Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I will encourage all members to change their user title and we will make sure to make a list of members available.
    Will be very helpful, thanks :yy:
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I will encourage all members to change their user title and we will make sure to make a list of members available.
    Appreciated


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Will you be responding to the points Fez has made?

    -------------

    I did intend to stay quiet on this issue, but I find myself commenting anyway. I think it was too soon for the Libertarians to form, for several reasons, even if their formation was/is seemingly inevitable. 4 or 5 members just isn't enough. The Nat Libs had more than that and look how that ended. I don't expect anyone to wait for 10 active members, but I think it would be reasonable enough to wait for the Libertarians to have 6 or 7. Secondly, I've got to agree with the points Fez has raised. The CT haven't actually given approval for the Party.

    These two things are why I wanted to create Groupings for groups of people that haven't received approval for a party, but nevermind.

    I do think there's space for the Libertarians, and I wish them luck, but I think this announcement was premature.
    adam9317 You still haven't responded to the above, Saracen's Fez's points, my protests, or indeed justified your position using something more than unsupported personal opinions after more than six days. Can we expect you to defend your decisions and provide evidence for public scrutiny in a timely manner rather than only appearing for several minutes every evening to post an update?

    Furthermore, why did you take hazzer's and heri2-something's supposed membership into consideration when approving the new party without consulting their party leaders regarding dual membership?

    While it's nice to see three or four persons with common political ideas and a lot of time to spare typing their opinions, wishing to set up a party, they lack basic attributes of any newly formed MHoC party such as a set of policies or a manifesto even after more than a month, which suggests they're indeed not a party even disregarding the precedent…

    Let's pretend the Libertarian party does exist for a moment. According to section 5.2 of the MHoC Constitution, “parties are administered by the Speaker until a party leader is elected, thereafter administration responsibilities fall to the party leader”, whereas Gladstone-something claims he's acting leader. This is apparently unconstitutional so my question is whether there's an election in progress and what steps are you taking to administer the ‘party’. Do you have control over the off-site forum? Why is one of the ‘members’ claiming to be their acting leader?

    Finally, pursuant to section 5.3.1 of the same Constitution, “parties will be shut down if […] there is no activity in their sub-forum for a period of 1 month”, which brings me to my question whether you're prepared to do that in about three weeks considering that they do not have a sub-forum and hence there can be no activity, while according to your own words, the CT are expected to create or repurpose one in about two months at the earliest. (This rule which you can't simply ignore supports Fez's claim there can be no CT approval without a sub-forum; a TSR sub-forum is an integral precondition for every party).
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    adam9317 You still haven't responded to the above, Saracen's Fez's points, my protests, or indeed justified your position using something more than unsupported personal opinions after more than six days. Can we expect you to defend your decisions and provide evidence for public scrutiny in a timely manner rather than only appearing for several minutes every evening to post an update?

    Furthermore, why did you take hazzer's and heri2-something's supposed membership into consideration when approving the new party without consulting their party leaders regarding dual membership?

    While it's nice to see three or four persons with common political ideas and a lot of time to spare typing their opinions, wishing to set up a party, they lack basic attributes of any newly formed MHoC party such as a set of policies or a manifesto even after more than a month, which suggests they're indeed not a party even disregarding the precedent…

    Let's pretend the Libertarian party does exist for a moment. According to section 5.2 of the MHoC Constitution, “parties are administered by the Speaker until a party leader is elected, thereafter administration responsibilities fall to the party leader”, whereas Gladstone-something claims he's acting leader. This is apparently unconstitutional so my question is whether there's an election in progress and what steps are you taking to administer the ‘party’. Do you have control over the off-site forum? Why is one of the ‘members’ claiming to be their acting leader?

