A Taste of Skizz: The Blog


I'm hoping to return to writing long-form pieces for the EBC in the not-too-distant future, but in the meantime, I'm committing to write more short, quick-hitting segments, which I'll post in this thread.

I called this thread a "blog," but it's really more of a dialogue -- I hope and expect that readers will comment in the thread, and their contributions will be part of the discussion.
 
Click to expand...
His proposal, as I understand it, would declaw & reclaw the Senate with a new set of claws all at once.
 
If we're stickin' with this metaphor, I think the new claws would be much duller. Executive oversight isn't exactly a full time job.
 
Cerian Quilor said:
You make some good points that I like some and don't like others of, but I'd quibble over this point

2. The Citizens Assembly has been chronically ineffective. If the Senate is trapped by its past success, entrusting the future of our laws to the Citizens Assembly seems like a prescription to demolish that success, not to build on it. If we ultimately decide that radical reform is necessary, I would rather create new institutions than attempt to breathe life into the chronically troubled CA.
Click to expand...

The problem, inherently, is not the CA/CC itself, but rather how utterly toothless it is. NES's proposal would give the CA actual power, which would turn the previous calculus on the CA on its head, as its power to legislate fully would mean that it would attract legislatively-inclined people.
Click to expand...

The problem with the Citizens Assembly is twofold -- it suffers from chronic inactivity, and the little output it produces is frequently of poor quality. Giving the CA real power might solve the activity problem, but I'm skeptical it would solve the quality problem.
 
As I mentioned elsewhere as well, having such a large voting body is paramount to direct democracy - and it'd make it a very lengthy and potentially more disorganised process than has been with the Senate in the past. This would be particularly important for urgent matters.
 
The most time-sensitive things are Confirmations and treaties, generally. Both things I think we could keep in the redesigned Senate.

And by giving it power, people who want to write legislation will gravitate there - where as now they're as likely to go to the Senate, thus solving the quality problem.
 
I'm still in favor of NES' reform idea. I think it could work.
 

Is the Mandatory Recruitment Act dissuading people from standing for Senate?

We didn't have mandatory recruitment during the script recruiting era. That happened to be an extremely productive time for the Senate. The conventional wisdom is that the Senate's productivity during that time was because of the law reforms, and I'm inclined to think that's correct. But is it possible that the absence of mandatory recruiting obligations also contributed to the Senate's success during that time?

Here's the problem -- if the MRA is dissuading people from standing for office, we're unlikely to know. In the time I've been here, two officials have cited MRA responsibilities as part of their reason for stepping down; it's likely that those aren't the only two. Moreover, it's less likely that we would know if the MRA was keeping people from taking office in the first place, because declining to stand doesn't demand an explanation in the way that stepping down does.

Having a strong recruiting program is more important than having an active Senate. Perhaps we should therefore leave the MRA in place, even if it is hurting the Senate. But if we think the dearth of Senate candidates is a major regional problem, it's worth thinking about abolishing mandatory recruitment for Senators. It won't solve the problem by itself, but we shouldn't assume that a major problem will only be solved through transformational change -- sometimes, a few small tweaks, taken together, can have a major impact.
 
My two cents are: Even if the MRA is contributing to some stepping down, to those that really wish to contribute by lending themselves to the Senate or Ministeral work, the 5 minutes (at the very most) needed a day to not just make the required recruitment quota in a week but surpass it, should not be a real hinderance. If you do not have 5 minutes of leasure a day which you can spend doing what basically amounts to, no matter how important, monotone repetative actions, then maybe you generally do not have the time needed to be a Senator or Minister. Even if you already planned into your already full day, say an hour, for senatorial work, and on some days that hour might be filled to the brim, on other days the work required could very possibly just fill a half hour. So you could spend that half hour doing your recruitment for the entire week.

So option number 1: If you step down solely because you do not have time to fullfill your MRA, then you either have very poor time managing skills or not enough time to do your job anyways.
Option number 2: You do have time, but you simply do not want to do the MRA and that dislike of recruitment was great enough to persuade you to give up your post. In this case you should never have accepted Office in the first place.

As to the recent cases of people stepping down, the ones I know of in depth were do to changes in circumstances that led to unforseen impasses in available time. They could not have know that they would soon lack the time and when they became aware of it did the only honorable thing. They stepped down and let someone that could spend more time take over. They put the needs of Europeia above their own political glory (flowery but accurate). And I applaud that.

As to everyone in Office currently: The MRA is a mandated minimum. More recruitment is always appreciated.
To everyone not in Office but looking to run come election time: You have no quota, but voters always like someone who shows their dedication by recruiting.
To everyone not in Office and without plans to run: Just recruit, dammit. :D

Edit: As always, to fix grammatical and spelling mistakes. (I suspect though more lurk unseen.)
 
We had all of these arguments when the MRA was re-passed. I completely believe that the MRA reinstated the recruiter culture after the script era, and considering that the administration has the power to reduce quotas for Senators should they so choose, I don't think this is an issue. It's a necessary evil, and that's been proven time and again.
 
I agree with Mac and Drecq. It's a necessary evil, but it's a teeny, tiny evil at that. As Drecq said, the MRA quotas for Senators are so minuscule, you can finish them up in five minutes or less most often. How often have people ever said "I left because I was forced to recruit?" Not often, I imagine. I got out of the Senate because not only could I not keep up with the pace at the time, I was honestly sort of bored with their work. I've gained a better appreciation for it now, but the point I'm trying to make with this tangent is this - there are far more plausible reasons why people A) don't run for or B) resign from the Senate than being "forced" to recruit 50 nations a week.
 
Trust that if someone rules out legislative service because of the MRA, you don't want them in the Senate.
 
Skizzy Grey said:
Anumia said:
Isn't the MRA going to be unnecessary under the new telegram system?
Click to expand...
I hope we'll switch to some sort of automated system, but no decision has been taken yet.
Click to expand...
It's not an issue with decision but with technicalities. We just need the new API to be released first, and then for r3n to have the time to come up with a script. Until that time, we need to continue to recruit manually.

Furthermore, I wouldn't throw away our manual materials either, as I'm not sure if/when the NS Admins will backflip on the scripts issue and force everyone to either recruit manually or by the native system.
 
I don't think they should be thrown away. Just archived, like they were before, or at least shelved for the time being.
 
Yeah, just archive. You never know where the game mods are going to change their minds on scripts. :p
 
So long as people like AS know in case he turns it off :p

MRA is a necessary evil that takes little time. For new nations it can take a bit longer but it isn't too demanding
 

Well, that didn't take long.

Only one of the two declared candidates has posted a full platform, and there's plenty of time for others to jump into the race, but the battle lines have already been drawn.

CSP has made clear that preservation of an independent foreign policy will be the cornerstone of his campaign. By contrast, Elias has conceded that his platform is more or less imperialist (though he doesn't embrace the label), and he is making the formation of a supraregional alliance a key component of his campaign. The choice could not be more stark. Regular readers can probably guess where I stand.

Europeians occasionally complain that our foreign policy is insufficiently transparent and is hatched by elites in secret. I don't think that's true, but no matter -- we're about to have a big, public debate about it. The future course of our region will be decided not by elites, but by ordinary citizens casting their ballots. And that's as it should be.

Grab the popcorn. This is going to be fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top