I’d second the motion to vote
(Then consider my prior post a motion)
What two motions? I thought Griffindor moved a single proposal to vote.
Which proposal are you referencing?
This proposal.
That was the proposal I was going to put to a vote, as it is the latest one in this thread. Sorry, I should’ve been clearer.
The two motions from Griffindor & LordGianni are recognised, and the latest proposal in this thread → here is brought to a vote.
The WA membership doesn’t prevent this whatsoever: Given 20 arbitrary regions, most likely they won’t have WA requirements. From memory, the only mainstream regions that have WA requirements are XKI and kinda TEP (ironically, in their case, but that’s another story and fits TEP’s paradigm of “yolo” governance). So the likelihood that they’ll have to “split” their WA is exceedingly low, and unless one of those 20 happens to be a raider military that a SPSF member isn’t permitted to have cross-membership to, this isn’t an impediment whatsoever.
As a counter-example, once more, I mention FaeBae, who was here with WA and “showed their commitment” with Assembly participation and WA membership except that they were literally a foreign agent sent here with WA to spy on us.
The WA requirement does nothing substantive except lock some people out that you might find inconvenient. That might be the reason you approve of it, but that doesn’t make it a good idea for the South Pacific.
5 Likes
I’m unsure about delinking eligibility for higher office from legislator status. I think that for historical and practical reasons it would make sense for our elected and appointed officials to have a seat in the regional legislature.
Which practical reasons?