Users browsing this thread:

Purple Hyacinth · 05-15-2021, 03:13 PM

Elections Act
...

7. Separation of Powers

...

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

Disclaimer, if it is not clear already: I am introducing this in my capacity as a legislator, not in my capacity as the Chair.

There are a few reasons why I am in favor of this change:

Delegates obviously can't be Delegates in other regions, per game rules on WA-multing
This will restrict people in positions that aren't necessarily a conflict of interest. For example, if I was Minister of Engagement in TSP and Outreach Officer in TRR (which are somewhat equivalent positions I suppose?), I don't see how this would consitute a CoI any more than being MoE in TSP and Culture Officer in TRR (which is allowed under under this clause).
This doesn't really restrict a lot of roles that could be conflicts of interest. The scope of this would be limited to someone who is, say, MoFA in TSP and MoFA in another region. But what about being, say, a Delegate of Balder while being MoFA in TSP? Or PM of TSP but the Minister of Defense of TNP? These are clear conflicts of interest, and while the examples I gave are highly unlikely, it goes to show that there are many more conflicting position combinations that aren't illegal than are illegal.
- "Equivalent positions" are pretty ambiguous anyway. Often, positions in different regions may have different names, or slightly different roles. It's potentially setting itself up for a High Court debacle. For example, what if a region's FA is solely run by their Prime Minister? Would that be considered an "equivalent position" to MoFA in TSP?
Existing law requiring conflict of interest disclosures in campaigns is sufficient to prevent any potential CoIs. 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.

What do you all think?

I have been things

**HumanSanity** · 05-15-2021, 06:00 PM

I'm opposed to repealing this and could possibly be in favor of strengthening it with more clear language and broader applicability. Having a Cabinet-level position in TSP while also having a Cabinet-level or head of state/government position in another gameplay-relevant region is absolutely a conflict of interest, no matter how closely the region is aligned with TSP and no matter how seemingly irrelevant the positions are to interregional politics. Culture Officers/Ministers build activity, activity is used in raids or defenses, cultural activities are also used to boost Foreign Affairs, media publications are used to articulate gameplay ideologies, RMB activity drives up Delegate endorsements which are used in ideological/political SC fights, etc. Everything is interrelated and involvement at a high level in another region with meaningful foreign affairs objectives is a conflict of interest, even if we're on the same side generally as that region or agree on most things. This is not to mention the inevitable challenges individuals face of limited time/energy to pursue projects.

Granted, probably not a popular opinion given it goes against established customs and rules, but nevertheless my honest assessment of how conflicts of interest work in this game. As a result, despite your arguments about ambiguity, I'd also oppose any effort to eliminate one of the only safeguards against conflicts of interest even if it is ambiguous or imperfect.

(05-15-2021, 03:13 PM)Purple Hyacinth Wrote: This will restrict people in positions that aren't necessarily a conflict of interest. For example, if I was Minister of Engagement in TSP and Outreach Officer in TRR (which are somewhat equivalent positions I suppose?), I don't see how this would consitute a CoI any more than being MoE in TSP and Culture Officer in TRR (which is allowed under under this clause).

I mean, I think your example is a conflict of interest. In terms of the positions themselves, there is limited time/resources a person has to contribute to a region. While the regions are aligned, they're not always going to agree. Projects required in each are different but work can be reduplicated for each. Where someone's priority goes in terms of implementation. Whether it's important for TSP purposes to have a project exclusively hosted to TSP or shared. Etc. There are many minor ways the positions can conflict. This is not to mention the collective decision making structure found in most NS governments where both would have some knowledge/input into sensitive foreign affairs discussions which may involve moments of tension or divergent beliefs with the government of TSP.

As to your point that the current language would make MoE/Culture Officer not a conflict: that's probably true. That's a reason to strengthen the language rather than weaken it. This idea also applies to the next two bullet points.

(05-15-2021, 03:13 PM)Purple Hyacinth Wrote: Existing law requiring conflict of interest disclosures in campaigns is sufficient to prevent any potential CoIs. 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 don't think this system works. When you have a uniform conflict of interest law that establishes clear rules and procedures then they'll actually be enforced. It's a question of institutional credibility rather than individual credibility. To say "I don't think you can separate your conflicts of interest" is to leverage a specific attack on another individual's credibility, which can be interpreted personally (thereby creating substantial stigma around a laudable effort to safeguard the interests of the region) and creates such a high burden of proof that you are unlikely ever to reach it without access to that individual's DM inbox and secure channels of another region or sometimes even just the inner workings of their mind. Even if there were past incidents whcih did prove someone was unable to navigate a conflict of interest, that can often be waved away with reference to their recent good works. Establishing clear conflict of interest laws is about forwarding a model to preserve the integrity of the institutions of the region without needing to make such determinations questions about the individual integrity of legislators.

As to whether it restricts potentially qualified candidates, it may, but then it will encourage a greater sense of loyalty and help keep TSP talent in TSP, since using talent to build TSP will be rewarded. Offices are both jobs to be performed and opportunities for growth, and I'd rather the opportunity for growth go to someone with long-term investment in TSP.

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

[Image: rank_general.min.svg]

Damination · 05-15-2021, 07:22 PM

I agree with HS. It promotes laziness and lack of creativity. Which we always risk the same problem with an individual and a single position. I've seen a person be MoC in two regions and do the same things in both. That's literally laziness and lack of creativity, despite being better than nothing at all.

Tishers [Nyxonia] · 05-15-2021, 07:40 PM

There should be full disclosure by anyone running for or holding office within TSP. Retaining any sort of membership or leadership in the government of another region has the potential for a conflict-of-interest.

That we are at peace with that other region can be just as problematic; Maybe sometimes we shouldn't be in lockstep with that other region. After all, we are all in different regions with different histories, different objectives and maybe different goals.

If someone is holding an office in TSP and then takes up a role in a different region then they may be subject to a formal review and either a recall or special election to serve out the remainder of their term.

Tisha
Minister of Engagement
Legislator
Coral Guard
Ambassador to South Pacific region
OWL senior staff

Tishers ?☢ [Nyxonia]

LEDA #1 June, July, August, September 2021
COB #10 April, May 2021
Wingspan #10 August, September 2021

"I am an endorsin fool"

**Belschaft** · 05-17-2021, 11:57 AM

I'm entirely in agreement with HS; when I proposed this part of the law I originally wanted it to be stronger and the current language - with all it's flaws and room for interpretation - was the eventual compromise between those of us who wanted stronger restrictions and those who wanted weaker restrictions.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**HumanSanity** · 05-17-2021, 02:31 PM

I'm new here obviously, but I took a gander through the Assembly archives and (understandably) this is not close to the first time this issue has come up. I have tried to take a look at past discussions on this and incorporate them into what I've written to avoid rehashing the same debates infinitely, but odds seem good that I have failed at doing that adequately (not to mention that I haven't checked related Discord conversations), so I entirely expect people who experienced those debates in real time may have comments that "we discussed this before HS smfh" and that's 1000% valid and why revisions are good.

It seems there are three major nexus questions in those threads. The first two are questions of belief and ideology and the final, stickier, one is a question of language. They are:
(1) A concern that being overly prohibitive will restrict the available pool of office-holders and thereby hurt office eligibility and activity in the Coalition. I disagree with this concern because I feel simply requiring officials of the Coalition not be holding offices elsewhere is a reasonable standard which ensures officials are acting in the best interests of the Coalition. If a member wishes to run for office but has involvement in another region, this amendment would allow them to retain that as a citizen (or equivalent terminology) and allow them to run for office as soon as they discontinue governmental involvement in another region.

(2) A belief that conflict of interest declarations alone solve the issue and that some people manage conflicts of interest well. I explained my reasoning above on why I do not believe that to be the case. It is an exceptionally high bar to convince voters that someone is acting improperly due to a conflict of interest and requires leveraging a sustained campaign against the credibility of another member. Uniform rules resolve these sticky situations.

(3) A difficulty in finding language which is clear and binding. This, in my opinion, is the trickiest component of this proposition. In past threads, concerns were expressed about how to carve out language which clearly identifies what offices are relevant, which regions are relevant, avoids restricting positions in puppet regions, and avoids restricting those with long term commitments as apolitical UCR founders. I hope the language I offer below navigates these things... somewhat.

Elections Act
...

7. Separation of Powers

...

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

(5) No person holding an office of the Coalition may hold any position of responsibility in another region with an established system of government. A position of responsibility is defined as an authoritative position intended to contribute to the well-being or interests of that region. This restriction will exclude persons who are founders of a region but hold no governmental powers or authority within the region.

To break down the language briefly

"another region with an established system of government" is intended to avoid including puppet storage regions/jump points but include regions that may not necessarily have Constitutions/Charters to legally codify/bind their system of government.
The "position of responsibility" definition is intended to include (a) all relevant governmental jobs (including both external and internal jobs) by use of the phrase "well-being or interests"; (b) by use of the word "authoritative" is intended to exclude staffer jobs where they lack discretion but include jobs where they have agenda-setting authority and obligations (e.g. Ministers).
The final sentence creates an exception for founders with apolitical roles but does not allow an exception for founders with political roles (e.g. a founder who is also a monarch/head of government by virtue of their position).

Anyways, I look forward to input and feedback.

Edit: this draft is obviously in direct competition/disagreement with Hya's draft. I included it here since it's a related discussion but it can be moved to a separate thread if that's standard procedure/appropriate.

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

[Image: rank_general.min.svg]

(This post was last modified: 05-17-2021, 02:32 PM by HumanSanity.)

**Belschaft** · 05-17-2021, 04:39 PM

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.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**HumanSanity** · 05-17-2021, 05:24 PM

(05-17-2021, 04:39 PM)Belschaft Wrote: 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

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

[Image: rank_general.min.svg]

United Europe-Eurasia · 05-18-2021, 12:12 AM

(05-15-2021, 03:13 PM)Purple Hyacinth Wrote:

Elections Act
...

7. Separation of Powers

...

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

Disclaimer, if it is not clear already: I am introducing this in my capacity as a legislator, not in my capacity as the Chair.

There are a few reasons why I am in favor of this change:
Delegates obviously can't be Delegates in other regions, per game rules on WA-multing

This will restrict people in positions that aren't necessarily a conflict of interest. For example, if I was Minister of Engagement in TSP and Outreach Officer in TRR (which are somewhat equivalent positions I suppose?), I don't see how this would consitute a CoI any more than being MoE in TSP and Culture Officer in TRR (which is allowed under under this clause).

This doesn't really restrict a lot of roles that could be conflicts of interest. The scope of this would be limited to someone who is, say, MoFA in TSP and MoFA in another region. But what about being, say, a Delegate of Balder while being MoFA in TSP? Or PM of TSP but the Minister of Defense of TNP? These are clear conflicts of interest, and while the examples I gave are highly unlikely, it goes to show that there are many more conflicting position combinations that aren't illegal than are illegal.
"Equivalent positions" are pretty ambiguous anyway. Often, positions in different regions may have different names, or slightly different roles. It's potentially setting itself up for a High Court debacle. For example, what if a region's FA is solely run by their Prime Minister? Would that be considered an "equivalent position" to MoFA in TSP?

Existing law requiring conflict of interest disclosures in campaigns is sufficient to prevent any potential CoIs. 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.

What do you all think?

I'm personally against this. It seems to be an unnecessary change and could also lead to Treason and Espionage. TSP High Officials could report back to another region on regional secrets that haven’t been declassified..

I think that the clause should actually be strengthened for reasons behind protecting national security and interests.

United Europe-Eurasia
South Pacifican Legislator since April 2021, and South Pacifican Citizen since 2017.

**Moon** · 05-18-2021, 02:58 AM

I'm a bit conflicted on this if I'm being honest. My personal belief is that the current language works as fine as it is, although I guess we can rework it expand on that "equivalent offices" part.

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?

(This post was last modified: 05-18-2021, 03:01 AM by Moon.)