(04-05-2018, 10:23 PM)southern bellz Wrote: Generally, when it comes to long term, regional decision making, I believe more input equals a better result.  TSP at it's best tries it's best to govern with some sort of a consensus.

Maybe this is a "controversial" opinion of mine, but I think the past several years speaks against this. When we revert to demanding "consensus" then nothing ever actually happens. We have the Cabinet and the CRS, for example, unanimous in their belief that some group or another is a serious problem, but because things have to be run through an Assembly where maybe one-tenth of legislators actually participate, it's gridlock. Those who choose to participate in the discussion have strong feelings, and give the impression that it's a "controversial" move to blacklist a player or a group, when in reality it's just a couple loud people fighting back and forth. This has applied, across many years now, to literally everything from law amendments, to security actions, to foreign affairs moves.

(04-05-2018, 10:23 PM)southern bellz Wrote: If the assembly on votes for PNG, this changes it from a cabinet decision to a regional one.  Which I think would result in it maybe being harder to get a PNG ruling, but the ones that would pass would be less controversial, have majority support from the region, and if there is a debate to be had, it would happen at the proper time.  I think the general idea of "if you don't like it, elect a new cabinet" is not one that I want the cabinet to operate with.

What are you electing a Cabinet to do, then? I don't understand the tendency to prefer direct democracy-type decision making, but also electing a Cabinet we expect to be active and proactive in doing their jobs. To me, it's like the Assembly decides it's okay if the MoFA manages foreign affairs, but we'll pick and choose when an FA thing is "controversial" and is thus only something the Assembly can finally do. Cabinet members are elected every four months. If they make a decision you don't like, four months really isn't a long time. And it's not as if the Assembly isn't allowed to speak out against a Cabinet decision, show it's very unpopular, and use politics to get it reversed.

If the Cabinet is only allowed to do things when there's a consensus in the Assembly, then again... what really is the point of having a Cabinet? That's a bit of reducing the critique to absurdity, but really. This idea that "controversial" decisions should only happen through consensus in the Assembly can be applied to so many things, that I'm not sure where the line is drawn with what we elect the Cabinet to do and what we arbitrarily decide can only be done through an Assembly vote. The Assembly shouldn't be backseat driving, if we're spending literal weeks every 4 months voting on a group of people we entrust to lead the region.