This will be my last post on the matter, because I'm absolutely done trying to explain this. I'm not gonna go in perfect chronological order, just the order I plan to address concerns in: 

(04-29-2020, 02:48 AM)Roavin Wrote:  

(04-29-2020, 12:26 AM)rosaferri Wrote: If you believe we're trying to self-reinforce that "all others can't possibly make decisions for us, only we can", then that's an unfortunately incorrect extrapolation from what we've been trying to express. 

Well, you can't, but you are ostensibly demanding different treatment than anything else in this region by not wanting open assembly debate. 

I'm sorry, this may be on my end, but I absolutely can't see how that response relates to what I said. I don't understand how saying "When you claim we all want to be the sole authority on this, that's a misunderstanding and something we didn't intend to imply in the first place" can be met with "Well, the statement you mentioned is wrong anyhow, but you also don't want open debate." It's meeting a false interpretation of intent with another false interpretation of intent. I do want to make it clear that I personally (and I would assume the rest of MoRA staff) don't see the Assembly as someone to not moderate this, and if anything, literally anything, I have said in the past would have supposed this notion, please bring it to me so I can mend that miscommunication. 
 

(04-29-2020, 02:48 AM)Roavin Wrote: I read your entire post, so please don't think I'm being dismissive of the latter half, it's just that the responses to the latter half would just refer to the responses to the first half:

(04-29-2020, 12:26 AM)rosaferri Wrote: I can assure you that we at the ministry don't perceive this as particularly the Assembly as a whole making this effort. We've made it extremely clear among ourselves that we don't believe that the entire ministry, rather, the adamant and oftentimes disrespectfully vehement push to work behind us by proposals are the ones in primary opposition by us.

Okay but how is it working behind you when this is all out in the open right here in the very place that is designed for open debate and discussion? This is the issue that people are seeing (and I'm starting to get concerned too since you all are doubling down on this): it looks like MoRA is demanding that they be treated differently than anything else that gets debated in the open in these very halls. 

I'll try to re-explain what this really appears like, and why I said it looks like it's working behind us: 

I want to preface this (and, by extension, also relate to my next reply) that I have no background whatsoever in whatever the previous attempt to split RA was. I am probably, by definition, the most uninformed person about the context of this debate in this debate, and oddly enough, I believe this gives me an extremely unique perspective on things. While many of you have been here years, and years, and were present for the Great Council, and present to see all the debates about these things, I only joined TSP in January and became a legislator in March. By definition, I am completely unaware of the previous context. Hold this against me all you want, discredit me if you so please, but this is genuinely how I am viewing this: from an entirely isolated viewpoint from any other issue. 

Quite frankly, to me, this desire for a split came out of just about nowhere. No warning, no desire to even discuss the problems cited, nothing of that sort occurred. And, seeing these problems that simply don't seem to relate to structural changes at all (citing activity issues, productivity issues) made me extremely concerned about the methodology by which things were being done. It's why at first I was vehemently against a split: it didn't seem to actually solve what it set out to solve, other than a narrowing of focus. In a sense, this appeared to be an attempt by -- and let me make this clear, NOT THE ASSEMBLY -- people proposing the split, to fix problems by which they would ultimately not be affected by. After reviewing with the other leadership, it genuinely seemed like none of us were expecting a proposal to prop up, and generally, that's what caused that feeling of working behind  us: "let's fix your problems without your input." 

I don't mean to make this response too personal, but I want to be completely honest about this because I feel as if there's just things that aren't communicating well. I honestly ended up feeling a general sense of paranoia. It seemed all too strange to be pushing for a split of the ministry, especially when many of the people who were active opponents of the split seemed wary in participation of the new ministries, and active proponents of the split seemed very eager to participate in the new ministries. Quite honestly, I feared intentional replacement. That's nothing on you, and that's a personal issue that ultimately has resulted from my past on online communities that have internal politics, but it's really coloured a lot of my opinion on this. The seemingly out of nowhere claims that we were "trying to get away from the eye of the Assembly" or "trying to get special treatment" or "trying to get an us vs them mentality going to discredit the proposal" seemed nearly disingenuous and intentionally manipulative of the public, because my experience within the ministry told me completely otherwise. 

However, finally to answer your point, the insistence on this proposal going on without the interests and concerns of MoRA being even considered in the first place set the entire debate on bad footing. The reason why (at the very least) I personally shied away from debate until Jay began to try and help represent us was because of the fact that a proposal was built and was seemingly completely favourable by the primary leaders; something I personally disagreed with and, in my personal lack of expertise in Assembly matters compared to others, was completely afraid to. The reason why I'm insisting on the usage of my personal experience is in fact to try to help mend the issue of the assumed "us vs them" mentality -- a lot what I heard in reference to that is the usage of first person plural nouns. Considering this is my last post, I might as well explain everything, even if it's ridiculously long, and ridiculously personal. 

The reason that I'm against a proposal that doesn't take into consideration initially the wishes and hopeful guidance of the Ministry is on simple political principle. I don't believe they deserve special treatment, but my right as a legislator is to vote on things in a way that I believe has merit. And, in terms of my political principle, it's pretty simple: as long as it's not a complete detriment or a threat to the government, those who are affected should have a voice in the output of the policy. It's clear a lot of you disagree with me, and I won't fight you on that. I, as a legislator, simply won't vote on something if MoRA disagrees with it nearly unanimously. I would do the exact same thing if a proposal suggested something for MoMA, MoFA, OWL, the Cabinet, hell, even the Delegate in some cases, that those respective groups nearly wholeheartedly disagreed with. This, I guess, just so happens to be the first one I have to defend that principle in. 

From this, I hope you can understand that the reason that I said that it's working behind us is because it just didn't align with how I understand public policy should be shaped for the better. MoRA's structure is not causing the rest of the Cabinet, nor the rest of the region, complete detriment, nor is it threatening the livelihood of the region. Please, don't try to say it is somehow that important. If it was, this would be at vote already. If you need further explanation, I'd be happy to give it, just don't approach me in a manner that expects debate. I'm only making this post to clarify. 
 

(04-29-2020, 02:48 AM)Roavin Wrote:  

(04-29-2020, 12:26 AM)rosaferri Wrote: If we don't understand what would directly become a benefit and what would be a detriment of a split, then the debate will of course stop dead in its tracks. 

Okay, but this was also hashed out many times last time, with reasonable points being raised by both sides of this issue. And that too was out in the open, here in the assembly. 

Like I had said previously, this is the first time RA split debate has ever been actually accessible to me. And, for many of our voters, this is their first time this has happened for them, too. I put this point here because not many, including myself, really fully understand what happened in the last debates, and I promise you, the vast majority of new voters don't go back and read months old logs of the previous debates just to get context of something that, for a lot of people, would seem extremely trivial. I do see that people have said "we talked about this before in the last debate", but frankly, there's nothing that really applies to me by saying that. Also, I don't appreciate the implied jab at the idea that we want this matter to be solely determined by MoRA. It's not true, and it's just frankly irritating every time you or anyone else presupposes this to be explicit fact like we're stating it directly to you. Again, I invite you (in bold this time), if I personally have ever said anything to insinuate that I would even prefer this matter be handled solely and only solely in the hands of the Ministry, with any omission of the Assembly, please give me these examples so I may rectify them. Surprisingly, I am a human too. I can make mistakes in my words when I'm busy with other things. Many of these posts were written right before I had to leave the house for something, or right before a school thing had to be completed. 
 

---

---

As a final note to anyone who's reading this, if you plan on responding to this with hostility, or frustration, or anything of the sort, please don't. That's not the purpose of this debate, and if we're still getting personal, does nothing for my anxiety. It's become terrifyingly clear that this debate has not been healthy for any of us involved, and it's causing us (as an Assembly) to accuse the other of mal-intent and all sorts of different, and honestly false, accusations. If you, at any time in writing a response to me, think to yourself, "this shows her", or "this is so stupid that I have to answer this", or any sort of feeling of opposition or attack, remember that my goal in writing this was to simply explain. To clarify. I am done debating, because the level of disrespect and clear hostility towards misinterpretation, and doubling down each time I try to clarify, and the fact that many of you outright dismiss or even fail to recognize these happenings just shows how impossibly heated and selfish a lot of this has become. A lot of this just feels like intending to justify ourselves to each other. A lot of this feels like throwing unnecessary insults at each other, and has lost track of the fact that all of us simply want the best course of action for the Ministry. I genuinely believe many of you can have great ideas for the ministry, but in all honesty, if you don't go to us directly saying that you want to help, it can easily come off as an attempt to do something without our best interest in mind. That's the past, and I can't change it, nor can you, and I'm not expecting anything ridiculous like an apology. Just for the sake of the remainder of the debate, please do not allow yourselves to get carried away in the belief that others don't want a better outcome for everyone. 

This will be my last post in the thread. I've seriously considered leaving the legislature or even the region over this, and I don't want this mess to jeopardize anyone else's interest in the region. If you've genuinely made it all the way through this, I can't thank you enough for putting up with this and giving my opinion an honest listen. If you didn't, I don't blame you. My value in this discussion is a vote and an uninformed opinion. However, I'm glad some people have taken the time to esteem my opinion more than that, and I'm glad many of you have listened. 

With that, I'll take my leave.