| Charter Amendment - Executive WA Requirement |
Hello everyone, following some discussion on a previous thread, primarily led by @Altmoras and @HumanSanity, I decided to move forward with this after briefly consulting them on the topic and discussing options for specific language with Altmoras. For the consideration and review of the Assembly, I have drafted the following amendment to Article VI of the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific.
The Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific Wrote:VI. THE EXECUTIVEI think this is a fairly sensible amendment to the Charter. As I understand, being a member of the Executive in this context involves the members of the Cabinet and the Director of the Office of WA Legislation. All of these positions come with a great deal of trust vested in them either by the Assembly or in the case of OWL, by those already mandated by the Assembly to appoint the Director. Each of these positions already comes with the presumption of a great deal of commitment to the Coalition, and I find it reasonable to formalize a requirement for World Assembly or SPSF membership. Looking at the positions in question, it seems that nearly all or all of the members of the Executive meet the requirement already, as non-WA members of the Executive seem to include Roavin, Islas, and W&S - Roavin is a General in the SPSF, Islas is a Trainee in the SPSF, and W&S is a General as well. While there is an argument to be made about the absolute necessity or imminence of this proposal, I believe it is a rather inoffensive proposed addition to the Charter to ensure that our highest and most trusted officials are willing to take even seemingly minor steps to display their commitment to the Coalition. While I do not lack confidence in our Cabinet to lead, as a general concept, I agree with how HumanSanity previously put it: HumanSanity Wrote:"...devoting your WA to the region is the bare minimum form of prioritization we should ask of the Cabinet."This is my first draft of any legislation for the South Pacific, so I appreciate any feedback on its content or in any other regard! ![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
The following 7 users Like Quebecshire's post:• Altmoras, Apatosaurus, im_a_waffle1, Moon, Somyrion,
I'm for this. And I say this as someone who's in the executive of more than one region - I think it's absolutely fine that the bare minimum requirement of a Cabinet member be that their WA is in service to TSP, whether militarily or in-region. I've always been quite clear that TSP is the priority and that continues to be my position.
EDIT: I'm also not a General of the SPSF, I currently hold the military rank of Commander. I am an ex-officio member of the General Corps as Minister of Defense but am not actually a General. Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.
I don't agree. As I have outlined before in the thread this popped up in. It makes no difference if someone is or isn't except positions that require WA due to their nature (Delegate, LC, CG, etc). I don't believe it would make anyone more loyal prove they are more loyal or work hard. If one exception was to be made I'd say Prime Minister but even then, I say no.
I would never run for cabinet on principle with this, ever (Even if I was the second coming of TSP Christ to lead us to a Golden Era). If you implement this, you might as well make it apply for Legislatorship as well and for the SPSF when they are not deployed. Go big or go home. I do not like being limited. Such as, as long as I am not crossing TSP's bottom line (such as acting against it or working with TBH). This would be telling me that I cannot now help TSP by being say Minister of Culture because I am also helping Phoenix grow a region that has nothing to do with R/D and isn't Gameplay centric. Why should I bother to put any effort into TSP when it would limit me? Should I give respect if I am not given any? My thoughts are, this is harmful to me where I am not harming TSP at all. If something like this is to be done, then it needs to be done across the board, not just in WA matters As a former long time NPO member, I absolutely am okay with order and restrictions. Even though the NPO doesn't enforce harshly much of the laws in practice, we all join it with the understanding that it's an absolute tyranny. So we consent to those limitations from the get go, and they aren't half-arsed ones. Does it make sense for a Democracy that prides itself on being Defender and Democracy to be as limiting? If my WA was involved in Roleplay region based on in game nations, why should I be barred from being Minister of Culture here? Why do I need to be forced into an ultimatum to either give up on my roleplay for months or else not be able to do more for TSP? If we are going to limit our members, we might as well do it all the way. You'd already be limiting some of my freedom to do multiple things into an ultimatum. At least with the NPO, we sign up for that in advance when we join it.
The following 5 users Like Damination's post:• Belschaft, Jebediah, Purple Hyacinth, Qaweritoyu,
I want to additionally ask, for what purpose is this for?
Once you have a purpose stated, then what are the believed benefits for following this purpose? Thirdly, What is the cost for us in doing so? If you can't answer those things, you shouldn't propose this.
I think there are better ways to measure someone's commitment.
We're a region of freedom and democracy, I think the idea of taking away someone's freedom for no apparent reason goes against that. If there had been an issue this was trying to fix - sure, maybe. But if there is no purpose other than wanting a minor bit more control over Cabinet members, I don't like this.
The following 8 users Like Nakari's post:• Belschaft, Damination, Jay Coop, Jebediah, Moon, Purple Hyacinth, Qaweritoyu,
I’ve made my thoughts clear in the other thread, and Moonstar has articulated those same thoughts very eloquently as well. I don’t know what kind of “commitment” you prove by clicking a button, which is what joining the WA ultimately entails.
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
The following 7 users Like Kris Kringle's post:• Damination, Jay Coop, Jebediah, Moon, Purple Hyacinth, Qaweritoyu,
Thank you for your responses, everyone. I have to go to work soon, but I will address all of them, as well as any lodged between now and my return, once I am back from work.
(05-25-2021, 09:44 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I’ve made my thoughts clear in the other thread, and Moonstar has articulated those same thoughts very eloquently as well. I don’t know what kind of “commitment” you prove by clicking a button, which is what joining the WA ultimately entails. When you move your WA nation to a region, it shows your commitment to that region since you can only have one WA nation and you decided to move it here. WA nations can do a lot more things than non-WA nations, most importantly endorse other nations, which increases average endo count. WA nations are worth a lot more to a region than a non-WA nation. For the actual proposal, only MoFA and PM should require a WA nation in the region (just PM for the bare minimum) and not the entire Executive. "After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture ![[Image: rank_trainee.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/rank_trainee.min.svg){kind=icon} ![[Image: updates_lifetime_1.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/updates_lifetime_1.min.svg){kind=small} ![[Image: detags_lifetime_2.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/detags_lifetime_2.min.svg){kind=small} (05-25-2021, 06:21 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: When you move your WA nation to a region, it shows your commitment to that region since you can only have one WA nation and you decided to move it here. WA nations can do a lot more things than non-WA nations, most importantly endorse other nations, which increases average endo count. WA nations are worth a lot more to a region than a non-WA nation. I disagree. As Kris said, it's hard to measure one's commitment to a region just by pressing a button that says join the WA. That says nothing, and it serves more of an annoyance than accomplishing an actual purpose.
(05-25-2021, 06:21 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: When you move your WA nation to a region, it shows your commitment to that region since you can only have one WA nation and you decided to move it here. That is a very particular measure of commitment. I could move my WA nation out of the region tomorrow morning and I would argue that I wouldn't be any less commited to the South Pacific than I am today. I would be the same Kris Kringle who drafted the 2013 Bill of Rights, served two terms as Delegate, helped move the region away from Independence and has served as Chief Justice for the past few years. My actions remain the same as they have always been and my work isn't made any more or less significant because my nation has a badge that says "WA Member".
Or to turn things around, someone who has put in hours of effort into any one ministry but has their WA elsewhere should not be considered any less committed to this region than someone who barely meets the voting requirement but happens to have their WA here. 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
The following 5 users Like Kris Kringle's post:• Belschaft, Damination, Moon, Qaweritoyu, |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |