Opinion Piece: Stay the Course

Deepest House

Vice Chancellor
Vice Chancellor
Discord Moderator
#21
I think he is saying their decision to motion to table is psychotic. Could be wrong.

It’s not the word I would use, but I certainly think it was rash, impulsive, and irresponsible.
 

Kari

Tantum Kari pro se dicere potest.
Senator
#22
Then this doesn't make sense at all. Kari and Prim's point is that the Lazarus Project is not enough reform, so they won't support it. They still support legislative reform.
We have both been vocal about still wanting reform, but a watered down version of an already watered down package is not the way forward in my opinion, and i have made that opinion known to the public.
 

Johnny Costello

Probably the worst CA Chairman ever.
Deputy Minister
#23
Oh my dear Sloth. we are on two different sides of the world rn lol.

I am talking about the comments made by Senator Prim about the issues. not the actual issues.

my point is that what Prim said was quite a bit of incoherent babbling and i classified that as Psychotic behavior directed towards the group of moderate reformers in a fairly toxic way. I also believe Prim may have been unaware at the time of posting that he was acting in such a brash and moody way.
 

Sopo

sloth
Forum Administrator
President
#25
Oh my dear Sloth. we are on two different sides of the world rn lol.

I am talking about the comments made by Senator Prim about the issues. not the actual issues.

my point is that what Prim said was quite a bit of incoherent babbling and i classified that as Psychotic behavior directed towards the group of moderate reformers in a fairly toxic way. I also believe Prim may have been unaware at the time of posting that he was acting in such a brash and moody way.
o_O

Ok, I clearly have no idea what you're trying to say, so I'm just going to back away.
 

Darcness

I wield the wrench
Forum Administrator
Associate Justice
#26
Uh, this is really a reach.

I've also fought for drastic reform in our region since 2012. You want to call into question my motives too bb?
Well, it took you almost 5 years to come to that conclusion, so, no, not really.

It took Prim 22 days to call for 'drastic' reform. In a region as complex as ours (and please, please try to tell me that our region isn't complex, considering that it's the entire argument for the Executive Split you're championing), 22 days is not a reasonable amount of time to have a truly informed opinion.
 

Prim

Senator
Senator
Deputy Minister
#29
Agree.

I support legislative reform, and I don't think the Lazarus Project without appointed senators is sufficient legislative reform. The appointed senators add a layer of political intrigue to a relatively mundane upper house in a relatively mundane bicameral system. I'm not interested in the proposal without that aspect. Given current activity levels, I would rather keep the current system with some minor changes to the Senate and CA than move to a more traditional bicameral system that we probably don't have the activity to support.

However, more than anything else, I support the executive split. I think that's the real linchpin to future success in the executive. Legislative reform is secondary, and a half-baked, uninspired legislative reform is not something I think we should be pushing through in the name of compromise.
I concur here -- I would prefer to tweak our current system to suit (e.g. including the "Senate election of President" in the Exec Split) instead of passing an entire reform package that only slightly shifts things and could possibly cause some issues.

Before this, I was of the mindset that we should pass the Executive and Legislative sections together, but I see that it will only lead to contention and delay -- I support the Executive Split being passed now, and then continuing discussing legislative options in the Convention.



To pull back a bit -- without the Senate Appointees mechanism in the Lazarus proposal -- the main changes that remained (for the legislative portion) were:
Empowering the CA
Adding an optional self-expanding Senate
Having the Senate vote for the President

Citizens in the past have opposed empowering the CA in our current system, the Self-Electing Senate was the least supported in GraV's ERI poll, and we are currently looking at adding the Senate Vote for Pres in the current Executive Split bill --

These main changes in the bill, if those were polled individually, probably would have met the same fate as the Senate Appointees mechanism.

I think passing the Executive Split and then going back to the drawing board on our thoughts and needs regarding legislative change would be the best way to move forward --
 

Bowzin

The One and Only
Cabinet
Assembly Chair
Deputy Minister
#30
To be honest, I would rather keep the appointed Senators so that we may move forward with the LP than get rid of them and have the whole thing trashed.

I ask the Senate to do what they want with the appointed Senators section as they believe is fit so that the reforms will continue.
 

Kari

Tantum Kari pro se dicere potest.
Senator
#31
To be honest, I would rather keep the appointed Senators so that we may move forward with the LP than get rid of them and have the whole thing trashed.

I ask the Senate to do what they want with the appointed Senators section as they believe is fit so that the reforms will continue.
I honestly believe that for now we should leave TLP or any reform package for a few days and get the split passed and into effect. After it has passed the Senate in some form; we should then go back to the more contentious proposed reforms, including but not limited to moving the discussions back to the convention.
 

Johnny Costello

Probably the worst CA Chairman ever.
Deputy Minister
#32
I still think that making a system where the President can appoint senators and Senators elect a President is way to dangerous. I can say I deeply support an empowered CA. I think a few past proposals in the CA have pressed that button..
 

Deepest House

Vice Chancellor
Vice Chancellor
Discord Moderator
#33
The thing is, we can keep moving ahead even if Kari and Prim aren’t willing to support it, let alone even discuss it further.

The idea of appointed senators is dead. The public doesn’t want it, and these two senators should respect the will expressed at the constitutional convention and let the issue go.

At that point, move forward with the other changes. They can still pass even without Prim and Kari’s support.

It will be meaningful change for the region. Bundle it together with the split executive and be done with it.
 

Prim

Senator
Senator
Deputy Minister
#34
People seem to forget the very first thing Prim did in Europeia that was noteworthy: propose 3 different drastic changes to the region in the CA. One of them actually made it (the Senate Size voting we do today), but only after Drecq radically altered it. These weren't the actions of someone that became a member of our region, understood our culture, and then tried to solve a problem. These are the actions of someone that just wanted to muck with things.

I think JayDee called it right. Prim just wants change for the sake of change, and wants his name on it.
Uh, this is really a reach.

I've also fought for drastic reform in our region since 2012. You want to call into question my motives too bb?
I believe the first thing I did in the region was to plan the EuroChoice Awards, which (when Gleg became VP) were the reason I became the Minister of Culture.

The Brainstorming Ideas thread was posted on Feb. 8th -- and most of the ideas I threw out there were actually attributed to several people who proposed the ideas. I'm not sure that I was a glory-hound looking for fame, to be honest.

http://europeians.com/forum/index.php?threads/structural-changes-discussion.10029930/

The brainstorm that led to the Senate Size Voting occurred later (sometime in the Summer, I think) and Drecq was the key behind wording the whole proposal, I just helped in the brainstorming session to work out the mechanism for it. I'm not sure I claimed some big win or acclamation from that, I just like to see interesting mechanics being added to the region to make things fun and spice things up --

We are playing a political simulation here, not a running a law library. Our legislative goals should be interesting gameplay for people, not enshrining perfect laws into the books and leaving them preserved forever. I've stated that opinion on several occasions.

[EDIT] Looks like I actually credited the people I discussed these ideas with too --
Thanks to HEM, Rach, Sopo, Izzy, Drecq, Ervald, Drexlore, Jahka, Fort, Fest, and Aex for the lively discord discussion and interest!
 
Last edited:

Prim

Senator
Senator
Deputy Minister
#35
To be honest, I would rather keep the appointed Senators so that we may move forward with the LP than get rid of them and have the whole thing trashed.

I ask the Senate to do what they want with the appointed Senators section as they believe is fit so that the reforms will continue.
Deepest House is right on this point -- if it is only Kari and I that oppose the Lazarus proposal, it could still be discussed and voted on by the rest and pass just fine. A bill needs 4 votes to be tabled, Kari and I cannot stop the discussion on our own, and to my knowledge, the bill has not been tabled.

At this point, I support passing the Executive Split and then revisiting the Legislative section after that passes. I think focusing on what the region wants from our legislature (without any other branches confounding the picture), we could perhaps better reach an agreeable resolution.
 

Aexnidaral Seymour

Eggplant Sheriff
WA Delegate
Cabinet
Senator
Discord Moderator
#36
Johnny, my dude... the fuck?

Also, I've disagreed with a ton of Prims proposals over the course of his history on Europeians but I don't think it's fair to question his motives.
 

Prim

Senator
Senator
Deputy Minister
#38
People seem to forget the very first thing Prim did in Europeia that was noteworthy: propose 3 different drastic changes to the region in the CA. One of them actually made it (the Senate Size voting we do today), but only after Drecq radically altered it.
While we're on the topic of my CA legislative history -- I discussed only two proposals with numerous people around the region. Here is what I sent to GraVandius on discord on February 8th about these ideas --
Prim 02/08/2018

Aex recommended that I bounce a couple ideas off the Speaker since my proposals deal primarily with tweaks to the Senate.

---------- I have a couple ideas for legislation. Looking to bounce some ideas.

So - #1. I would like to propose removing Senate Confirmations for Cabinet Positions. Honestly, I think that Senate members might be reluctant to deny an appointment because it would seriously burn a bridge with that person and I don't think many would go that far. Also, the Senate would still be able to remove any minister if needed - If they are indeed unqualified or incompetent. And it would be easier to win citizen support for removing a minister/cabinet member if they have done something wrong, as opposed to trying to convince people before confirmation that they aren't fit. It shifts the burden of proof from the senators rejecting confirmation to the minister defending against removal. Just an idea -

Then #2 - I would like to propose autmoating the process by which the amount of Senate seats gets allocated. Instead of being decided by committee, I think it should be based on the total amount of votes in the previous Senate election. I looked through previous elections and the committee did generally follow a rule like this, but it wasn't always held to. On some elections, there should have been 7 seats, based on previous increased turnout. So, I'm considering making the number be based on previous turnout to make it more predictable and grow with population growth, or shrink with less.

Also, in regards to #1 - if a minister messes up, not all of the blame could fall on the president because they were confirmed by the senate. In this instance, the presidents would be held fully responsible for their choices.

These ideas don't have to set the world on fire or be great - just looking for some first ideas to get some legislation structuring/advocacy experience.
After a discussion with GraV, Senate Speaker at the time, I ended up not submitting the first idea to the CA. And, though he disagreed with the 2nd idea, I decided to propose it in order to get some legislative experience and run it through its paces. I also liked seeing the numbers behind the formula I tested out and liked what it showed. http://europeians.com/forum/index.php?threads/tabled-senate-formulaic-apportionment-amendment-2018.10030013/

This second idea was not actually the catalyst for the discussion with Drecq during the summer that led to the Senate Size Voting bill --



I'm not sure why exactly you think I'm in this for some glory or ambition -- I just like political simulations because they are fun and we're able to create government mechanisms that make things interesting. I understand that you oppose that view of what we do here, but that's one of the main reasons I joined Europeia, for the interesting political gameplay.
 

Lethen

oh hi lethen
Forum Administrator
Supreme Chancellor
#39
There's not question of motives. The question lies in the word choice and behavior
You're basically describing your comments and behavior in this thread, Johnny.

Senator has (salty) comment about anti-reform efforts, but says nothing close to beyond-the-pale. You respond by calling his comments "full psychotic flip," and then use a spoiler of "sad" (similar to Donald Trump memes) to highlight your point. I point out how your comments are dramatic and hyperbolic; you come back by saying "This is not how Senators need be acting" isn't dramatic behavior. But I obviously wasn't referring to that comment.

Oh, and you also referred to Prim's disagreement with the most recent Lazarus Proposal as a "kamikazi" effort. And called that behavior toxic. That's not over-the-top at all, either...


On another note, we have really developed a habit of using "toxic" so often that its basically watering down any meaning the word once had in Europeian politics. I'm sorry, but "toxic" is not a descriptor that should be used with a Senator disagreeing with a proposal and being salty about anti-reform efforts.

"Toxic" belongs next to players like Rach and should be used to describe things like anonymous comments calling a player a bitch. Let's not water it down.
 

HEM

lightpink
Forum Administrator
Senate Speaker
Cabinet
#40
You're basically describing your comments and behavior in this thread, Johnny.

Senator has (salty) comment about anti-reform efforts, but says nothing close to beyond-the-pale. You respond by calling his comments "full psychotic flip," and then use a spoiler of "sad" (similar to Donald Trump memes) to highlight your point. I point out how your comments are dramatic and hyperbolic; you come back by saying "This is not how Senators need be acting" isn't dramatic behavior. But I obviously wasn't referring to that comment.

Oh, and you also referred to Prim's disagreement with the most recent Lazarus Proposal as a "kamikazi" effort. And called that behavior toxic. That's not over-the-top at all, either...


On another note, we have really developed a habit of using "toxic" so often that its basically watering down any meaning the word once had in Europeian politics. I'm sorry, but "toxic" is not a descriptor that should be used with a Senator disagreeing with a proposal and being salty about anti-reform efforts.

"Toxic" belongs next to players like Rach and should be used to describe things like anonymous comments calling a player a bitch. Let's not water it down.
Preach the good news, brother Lethen.
 
Top