We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Removing Restriction on Offices Held in Other Regions
#22

Personally, I think that placing greater restrictions on authority over government positions is a good prospect, especially with the possibility of the risks that conflicts of interest pose as HS mentioned. However, there should be some leniency on these restrictions themselves.

- The WA/SPSF membership requirement that has been brought up should only apply to the Cabinet and obviously the Delegate, as positions like the Local Council, Chair of the Assembly, Chief Justice, etc. having this restriction would be unnecessary, as they are positions that basically do not require interactions with foreign regions and thus are not immediately involved in foreign affairs.
- The point concerning equivalent offices should only apply within their respective branches of government. For example, Example's Delegate cannot be TSP's MoC, as they are both executive positions. However, the foreign region's Delegate can still be TSP's Chair of the Assembly, as one is an executive position and the other is a legislative position.

These should solve the issue of restricting potentially willing players, especially foreigners and non-WA nations, from having their chance of being an Officer of the Coalition, while still keeping some degree of security regarding conflicts of interest.
(05-20-2021, 10:00 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: While keeping your WA in the region could possibly imply a greater level of commitment, keeping a WA elsewhere doesn't necessarily imply a lack of commitment. People can have their own goals or involvements elsewhere, people could simply prefer to keep their WA elsewhere, or even not be in the WA at all. If the candidate has no clear conflicts of interest and has a proven record of working honestly and diligently in whatever ministry they are running for, why should it matter where they keep their WA?

Basically all of the current Cabinet, as well as the previous two Cabinets (as far as I remember), either has had their WA membership on a TSP nation or is a member of the SPSF. Having a WA/SPSF membership requirement wouldn't affect the current situation that much.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Stan Melix's post:
  • Moon


Messages In This Thread
RE: Removing Restriction on Offices Held in Other Regions - by Stan Melix - 05-20-2021, 10:23 PM



Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .