I will be completely honest. I remember we added 2 new members to the Citcom as of a week or so ago. While Citcom is in a very rough predicament, I think we need to be patient. We have some productive conversations happening. I’d like to see what is concluded in our hearing before we do anything right now. Maybe, this is too early for us approach right now? Just my thoughts.
Here is that I rewrite :
If you have suggestion tell here !
A Great Council is wholly unnecessary. There is nothing currently that would justify requiring a Great Council. You have raised a few reasons as to why you want a great council, with those being:
- “Citcomm [has made] multiple errors [in] the past few months”
A Great Council is far too extreme of a solution to resolve these issues, and we are already currently in the process of addressing them through the normal legislative manner. A bigger hammer is not always a more effective tool for fixing something. I do not see any benefits a Great Council would have over the normal legislative process. If you have any specific suggestions on how to help resolve the issues we’ve been facing with CitComm, I suggest you present them in the thread where those issues are being discussed.
- “Inactivity [in] the Assembly that could show the [loss] of interest in The South-Pacific legislation”
A Great Council is a one-time event that only drives activity because there is something major happening. We currently have four active topics in the Assembly, some of which hold enough significance behind them that I doubt a Great Council at this moment would increase activity enough beyond the current level to be worth it. If you have any specific ideas on how to drive activity in the Assembly other than “Let’s use the most nuclear option we have for no good reason,” then I’d reccomend you either join the Ministry of Integration or present those specific ideas to the Assembly.
- “The Charter is old”
Could you please explain to me why the fact that something is old means that it needs to be replaced? Why do you conflate old with bad? Is there something that’s not working? If there’s anything specific you’ve seen, I’d absolutely love for you to bring it up so we can address it.
Just because something is old does not mean it is inherently broken or should be replaced. We do not need to replace things that work just because they’ve been around for a while.
- “We can make […] legislation more efficient”
If you have any specific suggestions of how to make legislation more efficient I highly recommend you present those ideas to the Assembly directly. If you do not have any ideas on how to make legislation more efficient, then a Great Council is not going to uncover them, and is completely worthless in that regard.
- “[The Great] Council will serve to [find] problems [in] legislation and fix it”
A Great Council is not going to suddenly reveal all the problems inherent in our legislation. Problems crop up at their own pace. If there are problems you’ve seen and noticed, I highly recommend you present them to the Assembly so they can be addressed through the normal process. If the normal process is not enough, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. But to call a Great Council as the first step to solve problems you cannot identify is ridiculous.
- “[Bring] back [the] Local Council”
If you believe we should bring back the LC, why don’t you present that to the Assembly? This is not something that would need a Great Council. If this is something you feel should be done, present it in its own topic.
- “Add local government”
If you have a specific idea of what you want here, bring it to the executive branch or present it to the Assembly in its own topic. I’d love to hear whatever idea you have here, but you do not need a Great Council for it.
Not a single thing you have brought up warrants a Great Council. This whole proposal is built on half-baked ideas that could be easily addressed through the standard process. You’ve got plenty of ideas that if you presented them with more substance on that topic’s specifics I’d love to hear out, but none of them are a valid foundation for a Great Council. No matter how you rewrite it, your Great Council proposal will always have no valid reason behind it. I suggest you lay down the idea of a Great Council and start looking at the individual ideas you presented on a more substantive level, and present those when you have a better idea of them.
3 Likes
If the problems are that their is no reason,
Some reason :
-
Separation of powers that are not respected (cabinet members in Assembly, high court member as the Chair of Assembly)
-
We change only the position in legislation, new members can do politics as you can’t start anywhere
-
“The only forum can decide” people on Nationstate can do nothing except electing the delegate
-
The last law was in december.
Separation of Powers are respected to the standard set by Article VIII of the Charter. If you believe it should be stricter, by all means, propose an amendment to do that, and allow us to discuss it.
In regards to the two examples you gave: I remind you that the Assembly is open to any citizen, non-elected, with no maximum membership. The Assembly is not a body ever designed in the slightest to be restricted to a small sect of the region. Whether or not an Associate Justice should be amended into the Charter as a “position” in VIII (1) is a legimate question, but one that can be easily decided by the Assembly, not a Great Council.
I must admit I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. Could you elaborate?
I understand where this frustration comes from from a lot of gameside-only folks, but this ultimately comes down to a security risk. The simple truth is that we cannot control who comes into TSP gameside. The forum provides a place that we can perform security checks, keep sensitive information secure, and host the government free from raiders, infiltrators, fascists, banned players, etc. There are plenty of people that would love to be the ones to topple the Coalition. We already get a significant amount of flack for allowing a game-side second round in the Delegate election because of the security risk that imposes.
I think we have a habit of amending the existing laws to do the things we need rather that writing new legislation that completely replaces those laws. It doesn’t necessarily have to be that way, but:
- I’m not convinced that that is a bad thing, and
- it’s a question of habit, not something a Great Council would address.
1 Like
I mean that Always the same in legislation the new players that want to participate in politics they can’t do it as we just move of position @Heliseum
Could you clarify what you mean? I can’t make sense out of it.
If the only remaining valuable purpose is to give newer players a chance to get involved, I don’t think a Great Council is the right way to do that. We already have pathways for people to participate, and creating a separate body to bypass them doesn’t really improve access or fix any specific barrier.
I joined just over a month ago and I’m already a legislator, so people who want to get involved and are willing to put in the effort can do so pretty quickly, there aren’t many barriers in the way. If someone feels like they can’t get involved, it would be more useful to point to what’s actually stopping them so it can be addressed directly.
The name itself sounds more like a chamber of the highest ranking, most senior members of TSP leadership, not something for newcomers to participate in anyway. If the goal is broader participation, something like a Public Forum, Community Council, or Court of Commons would line up with that a lot better.
I think establishing a Great Council is ludicrous. Not to put anyone down. It’s like we are creating a state of emergency for a crisis that is being fabricated for no reason. We are actively debating to see what we can help with the Citcom situation. It’s not a crisis and the government seems stable.
3 Likes
Just for the record, in the South Pacific the term “Great Council” is the name we use for what in most contexts is called a “constitutional convention”. We’ve used it since the very first one was called all the way back in 2003.
1 Like