I would first like to thank everyone on both sides of this issue for their contributions to the debate on it. As I've seen, everyone has been very respectful and pretty much everything I've read has had some good points. After reviewing the arguments on this thread, as well as having paid attention to the discussion in the Legislators' lounge on the Discord, here is where I stand with this proposal.

In an ideal circumstance, like the current one, the requirement set forth by this proposal would be met. I think that much is reasonable. Regardless, I've seen quite a few arguments and some fair resistance to this idea on the grounds that it does set in place a limitation that might impact some potential officials in a manner that is unreasonable.

The cabinet should always put forth the South Pacific as their priority, I think we would all agree on that, and World Assembly membership can be an indicator of that commitment in my opinion. I don't doubt that the current cabinet has the Coalition as their priority, nor do I doubt the confidence in the Assembly to elect future Cabinets who do as well. However, on that note, as several people pointed out, World Assembly membership may not be the strongest nor most appropriate indicator to designate commitment, which I agree is a strong argument against this proposal even in its largely symbolic form. 

It is objectively accurate that the implementation of this proposal would have minimal measurable impact and therefore is largely symbolic. While I don't think things of that nature are inherently useless or should be disqualified from consideration on that count alone, it is clear to me that several people feel this formalization would pose an unnecessary potential limitation. Naturally, that concern overrides either any potential symbolic positive or minimal tangibly positive outcome.

So, for those reasons, I am going to back off with this proposal. If anyone still wishes to contribute to the discussion one way or another they are free to do so and I'd welcome it, but I do not have the intention of motioning this to a vote as I do not currently believe the positives of it outweigh the potential negatives or alienations pointed out by my colleagues in our esteemed Assembly.

New Quebecshire,
Full Player Résumé
Discord: Cubic#1608

Reply

So, ngl, I'm somewhat confused by the pushback here. While I don't think "commitment" is the word we're looking for, asking our elected officials to be part of the WA really shouldn't be that big of an ask.

And, I'll point out, the WA isn't just some faux-UN for game play. The WA is literally the way we protect the region from outside forces. In essence, the argument several of you are making is that it's OK — actually necessary — to beg random nations in the region to support to delegate and CRS, but it's too much to ask those holding elected office to do the same?

It's not a secret that I don't have a lot of sympathy for really any setup that allows TSP to play second fiddle. But, I really think we need to re-examine our expectations of our elected officials because asking them to literally protect the region shouldn't be a huge lift.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I think the argument changes significantly when you switch the reasoning from “commitment” to “regional security”. I still think the use of one’s WA is a personal matter, but the idea of framing it as a matter of security is less unreasonable than making it a matter of commitment, which I find troublesome for a number of reasons. Essentially we’d be opening ourselves to arguments like “no matter the years one has put into the government, that’s just not enough if you don’t have a WA here”. I don’t think that’s right, or fair, or indicative of who we are as a region.

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

So, ngl, I'm somewhat confused by the pushback here. While I don't think "commitment" is the word we're looking for, asking our elected officials to be part of the WA really shouldn't be that big of an ask.

And, I'll point out, the WA isn't just some faux-UN for game play. The WA is literally the way we protect the region from outside forces. In essence, the argument several of you are making is that it's OK — actually necessary — to beg random nations in the region to support to delegate and CRS, but it's too much to ask those holding elected office to do the same?

It's not a secret that I don't have a lot of sympathy for really any setup that allows TSP to play second fiddle. But, I really think we need to re-examine our expectations of our elected officials because asking them to literally protect the region shouldn't be a huge lift.

How are five or six extra nations that are more likely to already be in TSP going to change anything? What epic gain in security would we gain from 6 nations against an infiltrator that only blows their cover after the damage is already done? or what gain will be had should enough enemies conspire to pull together to outright outnumber all endorsements on our delegate? What gain will prevent someone forming a coup.

First time I have heard 6 extras endorsements that aren't even ROs could make us impregnable. I have failed to see Mt. Tai.

I was waiting for a security related argument, and it's one of the worst ones that could be brought forth.

(This post was last modified: 05-27-2021, 03:17 AM by Damination. Edit Reason: Typo fixes )

Reply

So, ngl, I'm somewhat confused by the pushback here. While I don't think "commitment" is the word we're looking for, asking our elected officials to be part of the WA really shouldn't be that big of an ask.

And, I'll point out, the WA isn't just some faux-UN for game play. The WA is literally the way we protect the region from outside forces. In essence, the argument several of you are making is that it's OK — actually necessary — to beg random nations in the region to support to delegate and CRS, but it's too much to ask those holding elected office to do the same?

It's not a secret that I don't have a lot of sympathy for really any setup that allows TSP to play second fiddle. But, I really think we need to re-examine our expectations of our elected officials because asking them to literally protect the region shouldn't be a huge lift.

How are five or six extra nations that are more likely to already be in TSP going to change anything? What epic gain in security would we gain from 6 nations against an infiltrator that only blows their cover after the damage is already done? or what gain will be had should enough enemies conspire to pull together to outright outnumber all endorsements on our delegate? What gain will prevent someone forming a coup.

First time I have heard 6 extras endorsements that aren't even ROs could make us impregnable. I have failed to see Mt. Tai.

I was waiting for a security related argument, and it's one of the worst ones that could be brought forth.

Well, under your logic, why should we endotart at all? 

But, if you want a security-related argument, generally CRS members come from previous officials and it's difficult to down right impossible to gain in-game influence without having your WA in the region. (And, those six extra endorsements still help to build the influence of others.)

But, more to the point, I'm not sure how we can expect every Joe-schomo in the region to endorse the delegate and CRS while simultaneously saying that the head of our government doesn't need to.

Finally, I don't appreciate the mocking tone, Moonstar. (Or really, the tone you've been using with others in this thread.) My initial post wasn't making a security related argument — but thanks for deeming it "the worst" — and I'm not here to please you.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

First time I have heard 6 extras endorsements that aren't even ROs could make us impregnable. I have failed to see Mt. Tai.

I was waiting for a security related argument, and it's one of the worst ones that could be brought forth.

I'm sure we can all remain civil towards each other. In the end we all just want what's best for the region, so there's no point in adding language that does little more than antagonise.

But, more to the point, I'm not sure how we can expect every Joe-schomo in the region to endorse the delegate and CRS while simultaneously saying that the head of our government doesn't need to.

To be fair, nobody is obligated to endorse anyone, not even the Prime Minister. We strongly encourage and have an entire infrastructure to support that goal, but at the end of the day it's each nation's choice. Do I think it would be smart for our leaders to put their money where their mouth is and endorse the Delegate and the CSS? Sure, I think that makes sense. I'm just not sure that legally compelling that is in line with our values, particularly since this does send a message that any level of effort will never be enough unless you put your WA here, even though our message has always been that anyone is welcome to our highest levels of government if they put in a good faith effort.

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

Been following this back and forth with fascination.  At the end of the day, seems this is a solution in want of a problem.  If we are happy with our current security situation (as I think we should be), I see no point in adding additional requirements for our executive leadership positions.

Land Without Shrimp

Reply

So, ngl, I'm somewhat confused by the pushback here. While I don't think "commitment" is the word we're looking for, asking our elected officials to be part of the WA really shouldn't be that big of an ask.

And, I'll point out, the WA isn't just some faux-UN for game play. The WA is literally the way we protect the region from outside forces. In essence, the argument several of you are making is that it's OK — actually necessary — to beg random nations in the region to support to delegate and CRS, but it's too much to ask those holding elected office to do the same?

It's not a secret that I don't have a lot of sympathy for really any setup that allows TSP to play second fiddle. But, I really think we need to re-examine our expectations of our elected officials because asking them to literally protect the region shouldn't be a huge lift.

How are five or six extra nations that are more likely to already be in TSP going to change anything? What epic gain in security would we gain from 6 nations against an infiltrator that only blows their cover after the damage is already done? or what gain will be had should enough enemies conspire to pull together to outright outnumber all endorsements on our delegate? What gain will prevent someone forming a coup.

First time I have heard 6 extras endorsements that aren't even ROs could make us impregnable. I have failed to see Mt. Tai.

I was waiting for a security related argument, and it's one of the worst ones that could be brought forth.

Well, under your logic, why should we endotart at all? 

But, if you want a security-related argument, generally CRS members come from previous officials and it's difficult to down right impossible to gain in-game influence without having your WA in the region. (And, those six extra endorsements still help to build the influence of others.)

But, more to the point, I'm not sure how we can expect every Joe-schomo in the region to endorse the delegate and CRS while simultaneously saying that the head of our government doesn't need to.

Finally, I don't appreciate the mocking tone, Moonstar. (Or really, the tone you've been using with others in this thread.) My initial post wasn't making a security related argument — but thanks for deeming it "the worst" — and I'm not here to please you.

I'll clarify. First I did not say it was the worst, but one of the worst possible reasons. Second, I am not mocking you but the idea specifically with heavy sarcasm, which maybe I should have not exaggerated so much.

Thirdly, arguing not endortarting doesn't make sense because their are already people who do this for security. Wouldn't it be fairer to say under that logic all government of every branch and even all the legislators should also be required to hold WA in TSP? That would be much more effective than only 6 nations.

My argument then is thus, 6 nations won't make much a difference here and if you still think they do then all of the more involved nations should because more is better (Meaning legislators and others).

As long as it's for security reasons rather than others, why don't we just expand the coral guard membership? Wouldn't that solve the issue of more is better?

Reply

It's worth noting that the Coral Guard is always open to applications, so anyone who does meet the requirements should feel more than welcome to apply.

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

Requiring a WA membership for the Cabinet for "security purposes" is far off from the executive purpose of the Cabinet. As Dami has mentioned, 6 endorsements is very little in the scope of the hundreds of endorsements that the Delegate can hold. The Delegate would be fine regardless of if they have 6 extra endorsements or not, as long as they maintain the position of highest endorsement count in the region during their term. The CRS and Coral Guard already exist for security purposes - their similarly high endorsement count, as well as the CRS' banning/ejecting powers, are enough to secure the delegacy. And what does all this have to do with running the Ministries, which are supposed to promote regional and interregional activity?

Reply