Users browsing this thread:

**Jay Coop** · 06-06-2020, 10:06 PM

I have prepared a revised bill with LegComm checks and advising everyone to vote against the bill that is currently in the voting chamber. Once the vote ends, I will motion to waive the two-week restriction imposed by Article 1, Section 7 of the Legislative Procedure Act so we can vote on this revised bill.

Amendment to the Charter

Addendum 1 (Amendment to the Elections Act)

Addendum 2 (Amendment to the Regional Officers Act)

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 06-07-2020, 03:45 AM by Jay Coop.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 06-07-2020, 12:46 AM

When you say that LegComm may find an appointee to be a "security risk", what does that mean? Does that replace the security assessment that the CSS may conduct for legislator applicants? If so, would the CSS have a role to play in this new process?

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

**Jay Coop** · 06-07-2020, 02:49 AM

(06-07-2020, 12:46 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: When you say that LegComm may find an appointee to be a "security risk", what does that mean? Does that replace the security assessment that the CSS may conduct for legislator applicants? If so, would the CSS have a role to play in this new process?

I have rewritten the amendment to the Legislator Committee Act and hope it satisfies your concerns.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

***Roavin*** · 06-07-2020, 03:29 AM

I don't think it's strictly necessary to explicitly include this within the LegComm Act. It could instead be done by adding to the Elections Act that the MoHA must either be a Legislator or must be found to be eligble for Legislator status as determined by the Legislator Committee. That implicitly includes all the checks that LegComm and CRS do anyway.

**Jay Coop** · 06-07-2020, 03:46 AM

(06-07-2020, 03:29 AM)Roavin Wrote: I don't think it's strictly necessary to explicitly include this within the LegComm Act. It could instead be done by adding to the Elections Act that the MoHA must either be a Legislator or must be found to be eligble for Legislator status as determined by the Legislator Committee. That implicitly includes all the checks that LegComm and CRS do anyway.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense than what I wrote and I have revised the bill accordingly.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

***sandaoguo*** · 06-07-2020, 07:07 PM

I'm honestly wholly opposed to the idea, as it's one step further towards destroying the purpose of the Local Council. What function, exactly, is this Minister supposed to serve that isn't already served? Why is the Local Council being given a voice in the Cabinet, but the Cabinet not given a voice within the Local Council?

People have a tendency to view the Local Council as oppressed and lesser, and they come up with ideas like this to make the LC "more equal" or whatever. That's wrong and it really betrays an ignorance of what the LC was created to do. It's a home governance body-- and the Cabinet is not it's "home." This ministry would blur the lines between the RMB's home governance and the forum's Cabinet, weakening both in the process.

First of all, any Minister of Home Affairs is going to end up far more concerned with traditional Cabinet duties and intrigue than they are with the RMB and its interests (to whatever extent the RMB has any consensus "interests"). The Cabinet doesn't do things that are relevant to the RMB and that's by design, otherwise there would be no purpose for the LC. But this would be a full Minister, voting on all matters and being involved in all discussions. 99% of their time is going to be consumed with internal political crises on these forums, NSGP drama, treaty negotiations with other regions, and all sorts of other things that do not actually have anything to do with being an "advocate of the gameside community." In reality, this is basically going to be a Minister Without Portfolio-- someone with the full powers of a Cabinet post with little to no real responsibilities or expectations. After all, the Local Council itself is going to continue governing the gameside. "Advocacy" is not a real job, especially on things that the RMB has proven time and time again that it doesn't care about (the aforementioned 99% of what the Cabinet does).

Second, this region's experience with this kind of "advocate" position is entirely negative. The Local Council originally had a representative with some serious voting power, in a folly attempt to exactly what this bill is trying to do. What happened with that? The only person to ever hold the title was an outcast old guard forumite who decided to use the platform to agitate for more power for the LC, which meant more power for him. The incentives of this position -- "advocating" for the gameside -- are perverse in this way. The RMB doesn't actually have much, if any, interest in the type of game that's played on the forums. They've said that so many times, yet we keep... not believing them. So in terms of advocacy, it's not like there's some concrete policy interests in the field of Foreign Affairs, eg, that this Minister is going to be representing. The LC just doesn't do that kind of gameplay. (After all, the CRS just rescinded an LC nominee for the stated reason that don't "fit in", by their own admission.) So what is there left to actually advocate? Power. When this ministry isn't basically just a Minister Without Portfolio, held by someone who will inevitably end up looking a lot more like a traditional forumite than a true blue RMBer, it's going to be used to advocate for power for the gameside. That's been disastrous every time it's happened in this region. It's a combative negative position by default-- someone advocating for power that the forum has been withholding. It's a position that, by default, views forum-based governance as the enemy, because where power exists on the forum, it's not existing on the gameside, and this minister's whole job is to advocate for the gameside.

So yeah, this truly looks like a ministry that will just be a powderkeg waiting to ignite. Not a good idea.

(This post was last modified: 06-07-2020, 07:10 PM by sandaoguo.)

***Tsunamy*** · 06-08-2020, 10:35 AM

(06-07-2020, 07:07 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I'm honestly wholly opposed to the idea, as it's one step further towards destroying the purpose of the Local Council. What function, exactly, is this Minister supposed to serve that isn't already served? Why is the Local Council being given a voice in the Cabinet, but the Cabinet not given a voice within the Local Council?

People have a tendency to view the Local Council as oppressed and lesser, and they come up with ideas like this to make the LC "more equal" or whatever. That's wrong and it really betrays an ignorance of what the LC was created to do. It's a home governance body-- and the Cabinet is not it's "home." This ministry would blur the lines between the RMB's home governance and the forum's Cabinet, weakening both in the process.

First of all, any Minister of Home Affairs is going to end up far more concerned with traditional Cabinet duties and intrigue than they are with the RMB and its interests (to whatever extent the RMB has any consensus "interests"). The Cabinet doesn't do things that are relevant to the RMB and that's by design, otherwise there would be no purpose for the LC. But this would be a full Minister, voting on all matters and being involved in all discussions. 99% of their time is going to be consumed with internal political crises on these forums, NSGP drama, treaty negotiations with other regions, and all sorts of other things that do not actually have anything to do with being an "advocate of the gameside community." In reality, this is basically going to be a Minister Without Portfolio-- someone with the full powers of a Cabinet post with little to no real responsibilities or expectations. After all, the Local Council itself is going to continue governing the gameside. "Advocacy" is not a real job, especially on things that the RMB has proven time and time again that it doesn't care about (the aforementioned 99% of what the Cabinet does).

Second, this region's experience with this kind of "advocate" position is entirely negative. The Local Council originally had a representative with some serious voting power, in a folly attempt to exactly what this bill is trying to do. What happened with that? The only person to ever hold the title was an outcast old guard forumite who decided to use the platform to agitate for more power for the LC, which meant more power for him. The incentives of this position -- "advocating" for the gameside -- are perverse in this way. The RMB doesn't actually have much, if any, interest in the type of game that's played on the forums. They've said that so many times, yet we keep... not believing them. So in terms of advocacy, it's not like there's some concrete policy interests in the field of Foreign Affairs, eg, that this Minister is going to be representing. The LC just doesn't do that kind of gameplay. (After all, the CRS just rescinded an LC nominee for the stated reason that don't "fit in", by their own admission.) So what is there left to actually advocate? Power. When this ministry isn't basically just a Minister Without Portfolio, held by someone who will inevitably end up looking a lot more like a traditional forumite than a true blue RMBer, it's going to be used to advocate for power for the gameside. That's been disastrous every time it's happened in this region. It's a combative negative position by default-- someone advocating for power that the forum has been withholding. It's a position that, by default, views forum-based governance as the enemy, because where power exists on the forum, it's not existing on the gameside, and this minister's whole job is to advocate for the gameside.

So yeah, this truly looks like a ministry that will just be a powderkeg waiting to ignite. Not a good idea.

Sure Glen, but you're viewing this in singularity and not in the larger discussions we've been having in the the region. Imo, this isn't really a separate from the discussions of breaking apart of the RA, and this minister would (ideally) help with integration and activity efforts. Or, at the very least, be able to coordinate with the LC on RA initiatives.

While I agree giving the LC voting power in the Assembly wasn't a success, this is a different beast because the HA minister would essentially just be in contact with the PM and other members of the Cabinet. Rather than trying to be like "Who's on the LC? How do we get in touch with them? etc." (as has recently happened when we were trying to save a GP region), we'd have a contact person. The "Cabinet" also has pretty limited power so I'm not sure what exactly we're expecting them to "influence"?

I also take a bit of an issue with the framing that this is somehow based on the premise that the RMB is trying to wrestle power from the forum. Again, we need to get nations involved in the offsite and we've been seeing a lack of participation from not doing so.

While I'm with you that I don't know if the RMB active nations want this — when I did discuss it with them, it got pretty significant pushback — but they would have to approve such a change and could veto it if they are uninterested.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***sandaoguo*** · 06-08-2020, 11:45 AM

I’m on my phone and taking a short break from work, so I may have more to write later.

I’m not framing this as the RMB demanding more power. I’m saying that the entire incentive structure of a position like this is for the person in the position to default to that— because there isn’t actually anything else to do to “advocate for the gameside.”

It’s telling that the entire debate thus far hasn’t ever imagined what that advocacy would be in practical terms. Take some previous Cabinet debate and vote ask what interests of the gameside would be represented in that vote and how exactly would this minister have represented them. I think the general conclusion you’d reach in 90% of what the Cabinet does is... there isn’t any real policy interest to advance.

If the Cabinet is debating a treaty, what is this minister advocating for in that debate? What RMB-specific interest is there for that matter? In-game embassy and cross-posting, I guess. We need a whole minister for that? No. More likely, this minister is going to feel the need to show the LC that they’re “advocating” in some way, and the easiest way to do that is... to say the LC (and thus RMB) should get a say in the debate and the vote. This minister is going to feel the need to consult with the LC on the Cabinet vote, of course, because otherwise you aren’t really giving them a say. So now because we’ve created a Cabinet post for the sole purpose of “advocating for the gameside,” and there isn’t any other real/meaningful way to *do* that, we’ve reached the point where a treaty needs to be approved by the LC. How will the LC decide whether or not give their approval? Probably polling RMBers, since that’s what they’ve always done.

That’s how the incentive structure of this ministry will work. And with that will come debates and arguments about whether or not that’s good for the region. Except those won’t be fair debates, because we already went and created a position special for the LC and gameside, and that position has real power that we wouldn’t be able to take away or reform without lighting the fuse on another bomb of “oppressing the gameside.”

That’s not some fantastical scenario.

And then on the flip side, if the minister isn’t doing any of that... what are they advocating for? What is their purpose? The Minister gets elected/chosen to be an advocate, but never consults with the gameside on the Cabinet votes the minister casts? That’s my other point— the position just becomes a Minister Without Portfolio that looks way more like a traditional forumite than an RMBer advocate.

If what you want is a liaison, there’s absolutely no reason to create a new ministry. The LC already has the power to send a representative!

(This post was last modified: 06-08-2020, 11:54 AM by sandaoguo.)

***Tsunamy*** · 06-08-2020, 12:12 PM

(I'm going to edit my piece because Glen edited his.)

Right now the LC has the ability to send a representative to the Assembly.

What if we just made this that the LC could send a liaison to the Cabinet, instead?

That would seemingly get at the desirable points without the pitfalls of giving this a name in line with the ministry.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 06-08-2020, 12:29 PM by Tsunamy.)

**Belschaft** · 06-08-2020, 12:13 PM

Whilst I object to being characterised as an "outcast old guard forumite" and disagree with pretty much the entirety of Glen's argument, I do agree with his conclusion that this is a bad idea.

I believe the traditional response is for people to go "Holy shit Bel & Glen agree on something, they must br right!"

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES