There’s obviously a third option, which is to maintain the current language which clearly prohibits someone from being TSP Minister of Foreign Affairs and TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs whilst possibly prohibiting someone from being TSP Minister of Foreign Affairs and TNP Delegate.

Vagueness is not always a vice when it comes to the law.

I think at the very least the current law should be extended to a definitive prohibition on simultaneously holding a cabinet office and a non-figurehead head of state/government position in another region. Especially in regions without elected cabinets where all cabinet authority is derived from the Head of Government like TNP. Frankly I think that cabinet officials should also be required to commit their WA to either the region proper or the SPSF as well, but I expect there would be resistance to that idea.

Benevolent Thomas-Today at 11:15 AM
"I'm not sure if Altmoras has ever been wrong about anything."

(This post was last modified: 05-19-2021, 08:32 PM by Altmoras.)

Reply

Obvious Disclaimer

I'm a leading member and founder of The League and involved in a lot of its affairs (though trying to step back in most). That said, I'm here to function as a South Pacifican Legislator so I will do my best to answer this issue and any future ones before the Assembly from a purely South Pacifican regionalist perspective. Happy to be here!

I'm opposed to removing this regulation from the Elections Act. While Purple Hyacinth does make some fair points, particularly the following, which I found most compelling of her post,

It's up to voters to determine whether people's positions in other regions are CoIs or not. I think that voters should have the ultimate choice, rather than restricting potentially qualified candidates not being able to run because of their position in another region.

I think that the ability of the voters to decide if someone is adequately qualified for office is also vested in the authority of the Assembly to pass such regulations on who may hold office. It is, in my opinion, simply a more indirect exercise of that mandate.

Whether I would support a more restrictive measure as suggested by HumanSanity would be conditional on what specific form that would take, though I agree with his general argument that most positions, even if adjacent, would represent a conflict of interest while holding a high-level position in the South Pacific, especially those at the Delegate and Cabinet levels.

New Quebecshire,
Full Player Résumé
Discord: Cubic#1608

Reply

I've been hesitant to drop in because I didn't have much of an opinion on this issue other than maintaining the status quo, but I don't think it's an issue if our MoFA was a MoC in another region or vice versa. However, I do think that we should not allow an incumbent foreign head of government to serve in TSP's most vital positions as it pertains to FA. For example, TNP's delegate should not concurrently serve as PM or MoFA here. That is an inherent conflict of interest. If TNP's delegate was also serving as our MoE, I think that's permissible, but not in areas where they have direct influence over foreign affairs.

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

My History

(This post was last modified: 05-19-2021, 09:00 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

However, I do think that we should not allow an incumbent foreign head of government to serve in TSP's most vital positions as it pertains to FA. For example, TNP's delegate should not concurrently serve as PM or MoFA here. That is an inherent conflict of interest. If TNP's delegate was also serving as our MoE, I think that's permissible, but not in areas where they have direct influence over foreign affairs.

In the specific example of TNP or a region with the same type of government I think that having the Head of Government be our MoE should be illegal under the spirit of the current law. TNP's MoE equivalent (The Minister of Home Affairs) is directed in their duties by the delegate and serves at the delegate's pleasure. So in that example TNP's delegate would have ultimate authority over engagement in both regions.

Hence why I'd like to see the law strengthened to something similar to this at minimum.

(5) No person holding a Cabinet office or the office of the Delegate may hold authority over any equivalent office in a foreign region or organisation.

Benevolent Thomas-Today at 11:15 AM
"I'm not sure if Altmoras has ever been wrong about anything."

Reply

On the topic of HS's proposed amendment, are we really going to restrict individuals to one region, potentially against their wishes? The amendment proposed seems to do exactly that and I'm not exactly comfortable about it. If an individual decides to dedicate themselves in two or more regions and shows a clear ability to juggle their conflicts of interests effectively, then why should we bar them from running for an office? Some of our greatest Ministers were involved in other regions as well and they have significantly contributed to the betterment of TSP. Why shouldn't new, eager players shouldn't be given the same chance as well?

My proposed amendment doesn't restrict individuals to one region. It restricts them to serving in government of one region at a time.

I don't know how one would show a "clear ability to juggle conflicts of interests effectively" because conflicts of interest and the ways they implicate things are often obscured behind closed doors. Cabinet-sensitive information in TSP being shared in a highly sensitive area of another region wouldn't be known to anyone in TSP besides the person with the conflict of interest. Even if information is not shared (since most people check themselves against such extreme breaches of trust), it can implicate decision making on a variety of issues. Further, this relates to the concern I initially raised which is that democratic/by the voters judgement of conflicts of interest simply does not work. It inevitably becomes personal and confrontational to say that Minister A has a conflict of interest in Region Z, and therefore conflicts of interest fester, especially since proving them is exceptionally difficult as it would require access to the individual in question's DMs, private/secure chats of another government, and just the contents of the individual's brain.

Frankly I think that cabinet officials should also be required to commit their WA to either the region proper or the SPSF as well, but I expect there would be resistance to that idea.

Personally, think that's a great compromise and/or additional proposal. A slightly different question, but asking that a region you're a leader of be your primary region shouldn't be too much to ask.
  

I've been hesitant to drop in because I didn't have much of an opinion on this issue other than maintaining the status quo, but I don't think it's an issue if our MoFA was a MoC in another region or vice versa. However, I do think that we should not allow an incumbent foreign head of government to serve in TSP's most vital positions as it pertains to FA. For example, TNP's delegate should not concurrently serve as PM or MoFA here. That is an inherent conflict of interest. If TNP's delegate was also serving as our MoE, I think that's permissible, but not in areas where they have direct influence over foreign affairs.

This is going to be a ramble, but I think you underestimate the potential for conflicts of interest. Consider, for example, that our MoFA was MoC in Europeia. Europeia might host a cultural event with TBH, which is valid, they're on good terms. It definitely undercuts the sincerity of the fact we consider TBH to be a threat to our security, as evidenced by the full proscription of TBH, if our MoFA is also helping another region cozy up with them. Similarly, last term we saw the entire Cabinet of TNP undersign a statement insulting TSP. Would we want a member of our Cabinet in that room, even if in a supposedly "unrelated" office? Can someone honestly serve as Vizier of FA in Osiris, a raider region (albeit one we have detente with), and MoD in TSP? Or even MoC, since cultural activities ultimately generate activity for either the SPSF or the Sekhmet Legion, which are on opposing sides 95 of 100 times? Even between our closest allies, we have differences that come out at the margins, for example the fact TRR's and XKI's relationship with the NPO and our's are in quite different places despite those being probably our 2 closest allies. I'm not trying to dreg up old fights, just demonstrate that conflicts of interest are everywhere and that's why we should be separating them out. Additionally, while I don't have understanding of internal Cabinet norms, lots of FA/external sensitive decisions seem to legally require full Cabinet deliberation based on my skim of TSP law--e.g. the authority to submit a treaty for Assembly ratification (Charter VI(12)), issue executive orders which can have internal or external remit (Charter VI(16)), the authority to authorize annexation of a region (Charter X(3)), and proscriptions (the Proscription Act). I don't think we should be comfortable with an MoC/MoE/MoM of TSP who is also an MoD/MoFA elsewhere when they have input into fairly weighty FA/security decisions.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Personally, think that's a great compromise and/or additional proposal. A slightly different question, but asking that a region you're a leader of be your primary region shouldn't be too much to ask.

Yeah I think it's a perfectly reasonable ask. If you aren't willing to commit your WA to TSP are you really willing to dedicate the requisite effort to being a cabinet official. You might have edge cases where someone like The Stalker who could probably serve well if interested wouldn't be able to, but in 99.99% of cases requiring a relatively basic level of commitment to the region shouldn't be an onerous request.

I wouldn't mind something like this.

(6) Members of the Cabinet must maintain a World Assembly nation either within the South Pacific proper, or on official deployment with the South Pacific Special Forces for the duration of their term.

Benevolent Thomas-Today at 11:15 AM
"I'm not sure if Altmoras has ever been wrong about anything."

Reply

Finally, I'm at my computer again! Been wanting to catch up on this thread all day...

Hence why I'd like to see the law strengthened to something similar to this at minimum.

(5) No person holding a Cabinet office or the office of the Delegate may hold authority over any equivalent office in a foreign region or organisation.

I would support this entirely, or something worded differently but to the same effect.
 

Personally, think that's a great compromise and/or additional proposal. A slightly different question, but asking that a region you're a leader of be your primary region shouldn't be too much to ask.

Yeah, I concur on this. I'd love to see a proposal that requires WA membership or SPSF Tsunami Force (maybe Tidal, but I'm leaning Tsunami) for high offices. Defining that on the spot, I support it for the Local Council and Cabinet (Delegacy and CRS already require WA, so that would be a moot addition). 

This is going to be a ramble, but I think you underestimate the potential for conflicts of interest. Consider, for example, that our MoFA was MoC in Europeia. Europeia might host a cultural event with TBH, which is valid, they're on good terms. It definitely undercuts the sincerity of the fact we consider TBH to be a threat to our security, as evidenced by the full proscription of TBH, if our MoFA is also helping another region cozy up with them. Similarly, last term we saw the entire Cabinet of TNP undersign a statement insulting TSP. Would we want a member of our Cabinet in that room, even if in a supposedly "unrelated" office?

Because of this and the things you argued towards the end of your post, I would support broadening the definition of "equivalent office" to mean any cabinet-level or higher position in a foreign region. In some cases, often relating to the execution of executive power and major foreign policy, cabinets and cabinet-type bodies function as a unit advising the main executive or authorizing major initiatives. Even positions of two different department types could have a similar influence in these regards, and that still represents a conflict of interest.

Can someone honestly serve as Vizier of FA in Osiris, a raider region (albeit one we have detente with), and MoD in TSP? Or even MoC, since cultural activities ultimately generate activity for either the SPSF or the Sekhmet Legion, which are on opposing sides 95 of 100 times?

This isn't a huge point, but I think it's worth noting: Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but wouldn't that 5 out of 100 times really only be antifascist operations? Which are undoubtedly important, but antifascism on the site is thankfully so universal that it's either viewed as an out-of-character problem or with enough hostility that anyone will come together to beat it up regardless of FA and general military alignment (source: TITO and SPSF participated in the Genua raid alongside LWU and TBH, or were at least both involved). So for all intents and purposes, I'd consider our in-character and in-game interests entirely opposed to that of the Sekhmet and similar organizations.

New Quebecshire,
Full Player Résumé
Discord: Cubic#1608

Reply

Hmm. It's more democratic because the voters can vote people with big CoI's out, but being say MoFA here and MoFA somewhere else might be problematic.

MoC or MoE conflict of interests aren't really as problematic anyway, so those I wouldn't mind removing that restriction.

Local Councilroar.

Selfie

(This post was last modified: 05-20-2021, 09:37 PM by Apatosaurus.)

Reply

Yeah I think it's a perfectly reasonable ask. If you aren't willing to commit your WA to TSP are you really willing to dedicate the requisite effort to being a cabinet official.

I don't agree with that line of thinking. While keeping your WA in the region could possibly imply a greater level of commitment, keeping a WA elsewhere doesn't necessarily imply a lack of commitment. People can have their own goals or involvements elsewhere, people could simply prefer to keep their WA elsewhere, or even not be in the WA at all. If the candidate has no clear conflicts of interest and has a proven record of working honestly and diligently in whatever ministry they are running for, why should it matter where they keep their WA?

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

There’s obviously a third option, which is to maintain the current language which clearly prohibits someone from being TSP Minister of Foreign Affairs and TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs whilst possibly prohibiting someone from being TSP Minister of Foreign Affairs and TNP Delegate.

Vagueness is not always a vice when it comes to the law.

Sure, but do you consider being a Minister of Culture in TNP (or TRR or the NPO or XKI or Spiritus or ... literally anywhere) and a Minister of Foreign Affairs in TSP to be a Conflict of Interest? I certainly do. But it's pretty clearly not covered by the current law. Hence my order of preference: 1) Stricter Law; 2) Status Quo; 3) Hya's proposal

I do not. I see an issue with same responsibility positions. I believe Belshaft's assertion is the correct one. The worst scenario we will have is a person will use both those positions to pursue a same agenda in both regions. Belshaft's additional mention of Delegate can sometimes apply.

MoFA in TSP and Officer of Culture is not a path to pursue a same agenda. Well unless your agenda is to enforce culture via FA lol.

At the best scenario, it's as I said earlier in the thread, it will breed laziness and lack of creativity.

There's zero reason to lessen current restrictions, and it's my personal belief making them much more restrictive is a dumb idea.

Reply