I'm against over legislation in general. If we are drafting legislation, then what can help this process is:

- the cabinet\involved parties provide a public application open to all legislators
- the cabinet\involved parties narrow down their selected members and interview them
- nominations of members must provide some info about the member and why they were chosen
- legislators are free to ask questions of cabinet\involved parties and the nominee within civil discourse

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

 

Reply

I'm against over legislation in general. If we are drafting legislation, then what can help this process is:

- the cabinet\involved parties provide a public application open to all legislators
- the cabinet\involved parties narrow down their selected members and interview them
- nominations of members must provide some info about the member and why they were chosen
- legislators are free to ask questions of cabinet\involved parties and the nominee within civil discourse

I'm 100% in favour of these. I don't believe this needs legislating (especially the last two points, because they already are the default expectation), but I can't disagree with the ideas themselves.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

(This post was last modified: 05-09-2018, 06:57 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I'm getting really tired of people saying the nomination process is not transparent, because that is the biggest lie ever.

1. We have submitted a nomination with an honest (albeit imperfect) explanation of why we are nominating that person.

2. We have released the transcript of the questions asked to that nominee and the answers they gave.

3. We have encouraged legislators to ask questions to the nominee and to us.

4. We are actively answering questions and acknowledging possible improvements to the process.

5. I have personally promised to ensure that we actively invite people to apply whenever there is a future vacancy. Tim has also said accepting applications is a good idea.

This process has been as open as is reasonably possible. It has certainly been more open than nominations for the Legislator Committee or to prior Permanent Justices.

If, after all this, the sole argument is that you (general you) haven't seen the exact words we used when discussing possible nominees, then that's just being picky. I'm sorry, but that really is how I see it.

I count on discussions being private so I can make strong cases for or against possible nominees without having to think about the politics of who will or won't be popular. If I've argued against someone who was eventually nominated, I also want the ability to discuss any lingering issues with them in private, rather than have my objections broadcast to the whole region. I think that's a basic courtesy that we should be afforded.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I appreciate that you're tired of hearing it, but not all of us where around the other thousands of times this discussion has apparently happened.

1. Great, how about sharing why you didn't nominate a potential candidate? Surely there's no issue there?

2. Perfect. I've read them, and I think Bels shows great experience and knowledge in the area

3. This does not take into account the nomination process itself. What's the point of us asking questions to discern the quality of a nominee if we never get the chance to get that nominee?

4. Perfect, and this discussion is part of that.

5. Again, perfect. I don't think anybody has said anything in regards to that. Even if they had, it would be missing the point.

 My main issue so far is that you are taking it personally, and it isn't. I know you don't want to think about the politics or popularity. I know you won't make it personal/political. What I don't know is that somebody else down the line, either in this nomination process or any other, will.

 I don't think governments should be run on faith and/or trust, especially with the turnover a game like NS has.

 Incidentally, I completely agree with you that the LC nominations should also be equally as transparent. That's what I'm getting it, a piece of legislation which accounts for all transparency situations, not just nominations to high court.

Reply

I believe we have finally reached an impasse. You want to see private discussions, whereas I see that as fundamentally detrimental to the nominations process.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

Reply

I believe we have finally reached an impasse. You want to see private discussions, whereas I see that as fundamentally detrimental to the nominations process.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

 I don't want to necessarily see private discussions. I am making a devil's advocate argument for a higher level of transparency, and the discussion has not reach it's conclusion.

 You said we are welcome to ask questions about the nomination process, which is fine, but then if I ask you (general you) a specific question that speaks to your opinion of a candidate, how does that differ from simply making your discussions public? If it doesn't, how does asking questions about the nominations process make any difference to the point being made?

 I understand that you want privacy to preserve your ability to do your job, at least insofar as it comes to nominations, but I don't think that aspect of your job, or any person involved in this or any other nomination process, is more important than having a transparent government that the people have faith in.

 It's that simple.

Reply

I took a moment to investigate the definition of government transparency and I would like to say, I apologize Kris I was mistaken, the way the cabinet conducts this process does indeed qualify as transparent. Furthermore, Lakania, all of your proposed shortcomings with the current system, while valid, are addressed by Escade's most recent post in this thread. (Speaking of which, Escade(and Kris too I guess), while I'm the type that likes have things written down and legislated and not just expected, I can understand and appreciate the need to avoid over legislation if both you and Kris firmly believe that legislating these expectations would in fact be the act of over legislation I can't find myself disagreeing. You are both well versed legislators that have a pretty firm grasp of where that line is and as such, I concede to the idea that legislating these expectations would in fact be, over legislation. I will now stop saying the word legislation because even I, the person typing this message have begun to become sick of it ;P)

Now with this in mind I would like to propose the following to those that believe that the standards the assembly requires of the cabinet during the nomination period for the AJ be outlined with clear and definitive legislature:

Please write up a draft piece of legislation for this process for us to debate on and put to vote in either this thread or another.

As it stands we will get no where without a formal draft to debate on regarding this issue and if this does not happen I would like to formally request that this thread be closed by the CoA as we can go no further with these discussions without said draft.

Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.

Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.'

I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P.

Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P

Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo

Reply

As someone who is an advocate for assembly input, I do not think there is a problem with the process. We have an opportunity to ask questions, voice our concerns, and ultimately reject the nomination if we want to.

Unless my understanding is incorrect.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

(This post was last modified: 05-09-2018, 09:03 PM by southern bellz.)

Reply

Honestly, I see this as big way to hurt feelings and create animosity. If we're limiting/outlawing private discussions — then we're going to get blunter opinions in public which will, in turn, create a more hostile environment and alienate newer legislators.

I think Kris is on the money here. It's one thing to day behind closed doors someone isn't qualified. It's another to post it in a public thread. (As a side note, I'm not sure the Chief Justice should be collaborating with the Cabinet on anything ... but ... that's a different topic.)

That said, I could see some productive situation toward what Roavin describes. After the Cabinet whittles down a number of plausible, a public questioning/hearing could be quite useful, imo.

Here’s my point: you shouldn’t be saying things to hurt peoples feelings, period. Saying somebody isn’t qualified is a legit point that ought to be said publicly, and has been said in the past. If you’re saying somebody isn’t qualified because you hate them, that’s not a legit point. But it’s a point that would be freely made in private— and has been many times in the past in the Cabinet, CRS, and the like— but not made in public because of the disincentive of looking like a biased and unfair fool. And if somebody gets a fair hearing with no obvious disqualifications, but gets nay votes anyways, then we can deduce that things not said are controlling the decisions of some in the Cabinet or the Chief Justice.

We hold elections every couple months where the same dynamic is in play. Has that hurt us? I’d say no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

Honestly, I see this as big way to hurt feelings and create animosity. If we're limiting/outlawing private discussions — then we're going to get blunter opinions in public which will, in turn, create a more hostile environment and alienate newer legislators.

I think Kris is on the money here. It's one thing to day behind closed doors someone isn't qualified. It's another to post it in a public thread. (As a side note, I'm not sure the Chief Justice should be collaborating with the Cabinet on anything ... but ... that's a different topic.)

That said, I could see some productive situation toward what Roavin describes. After the Cabinet whittles down a number of plausible, a public questioning/hearing could be quite useful, imo.

Here’s my point: you shouldn’t be saying things to hurt peoples feelings, period. Saying somebody isn’t qualified is a legit point that ought to be said publicly, and has been said in the past. If you’re saying somebody isn’t qualified because you hate them, that’s not a legit point. But it’s a point that would be freely made in private— and has been many times in the past in the Cabinet, CRS, and the like— but not made in public because of the disincentive of looking like a biased and unfair fool. And if somebody gets a fair hearing with no obvious disqualifications, but gets nay votes anyways, then we can deduce that things not said are controlling the decisions of some in the Cabinet or the Chief Justice.

We hold elections every couple months where the same dynamic is in play. Has that hurt us? I’d say no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand your point, but not everyone can effectively divorce themselves from their professional and personal sides. And, I include myself in that — and know we've had past officials who would not have responded well to this. It's not intentional, it just happens.

What you're arguing is somewhat idealistic and hard enough IRL, let alone doing it in a game. We deal with this IRL because we have to, but we all know what rejection feels like.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply