thx
It is true that this bill would have little impact on legislators. However, taking into account what Kringle stated regarding the role of legislators in our system, I believe it is a reasonable compromise to limit the separation of powers provision solely to the Chair.
The more significant change introduced by this bill is the designation of Associate Justices as Offices of the Coalition, thereby prohibiting individuals holding these offices from simultaneously serving as Prime Minister, Minister, Chair of the Assembly, or Delegate.
hmmm
We usually have both folks coming in and folks falling into inactivity. I don’t really know if it’s accurate to say we’re “actively growing” or assume we will in the future.
In any case, the size of our community is just one dimension. Another factor is the fact that we play a political simulator, we don’t play politics. Unlike real-world governments, we don’t really have the ability to change people’s real-world lives, and the alternative to having a government is not lawless anarchy, it’s just… not playing the game. We play the game because we are interested in a make-believe government, and the whole thing only works—only doesn’t feel make-believe—because when someone contributes their individual passion to our community, that makes it more meaningful for everyone else. It makes it a government with real people and real ideas. We don’t gain anything from constructing artificial barriers that stop people from putting in their passion. We certainly don’t when we have developed solutions to the problems those barriers are supposed to save us from. We have accountability to the Assembly, up to and including recall; we have recusals; and frankly people can (and in the past, have) made it an electoral issue.
Does it though? It restricts some specific positions. Restricting all positions would be, I think, absurd. An “.io games host” could very well be a position in the executive, and yet hosting a game of skribbl.io doesn’t meaningfully impugn the separation of powers. I guess it’s technically possible to find some legal dispute in a game of skribbl, but that’s what our recusal provisions are for; I don’t see what we gain in either principle or in practice by refusing to hold those games out of ‘separation of powers’ concerns.
But restricting only certain positions is akin to drawing a line in the sand, however arbitrary, and yet somehow convincing ourselves that it’s just ‘natural’ or ‘makes sense.’ Welly’s example about being Deputy Chair was a good example. I can really sympathize! But it’s also anecdotal. What underlying principle behind the separation of powers does it reflect? Would we feel differently if a future chair returned to our now-defunct tradition of the Chair using their bully pulpit to advance a legislative agenda—and their deputies helped them push it through? If that changes things (and there’s nothing in our laws preventing the return of this tradition), then I think that suggests we are not really legislating for some broader principle, or at least not any consistent one.
Debatable. Just checking the regions history page tells us otherwise.
1 Like
Opposed to enforcing a separation of powers for Associate Justices. I’d favor a reform of the court in its entirety.
What?
Maybe entirety is a bit much, but I had a conversation a long time back about a different system for appeals, where one justice alone hears the initial case submitted, and any appeal submitted would be heard before the entire court.
2 Likes
You had me worried there for a second.
Let me rephrase: TSP is a feeder region with an active integration program, and as such has a lot of potential to grow larger.
In any case, I don’t have much to add and debating semantics doesn’t seem overly productive to me. So, I’ll reiterate my position one last time, and then leave the floor for y’all to work out everything.
I support this proposal because a), it increases efficiency in the TSP government, and because b), it creates more consistency in the Charter on the separation of powers.
Also, as he is another person who would be greatly affected by this, I’d like to ask for @Griffindor’s thoughts.
What if, as has happened in the past, offices end up vacant because no one who doesn’t already have another office can or want to fill it?
In that case, the best solution I can think of is to publicize the openings and hope that draws in more applicants. If that fails, then this can be rescinded, and can serve as a cautionary tale of sorts against doing something like this. I hope that isn’t the case, though, as this proposal will leave legislators alone.
Well, seeing as though I am now term-limited from continuing to serve as Delegate, the only position I will soon occupy is my Justice position.
You noted at the beginning that I serve four positions, but CitComm and Coral Guard are more security-oriented, which makes filling them much more difficult. Forcing turnover or separation from other offices in those positions is unwise, and I am glad the discussion has drifted away from that.
I am not opposed to updating which positions are firewalled from each other, but otherwise, I broadly echo Pronoun’s position.
I will also add on how confused I am regarding the Chief Justice. If I am correct I saw in either then judicial act or the charter that the Chief Justice cannot serve multiple offices. I am not trying to talk trash about Kris or anything. But I don’t think he should be Election Commissioner and Chief Justice at the same time. Only if the Election Commissioner Office falls in the same boat as the CG, CRS, etc.
The Election Commissioner is not considered, by the Charter, an “Office of the Coalition”
I agree, we should focus on discussing the merits of your proposal, rather than getting bogged down by semantics.
I don’t believe you should give up on your proposal so quickly. You’ve presented some good ideas, and it’s important to keep in mind that the majority of the 51 legislators in the Assembly haven’t weighed in on this thread. It’s entirely possible that many of them share your views but haven’t voiced them. Ultimately, of course, the choice to continue pursuing your proposal is yours. However, I hope you’re not letting the naysayers discourage you too much.
1 Like
I support common sense legislation. This is a common sense bill.
2 Likes
I am a very inexperienced legislator, and many of the points in opposition are very valid and come from people who I hold a lot of respect for. I will continue supporting this proposal, but if it fails, then I’ll give myself a few months before reviewing it with fresh eyes.
Which bill are you supporting?
This one ig