I’m wanting to know how your plan deals with it, not how things are now or were.

What is this mysterious "it" that this plan must deal with?

You asked why we shouldn't have a liaison to bring ideas from the "gameside" to the "off-site." HS gave a pretty straightforward answer that anyone on the "gameside" can just post their ideas off-site. That's also entirely unrelated to your other question about whether it's better to have appointed or elected liaisons.

Okay…why can’t we trust elections for this post? Do we not trust the current Local Councilors?

Moderators should not be elected

These liaisons are meant to serve as moderators...?

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

Briefly mentioning this post: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10824-post-...#pid236065 

I don't, nor I'm sure many of our long-term members think that we should give the LC border control powers. However, if the mods were to be implemented and the LC (in its current form) abolished, I could foresee allowing those mods to have BC powers.

Obviously, I am not the authority on regional security and who should get BC powers, but that would be a logical step I'd be willing to see.

Anyway, sorry for threadjacking, but I do believe it is relevent.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

I’m wanting to know how your plan deals with it, not how things are now or were.

What is this mysterious "it" that this plan must deal with?

You asked why we shouldn't have a liaison to bring ideas from the "gameside" to the "off-site." HS gave a pretty straightforward answer that anyone on the "gameside" can just post their ideas off-site. That's also entirely unrelated to your other question about whether it's better to have appointed or elected liaisons.

Okay…why can’t we trust elections for this post? Do we not trust the current Local Councilors?

Moderators should not be elected

These liaisons are meant to serve as moderators...?

Sorry about that, my response was to HS, but I misread the person I replied to. My question is what purpose would these liaison serve, function, duty, your choice. And if they’re supposed to liaison we should clarify how they’re chosen.

And I believe the mods would be totally separate.

Reply

Would it be better if people were appointed by the offsite government or would it be better if people got elected and then were answerable to the PM or whatever body. You did ask for critiques or suggestions, but I have to wonder if you were serious.

Maybe part of this is just my views on government accountability generally, but an official is not "answerable" to another official unless they derive their legal authority from that official. They're simply "politely encouraged to cooperate". If the PM appoints RMB Liaisons, and can dismiss them, then they're genuinely answerable to the PM. If they're elected with their own mandate and loosely required to work with the PM, then they're not really answerable to the PM.

Plus, the purpose of the liaisons is to build a bridge between two platforms, not hold political authority on their own, so I don't think it makes sense for them to be elected in such a manner that they are establishing their own mandate from the public.

Another way, in my mind, to think of "why do we elect vs appoint an official" is "do they hold decision making power on their own or are they merely an instrument of executing another official's agenda". In the case of RMB Liaisons, they're ultimately agents of the government's desire for integration, rather than possessing their own decision-making capacity.

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

Reply

Would it be better if people were appointed by the offsite government or would it be better if people got elected and then were answerable to the PM or whatever body. You did ask for critiques or suggestions, but I have to wonder if you were serious.

Maybe part of this is just my views on government accountability generally, but an official is not "answerable" to another official unless they derive their legal authority from that official. They're simply "politely encouraged to cooperate". If the PM appoints RMB Liaisons, and can dismiss them, then they're genuinely answerable to the PM. If they're elected with their own mandate and loosely required to work with the PM, then they're not really answerable to the PM.

Plus, the purpose of the liaisons is to build a bridge between two platforms, not hold political authority on their own, so I don't think it makes sense for them to be elected in such a manner that they are establishing their own mandate from the public.

Another way, in my mind, to think of "why do we elect vs appoint an official" is "do they hold decision making power on their own or are they merely an instrument of executing another official's agenda". In the case of RMB Liaisons, they're ultimately agents of the government's desire for integration, rather than possessing their own decision-making capacity.

Had anything similar been tried before? I’m assuming just like DC’s, this could’ve been instituted at any point, correct?

Reply