(I'm answering for Cabinet proper)

2. I understand that somethings need to be classified for the sake of security, but what was process and criterion to choose the appointees?

The last time, we had a form to send to applicants. Since finding people for this position is currently pretty hard, we opted for a more informal approach this time. Vietnam offered to train people for the position even if they don't come with all the prerequisites. We reached out to some people that we deemed trustworthy and Viet approved of. Naka and Seraph were willing to do it.

3. I understand that the cabinet was in talks with the lone LegComm, but how much of a role did USo Vietnam ultimately play in deciding the appointees. Was he largely in an advisory role or actively discussing who he would like to work with?

Largely advisory.

(This post was last modified: 12-05-2018, 05:26 PM by Roavin.)

Reply

Thank you for the answer.
With that I second the motion to bring this to a vote

Reply

Legislators,

Please be advised that two votes have been opened on the two appointees.

The vote on whether to appoint @Seraph to the Legislator Committee is here.

And the vote on whether to appoint @Nakari to the Legislator Committee is here.

The vote on Nakari and Seraph's appointment will end on the 9^th of December 2018, at 1:30 p.m. and 1:31 p.m. (UTC), respectively.

Reply

Apologies, for the lateness to this discussion, but seeing that these are up for a vote, I can't help but think this is important.

To the nominees — both of you were involved in the disaster that would become the Timscade fiasco and both of you had positions of power at the time. While I understand the entire event was stressful for all involved, this doesn't negate my expressed criticism that our elected leaders of the time passed the buck until the forum admins finally stepped in.

Similarly, the role of LegComm has the potential to face similar retaliatory issues when applications are not accepted.

As such, my general question is: What, if anything, have you taken away from the previous fiasco that would help with the LegComm appointment?

To Nakari, especially: What guarantee can you give the region that you won't quit amongst public criticism again?

Finally, to the cabinet: Can you verify that (1) you took these considerations into account, and (2) explain any relevant judgement calls made in this general direction?

Finally, I want to be clear that the above post should not be read to condone any of the actions during the debacle. However, this is something that will arise from time to time and I strongly feel our officials need to be prepared for it.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Apologies, for the lateness to this discussion, but seeing that these are up for a vote, I can't help but think this is important.

To the nominees — both of you were involved in the disaster that would become the Timscade fiasco and both of you had positions of power at the time. While I understand the entire event was stressful for all involved, this doesn't negate my expressed criticism that our elected leaders of the time passed the buck until the forum admins finally stepped in.

Similarly, the role of LegComm has the potential to face similar retaliatory issues when applications are not accepted.

As such, my general question is: What, if anything, have you taken away from the previous fiasco that would help with the LegComm appointment?

To Nakari, especially: What guarantee can you give the region that you won't quit amongst public criticism again?

Finally, to the cabinet: Can you verify that (1) you took these considerations into account, and (2) explain any relevant judgement calls made in this general direction?

Finally, I want to be clear that the above post should not be read to condone any of the actions during the debacle. However, this is something that will arise from time to time and I strongly feel our officials need to be prepared for it.

There are two main reasons that I did nothing overtly in response to "Timscade" when I was an elected official. The first is that I was delegate and I was not aware of any legal course of action I could have taken (especially, bearing in mind that the peak, when the need for action was undeniable, was after my term had ended anyway - and even then I could only have acted as a legislator or at the command of the cabinet, CRS, admins or Assembly). The second reason was that it was far too personal. I'll be the first to admit that I did not feel like I could trust my judgement where Escade was concerned and so my only sound course of action would have been to defer to the judgement of others. I would not have wanted to act against Escade purely on the basis of what was, at the time just my personal experience and, potentially, personal dislike. This held me back in my moderation role as well.

I cannot stress enough how much of a relief it was (despite genuine concern for others affected) to know how similar others were finding the entire debacle. Had I been more aware of that at the time, I'd likely have been more assertive, as I suspect, would those others.

Whilst such a situation is conceivable in the area LegComm operates, that is the benefit of LegComm being more than one person and also being in contact with other elected and appointed bodies.

I would also add that, in the end, "Timscade" was an OOC issue and so rightly fell to administration anyway, rather than elected officials. If the last year has taught me anything it's that we all need clear guidelines on when something is an OOC issue and what to do about it, because so often we look to our laws instead and feel helpless. Hopefully our moderation discussion will bear fruit in this regard.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

(This post was last modified: 12-06-2018, 01:39 PM by Seraph.)

Reply

Finally, to the cabinet: Can you verify that (1) you took these considerations into account, and (2) explain any relevant judgement calls made in this general direction?

We didn't.

Reply

Apologies, for the lateness to this discussion, but seeing that these are up for a vote, I can't help but think this is important.

To the nominees — both of you were involved in the disaster that would become the Timscade fiasco and both of you had positions of power at the time. While I understand the entire event was stressful for all involved, this doesn't negate my expressed criticism that our elected leaders of the time passed the buck until the forum admins finally stepped in.

Similarly, the role of LegComm has the potential to face similar retaliatory issues when applications are not accepted.

As such, my general question is: What, if anything, have you taken away from the previous fiasco that would help with the LegComm appointment?

To Nakari, especially: What guarantee can you give the region that you won't quit amongst public criticism again?

Finally, to the cabinet: Can you verify that (1) you took these considerations into account, and (2) explain any relevant judgement calls made in this general direction?

Finally, I want to be clear that the above post should not be read to condone any of the actions during the debacle. However, this is something that will arise from time to time and I strongly feel our officials need to be prepared for it.

There are two main reasons that I did nothing overtly in response to "Timscade" when I was an elected official. The first is that I was delegate and I was not aware of any legal course of action I could have taken (especially, bearing in mind that the peak, when the need for action was undeniable, was after my term had ended anyway - and even then I could only have acted as a legislator or at the command of the cabinet, CRS, admins or Assembly). The second reason was that it was far too personal. I'll be the first to admit that I did not feel like I could trust my judgement where Escade was concerned and so my only sound course of action would have been to defer to the judgement of others. I would not have wanted to act against Escade purely on the basis of what was, at the time just my personal experience and, potentially, personal dislike. This held me back in my moderation role as well.

I cannot stress enough how much of a relief it was (despite genuine concern for others affected) to know how similar others were finding the entire debacle. Had I been more aware of that at the time, I'd likely have been more assertive, as I suspect, would those others.

Whilst such a situation is conceivable in the area LegComm operates, that is the benefit of LegComm being more than one person and also being in contact with other elected and appointed bodies.

I would also add that, in the end, "Timscade" was an OOC issue and so rightly fell to administration anyway, rather than elected officials. If the last year has taught me anything it's that we all need clear guidelines on when something is an OOC issue and what to do about it, because so often we look to our laws instead and feel helpless. Hopefully our moderation discussion will bear fruit in this regard. 

Thanks for this, Seraph. Certainly, the delegate role isn't give such powers and it wasn't my intention to imply you should've been the one taking action. While I disagree that this is was an OOC thing (or even that this distinction is useful in this game), I recognize the delegate isn't intended to make sure decisions.

Just to be a bit more specific, is there any particular you think LegComm could do to in such a situation (i.e. suspending, revoking citizenship)?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Thanks for this, Seraph. Certainly, the delegate role isn't give such powers and it wasn't my intention to imply you should've been the one taking action. While I disagree that this is was an OOC thing (or even that this distinction is useful in this game), I recognize the delegate isn't intended to make sure decisions.

Just to be a bit more specific, is there any particular you think LegComm could do to in such a situation (i.e. suspending, revoking citizenship)?

To some extent I'm inclined to agree about the OOC thing - I don't personally identify my behaviour as being split between IC and OOC actions - I'm just me. Except that there comes a point where I do believe it's inappropriate to treat behaviour like it should be framed within our laws and not just dealt with.

To go back to your question, I think that's certainly a course of action LegComm could take in such a situation. The question is, when, exactly? When will it be considered the right thing for LegComm to do and when will it become an action immediately debated, reviewed by the court and mired in political controversy. I ask this rhetorically, not because I feel I'm personally unqualified to make that distinction (although I might be), but because I don't think that we, as a region, have reached the point where we're comfortable making that distinction all the time. This is an ongoing discussion and, perhaps, one we need to be taking more seriously.

If you feel that's still avoiding the question, perhaps this'll help: it's an action I'd have liked to have seen LegComm take at the time, but completely understand why it didn't happen before the end.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

(This post was last modified: 12-06-2018, 02:01 PM by Seraph.)

Reply

Apologies, for the lateness to this discussion, but seeing that these are up for a vote, I can't help but think this is important.

To the nominees — both of you were involved in the disaster that would become the Timscade fiasco and both of you had positions of power at the time. While I understand the entire event was stressful for all involved, this doesn't negate my expressed criticism that our elected leaders of the time passed the buck until the forum admins finally stepped in.

Similarly, the role of LegComm has the potential to face similar retaliatory issues when applications are not accepted.

As such, my general question is: What, if anything, have you taken away from the previous fiasco that would help with the LegComm appointment?

To Nakari, especially: What guarantee can you give the region that you won't quit amongst public criticism again?

Finally, to the cabinet: Can you verify that (1) you took these considerations into account, and (2) explain any relevant judgement calls made in this general direction?

Finally, I want to be clear that the above post should not be read to condone any of the actions during the debacle. However, this is something that will arise from time to time and I strongly feel our officials need to be prepared for it.

Honestly, it wasn't entirely the climate that pushed me into quitting. I don't think the public criticism was even that much of a factor either (I don't remember there being that much public criticism, even) - I'd bitten off way more than I could chew by becoming MoRA, and was painfully aware of that from very early on. It's definitely mostly on me for taking responsibility I wasn't entirely sure I could live up to. I know my limits better now, and I know the consequences of thinking I can ignore my limits. Legislator Committee is within those limits. It's something I feel confident in doing (which I never really felt back then).

Similarly to Seraph, I struggled to trust my own judgement on Timscade - Escade in particular. By the time they were becoming disruptive in the Assembly, I'd already clashed with Escade several times outside of the Assembly, and already seen people mostly taking Escade's side, so I let things continue because I thought my judgement must be biased (I only learnt later that other people were as sick of it as I was, but were quiet...)

I think after Timscade, we're in a political climate where people are realising that speaking out isn't unreasonable, and that group silence just contributes to allowing things to continue. This will, hopefully, allow problems to be identified quicker, and with less self-questioning of "maybe I'm just being too sensitive and they aren't a problem?" Having both LegComm and CoA functioning as teams right now rather than individuals should also help - having a single person be responsible leaves the door too open to either biased judgement, or refraining from judgement because they are concerned about their own bias.

Reply

Apologies, for the lateness to this discussion, but seeing that these are up for a vote, I can't help but think this is important.

To the nominees — both of you were involved in the disaster that would become the Timscade fiasco and both of you had positions of power at the time. While I understand the entire event was stressful for all involved, this doesn't negate my expressed criticism that our elected leaders of the time passed the buck until the forum admins finally stepped in.

Similarly, the role of LegComm has the potential to face similar retaliatory issues when applications are not accepted.

As such, my general question is: What, if anything, have you taken away from the previous fiasco that would help with the LegComm appointment?

To Nakari, especially: What guarantee can you give the region that you won't quit amongst public criticism again?

Finally, to the cabinet: Can you verify that (1) you took these considerations into account, and (2) explain any relevant judgement calls made in this general direction?

Finally, I want to be clear that the above post should not be read to condone any of the actions during the debacle. However, this is something that will arise from time to time and I strongly feel our officials need to be prepared for it.

Honestly, it wasn't entirely the climate that pushed me into quitting. I don't think the public criticism was even that much of a factor either (I don't remember there being that much public criticism, even) - I'd bitten off way more than I could chew by becoming MoRA, and was painfully aware of that from very early on. It's definitely mostly on me for taking responsibility I wasn't entirely sure I could live up to. I know my limits better now, and I know the consequences of thinking I can ignore my limits. Legislator Committee is within those limits. It's something I feel confident in doing (which I never really felt back then).

Similarly to Seraph, I struggled to trust my own judgement on Timscade - Escade in particular. By the time they were becoming disruptive in the Assembly, I'd already clashed with Escade several times outside of the Assembly, and already seen people mostly taking Escade's side, so I let things continue because I thought my judgement must be biased (I only learnt later that other people were as sick of it as I was, but were quiet...)

I think after Timscade, we're in a political climate where people are realising that speaking out isn't unreasonable, and that group silence just contributes to allowing things to continue. This will, hopefully, allow problems to be identified quicker, and with less self-questioning of "maybe I'm just being too sensitive and they aren't a problem?" Having both LegComm and CoA functioning as teams right now rather than individuals should also help - having a single person be responsible leaves the door too open to either biased judgement, or refraining from judgement because they are concerned about their own bias. 

Thanks for this. I appreciate the candor and anticipate you'll be a great LegComm appointement.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply