The South Pacific

Full Version: Unibot for Chair 2.0: Now It's Personal
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Unibot for Chair 2.0
Now It's Personal 

"We have no need for comfy chairs..."
"Hah! I made him say comfy chairs."


I began this term with a set of goals that I wanted to accomplish - I adopted an Assembly that wasn't necessarily working as well as it could have been. We bickered a lot, we would argue for pages and pages and there were never any conclusions to a lot of those debates. My idea as Chair was just, (1) identify when debates are losing sight of the issue at hand, (2) try to strike common ground and find compromises that might not have been previously considered, (3) focus the Assembly towards composing a final text. The latter point is important because I've found if the discussion isn't focused on a particular text, the Assembly can become hostile and, well, aimless in its discussion. Working in specifics with context and a particular document to be drafted, helps bring some reasonableness to the exchange of dialogue.

I recently compiled a new Index for Assembly Votes which tabulates all of the votes in the Assembly since April 2014. Tabulating the votes was a surprisingly refreshing thing to do near the end of the term because it reminded me of all of the stuff that we've accomplished as a region and I took a lot of pride in some of the compromises we managed to reach and the little things here or there, subtle reworkings and policy debates, which I've had the honour and pleasure as Chair to oversee. We managed to formulate a overhaul of Article 4-5, the Charter's sections regarding the High Court of The South Pacific and Appeals, plus we added to the Bill of Rights, reworked electoral reform, developed a parole system and even held a remarkably civil discussion on military ideology and the "Brave Little Toaster" recalls. I genuinely had a smile on my face when I remembered all of the great debates that we've held in this Assembly over the past few months.

Going forward, we've got a lot of open discussions that have become hot topics over the past week - how to address contradicting legislation has presented itself as a challenge for legislators and a fuller response may even involve more difficult questions and a grand project to overhaul how the Assembly works altogether (I've hinted at the idea of a Committee system - but honestly I'd consider it 'spit-balling' at the moment). Overall, how we respond to the problem has to also respond to the culture of "Motion First" - I think that kind of behavior is nonconstructive in the Assembly and disrupts dialogue and consensus-building. 

I sense the 'Election Commission' issue is dying down, but the discussion in regards to justice recusals is still open. My hope is also to, in a second and final term as Chair, reopen the discussion on First-Past-The-Post in The South Pacific. We've never actually had a vote on a proposal to move away from plurality - the discussions on First-Past-The-Post have always gone effectively nowhere. I'd consider it a privilege and a real challenge to oversee a civil discussion on various proposals (Run-off, Instant Run-off, Condorcet etc.) to reach a final vote, because I think it's something that is important to a lot of people in The South Pacific and it's a change which could bring some more positivity to our elections and our political culture as well. It's a discussion I'd like to see reopened and pursued with more focus towards producing a final proposal. 

I don't like it when good ideas get lost in circular discussions. Tounge

It's been a pleasure serving as Chair. It might surprise some to know that Unibot is actually just an overgrown boy scout and we have a saying in scouting, 'leave things better than they were before you arrived'. My hope is when I'm done as Chair, whenever that happens, I've left the Assembly as a better place. Thank you for reading - feel free to ask questions.

And, the obligatory Campaign Song... kick it, Tweedy!

What's with the shift from the utilitarian campaign last election to all the pink this time around?
"Overgrown boy scout" was what Superman was called. Superman said he liked pink in that movie!

Okay, fine... I wasn't being that clever. I just like hot pink. It's a pretty colour. xD
I hate pink.

*Hides avatar*
Will you be compiling a lengthy report for those who are unclear about other voting methods? Tounge (but, seriously, tell us what they entail)

Also, what are your thoughts about a debate still continuing despite a bill already being motioned and seconded?
(11-15-2014, 03:58 PM)God-Emperor Wrote: [ -> ]I hate pink.

*Hides avatar*


Stepping out in favour of reform
Not to change take this is a more serious direction, but I have a question.

Ditortilla recently brought up the discrepancy of nations in the region, who aren't citizens, being held to laws and a government they didn't institute. As such, I'm curious as to your view as current (and possibly continuing) Chair of the Assembly. How do you see the nations in the region who are not registered as citizens in relation to the government and Assembly especially?
If I may, the Southern Journal recently had a survey about government approval levels, knowledge of regional events and interest in participating in the government. One of the questions was whether nations would like having government discussions on the RMB. I think the results are relevant to Tsu's question, so I'll put the graph here:

Quote:Will you be compiling a lengthy report for those who are unclear about other voting methods?

I was going to do something like that, but a report does sound like a good idea. I wouldn't want it to seem like I'm... leading the Assembly towards a certain decision, but I do think a report or some kind of briefing would help facilitate a more productive discussion.

In RL, I'm a broke political science undergraduate, so I'd have fun with doing a briefing.

Quote:Also, what are your thoughts about a debate still continuing despite a bill already being motioned and seconded?

It's rare, I find. Usually by the time something is motioned and seconded, the debate has largely expired itself. It's a funny question to ask because the judicial ruling affected the Chair quite greatly - the last two pieces of legislation that went to vote, went to vote after like four hours of consideration in the house -- because I had no discretionary powers, I had to put it to vote before even a lot of the Assembly had gotten wind of it. Traditionally, if debate continued after it was motioned and seconded, I might wait on moving something to vote if I got a sense that the debate could go somewhere where the original proposal could be improved. This might mean waiting a few hours, but often that's all it takes to reach a better decision. I think the Chair's powers of discretion were very important for facilitating creative deliberation. It was part of the job to know when debates had run their course and when debates still had the potential to improve legislation - I'm concerned now that discussion will just be overridden with "quickdraw" motions and seconds.

For this reason, I think it's quite important that the Assembly continue to try to find a response to the most recent judicial ruling which explains what the Assembly and the Chair can do to slow down the legislative process at times, encourage dialogue and finally, what we're supposed to do when contradicting bills go to vote.

Quote:How do you see the nations in the region who are not registered as citizens in relation to the government and Assembly especially?

Well, no state would be sustainable if it didn't maintain territorial control and the rule of law even towards mere visitors/residents. For example, if we couldn't use force against coupers (non-citizens), our government would be couped very quickly. Maintaining the rule of law  is a necessity for any sovereign state.  

What I think Ditortilla is getting at is a problem of legitimacy -- and it's a problem of legitimacy which affects every GCR. You see we expect all residents to obey our laws, but also want them to participate in the communal and social affairs of the region and we want them to join the World Assembly and we want them to endorse the Delegate and the CSS and we want them to participate in this and participate in that.... but when it comes to political or legal affairs, we say, "no, you have to join as a citizen first".

As a undergraduate there was a theory that struck me as quite interesting - "society as cooperation". The idea that societies are built on cooperation between everyone involved and that this confers obligations to one another.

The South Pacific as a region would collapse in a day if it weren't for those residents. We rely on them to keep the RMB active, to keep the delegate in power and to maintain us as an active force in the WA. Giving them a greater say in how our government is run is something that I think we owe them. I liked the initiatives that Kringalia did to try to include the residents more in terms of polling, plus the old Brave Toaster system, albeit flawed as hell, gave residents more importance in deciding our delegates. I'd like to see more of that - in my experience these players are just as intelligent as any other group of players and I think it's sad that they get marginalised because they don't sign up on our forums. To justify the status quo, many believe that residents are just "lazy" and "ignorant" and "stupid" and none of that is true - they're practically the backbone of the region. (Oh god, "backbone of the region"; I am a politician - aren't I?)

One thing we could do - since we have these open questions of "how to fix the Assembly and improve dialogue" and "how to incorporate residents into our democracy" - is a Great Council.  A Christmas Great Council! It's been a while since the last Great Council and The South Pacific has changed a lot since the last time the Charter was opened up for discussion. The man who headed the last two Great Councils, Hileville, isn't even around anymore. I'm spit-balling to be honest with you, but I think it could be exciting for citizens nowadays to have an opportunity to discuss on a big scale how we can change our democracy for the better. Oooh, isn't that a scary notion? Tounge
(11-16-2014, 01:53 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: [ -> ]If I may, the Southern Journal recently had a survey about government approval levels, knowledge of regional events and interest in participating in the government. One of the questions was whether nations would like having government discussions on the RMB. I think the results are relevant to Tsu's question, so I'll put the graph here:



Oooh, nice graph. It's interesting that the debates on the RMB is more controversial than the non-binding regional polls. Now I understand why - it's important for some that RMBs are more casual and social - but it's not something that intuitively came to me. Thanks for sharing, Kringalia.  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5