Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 04-02-2014, 02:15 PM

I'm going to keep this brief.

I've previously served as CoA three times, holding the office for a total of eleven months. I know how the office functions, and have an unparalleled knowledge of both TSP's laws and the legislative process. I'm the most prolific legislator in the region, and convened the last Great Council. I'm also a firm advocate of parliamentary supremacy in the region, and have consistently defended and strengthened the rights and privileges of the Assembly. I'm opposed in principle to the transfer of powers from the Assembly to the executive, and will only support such where there is demonstrable benefit or need.

If you vote for me you'll get an experienced CoA who knows what he is doing.

That is all.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

God-Emperor · 04-03-2014, 12:42 AM

What have ya perceived as the greatest misstep the Assembly has taken recently?

southern bellz · 04-03-2014, 09:35 AM

The past month has been rather emotional for the region, what are the lessons you learned in the past month you would carry with you in your term?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

**Belschaft** · 04-03-2014, 01:34 PM

(04-03-2014, 12:42 AM)God-Emperor Wrote: What have ya perceived as the greatest misstep the Assembly has taken recently?

I don't think it has taken any. Tsu has focused on the tone of debates, but I think he's missed the point here; fierce debate between two competing sets of ideas is the crucible in which effective legislation is created. Compromise is not inherently a good a thing; it can and does create unwieldy legislation which satisfies no one whilst at the same time achieving nothing. As an example, consider a previous attempt at Judicial Reform; Glen, as CoA, put together a draft that had taken ideas from every side of the debate and attempted to combine them into a functional piece of legislation. The end result was a mess that wasn't passed, as it lacked direction and would have built an inoperative system. The version which we passed recently didn't do this, but instead started from a clear set of ideas and built from that. Not all ideas have equal merit, and the best result isn't gained by trying to please everyone.

Another example, and the one Tsu used, was Article 9. The idea that common ground could have been found in the initial debate is a false one, for the relatively simple fact that during the initial debate most of the people who later objected did not participate. Objections only developed later, and whilst myself, Cormac and Tsu were working to improve the legislation it's opponents moved straight to a hard repeal, ignoring the debate over amendments and improvements. I don't fault them over that - if you were opposed to Article 9 in principle, then tinkering with it wouldn't satisfy you. But I don't agree with the idea that any part of this process was flawed; the end result was that the legislation was improved, and that only came about because of the debate.

Debate is good; arguments, assuming that they have a constructive purpose, are good. The legislative process wouldn't exist without them. Cohesion and compromise sound very nice, but what they result in is a rubber stamp legislature. The Assembly has always been the primary institution in TSP, and that's because it has serious powers that it exercises frequently; it should be doing such after a vigorous and enlightening debate where all sides are heard, but not necessarily heeded. There is no virtue in splitting the difference for the sake of cohesion. Split the difference if it makes the legislation better, not to avoid an argument when the argument itself has value.

(04-03-2014, 09:35 AM)southern bellz Wrote: The past month has been rather emotional for the region, what are the lessons you learned in the past month you would carry with you in your term?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

I think most of the lessons of the last month relate to the concentration of power, the importance of rules, and accountability. The first is unavoidable for practical reasons; both the root admin and the Delegate have complete power, in physical terms, over the forums and the region. That can't be avoided, which is why measures need to be in place should they abuse their power. The CSS exists, primarily, to remove a Delegate should they go rogue and the admin team should be regularly backing up the forums in case the root admin does.

There is, however, a large grey area between an individual exceeding their authority and going rogue - it's in this area that rules and oversight matter. To put it bluntly, rules have to be followed - by everyone. And to make sure that they are, there needs to be an oversight procedure. To use Hileville as an example, there was a clear set of rules by which the admin team operated - they weren't written down anywhere, but every member of the team knew what they were. There was also an oversight procedure. He ignored both - that was when he moved from exceeding his authority to having gone rogue.

I can see an obvious role here for the Assembly in regards to oversight, which I would probably be a priority for me next term. IRL there is often a process of select committees, whereby an official is summoned before the legislature to account for their actions. I think replicating that would be a good idea, with the Assembly performing an inquisitive review of the actions of officials, both elected and otherwise, with the power to reprimand and overturn them.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

God-Emperor · 04-03-2014, 04:38 PM

What would you have does differently than you predecessor, Rebeltopia?

**Belschaft** · 04-03-2014, 05:10 PM

I would have probably intervened in Assembly debate in regards to decorum/moderation less. An Assembly debate is a fundamentally political discussion, and if they get heated and argumentative then that is a sign that the issue matters and people have strong opinions about it; these are good things. The Assembly should be debating issues that matter, and people should have strong opinions about them. I see a need for the Chair to intervene should debate go off topic or descend into personalized harassment, but not often. Firstly, political debate is effectively self moderating; if you go off topic or start attacking the arguer, rather than the argument, then you'll probably lose the debate and the vote. Secondly, moderation shouldn't be politicized and as such needs to take as soft a touch as possible in regards to the Assembly. When is an attack on someone valid on political grounds, and when is it not?; that's a hard thing to judge.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES