Does the Senate Really Only Push Commas Around?

[GraVandius]

Does the Senate Really Only Push Commas Around?
or are you just not paying attention?​

The idea that the Senate debates things that only affect a small minority of people and generally just pushes around commas. This is the point of view of at least a few prominent Europeians and was expressed repeatedly on the Senate Poll Discussion broadcast. I decided to test whether that was true by looking at the work of the Senate the past two terms, going from least to most recent, and looking at who the legislative change affects.

Spoiler: List of Bills

Hate Speech Non-Protection Act (2017)
Change: This bill made it impossible for someone to use freedom of expression as a defense against using hateful language against a individuals sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, language, religion, or national or social origin. It also enables the discord moderation team to dish out permanent bans for such language.

Affected:This has the obvious affects for some of the arbiters of justice in the region but it also sent a broader symbolic message about what the community holds as its standards and the behavior it will tolerate from it's citizens.

Specifically:Discord Moderators, Justices, Attorney General, Defendants.
Technically:Everyone

Title Clarification Act (2017)
Change: This bill made some minor changes to the titles people can claim to use in the region. The amendment notably allowed speaker's of the Senate to use the title the Rt. Honorable for the rest of their existence.

Affected:This generally only affects people who actually use these titles at all.

Specifically:Former Speakers.
Technically:Citizens who use the titles.

Commendation Commemoration Act (2017)
Change: This bill made the date of Europeia's commendation a high holiday, which mandates at least a day of celebration.

Affected:Since something has to be done for October 22 now, this affects the culture ministry because they have to plan something and subsequently the whole region as we celebrate this monumental achievement

Specifically:Members of the Culture Ministry
Technically:All Citizens.

Definitions Integration Amendment (2017)
Change: This bill integrated the former definitions section into the actual offenses and removed the original section. It more notably expanded the scope of unlawful spamming to target actions such as Aditya's now infamous "nice" comments.

Affected:This has clear legal affects for the arbiters of justice and like. It also has an affect on the community as a whole by limiting pointless spam from the forum.

Specifically:Attorney General, Justices, Possible defendants
Technically:All Citizens.

Senate Term Amendment (2017)
Change: This bill provides for the situation where Presidential resignations or other reasons, cause the need for a new election. This makes sure we don't have an overly short or long Senate term in that case due to the past necessity being 35 days apart.

Affected:This has affects on election administrators as it changes their options in extreme cases.

Specifically:Office of the Chancellery, Senate
Technically:N/A

Staff Deputy Amendment (2017)
Change: This bill allowed the WAD to keep internal staff if the Ministry of the World Assembly was dissolved at any point. (This Bill was made irrelevant by the new World Assembly Act)

Affected:This has affects on people involved in the World Assembly. It also would have made it more feasible for the President to cut WA loose should they have wanted to.

Specifically:World Assembly Delegate, Ministry of World Assembly.
Technically:President.

World Assembly Affairs Amendment (2017)
Change: This bill mandated the President appoint someone to manage World Assembly Affairs.

Affected:This pretty much guarantees the continued existence of the Ministry of the World Assembly.

Specifically:World Assembly Delegate, President, Ministry of World Assembly,
Technically:Citizens Interested in World Assembly.

Legal Documents Act (2017)
Change: This bill made it illegal to lie to a representative of the government about something material is liable to punishment.

Affected:This is another bill that primarily only affects the arbiters of justice and the potential criminal.

Specifically:Attorney General, Justices, Possible defendants
Technically:All Citizens.

Alternate Prosecutor Amendment (2017)
Change: This bill allows the Attorney General to appoint an alternate prosecutor

Affected:This affects the AG and the law clerks who are presumably the people whom will be appointed.

Specifically:Attorney General, Law Clerks.
Technically:N/A

World Assembly Act (2017)
Change: This made the WAD appointed by the President rather than elected, Made a 180 day term requiring reconfirmation by the Senate, Greatly expanded Presidential powers over WA, Allowed President to dictate votes for GA resolutions if they believed it to necessary, provided for not the appointed delegate becoming delegate.

Affected:This affects basically everyone involved in WA and the general citizenry due to the GA change.

Specifically:President, World Assembly Delegate, Ministry of the World Assembly
Technically:All Citizens

Chancellery Referendum Administration Amendment (2018)
Change: This allowed for the case in which the entire body of the Chancellory was vacant and made the Chief Justice the administrator in region wide confirmation of the appointment of a new Supreme Chancellor by the .

Affected:This is a pretty rare case so it only affects those involved in that particular scenario. Since all people can vote in the confirmation it does technically affect all citizens should that scenario ever had happened prior to this amendment.

Specifically:Office of the Chancellory, Cheif Justice
Technically:All Citizens.

Blackmail Amendment (2018)
Change: This makes it illegal to threaten to release true information and threaten to release untrue information unless the victim provides some favor. It also got rid of admin actionable situations from the CC preventing any confusion.

Affected:This affects basically everyone involved in Criminal Cases in addition to the admin team

Specifically:Administrative Team, Attorney General, Justices, Possible Defendants.
Technically:All Citizens.

Organisation Activity Requirement Amendment (2018)
Change: This bill mandates that the Attorney General De-Register organizations that have not had an official public post in 105 days.

Affected:Pretty Striaghtfoward

Specifically:Attorney General, All Members of an Organization
Technically:N/A

Forum Administration Act Modernization Amendment (2018)
Change: This bill removes incredibly old language that limits admin action on post moderation by involving the Chief Justice.

Affected:Pretty Straightforward

Specifically:The Admin Team
Technically:N/A

​

To me that seems like a pretty diverse group of people and positions affected. It includes everyone from the World Assembly Delegate to the Attorney General. Additionally, while there was certainly some things that could be viewed as comma pushing such as Chancellery Referendum Administration Amendment (2018), there were a lot of very substantive changes made over the past two terms. Things like the World Assembly Act (2018) and the Organisation Activity Requirement Amendment (2018) had real changes, with the former overhauling how a major part of this game is managed and the latter fixing a major problem with groups that are becoming more common.

In conclusion, the criticism that the senate generally just debates things that impact a very small section of the community appears to be false. Additionally the idea that the Senate does not do anything but move commas around or improve language also seems to be false. I would suspect these perceptions stem from certain people not actually paying attention to what the Senate is doing. Sure the Senate can seem a bit distant at times but I think that can be solved with greater outreach and involvement in the community as a whole, rather than structural changes.

 

[Prim]

To me, a lot of these bills seem pretty - cursory, superficial.

Bills to cement previous standard practice -
Bills to alter holidays -
Bills to change how people can title themselves -
Bills to cover an extremely rare occurrence -
Bills to clean up old bills -

Where's the beef?

Why can't we have a serious discussion about change in Europeia?
Or should we all retreat to our discord channels and wait for the heat death of Europeia?

CHANGE!
Change will drive activity - will bring more interesting problems - *new* problems.

 

[GraVandius]

We can have a serious discussion of change in Europeia. That's why I wrote this article to get some kind of data oriented perspective rather than just blowing rehtoric.

Also basically attempting to light shit on fire in order to have something to do is a abhorrent policy approach. Change should be pursued because it presents the plausible outcome of making the region a better place and litterally for no other reason.

 

[Deepest House]

Let’s not forget we are playing a game and not riding a conveyor belt.

 

[Prim]

We can have a serious discussion of change in Europeia. That's why I wrote this article to get some kind of data oriented perspective rather than just blowing rehtoric.

Also basically attempting to light shit on fire in order to have something to do is a abhorrent policy approach. Change should be pursued because it presents the plausible outcome of making the region a better place and litterally for no other reason.

It's good to know that your conception of any change in the structure of the government is equivalent to "lighting shit on fire".

Activity/Interest is my only goal - but puttering around fixing current bills and shuffling around sections between bills isn't a thrilling draw for new players, in my opinion.

 

[GraVandius]

That's litterally not what I was referring to and is definetly a miscahecterization of what I said. You specifically stated

CHANGE!
Change will drive activity - will bring more interesting problems - *new* problems.

Which would imply that you wanted to make problems for the sole purpose of fixing them. Thus, lighting shit on fire.

 

[Prim]

That's litterally not what I was referring to and is definetly a miscahecterization of what I said. You specifically stated

CHANGE!
Change will drive activity - will bring more interesting problems - *new* problems.

Which would imply that you wanted to make problems for the sole purpose of fixing them. Thus, lighting shit on fire.

Nah - I meant that each structure comes with its own pitfalls and issues. But tweaking the one that we have til it shines isn't interesting. It's just window dressing.

If we decide to change the structure somehow, that would provide new opportunities for new laws - new avenues to explore nuances.

Not implying burning anything down for the sake of activity - I'm saying that building something new will be more interesting than dotting I's and crossing T's in the same old dusty books that we've had for years.

 

[Darcness]

That's litterally not what I was referring to and is definetly a miscahecterization of what I said. You specifically stated

CHANGE!
Change will drive activity - will bring more interesting problems - *new* problems.

Which would imply that you wanted to make problems for the sole purpose of fixing them. Thus, lighting shit on fire.

Nah - I meant that each structure comes with its own pitfalls and issues. But tweaking the one that we have til it shines isn't interesting. It's just window dressing.

If we decide to change the structure somehow, that would provide new opportunities for new laws - new avenues to explore nuances.

Not implying burning anything down for the sake of activity - I'm saying that building something new will be more interesting than dotting I's and crossing T's in the same old dusty books that we've had for years.

Oh, Honored Citizen Speaking Rights discussion, how I missed thee.

Wait, no, I don't miss it. At all.

Never mind. Carry on.

 

[Moronist Decisions]

The way that science works is that you build on to improve perfection. The problem with letting consequences fall where they may is that it could have significant changes. And while some changes are minor others aren't. The World Assembly Act (2017) definitely was not minor.

Philosophically, Europeian law has taken years to evolve. After the early days of law, it has evolved to be a more boring, yet more refined approach. I will note that we have moved over time to greater admin action versus greater court action. Unrefined laws for the sake of legislating can lead to difficulties in governance, breaches of rights, and from my perspective potentially greater possibility of politicized judicial action, which is a great concern in Senate as you can see.

Go to Old Europeia if you want to rebuild stuff to the old days. Ultimately, there are flaws that need to be fixed, and the overall push for perfection is, just like in science, what we should all strive for.

 

[hyanygo]

We can have a serious discussion of change in Europeia. That's why I wrote this article to get some kind of data oriented perspective rather than just blowing rehtoric.

Also basically attempting to light shit on fire in order to have something to do is a abhorrent policy approach. Change should be pursued because it presents the plausible outcome of making the region a better place and litterally for no other reason.

A man after my own heart. I, for one, agree with the ERI's stance and I think an analytical approach to what works? can only be good.

 

[Prim]

I put the question to you all, then:

When the legislation has been "perfected" or as near to it as possible, what then?
Do we sit around marveling at the wonderful unblemished edifice that we've created, while twiddling our thumbs?

Let's face it. The ultimate goal for any political/legislative simulation is the process, not the finished product.
If we have reached a local maximum of substantive legislation that could be had from our current structure, it's time to venture out into unknown territory and incite new interest in new ideas!

 

[Ali]

If we have reached a local maximum of substantive legislation that could be had from our current structure, it's time to venture out into unknown territory and incite new interest in new ideas!

What does that mean exactly? Don't get me wrong but it sounds vague.

 

[Lethen]

I put the question to you all, then:

When the legislation has been "perfected" or as near to it as possible, what then?
Do we sit around marveling at the wonderful unblemished edifice that we've created, while twiddling our thumbs?

Let's face it. The ultimate goal for any political/legislative simulation is the process, not the finished product.
If we have reached a local maximum of substantive legislation that could be had from our current structure, it's time to venture out into unknown territory and incite new interest in new ideas!

That discussion has been had by so many players for so many years in so many regions in NS. We should be marveling at the fact that a region as old as our's is still as active *and* still draws in new players. But there's nothing you can do that isn't a stop-gap solution at this point, short of burning down everything and starting over...which would be temporary as well unless our brilliant legal minds and legislative drafters left.

 

[HEM]

Let's give credit where credit is due, this is a phenomenal rebuttal to my anti-Senate thesis and GraV did a stupendous job putting it together. Also, moving a radio discussion to print is a really cool integration - overall an A+ piece of media.

Now, have you won me over, of course not ( ). The idea of the Senate "pushing commas around" does not literally mean that the Senate passes no legislation or does no work, it means that the impact is superficial and limited. The "who's affected" application here is incredibly broad, and even then, roughly 50% of legislation only impacts Justices or the Attorney General. Yes, there are exceptions - notably the Hate Speech Non-Protection Act - but on the whole, this list reflects a series of non-consequential changes.

Also basically attempting to light shit on fire in order to have something to do is a abhorrent policy approach. Change should be pursued because it presents the plausible outcome of making the region a better place and litterally for no other reason.

It seems that any potential major change, no matter how well considered or thought out, is destined to be characterized this way.

To be fair, in part that is because we don't fully agree on the problems. For instance, I see a Senate that doesn't truly represent the people as a problem. Others are perfectly content with a law writing club. So maybe that's the disconnect here.

The way that science works is that you build on to improve perfection. The problem with letting consequences fall where they may is that it could have significant changes. And while some changes are minor others aren't. The World Assembly Act (2017) definitely was not minor.

Philosophically, Europeian law has taken years to evolve. After the early days of law, it has evolved to be a more boring, yet more refined approach. I will note that we have moved over time to greater admin action versus greater court action. Unrefined laws for the sake of legislating can lead to difficulties in governance, breaches of rights, and from my perspective potentially greater possibility of politicized judicial action, which is a great concern in Senate as you can see.

Go to Old Europeia if you want to rebuild stuff to the old days. Ultimately, there are flaws that need to be fixed, and the overall push for perfection is, just like in science, what we should all strive for.

Nationstates is a game, which as Max Berry points out himself, has no official way of "winning" and "losing." That means that we have to decide what it means to win or lose.

Some people believe that a perfect law system is that victory. But I cannot help but point out that the greater victory, a strong and active region, might suffer a blow if we stay in that direction.

With the social elements of this game becoming more appealing, and the political ones less so, we cannot partition a whole branch of our government exclusively for players who are in pre-law in real life. We can't make it about work that for many is so arduous they would never want to get involved with it. That's why I believe the Senate has to change in some way shape or form. It doesn't mean we burn all our laws and try to replicate 2007, but it does mean something has to give.

 

[Moronist Decisions]

FTR: I am not a lawyer or pre-law in real life. And the legal system is not that hard to understand - I admit I didn't try particularly hard to learn it. And I am a strong believer in that everyone is required to work as hard as one can or else.

So you're arguing that it's worth having members who are here precisely for the hard work and the precision in the law to leave Europeia? Good to know.

I also agree with GraV's statement, fwiw.

 

[HEM]

FTR: I am not a lawyer or pre-law in real life. And the legal system is not that hard to understand - I admit I didn't try particularly hard to learn it. And I am a strong believer in that everyone is required to work as hard as one can or else.

So you're arguing that it's worth having members who are here precisely for the hard work and the precision in the law to leave Europeia? Good to know.

I also agree with GraV's statement, fwiw.

I am really confused about where this came from, can you help clear it up?

 

[Lethen]

FTR: I am not a lawyer or pre-law in real life. And the legal system is not that hard to understand - I admit I didn't try particularly hard to learn it. And I am a strong believer in that everyone is required to work as hard as one can or else.

So you're arguing that it's worth having members who are here precisely for the hard work and the precision in the law to leave Europeia? Good to know.

I also agree with GraV's statement, fwiw.

I am really confused about where this came from, can you help clear it up?

You would be telling all those members to leave as their interests are no longer relevant or being catered to, would be my guess. But MD can correct me if I'm wrong. Or just put it in better words.

 

[Prim]

Their desire to polish legislation would not be precluded. There would be *plenty* to polish and refine with a new structural change. However, leaving things as-is does preclude non-legislative polishers/perfectionists from participating in this process in any substantive way.

 

[HEM]

Their desire to polish legislation would not be precluded. There would be *plenty* to polish and refine with a new structural change. However, leaving things as-is does preclude non-legislative polishers/perfectionists from participating in this process in any substantive way.

^^