(05-28-2018, 03:18 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I think that’s because there’s no actual accountability. The only way people can be held accountable for their actions and behavior is if their friend (Roavin) publicly calls them out on it. So often in this game, these issues are only spoken about in DMs and fronts are put up in public during elections, because “the devil you know”-type thinking. If we’re going to elect people to play these roles in our game, we should be able to have accountability, and that’s done by being honest and transparent. When things get as bad as they are, I’m not sure there’s any way to deal with them without drastic measures.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 The issue with accountability is always going to be transparency, and a substantial amount of the people in the highest areas of power do not want more transparency. Ultimately, for any rational observer of this situation, it will all just seem like wheeling and dealing, because we don't have that level of transparency to say "This person said this" "this is how the fight progressed" "this is who blew up and why". This is also why I'm not very happy with the appointment of Serres as a special advisor, not that serres isn't competent, I believe he is, but because I think that it should be a committee established, elected and compromised of the assembly.

Until all that happens, this is all essentially colored bubbles.
 

(05-28-2018, 03:30 PM)Resentine Wrote:

(05-28-2018, 02:26 PM)Lakania Wrote:  In my humble opinion, if you support the recall of the cabinet, then you should support the recall of the PM. A lot of people here say that Roavin's post is damaging him as well, but I haven't heard anybody asking him to step down along with the rest.

I'll just stick to correcting this: the PM is part of the Cabinet. And Roa has stated multiple times, at least on the discord, he will be removing the entire cabinet with this, including himself.

Your last second to last paragraph though, that is... an interesting proposal. Certainly not one I entirely disagree with. I'd like to see more details before I consider it further.

 I knew I'd make this mistake which is why I actually checked, and the charter says:

" VI. THE EXECUTIVE

Establishing an executive branch consisting of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet

1. The Prime Minister will be the head of government and the leader of the Cabinet. They will be responsible for the overall coordination of executive activities, being a liaison between the government and the community, and protecting the Coalition.

2. The Cabinet will consist of ministers with the following portfolios: Foreign Affairs, Regional Affairs, and Military Affairs.

3. Members of the Executive are required to hold Legislator status. "

(Emphasis my own)

So technically, the PM is not part of the cabinet. The cabinet is only the ministers of Foreign Affairs, Regional Affairs, and military Affairs.

This makes sense, because a PM calling a vote of no confidence in the cabinet would, by definition, include him or herself. If this motion passed, Roavin would remain PM while the cabinet would change. This is why I made the distinction.

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'removing' the cabinet. Do you mean damaging the cabinet members? It's not really up to Roavin or any PM to remove cabinet members, decides who runs or gets elected.

Either way, the point has to be made: according to our constitution and laws, the PM is not part of the cabinet, he/she leads it and will not be effected 'legally', or removed, by a vote of no confidence. At least under this circumstance.

As for my second paragraph, I'm glad that you're open to it. I do think a limit of some kind would definitely be doable, and in the best interests of everybody.