| Working Group Drafts |
(05-12-2016, 12:17 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I really don't like the idea of introducing some kind of rigid Cabinet office for the WA. We should be flexible with how we use our influence, and that includes changing how we handle Delegate votes from time to time. There's a difference between appointing a Minister for WA Affairs and forcing the Delegate to vote in the way that the Minister dictates. I agree with you that the latter is not necessarily a good idea, which is why I had envisioned the Delegate being free to vote the way they liked, subject to regional law. The Minister for WA Affairs would only issue advisory opinions that the Delegate would be free to ignore. Nonetheless, I maintain that making WA affairs a portfolio in the Cabinet - the core of the regional government - is important. It prevents the region from simply forgetting about an important aspect of NationStates gameplay, which is basically what's happened for the past year or so. (05-12-2016, 12:17 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I would prefer we debate this after the GC. It's an area that the region hasn't considered deeply, because it's a relatively niche area that few have been interested in. It'd be better to discuss how to handle the WA when we aren't limited by time, trying to wrap the GC up. That's fair, I suppose. I really should have responded to you a couple of weeks ago; unfortunately I was busy with finals, term projects, and other work. I don't mind waiting until after the GC, but we really do need to address this soon. I think TSP's neglect of the World Assembly is a mistake and needs to change. On a related note, can we amend your draft to make it clear that the Delegate reserves the right to vote on World Assembly resolutions or approve proposals freely unless otherwise required by regional law?
Most TSP Delegates vote with the regional majority, unless it's a SC topic affecting foreign affairs. I've never seen much point of a WA Ministry as such, especially as the Delegate is the one in control of the WA vote; it just seems to be something the Delegate should handle.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) (05-12-2016, 01:47 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Most TSP Delegates vote with the regional majority, unless it's a SC topic affecting foreign affairs. The fact that most TSP delegates simply vote with the regional majority a couple of days after a resolution goes to vote isn't a good thing; the regional majority votes with the overall majority, which in turn votes in accordance with whichever delegates decided to stack for the winning side at the beginning of the voting period. The reality is that if TSP wants to have an influence on the WA, then the Delegate needs to vote early and in accordance with some sort of established policy that furthers TSP's interests. (05-12-2016, 01:47 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I've never seen much point of a WA Ministry as such, especially as the Delegate is the one in control of the WA vote; it just seems to be something the Delegate should handle. While the Delegate may be in charge of the WA vote, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're interested in the WA. There also might be strong WA players who are committed to TSP but aren't interested in being Delegate. You need a WA ministry to take full advantage of these players and allow TSP to exert influence in the WA.
The delegate has to cast the WA vote — we can't give that away.
I do, however, think that if we want to have a greater hand in the WA affairs we do need someone dedicated to it. It might be worth also asking that ministry to encourage WA membership, too.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] (05-12-2016, 08:59 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: I do, however, think that if we want to have a greater hand in the WA affairs we do need someone dedicated to it. It might be worth also asking that ministry to encourage WA membership, too. Agreed. TSP should probably have something akin to TNP's WA Development Program, which encourages endotarting.
I just noticed that my name isn't in the CR under the list of people to be reappointed.
This will trigger an election for Chair once the GC ends, that nobody can run for or vote in, because no one is a Legislator Also, I propose a minor amendment to the clause on the election of the Chair Quote:The Assembly will elect a Chair from amongst sitting Legislators by majority vote for a term lasting four months. This will change the eligibility criteria for the Chair such that the Chair must be a current legislator, and that the Chair will be subject to the same provisions governing fellow legislators, which I believe will be an effective check on the Chair.
I've been assuming all current citizens will automatically be legislators. We can write that in the CR. But yes, the position of Chair would be up for election.
Also, I can agree with that change! Re: the WA. My issue with addressing this now is that I think we need a much more in depth discussion about how we view the WA, what role TSP should have, and how WA affairs fits within the government. That would take much more time than the deadline we've set for ourselves.
Also, if this draft passes, would this Roster still work? Or would the Chair have to keep spreadsheets?
Logistically, we'd just rename the Citizenship masking to Legislator, and give the Chair the ability to add/remove people. The roster would work just fine.
In a later stage, I'm sure the roster could be modified to not show post dates, but instead show if they voted in the last N polls in the Voting sub-forum.
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |