[Wook4CP] Just telling you what is what...
WookieO
WookieO’s guide to ‘how it is’
This portion of my manifesto details where I marry my style of government to the reality of the eUK. I'm not trying to plonk any square blocks into circular holes here, merely trying to form a government that's closer to the current game. Its about time that Country Presidents caught up with the population, and here's what I believe are the first steps in the process.
Power to the people, eUK…
Congress
I want congress to have a real voice. It’s sad to see a group of people who hold all the cards in the game, surrender their decision making capability so easily.
In my government I want to bring the power closer to the gameplay mechanics. That is, that on every proposal, it is congress votes that decide whether it passes or not - no matter what the CP has to say about it. Congress are players who should be individually convinced that a proposal is worth passing, rather than told to vote this way or that by a Party President or Speaker or Country President or any other.
One would have thought that the abandonment of legislation would give congress some consciousness, however this tactic was a failure. When legislation was abolished it was not to change the culture of the eUK, merely to try and wrest power away from the establishment. It was poorly thought through and resulted in congress being less informed and more idle than they have ever been, and therefore even more willing to be lead by that same establishment!
I will aim to take steps to change the persisting idea that government has the right to command congress, as if it were a tool they had inherited during the CP election. I don't want to see proposals instantly shot down just because they weren't already discussed and decided upon. Congress should want to discuss the issues involved, even if the proposal was advanced by an idiot who just wanted to press a button.
An immediate “No” vote on all proposals that are deemed ‘rogue’ or haven’t been debated yet could easily be replaced by a Congress that can begin discussions straight away. Twenty-four hours is plenty of time for most issues to be talked through and voted upon.
If I ever think it is necessary, I will merely present facts relevant to a proposal to congress, and then explain what my assessment is. After that, it’s up to each congressman to discuss and decide where their vote goes.
Bloody forigs, etc…
Immigration
When it comes to immigration I believe that eUK needs the numbers, especially strong accounts. I welcome migrating players to join us and take part in politics. I hope that they will integrate with existing parties and MUs and that this encourages them to fight for the country, whatever their reasons for joining us were.
No named Minister or CP holds all the citizenship passes, it’s purely up to congress to accept players into the eUK. I want congressmen to decide who they trust enough to let into the country, rather than feel like they have to wait for someone to tell them its OK. I would hope any congress who are unsure about someone would seek advice from their peers before rashly accepting them into the country. However, it’s their citizenship pass and it’s not me who they are accountable to, it’s the Party Presidents who can control which congressmen are most likely to be elected again.
Computer says “No”...
NHS
The NHS is a privately run initiative. The government does not fund it and should not act as though it owns it. The successes and failures of the NHS rest on those who donate to it, lead it and work on it. The CP has no right to try and claim its deeds are anything to do with them, nor any right to dictate the quantity of its supply or the players it donates to.
I will be naming no Minister of Health to lead the NHS, as I believe neither I nor any other CP have a mandate to do so. As such, in the event of my victory I would like Dr Kawishiwi and his band of happy health workers to decide who succeeds them and how. If they want to end the service or hand it over to others, then that is up to them. The NHS will be run as what it is, a private charitable initiative funded by generous donations from players, but with no pretensions of government ownership.
My only act will be to make sure the good Doctor, or whoever succeeds him, has access to an org for media and storage purposes if they so wish.
No, I’m of sound mind...I think. At least I was at my last check-up…
As you can see, the policies in this article are merely showing you how it is. This is already how everything works, the change I propose is a change in the mindset of the government and of the wonderfully spiffing eUK public. Previous governments have delighted in an abstracted meta-game, my government is grounded in the reality of eRepublik in the eUK.
* Matching government policy to gameplay realities
* Congressmen expected to lead the direction of in-game proposals
* A government that lets go of out-dated legislation thinking
* Immigration controlled by congressmen
* NHS directed purely by those who work on it
Stay tuned to learn about more of my aims and how I plan to achieve them!
WookieO for eUK Country President, 5th January 2014!
Comments
you knows it
Good points all
Would be more than happy to see you as CP again o7 Good luck!!
v, good article.
Right i'm going to tell you the truth here.
I could'nt be arsed to read all this drivel because for one i'm pissed and for two i know it will make sense
The only true wookie is a wookie called wookie who we all know as wookie🙂
Soft Wookie,
Warm Wookie,
Great big ball of fur,
Angry Wookie,
Hairy Wookie,
Grr Grr Grr
Wook4CP
FUCKING GET IN...just need a naked Penny and I'm all set \o/
If, oh no sorry, When Wookie wins the election that has to be our national anthem for the month!
FIST
The problems with this imo are as follows:
1) Your pushing changes to Parliament too fast, most people log on, see a vote, and vote then. Reading your notifications is faster than reading messages. You need to start gradual if you want to change the way Parliament works - and at the same time, if you have 40 right plonkers elected they can feck up international strategy. The reason we work with a top down system, ie: the PM stating 'plz do this' is because a) they have knowledge they sometimes cannot share, something you should appreciate being PM once before and b) they could make the wrong move at the wrong time, for example attacking a nation when the alliance wishes to attack another nation or when we are being raped internationally and, the final details were not ironed out.
2) Parliament barely has...what...10 people discussing laws via messages. A similar number use the forums, maybe a little less. And out of those 10, a couple will be Ministers. There will be no discussion - despite any encouragement - and I say this out of experience. You can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink.
3) 24 hours is not enough time for discussion as most people vote immediately. I always say, if you want to change it actually talk to the 41 other voters before hitting the button just because your trigger happy. This method is not outdated, it makes sense. I will still vote no if they have not raised it with me because I want longer to discuss, sometimes. Especially changes to tax. Besides, most of the time there needs to be no change. Also, NE laws, people want to vote yes regardless of what the government wants. Because at the end of the day, it is the CP who takes the flak for losing a war congress starts. It is the CP who is blamed for not choosing to fight it. The CP is the only elected individual who has to work to be elected and can vote.
This laissez faire approach you suggest is nice, but theres more to it than merely 'whatever I want'
Your approach - play the game how you want, basically results in one thing: the treasury is mine. IMO you should be applauding ChewChewShoe for what he did, as it is the ultimate result of this approach of removing government responsibility for anything other than button pushing. The only criticism you can lay at his feet is failure to push buttons.
I will probably receive criticism for this, but, at the end of the day, if everything is a free for all, why should we be concerned if the treasury is nicked? Why should we bother having allies and being in an alliance if we are merely going to not inform congress of decisions taken at the top? You approach ultimate expresses anarchy.
Now, I am not saying screw the approach entirely. In fact, I support it largely. But I think it is far too much too soon. There has to be an understanding that the CP is the only personally elected individual. That MPP means you don't need to work with other people to be elected.
Anyway, I am starting to ramble. inb4baww
Ok, first of all...you say this is too much change too soon, but I don't really see it as any change at all.
You and I both know, having been in the hotseat before, that as CP you can plead with Congress to do something but that does not necessarily mean it will happen.
I just want Congress to acknowledge that they do have the power to make a huge difference and to start to use that more wisely. Now obviously that cannot happen if Party Presidents are putting complete numpties into office, but I have no say in that, I can only hope for improvement.
Regarding important decisions that are vital for the eUK, I think you may have missed my point on this area, I realise there was a lot of text.
"If I ever think it is necessary, I will merely present facts relevant to a proposal to congress, and then explain what my assessment is. After that, it’s up to each congressman to discuss and decide where their vote goes."
All the information Congress needs to make the 'right' decision will be given to them and then (as is already the case now) they will vote on it how they see fit.
So you see Boh, I'm not advocating sweeping changes to anything. I am merely trying to change the way people perceive how the system ALREADY works.
The change, as you put it, can be best achieved by TUP running 40 Kravenns and everyone voting for us q:
Now, silly comments aside, I appreciate you taking the time to respond in a thoughtful way, I fully expected fire and brimstone 😉 If theres nothing to change, why propose any change?
The fact is, since the rise of UKPP and then NE, we saw Congress used as a stick to gain new players 'we will put new players in office all the time' basically, even if they are/were rubbish. To change perception, we need to rethink the way we choose congress. Congress cannot be 'unvoted' or blocked via FPP.
Like I said, if you want this change, we need to change the way congress is selected across the board from 'new players plox even if they are not ready' to 'competence/activity/usage of forms/irc plox' so they are shown to be able to handle the greater responsibility of being an active Congress.
This is why TUP has, for so many years, demanded forum literacy in order to distinguish between active/inactive/only-want-a-medal congress candidates.
people like you boh, will just hold us back...
hmm .. not quite the same, but would make one hell of a campaign theme tune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l50Fp4l1fCk
Bohnut
Good luck Wooks, should be a good election with some good options for the eUK'ers \o/
Happy New Year \o/
A reality check for eUK. Like it!
Important to note that there's really no such thing as a 'rogue-proposal'. Congress have the mandate to propose these laws, it is the responsibility of congress to weigh up each proposals pros and cons, regardless of who proposed it and why
I agree, more power to congress, they're so good at making
all the right choices and keeping the eUK safe...oh wait...
Horice 😛
The notion that everything has to be perfect all the time is a fallacy. Internationally pretty much every Governmet has proposals they know won't get through congress. If they appreciate that congress won't vote blindly on somethings, then it stands to reason that we can explore even more opportunities for them to vote freely.
The idea that this is something which will damage us internationally, Bohemond4? I'd actually argue the opposite for a few reasons. Firstly, especially in TWO, we are among countries with active, confident, and regularly opposing congress's. Secondly, especially in a changing world, having more people input into the decision making and discussion processes is no bad thing; we have operated this way during changing times before, and I see no reason to not do so again. Encouraging activity beforehand just makes the decisions of tomorrow much more likely to be properly discussed. Finally, one of the biggest problems we have is grooming future alliance leaders. How did Iain, Woldy, even Thatcher, even little old me get to the tables of power? Bonding. How do Presidents bond? Bitching about congress and/or political opponents. We are not the only 'divided' nation, and when things are all consensual, and our CP has no stresses or worries to moan about to allies, it removes him of a chance to really get involved with other world leaders.
the notion that anything "at the elites" was near good at any time in the last three years is a pretty big fallacy, do you know ?
I agree that congress should step up and be willing to offer their own proposals or to vote down CP proposals when they don't agree with them, but encouraging new congress members to do this without educating them on the consequences of some of their actions is dangerous. A proposal to transfer money out of the country account, even if voted down, can tie up our cash reserves and prevent us from signing/re-signing a vital MPP during a conflict; a NE proposal at the wrong time can tie the country's hands militarily (if I remember correctly it was a rogue NE proposal in Poland last year that screwed up their attempt to invade China). You can say it's the PP's responsibilty to educate their congress members, or that new members should consult their more experience colleagues before proposing anything, but we all know that won't happen consistently across all parties. This is one of those things that requires a central entity (a Ministry of Eduction responsibility perhaps? Or Minister of Legislative Affairs?) to ensure that it is done correctly and consistently every term.
I agree with you entirely on Immigration, and the only reason I see for the NHS to be associated with the government is to give it an additional air of officiality and reputability, other than that it should run itself like the privately funded institution it is.
i not speak english
That's OK, most in the eUK can't write it either!
Horice 😉
open the game in google chrome & set it to auto-translate
abra el juego en google chrome y fíjelo a la traducción automática [espanol]
abra o jogo no google chrome e ajuste-o à tradução automática [portuguese]
[removed]
v
Furball for CP!