point of having a speaker is to be able to allow for subjective decisions, otherwise we could just have a form that automatically creates parties/subforums. I have no doubt that if a good party that was not represented in the HoC emerged and had a number of high quality posts in the HoC then the speaker and admin would remain flexible. Of course, this cant be called in advance because of its subjectivity, but, for example if the centre party were to make a comeback then i do think the quality of members such as melancholy and drogue would put it in a favourable light. In contrast, the quality of members such as yourself who crave power and want to change the rules in their attempts to satisfy this desire for imaginary positions of responsibility cast the party in a negative light, hence metrobeans decided that he would not recommend your party even if you got ten members.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
I think that a hybrid could be found here and personally it can be argued that if a party needs ten active members to form then it should be having ten members who are genuinely active. How many parties here, who have less than ten seats actually do have ten members who are genuinely active all the time.

Why do we need to find a hybrid though? The speaker has a great deal of common sense that they can exercise rather than creating rule after rule to satisfy every possible eventuality. The point of having a speaker is to allow them to use their head, and the point of having a guidance document was to remain more flexible than a constitution. Noone called a vote of no confidence in metrobeans when he banned internetgurus party because it went above the guidance document, but was a situation we could not have planned for and the most responsible decision that could have been made.

If we dont trust the speaker to fulfil this role then you guys really need to think about who you are voting for.

[internetguru]

(Original post by paperclip)
The guidelines state for ten active members, ten fake names would not satisfy the guidelines.

Moreover, they are guideline, anyone that takes them seriously is daft. The point of having a speaker is to be able to allow for subjective decisions, otherwise we could just have a form that automatically creates parties/subforums. I have no doubt that if a good party that was not represented in the HoC emerged and had a number of high quality posts in the HoC then the speaker and admin would remain flexible. Of course, this cant be called in advance because of its subjectivity, but, for example if the centre party were to make a comeback then i do think the quality of members such as melancholy and drogue would put it in a favourable light. In contrast, the quality of members such as yourself who crave power and want to change the rules in their attempts to satisfy this desire for imaginary positions of responsibility cast the party in a negative light, hence metrobeans decided that he would not recommend your party even if you got ten members.

If you had been paying attention you would realise that this was posted in response to Toronto stating he would make no exceptions they must meet the 10 members stated in the guide.

[paperclip]

(Original post by internetguru)
If you had been paying attention you would realise that this was posted in response to Toronto stating he would make no exceptions they must meet the 10 members stated in the guide.

Then hes a **** candidate and people should not vote for him.

But i dealt with that criticism in my post, if you had been paying attention:

"Of course, this cant be called in advance because of its subjectivity..."

[Matthew_Lowson]

(Original post by paperclip)
Why do we need to find a hybrid though? The speaker has a great deal of common sense that they can exercise rather than creating rule after rule to satisfy every possible eventuality. The point of having a speaker is to allow them to use their head, and the point of having a guidance document was to remain more flexible than a constitution. Noone called a vote of no confidence in metrobeans when he banned internetgurus party because it went above the guidance document, but was a situation we could not have planned for and the most responsible decision that could have been made.

If we dont trust the speaker to fulfil this role then you guys really need to think about who you are voting for.

What I meant by a hybrid system is that you allow a party 'provisional status' if they are formed by between 5 and 10 members. The new party holds that provisional status for a month whilst they have the opportunity to prove themselves and that they are getting involved in the HoC with the right intentions. Then at the end of the month the Speaker can make a judgement whether or not to proceed to the admins to seek formal party status for the party and creation of a sub forum etc.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
What I meant by a hybrid system is that you allow a party 'provisional status' if they are formed by between 5 and 10 members. The new party holds that provisional status for a month whilst they have the opportunity to prove themselves and that they are getting involved in the HoC with the right intentions. Then at the end of the month the Speaker can make a judgement whether or not to proceed to the admins to seek formal party status for the party and creation of a sub forum etc.

Sounds like a more bureaucratic version of exactly what already happens. Parties are given provisional status in all but name, they dont receive a subforum but have a thread to develop policy and a membership base, and they are expected to prove themselves. The only difference between your system and the current rules and processes is that there is currently no time limit, so your system would just make it more difficult for new parties to form.

As i said before, what is the point in having a speaker if we dont expect him to exercise his or her sound judgement?

[Matthew_Lowson]

(Original post by paperclip)
Sounds like a more bureaucratic version of exactly what already happens. Parties are given provisional status in all but name, they dont receive a subforum but have a thread to develop policy and a membership base, and they are expected to prove themselves. The only difference between your system and the current rules and processes is that there is currently no time limit, so your system would just make it more difficult for new parties to form.

As i said before, what is the point in having a speaker if we dont expect him to exercise his or her sound judgement?

Not said anything about limiting the judgement of the speaker? He makes the decision to proceed forward to the admins - that's not diminishing the role is it?

It wouldn't restrict new parties from forming as the numbers required would be fewer.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
Not said anything about limiting the judgement of the speaker? He makes the decision to proceed forward to the admins - that's not diminishing the role is it?

It wouldn't restrict new parties from forming as the numbers required would be fewer.

It is, by enforcing a greater number of guidelines. The speaker already has the ability to accept parties with fewer than ten members, in fact, the experienced speaker who has just left explicitly stated that he would accept a quality party with fewer active members. I think Toronto would if in reality the party proved itself to be in demand and of excellent quality (the sort of subjectivity that you just cant predict), but if he would not these are the things we should be scrutinising him about during the election.

It would restrict new parties because the number can already be fewer. Nick said he would accept a party of five quality members but did that actually lead to any new parties being created? Having that same policy, with an added expiry date would lead to greater difficulty in forming a party, not increased ease.

[Matthew_Lowson]

Fair enough,