| Abolish the Local Council |
|
I think HumanSanity puts it well. I'd prefer any of options 1 to 3.
Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)
I’ve heard a lot of stupid things from NS nations. And this, abolishing the Local Council, goes pretty high up on my ranks. The Local Council is a wonderful body whose councilors dedicate their time to the NS website itself. It has come to my realization that barely any of the government members spend their time interacting with the real heart of TSP nations, right on the famous Regional Message Board. Most of the governmental leaders spend their time on TSPForums and Discord. The Local Council, however, is dedicated solely to nations on nationstates.net, not any other website where TSP nations have a say. The RMB is what makes this community so diverse and vibrant. Abolishing the Local Council would be a real blow to this region. If the LC is abolished, I would leave this region. Period. I am a strong fighter for the heart and soul of this region, and abolishing the LC, which handles roleplay, tournaments (like the hit SwanVision), and the RMB, would truly be sad.
It’s funny that most of the people who want to abolish the LC have no interaction with the body and are rarely on the RMB. To be frank, I don't really see the argument itself for abolishing the Local Council. I also am confused about the purpose of The Great Council. The Local Council oversees the RMB which makes this region wonderful. Don’t abolish the Local Council. Period. If this sounds heated, please don't take it that way. It is my opinion, and a very strong opinion. maluhia
minister of culture ambassador to lazarus roleplayer
The LC does not “handle roleplay” and you are conveniently ignoring the numerous alternatives that have been offered. Please read over HS’s post.
Also, I do not care if you will personally leave TSP for any reason. Making threats or ultimatums isn’t productive. There will be 1000 other people to fill your shoes who will know nothing about how TSP worked before, so won’t care or feel like they lost anything.
(07-19-2022, 12:37 PM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote: I also am confused about the purpose of The Great Council. There is an abundance of content that you could consult at any time to inform yourself, starting with the thread pinned to this subforum that clearly explains the purpose of these discussions and links to the organising resolution. I would strongly suggest that you inform yourself before you continue to contribute here. (07-19-2022, 12:47 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: There will be 1000 other people to fill your shoes who will know nothing about how TSP worked before, so won’t care or feel like they lost anything. 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 (07-19-2022, 12:47 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: The LC does not “handle roleplay” and you are conveniently ignoring the numerous alternatives that have been offered. Please read over HS’s post. Whilst I may disagree with the tone of both ulies and your responses, I do think both you and ulie raise a number rof points that could be more closely examined. Ulies following comments should be taken on face value: Ulie likes the LC Ulie thinks the LC is doing a good job Ulie likes that, for what ulies interested in (RP), they're involved. You rightly state that RP is not in the remit of the LC. That lies, as defined in the current charter, with the Minister for Culture. What Ulie says to some extent is that they are unaware of the MoCs role in this, or to some extent that the MoC isn't fulfilling that role. This partially goes to what I was saying with Kringle, that the LC is limited in what it can do by different sections of the charter, and they don't have unfettered control over gameside. HS's post actually doesn't provide all the options. There is a seventh option. Retain the LC, amalgamate the Ministry of Culture into and under the LC. The LC is, as we can see from Ulies post, doing this role and according to them just fine. It would formalise the structure that's happening already. The LC has already expanded solely from three councillors to include deputies who could take on this responsibility and moving the MoC strengthens the LC and provides for regionwide cultural events available to all. Edit: it would also reduce the number of ministers thereby potentially leading to more candidates vying fornthe remaining roles instead of just 1 candidate for each role What are your thoughts on this?
(07-19-2022, 01:51 PM)Beepee Wrote: This partially goes to what I was saying with Kringle, that the LC is limited in what it can do by different sections of the charter, and they don't have unfettered control over gameside. I still don't understand why keep making that claim when the very point of the Local Council is for it to be the one institution that has plenary power over gameside local governance. It certainly is subordinate to other institutions in certain limited cases, for example in the sense that it does have to abide by High Court rulings, but beyond that it has wide latitude to decide how it exercises its powers. This is not an "either/or" situation where one institution is usurping the powers of another, both have remit to act or cooperate within the bounds of what is reasonable. 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 (07-19-2022, 11:12 AM)HumanSanity Wrote: Proposal 1: Retain the "Local Council", Delegate appointment Yeah, this is exactly what I had mind when I wrote my original reply to this topic. If this option is consensual, we should move forward to revisiting Local Council Laws and powers of The Delegate using legal sources as to further define these positions and functions. The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990
(07-19-2022, 02:05 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:(07-19-2022, 01:51 PM)Beepee Wrote: This partially goes to what I was saying with Kringle, that the LC is limited in what it can do by different sections of the charter, and they don't have unfettered control over gameside. I know youre trying to take a wide view, but under the letter of the law I would argue that the LC has no powers on role play or organising activities and events, as the charter says: Quote:The Minister of Culture will be responsible for supporting the roleplay community and organizing regional cultural activities, events, and exchanges. The LC has no responsibility for rp (which was my response to Sandao) and can't organise an RMB activity or event without the express consent of the MoC. Pulling moc into LC, as per my suggestion, allows this.
Are we just arguing over semantics here? Because look, frankly, I don't care if you want to call it the Ministry of Culture 'subsuming' the Local Council, or the Local Council 'amalgamating' the Ministry of Culture. I think there's much, much more common ground than the increasingly dogmatic language of this debate suggests. Regardless of how insistent anybody is that the Local Council is abolished or preserved, we don't need to duplicate our efforts simply for the sake of an arbitrary 'gameside' divide.
One side of this debate is that the Local Council is ineffective because it doesn't have "unfettered control over gameside." There are two problems with this narrative of "gameside representation" currently advanced by our Charter. Firstly, when we refer to the "gameside," we really just mean the RMB. There are countless other in-game mechanics — issues, cards, factbooks, and so forth — that never appear in these debates. Secondly, almost every aspect of our "off-site" government interacts with "in-game" mechanics and communities on a day-to-day basis. Mass telegrams, pinned dispatches, endorsements and influence, and so forth, are just a few examples of the means by which this happens. Thus, I ask: are we really arguing for the Local Council to have unfettered control over the gameside? All of it? Are we really arguing that the Local Council should have exclusive jurisdiction over not just the RMB but also the World Assembly, mass telegrams, pinned dispatches, the WFE, all RO powers, card farming, the Delegacy, and everything else that exists in the "gameside"? No, I don't think so. So let's help ourselves move this debate along and drop these lofty ideals of a "gameside" government. We're talking about the RMB, and it doesn't help us to pretend that we aren't. I don't mean this as a criticism of the Local Council. In fact, I argued that SwanVision was an example of a successfully run regional cultural event. (By the way, I haven't seen any complaints that it was illegal, so if anyone genuinely believes that only the Ministry of Culture can run cultural events, they should probably go file a complaint to the High Court.) I brought up SwanVision as an example because the scheduling conflicts with TSPride highlighted some shortcomings in having two government entities working towards essentially the same goal: hosting a cultural event. Two of our soon-to-be-outgoing Local Councillors have already voiced support for closer coordination between the Local Council and the Ministry of Culture. (07-19-2022, 01:41 AM)Evinea_ Wrote: Or both groups could mutually work with each (e.g., discussions of expanding roleplay), though there needs to be an improvement in communication to avoid event mishaps (e.g., SwanVision and TSPride). If the MoC wanted to have more presence on the RMB, they can work with us, or if able to, direct their own activities, which I don't think the LC stops them from doing so. (07-18-2022, 11:16 PM)Drystar Wrote: there should be some overhaul to connect it to the region government instead of just leaving it out there limping along. The question in my mind is, what is the functional difference between saying "oh, we'll work more closely together" and just... merging the two? I suspect that the responses to that question will vary widely depending on whether the question is phrased as the Ministry of Culture absorbing the Local Council, or the other way around. But how big is the difference, really? Why do we need two separate entities working together in the same area? If we put aside our dogmatism for a moment, I think many more of us will see that while we may like or hate the idea of abolishing the Local Council, we don't need multiple parts of our government trying to fulfill the same functions. (07-19-2022, 02:44 PM)Pronoun Wrote: Are we just arguing over semantics here? Because look, frankly, I don't care if you want to call it the Ministry of Culture 'subsuming' the Local Council, or the Local Council 'amalgamating' the Ministry of Culture. I think there's much, much more common ground than the increasingly dogmatic language of this debate suggests. Regardless of how insistent anybody is that the Local Council is abolished or preserved, we don't need to duplicate our efforts simply for the sake of an arbitrary 'gameside' divide. I'm with you, I really am. I know I seem like a pedant..  The issue I have is more that Abolishing the lc isn't in my view well founded. It really just reads as a we don't like it and want rid, without reason or justification. I think the LC does generally an OK job for what it's allowed to do. I actually agree with reform and I've suggested a couple of ways forward in various threads. One of the questions you ask is Do we need two entities doing the same thing. The answer i think is probably not, but one entity has always been considered too big. W hat the LC has done recently is set itself up in a manner which x i think can probably take on the extra work with the deputies without the need of a second entity. Ifwe're worried about too much power, wecan put the Delegate in charge to some extent . I think elections to roles (deputies maybe) might still be required and popular. I've not been LC for a while but I think he recent LCs probably know better than any of us oldies what's right. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/esfalsagov/esfalsa-graphics/main/flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: rank_officer.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/rank_officer.min.svg){kind=icon}
![[Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/updates_lifetime_2.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/detags_lifetime_3.min.svg){kind=small}
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |