Join the new world

This will be a good month. Perfect take over from Sweet.

Votado

why? there is a debate area with any proposal? anyway nobody has any respect for you so who will really take your flogging articles serious except your kunt friends?

Ian is one of the most loyal people I have ever met in Ireland, he rarely picks sides in the usual crap we see. He is very hard working and is not afraid to make tough choices, you sir clearly need electro shock therapy.

another racist!!! because i differ from him and is african i must be shocked?

That's offensive, my da is from Zimbabwe so clearly it is you sir who is racist. Im calling the internet police to complain. Whats the number again?

your dad being from zimbabwe makes zero differences everyone is from somewhere and that does not mean a single thing. after the latest incident where i was called a dirty african by seanan i cannot tolerate this community anymore.

Bye bye then

You're both racists, you fckin whatever race you are... ;d

boated

Voted

Nice work.

The only thing I might point out is that "endorsement" and "guidelines" might be better terms to use than "approval" and "rules" for things like congress proposals and citizenship applications. The latter terminology has always bothered me because it implies that CP approval is legally necessary for congress actions, when in fact congress is technically an independent governing body that can, if it so chooses, look after its own affairs completely independent of the executive branch (at least in a legal sense - good communication and coordination between the two is always important). If anything, it is congress that is charged with oversight of the executive branch, not the other way around. If congress accepts the guidance of the CP for practical reasons, which I agree that it should in most cases, it is technically by invitation. Or at least that is my personal take on the way an eRep political system should theoretically work. It’s been a long time since I've been active in any kind of practical politics.

This seems to be a common concern. For the sake of clarity and brevity about the rules, in this article I didn't elaborate on the reasoning or intent of this new system.

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2313470/1/20
My cabinet article was my first outline of this method of congress management.

***These rules do not require ministers or the Cp to agree with the proposals - only to pre-approve that proper discussion has been allowed in both threads, and that the proposal could conceivably be agreed to by a reasonable and informed eIrish citizen.***

There are no real laws in eRepublik... the mechanics are the only hard limits to our freedoms, as they define each individuals unrestrained power. However as far as I'm concerned, both as Cp and as a party president - this system puts in place a requirement, not a suggestion.

Semantics ultimately aren't going to matter though. The consequences are clearly and objectively stated and will be followed systematically.

As I understand the intent of the policy, minority policies still deserve proposal. The goal is to get debate out of the way BEFORE the actual proposal, instead of sparking a bunch of reactionary bickering to a proposal nobody saw coming.

Tell congress you are going to propose law X. Then discuss law X for at least a day or 2. At the end of debate (regardless of any seeming consensus) the law can be safely proposed. Congress members will then vote on it based on the information learned through the course of the dail debate. The consensus of members who participate in discourse may not be the actual consensus of the whole dail. Some silent members may vote the other way. If enough do, then the law will pass. Maybe by actually having the discussion before the proposal, the minority opinion can win some undecideds to their side. That is why the policy is in place.

The administration can recommend a yes/no, but they cannot force the dail members to vote that way. Each vote still belongs to the elected congress member.

That's a very accurate description of the intent/design.

It is not the intent or the even the scope of the control that I have an issue with. In fact I am personally an enthusiastic supporter of greater structure in congress debates, as well as public recognition of those who violate these procedures (hence the congress section in my survey).

My only issue is whether the CP is the right person to do the job, at least without a formal invitation from congress or party presidents to do so. I would have no problem whatsoever if the congress voted on making Ian head of congress. In fact I think it would be a great idea. Ian is an excellent administrator.

But when the executive branch takes it upon itself to IMPOSE structure on the inner workings of congress – especially if rhetoric is used that implies citizen-granting or voting procedures or any other congressional action is subject to unsolicited rules or approval by the CP, or that suggests that the limits of the CP’s control over congress are self-imposed rather than imposed by congress itself – THAT is when it becomes an issue for me. That is when I feel you are setting a dangerous precedent and creating a “foot in the door” situation for future CPs to intrude even more on the inner workings of congress. That is when semantics make all the difference in the world.

But, as I said before, that is just my silly romantic view of how an eRep government should theoretically work. If congress follows your lead, I guess you can argue that is a form of consent in itself (albeit one achieved by coercion). But it still makes me uneasy.

Dammit, I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in any debates this month.

F*king eRep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS57HqWonC8

Well your criticism is fair enough, and you may be right that if this method is taken as a new precedent it could lead to dangerous mutations in the intention of these measures.

Keep in mind that this is essentially a first attempt at setting some concrete structure into place for congress... my main concern at the moment is not to undermine the smooth operation of Dail by allowing it to be contrived that I'm in anyway overstepping my authority as Cp... indeed the historical precedent has been that the Cp is responsible for setting the standards for all of government activities (congress, ministers, and in eIreland even militarily)... and I believe this is an essential precedent... one that we would do very poorly without.

In the future we might be able to adapt the concept of pre-approval to some other bureaucratic means - but I'm not sure that it would actually be better in a practical or pragmatic sense.

There is a reason that I chose to set ministers and the Cp as a check-and-balance authority over Dail proceedings... 1) They are required to be active, and if they aren't they can be impeached 2) They are directly elected by the people giving them ultimately legitimacy 3) In eR governance: simplicity is always superior to the extent that the job is being done well 4) They are the experts in their fields

So I think there is a conversation to be had on this subject and I would even advise revising this system if it were to be used in the future.

HOWEVER

Voter knew exactly how I was going to proceed over Dail when they elected me. It would have been much better if we could have had this discussion BEFORE I was elected...

v and signed.

-R.A.

Voted

Votato (like potato - cause Irish and stuff)

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/thx-nogin-2316211/1/20

Best of luck Ian