Users browsing this thread:

~~Wolf~~ · 02-09-2016, 05:21 AM

(02-08-2016, 12:08 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Wolf, "The Empire" and Citizenship Issues — Last year, we had a disputed election over the MoFA and resolutions to reject all applicants who might have been associated with "The Empire." Again, the fear was that if we welcomed these people into our system they would be able to manipulate it and ultimately seize control.

Can I just reiterate how utterly bullshit that whole affair was?

Seriously, I was being treated as if I were a criminal after having been a citizen for less than a week. I was falsely accused of several of the most serious crimes TSP has on its books, the region was repeatedly told I was a "security threat", I had one of the most lie filled and mud slinging political campaigns this region has ever seen launched against me, and I more or less had an election rigged against me, in favor of my opponent, by my opponent.

And that was within the first three months of me being here.

I think my involvement in TSP last year highlights several of the major problems we've been encountering, continue to encounter, and will still encounter in the future unless we fix them now.

~~Cormac~~ · 02-09-2016, 05:44 AM

While I do agree with you, Wolf, that this was one of several low points for TSP we've seen in the past couple of years, it's not terribly relevant -- or at all relevant, as far as I can tell -- to the topic at hand. We're discussing whether to change the executive to reflect drastically less power for the Delegate.

The only thing continuing the topic of your very legitimate grievances in this thread can accomplish is derailing the specified topic of this thread. I'd suggest if it's going to continue, a different thread is probably in order. A different thread may even be incredibly helpful if you have ideas for changes that would address how you were previously treated.

~~Wolf~~ · 02-09-2016, 05:58 AM

(02-09-2016, 05:44 AM)Cormac Wrote: We're discussing whether to change the executive to reflect drastically less power for the Delegate.

I'm not sure why, to be honest, this is even being considered the "main issue" coming out of this affair.

The Delegate and the entire Cabinet didn't attempt to move forums because the executive is too powerful. They did so because they felt two of the three members of the Admin team were repeatedly and unrepentant overstepping their powers for purely political reasons.

That is the real issue we should be addressing now.

However, since we've somehow come to the conclusion that, no, this all really could have been avoided if maybe the executive had significantly less power, let me say this. The North Pacific, from about 2005 to 2007, had a Prime Minister and a Delegate. The Prime Minister held all the political power in the region while the Delegate was...well, just the Delegate. This led to at least one coup (the Dali coup), that I can remember at least, that was motivated solely because the Delegate and the Prime Minister were so drastically opposed to each other and so politically different that conflict was inevitable. Not to mention the Prime Minister was a total turd to the Delegate. >_>

The concept seems all nice and dandy until you factor in that human beings are, in fact, human and thus prone to conflict. Taking power away from the Executive and putting it into someone else hands only complicates matters, creating even more inter-governmental rivalries, while solving nothing.

Not to mention that it does absolutely nothing to solve the root issue of what cause this coup.

(This post was last modified: 02-09-2016, 06:32 AM by Wolf.)

~~Cormac~~ · 02-09-2016, 07:29 AM

(02-09-2016, 05:58 AM)Wolf Wrote: I'm not sure why, to be honest, this is even being considered the "main issue" coming out of this affair.

The Delegate and the entire Cabinet didn't attempt to move forums because the executive is too powerful. They did so because they felt two of the three members of the Admin team were repeatedly and unrepentant overstepping their powers for purely political reasons.

That is the real issue we should be addressing now.

I agree with you that it shouldn't be regarded as the main issue, though I think you're underestimating it as an issue because of a perspective that absolves the Cabinet of most if not all responsibility for recent events, which is not a perspective that many people seem to share. I think this is also getting so much attention because it's been something TSP has been talking about changing, independently of this situation, for quite some time.

I agree that we should be addressing the issues you've mentioned as well, and that is something I'm seeking to do in my constitutional draft. Again, though, those issues should be discussed in other threads, not this one.

(02-09-2016, 05:58 AM)Wolf Wrote: However, since we've somehow come to the conclusion that, no, this all really could have been avoided if maybe the executive had significantly less power, let me say this. The North Pacific, from about 2005 to 2007, had a Prime Minister and a Delegate. The Prime Minister held all the political power in the region while the Delegate was...well, just the Delegate. This led to at least one coup (the Dali coup), that I can remember at least, that was motivated solely because the Delegate and the Prime Minister were so drastically opposed to each other and so politically different that conflict was inevitable. Not to mention the Prime Minister was a total turd to the Delegate. >_>

The concept seems all nice and dandy until you factor in that human beings are, in fact, human and thus prone to conflict. Taking power away from the Executive and putting it into someone else hands only complicates matters, creating even more inter-governmental rivalries, while solving nothing.

Agreed that systems like this have had less than stellar results in the past, in TNP as well as here. In TSP, I would argue that a system like this contributed to the widespread inactivity that led to the Devonitians coup in 2011. That was one of the reasons I suggested a while back, while not a resident here, that TSP shouldn't pursue a system like this.

I've since reconsidered because:

1. I've seen that the power dynamics in TSP really are a problem and could benefit from further division of power.
2. I don't think the past failure of systems like this necessarily means any system like this is automatically doomed to failure.

I do think we need to be mindful of the concern you're raising though, which is why I don't think it's beneficial to muddy the waters over who is the chief executive. I think the Delegate should have an almost exclusively in-game role and the executive government should have virtually no in-game role, so that there is very little overlap between what the Delegate and the executive government are doing. That is the best way to avoid personality clashes between the Delegate and the chief executive under a system like this, and it is also the best way to avoid the Delegate becoming entangled in political matters that might lead to in-game disruption.

I think it's also important to address the other concern, that prolonged service in the Delegacy could lead to inactivity and potential security threats due to the Delegate's inactivity. That's why I don't think we should return to the challenge system, and why I don't think any Delegate should be able to serve more than one consecutive term of one year.

(02-09-2016, 05:58 AM)Wolf Wrote: Not to mention that it does absolutely nothing to solve the root issue of what cause this coup.

It's a bit too far to say it does nothing. That really depends on one's perspective. From the perspective of those who think Hileville shared at least some of the blame for the coup -- which includes more than just the folks the Cabinet banned -- the political power and involvement of the Delegate was a major contributing factor to the recent crisis. It can certainly be argued, even without heaping blame on Hileville as a scapegoat, that a Delegate who was more politically impartial and not the region's chief executive wouldn't have initiated a forum move and a coup, and wouldn't have undertaken those steps at the direction of the Cabinet either.

If this system is done right, the Delegate will be far less politically involved, which will force the community to resolve its differences through legal, democratic processes, rather than by force. The executive government will be far less likely to be able to overthrow the Coalition to accomplish its goals, because it will be far less likely to have the Delegate on board with that course of action.

I agree with you though that this must be accompanied by fixes to other problems, otherwise we will only be ensuring that a coup is less likely while doing nothing to ensure that problems are actually resolved by peaceful means. No matter how distant we make the Delegate from the executive government, problems will always end up resolved through force if they become too aggravated and can't be otherwise resolved.

Rach · 02-09-2016, 11:08 AM

The issues with a Delegate couping due to a disagreement with the prime minister is exactly the same as any foundered region and their founder. If we took Wolf's advice there is no Europeia, Albion, LKE or TNI at least in their current form. Could you imagine HEM simply leading the government as founder forever? There have been founder coups over stuff like this, for example TUK but these are cases of bad founders. It's no surprise that the most successful UCRs as a class of systems follow this model with a few exceptions.

The fear mongering by wolf is thus irrational. A good apolitical WAD would not be prone to couping over differences just like a founder like HEM is not prone to couping Europeia.

***Tsunamy*** · 02-09-2016, 11:14 AM

(02-09-2016, 05:21 AM)Wolf Wrote:
(02-08-2016, 12:08 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Wolf, "The Empire" and Citizenship Issues — Last year, we had a disputed election over the MoFA and resolutions to reject all applicants who might have been associated with "The Empire." Again, the fear was that if we welcomed these people into our system they would be able to manipulate it and ultimately seize control.

Can I just reiterate how utterly bullshit that whole affair was?

Seriously, I was being treated as if I were a criminal after having been a citizen for less than a week. I was falsely accused of several of the most serious crimes TSP has on its books, the region was repeatedly told I was a "security threat", I had one of the most lie filled and mud slinging political campaigns this region has ever seen launched against me, and I more or less had an election rigged against me, in favor of my opponent, by my opponent.

And that was within the first three months of me being here.

I think my involvement in TSP last year highlights several of the major problems we've been encountering, continue to encounter, and will still encounter in the future unless we fix them now.

Wolf -- I don't disgaree with you. In fact, that's why I included it in my initial post.

My point isn't that we need a delegate with less authority per se, but we need a delegate removed from the political process. So that even if someone rigged the entire electoral process we'd still have a fall back.

My point is to remove a leg of critical arguments. And allow for a more open community so people like you aren't pushed out.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Rach · 02-09-2016, 11:17 AM

We also know that this delegate should and hopefully will be the amazing Tsu <3

**Belschaft** · 02-09-2016, 12:54 PM

I think everyone is in agreement that Tsu is currently the only possible candidate with the support and goodwill of everyone, which is why we're all working on the basis that he'll be the first one to take the role.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 02-09-2016, 01:01 PM by Belschaft.)

HEM · 02-10-2016, 09:53 PM

(02-09-2016, 11:08 AM)Rach Wrote: The issues with a Delegate couping due to a disagreement with the prime minister is exactly the same as any foundered region and their founder. If we took Wolf's advice there is no Europeia, Albion, LKE or TNI at least in their current form. Could you imagine HEM simply leading the government as founder forever? There have been founder coups over stuff like this, for example TUK but these are cases of bad founders. It's no surprise that the most successful UCRs as a class of systems follow this model with a few exceptions.

The fear mongering by wolf is thus irrational. A good apolitical WAD would not be prone to couping over differences just like a founder like HEM is not prone to couping Europeia.

Off topic, but this was a really nice thing to say.

The fear of having a powerless Delegate is why in my proposal, the Delegate retains significant political power. I know we seem to be favoring this system at the moment, but just wanted to bring that up again Tounge

Formerly Relevant, Currently Former.

**Belschaft** · 02-10-2016, 10:20 PM

I don't think that the Delegate should be powerless, merely that their powers should be limited and clearly separated from the other branches of government.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES