| Prime Minister |
I'm not really feeling this. I feel like it limits our democracy. We elect the Delegate to act as an Administrator and executive. If we get rid of the delegate's role as that, why bother having one? We'd merely be electing a face, instead of anyone of substantive power, elected by the people.
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi
^
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
The Delegate's role is twofold, game side, and forum side. This proposal would separate the forumside into the Prime Minister position and would leave the Delegate to take care of solely game side.
And that being said, getting rid of the Delegate position is nigh impossible, unless you found a way to refound the South Pacific. It's absolutely crucial to our security gameside.
All this does though is create a position with almost no powers that we must lock someome qualified into.
(10-29-2015, 10:22 AM)ProfessorHenn Wrote: The Delegate's role is twofold, game side, and forum side. This proposal would separate the forumside into the Prime Minister position and would leave the Delegate to take care of solely game side. So, after all that crap this summer about how game-side and forum-side are getting divided, we want to divide forum-side and game-side further?
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi (10-28-2015, 08:08 PM)Qvait Wrote: I oppose, this would open up an opportunity for this region's enemies. I wouldn't see this as a problem, since it's a condition observed in every government transition, be it of leaders or structural classification. However... (10-29-2015, 10:55 AM)Resentine Wrote:(10-29-2015, 10:22 AM)ProfessorHenn Wrote: The Delegate's role is twofold, game side, and forum side. This proposal would separate the forumside into the Prime Minister position and would leave the Delegate to take care of solely game side. This is something I have to highlight. Rather than distancing the offsite forums and game-side even further, we should find ways to make the coexistence between both more natural and pleasant. (10-29-2015, 09:26 AM)Resentine Wrote: I'm not really feeling this. I feel like it limits our democracy. We elect the Delegate to act as an Administrator and executive. If we get rid of the delegate's role as that, why bother having one? We'd merely be electing a face, instead of anyone of substantive power, elected by the people. (10-29-2015, 10:55 AM)Resentine Wrote: So, after all that crap this summer about how game-side and forum-side are getting divided, we want to divide forum-side and game-side further?I agree with both of these statements. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
(10-29-2015, 11:32 AM)Punchwood Wrote:(10-29-2015, 09:26 AM)Resentine Wrote: I'm not really feeling this. I feel like it limits our democracy. We elect the Delegate to act as an Administrator and executive. If we get rid of the delegate's role as that, why bother having one? We'd merely be electing a face, instead of anyone of substantive power, elected by the people. Actually, I would argue just about the opposite here. Yes, it's splitting the two. BUT, if done in the right way, it does give the RMB nations more of a voice. It shouldn't be a free for all, but as Henn originally suggested, the WA nations essentially elect the delegate. By setting up a system (ie. Brave Toaster Declarations — not Operation Brave Toaster), there's a process to vet and test out a potential new delegate. It's wrong to suggest that it's better for the delegate to be elected on the forums and imposed on the RMB nations doesn't bring us closer together. In fact, it makes us further apart because instead of everyone playing how they see fit we have the "haves" (the forum players) telling the "have nots" (the RMB players) what they should do. And, then we spend time to get the active WA nations to endorse our "elected" rep. (To clarify, I'm not fully agreeing that the haves/havenots, but that's a framing from the RMB-nation perspective.) I know Glen and I argue a lot over the relation between the forums and the RMB. But, he's right in that we are essentially playing two different games. Still, we need the in-game region for the lifeblood of the forums. If we can sure up the delegate's seat — so that the holder recognizes the off-site forums and off-site government, while at the same time acting as a rep for the in-game nations/interests — I think that's the best of both worlds. Especially since we can give powers, so the PM could have all the powers of the delegate except the WA vote. Similarly, we could *also* make the delegate head the Local Council. That would take care of the issue of getting a veteran on the LC and and the delegate could act as a go-between for the region and the offsite.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I disagree with that as WA nations won't be voting for much to start with and they have a only a choice of CSS members. That's not going to make things better and it's not democracy.
Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
RP-Government Information
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |