Purely from experience, the playerbase when presented with a package is non-negotiable towards merely this proposal (causing me to change it to a 6 month term); presenting it with a package where all questionable laws, such as
(The Chair of the Assembly may order the Legislator Committee to suspend
legislator privileges for disruptive members. Frequent suspensions may be grounds for ineligibility, if found appropriate in a fair trial by the High Court.)
are revised will not be seen as viable. Perhaps the issue was the lack of rhetoric or arguments instead; perhaps it was the user itself who was proposing it - in which case Iām wrong.
In my opinion, we need someone who will want to assist the region to be chair, not someone who can regularly win elections. Oneās desire to help the region may or may not wax or wane, but if it does wane, they can resign, and we should encourage that as a possibility. However, requiring that such an apolitical role be beholden to regular popularity contests only opens up the possibility for factions to want to influence the chair, and for us to be less capable of reducing said influence should the need arise.
I think there definitely is, in the real world, the possibility for the pursuit of stability to go too far. But as much as we all love it, NS is not the real world. Itās lower stakes and people tend to come and go more frequently. As such, I donāt deem it that bad of a thing for the Chair to be a position held indefinitely. The chance of them lasting so long that they become corrupt, or even causing too much damage with their position, is minimal.
I see. The corruption that comes with democracy is an existential threat but the corruption that comes with no elections is not an issue, because of ???.
Because the elected are elected and thus their corruption is seen as legitimate even if itās more prone to it.
However, thatās not applicable to this simulationās framework as we can recall all corrupt officials regardless of electoral legitimacy.
Which does bring up to point that weāve all just collectively accepted that TSP must maintain some democratic features because of the Charter which we were supposed to be revising.
The question of should it remain a democracy hasnāt been brought up either. Which, when taking in account your voting threshold idea and the amount of issues officials are presenting but them never being resolved, does beg the question if another system would be more efficient.
My point is that an individual who wants to work for this assembly in a role with very little personal power or glory and one that could be functionally apolitical should only be removed if they are abusing what power they have, or if they are corrupt, not simply because they didnāt do well enough in the last election. None of us are beholden to regular elections, the only way we can lose our ājobā here is if we donāt perform our duties. Why not the same for the Chair?
(2) The Assembly will elect a legislator as Chair of the Assemblyfor a term lasting four months. The Chair is responsible for maintaining order and decorum, and helping guide Assembly debate into the creation of bills. If thea Chair is recalled, resigns, loses legislator status, or is otherwise not in office, a new Chair will be elected for a new term lasting four months. The date, time, and manner of electing the Chair will be set by the Assembly in a law.
No this is where the oligarchy is replaced by the bureaucracy
On a serious note, this is where I congratulate @ProfessorHenn for doing what I failed to. Good job on drafting the amendment and providing convincing arguments.
