(07-11-2021, 05:58 AM)Luca Wrote: What I am concerned with here is this debate and discussion did not happen due to no available senior OWL staff. But in the wider scope of the OWL practices and processes, it really cannot happen. This is all things I've said in both the OWL channel and Cabinet chambers before, but it's worth saying again. Even in an ideal situation where the Director and their senior staff are present to initiate a vote, debate and banter on World Assembly topics are hard pressed to take place on a distant RMB. Most parties who participate in this system get their pings from the discord or the gameside notification, drop in their vote (often without accompanying opinion), and depart, never to give it a second thought.

While I appreciate the initiative to involve the gameside community through an RMB, in situations like this where some citizens believe it constitutes a matter of regional pride or obligation to establish certain postures, if we cannot have that reasoned discussion and get the communication out, the system is unworkable. That's our cultural capital being evaporated and our ability to contribute to the argument kneecapped. Having seen this current system already exploited to manipulate us, I have even less desire to give it the benefit of the doubt.

In addition to this, the current template of our actual IFV is not particularly aligned to our region's agenda either. While we do have a short section on analysis, often summarising the few voter opinions we have, there is no comprehensive argument about what our own experienced WA staff believe is the real dilemma of a proposal. We supplement these with opinions collected from foreign regions, often citing influencers with their own agendas that more inexperienced staff may not recognise. Together, they form a single document, where TSP opinions may be weak or incoherent, and foreign opinions may appear more credible.

Even in perfect conditions, these opinions do not advance the international conversation on the topic, they just regurgitate and recycle what's already been said. This, too, restricts our own culture and muzzles our influence. At the same time, this largely bureaucratic and procedural work does not allow us to grow our own World Assembly authors-to-be, because it generates minimal practical experience engaging with WA topics, directly.

For these reasons, I believe that systemic reform of OWL is prudent, and I have made arguments in Cabinet chambers to this end.

I would appreciate if these arguments and discussions were also brought to the current staff of OWL. Especially those of us who played a part in designing the system as it stands currently may have some useful suggestions on what and how to change.

OWL was designed and began as a highly open, collaborative enterprise. I would hate for the Cabinet to turn it into a top-down, Cabinet-dependent bureaucracy simply because they do now have formal oversight of the body.