Over the past several weeks, there have been increasing clamors for reform and/or abolition of the Local Council, in recognition of some failures of the previous several terms of the Local Council to deliver on governance objectives, structural concerns about entrusting "moderation" to elected officials, and general disquiet about the messy and spammy state of most RMB activity. Most of these concerns have been aired via Discord, namely in the #legislators-lounge, #government-discussion, and #minion-plaza/pieclave channels.

Due to this general disquiet and dismay, along with the re-opening of nominations for the March 2022 Local Council election due to dissatisfaction with candidates and their reform agendas, proposals for the abolition and reform (via separating governance and moderation) of the Local Council have been proposed. In the ensuing Discord debate, it has become clear that there is a belief among some that the LC will work out its problems in the upcoming term -- after all, there's been such a clamor about it!

For me, the ideal solution is a functional and reformed LC, which delivers on governance objectives for the gameside while preserving the possibility of gameside self-determination. In order to begin this discussion, I already offered suggestions on Local Council reform in this The Southern Journal article but ultimately the Local Council has to take the lead on such efforts. Due to the lengthy history of the LC's failure to deliver on such objectives, I am skeptical of promises for reform, and in that I think I am not alone.

That said, I think the Assembly can put concrete pressure on the LC to make meaningful steps towards reform in the upcoming term. I am proposing an Assembly Resolution to threaten abolition or substantial modification of the Local Council at the Charter-level if the Local Council cannot implement major reform efforts during this upcoming term:

Assembly Resolution on Local Council Reform Efforts

A resolution to set deadlines and consequences for Local Council reform efforts

The Assembly of the Coalition of the South Pacific,

Recognizing the Charter mandate of the Local Council to "encourage activity on the gameside, and administrate itself on issues unique to the in-game community",

Concerned that the Local Council has historically fallen short of meeting this goal,

Noting as evidence for this the generally thoughtless and "spam" nature of most activity on the regional message board, the lack of initiative by Local Councillors in hosting regional events or media on gameside, the lack of broader legislative or executive activity on the gameside, and the lack of motivation or political energy stemming from the regional message board to rectify these flaws,

Hoping that the Local Council can address these issues itself, thus maintaining the general principles of gameside self-determination, while resolving issues which affect the prosperity of the entire regional community,

Hereby:

1. Requests that the Local Council enact meaningful reform, within the March-July 2022 term, that generates a suitable gameside governance structure and substantially addresses the shortcomings identified in this resolution.
   
2. Declares intent to consider an amendment to the Charter to abolish the Local Council, should meaningful reform not be successfully enacted within the requested date.

(Note: I am not sure how the Law Standards Act applies [if at all] to such a Resolution. Please let me know if I should reformat.)

Open to thoughts and suggestions (especially on wording of the proposal).

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

(This post was last modified: 04-22-2022, 05:37 PM by The Haughtherlands.)

Reply

Full support

Reply

Assembly Resolution on Local Council Reform Efforts

A resolution to set deadlines and consequences for Local Council reform efforts

The Assembly of the Coalition of the South Pacific,

Recognizing the persistent failure of the Local Council, as the on-site government of the Coalition, to deliver on its Charter mandates to "encourage activity on the gameside, and administrate itself on issues unique to the in-game community",

Believing that this is due to structural issues with the current set up of the Local Council,

Hoping that the Local Council can address these issues itself, while maintaining the general principles of gameside self-determination,

Hereby sets a deadline for the conclusion of the Local Council term beginning in March 2022 for the Local Council to self-initiate meaningful efforts at reform, intended to generate structure to gameside governance and address the persistent failure of the Local Council to generate activity on the gameside. If the Local Council does not attempt these reforms, the Assembly clarifies its intent to abolish the Local Council by modifying the Charter.

It's worth pointing out that these comments are meant constructively:

• I'm not sure if "recognising the persistent failure of the Local Council..." is the way to start the preamble, for two reasons:
  
  1. There is no context to that recognition. Why does the Assembly recognise it? What evidence does it have of it?
     
  2. It's immediately conclusive and confrontational. It opens with the conclusion that the Local Council has failed, when a more productive tone and language would be one that acknowledges that, based on an examination of the facts, the Assembly concludes that the Local Council has come up short on its mandate.
     
• Are we sure that this is due to "structural issues with the current set up of the Local Council"? What exactly does that even mean in this context? What about the diverging views on what the Local Council is supposed to do, which is a big factor in how candidates, and through them the region, views the job of the LC? This relates back to my first point about what evidence we have considered and what our conclusion is, which prompts this resolution.
  
• I would suggest that the operative clause be divided into a list, for example:
  

  Resolves:
  

  1. To request that the Local Council enact meaningful reform, within the March-July 2022 term, that generates a suitable gameside governance structure and substantially addresses the shortcomings identified in this resolution.
     
  2. To consider an amendment to the Charter to abolish the Local Council, should meaningful reform not be successfully enacted within the requested date.
     

• I would also wonder if the Assembly shouldn't consider right now, at least in general terms, what it would consider to be meaningful reform and what kind of success it would expect from the LC by the end of the term. It wouldn't do much good to give them what amounts to an ultimatum without a clear image of what exactly we expect them to do.
  

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 03-20-2022, 12:23 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I don't support the abolition of the Local Council because it at least gives the RMB a "voice" which I know they would not at all appreciate being taken away. The only way I would vote for on this resolution would be if there is also a replacement for the LC, or at least a plan for RMB moderation if it gets abolished. Don't say CRS; they have bigger fish to fry.

"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture

Reply

This resolution doesn't abolish the LC, it merely states the sense of the Assembly regarding the conditions under which it would consider abolishing the LC.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

I fear this resolution only accentuates and perpetuates a false divide between gameside and forumside. It's time for us to face the fact that the LC is not and will never be an on-site branch of the Coalition — not while practically every other branch of the Coalition can, and already does, interact with the on-site community through mass telegrams, dispatches, and more.

Too often, we use the term 'gameside' when we really are referring to just the RMB community. That's an important distinction to make. Instead of clinging onto the idea of the Local Council as an institution of gameside governance, there's merit to recognizing that, perhaps, it's become primarily concerned with the RMB for a reason. I don't see why we can't recognize that fact and work from there. We have numerous other ways of reaching nations active on the gameside but not the RMB.

I don't see a clear benefit setting public ultimatums and threats of abolition, especially when it's not clear what consensus, if any, we're going to reach as an Assembly over the future of the Local Council by the time this ultimatum expires. Those benefits are especially dubious when we're asking the Local Council to fulfill a nebulous and vague vision of gameside self-determination.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

This resolution doesn't abolish the LC, it merely states the sense of the Assembly regarding the conditions under which it would consider abolishing the LC.

I know our LC are capable people, and I'm sure that the people voted in after this election will be as well, but let's be honest, there will be no LC reforms unless the Assembly steps in and does it themselves. This resolution doesn't really do anything; it just delays what seems like the inevitable right now. We can make it not inevitable by stepping in and doing something, but by standing on the sidelines doing nothing, there will only be one result.

"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture

Reply

I'm not sure why you're saying that in response to my post. You said that you would only vote for the resolution if it provided for a replacement for the LC instead of implementing outright abolition, I pointed out that the resolution isn't even abolishing the LC, it's simply a non-binding text that would led the LC known in a more official way the kind of expectations that the Assembly has. That's all there is to it.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 03-21-2022, 07:42 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I do not support this resolution unless the threat to abolish becomes a threat to just take action. Passing this resolution means passing an intent to abolish the LC if it doesn’t get its shit together, rather than an intent to institute major overhauls. I think the latter is more fair and justified, but more importantly, having it be the former means everyone who is against LC abolition is against this resolution. That’s bad, because this resolution is important. I suggest the following change:

“. . . the Assembly clarifies its intent to abolish the Local Council by modifying the Charter.” becomes “. . . the Assembly clarifies its intent to pursue alternative distribution and management of Local Council powers.”

This still includes abolition but it also includes modifications such as removal of elections or assignment of different duties or different oversight/leadership. It’s more flexible, which means it more accurately represents the views of the Assembly on the matter, and our willingness to compromise.

“Consuming, purchasing, selling, or holding poison-free food substances is hereby considered Treason against the people and the government of A poisoned apple. Mangoes are exempt from this clause. Poisoned fruits other than apples will not be permitted.”

~ Offices ~ Awards ~ RP Nations ~

(This post was last modified: 03-22-2022, 12:46 PM by Lerasi.)

Reply

My apologies for the delay in getting to this! I'll give it a kick though ---

The only way I would vote for on this resolution would be if there is also a replacement for the LC, or at least a plan for RMB moderation if it gets abolished.

The point of this resolution is not to abolish the LC. It is to outline the scenario in which the Assembly will take action should the LC continue to flounder. I do have ideas for what might come next (off-site moderation appointed RMB moderators, Delegate-appointed RMB moderators, Cabinet administration, etc.), but they're beyond the scope of the current proposal, which is intended to strike a "bargain" that the LC gets one last chance to get its act together.

I'm not sure if "recognising the persistent failure of the Local Council..." is the way to start the preamble, for two reasons:

1. There is no context to that recognition. Why does the Assembly recognise it? What evidence does it have of it?
   
   
2. It's immediately conclusive and confrontational. It opens with the conclusion that the Local Council has failed, when a more productive tone and language would be one that acknowledges that, based on an examination of the facts, the Assembly concludes that the Local Council has come up short on its mandate.
   

Are we sure that this is due to "structural issues with the current set up of the Local Council"? What exactly does that even mean in this context? What about the diverging views on what the Local Council is supposed to do, which is a big factor in how candidates, and through them the region, views the job of the LC? This relates back to my first point about what evidence we have considered and what our conclusion is, which prompts this resolution.

Adjusted slightly. Let me know if this (or a variation) is what you have in mind.

I would suggest that the operative clause be divided into a list, for example:

1. To request that the Local Council enact meaningful reform, within the March-July 2022 term, that generates a suitable gameside governance structure and substantially addresses the shortcomings identified in this resolution.
   
   
2. To consider an amendment to the Charter to abolish the Local Council, should meaningful reform not be successfully enacted within the requested date.
   

A variant of this is now included.

I would also wonder if the Assembly shouldn't consider right now, at least in general terms, what it would consider to be meaningful reform and what kind of success it would expect from the LC by the end of the term. It wouldn't do much good to give them what amounts to an ultimatum without a clear image of what exactly we expect them to do.

I was also thinking about this. On the one hand, the Assembly is in effect giving a mandate to the Local Council. On the other, the idea is to still maintain the general possibility for Local Council self-determination in making this decision. In the initial draft, I went for the most bare-bones version of the resolution, leaving the Local Council wide latitude to decide what to do, but I do realize the awkwardness of the position.

We have numerous other ways of reaching nations active on the gameside but not the RMB.

You are correct that there are multiple other avenues of advertising to "gameside" nations (i.e. the WFE, welcome/mass TGs, and Dispatches). However, the RMB is the only spot where back and forth can take place and is the initial platform where new nations turn to be welcomed into the community and to observe if the community is truly for them. As a result, I do believe its state of decay under the LC's administration is a problem with implications for the entirety of the Coalition, not just an "RMB community".

it's not clear what consensus, if any, we're going to reach as an Assembly over the future of the Local Council by the time this ultimatum expires.

I considered (similar to my response to Kris' post above about "possible reforms the LC could do") laying out specific proposals for the Assembly to potentially follow. For example, there's a suggestion that's been floated which I think I agree with that moderation could be taken over by an administratively-appointed "moderator team" and that the activities components could be taken over by the Ministries of Culture/Engagement. However, I didn't want to overburden the resolution with these concerns. That said, I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

Those benefits are especially dubious when we're asking the Local Council to fulfill a nebulous and vague vision of gameside self-determination.

As it is, we ask the Local Council to do this and fulfill a notion of gameside governance. I don't think this resolution imposes any more burden than the status quo, it just actually recognizes this burden and attempts to correct it.

I suggest the following change:

“. . . the Assembly clarifies its intent to abolish the Local Council by modifying the Charter.” becomes “. . . the Assembly clarifies its intent to pursue alternative distribution and management of Local Council powers.”

This still includes abolition but it also includes modifications such as removal of elections or assignment of different duties or different oversight/leadership. It’s more flexible, which means it more accurately represents the views of the Assembly on the matter, and our willingness to compromise.

From my perspective, this is impossible. The Local Council, per the current Charter, determines its method of selection and composition, as well as the broader organization of the gameside "government". The only option the Assembly can currently avail itself of is to simply abolish the Local Council by repealing the relevant section of the Charter. I don't think the Assembly can dictate the Local Council's composition or structure, otherwise I'd consider suggesting it or simply doing it.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply