Due to the CTE of Bulbarasa and the current legislation at vote, the relations between the LC and Assembly must be codified to prevent multiple interpretations that widely differ from each other. Do we acknowledge home rule and the autonomy of the Local Council or do we acknowledge that the LC has no autonomy and is beholden to the Assembly?
What are your thoughts?
I agree with the ladder, they are given a block vote, not the ability to make laws. If they want that ability, we should encourage them to come to the forums, there they can be active and not in a block vote.
I agree. The purpose of the LC is to effective offer TSPers 'abroad' a voice in the making of our laws. The LC should not have the ability to make laws that would effect the forum-side government without the consent of the Assembly. However, the LC does (or at least should) have the right to make laws regarding the in-game operations of TSP and how the government interacts with its citizens.
I'd prefer for them to have home rule, and for them to propose, draft, etc. any amendments and/or laws that only and only affect them. They can even make a Gameplay Charter for the gameside only. But, things like these will have to approved by the Assembly in the end. After all, the Assembly must remain supreme, even with home rule.
How would something like that be organized though? Game side doesn't exactly give you much space for a government. Who would be in this government? Only 3 people? Would the delegate be the leader of the game side government?
Be sure to ask the current and former LC's, and post what they say on this thread. I have sent to punch and bel
Eh, I could go for a Governor as Head of Government, Delegate as Head of State, and the LC as their representatives here or something. I know it is very difficult to set up some kind of government, but we could try.
Maybe they could elect their own legislative body to eliminate the mess of RMB direct democracy? Idk, I'm just brainstorming here. It could be composed of ~5-20 gameside legislators elected by multiple ballots. Eh.
We could figure out a way to do this in the future, but, for now, this is just an idea. A very complicated idea. I'm just, again, brainstorming here.
Here is what Bel said rather clearly...
Griffindor13 Wrote:
What do believe is the role of the Local council?
Do you believe that the Local council is a separate entity from the assembly or is a junior house in a bicameral system? Why or why not?
Do you believe Local Councilors have a mandate under the charter to establish home rule? If so, how will it be implemented and under what form? If not explain why they do not have a mandate?
Is there anything else you would like to say regarding this topic?
Bel wrote:
What do believe is the role of the Local council?
The Local Council has an extremely limited role, as set out in the Charter. Article V gives it three duties;
1. represent the interests of all players in the region
2. moderate the Regional Message Board
3. encourage activity on the game-side.
I interpret the first duty as taking the form of representing those players who are in TSP but not active on these forums, as my view is that Legislators represent themselves. In practical terms that means regional WA members, as without WA membership we can't identify a nation as a unique account - obviously this isn't ideal, but it's what we have. I view this as a form of political representation, so at the LC elections I set out my views on major issues and explain what I intend to campaign for and seek legislation on, and then ask people who support that to vote for me. I don't think this is an ideal system, but again it's what we have and until such time as it can be improved we have to work with it.
The second duty is a relatively simple moderation duty, keeping an eye out for bad behaviour on the RMB and dealing with it, as well as providing answers and help to new players when the seek it.
The third duty is a very nebulous and open ended one, with no definition - my interpretation of it is to try to get people involved in the region, be it pointing them to parts of the game they enjoy, running spam polls, etc. My main focus however has been in encouraging political activity game-side, as I firmly believe that regional WA members are entitled to more say in how TSP is run. This may not have been the kind of activity people had in mind when writing this section of the charter, but as I said - it's nebulous and open ended.
Do you believe that the Local council is a separate entity from the assembly or is a junior house in a bicameral system? Why or why not?
I think this question represents a misunderstanding of what powers the Local Council has; to begin with, it's not a legislative body so it most certainly can't be described as a "junior house" in a bicameral system. In a bicameral system there are two distinct legislative chambers with overlapping powers, that must come to agreement to pass legislation. The Local Council has no such powers; the block vote it controls is a rather absurd oddity, that was created to avoid calls for granting regional WA members a direct vote. The Local Council isn't really anything to do with the Assembly - it's essentially a group of RMB moderators, with two of our three duties focused on encouraging and policing in-game activity. It's important that people understand what the LC actually is, rather than what some people like to claim it is.
Do you believe Local Councilors have a mandate under the charter to establish home rule? If so, how will it be implemented and under what form? If not explain why they do not have a mandate?
"Home rule" is mentioned once in a preambulatory clause in Article V, and never again. Preambulatory clauses do not have any legal effect, unlike operative clauses, and none of the subsequent operative clauses mention "home rule" or make grants of powers sufficient to establish such. As such I do not believe that such a mandate exists, and view the use of the phrase to be a form of distraction; appearing to grant powers to the in-game region without actually doing so.
More broadly, I think the idea of "home rule" is completely absurd; it must be remember that the region TSP already has home rule, via the Delegate, Assembly and Cabinet - the government that TSP established back in 2003. The entire concept appears to be nothing more than an attempt to distract from where power lies, by "granting" regional WA members certain minor powers whilst restricting the vast majority of them - the ability to make laws, to decide how the Delegate is elected, to choose the Cabinet, to determine foreign and military policy, etc - are kept limited to a self-selecting group on the forums. I do not view this as a form of "home rule", but an attempt by an elitist-clique to perpetuate their own influence and power by restricting the rights of the vast majority of TSPers. Any form of "home rule" that does not involve the right for regional WA members to vote would be a farcical illusion. It must be noted that the group of people who advocate for "home rule" are the exact same group of people who argue for restricted voting rights; this is not a coincidence.
As such, and considering my belief that regional WA members must be enfranchised and power devolved to the largest possible number of TSPers, I have no interest in the implementation of "home rule". It must be further noted that, in real life, home rule takes the form of a distinct geographical area of a larger nation being granted powers to administrate itself to a certain degree - for example, the UK national government establishing a devolved government in Scotland to handle education, healthcare, etc. The form of "home rule" being proposed for TSP is closer to the idea of Washington DC being the only part of the US to elect people to congress and the senators, but the rest of the country getting to have some form of assembly that is allowed to decide the speed-limit and clean up graffiti. There are hundreds of regional WA members in TSP, and about 25 active legislators. The idea that the twenty-five get to make the decisions for the hundreds, but that this is ok because they can make spam polls is absurd. In a democracy you give people the vote - it's that simple.
Is there anything else you would like to say regarding this topic?
At some point or the other, legislators will have to agree to grant voting rights to regional WA members - it is better that this occur sooner rather than later.
(12-22-2016, 07:38 PM)Ryccia Wrote: [ -> ]Eh, I could go for a Governor as Head of Government, Delegate as Head of State, and the LC as their representatives here or something. I know it is very difficult to set up some kind of government, but we could try.
Maybe they could elect their own legislative body to eliminate the mess of RMB direct democracy? Idk, I'm just brainstorming here. It could be composed of ~5-20 gameside legislators elected by multiple ballots. Eh.
We could figure out a way to do this in the future, but, for now, this is just an idea. A very complicated idea. I'm just, again, brainstorming here.
That seems like that could be used for a great council in the far future. I like the idea, but drafting and implementing that would be murder.
Yeah and it may diminish the overarching idea of the commission. I do think in our final report we could mention that we recommend a great council in the future does discuss it.