    Finally, pursuant to section 5.3.1 of the same Constitution, “parties will be shut down if […] there is no activity in their sub-forum for a period of 1 month”, which brings me to my question whether you're prepared to do that in about three weeks considering that they do not have a sub-forum and hence there can be no activity, while according to your own words, the CT are expected to create or repurpose one in about two months at the earliest. (This rule which you can't simply ignore supports Fez's claim there can be no CT approval without a sub-forum; a TSR sub-forum is an integral precondition for every party).
    I agree on the latter. Surely if they don't have a sub forum in a month the party has to be shut down.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    adam9317 You still haven't responded to the above, Saracen's Fez's points, my protests, or indeed justified your position using something more than unsupported personal opinions after more than six days. Can we expect you to defend your decisions and provide evidence for public scrutiny in a timely manner rather than only appearing for several minutes every evening to post an update?

    Furthermore, why did you take hazzer's and heri2-something's supposed membership into consideration when approving the new party without consulting their party leaders regarding dual membership?

    While it's nice to see three or four persons with common political ideas and a lot of time to spare typing their opinions, wishing to set up a party, they lack basic attributes of any newly formed MHoC party such as a set of policies or a manifesto even after more than a month, which suggests they're indeed not a party even disregarding the precedent…

    Let's pretend the Libertarian party does exist for a moment. According to section 5.2 of the MHoC Constitution, “parties are administered by the Speaker until a party leader is elected, thereafter administration responsibilities fall to the party leader”, whereas Gladstone-something claims he's acting leader. This is apparently unconstitutional so my question is whether there's an election in progress and what steps are you taking to administer the ‘party’. Do you have control over the off-site forum? Why is one of the ‘members’ claiming to be their acting leader?

    Finally, pursuant to section 5.3.1 of the same Constitution, “parties will be shut down if […] there is no activity in their sub-forum for a period of 1 month”, which brings me to my question whether you're prepared to do that in about three weeks considering that they do not have a sub-forum and hence there can be no activity, while according to your own words, the CT are expected to create or repurpose one in about two months at the earliest. (This rule which you can't simply ignore supports Fez's claim there can be no CT approval without a sub-forum; a TSR sub-forum is an integral precondition for every party).
    I'm going to guess Adam wasn't thorough in his consultation of the Constitution and GD and so overlooked 5.3.1, or will try to argue they aren't actually formed until the subforum is created (and annoyingly you have those arguing against creation that indirectly argued that very line, as I recall yourself included)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    adam9317 You still haven't responded to the above, Saracen's Fez's points, my protests, or indeed justified your position using something more than unsupported personal opinions after more than six days. Can we expect you to defend your decisions and provide evidence for public scrutiny in a timely manner rather than only appearing for several minutes every evening to post an update?

    Furthermore, why did you take hazzer's and heri2-something's supposed membership into consideration when approving the new party without consulting their party leaders regarding dual membership?

    While it's nice to see three or four persons with common political ideas and a lot of time to spare typing their opinions, wishing to set up a party, they lack basic attributes of any newly formed MHoC party such as a set of policies or a manifesto even after more than a month, which suggests they're indeed not a party even disregarding the precedent…

    Let's pretend the Libertarian party does exist for a moment. According to section 5.2 of the MHoC Constitution, “parties are administered by the Speaker until a party leader is elected, thereafter administration responsibilities fall to the party leader”, whereas Gladstone-something claims he's acting leader. This is apparently unconstitutional so my question is whether there's an election in progress and what steps are you taking to administer the ‘party’. Do you have control over the off-site forum? Why is one of the ‘members’ claiming to be their acting leader?

    Finally, pursuant to section 5.3.1 of the same Constitution, “parties will be shut down if […] there is no activity in their sub-forum for a period of 1 month”, which brings me to my question whether you're prepared to do that in about three weeks considering that they do not have a sub-forum and hence there can be no activity, while according to your own words, the CT are expected to create or repurpose one in about two months at the earliest. (This rule which you can't simply ignore supports Fez's claim there can be no CT approval without a sub-forum; a TSR sub-forum is an integral precondition for every party).
    I have to agree tbh. There is a lot that needs to be addressed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    adam9317 You still haven't responded to the above, Saracen's Fez's points, my protests, or indeed justified your position using something more than unsupported personal opinions after more than six days. Can we expect you to defend your decisions and provide evidence for public scrutiny in a timely manner rather than only appearing for several minutes every evening to post an update?

    Furthermore, why did you take hazzer's and heri2-something's supposed membership into consideration when approving the new party without consulting their party leaders regarding dual membership?

    While it's nice to see three or four persons with common political ideas and a lot of time to spare typing their opinions, wishing to set up a party, they lack basic attributes of any newly formed MHoC party such as a set of policies or a manifesto even after more than a month, which suggests they're indeed not a party even disregarding the precedent…

    Let's pretend the Libertarian party does exist for a moment. According to section 5.2 of the MHoC Constitution, “parties are administered by the Speaker until a party leader is elected, thereafter administration responsibilities fall to the party leader”, whereas Gladstone-something claims he's acting leader. This is apparently unconstitutional so my question is whether there's an election in progress and what steps are you taking to administer the ‘party’. Do you have control over the off-site forum? Why is one of the ‘members’ claiming to be their acting leader?

    Finally, pursuant to section 5.3.1 of the same Constitution, “parties will be shut down if […] there is no activity in their sub-forum for a period of 1 month”, which brings me to my question whether you're prepared to do that in about three weeks considering that they do not have a sub-forum and hence there can be no activity, while according to your own words, the CT are expected to create or repurpose one in about two months at the earliest. (This rule which you can't simply ignore supports Fez's claim there can be no CT approval without a sub-forum; a TSR sub-forum is an integral precondition for every party).
    Gladstone is acting leader until the completion of the leadership election currently underway you can expect the announcement on Thursday or Friday. The reason he is acting leader is because he has not been elected to the position and it was decided he should take the role until we elected a leader..

    We do have a set of policies and have been slightly busy writing a constitution for the party but if you would like I will try to get a list of some of our policies up on the op quickly.

    Like you said to me previously perhaps you can steer yourself into writing a few bills rather than rejecting other people's effort in the house.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Gladstone is acting leader until the completion of the leadership election currently underway you can expect the announcement on Thursday or Friday. The reason he is acting leader is because he has not been elected to the position and it was decided he should take the role until we elected a leader..

    We do have a set of policies and have been slightly busy writing a constitution for the party but if you would like I will try to get a list of some of our policies up on the op quickly.

    Like you said to me previously perhaps you can steer yourself into writing a few bills rather than rejecting other people's effort in the house.
    Gladstone is not acting leader though, the Constitution is quite clear, Adam is acting leader with the primary job of overseeing the election of a leader

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    adam9317 You still haven't responded to the above, Saracen's Fez's points, my protests, or indeed justified your position using something more than unsupported personal opinions after more than six days. Can we expect you to defend your decisions and provide evidence for public scrutiny in a timely manner rather than only appearing for several minutes every evening to post an update?

    Furthermore, why did you take hazzer's and heri2-something's supposed membership into consideration when approving the new party without consulting their party leaders regarding dual membership?

    While it's nice to see three or four persons with common political ideas and a lot of time to spare typing their opinions, wishing to set up a party, they lack basic attributes of any newly formed MHoC party such as a set of policies or a manifesto even after more than a month, which suggests they're indeed not a party even disregarding the precedent…

    Let's pretend the Libertarian party does exist for a moment. According to section 5.2 of the MHoC Constitution, “parties are administered by the Speaker until a party leader is elected, thereafter administration responsibilities fall to the party leader”, whereas Gladstone-something claims he's acting leader. This is apparently unconstitutional so my question is whether there's an election in progress and what steps are you taking to administer the ‘party’. Do you have control over the off-site forum? Why is one of the ‘members’ claiming to be their acting leader?

    Finally, pursuant to section 5.3.1 of the same Constitution, “parties will be shut down if […] there is no activity in their sub-forum for a period of 1 month”, which brings me to my question whether you're prepared to do that in about three weeks considering that they do not have a sub-forum and hence there can be no activity, while according to your own words, the CT are expected to create or repurpose one in about two months at the earliest. (This rule which you can't simply ignore supports Fez's claim there can be no CT approval without a sub-forum; a TSR sub-forum is an integral precondition for every party).
    Considering that heri2rs came to us from your party, I could ask the same of your party leader. Who, by the way is mobbsy and not you despite your delusions.

    We have no leader, we have an Acting Leader. If Adam wants to administer us, whatever that means (your rulebook is very vague, seeing as its written by a bunch of university students) then I see no problem in letting him do so. The results of our leadership election will be out Feb. 16 anyway. Either way, the current structure of our leadership is in no way unconstitutional.

    Adam has access to, but not control over, our offsite forum. Everything we write is viewable to him.

    I would also call into question the definition of subforum to combat your second point. The TSR Constitution doesn't specify that the subforum has to be on TSR. Indeed, our offsite forum has immense traffic among our dedicated members.

    Now that I've attended to all your concerns, I would like to point out the fact that while the Tory Party is devoting its time to impeding the formation of a perfectly legitimate asset to the House, our party has introduced multiple motions, petitions and two bills. We have 0 MP's yet are more active than at least the UKIP and the Greens in the MHoC.

    So that begs the question: Would you prefer we merged back into the Liberals and suffocated you all to death that way? (its rhetorical; we're forming in spite of your anti-democratic posturing)
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    adam9317 You still haven't responded to the above, Saracen's Fez's points, my protests, or indeed justified your position using something more than unsupported personal opinions after more than six days. Can we expect you to defend your decisions and provide evidence for public scrutiny in a timely manner rather than only appearing for several minutes every evening to post an update?

    Furthermore, why did you take hazzer's and heri2-something's supposed membership into consideration when approving the new party without consulting their party leaders regarding dual membership?

    While it's nice to see three or four persons with common political ideas and a lot of time to spare typing their opinions, wishing to set up a party, they lack basic attributes of any newly formed MHoC party such as a set of policies or a manifesto even after more than a month, which suggests they're indeed not a party even disregarding the precedent…

    Let's pretend the Libertarian party does exist for a moment. According to section 5.2 of the MHoC Constitution, “parties are administered by the Speaker until a party leader is elected, thereafter administration responsibilities fall to the party leader”, whereas Gladstone-something claims he's acting leader. This is apparently unconstitutional so my question is whether there's an election in progress and what steps are you taking to administer the ‘party’. Do you have control over the off-site forum? Why is one of the ‘members’ claiming to be their acting leader?

    Finally, pursuant to section 5.3.1 of the same Constitution, “parties will be shut down if […] there is no activity in their sub-forum for a period of 1 month”, which brings me to my question whether you're prepared to do that in about three weeks considering that they do not have a sub-forum and hence there can be no activity, while according to your own words, the CT are expected to create or repurpose one in about two months at the earliest. (This rule which you can't simply ignore supports Fez's claim there can be no CT approval without a sub-forum; a TSR sub-forum is an integral precondition for every party).
    The Libertarian party are currently holding leadership elections as we speak, and has elements of a constitution has also been created a voted upon; and on the matter of 'acting leaders' the own party's constitution would supersede the MHOC guidance where applicable, so this is the case.

    I was informed late last week that QC's replacement has been found, and they are waiting on him/ her to complete their notice at the previous job and they should be started within a few weeks, so thankfully the delay doesn't seem to be as long as first thought.

    The party is in the middle of writing a manifesto/ policy list; and this is being constructed as we speak, so that does please me!

    In my message to Danny Dorito to see if anything can be rushed along, I will be addressing all these issues to the CT!

    I will admit that it is disappointing that the number of proposed members has dropped since the original proposal and since I contacted all the respective members; but this party will still have a great opportunity to go forward. My handling of it hasn't been 100%, I will put my hands up and say that, but we will work with what we have got, and ensure a success is made of it!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    The Libertarian party are currently holding leadership elections as we speak, and has elements of a constitution has also been created a voted upon; and on the matter of 'acting leaders' the own party's constitution would supersede the MHOC guidance where applicable, so this is the case.

    I was informed late last week that QC's replacement has been found, and they are waiting on him/ her to complete their notice at the previous job and they should be started within a few weeks, so thankfully the delay doesn't seem to be as long as first thought.

    The party is in the middle of writing a manifesto/ policy list; and this is being constructed as we speak, so that does please me!

    In my message to Danny Dorito to see if anything can be rushed along, I will be addressing all these issues to the CT!

    I will admit that it is disappointing that the number of proposed members has dropped since the original proposal and since I contacted all the respective members; but this party will still have a great opportunity to go forward. My handling of it hasn't been 100%, I will put my hands up and say that, but we will work with what we have got, and ensure a success is made of it!
    Good man, don't pander to the anti-democratic, spiteful, childish tories.

    I find it funny that Mobbsy objected to my Skype chat membership on account of my age; yet his own shadow foreign secretary is acting like an immature little brat.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Good man, don't pander to the anti-democratic, spiteful, childish tories.

    .
    Please don't generalize the whole party , I have not even said anything against you guys!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Considering that heri2rs came to us from your party, I could ask the same of your party leader. Who, by the way is mobbsy and not you despite your delusions.

    We have no leader, we have an Acting Leader. If Adam wants to administer us, whatever that means (your rulebook is very vague, seeing as its written by a bunch of university students) then I see no problem in letting him do so. The results of our leadership election will be out Feb. 16 anyway. Either way, the current structure of our leadership is in no way unconstitutional.

    Adam has access to, but not control over, our offsite forum. Everything we write is viewable to him.

    I would also call into question the definition of subforum to combat your second point. The TSR Constitution doesn't specify that the subforum has to be on TSR. Indeed, our offsite forum has immense traffic among our dedicated members.

    Now that I've attended to all your concerns, I would like to point out the fact that while the Tory Party is devoting its time to impeding the formation of a perfectly legitimate asset to the House, our party has introduced multiple motions, petitions and two bills. We have 0 MP's yet are more active than at least the UKIP and the Greens in the MHoC.

    So that begs the question: Would you prefer we merged back into the Liberals and suffocated you all to death that way? (its rhetorical; we're forming in spite of your anti-democratic posturing)
    Could you reveal the candidates for leader ?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Good man, don't pander to the anti-democratic, spiteful, childish tories.

    I find it funny that Mobbsy objected to my Skype chat membership on account of my age; yet his own shadow foreign secretary is acting like an immature little brat.
    I like how you cover your ears and sing "la la la I'm not listening" at the fact that the criticism is not just coming from our party, but across the house...

    Try and keep your personal experience outside of constitutional issues instead of using it to fuel your hatred of our party.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Could you reveal the candidates for leader ?
    We could
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    We could
    Please go ahead
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Please go ahead
    We won't say but we could if we wanted
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I like how you cover your ears and sing "la la la I'm not listening" at the fact that the criticism is not just coming from our party, but across the house...

    Try and keep your personal experience outside of constitutional issues instead of using it to fuel your hatred of our party.
    The libertarians are forming and that's that. I think we should maintain friendly relations with them and see them as potential coalition partners.
    As for the attacks( I've haven't dished any out myself) , they are not aimed at the member of the libertarians or the party itself but the process.
    Lets just calm down and focus on kicking out the lefties!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    We won't say but we could if we wanted
    I could probably ask Quamquam123
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    And it would be nice to keep discussions civil in this thread!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.