| Do we have an appetite for major change? |
I've been looking at a lot of the GC proposals, and almost all of them have something in common. They are pretty extreme changes, and very divisive.
I appreciate people feel encouraged and comfortable enough to share their ideas, regardless how drastic the ideas are, but I can't help but feel that pushing through a radical reform at this point will do more harm than good. Now, before I get called the enemy of progress and the old guard that can't let go of the past. I am not against change, TSP is in a constant state of change, I just think our current situation as a region is actually pretty good and what we need are more refined changes instead of completely changing how our legislature works or gutting branches of government. Most of us agree that our region should be as inclusive as possible and that our military situation can be improved. I think we can find more common sense measures to do both. I think if we do that, we will come out of this GC unquestionably better off than when we came in.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I'd suggest:
(1) Protocols which put the SPSF under stricter oversight of the SPSF - a code of conduct and the ability to mandate recruitment objectives, plus standing orders. It's something that other regions haven't done, but I think in the case of TSP, laxer oversight and isolationism of the SPSF hasn't produced excellence, it's produced a lack of willingness to reform. (2) We should remove the MoA as a position altogether - just make it a High Commander position who is appointed by the other commanders and approved by the Assembly, or appointed by the Delegate if the commanders cannot reach a decision. Elections have proven to be not terribly effective at sparking change in the SPSF; we're always given limited options at the ballot box. Instead of improving the public's voice, elections for MoA, just discourages talent from running for leadership (from fear of not being independentist or bi-gameplayer enough). If we maintain stricter control of the SPSF through Assembly oversight, changing how the leadership transitions work will allow SPSF to be more internally meritocratic. (3) Mandate monthly reports from the Chair of the Assembly to all residents (via TGs) on legislative activity. (4) Strictly define what is "common sense" and exile every one who disagrees with it. Okay, last one was a joke.
I think in regards to election reform, a lot of progress has been made and so far it seems no truly radical ideas have been offered but instead proposals that follow with ongoing discussions since a few terms ago.
Perhaps it's time to consolidate the popular options (based on the some of the polls for example). Consolidate meaning provide a non-binding poll to citizens that present three options (A revised version of Option A, A revised version of Option B, A revised version of Option C, A combination of two options (state in thread)). In the poll have the legal text for each option in the thread and allow citizens to discuss and examine the legal language carefully - discuss ramifications or long-term resulting changes and once this discussion has progressed to a level that enough people feel the legal language has been appropriately revised, bring to vote? Since I don't see any vast difference between The Great Council and many of our former discussions in the Assembly, I think that the positive thing about calling it a Great Council is people have been trying their very best to discuss and bring up ideas and changes. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
Maybe this is only me, but at this point I am having a really hard time telling apart mere discussions from actual proposals, which we are supposed to vote on. I think it is very confusing, and leads us to waste our time, when we could be discussing specific drafts, and trying to improve those.
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
I agree, the proposals that I'm actually able to think about are those with actual legal drafts (Minister of Gameside Affairs, the one that Unibot revised, and both of the bills that Hopolis drafted or revised. This one and this one.
Getting errors when trying to full edit so here are the links to the first two: Minister of Gameside Affairs - http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1640.html Unibot Revision - http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1700.html Perhaps we can narrow down the options to 3 and then discuss those in terms of the legal drafts? Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
I don't believe enough time was put in to the planning of this Great Council. In the past when we have done these a general idea of what type of legislation and a couple of drafts of said legislation were being worked on. We were using the Great Council as a way to change very large sections (if not the whole text) of our Charter and CoL.
It seems to me that the idea going in was to come out with some sort of bicameral legislature and when that started going downhill things got messy. Discussions that we should be having aren't happening because of infighting. I honestly don't see many changes actually being enacted in the Great Council. There are a few good ideas I have seen so far but these can all be done in the Assembly rather quickly and under a normal timing. I'm not seeing anything far enough along that should be brought to a vote. I don't believe continuing this Great Council will change that and I personally favor closing the Great Council and bringing the core ideas up for normal Assembly discussion.
I don't really the see the point in re-hashing these discussions under normal order, where it will be much harder to actually pass anything under a 75% threshold compared to the simple majority used in a Great Council. But I do agree that not too much planning went into this.
For the record, here is the actual text of my Minister of Gameside Affairs proposal: http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-164...l#pid43107
I just gave up after a while, there are too many "proposals" to keep up with. Nearly all of them are huge radical changes that have been quickly drafted out without any proper thinking involved. I know if we ever get round to voting I would be voting Nay to almost everything and few will get a Aye from me.
Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice (02-02-2015, 12:52 PM)Escade Wrote: I agree, the proposals that I'm actually able to think about are those with actual legal drafts (Minister of Gameside Affairs, the one that Unibot revised, and both of the bills that Hopolis drafted or revised. This one and this one. If it helps, I constantly revised the bill at the start of the thread so see post #1: http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1615.html. This supersedes the other thread. I'll amend the thread to reflect that. Quote:I don't believe enough time was put in to the planning of this Great Council. In the past when we have done these a general idea of what type of legislation and a couple of drafts of said legislation were being worked on. We were using the Great Council as a way to change very large sections (if not the whole text) of our Charter and CoL. The core plan was that infighting over major change will happen inside or outside of a Great Council, but an enthusiasm for big changes really only occurs in Great Councils. They spur people to voice bright, fresh ideas. I was never a fan of your "organised" GCs - where you came in with one package of constitutional reform and pushed it through. I think this council has allowed us to consider a breadth of different ideas under a short period of time and we're organically coalescing around a few different big reform ideas. One remaining issue however, is how TSP's legislative system is unable to accommodate contradicting legislation neatly -- Glen-Rhodes's proposal, for example, is trying to force itself as an "either/or" proposal, but by law, it should not be treated as a contradicting proposal. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |