We should not release discussions at all.

Justices are subjected to the most thorough nomination process of any official in the Coalition. Once you see the survey questions and answers in Belschaft's thread, you will see that this process was not a mere discussion where we talk about how much we like or dislike each nominee.

The Assembly also has an opportunity to question the nominee and have their own concerns addressed. If you, as a legislator, want to know more about a nominee, just ask them! Seriously. We don't nominate people so the Assembly will rubber stamp them. That's not the idea. When I was nominated, I faced some serious questioning from Glen, and even if I think some of his questions were beside the point, they were good because they allowed me to address some elephants in the room and to inform the Assembly about my adequacy for the Court. Glen had every right to ask me questions, and I had every duty to answer them to the best of my ability. This is how the process is supposed to work.

Do you want to know more about what each individual Minister, or the Chief Justice, thinks? Go ahead and ask them. They'll answer, and it'll be all the better because we will create a culture of legislators asking questions to their officials, rather than forcing them to be less honest in their private deliberations.

I'm happy to give a professional opinion on the pros and cons of a nominee. I'm not happy to risk having the Assembly see logs of me calling a nominee a dangerously ignorant person, or someone who will coup the region if given the chance. I'll have to work with them, if they are confirmed, and it doesn't do anyone good for our working relationship to start with those comments.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

This is fine and all for those comfortable with the questioning process and those that have the knowledge to ask the correct questions of a nominee, but this kind of mentality alienated newer legislators that are not aware of who the nomine is, or what there stances have been in the past. It’s unfair to expect a candidate to elaborate on all of their past actions for every new legislator that comes along needing that information. At the very least we should release a summarized statement of the nominees past and the primary talking points behind their nomination. As well as some pros and cons to bring newer legislators up to speed

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

I'm not sure what that has to do with releasing private nomination discussions.

If your concern is what you just posted, that can easily be solved by the Cabinet drafting a more comprehensive statement and, surprisingly, legislators asking those exact questions. If you don't know a nominee's record, just ask them to explain their record. If you want to know more about their pros and cons, ask the Cabinet to elaborate on them. That's the whole point of a nomination thread: to allow legislators to ask for all the information they'll need to cast an informed vote.


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'm not sure what that has to do with releasing private nomination discussions.

If your concern is what you just posted, that can easily be solved by the Cabinet drafting a more comprehensive statement and, surprisingly, legislators asking those exact questions. If you don't know a nominee's record, just ask them to explain their record. If you want to know more about their pros and cons, ask the Cabinet to elaborate on them. That's the whole point of a nomination thread: to allow legislators to ask for all the information they'll need to cast an informed vote.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I was under the impression this was the only reason we needed transparency. That has been what everyone for this idea has been saying. ‘How are we supposed to make an informed vote without transparency and a general idea of how the cabinet came to decide on this nomine.’ Has been the primary argument for this suggested policy change. Furthermore you just successfully ignored my problems while just throwing them back to me unchanged. ‘Legislators can just ask for the information they need.’ Is not a sufficient response to. ‘What about those legislators that do not have the experience to ask the right questions to get the info they need.’ And again it is u fair to expect a nomine to re explain their past for every uninformed legislator that may come along.

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

I won't presume to know what new legislators want. My objective here is to argue against judicial nomination discussions being made public, as I believe that will be detrimental to the honesty we expect in those discussions. Anything else is way beyond my pay grade.


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 won't presume to know what new legislators want. My objective here is to argue against judicial nomination discussions being made public, as I believe that will be detrimental to the honesty we expect in those discussions. Anything else is way beyond my pay grade.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Of course, and I am recognizing that point as valid which is why I have proposed this mid ground solution that keeps your concerns in mind why also addressing the problems raised by those that feel some transparency should exist.

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

I'm arguing that publication itself is detrimental, not its timing. If you need more information, just ask for it, either for your benefit or that of other legislators. We will all be more than happy to answer.


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'm arguing that publication itself is detrimental, not its timing. If you need more information, just ask for it, either for your benefit or that of other legislators. We will all be more than happy to answer.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Again, I am aware and agree with this statement which is why my proposed solution was this:
‘At the very least we should release a summarized statement of the nominees past and the primary talking points behind their nomination. As well as some pros and cons to bring newer legislators up to speed.’
This would allow avoidance of your proposed qualms with releasing these discussions (ie: fear of alienating yourself from the candidate via opinion expressed in private during discussion.) while addressing the issues raised by those pushing for this change.

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

That is already done. Roavin has also acknowledged that the statement he posted could have been slightly better and more comprehensive.


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

That is already done. Roavin has also acknowledged that the statement he posted could have been slightly better and more comprehensive.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

If there is already a system in place to supply legislators with this information then why are we even having this discussion, I am now on Kris’s side. We are a small enough community to be able to trust our cabinet officials with this task without recquiring a full disclosure of their deliberations. We elected these people for a reason and we should give them the benefit of the doubt if they are supplying us with the basic information we need.

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

(This post was last modified: 05-07-2018, 04:59 PM by The Serres Republic.)

Reply

The Assembly only has the opportunity to ask questions of pre-determined candidates, without knowing the real reasons why those candidates were selected. We’re not getting the full picture, which is very obvious given your reaction to this, Kris. Your posts so far reveal that the Chief Justice is basing decisions on things you believe do not stand up to the levels of professionalism and objectivity you think should be displayed publicly, and things that sound more personal if they’re things to hash out one on one. And I can only imagine what the bases for the Cabinet members’ decisions are, with what you’re saying of the process.

I think those are all things the Assembly should be privy to, when what’s been delivered to us publicly doesn’t match the tone and story of how the private deliberations are being described. A longer and more detailed PR statement isn’t going to include all the reasons why you oppose or support a nominee that the Cabinet and Chief Justice want to keep secret, which are probably the largest contributing factors to whether a nomination is or isn’t made.

Frankly, your solution of “ask each minister their opinion” is quite literally what is being proposed here: a public hearing where all the relevant opinions are given freely and publicly, rather than in a private chat that has been unprofessional to the point where it must be kept secret forever.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 05-08-2018, 07:55 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply