[Adastros] Congress - Time for a Change in Attitude?
Day 2,399, 16:09
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Addaway
For a long time now, the single biggest issue with congress has been the calibre of player that is put into our congress by the Party Presidents each month. Some Congressmen are capable, active and make excellent contributions to debate. Others however, are not; and this is often a significant proportion of congress each month. We essentially get a group of sub-standard congressmen that will either be inactive, have little grasp of the game mechanics (often because they are new players) or they make poor contributions that are mostly just digs at other players.
Regardless of what is done to help improve congress by myself or any other potential speaker next month, long term Congress can only improve with higher quality congressmen in the institution. We need to stop using our congress lists as a stick to beat each other with, and instead just pick the best people for the job, based in my opinion on three key attributes:
Activity: Any Congressmen needs to be active, ideally on all platforms that eUKers use, such as the forums and IRC. There are far too many Congressmen who seem to just pick up the medal and then idle in the Congress PMs, making no attempt to get involved there or anywhere else.
Knowledge/Ideas: Congressmen need to have a good knowledge of not just the game mechanics, but issues surrounding the eUK in things like Foreign Affairs and other areas of government work. A Congress that knows what it is talking about is going to be better able to hold the CP and his cabinet to account, which is a key function of Congress.
A Positive attitude: I think it goes without saying that Congressmen should want to be there, and have a positive attitude towards working with other congressmen. We have had far too many congressmen before who seem to just want to argue with other people about pointless things. A Congress that is at war with itself (outside the realms of debate) is going to hurt its ability to do it’s job properly and actually govern the country.
To me, these are the most important things that matter. We should not get hung up on selecting players because they have ‘experience’ in Congress, as to me experience is a pretty poor indicator of quality- there are some congressmen (I’m making a point of not mentioning any names…) that have been there countless times and this does not automatically make them good congressmen.
Perhaps we need to start doing this a bit more..
However, on the flipside to this we should not be putting young players in congress just because they are young. This is the total wrong way to approach it for me, Congress should be a collection of each parties finest players, not tools for parties to baw at each other about how the other side doesn’t run enough young players. I have seen old players make poor congressmen and I have seen young players make terrible congressmen- we need to start using our brains. Age is an irrelevance to deciding whether someone is eligible for congress- if a player is good enough (based on what I said above), then they are old enough, but at the same time we shouldn’t be filling congress with inexperienced newbs so cheap political points can be scored.
The people demand capable congressmen!
Of course, picking the right congress list can be a difficult task for PPs, especially considering the lack of information that they will receive from inside Congress- due to the inadequate communication system used at the moment and most Speakers not doing a great deal of anything.
On a side note (as I don't intend this to be the main focus of the article)- If I become Speaker on the 26th, then Party Presidents (and the public where appropriate) will receive feedback on how their congressmen are performing in their duties, so that when we come back round to this next month, the PPs have all the information necessary to make a decision on who they should run highly again and so forth.
In summary, as we head into the time when Congress candidatures will be submitted and PPs will be drawing their lists up, maybe this month we shouldn't run unnecessary numbers of new players to score points, and maybe we shouldn't run people for their *ahem*51st Congress medal. Perhaps, we should think with our brains and choose lists which are best for the eUK. I might do an article analysing each list on the 24th of this month.
Tl
😉r
Congress is a place for active, competent and positive eUK players, not a body where you run the same players over and over again regardless of performance because they have ‘experience’ and nor is it a place where you put young players just because they are young. It is a vital part of government and it is about time we took it seriously, rather than using it to score cheap political points.
Cheers,
Adastros
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Good luck! v
What is he proposing..?
Read the article. 😃
I don't see anything.
That knots and crosses game. No. Thats cheating.
Looks like something Moriarty would do.
I've always been a model Congressman... I deserve more medals.
You need to think higher than that.
Congressmen not congressmembers? - Obv. a sexist.
Points well made, vote!
An interesting article, outlines very good points. Voted!
Good article, but I would suggest that there's room in congress for some youngsters - each party should ideally throw a few inexperienced players that are active and have positive attitudes into congress each month; if congress is working as it should that's a good way to give them the experience and the knowledge they need to be become the political leaders of tomorrow.
Yeah, I think if a party has an active newbie who seems capable enough then there could be room for one or two in congress, but it should be a minority. I also think that new guys should be spending a month or two getting involved in their party before being thrown into Congress
You make some excellent points. It is good to give young players a chance, but their readiness should be judged on a case by case basis, as should continuing to give places to older players. Even the biggest parties don't have so many candidates that it is impossible to apply your criteria and choose the most likely to succeed.
I agree with a lot of this, but is also strongly believe that congress' low calibre is a cause and effect of diminished responsibility, if congress fulfilled roles such as holding government to account, discussing laws, taxes, and events ie. being more involved would force congress into being more active and competent. A big issue with that is the voting system, which puts congressional regulation and accountability in the hands of PP's as they can continue to run rubbish congressmen regardless. I think a system of naming and shaming inactive and lazy congressmen such as what was done in the first few months of the speaker would help there.
Yeah I agree with you, I think congress has been in a vicious cycle of not being effective, which has led to PPs just caring less about who they put in there, which has made it even less effective. The naming and shaming is defo something I'd do
I'm sure the Shadow Shadow Cabinet will get this lot sorted.
You do one of these "Congress ideas" articles every once in a while (or someone does). I think you need to be more direct and talk to every Congressman and party president individually about your ideas and then have a Congress discussion once you have persuaded a majority of them, I believe that would be very effective. I read most of it and you raised some good points.