(11-17-2014, 07:18 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: "cheap sci fi"? :sad:

lol yea my friends would kill me if they heard me talk like that about their dr. But in my defense...a space cow carrying London on its back thru space?!?! Really?! thats the best the writers could do?

(11-17-2014, 07:23 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(11-17-2014, 07:17 PM)Apad Wrote: ugh..doctor who..blah. i can not get into that show. Dont get me wrong I love sci fi but i hate cheap sci fi like dr who. What would be your position for those in TSP that would like to exterminate, pun intended, the idea of a dr who day?

I wasn't seriously suggesting it, although, I would point out that stuff like Doctor Who and other television shows can be sort of "hooks" that you can use to pull people into the fold. Stuff like the House of Cards theme day and the Doctor Who theme day attract residents by calling on some popular culture that they're already a fan of. It can become a point of conversation to bring a region together too, especially on a more casual forum for discussion like the RMB.

I do think you're right though that we have to be concerned with overdoing it and alienating people. For example, I always kind of feel left out with the House of Cards theme days, because I prefer the UK House of Cards and never really got into the US House of Cards. 

I agree that those themes and such can be good ways of stirring involvement. It boils down to once you start with one theme/show then you find yourself trying to do all of them. Your example of HoC is one, then theres Game of Thrones, Lord of the rings, etc. Its a balancing act but overall i think there are a lot more pros than cons for events such as this.

Yes, agreed Apad.

Unibot -- as a member of the parole board, can you enlighten us as to your decision to grant Milo parole?

Sure. There are clear components of the parole board law that someone wishing to seek parole have to meet: (1) are they a security threat? (2) do they have a genuine willingness to reform their behaviour?

I agreed with the other members of the parole board that I did not think Milograd was a security threat to The South Pacific - at least not proportional to anyone else we would allow to reside in The South Pacific and furthermore, that Milograd appeared to possess a genuine willingness to reform his behavior.

His behavior following his conviction was important to coming to this decision. He hasn't betrayed the trust of other institutions since, he hasn't couped another GCR since, he made several attempts to apologize for the coup and to amend his mistakes and he also indicated that his service in Lazarus was part in parcel for making up for his betrayal of The South Pacific's trust - a "fresh start" so to speak. Given his pattern of behavior since the coup has changed - he didn't become a "serial couper", I and the other parole board members found he did meet the criteria set out in the law.

Thanks for asking, Tsunamy.

Uni, another question!

You've presided over a successful, civil and active Assembly (many congratulations on that!). What Charter amendment or piece of legislation are you most proud of getting passed, and why?

I will be asking the same question to all candidates, and I would appreciate an honest answer. Anyone that bluffs this question off by trying to be polite will not be getting my vote.

What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each of your opposition candidate campaign?

Thanks.

Can you explain what the rationale of the parole board to hold the Milogead hearing behind closed doors as opposed to in plain view of the public? Also what is your opinion on releasing the transcript of the parole hearing?

Quote:What Charter amendment or piece of legislation are you most proud of getting passed, and why?

Oooh, um, I'm particularly proud of how civil the debate on "Independence" went, but I think I'm most proud of the Right to Equality being ingrained in the Charter. That's one that I think will have a lasting influence on the region in a positive way.

Quote:What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each of your opposition candidate campaign?

I think the strength of his campaign lies in his credibility - he's got a long list of positions he's held in The South Pacific and there are a few ideas on his platform I really like. The idea of an "Assembly Townhall Meeting" sounds quite fun and I'd be up for it. I also liked that HEM discussed the Fellowship Program, because it was something I had considered incorporating into the Assembly more - it's a good idea.

I dislike however that the campaign is focused on things he'd do here or there, but we don't get a strong sense of who would HEM be as a Chair. The day to day activities of Chair. There is a part of his campaign literature where he hints that he'd be more flexible towards the rules and I think that is good. He could have expanded on that though. The job of Chair is difficult because if you follow the structure laid out to a tee, you will cause more problems than if you approach it more organically - that's something I've learned over time. The Chair can be a mediator or a discussion-generator - someone who probes insights and turns conversations around from being unproductive to productive.

HEM suggests that "thread splitting" can prevent long threads and that seems naive to me. "Offtopic posting" hasn't been a major problem for The Assembly while I've been Chair, so thread splitting isn't really a solution to bulging threads. The reason why threads balloon in size if they do balloon is:

1. Because the discussion has a far-reaching scope.
2. The OP started the discussion without specific proposals to consider.
3. A proposal can't be decided.
4. Emotions are leading the Assembly.

As Chair, you can't change the first point - if a discussion is important, the discussion is important. You can however get the Assembly to consider proposals and in doing so move it away from aimless (often angry) discussion towards a more rational discussion on how to resolve the issues present. If a proposal can't be decided on, it's my job to strike to a compromise here or there or find a way to get either side of the debate to see eye to eye. I would describe my thought process as a Chair to be solutions-based, I like to figure out what the issues are and figure out potential solutions and encourage debate around solutions, not problems once we agree on what the issues actually are. I think it's important for the Chair to know what he or she will be like as Chair and how they're going to approach difficult discussions. This morning I woke up and logged onto the forum with my coffee at hand and found the Assembly had discussed five pages worth about Milograd's parole while I was sleeping - and nobody had proposed any proposal at all, it was just an angry circular mess. That is the kind of thing you end up dealing with as Chair and knowing how you respond to that is part in parcel of the job.

I'll add that I'm concerned HEM's focus on "Assembly Townhall Meetings" is a small gesture to make up for the fact that he doesn't like the idea of public enfranchisement and more structured political participation from residents. As I've said in this thread, I prefer the grander reforms being proposed by Tsunamy and such - I'd like to see the region more united as one body of "citizens" and I'm open the idea of a bicameral legislature or something funky like that. I guess you could I don't think he goes far enough.

I hope that answers your question, Aramanchovia.

Quote:Can you explain what the rationale of the parole board to hold the Milogead hearing behind closed doors as opposed to in plain view of the public? Also what is your opinion on releasing the transcript of the parole hearing?

To be perfectly honest, I was under the impression that the IRC transcript was going to be made public -- I even avoided swearing. *sniggers* I don't see why the transcript couldn't be released -- I do fear it might be used as a rallying point against the parole regardless of what we said during the discussion, because that's often how these things go. Ultimately, the factors that led to the parole being granted are in the official document. I don't think you'd learn anything new from the IRC logs.

While I think Unibot offered a balanced critique of my platform, there is just one tiny thing I want to address in case I wasn't clear previously:

Quote:I'll add that I'm concerned HEM's focus on "Assembly Townhall Meetings" is a small gesture to make up for the fact that he doesn't like the idea of public enfranchisement and more structured political participation from residents. As I've said in this thread, I prefer the grander reforms being proposed by Tsunamy and such - I'd like to see the region more united as one body of "citizens" and I'm open the idea of a bicameral legislature or something funky like that. I guess you could I don't think he goes far enough.

I am not opposed to the idea of public enfranchisement whatsoever. I just think there are intermediary steps that we can take to ensure that such an idea -- if we ultimately decide it is a good one for our region -- is implemented flawlessly. The town-hall meeting, non-binding votes, are such intermediary steps we can use to study how to make the system most effective. I actually lean toward the idea, but think that if we implement such an idea erroneously or sloppily, it could fail to work and label the idea as ineffective policy.