We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Chair of the Assembly Roundtable
#1


Chair of the Assembly Roundtable
Voting and Debate Policy | Judicial Reform | Security Threats | Miscellaneous Projects


Kris: Welcome Aram and Farengeto. It’s a real pleasure to have you here. First, if each of you could introduce yourselves and say who you are?

Aramanchovia: I’m Aramanchovia, long time loyal TSP member (4 years in a few days time), Justice of the region and member of the CSS.

Farengeto: I’m Farengeto, been here almost two years now. This is my second term as Justice at least, and I was formerly MoRA.

Kris: Excellent. I figured we should start with a relatively simple topic, which is the management of votes and debates. There has been some concern about how to better advertise votes, and about knowing when to actually stop debate and take something to a vote. Thoughts on this?

Farengeto: With regards to advertising, I’d really like to make this more visible. Once we can resolve the issue with our host I’d like to promote announcements, and potentially try and link the votes in the RMB and the Regional Factbook. As for when to vote, that needs to be a combined effort of the discretion of both the CoA and the Assembly; knowing when the discussion is dying down or becoming repetitive, or if motioning and seconding a vote is premature. It’s difficult to generalize it.

Aramanchovia: I agree this can probably be handled better. I do feel some people rush things to vote just so they can be the one to say the moved/seconded it. I would only create votes after discussion has died down, unless it was a crucial issue for security purposes. Raising visibility is a bit of an issue with the host, I believe (with regards to announcements), but I would be keeping a rolling topic listing what is currently up to vote and remaining time.

Kris: There is also the problem of a race to the Voting Chamber, in some debates. I remember some cases where the Chair insisted more debate was needed, but people criticised him for not bringing things to vote.

Unibot did mention though, if people aren’t checking the Voting Chamber, will a thread with pending votes be useful?

Aramanchovia: He did, but hey, it can’t hurt. If it details the votes, you might realise you missed that one – I know I do miss some at times.

Kringalia: I think part of the issue also is knowing how many citizens are actually interested in actively participating in the Assembly. I get the impression some may like to be full citizens, as is their right, but not necessarily get into regional politics.

Aramanchovia: Some do, yes Kris. That is up to them.

Farengeto: The issue is that, while premature, the CoA is still legally forced to bring it to a vote.

While some may not be interested, there is no harm in promoting it to the greater population of TSP, and it can only get more people involved in the end.

Aramanchovia: Indeed.

Kris: Farengeto, I don’t think there is an easy solution to premature motions, though. It pretty much comes down to knowing when the time is right.

Farengeto: Yes, there is no easy solution, nor is there an easily generalized approach. Ultimately it comes down to the Assembly just as much as the CoA to try and avoid this.

Judicial Reform

Kris: One interesting thing I noticed when doing the Meet the Candidates article is you all agreed on the need for judicial reform.

Farengeto: As Justices, me and Aram experienced first-hand its many shortcomings. “Many” being an understatement.

Kris: Personally I think the main problem with the Court is we made up a system based on theory, based on how it *should* work, but only now are the Courts actually being tested, and reality isn’t matching our theoretical expectations. Particularly in the finer details of how to handle cases.

Aramanchovia: Yeah, there are many loopholes with our current legislation.

Farengeto: Quite so. Every time a case emerges, we find new holes and ambiguities in our Court sections.

Kris: Obviously this will take some extensive discussion in the Assembly, but based on your own experience, what are some changes that definitely should be implemented.

Aramanchovia: If elected, I do believe the CoA will need to work with the Justices to get something that works for everyone.

Farengeto: Firstly, one thing I want to fix is our penal code. For some reason that was nearly scrapped to the point the Justices can effectively arbitrarily choose penalties.

Aramanchovia: Sorting out some of these loopholes is key, but besides the legal system, there have been other areas of concern lately, such as the citizenship issues.

Security Threats

Kris: Yes, certainly one of the more controversial issues. You know Aram, I interviewed Tsu and Penguin yesterday, and they mentioned how it would be important to define ‘security threat’, but in such a way that enough room for interpretation is left.

Aramanchovia: Well, there is no definition of security threat at all in current legislation, so that definitely needs clearing up. I wouldn’t want too much of a grey area, but giving the VD/CSS or whoever some discretion seems the reasonable way to go.

Farengeto: I have to echo a similar sentiment to Aram on this. An overly broad definition makes it vulnerable to abuse, while overdefinition limits its ability to be used on real threats. By [that] I mean in particular those that are proven risks to TSP.

Unibot: Hi guys! I’m sorry for the delay. Good to be here. Smile

[Due to scheduling conflicts, Unibot could only arrive at this point in the debate, not at the very beginning. He is the current Chair of the Assembly and is running for a third term.]

Kris: We were just talking about defining security threats. Thoughts on this, Uni?

Unibot: Ah, yes. That debacle! Ultimately, if the term is defined in law, it’ll become a matter of the courts by default – and even the Court has expressed its wishes to not be the decider of who is and is not a security threat (or at least one Justice said so). Leaving it open ended is the only option to keeping it within the Assembly and the Cabinet’s purview. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t create policies to help ‘outline’ what should be considered and what shouldn’t be. But a strict constitutional definition would bring the whole decision out of the Cabinet and the Assembly’s hands and solely in the Courts.

