| Unibot for Chair |
|
[Image: chair-clipart-4.jpg]
Unibot wants the chair and only you can help him get it! Come baaaaack chair… What needs to be done The Assembly, as just about anyone would tell you, can be dysfunctional, confrontational and circular. My major task as Chair of the Assembly would be to get the Assembly “working” in good order. However, what does “working” mean, you ask? That’s a great question. Democracy isn’t a machine, but an organic process. A functional democratic legislature will follow through with its function: to provide answers and responses in a timely fashion that satisfies most of our citizenry and otherwise, carries legitimacy and authority to everyone else involved. There are a number of ways how I can improve how the Chair organizes debates to mitigate dysfunction,
I would love to answer any and all questions you may have for me. Thank you so much for reading and good luck on voting day! Yours, Unibot.
To ask you the same question you asked Belschaft:
Do you think you are out of touch with The South Pacific?
I don't think so, I've been on good terms with everyone in the current government. In 2012, I was absolutely not representative of The South Pacific and left because I was the odd man out on any issue. That just gets frustrating after a while. But times change and so do we.
The South Pacific of today is a different political beast entirely and I think one of the ideas that the "vanguard" of Kringle, Glen-Rhodes and others have brought to the table is that the old extreme, hard-core "interest-based" outlook needs to be softened to reflect the full range of our priorities and concerns. A more inclusive, holistic and balanced approach. Our interests are important. But so is our culture, our values and our international reception. Decision-making under the latest Escade and Kringle regimes have been a lot more reasonable and balanced, in my opinion. In 2012, I found a lot of the decisions of those prior administrations were based on a kind of "bottom line", which took TSP away from being the party region its always wanted to be and made it something else. Something more, warring and political. That's a direction I felt out of touch with, especially as a defender it made it harder to feel comfortable as a citizen here, but we're not heading in that direction anymore.
So I, too, have a similar question to what was asked of Bels. You've shown yourself to be quite an apt court justice, which position do you think your talents align with better -- CoA or CJ?
Second, to be quite blunt, many of the repeated arguments from the Assembly have come about in the form of R/D debate, of which you've been an intricate part. How do you plan to keep the Assembly on track when the legislation doesn't match your point of view?
-tsunamy
[forum admin] Quote:So I, too, have a similar question to what was asked of Bels. You've shown yourself to be quite an apt court justice, which position do you think your talents align with better -- CoA or CJ? I think I'll do well at both, but my time as Chief Justice is nearing its end anyways. There are different skill-sets required though, as Chief Justice it's about interpreting, whereas as Chair, you're working with active legislation - it's about overseeing the legislative process and organizing the Assembly. Three terms is a bit much for a Justice, although I would have done it if there weren't the candidates needed, stepping up. Quote:Many of the repeated arguments from the Assembly have come about in the form of R/D debate, of which you've been an intricate part. How do you plan to keep the Assembly on track when the legislation doesn't match your point of view? There's nothing wrong with repeated arguments per se, since we are a democracy and it's clear that the current status quo on Military Gameplay has left some unresolved conflict which is stressing the political community at its seams. A gag-rule on the subject really isn't an option and would make things worse. As I've stated in the platform, I think it's best to direct the topics towards the text, direct things to votes if they're finished products and if needed, split topics.
How do you plan on balancing your position as Delegate of TRR and your duties as Chair of the Assembly? Being a Justice is very different from being an elected official in political office!
By being extremely active everywhere. I'm Unibot.
Honestly, I believe I have a strong track-record in NS of not ever going inactive as a public official. I wouldn't do that The South Pacific.
I would not appoint a Deputy - I can accomplish the duties of Chair comfortably without a Deputy and I think our departments likely need these able-bodied players more than I would for staff and assistants.
(07-19-2014, 06:06 PM)Unibot Wrote:Quote:Many of the repeated arguments from the Assembly have come about in the form of R/D debate, of which you've been an intricate part. How do you plan to keep the Assembly on track when the legislation doesn't match your point of view? Perhaps I wasn't direct enough. I'm not suggesting that these debates shouldn't happen. I'm suggesting that you (1) often spark these debates and (2) don't know when to quit these debates. As someone who has historically been quite divisive in Assembly discussions, do you think this would be a hindrance in the role? Likewise, do you think you'll be able to be objective and move the Assembly in directions you might not agree with?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I'm not sure I understand the question, there's a lot of hypotheticals there. I wouldn't be pursuing the job if I didn't think I could stand as an objective public official, yes. Likewise, I wouldn't have stood as a Justice if I didn't think I could serve as an objective public official.
I have often been divisive yes, but I also understand what it's like to be passionate about something in the Assembly and be caught in that forum fight with so and so. The strategies I've outlined in my platform are strategies I wished had been implemented previously by other Chairs, regardless of whether I was on the "AYE" or "NAY" side of a debate. The length of time from the text's formalization to its vote should in general be shorten from what we've seen in recent months (even years) - debates rarely continue to rage after votes begin. Splitting topics should be favored over locks. Positive feeding to the conversations work better than sanctions. All of these strategies are just observations I've noticed over the years from different speakers and I look forward to having the opportunity to implement them here on an objective basis to mitigate the circular back and forth that we see in the Assembly. Just tonight, I spoke with one of our citizens who told me that he was reducing the time he was spending in The South Pacific because of the "constant bickering" in our Assembly and I think that prefaces just how vitally important it is for the next Chair to direct the Assembly towards an environment where good ideas are nurtured and a genuine exchange of beliefs can inspire compromises that better our region in the long run. A place where people want to participate, not a place that they want to run away from! |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |