New Government?

[Southern Bellz]

I just want to start out by saying admins that lurk here, feel free to put your 2cents in on this.I think the current TSP government needs to change. The biggest problems we have is the fact there is no Prime Minister and no Minister of FA. ( I have been doing a bit of FA work in Taijitu and Region Inc). These are HUGE omissions in this government. On top of that, besides Todd and Dyr, who both signed in, it seems like the remaining people who got elected to government are not too active. (Though I figure I'll give them a week to sign in)Regardless of that, our current system is extremely slow, and I think the biggest reminder is the fact that it has been taking forever to get one simple law about delegate endorsements limits changed, and this is an issue that is agreed upon universally. I really feel our system is too bloated and rule heavy for the amount of players that are active in The South Pacific.What I want to see from the new system:The first thing I think it is important is to preserve the current way the delegate is selected. Without this in place, I feel I never would have had the chance to become delegate of this region. I like that The South Pacific has its basis in democratic ideas, and this is a place where I see it working.However what I don't get a sense of the democratic process working is in the legislative process. I don't get the vibe that many citizens of The South Pacific are interested in legislating laws, but I do get the sense that they want representation. I feel the proper shift in this sense is having the legislative part of The South Pacific being handled by the government. I think this solves a lot of issues that this government has:The first is I think issues that rise up are able to be dealt with in a timely manner that is acceptable. The second is I think it would actually give players more interest in being in the government because you actually do get to serve the people and not just do the boring nitty gritty of keeping up with the daily tasks at hand. Plus the people who are in the government (for the most part) are the most active citizens in the legislation process.The third is something I feel is important. Currently with the democratic system of legislation, shift policy is like steering a large boat. From time to time we can make moves to dodge the ice burg, but we never really venture out and try things out and sees what works. I feel this is directly attributed to the fact that democracy is a long process.I think by doing this, we keep our democratic ideals, and at the same time we get a government that works.There is one last issue I would like to address. And that is the fact that The South Pacific forum communities are pretty separate from what goes on in the game, and I would like to see a government that actually on some level operates on the RMB and in the game. So if anyone has ideas for that, I welcome it.

[Guest]

Personally I think it's a very bad idea to put the legislative process in the hands of the government alone. First it would let the governemnt to do whatever they please without any check or balance, and second it would kill all remaining interest non-government members might have in the political process. Internet democracy is a slow process, because you need people to give the time to react. Letting the government do this does not essentially change this if you want the opinion of all government members. Legally, changing a law should not take longer than two weeks: 1 for discussion and one for vote. Perhaps with some streamlining this could be reduced to a week and a half (something like default voting during a long weekend, as with government election, although I think this would make things even more formal rather than less), but not much less. Every idea needs feedback (nobody is perfect), and people need time rto react. Some post during the weekend, some during the week, people are spread out over a large variety of time zones, etc etc.What can be done is to reduce the separation between the government officials: e.g., if the minister of the region is not around that other officials can put a law to vote. If the MoFA is not around, another official can put out an FA update and steer the ambassadors. That sort of thing, so that you have a 5-people government, each with a primary task but a shared responsibility for every task. Because the biggest delays as I see it comes from waiting for the right person to be around.EDIT: on this you are right: the region has a long tradition of treating every little thing as a law with vote and all that. Perhaps you could try to get more things implemented as government policy, without changing the core essence of the legislative process.EDIT 2: It is not laws or policies themselves that generate activity, but the debate before implementation.

[tsunamy]

Just so I'm clear on what you're suggesting: how would the government policy be dictated? Would each member of the cabinet -- in addition to the assigned role -- have a vote on the issues at hand ... or would it just be decided from above?If we made a hybrid where elected officials act as the legislative body and in their cabinet roles ... I'd support it.But I think part of the excessive legislation is a way to have as much transparency as possible. As long as the government members vote on topics in public ... I actually think this could be a really good idea.It would lead to a move active government and a quicker way of responding. And, if one of the government members is doing something you don't like ... you can campaign against them during the next election.Additionally, we could still have discussions about governmental action and it would be up to the elected officials to respond or not be re-elected.This would give elected officials more power and more things to do and make government roles more desirable. I do think this would be a radical shift in the government ... and while I get that we're trying to get away from it ... I think it should probably be legislated through our current system.Re open positions: I think you could probably use the executive power to select people for the positions.

[Todd McCloud]

Personally I think it's a very bad idea to put the legislative process in the hands of the government alone. First it would let the governemnt to do whatever they please without any check or balance, and second it would kill all remaining interest non-government members might have in the political process. Internet democracy is a slow process, because you need people to give the time to react. Letting the government do this does not essentially change this if you want the opinion of all government members. Legally, changing a law should not take longer than two weeks: 1 for discussion and one for vote. Perhaps with some streamlining this could be reduced to a week and a half (something like default voting during a long weekend, as with government election, although I think this would make things even more formal rather than less), but not much less. Every idea needs feedback (nobody is perfect), and people need time rto react. Some post during the weekend, some during the week, people are spread out over a large variety of time zones, etc etc.

I would have to underscore the above statement. Personally, I believe the government is only a vehicle of the people, designed to reflect the policies and procedures the citizens approve of. We have that currently, but maybe it would be time to review such laws, but review carefully. I do not believe the cabinet alone should be charged with doing this - all debates on law alterings should be open to all citizens.

But I kind of want to build on Tsrill's comment here, on the checks and balances. If we're going to have the legislative body consist of the cabinet, that gives the cabinet an awfully high amount of power. Also, this body *must not* be closed off to the people. But, perhaps if we're going to go that route we should also create another section of government, judges, which are comprised of trusted citizens of TSP that would be active enough to sign on a few times a week at a minimum. You know, just to keep the legislative in check. I have ideas for nominations for those positions, if people wish to hear that, but yeah, lol.

Laws in legislative processes take a while, as Tsrill mentioned. Since we all have real lives outside of the game (well, MOST do, lol!) it will take a bit of time for a debate, then enacting a law into place. I really wouldn't put the time limit of going about debating and passing a law to 1.5-2 weeks. Now, what we could do to speed up the process is vote on more than one change at a time, if we want to go the route of changing some laws or reviewing them. That might work.

[Todd McCloud]

We are, at this time, slightly handcuffed, however. Currently, we only have three active government members (myself, Dyr, and Bellz), and about a dozen or so regulars who visit the boards at least on a weekly basis (I've been watching this over the past week, to make sure and stuff). Now, that's not to say we're all bad here, but we could use more bodies to get things going! Our 'old geezers' (as outlined by Tsrill, lol) will always be there and we should never pass up their 'sage-like advice', but yeah. We could use more help in the government!



I think a pressing issue is the lack of bodies we have here to debate and fill positions, which stems from an almost disconnection between forum and the region. Now, this isn't uncharacteristic (any feeder has around less than 1% of its total population active on the forums), but we could use something to gain activity. Activity wakes up people, old and new, and compels them to want to do things. We recently had delegate elections in TEP, for instance (which I didn't run in), and it did wake people up. That's not because I was a bad delegate, or people were glad to see me go (so they say, lol), it's just how the game is. Activity brings in people. But we should be certain to create positive activity, and not negative, lol.



Another issue with the laws I think rests in how the common person views them. They're big. And most members want to read the first sentence, last, and maybe a few points in between. Maybe we could use a little bit of help getting the new members to understand our laws better. I tried to do that a while back with our wiki, but maybe some of those 'old members' could help to to kind of guide new members through the processes. That way, if one of them says 'hey, why don't we do things <em class='bbc'>this</em> way?' we'd be a little more able to address such issues. Doesn't mean we have to change the laws, of course, but it is something to think about.