Mandatory Recruitment Act (2012)

[Calvin Coolidge]

Today we will discuss everyone's two favorite words: "Mandatory" and "Recruitment". Of course, these beat out the runner up words: "Nipple" and "Clamps". I kid, of course. We all know we love our nipple clamps.

In this article we will be examining the Mandatory Recruitment Act (2012), its repeal, and the possibility of its reintroduction to the region. First off, let's discuss the reasoning behind the law, as stated in its opening paragraph:

WHEREAS it has become necessary to stabilize the population of the region with a reliable base level of recruitment;
WHEREAS it is the responsibility of members of Government to contribute significantly towards recruitment and retention of nations into the Europeian region

So, just looking at this section, you can see where the Senate of 2012 was coming from. The region needs recruiters, plain and simple, while members of government have clearly shown their dedication to the region. It seems like a simple solution to put that dedication to work by making them recruit. Now, if you're a member of government this might not be the most attractive option, but I think we all know that the government is not always pretty- just look at our President.

Now that we know why the law was established, let's see what it does, exactly. The first section is titled "Mandatory Recruitment Quotas", so I think we know what's coming.

(3) The President shall be required to publicly set individual quotas for each of the following at the beginning of each calendar week:
(i) President;
(ii) Vice President;
(iii) Each Cabinet Minister;
(iv) Each Senator.

(4) The individual quotas may be set to any number, including zero, at the discretion of the President.

(5) Should the President fail to set new quotas at the beginning of a given week, the quotas of the previous week will remain in effect.

Essentially, this says that the President tells each member of government (excluding Justices, World Assembly Delegate, and Citizens' Assembly Chair) how much they have to recruit that week, and if they didn't talk to you this week, just do what you did last week. I have to admit, this is where the bill loses me a little. If you want to have members of government recruit why would exclude almost 1/3 of its members? I suppose I'll just chalk that up to 2012 being a different time. Europeia still had slavery back then, and the Internet wouldn't be invented until late 2014. Poor souls had to buy their nipple clamps in public.

Since we know what the government had to do, the next logical question is "How do we know if they did it?". Luckily, this next section's got your back, and is titled "Verification of Performance of Recruitment". Sure the phrasing's not perfect, just remember that smartphones hadn't been invented yet, so most of the Senators had only basic knowledge of the English language. I don't know how we lived before Siri. Anyway, the way to find out if the government was telling the truth was spelled out here:

(6) It shall fall upon the President to accurately and publicly report the fulfillment of such quotas by the above government officials.

That's right, it was up to old boss man to find out what his employees had been up to. If our Commander-in-Beef found your work satisfactory you passed the test. If not, you became a slave. Remember, it was 2012.

However, like all good laws, there were a few loopholes written in. That's where the sections "Exemption to Mandatory Recruitment" and "Recruitment in Advance" came in. They say:

(7) The President may issue an exemption after the quotas are set for any individual upon petition or otherwise, at their discretion, although an individual may not exempt themself.

(8) To fufilll a quota in advance, agreement must be obtained from the President to this effect. The President will specify the number of telegrams required in advance to offset the quota for week/s agreed in the future.

Pretty much just what you expected them to say. The President can exempt anyone he wishes from having to recruit that week (except himself, though a later section clarifies that he can appoint a deputy to exempt him, if he so wishes), as well as work out a deal with the government official for them to do their recruitment in advance, likely in preparation for a leave of absence. Not too many surprises here, but I do wonder why Mandatory Recruitment would even have an exemption section. I can understand the recruiting in advance, since they're still doing the job, but why give the government the option to opt out? 2012, man.

At this point the only thing left to cover is what happens when someone fails to recruit. The section titled "Failure to Perform Mandatory Recruitment" tells us:

(9) Where an individual has failed to perform recruiting as mandated above for either two consecutive weeks or three non-consecutive weeks in a single term, they shall be suspended from office until they send the deficit in recruitment telegrams which resulted in their suspension from office.

(10) Failure to complete this within one week of the suspension will result in the individual being removed from office with immediate effect.

You've got only two weeks in a row, or three non-consecutive weeks, until the hammer comes down on you, and then only one more week after that until the hammer really comes down on you. Short and simple, if it's been one month and you haven't recruited, then the government will kick you out and you'll be making "Teardrops On My Guitar".

That's pretty much all you need to know this bill. There are other sections, but they don't really add much, and can be examined on your own time. This bill was signed into law on July 19, 2012, and was repealed by referendum on October 16, 2013. Why did the people vote for the repeal?

REALISING that the changes in the mechanics of recruitment have rendered this method largely obsolete,

RESOLVING not to mandate a redundant activity,

HEREBY REPEALS the Mandatory Recruitment Act 2012

Change, baby. It came sweeping through this world like a broom from Hell and made the practice of mandatory manual recruitment obsolete. Or did it?

Recently, calls have been made from Supreme Chancellor HEM and Minister of the Interior Malashaan to reinstate the law after Europeia's population fell behind upstart region "The Communist Bloc", despite a renewed focus on manual recruitment from Interior. Supporters point out that the system is flexible, and would increase focus on recruitment as a cornerstone of public service in the region. Notable critics, such as former President PhDre and Grand Admiral Kraketopia say that government officials' time could be spent in better ways than manual recruiting. In addition to these calls, other reasons include the original reason for the repeal, the prominence of automated recruiting, as well the harshness of the punishment for failing to recruit.

As of yet, nothing has come out of this discussion, but perhaps that can change. What do you think, readers? Do you support bringing back this bill, or do you not? Let us know in the comments below and perhaps we can resolve this issue once and for all. Thank you for this article, I hope you all have learned something about this important piece of Europeian history, and are eager to learn more. As always, I encourage readers who wish to learn more to check out the Law Index, as well as all the discussion threads mentioned in this article. Until next time, this is Calvin Coolidge, with chafed nipples.

 

[McEntire]

This was a pretty fantastic primer on an important and controversial bill that's existed in some form throughout our history, and the history of most great UCRs. The idea behind the bill, first of all, was that we needed a base of recruitment that we could count on every week. Most of the manual recruiting was done by people like Asperta, super-recruiters who would send out hundreds of telegrams per week. Growth was generated from those massive recruiters, not from the MRA. The MRA simply made sure that we had enough recruitment going on to stay at a stable population. That function of it is now obsolete, given that we have a relatively stable population recruited by robots (meant to be as curmudgeonly as possible). So we can kind of put that to the side as a practical purpose for the remainder of the discussion.

You raise some interesting issues. So, the Cabinet Ministers are not enumerated in the Constitution, so the power had to be given to the President to set the quotas, and then the Senate authorized him to give the authority to a deputy. Even if we had an enumerated Minister of the Interior and we gave them the authority to set the quotas, they would have to defer to the President's judgement, so the fact that the President was setting the quotas and had an "option" to appoint a deputy to do so really was just the simplest way that we could have the Interior Minister set the quotas. In theory, the President could set the quotas himself, or appoint a totally separate deputy to handle this responsibility, or even make the Grand Admiral do it, but those options all seemed rather silly. Hence the final wording of the law.

The reason that we gave the President (and any appointed deputy) the power to waive quotas was the same reason that we are understanding of LoAs nowadays. Most requests for waivers would get granted, for the simple fact that we didn't want this to be onerous on people. Very few people were ever removed from office over MRA violations. It can't have been more than a handful over its entire life span. Earlier versions of this Act had quotas set at 50 or 100, but eventually we realized that we had to be flexible. We imagined a future world where manual recruiting was a relic of the past, but we still wanted some kind of mandatory service for government officials, and we could set an extremely small quota, like 10 telegrams per week, and still have this component.

Personally, I am in favor of the return of this bill, and I say that as someone who didn't always do his mandatory recruiting. Most of the time, I thought the bill was a pain in the ass. However, when you have to do that recruitment, it gives you some skin in the game, and government officials have to think long and hard before running for or accepting a position. Nowadays, and this is partially because of the waning activity, as a Senator I could literally log off for two days, come back, and not miss any votes. Under the MRA, you had to be around pretty much every day, because you didn't want to lose any day of the week for recruiting. I think it's possible that we're not getting the results that we want from government because we're expecting less from people. It really doesn't take that long to send 50 telegrams in a week.

I will say, I am not entirely sure why we didn't include judges. I guess we just had lower expectations.

 

[Drecq]

I would be strongly against the return of this bill. As McEntire so rightly pointed out the point was to establish a stable baseline of recruitment. That purpose is now gone. That would mean now wed have to recruit for absolutely no reason. Simply reintroducing it to make sure every elected official is on every day is not a good enough reason. Speaking as a multi term MoI and Senator under the MRA I can tell you that I would often spend waaay more time setting quotas I thought fair and then working them off then I usually spent on the actual offices. If we want to find a way to keep our officials from at least checking in every day lets find a way that is less time intensive and makes me want to reach through the screen and strangle people less.

 

[Fortunado]

I would be strongly against the return of this bill. As McEntire so rightly pointed out the point was to establish a stable baseline of recruitment. That purpose is now gone. That would mean now wed have to recruit for absolutely no reason. Simply reintroducing it to make sure every elected official is on every day is not a good enough reason. Speaking as a multi term MoI and Senator under the MRA I can tell you that I would often spend waaay more time setting quotas I thought fair and then working them off then I usually spent on the actual offices. If we want to find a way to keep our officials from at least checking in every day lets find a way that is less time intensive and makes me want to reach through the screen and strangle people less.

Yeah I think the quotas would be a time-suck from other meaningful programs. telling one person to manually decide quotas for everyone is not gonna be easy. compile this with people who LoA (and as such factor in for next week) it is too much of a work load. Problem is I don't think a baseline everybody gets this many recruits would be any better.

 

[McEntire]

I would be strongly against the return of this bill. As McEntire so rightly pointed out the point was to establish a stable baseline of recruitment. That purpose is now gone. That would mean now wed have to recruit for absolutely no reason. Simply reintroducing it to make sure every elected official is on every day is not a good enough reason. Speaking as a multi term MoI and Senator under the MRA I can tell you that I would often spend waaay more time setting quotas I thought fair and then working them off then I usually spent on the actual offices. If we want to find a way to keep our officials from at least checking in every day lets find a way that is less time intensive and makes me want to reach through the screen and strangle people less.

I was also an MoI and Senator under the MRA. I don't know how much time you spent setting quotas, because standard was to give everyone a quota of 50 and the President 100. That's not a difficult post to make. And then working off the quotas? First off, I don't know if you ever requested a waiver when it got onerous, but you should've. Then, to do 50 telegrams takes maybe half an hour? Probably a lot less. If that's more than you thought fair or more than you expected, then you perfectly illustrate my point of why we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. When I was MoI, putting together the recruitment report took about an hour, and I did it once a week. That was hardly too much for me either.

The point isn't that people should have to check in every day, that was an example. The point is that anyone can be in any position in Europeia and do nothing, and we have no real way of telling that from just their job performance, and we have no way of holding them accountable besides removing them from office, which is too extreme, or just not putting them in office the next time, which is an ineffectual remedy to the problem. There is no reason not to hold an office in Europeia and just sit in the chair, besides all of our altruistic need to help the region.

This is exactly what I was trying to talk about in my platform. The reason we've been stagnating is that everyone wants to "renew" the region, but no one really wants to step up and do the work. We have to set a new expectation if we want to get a new result. CSP said in the thread about calling elections that we can't just "treat this like another go around", and I so agree.

As for the idea that this wouldn't help the region, I'll be honest when I say that I'm not sure the mechanics of the new manual recruitment program. I don't know where we're recruiting from, but I assume that its benefiting the region. If that recruitment is helping the region, then the MRA would too. Then we can flip the script on this whole system that we had all along. Now, the script recruiting is the base, and our combined manual efforts are the force that drives us forward and causes us to make population gains. That's a better system, I think. And I'm not even for high quotas. I think we can even do less than 50. Even if we had a weekly quota of 30, with the 11 people who serve in our elected government, plus 60 for the President, that's 360 telegrams sent per week. Assuming a 3% recruitment rate (which is probably a little high), that's 10.8 additional nations in the region per week, or 108 nations per term. What President wouldn't kill to have that kind of growth?

 

[Drecq]

You made it easy then. By the time I was MoI there was 100 for Senators and for Ministers and more for the VP and President (Swak set his as Pres at 250 or so) per week, but if you were a Sailor or an Ambassador TGs were taken off. The time alone to check who was what and then do the math and then check that everyone had done theirs and so on took a lot of time that back then was necessary and now would simply be a huge waste. Manual TGs no matter how many we force those who already do the most to send are never going to make up more than single digit percentages of total TGs send and are simply not worth it when you remember the mechanics, that is that manual TGs basically just arrive a bit quicker (if you send at the same time as a stamp). The only way to be competitive with manual is to recruit basically non stop. And there is little reason to recruit manually at all when stamps do the same around the clock only slightly slower. Which doesnt mean you cant recruit manually, by all means do it as much as your heart desires, but dont pull me or anyone else into it.

 

[McEntire]

You made it easy then. By the time I was MoI there was 100 for Senators and for Ministers and more for the VP and President (Swak set his as Pres at 250 or so) per week, but if you were a Sailor or an Ambassador TGs were taken off. The time alone to check who was what and then do the math and then check that everyone had done theirs and so on took a lot of time that back then was necessary and now would simply be a huge waste.

This isn't necessarily an argument against manual recruiting, but against the way that mandatory recruitment was done when you were a Minister. Again, I just don't understand the assertion that it took so much time. What is "and so on". You had to set the quotas at the beginning of the week. Unless people were signing up for and then resigning from the ERN, those stayed the same from week to week. Then, at the end of the week, you look, see how many they did, and then set the same number for the next week, unless they requested a waiver. And you have to do that for 10 people (if we don't include justices). That's hardly a time suck. Also, as an Interior Minister, isn't it your job to run our recruitment program?

Manual TGs no matter how many we force those who already do the most to send are never going to make up more than single digit percentages of total TGs send and are simply not worth it when you remember the mechanics, that is that manual TGs basically just arrive a bit quicker (if you send at the same time as a stamp). The only way to be competitive with manual is to recruit basically non stop. And there is little reason to recruit manually at all when stamps do the same around the clock only slightly slower. Which doesnt mean you cant recruit manually, by all means do it as much as your heart desires, but dont pull me or anyone else into it.

This is where it actually gets into an interesting point, and one that I think is worth talking about. Manual recruiting isn't actually "competing" against stamp recruiting. The idea isn't that we can send more telegrams through manual recruiting, it's that those telegrams will be more effective. We know from anecdotal evidence that many nations will join the first region they get a telegram from. Right now, most people are script recruiting, which limits how we can give ourselves an advantage over them. We can either have a better telegram, or send telegrams faster. Besides, they will appear without the "recruitment telegram" icon next to them if sent manually. That's three advantages we should be engaging if we're serious about growing. If we don't really want to grow, that's perfectly fine.

Also, I contest your claim that it's only "slightly" slower. As an experiment, I founded a new nation. It's been sitting in the Pacific for 20 minutes, and I've heard nothing from Europeia. This reminds me of a scene in Mad Men, when all of the tobacco companies are faced with a government regulatory crackdown. Lucky Strike asks Don Draper how to fight back against the charge that their cigarettes are dangerous. Don, realizing that all cigarette companies were facing the same problem, realized that dangerous vs. not dangerous wasn't the battle to fight. He had to find a different advantage. He asked the executives how they make their tobacco, and they say that they toast the leaves. That was the only advantage he needed. The other companies cigarettes were dangerous, Lucky Strikes were toasted.

Everyone is facing the same problem right now, we need to find a new advantage. I believe that a robust manual recruiting program, with or without mandatory recruitment, is that advantage. And do you know what? Our current Interior Minister agrees, because he's started the program again. In fact, I think WL said it best in his platform "Statistics this past term have shown that manual recruitment works better than our automated recruitment, and now that we have the Helper back up and a new manual recruiting strategy that involves a more personalized approach, more energy and focus here could produce some big results." With or without mandatory recruiting, manual recruiting can be an important component of our future growth. I'm for mandatory recruiting, and I don't know if Mal or WL would agree with me on that, but we all agree that manual recruiting is more effective, because that's just how numbers work.

 

[McEntire]

Quick update: the nation I founded actually never received a telegram from Europeia. I don't know what's going on there, I just wanted to bring it to the collective attention.

 

[Writinglegend]

I think we would encounter a number of problems by reintroducing the Mandatory Recruitment Act back into our legal system. We have to remember, there are some people who don't want to recruit and forcing recruitment down their throats won't change that one bit. With the reintroduction of this Act, I'm very afraid that we would see a lack of interest in citizens becoming a Minister, Senator, or even VP, just because they do not want to recruit.

Whilst a President can make a quota 0, we must remember that if we bring this back it likely isn't going to be a one-term law. Senators that are elected would possibly be under two different presidents, both with radically different opinions on manual recruitment. One may be one that decides to give small numbers and even 0's, but others may set ridiculously high standards.

I would be fine with recruiting and being in one of these positions, but that's just because I find the task beneficial to the region and I don't mind doing the heavy work. However, not everyone thinks this way.

This isn't necessarily an argument against manual recruiting, but against the way that mandatory recruitment was done when you were a Minister.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, because I don't feel Drecq is arguing against Manual Recruitment, but arguing against forceful manual recruitment. Again, if this is a law different presidents will have different approaches.

Manual recruiting isn't actually "competing" against stamp recruiting.

I definitly agree with this statement. Using stamps and manual recruitment together is a very impactful recruitment method.

Remember, most regions are script recruiting and the queau for manual recruiting is shorter- due to the fact that not many regions are manually recruiting. Evidence suggests that nations may join the region of one of the first telegrams they get- but the question is whether they stay there or not. Simply bringing them to the region only to have them leave is not success- it's is an action that speaks a thousand words.

Everyone is facing the same problem right now, we need to find a new advantage.

To be fair, other regions do manually recruit so don't act like it's "everyone" facing this problem, and that just switching to manual recruitment is going to give us an advantage over "everyone".

And do you know what? Our current Interior Minister agrees, because he's started the program again.

Is that what you think? Manual recruiting did not just start back up last term, it actually was revamped by myself or Mouse (I forget which one) late last year. So, Malashaan did not "start the program again" he simply diversified our ways to manually recruit nations to the region, which is a great tactic.

There is no reason not to hold an office in Europeia and just sit in the chair, besides all of our altruistic need to help the region.

Maybe because the position of 'Senator' shouldn't be worrying about manual recruitment, but about improving our legislation. The bringing back of The Mandatory Recruitment Act (2012) will definitely lower the amount of time that Senators have to do their job's: legislate. I would rather they focus purely on that rather than handing them other stuff to do for the sake of doing. I would also rather 5 dedicated people manually recruiting daily then 10 people half-assing it because they're being forced to recruit when they don't want to.

and government officials have to think long and hard before running for or accepting a position

For someone who really believes that we are facing a status-quo crisis, I'm very surprised to see that you're encouraging people to think long and hard before running/accepting a position. We don't want that. We want people do it, especially try and do it. Especially newcomers. We don't want them to have to reflect on their time they have available, which could possibly discourage them from running. We want them to try, and to run, and to not think too hard about other things that don't concern said position.

Rather than forcing manual recruitment down the throats of citizens, we need to take advantage of newcomers coming to the region, wanting to make a mark. That's where I have gotten the most recruiters from, newcomers, and advertising and portraying manual recruitment as way to make a big impact, early, is a great way to get more recruiters and get newcomers involved at the same time. Of course, there are also the veterans that -enjoy- recruiting to some degree, so we would still have that.

In fact, we need to start focusing on the times where most nations are created in-game. Not saying that we shouldn't recruit at other times, it is still highly encouraged, but we should focus on those times when we can project the most nations will be created, so we can manually recruit, and get our telegrams faster specifically during that time period.

I'm against bringing the Mandatory Recruitment Act back, but I am definitely for manual recruitment. This act just doesn't fit in our current environment today. If Senators want to recruit, let them recruit; if the VP wants to recruit, let them recruit; if the President wants to recruit, let them recruit, but we need to do that by encouragement and not by forcefulness. In the long run, it'll only give the term "manual recruiting" a negative connotation, if it already doesn't have one.

EDIT: And, as Drecq noted, time plays a key role, especially when that time can go towards someone's actual position's duty.

Don't get me wrong, I see the benefits towards having it, but the dentriments are greater, in my opinion.

 

[McEntire]

My friend, you and I clearly have very different ideas of what it's going to take to renew this region. Your solution is to recruit new people to do the jobs that people don't want to do. My plan is to have people do those things. There are always going to be things that people don't want to do, that are necessary for growth. I'll tell you, I'd rather have 11 government officials sending 30 telegrams per week, which would take them each about 20 minutes (although it could be longer if nation creation is down), rather than trying to get the new guy to do 330 in a week, which is going to take him more than 3 hours in a week. I mean, 3 hours a week! He could be getting college credit. Or better yet, I'd rather have government officials doing it, and newcomers, then we get double the growth.

The reason that we arrive at two different solutions is that we see two different causes to the problem. You think that we don't have enough new people to do these jobs. The problem is that we haven't held people to a high enough standard. I mean, the activity of the previous term was just inexcusable in a lot of cases. You call this "doing the heavy work", when I hardly think that Mandatory Recruiting is. For years, we have just kept bringing in new people to do the work, and then they get burnt out, and we keep doing this cycle. Nation creation is down, NS hit a lull in activity overall, and we're still trying the same strategy, because we don't want to tell people the hard truth: if we are going to grow at the rates we had been, we're all going to have to pitch in. Someone else isn't going to do it.

And let me add that I didn't put mandatory recruitment in my campaign platform for a specific reason. In this thread, I'm arguing for it, and I am personally for it, but it's up to the Senate to pass or not pass the bill. If the Senate is opposed, which it seems that they are, then there's not much point in having this argument. Now I'll respond to some of your finer points. For most people, this is the time to tune out, because this bit is more quibbling!

Whilst a President can make a quota 0, we must remember that if we bring this back it likely isn't going to be a one-term law. Senators that are elected would possibly be under two different presidents, both with radically different opinions on manual recruitment. One may be one that decides to give small numbers and even 0's, but others may set ridiculously high standards.

This is a legitimate point. I'm not against allowing someone to override the quotas, or allowing some kind of system where people can appeal their quotas. I wouldn't think that any President would set a high quota, as they'd have to do it too, and besides, they'd become very unpopular, but there should be a safeguard, you're right. Any future version of the law should have this.

To be fair, other regions do manually recruit so don't act like it's "everyone" facing this problem, and that just switching to manual recruitment is going to give us an advantage over "everyone".

It's definitely a lot less competitive. When I founded my nation to see how long it would take me to get a telegram (which I never got, by the way. You might want to deliver that complaint to the MoI, Mr. Vice President), I didn't get a single manually sent telegram.

Is that what you think? Manual recruiting did not just start back up last term, it actually was revamped by myself or Mouse (I forget which one) late last year. So, Malashaan did not "start the program again" he simply diversified our ways to manually recruit nations to the region, which is a great tactic.

This was my bad. I wasn't here for Mouse or Mal's terms, so I didn't see those developments. Apologies.

Maybe because the position of 'Senator' shouldn't be worrying about manual recruitment, but about improving our legislation. The bringing back of The Mandatory Recruitment Act (2012) will definitely lower the amount of time that Senators have to do their job's: legislate. I would rather they focus purely on that rather than handing them other stuff to do for the sake of doing. I would also rather 5 dedicated people manually recruiting daily then 10 people half-assing it because they're being forced to recruit when they don't want to.

Anyone who doesn't want to give 20 minutes or half an hour per week to the service of their region shouldn't be serving. That bar is not too high. Also, there's not really a way to half ass recruiting. It's pretty copy-paste. Unless you're doing something more personalized, but that's separate.

For someone who really believes that we are facing a status-quo crisis, I'm very surprised to see that you're encouraging people to think long and hard before running/accepting a position. We don't want that. We want people do it, especially try and do it. Especially newcomers. We don't want them to have to reflect on their time they have available, which could possibly discourage them from running. We want them to try, and to run, and to not think too hard about other things that don't concern said position.

This is where you and I totally depart from one another. Entering public service should be a choice. People should be reflecting on the time they have available before they run for anything. That kind of thinking is what got us into this situation in the first place. It's not a choice that can be made lackadaisically. Yes, we want people to try, but we want people to have a realistic idea of what it means to serve our region. We have to get real. You can't do the work yourself, at some point you have to stand up and lead the region and set an expectation for people to follow. If you don't do that, people are going to be consistently disappointed, and they won't understand why. It's because we didn't set realistic expectations to start out with, and it happens too many terms.

Like I said, I can't pass the law alone, and as President I wouldn't EO it, because it would probably be overturned. But I've been for the MRA for years, and I'm not walking away from that just because I'm running for President and public opinion isn't on the side of this law.

 

[Writinglegend]

My friend, you and I clearly have very different ideas of what it's going to take to renew this region.

In terms of manual recruitment, not really. We both know the benefits of manually recruiting, the only problem is you feel it is necessary to force people to manually recruit.

Your solution is to recruit new people to do the jobs that people don't want to do.

Don't forget that there are "people" that actually want to recruit and see the benefit of it, that isn't new, so this statement isn't wholly correct.

My plan is to have people do those things.

Since when are newcomers and other citizens not people?

Also, I don't like how you are using this statement to contrast your plan from my plan, when, in reality, my plan also involves getting people to do these things.

I'd rather have 11 government officials sending 30 telegrams per week, which would take them each about 20 minutes (although it could be longer if nation creation is down), rather than trying to get the new guy to do 330 in a week, which is going to take him more than 3 hours in a week.

Sad to see your calculations are a bit off. If we have five regular recruiters, who each send twenty a day, that makes 140 a week for each recruiters. Multiply that by 5, for each recruiter and you have 700 telegrams sent. In one week. Taking only thirty minutes a day for each recruiter. And twenty is a small number for some of the fantastic recruiters we currently have in Interior. We can do 800 a week without forcing it down people's throats and making it mandatory, trust me, I did it as Minister of the Interior. There were a couple weeks when the group I had recruiting sent up to 1000 or 2000 a week.

I speak from personal experience.

He could be getting college credit. Or better yet, I'd rather have government officials doing it, and newcomers, then we get double the growth.

You are disregarding the other problems. It's like these large telegram numbers are blinding you. Yes, government officials and newcomers working together is the whole plan, I'm stressing, though, the importance of taking advantage of newcomers wanting to make an early mark in the region. However, forcing government officials to manually recruit is ludicrous.

You think that we don't have enough new people to do these jobs.

I, actually, never said that once. You are looking at my solution and trying to make a cause to boast your plan. However, your incorrect in assuming what I feel the cause is to this situation. Next time, you might want to hold your horses in assuming. :wink:

Unless you're doing something more personalized, but that's separate.

Actually, it's not. Currently, Interior is mainly working on a more personalized approach to manual recruitment which has shown to have better statistics than the helper.

You call this "doing the heavy work", when I hardly think that Mandatory Recruiting is.

The public perceives manual recruiting as "heavy work," which is what I was referring to.

For years, we have just kept bringing in new people to do the work, and then they get burnt out, and we keep doing this cycle.

Actually, I wouldn't say "burning out" is an issue if they only send twenty a day, which isn't a very large amount.

In this thread, I'm arguing for it, and I am personally for it, but it's up to the Senate to pass or not pass the bill. If the Senate is opposed, which it seems that they are, then there's not much point in having this argument.

Is that the President you will be if elected? It's called persuasion. If you feel it is right, you should do everything you can to do it, even if that means bringing it up in the Senate.

This also comes back to why you just didn't bring this issue up in the Senate since you are a Senator.

Anyone who doesn't want to give 20 minutes or half an hour per week to the service of their region shouldn't be serving.

So, now we are saying people who don't manually recruit aren't serving their regions? Like Senators aren't serving our great region by spicing up our legislation? Like the Ministers aren't doing a service to their region by going in day-in and day-out to try and create a better Europeia? Like they don't spend 20 minutes doing this?

People should be reflecting on the time they have available before they run for anything.

Of course they should be reflecting on the time they have. I'm not denying that. However, waving manual recruitment in the faces of the possibly elected will only create more doubt when manual recruitment has nothing to do with the Senate- at all. Do we really want people not to run for the Senate because of a program that has nothing to do with the Senate?

Overall, your argument is riddled with assumption. You assume what I believe the cause of the situation is, you assume and put in the puzzle pieces for me in how I plan to solve this problem.

Mandatory Recruitment will only discourage people from running for office, and especially in the stagnant state we are in I doubt anyone wants that to happen. Out of the current Senate, I know Drecq and Kraketopia are wholeheartedly against Mandatory Recruiting and dislike manual recruiting. Are we really going to take the chance to have our two best legislative minds not run for the Senate because we feel it's necessary to make them manually recruit when it has nothing to do with their job?

You forget the fact that being a Senator has nothing to do with executive affairs, which is, arguably, what manual recruitment is. Forcing Senators to partake in this when it has nothing to do with their job description is very unfair to them, especially when you can get equal numbers elsewhere, as I have already shown with my math above.

If Senators want to recruit; let them recruit. If the VP wants to recruit; let them recruit. If the ministers want to recruit; let them recruit. I would much rather they put in energy towards their position first, rather than worry about something that has nothing to do with their position (not speaking of the MoI).

You are completely ignoring the larger point here in that people won't be as interested in higher positions with mandatory recruitment. In the stalemate state we are in, where we should be integrating our future and creating leaders, mandatory recruitment is not the way to go, as it'll disinterest the community in higher positions.

 

[McEntire]

You are completely ignoring the larger point here in that people won't be as interested in higher positions with mandatory recruitment.

If this is true, I'm concerned for our region. That's certainly not the attitude of the Europeia that first got over 1000 nations.

You and I aren't going to come to agreement on this, and I don't want to nitpick through your points again, that's not worthwhile. I'm sure we'll talk about it in the debate tonight.

 

[Anumia]

Since when are newcomers...not people?

Since always, WL. Jeez.

 

[Fortunado]

can we move this to the grand hall as well? this seems like a huge debate it might be good to get to