[Cong] He's not the messiah, just a very naughty congressman...
Day 5,579, 01:24
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Madacaion
Its been a while since I've written one of these, apologies in advance
If you've seen the eUK press recently you might be forgiven for thinking that we've all been saved by the spamicans, riding in to save the day.
But unfortunately the reality isn't quite matching up to the hype.
Now, my issue here is not with the rubbery taste of spam, nor is it with its poor attempt to try and pass itself off as food.
Shudders
Importantly, its not even about the ideas themselves - although I would prefer to have been able to actually have a debate about it, but they are fundamentally some decent ideas that I would like to engage with.
No, my issue here is with the way that they were championed, passed and then subsequently the way that dissention was dealt with.
The experiment
After seeing some of the congress articles, and thread I concluded that a new way to congress was being shown to me by the spammicans, and I should try it out for a while - surely that would be beneficial?
Some sterling examples of Chief Spam Cheerleader demonstrating the ABCs of congress
After being called out for not reading/abiding by the common agreement on citizenship
Rule 1: Ignore previous rules, call out anyone that tries to change things unilaterally
Highlighting that congress is sovereign
Rule 2: Congress is sovereign, anyone that attempts to override this is a tyrant
Original vote on woldy proposals
Closed vote
Rule 3: When the votes don't go your way, complain, say that it was rigged, say that it was stolen, then just carry on like you won
Congrats on your new campaign manager Woldy!
So claptrap or not?
Do you fancy revising your position Woldy? If parliament is sovereign do you fancy perhaps rolling back your changes and proposing them properly - then actually abiding by the votes this time?
Perhaps even: "Oh yeah, can see it now - mea culpa, will try not to in future"
The ideas
As I said before I'd like to separate out the ideas, because at the core they arn't half bad - but been implemented a bit half-cocked.
- On the country feed :
Yes, we should use it more, but its not a good place for debate or votes. I'd propose instead that all concluded votes, including topic and vote count is posted on feed by speaker when they have closed.
- On votes and debates:
To avoid your "its sat night" issue, perhaps when calling votes/debates the speaker informs congress at the start when it will close. That way we're all on the same page (and i'll even suggest that you dont stick with abitrary 24hrs, but use a bit of common sense to suggest something far enough but not too far).
- On Paralementy sovereignty:
Broadly agree, but think that we should consider the copypaste as our statue book (doesnt need to be a lot, simple is better) but previous congress rules do and should apply until they are repealed. Its not an opt in process imo.
- On Speakers:
Honestly, not fussed. But if people want to take it on great. I would actually probably have discussed having a member of Gov (one of the named reps) be the speaker and its up to the gov to organise etc. but opinion very loosely held.
Thoughts?
~Mada
If you've seen the eUK press recently you might be forgiven for thinking that we've all been saved by the spamicans, riding in to save the day.
But unfortunately the reality isn't quite matching up to the hype.
Now, my issue here is not with the rubbery taste of spam, nor is it with its poor attempt to try and pass itself off as food.
Shudders
Importantly, its not even about the ideas themselves - although I would prefer to have been able to actually have a debate about it, but they are fundamentally some decent ideas that I would like to engage with.
No, my issue here is with the way that they were championed, passed and then subsequently the way that dissention was dealt with.
The experiment
After seeing some of the congress articles, and thread I concluded that a new way to congress was being shown to me by the spammicans, and I should try it out for a while - surely that would be beneficial?
Some sterling examples of Chief Spam Cheerleader demonstrating the ABCs of congress
After being called out for not reading/abiding by the common agreement on citizenship
Rule 1: Ignore previous rules, call out anyone that tries to change things unilaterally
Highlighting that congress is sovereign
Rule 2: Congress is sovereign, anyone that attempts to override this is a tyrant
Original vote on woldy proposals
Closed vote
Rule 3: When the votes don't go your way, complain, say that it was rigged, say that it was stolen, then just carry on like you won
Congrats on your new campaign manager Woldy!
So claptrap or not?
Do you fancy revising your position Woldy? If parliament is sovereign do you fancy perhaps rolling back your changes and proposing them properly - then actually abiding by the votes this time?
Perhaps even: "Oh yeah, can see it now - mea culpa, will try not to in future"
The ideas
As I said before I'd like to separate out the ideas, because at the core they arn't half bad - but been implemented a bit half-cocked.
- On the country feed :
Yes, we should use it more, but its not a good place for debate or votes. I'd propose instead that all concluded votes, including topic and vote count is posted on feed by speaker when they have closed.
- On votes and debates:
To avoid your "its sat night" issue, perhaps when calling votes/debates the speaker informs congress at the start when it will close. That way we're all on the same page (and i'll even suggest that you dont stick with abitrary 24hrs, but use a bit of common sense to suggest something far enough but not too far).
- On Paralementy sovereignty:
Broadly agree, but think that we should consider the copypaste as our statue book (doesnt need to be a lot, simple is better) but previous congress rules do and should apply until they are repealed. Its not an opt in process imo.
- On Speakers:
Honestly, not fussed. But if people want to take it on great. I would actually probably have discussed having a member of Gov (one of the named reps) be the speaker and its up to the gov to organise etc. but opinion very loosely held.
Thoughts?
~Mada
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Doesnt want congress debates in the public eye then proceeds to post congress conversations in an article.
Doesn't want congress debates in the country feed, happy to be transparent about debates. Those two statements don't need to be exclusive.
Woldy himself referred to the fact that in previous congresses the transcripts of congress used to get posted as an article.
Then where do you suggest we have these debates?
albeit there are no rules (and haven't been for at least 5 years) as to how where and when debates are made you can as a Congressmen propose some if that is your wish
Thank you for this brilliant advertisement for common-sense congressing. As has been made clear to all congresspeoples if you want congress to function a specific way you are 100% in your remit to propose it. I'm unsure if this article is intended as a proposal but if you'd like to discuss this with congress ofc you can. There is no statute book so it's not the case of changing/repealing rules but actually agreeing the ones you want to use. This should take place on a congress by congress basis, unless we want to go back to writing reams of laws - which I don't think there is appetite for.
Your big problem appears to be using the national feed - it is pretty immaterial to the function of congress where they discuss things, it is more important that they are discussed. The comment section of this article for example could host the debate. PM chains have proven ineffective in discussing multiple things at once so don't always cut the mustard. However I expect most congresspeople would feel it a bit of a waste of time to debate things like where should they debate things or what the thread should be called. They'd rather actually discuss the issues and questions at hand.
My issue was actually with the hypocrisy that I saw,
As stated, I actually think that we are in "heated agreement" over the broad direction of the ideas that you put forward.
I dislike using the national feed as the place to discuss and would much rather that its used as a place to transparently inform results. As to where debates go, I'd suggest that we continue to use the PMs, but happy to put it to a vote and follow the result.
I think most readers will differentiate between 'how congress agrees it should use its in game powers' (consensus driven) and 'where does congress have a conversation' (someone needs to do it somewhere). I know I can and indeed did. I can't really regret thinking that conga has better things to do than argue over what message thread it uses
Also worth adding that the so called rules you think have been changed have never been rules - no one has ever voted to hold congress in closed door PM's, for example (I think this is the only actual rules based discretion you accuse me of?). I think people voted to have 24 hour debates in 2009. Around 2016 Congress voted to delete the statute book anyway.
As for my nomination for speaker your article does seek to distort events - albeit the screenie does contain a ray of light in that you can see myself state how during the debate it was made clear by the previous speaker that anyone can nominate themselves as a speaker whenever - and so I did!
Doesn't seek to distort events.
You asked for a vote to begin speaker nominations
Congress voted no
Despite that you then decided to nominate yourself (as it wasn't a rule / apples basically gave up)
If you believe so strongly in the will of congress, why after a vote being called would you do the opposite to the vote?
Apples didnt give up, he even voted for me. Specifically my proposal was to hold a period of nominations, Congress and the Speaker made it clear the proposal wasn't necessary because anyone can nominate themselves at any time (quite right too!). As such it was voted down as unnecessary, not to prevent nominations - reviewing the thread in more detail will show that
And it is questionable of you to say there was a common agreement on CZ in the previous parliament when I was following the instruction given by the CP in Nov rather than an off hand comment at the head of the group - there has been a very positive response to my approach as speaker in clarifying such things and asking for peoples agreement in the opening of Congress which has set a good precedent for ensuring such things don't occur
I can pick and choose screenshots all day long to prove a point too.
Like all the positive feedback in the Congress chat that woldy is getting
Seems like a fair summary to me
Parliament never has been and never will be sovereign. When will the politicos in this game realise that they have no authority over anyone? At best it's nothing more than a talking shop to create unnecessary meta.
Parliament seems nothing more than a mechanism to keep the feeble-minded minority that needs meta amused.
Oh, I do love a good congress PM leak and so great to see congress finally springing into action and engaging with the public openly. So glad to see the Spamicans woke TUKRP up.
I refuse to respond to this obvious troll
Which one? Or is it all?
What if the troll was very sneaky instead?
voted
v + c