[A Little Legalese][Opinion] This Is Not Senate Work




Opinion: This Is Not Senate Work
Defending Arnhelm's Autonomy

Written by Astrellan




Back in June 2019, I made the decision to run for my second Senate term after finishing a partial one just before. My platform went into detail on only one legislative issue -- creating the City-State of Arnhelm. In that election, I received the highest amount of votes, tying with DAX.

You see, the region itself had started a movement to create Arnhelm and even abolish the Citizens' Assembly (CA) - which, ironically was proposed in the CA. Why? My post in the Senate thread here is a good representation of my thoughts about the CA at the time. The institution had been suffering for quite some time - for years, as some people have said. So, you could imagine my surprise and shock when the idea of an Arnhelm Investigatory Committee (AIC), in its original form on Senator Darkslayer's platform, even suggested that it could resolve to "bring back the CA to replace Arnhelm."

At first, I didn't want to shoot down the idea in its entirety. Though I made my reservations about the idea clear, I did not want to suggest that the idea is meritless - after all, I could see one possible good idea that could come out of it -- the creation of a specific ground/place for legislative training. But, as I thought about the idea more over the coming days and seeing the thread proposed in the Senate just today, I came to a strong conclusion: this is not Senate work.

This committee is not something the Senate should be doing. It is clear that Arnhelm has a community which is passionate in running and playing an RP legislature - 14 Ordinances do not write themselves. There is activity. Say what you will about the times when Arnhelm was not running at full speed - frankly, it followed activity patterns relating to the region and it's completely unreasonable to expect high activity all the time, especially from a niche community. In any case, Arnhelm has often had a high level of activity. Contested elections, amendments galore, policy decisions, political parties - they are there and they have happened.

It is clear that people care about Arnhelm and it is clear that it has a good level of activity, especially for something which mainly focuses on legislation-drafting, an activity that does not appeal to all Europeians. I don't really think it's appropriate therefore for the Senate to open the committee, especially now. It's an activity for the people who care about it. If they had any issues with Arnhelm, such as activity levels, lack of legislation, etc, they are more than empowered to post about it themselves or make an internal committee in Arnhelm.

I'm not alone in these thoughts either. Former Mayor of Arnhelm Olde Delaware told me that he is "disappointed that the Senate, particularly [Calvin], continue to try to find work arounds to get rid of Arnhelm", adding that "these are people, with the exception of GraV who couldn't be bothered to join and stay active in [Arnhelm]". He questions their ability to "fairly find the facts". I held reservations about the fairness of such a committee too, especially one which considered in its first iteration the option of removing Arnhelm. There was no clear message on what standards they would use; after all, how can you fairly measure whether Arnhelm is completing its "original goal"? Laws per month? New legislators per week? It does not sound right to me.

The current Mayor of Arnhelm Forilian pointed out the fact that "Arnhelm hasn't even existed for a whole year at this point", saying "it'd be foolish to look at its pros and cons this early into its existence". He adds that with Arnhelm's current level of activity, he is not sure we "need" a "fact-finding committee" at all. I completely agree with this -- Arnhelm has, recently, been building up a bigger executive for the first time since it started. This will only accelerate as more laws are passed which require executive agencies. Now is not a good time to judge Arnhelm, if at all.

Senator and Former Mayor Prim made similar remarks in Discord today, sharing his concern over the "shifting narrative" of the AIC: "What concerns me slightly is that this committee was originally billed as determining the fate of Arnhelm -- and now it's being presented to the Senate as a "fact-finding" committee." He also retells his efforts "to keep Arnhelm from trying to entangle itself too much with Europeia", and his frustration that he now has "to fight to get Europeia to do the same". Again, my views incarnate - the first amendment I passed on the City Council Act was named the "Arnhelm Autonomy Amendment" for a reason. Arnhelm should remain as autonomous as possible - this committee does not aid that.

Former Senator Ervald told me his opinion on what this situation is like: "this committee is framing itself like a prosecutor from Ace Attorney and their detectives trying to find out the truth, when really, they are deciding if to recommend the death penalty or not." He worries that they are "obsessed with the possibility of trying to get rid of Arnhelm" and they should instead "have an open public discussion in the Senate and the Grand Hall". I too am worried if this committee will spiral from a "fact-finding committee", as it has been rebranded, to a committee concerning itself with the ultimate future of Arnhelm as per the original post - a "death panel", to put it in Ervald's words.

Ex-Senator and Vice-Chancellor Drecq was blunt in his opinion: "The Senate Committee on Arnhelm is the dumbest, most useless thing likely to happen this Senate term", a fact that wouldn't change even if "the Senate term was twice as long." He continues that "Arnhelm is active. But even if it were not, there is literally no cost involved. It costs nothing to run it. It costs nothing not to run it", finishing with saying "that the Senate decides now is the time to look at it and think about changing it, or god forbid even abolish it, is, and I can only say it again, dumb. I am amazed by it." Again, Drecq's opinion nearly mirrors my own - as he said succinctly in Discord, "If [the committee] finds its good, it does nothing. And if it finds it isnt good, it still should do nothing."

I wonder about the nature of the committee, whether it is specifically to "find the facts" or whether it's a front for something much more substantive. I wonder why it was brought up now, after a boom of activity under Mayor Forilian's term and a solid track record besides. I wonder why the Senate can't keep its hands off Arnhelm and let it keep its autonomy as intended from the first draft. And I wonder why we have to rain on the parade of a community who are clearly enjoying what they are doing.

 
Can't believe I take a couple days to myself and I miss all this spicy drama meme thread potential
Happened to me too. Maybe we could create a committee to explore why this happened
 
This entire "committee" is ill advised and seems to have been started in bad faith with people already reaching the conclusion to disband Arnhelm, and to work toward that, rather than what any supporting evidence from the "investigation" turns up. I Also agree with Drecq and others that this is a colossal waste of time and that "The Senate Committee on Arnhelm is the dumbest, most useless thing likely to happen this Senate term."

The City Council Act, which establishes Arnhelm, is regional legislation. Senate wrote the bill and voted on it. It could now write a bill to abolish the City Council and vote on that as well. It's regional legislation and I think it's natural that Senators wish to re-evaluate legislation at times.

While the Senate can do this, it would be in extremely bad faith and detrimental to the region as a whole. Whether people like to admit it or not, whether it is within their spheres of interest or not, whether they supported Arnhelm's creation or not, whether they believe the CA was better or not: Arnhelm is active and is producing RP legislation (which everything in Euro ultimately is regardless) and acting as a training facility as a result. It has its own politics, parties and political machinations, which also serve to prepare its members for the "core" Europeian legal & political RP.

The CA that is being harkened back to with the wish to restore it was dead, for years. Despite many repeated attempts over those inactive years to try and bring it back to activity and to be used as a "training tool." This was an abject failure. The CA became little more than a method for former Senators and "single issue" members to push legislation to the Senate and have speaking rights in the relevant discussion as a result, something that is still maintained via "Const. VI (2019) LA16. (1) - (2)" & "SPA (2015) (45) a.".

This "investigation" was not started with the mind set of "Hey, maybe we should discuss with Arnhelm to see if there is any way we can change the CC legislation to make it work better for everyone." It seems to have been started with the intention of finding "evidence" to support the beliefs already held by some members of "Arnhelm is worthless and should be dismantled."
 
It just saddens me how many Senators have taken such a position. They pick out the ""rhetoric"" of the Senate abolishing Arnhelm and skip over any other piece. Can Senators answer this then? If you aren't intending to abolish Arnhelm, or change it fundamentally, then why would you be in favour of this committee if the information and advice it would gather would be... useless? Because you won't be using it to change Arnhelm...? If the "information" gathered is for "oversight", which I don't believe should be a thing, then is it not intending to inform the Senate's decision if they should... change Arnhelm? I think you can understand why people are suggesting the Senate has ulterior motives if you're sticking to this Senate committee idea. It's either useless at best, because no matter what insight the committee finds, it will not be used to change Arnhelm in any capacity, or harmful to the Arnhelm community at worst, with the Senate deciding to intrude upon Arnhelm's semi-autonomy. And I don't want to hear "it's not fully autonomous anyway!!!". That is obvious and not an argument. Arnhelm abides by Europeian law and has done since the beginning - why would you launch an investigation into say, the Courts or any other institution established by law, if you weren't intending to do something with that information?

The only other idea that has been suggested by the people that are pro Committee is to maybe add the CA next to Arnhelm. Any information for that could easily be gathered without the Senate needing to be involved. Then the Senate could propose a bill, a bill which specifically does not abolish Arnhelm, so people aren't reaching for the worst here. Or, the Senate could create a CA Committee or whatever tickles your fancy. Creating an "Arnhelm Investigatory Committee" is not a good look, and the conduct on both sides of the ensuing debate has been incredibly worrying. It appears that quite a chunk of the Senate is ignoring the logic behind such a huge clap-back - if it were a couple of fanatics picking a hill to die upon, there would not be the level of engagement and support for this op-ed that exists now.
 
I honestly fail to see how creating a committee to investigate Arnhelm's activities is construed as to lead straight to the city's abolition.

I believe that this committee is a good idea, that can properly inform the Senate's actions on the future of Arnhelm, if any. The arguments about the committee's findings being "useless" and that this committee is just a nefarious move on part of some Senators to abolish Arnhelm persuade me not in the least.

Also not in the least persuasive, in my mind, is the argument about not being the Senate's "job" to investigate/regulate Arnhelm. This advocacy for a "passive" Senate sounds wrong, to say the least. Arnhelm is a project created by the Senate, autonomous yes, but that does not mean the Senate has simply renounced its privileges/powers around Arnhelm. The Senate has a mandate, and it should be able to exercise it as it sees fit.

Arguments about the Senate's alleged nefarious goals should have no place in this debate. Surely there are other, more compelling arguments in favour of leaving Arnhelm as is? Why this attempt to demonise the Senate's actions on this matter?

I deeply regret this initiative is not going forward. It could have provided a different perspective on Arnhelm's workings, that could have actually enabled the Senate to take steps to make Arnhelm even more successful and interesting.
 
Yeah, thats bull. Arnhelm is autonomous. So how would the Senate make it more successful or interesting? By restricting it? By forcing it into doing something it doesnt want to do? Its a bad idea because it destracts from the sandbox nature of the Arnhelm RP, which is one of its draws. The two options the Senate has are practically: Keep or Abolish.

And since it is that binary and the Senate tells us they never had the intention of abolishing Arnhelm, then the only outcome of the Committee could possibly have been "keep and do nothing". And if you know going into a Committee that there is only one possible outcome to it, then it is useless.

To change the Committee from being useless there would have been only two possible things the Senate could change: Remove the autonomous nature of Arnhelm or put abolishing Arnhelm on the table. And that is why people questioned the intentions of the Senate. Especially as the creation of the Committee was spearheaded by two Senators who only recently changed their mind on the abolition of Arnhelm.
 
spearheaded by two Senators who only recently changed their mind on the abolition of Arnhelm.
I hope you're not aiming that at me. If so, I would like you to prove where I once said I want to abolish Arnhelm, please.
 
I think that this debate exploded after being a super non-issue during the campaign and a couple people really pushed a false and misleading narrative because they had an emotional reaction.
This is from the Senate thread (now tabled) relating to Arnhelm, courtesy of GraV, but I can't help but snicker every time I read it. It applies so well to the debates swirling around private poll results and the status of honored citizens' citizenship.

So when can we table those two topics? :unsure:
 
Wouldnt that be nice. Senators assume that their being elected means a mandate for every single thing in their platforms, when the reality is that plenty of times they are elected despite opposition to parts of their platforms. Because at the end of the day few of us agree with everything another person campaigns on. And especially when its stuff like private poll results, honored citizens citizenship, and an Arnhelm Committee, we ignore it because there are more important considerations to make. Until the people elected are in office and decide to actually spend their time on these things, at which point we tell them loudly and clearly that we dont want it and that they were elected in spite of and not because of these. As of right now we know the Arnhelm committee was one of these things, I hope the private poll results and the honored citizens citizenship join the ranks post haste.

Edit: By which I mean, the ranks of things where the Senators are informed loudly and clearly not to do it, not the ranks of the things the Senate is considering.
 
I definitely think lots of this was an overreaction, but I'm not sure if the HC and Private Results are on the same level? Seems a little disingenuous. I'd rather see the Senate debate policy changes, even if I disagree with them, than spend time on Arnhelm.
 
I mean, the Senate reached a compromise on private poll results in February. A compromise most people are happy with.
And removing the lifetime nature of Honoured Citizenships is an overreaction to a problem that simply doesnt exist. Zombie HCs voting just isnt a thing. And even the guy who proposed it considers it "minor" in his own words.

They are solutions in search of a problem because theres nothing they actually fix. Just like the Arnhelm Committee.
 
In fairness to the voting thing, I didn't realize all that had happened in February when I brought the topic up and out of respect for the compromise it has not been brought before the senate again because I realize it is a contentious issue. So that isn't something the senate is currently spending it's time on. The other ongoing discussion is around changes to the senate size question, which I feel has broader support and is coming together fairly well.
 
They are solutions in search of a problem because theres nothing they actually fix.
Not specifically related to this Arnhelm issue, but in general, I feel like this phrase gets used way too much in Europeian politics. It's almost a cliche at this point that whenever something new gets proposed by someone this phrase gets trotted out. I've certainly used it in the past, but I've tried to limit my usage of it because it really diminishes the work that someone is doing to say that not only what they are doing is something you disagree with, but is a complete non-entity and a waste of time. People have different priorities and philosophies in this game, and I'd like people to be a little more respectful of that.
 
I definitely think lots of this was an overreaction, but I'm not sure if the HC and Private Results are on the same level? Seems a little disingenuous. I'd rather see the Senate debate policy changes, even if I disagree with them, than spend time on Arnhelm.
HC isn't, but I am 100% behind the notion that the overwhelming reason private results are a thing is because a vocal minority, spearheaded by a candidate that had hurt feelings and stress/anxiety after a very close election (paraphrasing, but their words), pushed for it.

A trial run was had, and the region generally agreed that the private route would be terrible for the politics around elections (vote watching, live speculation, etc). The issue somewhat died, and rightfully so. Then an EO was thrown into the mix late in the game - and very close to an election, which would have made it impossible to block if it was 1 or 2 days later - that mandated private results across the board. And there was immediate and loud pushback from the majority of the citizenry. It was blocked.

A compromise was eventually reached! But then that minority of players came back and decided this compromise wasn't good enough, so it was forced into the conversation via platforms during the last election.
 
They are solutions in search of a problem because theres nothing they actually fix.
Not specifically related to this Arnhelm issue, but in general, I feel like this phrase gets used way too much in Europeian politics. It's almost a cliche at this point that whenever something new gets proposed by someone this phrase gets trotted out. I've certainly used it in the past, but I've tried to limit my usage of it because it really diminishes the work that someone is doing to say that not only what they are doing is something you disagree with, but is a complete non-entity and a waste of time. People have different priorities and philosophies in this game, and I'd like people to be a little more respectful of that.
It is a cliche. Doesnt mean its wrong. There are plenty of things that I disagree with that are not wastes of time. The remerge is something I disagree with but its not a waste of time. Its a big thing with a big impact. These things are wastes of time. A thing that the Senate literally passed a compromise solution on less than half a year ago and a thing that takes the, unused, right to vote from literally 2 or 3 people who also happen to be some of our most honoured historical figures while also debasing our highest award.
 
They are solutions in search of a problem because theres nothing they actually fix.
Not specifically related to this Arnhelm issue, but in general, I feel like this phrase gets used way too much in Europeian politics. It's almost a cliche at this point that whenever something new gets proposed by someone this phrase gets trotted out. I've certainly used it in the past, but I've tried to limit my usage of it because it really diminishes the work that someone is doing to say that not only what they are doing is something you disagree with, but is a complete non-entity and a waste of time. People have different priorities and philosophies in this game, and I'd like people to be a little more respectful of that.
Seems pretty dead on to me, actually.
 
I definitely think lots of this was an overreaction, but I'm not sure if the HC and Private Results are on the same level? Seems a little disingenuous. I'd rather see the Senate debate policy changes, even if I disagree with them, than spend time on Arnhelm.
HC isn't, but I am 100% behind the notion that the overwhelming reason private results are a thing is because a vocal minority, spearheaded by a candidate that had hurt feelings and stress/anxiety after a very close election (paraphrasing, but their words), pushed for it.

A trial run was had, and the region generally agreed that the private route would be terrible for the politics around elections (vote watching, live speculation, etc). The issue somewhat died, and rightfully so. Then an EO was thrown into the mix late in the game - and very close to an election, which would have made it impossible to block if it was 1 or 2 days later - that mandated private results across the board. And there was immediate and loud pushback from the majority of the citizenry. It was blocked.

A compromise was eventually reached! But then that minority of players came back and decided this compromise wasn't good enough, so it was forced into the conversation via platforms during the last election.

So, you mean, almost exactly how any other issue gets brought up in campaigns? lol
 
So, you mean, almost exactly how any other issue gets brought up in campaigns? lol
There is always one candidate (at least) with a relatively novel idea, and another candidate may pick it up for their platform, but usually a decent swath of candidates already have platforms covering the standards (current legislation, legislation that needs to be tweaked, etc)
 
Back
Top