The right thing...the wrong way?
Day 2,038, 05:29
•
Published in Australia 
•
by
•
by Ranger Bob
Hi eAustralia
I am writing this as an individual. This was NOT cleared or commented on by any other member of Cabinet or government, and purely provide you with my OWN personal view. So don't bother trying to point score this back to Molly Jo or her Government. Nor those Senators I have high amounts of respect for.
This has been an interesting month. There has been a significant "high". Chile is currently gone from eAustralia. As Larni has said, there is a method to the madness of next steps. I do suggest you pay attention to orders, and consider that although short-term there might be some further incursions to our land, the pain is intended to deliver the gain.
But, this is NOT the point of this article.
So, we left NaN. There has been a fair whack of noise about this.
In short, people (including me) have been wavering on this. Following a 1:1 chat with people from ACT/TWO, I personally decided to support the overall shift. I do honestly believe this move is probably a good one for longer-term security.
Allow me to briefly reflect on some of the context for this...
1. We were mucked around with the brief flirtation with CoT. One thing I am absolutely CONVINCED of now, is this would have neither delivered us regions, nor would CoT have seriously taken us in. Unfortunately, it is a flaw of their current membership system, and besides, we were not viewed as valuable over the interests of our oppressors.
You can argue as much as you like Chile, but it wasn't going to work. You know this. It suited you to blame us for all the woes, but even after your own court agreed eAus was not wholly at fault, it just wasn't going to happen.
2. So...where did this leave us?
Believe it or not, I think, at the time, joining/founding NaN was a GOOD IDEA*tm. I mean, better to have SOME alliance than no alliance. And, it did work in many ways over having nothing. In addition, yes, on many an occasion we helped them, and they helped us.
But the fundamental point was indeed, as I have said before and will again, we were a large fish, in a small pond. This is excellent in terms of local control of the interests, but in the long run, was not delivering much in terms of actual change.
3. TWO/ACT approached us. I met with and talked with one of their people, and, it was refreshing. I am a cynical oldie - I am not one to easily contemplate either shifting alliances or jumping ship - and, following the chat with them, I did agree that we probably would be better supported and have some good opportunities to try and find security for our nation in the future.
So, I supported the notion of a change. And, ultimately, agree with the outcome.
HOWEVER
4. Yes, the process kind of sucked. Not because of the role-play on the forum in of itself. Because I do think any shift, regardless of elected government, should involve the people. Not just in terms of people you elect, but because this kind of thing lasts beyond a single term.
So.
My view is we did the RIGHT THING. However I am also convinced this was not in the best way.
Therefore you have an interesting dichotomy.
You can punish on the PROCESS, and agree with the OUTCOME.
You can punish on the PROCESS, and also disagree on the OUTCOME.
Either way, what is done is done, and it is up to you whether you need to fix the underlying problem or move forward.
WHAT DO I MEAN?
The real issue here...is the forum senate laws.
The IG who recently resigned touched on it. I've PREVIOUSLY touched on it as IG and elsewhere. Those on BOTH/ALL sides have also.
People bemoan the problem, but, I don't see one person offering a solution. Yeah, there are half-hearted attempts, but they are never realised.
So I have a challenge.
Senate, just one of you, please start actually proposing changes. Not ONE piece of amended legislation addressing some of the systemic problems has been proposed in a long time, let alone actioned.
You appreciate the PROBLEM, but solutions are scarce.
eAustralia is more than just about point-scoring on arguments too and fro, and trying to use the current laws, which many want to see simplified and updated, to get your way.
You are forgetting in many ways, the PEOPLE who you purport to represent.
I for one.
Am WAITING.
Kind regards.
PS: Boobies for Henry -
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
if things are done the wrong way the outcome is still wrong regardless and not speaking up is a statement that it's ok for the process to be disrespected
I don't disagree the process was wrong. Re-read the article. But a major part of the problem is at present, everyone agrees the current set of laws has more loopholes than a court considering whether to order Lindsay Lohan to rehab.
My challenge is for people to fix the underlying problems.
The CP, you, and the whole lousy cabinet should stand down.
lousy would be perspective. So far its done everything it set out to achieve. That by default makes is successful.
Ranger, you never spoke up about the way the laws were being broken and you had to have known, being dPM. Maybe it's a good thing you are no longer the IG?
Hi Lany
Can't find where the IG archives are - but will hunt down some (plenty) of examples where I pointed out that there was some significant deficiencies and grey within the law. At the time, while I went with the letter of the law, I also on more than one occasion suggested senate look at and fix them. However, people were quick to agree, but not so quick to repair.
A good example was when we were almost looking at throwing 3/4 of all the senate laws out, because the constitution had annulled them in 2011, and they were conflicting themselves in some cases (Constitution have PM the right to be commander-in-chief of the ADF - but the Act conferred a role of Separation from the CP to the ADF Marshall - but one example).
My point, is that people are quick to _complain_ about the laws when it doesn't work, but no one fixes it.
RB
Ranger, I meant that you didn't speak up THIS time when scottty, Larni and Molly were breaking the laws.
um... I am not in Senate or Cabinet Lany, I broke no rules. (this time around)
I agree with the premise of the article and well, mostly all of it : P I also agree that there is a lot of void and null laws that need to be repealed or amended. But the one law that was broken was the only solid law in eAustralia which is why I am personally pissed : )
See this is all nice and dandy and could be peaches but whenever the newest party the comes out saying they are going to change the wold make it better and are given the chance, yet the current ARP heavy senate has yet to change anything or write up a new constitution to fix the problems that they see with the nation so is it a problem with the nation that elected them or is it a problem with the elected people not willing to do the work to change the nation.
Why would they bother? All senate have proven this month that the forums can be totally ignored. The trick is the actual eAus people have to come up with a solution not just a handful who set an example.
@ Lani - It has also proved that you don't need to include all senators in the discussion.
The "trick" is then involving eAus people in a disscussion and NOT have a handfull of people in a PM.
It's my understanding that the process to amend and remove the laws are simply too complicated. I remember a year or so ago when I tried that there was nothing at all I could do. I was not interested in amending laws. they are all old and ancient based off a game that no longer resembles this present incarnation.
All that is needed is a simple code of conduct "To not willingly act against eAus's best interest" is pretty much the only rule we need. Game Dynamics have grown to cover so much more than they once did. If a Senator wants a rule passed in game all they need to do is gather support (like Scottty did) and put it to vote in game. Until people understand this the problem is always going to be around.
I say we have one simple vote, a new document that surpasses all others. Something in point form and plain laymans English.... Some players are 13 years old, how the hell can they get their head around the legal requirements of the Forum Role Player?
We need a simple system, direct and focused.
The laws as they stand now were broken and there will be no punishment for the perpetrators. I agree with Larni, but I don't even see the need any more for the forum, an IG, or any kind of code of conduct because there is rarely if ever anything more than a slap on the wrist.
There is no in game minister of Immigration and Security and some of these other so called minister roles. So do you want no role play and just game mechanics? If so, Senators will be free to give out cs to anyone they choose.
Good point. Not following immigration is a big no no, but there is no eRepublik rules that says that. I guess Senators can sell thier cit passes if they want.
I'm not saying that but the facts about Immigration are simple. When I was in senate 3 months ago or so I used my 7 Cit passes on whoever I felt like using them on. I am not saying that is right at all, only that the 'rules' that are in place failed to prevent me.
should be noted that I didn't use the forums at all as a senator either. So I signed nothing that said I would agree to any forum based stipulations.
More ignorance from Lany, Scottty was the Minister of Immigration and Security, Terravista his deputy thus takes over. Stop spewing ignorant lies.
Larni, I guess it feels like you are in Cabinet since you're the one answering for most of them, including the CP. 🙂
I know.... and its really annoying me this silence thing..... Its one thing to use your numbers to get your own way in political matters but for gods sake you better have the constitution to stand up for your own choices. 7 senators voted yes, only 1 has actually released an article about it..... Props to him, little disappointed in the others....
Larni is in Cabinet but not on the cabinet listing. I know this because she is included in all Cabinet communications and in the Cabinet irc room, whereas the Marshal who is meant to have access is denied it.
Cabinet IRC room? oh please provide a screenshot of that. No forum account either so obviously can't be part of the forum cabinet. How am I included in Cabinet communications? I was included in that one senate mass pm thing... but that would classify as a Senate communication. If you do not have access to the Cabinet IRC room, that is the CP's decision. From experience, having the ADF Marshal in there is not essential in the slightest.
My mistake, I meant that you get all the cabinet info from the ARP irc room and of course from our CP. It's a fact that you seem to know more of the cabinet doings than the actual cabinet does, but then we all know who pulls Molly's strings.
I've been thinking for a while that Larni is the real CP and Molly is in name only. 🙂
Lani said - "I was included in that one senate mass pm thing... but that would classify as a Senate communication."
Is that the one that Draim was not in and you also said earlier that you were not in it? You said you are not in the govt, but you are, but you aren't, but you are. I have heaving trouble keeping up.
What a joke. You need to keep your lies straight.
if I was pulling Molly's strings don't you think I would have pushed these new MPP's through while I still had control of the senate? Do you think I would allow such a little thing like a failure of the MoI to go unchecked? or for that matter that you (Binda) would still be ADF Marshal?
Cpt Jackson, I never said I was not included in the NaN senate mass message thing, if you're actually been reading I've mentioned that a few times.
Do I talk with them, obviously, I know what's going on...I know what's goes on in all Governments not just this one so that's a mute point. You two (Binda and Lany) know this 😛 People always ask my opinion on things, tends to happen with success. XG even had me as a hidden cabinet personal adviser.
I think the real problem is the success of this Government. You wanted it to fail and it has done the opposite.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-two-modern-family-2279061/1/20 btw Aus/NZ have now joined our Greece bro's on the other side of the fence.
I guess the next month or so will be interesting to see if it is indeed the right choice.
For the record, I only got involved after they had somehow convinced Ranger.... I got curious and stuck my nose in. I admit I liked what they (TWO) were saying but now it comes time to prove it.
Um, MOJO, there is NO IN Game role of Minister of Immigration and Security, learn to read and stop spewing ignorance.
Grow up Lany, you think because the senate meets somewhere beside the forum, you get to act like all other positions not given by the eREP admins become void. Could you be more childish about it?
Ask Larni, she's the one championing the no role play and all in game mechanics.
I think we need to simplify some stuff, not burn it all.
What has roleplay got to do with Immigration and Security? The FACT is very simple, senators ultimately decide who they want to let in. Rules and crap on the forums that scare them off is retarded. Remove the rules and you might be surprised how well a simple system works
After all, every other nation in the world laughs at the eAus system. Its a joke, anyone with half a brain can see how ineffective it is. This month has proved it.
It's ineffective as it is right now for sure, but Molly is right, we should simplify it and not burn it all. There has to be rules, but also weshould act besides the laws if necessary. I can't get better example than Air Traffic Control... they work by very strict rules, but law allows them to override it if necessary. I know its a stupid example but couldn't find better 🙂
Geez, I'm just saying there is no in game role of minister of Immigration so where did that role come from? You keep confusing me as to whether you want just the roles allowed us in game, which are few as majester pointed out. Also, with a minister of immigration the senators were not supposed to give cs to anyone not first approved by said minister. So are we abolishing all roles except those given in game? If so, we don't need the forum, no IG, no Order of Australia threads, nothing.
They are abolishing everything that is convienent for themselves, not everything.
eAus feels like RL USA ... Obama represents the actual majority but the cabinet/senate are all Republicans that do their own thing regardless of the majority.
Agreed. Also listening to only one side (the side you agree on) of an argument, and ignoring facts. Pretty much what happened here.
And Ranger, those boobies are not satisfactory, A for effort but D for execution :/
Joining an alliance is like the honeymoon period, they will pay attention to your needs. 3 month down the track, it will be a repeat of what has happened with EDEN and I think all of us know it.
In short, TWO will become a paper tiger for us and nothing more then that.
NZ, using geographic advantage, despite its smaller size, has been extremely effective in giving us some helping hands when needed.
Joining TWO is just a patch work to buy time and whilst it does offer opportunities, these are rather unlikely ones in the long run.
3 months free eAus..... I think a little more but yeah, you get it.
100% agree with everything you said Ranger
With the GREATEST of respect, Ranger, all you are doing is identifying the same problem as well. POT KETTLE BLACK. Propose some amended legislation.
I was perfectly happy with the laws all the time I was Senator, Speaker, Cabinet Member and Inspector-General. They are practical, work fine and I have participated in amendments with them from time to time, instigating many myself. I don't really understand what the fuss is about.
"What has roleplay got to do with Immigration and Security? The FACT is very simple, senators ultimately decide who they want to let in. Rules and crap on the forums that scare them off is retarded. Remove the rules and you might be surprised how well a simple system works"
In a teamwork based system, Senators who don't know jack shti most of the time can ask a Minister who does the research and take advice before clicking their shiny button. Now that ain't hard.
The ends justify the means, plain and simple. Nothing would have changed had the appropriate process been followed bar a degree of effort wasted. The people are idiots; this is why they elect others to lead them, offering them options only slows down and threatens to derail progress.
Good article though, and I quite agree that there are shit laws but no one cares to fix them.
ALRIGHT THEN INFIN...how about this:
Amended Senate / Cabinet Constitutional Reform Act 2013/6
Definitions:
Government:
The collective term for Senate, PM and Cabinet, as representing the eAustralian people.
Senate:
Elected Congress Officials In Erepublik, as governed by www.erepublik.com
PM:
Elected Country President In Erepublik, as governed by www.erepublik.com
Cabinet:
Officials appointed by the PM, so as to assist implementation of policy or Governance as the PM determines.
Military:
Australian Armed Forces, as defined and estabilshed through appointment of the PM of a Cabinet role with direct responsibility for the operation of Government-funded military.
Programs:
Activities that are approved by, or consultation with, Senate.
Expenditure:
Any funds held by eAustralian Organisations (ie, those that are controlled or owned collectively by the eAustralian People, and operated by duly elected Government), eAustralian Treasury, including Tax revenue, income or any funding donated to these organisations or treasury.
Operation:
1. Ultimate authority with respect to the day-to-day operation of Government, including spending of approved budget, operational matters relating to the Military and Programs approved by, or in consultation with Senate, resides in the PM. Ultimately if senate is dissatisfied, it may commence impeachment proceedings against the PM, in line with in-game ability to do so and discussion as appropriate in forums or via other mediums.
2. Senate has the right to request at any time, information on activities undertaken by the PM, or their duly appointed Cabinet, with respect to use of funding, implentation of Programs that use funds, or are undertaken on behalf of, the eAustralian people as part of Government.
I think that Programs are usually undertaken by the Executive. The only way that Senate can deny those is via refusing any Govt funding in the budget.
yep. Read on...
3. The PM, or their duly appointed Cabinet representative, is required to deliver a budget that details how eAustralian government funds for their term will be managed, including but not limited to income and expenses. This will be itemised against areas of expenditure and is subject to Senate review.
4. Senate, and the PM, have in-game mechanics which enable them to propose motions as they wish, within their rights as covered in-game. Such proposals may be at any time, discussed in forum or other means as they deem appropriate.
5. Senate at their discretion may appoint a moderator/speaker who will act on their behalf, to moderate and ensure discussion occurs in accordance with forum rules. Such a moderator/speaker may also communicate on behalf of Senate decisions taken which form a majority view and provide a collective view of Senate.
6. The PM at their discretion may also do this on behalf of Cabinet, or appoint a representative as they so wish.
7. Senate and PM may jointly communicate, or agree for a single individual to communicate such matters also.
8. If Senate and the PM agree, an independent arbiter, the Inspector General may be appointed to act as mediator in the case a conflict occurs. The inspector general has the right to access all relevant government material, and make recommendations and findings to which both the Senate, PM and Cabinet can be held accountable by the people. Such a role can be agreed and decided upon at the commencement of a term, and should be reached through open election that involves a vote from all parties.
9. In the interests of passing in-game laws, including alliances, MPPs and other related matters, such discussions should occur collaboratively and represent the views of elected officials on behalf of the people. Public referenda, and other means may also be considered.