I don't think treating a GC as a tentpole activity is ideal.

I think this is a severe misinterpretation of what Glen and Jebediah have said. The idea isn't "oh, if we have a GC, that's good because it just makes something people care about". The idea is that if you consciously open the floodgates to every new idea and possibility, discussion and debate will emerge. A GC starts us out with a blank slate, which we desperately need given how much the government suffers under the weight of a system rooted in the early 2010s. It's not just or even primarily that we need to create an event. It's that we need to be able to start from scratch. 
 

can I suggest the following change and to being this to a vote?

This would remove the protection that the resolution contains. Anyone could have seen the GC resolution go up and then applied to be a Legislator in anticipation of it.

HS — what exactly are you hoping to accomplish here? I wasn't actually arguing with any of this and was trying to help move this along ... but if you want to argue this ...

It's not a severe misinterpretation of what Glen said. He is saying that this is intended to spur activity and that the mere holding of the GC will attract attention to governing — even if nothing changes. And, by all means, I support goosing activity, and if you want to do that with a GC — go ahead. Realizing I have no understanding of longevity, I personally don't think that's a way to keep people involved, but I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of people trying. As I've been arguing throughout this, if it were up to be we'd already be having the conversations you want rather than kicking them down the road to the start of some magical "Great Council" as though ideas and activity are just going to flow forth when we set up a new forum.

Second, regarding my proposed change, every day further from April 26 you're losing possibly participants for a GC. That's all. Keep it if you want, I honestly couldn't care less.

I'm going to see myself out of this conversation at this point because it's v.clear I'm not being helpful. God bless.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Edit: Actually, I'll go a step further. If we've put all this effort into discussing changes rather than arguing about whether or a GC is needed — with some arbitrary parameters — we'd be so much further along.

You know, I sort of agree with this. I'm not sure if it's allowed (I think it is) but I motion this to a vote.

Spoiler

Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)

Reply

I'm not sure why the tone turned so sour here ... from my perspective, you were opposed to this idea, not "trying to help it along", as demonstrated by you explicitly saying "the entire idea of a GC is dumb" a few posts ago. If I'm misinterpreting, feel free to redirect me. I can also substantively disagree with a suggestion you gave about the resolution (i.e. the date cut off for Legislator involvement) without it meriting the need to walk out. Let me know what the issue is, in private if you'd like, because I don't like to see people walk away from the conversation over what seems like a misunderstanding of some kind.

HS — what exactly are you hoping to accomplish here?

At the root, I am trying to accomplish a complete from scratch reworking of our laws and form of government. There's what I potentially want out of a reworking, and then there's the reworking itself. I'm in favor of starting the reworking process even though I actually likely won't get what I want out of it, because I think the exploratory reinvention process of the Great Council will produce tangible results. Sure, part of that is "if you build it, they will come", but that's not the entire argument. Giving newer generations an opportunity to completely rework the laws without the baggage of decade old compromises and approaches to government has a great chance of breathing new life into the region's government itself, not just reinvigorating activity for a few months.

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

Reply

I don't think having a regularly scheduled reworking of the law is a good thing by any stretch. But, I also think we could revamp large portion of the charter without an official GC. We just need space to discuss and draft.

The "space to discuss and draft" is exactly what I'm suggesting a common council should be - it wouldn't be an emergency space to remake every single law in TSP, but rather a regularly scheduled convention where simply look at everything, throw out a bunch of ideas, and then consider each one. In all likelihood the general structure of everything will stay the same, but since it's an organised space specifically to work on legislation it'll be a lot easier to make any changes that are required.

I think you underestimate the power that a well placed bit of organisation can have. We do already have multiple spaces where one can propose laws and discuss them, and even where they could propose drafts or ideas and then collaborate to make it into a fully fledged proposal. But in order to actually do something, you need a plan for how a discussion is going to go and motivation to do so, and that's not something that's achieved by simply pointing in the general direction of the assembly forum and telling people to post there. The reason why a GC is so effective at changing and creating laws is because it has that motivation created by being a rare occurrence and because there is a procedure throughout the whole event for getting laws from idea to bill, and the CC idea is taking advantage of the exact same effect.

Now that I mention it, there is another possible benefit to having a regularly scheduled event like this, and that is that it gives a good time for legislators and the cabinet to put out reports and their own thoughts on all sorts of topics, from their own performance throughout the year to how other regions are handling x or y, to their own opinions on a piece of legislation. All of this with a convention that doesn't require any laws to change, simply gives a time to discuss them.

...In any case, I do agree with Comfed's opinion and what I previously stated that this is something that should replace the possibility of a GC happening now, rather something to discuss during it.

I second the motion to vote.

(This post was last modified: 05-13-2022, 04:47 AM by Jebediah.)

Reply

Otherwise, since this is being talked in circles, can I suggest the following change and to being this to a vote?
 

1. Mandates that participation in the Great Council be limited to those holding valid legislator status at Tue Apr 26 2022 22:59:59 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) the time this motion is brought to a vote and who continue to maintain legislator status throughout the duration of the Great Council.
   