Kris: You mean an outline through executive policy?

Unibot: Um, not necessarily executive policy. It could be an Assembly policy.

Farengeto: Whatever definition, I believe it should definitely be chosen by the Assembly, given its controversial nature. However, it must not be too strict.

Aramanchovia: I can agree with that, just noting currently the VD can dismiss citizenship for this reason – what is it?

Unibot: Well, I was one of the first to argue we need to broaden our consideration of security to include the forum and our democracy – before we used to consider only tarters to be security threats. Toaster has shown that, if anything, moving nations into our Assembly with the sole purpose of manipulating votes is a far easier and more discreet way to undermine our constitutional democracy, and so we have to look for patterns of exploitive history when considering citizenship applications.

Kris: What worries me is the Assembly voting to limit the definition to tarters, as Uni says. Particularly given the precedent of OBT. I know people are tired of OBT being brought up, but I think it shows how threats aren’t in game exclusive anymore. Not to say everyone is always out to get us, but if we do find a case of non-tarter threats, that can be legitimate grounds for citizenship denial.

Aramanchovia: That is why you cannot be too rigid, agreed.

Unibot: I’ll be honest and say I doubt OBT is the only event like it in TSP’s history. I imagine that behavior was done before, during general elections, and it was just never visible enough for the people to get caught. OBT was a case where the perpetrators were very confident and they trusted the wrong people. So when I bring up OBT in debates, it’s an example, but I don’t think it was an isolated event that we should get tired of preventing – it’s something we need to consider in policy debates from here on out.

Farengeto: When we start considering if every new applicant might be a secret threat to TSP, trying to circumvent democracy, we run into problems, though.

Unibot: I think this month was just an unusual circumstance. We had a number of applicants with a bad history with GCRs all join at the same time right before an election. I don’t think it was an ‘act of paranoia’ or anything for the Cabinet to consider that questionable.

Aramanchovia: It was an interesting coincidence.

Kris: I will agree about the timing. I think the problem is all of them applied at roughly the same time. That did look suspicious.

Unibot: Some of the people who applied admitted they did it solely to ‘rock the boat’. Which to me suggests they aren’t really the most meritable of citizens either; you should join as a citizen because you want to contribute, not because you want to cause drama.

I don’t think it was wrong for the Cabinet to get concerned when you have a flood of residents apply: some OBT, some Empire, some admitting they were here to complain about the former not being accepted. To me that’s a big red flag that we needed to proceed with caution and monitor applications carefully.

Farengeto: That influx only happened due to the declaration of several security threats prior, though.

Closing Loopholes and Judicial Reform

Kris: I see we’ve moved away from CoA stuff. One thing I noticed in your campaigns is that you all promised to close loopholes, and Aram actually mentioned a full review of our laws. Apart from strengthening the Court, what else would need some reforming, or loophole closing?

Aramanchovia: Pick a clause, we can play find the loophole right now if you want. Smile

Farengeto: A few in particular. Firstly a clean up of language, grammar and formatting: fixing numbering issues and replacing every usage of “may” for one.

Unibot: I had intended to do a full review of our laws with the last Great Council, but it go cut for time (and I’m glad it did, because we would have been into March with the way it would have been scheduled). It’s not so much loopholes I’m concerned about, so much as areas where one law has changed and another assumes a law hasn’t, causing issues – because often reforms cause other laws to need to be changed. For example, the Code of Laws had assumed there were three justices until recently, when someone pointed out the Charter had been changed to include a fourth.

Aramanchovia: Seriously, as a Justice, nearly every ruling we have had to deal with ambiguities – it makes it very hard to be certain we have the right decision.

Farengeto: Yes, I have to agree with Aram. The past six months have been dealing with loopholes for us.

Aramanchovia: Would you be supportive of a full review?

Unibot: Yes, but I wouldn’t do it as a GC [Great Council] this term.

Farengeto: This close to the last GC may be too much, but I’m willing to consider it. Whatever action is taken needs to be planned and structured to avoid that mess the GC turned into.

Kris: By the course of this discussion, it seems like judicial and legal reform will be top on the agenda?

Aramanchovia: I think so, yes.

Farengeto: We’ve made some progress with our criminal code, but we’ve also lost some, such as the effective removal of our penal code.

Unibot: I think the removal of some sections of the penal code gives more flexibility to justices. The old penal code was far specific.

Farengeto: Too much thought. There are no outlines, allowing almost arbitrary judgement.

Unibot: I believe justices would work from a mix of precedent and context. Clearly outlining one year, two year…would just complicate things, where sometimes crimes are more extensive, even if they fit under different labels.

Farengeto: We have no precedent, and the only context is a minimal and maximal sentence for the two defined crimes.

Unibot: For example, a long history of blackmail could be considered far more needing of punishment than a case of an ignorant newbie committing treason. Even though treason would likely have a more explicitly higher amount of years of punishment attached to it than blackmail.

Farengeto: I’m not suggesting absolute penalties, but the current code doesn’t even give vague guidelines.

Unibot: Vague guidelines could work, but I don’t see it where it’s ‘depowered’ the courts. For the most part you’ve argued the courts have been weakened. I don’t see how removing those sections has weakened them. It’s more problematic for those who feel unconfident about the courts than those who are confident in its judgement.

Farengeto: It hasn’t depowered them, but the courts are trying to figure how much we’re supposed to punish someone.

Kris: What would be a solution though? What would “vague guidelines” look like?

Unibot: Vague guidelines would mean “1 to 5 years”, “no less than one year”, etc.

Aramanchovia: I think there should be more guidance. Having it too vague leaves it open to interpretation of the justices. I do think there needs to be some leeway, though. Tough one. I can sort of see both sides.

Farengeto: I think the old espionage clause provides a good example of guidance: “If found guilty of espionage, the offending nation may be banned from the in-game region and expelled form the offsite forums. The Judiciary may determine a lesser sentence in order to keep proportionality with the offense.”

Aramanchovia: It would be good to have something so that the public can have faith in the Court’s decision, not think they have been too harsh or too lenient.

Kris: Back to the campaigns, and I think this would be our last topic. Often there are minor discussions in the Assembly, and in fact Uni proposed an interesting themed festivals idea. Any thoughts on this, or any ideas the other candidates have?

Unibot: Just to add to that, it’s a niche idea – but it’s always bugged me that our holidays are rather vanilla – and with that section of our CoL being apparently quite unpopular, it’s an idea I want to look into. I want to built a new set of holidays, adding some, subtracting old ones, to give a more tropical, fun feel to our holidays.

Aramanchovia: I do like the idea of doing more with regional holidays. The current ones are a bit arbitrary.

Unibot: Exactly, arbitrary and boring. It’s no wonder nobody remembers them.

Kris: Well, not really arbitrary. Not apt for themed, cultural celebrations would be a better description.

Aramanchovia: I also think there are higher priorities.

Unibot: I think it’d be wrong to consider solely security and court considerations, Aram.

Aramanchovia: True, but these things need sorting out, not just getting put in the too hard basket and ignored.

Unibot: A well-run Assembly can focus on different issues. I don’t think anyone intended to do that, especially not me. I’m simply saying culture is important too – and some recent SJ polling suggests that the tropical theme isn’t as strongly recognised as it could be in TSP.

Kris: There is also the fact that focusing solely on serious issues can lower the willingness of people to participate, since it seems only a few have the skills to give their input.

Unibot: That’s a good point as well. Legal debates naturally alienate some people.

Kris: Having a light-hearted debate where everyone can contribute is positive for activity. Particularly since activity promotion is a big part of our priorities.

Aramanchovia: Well, that hasn’t really happened in two terms under Uni, so far. But I do agree, it is good to encourage some lighter stuff.

Farengeto: What also needs to be ensured is that these serious debates don’t branch off into numerous amendments and proposals, as with the Bicameral or Court Charter debates.

Kris: Question from Escade: “How would you encourage the training of new faces and recruit people into the Cabinet?”

Aramanchovia: Give it a shot. Participate. Know you will probably fail a few times, but have a crack anyway. Use your failure as a learning experience.

Unibot: Honestly, I think we’re doing a good job of promoting new talent; some ministries better than others – last term’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs relied on the work of old faces, but the Ministry of Regional Affairs especially has been a pipeline for newer up and comers. Feirmont and most of the new faces in the Judiciary are good examples of newer players who have worked their way up quickly in TSP.

Kris: Often it helps when they have something concrete to leave their mark on. MoRA projects with Feirmont, Great Council draft laws with Hopolis.

Unibot: I would probably look to appointing a new face too as Vice Chair.

Aramanchovia: The MoRA has worked well overall, good job on that Kris.

Farengeto: Regional Affairs has always been a great stepping-stone, and we’ve seen many past and present government officials come out of that ministry.

Kris: I’m a bit sad many projects couldn’t be finished, but I do like how we’ve helped newcomers.

Aramanchovia: As a participant there, it has been great to see people willing to have a crack. I encourage that.

Concluding Remarks

Kris: So, we’ve been here for an hour and a half, so I’ll be wrapping up. Any final comments from our three candidates?

Aramanchovia: I’d just like to say best of luck to whoever wins. No matter who you vote for, you will get a great CoA. Especially if it is me of course. Smile

Unibot: It’s been a blast, mate. Seriously, being Chair has been a challenge, an honour and a pleasure, and I think TSP’s voters have three great candidates to choose from for this election, if I do say so myself.

Farengeto: Good luck to everyone. This has been an exciting campaign and TSP has a great option any way it goes.

Aramanchovia: Thanks for Kris for the questions and Uni and Farengeto for the interesting debate.

Farengeto: It was an excellent debate.

Unibot: Yep. Smile
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
#2

4 MONTHS, KRIS! 4!!!
#3

Better late than never? Tounge
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
#4

For a very brief moment, you had me thinkin' Unibot had come out of his bunker.

#5

For a minute, you had me ready to correct "interviewing Tsu & Penguin" :-P

Sent from my LG-D500 using Tapatalk
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011


One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels 
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .