Tsu, MoRA is elected by the Assembly, which is literally the entire community here. Their incentives are to do things the Assembly likes. There is no perverse incentive to demand a complete transformation of power and government away from the forum community.

You’re homing in on the treaty hypothetical as if the argument is “Ministers should only participate in Cabinet things relevant to their ministry” and not “The entire role of the new Minister is to advocate for a completely separate branch of government, and that can create a perverse incentive to foment conflict over that branch’s powers as a way to show they’re advocating, because there’s no other meaningful way to advocate for people who have said they have no real interest in what happens here.”

(This post was last modified: 06-08-2020, 12:30 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Tsu, MoRA is elected by the Assembly, which is literally the entire community here. Their incentives are to do things the Assembly likes. There is no perverse incentive to demand a complete transformation of power and government away from the forum community.

You’re homing in on the treaty hypothetical as if the argument is “Ministers should only participate in Cabinet things relevant to their ministry” and not “The entire role of the new Minister is to advocate for a completely separate branch of government, and that can create a perverse incentive to foment conflict over that branch’s powers as a way to show they’re advocating, because there’s no other meaningful way to advocate for people who have said they have no real interest in what happens here.”

I mean, I intended my point more broadly was that the Cabinet rarely needs to act as a unified body.

Tbh, I have a problem with this debate because we're talking about incentives and hypotheticals. While I understand what you're saying the "incentive" you're talking about is pretty much non-existent because they are elected to be a member of the Local Council, first and foremost, and not the be a Cabinet minister. Not to mention, it reads ill-intent to RMB nations and come uncomfortably close to cries of "how much power are we going to give away!" that were derided in other threads.

That said — if we think through the practicalities I'm inclined to agree with you on the necessity of it.

Some things like the Cabinet is tasked with doing — like nominating people to the LegComm — have nothing to do with the the gameside. And, I think there could be a not insignificant security risk introduced.

I'll refer back to be previous suggestion (for all involved); what if we allowed the LC to have a liaison designated to the Cabinet rather than to the Assembly? We already have Cabinet advisors so this wouldn't be much different.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I think that's a better idea overall, not least because then we don't get another spuriousb if the word 'affairs' in cabinet.

#KeepAffairsOutOfTSPolitics

No, seriously, it's a much more practical solution.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

I take the general view that we should be using improved game mechanics to move our government functions in-game where possible, not creating new positions to make use of them. My view of the forums and other off-site assets (ie; Discord) is similar to Tsu's, as necessary tools that the region developed to allow effective governance, not as something separate from the in-game region itself.

I'm not sure exactly what a "Minister of Home Affairs" is actually meant to do, and that's the big reason why I oppose creating one. I don't accept the argument that we need a member of the Cabinet there to represent the in-game region, as all Cabinet members represent the in-game region and are elected by those members of the region who have chosen to directly participate in our political and governance institutions. The Local Council have a specific role in our government relating to the management of the in-game region and in particular the RMB, and I don't think that the LC should be shoehorned into the Cabinet when these government roles are distinct.

I think we have shown over the last few years that we can conduct in-game elections very effectively, both in terms of the LC elections themselves and the in-game stage of the Delegate election. Creating a Cabinet role to "represent" the in-game region would be a backwards step, when what we should actually be discussing is whether or not we are ready to move more elections - the one for Prime Minister, for example - to the same system we use for the Delegacy. Our ultimate objective should (in my opinion) be to conduct all votes in-game via NationStates own mechanics, but this requires the ability to run multiple polls at the same time which admin has never shown any interest in adopting.

That's my my two-pennies worth; as I said, completely at odds with Glen's argument (as we fundamentally disagree on the nature of the relationship between the in-game region and off-site assets) but in agreement that this is a bad idea.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

Reading over this discussion, I think I've come to the conclusion that the proposal as it stands isn't a great idea as well. A potential slot for a Cabinet advisor doesn't seem unreasonable; I think that's actually what I originally had in mind for this proposal.

I disagree with a lot of Glen's arguments -- they imply a Cabinet that's basically all FA/GP-focused and make a pretty unrealistic slippery slope claim -- but the conclusion makes sense. Belschaft's reasoning makes a lot of sense to me, and I too would be interested in moving all elections and as much of the government as possible gameside if that were ever feasible. But I suppose that's a discussion for another time and place.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

Reply

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!"

Holy shit Bel & Glen agree on something, they must be right!

Admiral General of the South Pacific

Reply

To go forward with this, if the LC really wants to and has a real plan for implementing it, we could alter the Charter so that the representative is for "the Assembly and the Cabinet." What that role does would still be up to the Assembly and the Cabinet. I would caution Cabinets to not fall into a trap of seeking LC opinion on everything. But if there's a desire to codify an advisory role, I don't see the harm. The Cabinet could already be doing it, if they wanted to. The advisory role doesn't have the built-in perverse incentives I think a full-on minister does, since advisors don't vote and aren't typically included in every discussion.

I just question if the LC is actually interested and would follow through.

Reply

After much thought and consideration, I don't think I will be moving forward with the revised bill and possibly move forward with Glen's idea of an advisor instead of a minister.

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

My History

Reply