I’ll second the motion on this version of the text as well; might as well settle it with a vote on competing drafts.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

I’ll second the motion on this version of the text as well; might as well settle it with a vote on competing drafts.

This seems good - I'll explicitly motion for both drafts as a competing vote.

I don't have a strong preference one or the other - there's only three or four extra legislators this changed would actually make eligible if it went up to vote now, but on the other hand I understand the sentiment that they might have joined explicitly to vote in the GC.

Reply

If there are reasons to expect the GC lasting for months (there are), I support the redraft and the motion. There are new legislators (self-interest insertion) but also old legislators who haven't maintained legislator status from April 27th until now and have re-claimed it since. This is much easier than all of us invoking Article 4 of the original draft.
Also,

the sentiment that they might have joined explicitly to vote in the GC.

I can speak only for myself here. Mentioning the following again, on this thread, as it is the thread most active and followed - ensuring that it will be seen by most people. I have explicitly stated my reason for applying as legislator to be ''discussion''; I have explicitly stated to members of the Local Council that I have no aspirations towards participating in a government office. Once again, there is no reason to trust me so I call anyone to note these statements and hold me legally accountable to uphold them in the future.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

(This post was last modified: 05-13-2022, 06:34 PM by A bee.)

Reply

I can speak only for myself here. Mentioning the following again, on this thread, as it is the thread most active and followed - ensuring that it will be seen by most people. I have explicitly stated my reason for applying as legislator to be ''discussion''; I have explicitly stated to members of the Local Council that I have no aspirations towards participating in a government office.

This is not the problem we have - in fact, legislators getting involved in government is exactly what we want (the naming is a bit strange if you think about how legislatures and executives are completely seperated in real life). There is also nothing wrong with wishing to become a legislator to do exactly what a legislator is supposed to do.

* * *

The problem (and this is an argument pointed not at you but those who were already in the debate) - at least by my understanding, there may be additional arguments - is twofold. The first is that people who may want to weaken The South Pacific may become a legislator upon seeing the Great Council proposal specifically in order to influence the votes in the Great Council, which naturally will have a great impact on the region thereafter. The second is that people who may be inexperienced in The South Pacific who join right as an important vote is happening may not have much knowledge on how The South Pacific works and so would be influenced more easily.

The former is, in my opinion, a reasonable concern and I imagine the main reason why, in elections, we have provisions making ineligible for vote or for candidacy those legislators who had their applications accepted after the nomination period of the election starts (the earliest part of an election). The latter is much less of a concern - there have been many arguments about it, but from my reasoning, there are plenty new members regardless. This would only be an issue if the proposed deadline was in the middle of or just before a voting period - in which case, such activity and influencing could go by without an opponent having the chance to give their own view before voting, which is why many real life countries ban campaigning on election day and the days just before. This is not the case for the GC, whose voting periods will be at least several weeks from now.

So as for the regional security concern - this could perhaps be compared to the aformentioned provision we have against elections, but those are reguarly scheduled, and as such anyone who might want to influence the election seriously would simply make all of their accounts join before the deadline. For elections, the reasons why such restrictions exist is to allow those accounts to be checked for any such possible motivations or connections, and also to make sure that the Legislator Committee isn't under any unreasonable pressure to process as many applications as possible during the election period as quickly as possible lest a couple legislators miss the election due to lack of time on legcomm's part.

Using that line of reasoning, you could argue that putting the deadline at the time this proposal goes to vote is as reasonable a deadline as putting it at the time this proposal was proposed, as there is plenty of time between either time and the time when the GC is even allowed to start voting, but you could also argue that the Great Council's heightened importance over any election proves that this additional restriction is warranted.

So, since both proposals are reasonable and the difference between them minor, it follows that we should simply put to vote both of them, and then use whichever is approved more, if either are at all.

* * *

If I may insist, I believe it has been nearly forty-eight hours since the original second motion, and I wish to petition the Chair of the Assembly for a response.

Reply

The security concern is the primary, and only, concern for why a Great Council should be limited in this manner. While we could say "very few Legislators could be effected" and "none of them are known bad actors", there are ways of deceiving LegComm and slipping an alt into the Legislature, thus undermining the security of the Great Council. Individuals acting in bad faith could "lightly float" ideas that in actuality would undermine the security, autonomy, and sovereignty of the Coalition. Individual legislators proclaiming they're acting in good faith is understandable and well-intentioned, but ultimately those claims simply aren't credible.

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

Reply

If I may insist, I believe it has been nearly forty-eight hours since the original second motion, and I wish to petition the Chair of the Assembly for a response.

Unless I'm terrible mistaken, the original second was early this morning, not 2 days ago.

Given that only the proposal from @Tsunamy was seconded, it has been brought to vote.

Just so you're all aware, the original proposal from @Moon has been motioned, just not seconded.

(This post was last modified: 05-13-2022, 09:15 PM by The Haughtherlands.)

Reply