Members of TIL who are in the Cabinet have respected the line drawn between the Cabinet and political parties.

Could you explain exactly what that looked like?

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

Members of TIL who are in the Cabinet have respected the line drawn between the Cabinet and political parties.

Could you explain exactly what that looked like?

TIL members who are in the Cabinet are forbidden from divulging any confidential information that they learn from their government activities. We've all, with the exception of Tim, been in office in TSP at one point in time while also being a TIL member. (All of us except Tim are actually in one branch of government or another right now-- Cabinet & CRS!) Nobody has violated the rule since the party was formed.

Reply

Members of TIL who are in the Cabinet have respected the line drawn between the Cabinet and political parties.

Could you explain exactly what that looked like?

TIL members who are in the Cabinet are forbidden from divulging any confidential information that they learn from their government activities. We've all, with the exception of Tim, been in office in TSP at one point in time while also being a TIL member. (All of us except Tim are actually in one branch of government or another right now-- Cabinet & CRS!) Nobody has violated the rule since the party was formed.

Again, this is beside the point. The point isn't that information is getting leaked, its that Far cannot be an impartial party when ruling on anything the party created and/or pushed for.

Take this thread for example.

The strongest pushback from my even *questioning* the appropriate of this has come from someone who's misunderstanding my point and TIL members who continue to distract from my point. Add that two of the four members of the Cabinet are also TIL members, this is getting patently ridiculous.

Far hasn't even replied to a very basic question, yet TIL members Glen, Roavin and Tim have all rode in to defend him in various degrees of severity.

Again, I've never questioned his qualifications, but I think the point I've been raising is an appropriate procedural question to ask. I'm sorry if that's going against the in-group/out-group logic that some people seemed to have adopted, but once I get a general answer from our soon-to-be justice, I'm happy to dial my questions back.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 02-01-2017, 09:25 PM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

Kris isn't TIL, for the record.

As for me - hey, I'm actually not disagreeing on this (though I don't feel strongly about it at all). Just saying - this is an issue for legislation, and if we were to draft up such a change to our law, there's nothing stopping us from including a continuing resolution that would require Fare to resign within time frame X, if that's the will of our esteemed brethren in this hall.

Reply

Kris isn't TIL, for the record.

As for me - hey, I'm actually not disagreeing on this (though I don't feel strongly about it at all). Just saying - this is an issue for legislation, and if we were to draft up such a change to our law, there's nothing stopping us from including a continuing resolution that would require Fare to resign within time frame X, if that's the will of our esteemed brethren in this hall.

Thanks for this. I've edited by post appropriately.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Tsu,

I think my understanding of this echoes Roavin's point earlier, no one brought this up when Raven was a justice and he was, in fact, part of very clear sides.

It isn't that this hasn't been a problem already...we're a highly politicized community.

It is simply that if Farengeto becomes Permanent Justice and there are COI issues, what is the backup? Do we appoint one?

I'm fine with saying, "Approval of nomination" and then figuring out who the backup person will be.

Farengeto, yes, we would like to hear from you.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

Reply

I respect Farengeto's judicial insights and support the cabinets bid to nominate Far as permanent justice. While there may be some issues of CoIs I am confident that Far will resolve them professionally.

Reply

Again, this is beside the point. The point isn't that information is getting leaked, its that Far cannot be an impartial party when ruling on anything the party created and/or pushed for.

Take this thread for example.

The strongest pushback from my even *questioning* the appropriate of this has come from someone who's misunderstanding my point and TIL members who continue to distract from my point. Add that two of the four members of the Cabinet are also TIL members, this is getting patently ridiculous.

Far hasn't even replied to a very basic question, yet TIL members Glen, Roavin and Tim have all rode in to defend him in various degrees of severity.

Again, I've never questioned his qualifications, but I think the point I've been raising is an appropriate procedural question to ask. I'm sorry if that's going against the in-group/out-group logic that some people seemed to have adopted, but once I get a general answer from our soon-to-be justice, I'm happy to dial my questions back.

Tsu,

I think my understanding of this echoes Roavin's point earlier, no one brought this up when Raven was a justice and he was, in fact, part of very clear sides.

It isn't that this hasn't been a problem already...we're a highly politicized community.

It is simply that if Farengeto becomes Permanent Justice and there are COI issues, what is the backup? Do we appoint one?

I'm fine with saying, "Approval of nomination" and then figuring out who the backup person will be.

Farengeto, yes, we would like to hear from you.

Well firstly I apologize for being taking so long. I didn't get around to this last night and have been out all day. Mobile isn't very ideal for writing longer, quote-heavy posts. I appreciate the statements of support while I've been unable to properly address the thread.

As for the CoI I think we're overstating the issue. I've had to recuse myself before, including for matters regarding the (now) CRS. We have a safe system for when this does happen with our Pool of Justices, who can smoothly take over the case. We already have several people on there and can easily assign more. If I run into a conflict of interest (TIL or not) I'll recuse myself as I have in the past.

I think recusing on every law a TIL member has written is also rather excessive. So much changes during the debating phases and so many people are involved with it that you can reasonably extend the argument to most laws for almost any candidate. To give a random example, you could probably exclude Bel from pretty much any law because of how much Glen has been involved with. There will be laws where TIL influenced content may pose a reasonable CoI, but I don't think you can simplify the matter down to a blanket statement without trying to find a Judicial candidate that has never participated in the Assembly.

I'd attribute some of my views to that fact I've never seen the political parties as a radical shift in the region. We've had political blocs that have functioned as almost informal parties for years. The "core TIL", for example, has existed as a group for years, and similar "blocs" have appeared and changed over time across TSP's "political spectrum". These groups being politically close enough to count as a CoI with each other, and the main parts of the current parties being the formalization of these existing groups. The point of my tangent being that in terms of the membership I don't seen the line between party and non-party as so black and white, and that many of the groups of players in years past are not so different in terms of CoI compared to the current parties.

Ultimately though if the matter involves any of my memberships or positions I'll recuse myself and let the appropriate Pool Justice take over. I will give this position the same respect and professionalism I have in the past.

Reply

Tsu, I'm sorry to say it, but that's highly hypocritical. Did you not support Raven? He had many friends and enemies and was hardly an impartial person. Despite his numerous public freakouts against people, you believed he was "upstanding" and had zero concerns about any potential impartiality.

I think the pushback against your insinuation is fair and correct. There only seems to be real questions of impartiality when it comes to certain people in TSP. That's not fair.

It's worth noting that I didn't even accuse Raven of inevitable bias/corruption when I opposed his nomination. I opposed him based on his history of abrupt resignations (and, well....) We're a community of like 20 people at most. Our justices are going to have close friends and bad enemies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 02-02-2017, 06:11 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I think recusing on every law a TIL member has written is also rather excessive. So much changes during the debating phases and so many people are involved with it that you can reasonably extend the argument to most laws for almost any candidate. To give a random example, you could probably exclude Bel from pretty much any law because of how much Glen has been involved with. There will be laws where TIL influenced content may pose a reasonable CoI, but I don't think you can simplify the matter down to a blanket statement without trying to find a Judicial candidate that has never participated in the Assembly.

I'd attribute some of my views to that fact I've never seen the political parties as a radical shift in the region. We've had political blocs that have functioned as almost informal parties for years. The "core TIL", for example, has existed as a group for years, and similar "blocs" have appeared and changed over time across TSP's "political spectrum". These groups being politically close enough to count as a CoI with each other, and the main parts of the current parties being the formalization of these existing groups. The point of my tangent being that in terms of the membership I don't seen the line between party and non-party as so black and white, and that many of the groups of players in years past are not so different in terms of CoI compared to the current parties.

Ultimately though if the matter involves any of my memberships or positions I'll recuse myself and let the appropriate Pool Justice take over. I will give this position the same respect and professionalism I have in the past.

Thanks Far, I appreciate all of this. I think this is a logical view, and I'm glad to hear this has been thought out. Seeing that the nominee has thought this through, I'm actually happy to withdraw my motion for a vote.

As I said several times throughout, I don't think Far's experience and ability is in doubt. I trust he'll once again make a fine appointment.

Tsu, I'm sorry to say it, but that's highly hypocritical. Did you not support Raven? He had many friends  and enemies and was hardly an impartial person. Despite his numerous public freakouts against people, you believed he was "upstanding" and had zero concerns about any potential impartiality.

I think the pushback against your insinuation is fair and correct. There only seems to be real questions of impartiality when it comes to certain people in TSP. That's not fair.

It's worth noting that I didn't even accuse Raven of inevitable bias/corruption when I opposed his nomination. I opposed him based on his history of abrupt resignations (and, well....) We're a community of like 20 people at most. Our justices are going to have close friends and bad enemies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I mentioned from the get-go here, my concern has been how parties play into this. Raven, I thought was an ideal choice for justice because he was someone that didn't have strong recent ties in TSP and yet had a sterling reputation across NS.

To be clear, we have accusations in another thread that the APC "block vote" just voted in December for a a candidate that couldn't do the job. And, my questioning of how party politics plays out in this instance is "hypocritical"?

As I've said throughout, I wanted to hear from Far on the issue and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a legitimate request. What I didn't need (or want) was a proxy war over whether or not my question was legitimate.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply