A few questions

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
First, I notice in this thread that a Legislative History subforum seems to exist yet I can not locate it. Could someone provide me with a link? In an effort to aclimate myself with this system I would find it useful to review past discussions and debates.

Second, I notice that there is no private discussion area for the Regional Assembly. While I understand the fact that the Cabinet formulates extraregional policy and conduct it still seems that the primary legislative body would have a means of discussing proposed legislation without the prying eyes of outsiders. What are the thoughts from the RA and forum administration regarding setting up a private RA forum? The masking is already done, it should be a minor permission mask edit with the creation of a new subforum.
 
With regard to the second point, I seem to recall such a suggestion being made in the past; however, it was decided that that would conflict with the principle of transparency.
 
Byardkuria:
With regard to the second point, I seem to recall such a suggestion being made in the past; however, it was decided that that would conflict with the principle of transparency.
Click to expand...
Transparency is all well and good but the only inherent need for transparency, in my opinion, would be between government and those it is serving. In this instance they happen to be one and the same since only RA members can vote on Cabinet positions or legislation and only RA members have an actual "say" in the governance of the region. I do not believe it necessarily a hallmark of transparency in government to have foreigners reading our dialogue.

I notice that Cabinet discussions are not public so this concept must be understood on some level here already.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I think access to the RA ought to be for all. Guests may find the discussions of interest and be motivated to join the RA.
Click to expand...
We're not suggesting hiding everything from view, GBM.

I just think it would be beneficial to our government to have a meeting room that TNP only.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I think access to the RA ought to be for all. Guests may find the discussions of interest and be motivated to join the RA.

Edit: The legislative history subforum is at:
http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacif...p?showforum=295
Click to expand...
I misread the thread. I thought it was stating at the update that items were no longer being moved to s2. My mistake.

In regards to the other point you make, it has been my experience that the idea of being able to take part in something that is "secret" (like a closed forum) is a bigger motivator for application than mere observation. Curiousity is a big motivator, especially in an environment such as this one where newer nations are hoping to be a part of something "special".
 
Gracius Maximus:
In regards to the other point you make, it has been my experience that the idea of being able to take part in something that is "secret" (like a closed forum) is a bigger motivator for application than mere observation. Curiousity is a big motivator, especially in an environment such as this one where newer nations are hoping to be a part of something "special".
Click to expand...
That's a good argument. It does assume that a guest will somehow be made aware there is a secret and it is worth knowing.

When the RA was initially organized, one of the guiding principles was that one did not have to be "special" to be involved in the legislative process. The idea was to have as low an entry barrier as possible so that the shared vision of an open society could be realized.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Gracius Maximus:
In regards to the other point you make, it has been my experience that the idea of being able to take part in something that is "secret" (like a closed forum) is a bigger motivator for application than mere observation.  Curiousity is a big motivator, especially in an environment such as this one where newer nations are hoping to be a part of something "special".
Click to expand...
That's a good argument. It does assume that a guest will somehow be made aware there is a secret and it is worth knowing.

When the RA was initially organized, one of the guiding principles was that one did not have to be "special" to be involved in the legislative process. The idea was to have as low an entry barrier as possible so that the shared vision of an open society could be realized.
Click to expand...
I am not advocating increasing restrictions on membership, I am simply advocating a private forum for discussions. The open forum can still be used but I do not necessarily agree with the idea that members of other regions should be able to follow along on our debate regarding issues like the Security Council for instance.

The open forum can, and very likely would, still exist. The closed forum will simply allow those nations that might have issues they wish to bring up more private the opportunity to do so. It might also allow some members to speak more candidly about issues if they know the whole of the NS world doesn't get to see every word they type.
 
Sorry, GM, can't agree with you there....If RA members want to talk in private there is PM and TG.....If someone can't post for fear of players reading it...well they just shouldn't be posting.

or are you thinking of specific circumstances where the RA would need to keep secrets from non RA members.

And non RA members who don't happen to vote, are still governed by the cabinet.

And any discussion of the security council would not involve any of the actual tactics, strategies, etc. of that council. at least I hope not.
 
A note on speaking candidly: What was once private can be made public at any time. Those who were once excluded from an area may be admitted at some point in the future. The privacy afforded by a "private forum" is an illusory comfort. It is always best to be circumspect when posting.
 
Great Bights Mum:
A note on speaking candidly: What was once private can be made public at any time. Those who were once excluded from an area may be admitted at some point in the future. The privacy afforded by a "private forum" is an illusory comfort. It is always best to be circumspect when posting.
Click to expand...
Correct. The only way to have a truly secured forum is to set it up so that only people you know and trust can see it and get access to it. With the RA's high membership and low entry criteria, such privacy is impossible for the RA.

However, I can set up a forum that can only be viewed by RA members, if it seems like it's what the RA wants. It is of course subject to the Speaker's approval, but I would have no issue with it. I do wonder what is so important that it couldn't be seen by non-members in draft stage, though.
 
Given the constitutional directive towards transparency in government
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.
Click to expand...

and in the absence of a clear necessity, I do not think there is a basis for a private forum for the regional assembly. What is the point of having such when the basic level of participation in the region is now the regional assembly? If we still had a separate classification for registered voters, then there might be a point that some regional assembly debates needed to be private for reasons of regional security, but that was before the merger.

Senesitive security matters are intended to go to the Security Council which has a private forum for discussion for that very reason. I do not see what would be gained by a private forum for the RA as a whole.

(OOC: It will likely be Monday before I can access the net again; there's going to be a major arts festival adjacent to the public library through Sunday, and I doubt I'll be able to park anywhere near here till Monday. So any further comments from me will have to wait until then.)
 
If, as Gross says, that the RA is the basic level of membership in TNP, then why would it be untransparent to have a secured forum?

GM is simply suggesting a forum that can only be seen by TNP membership so that we don't have to hang our dirty laundry out in full view.

I can't see this being a restriction on anyone but non-TNP members.
 
The arguments against a secure forum for RA discussion are at best, flimsy!! Gracius Maximus makes a good point, that as the RA is essentially the citizenry of TNP according to the Constitution then the secure forum for the RA will in no way make our processes less transparent!!

Anyone who wants to involve themselves in the region can join the RA, all you need is a nation in TNP, a pulse and 30 seconds to post an application on this forum and hey presto, you can see the magical secret forum!!

I do not see any harm in a secure forum!! Foreigners have no business reading our internal government discussions and all our citizens under the Constitution would be able to read and contribute to said forum!!

It seems this region or, more accurately, a small but influential group within the region are so obssessed with "transparency" that they no longer understand who they promise to be transparent to!!

I notice the Cabinet has a private area to discuss matters free from the prying eyes of foreigners and non-Cabinet members yet this is not deemed a lack of transparency?!

Now, I have no problem with the private section of the forum for Cabinet, it makes sense!! But you cannot claim that a secure forum for the RA which is visible to all citizens anyway is such a horrendous breach of "transparency" yet sit back and do nothing about the private forum for the Cabinet!!

It is time to stop deluding ourselves and trying to appease non-existant people!! A private room for the RA excludes nobody but people who have no business looking into our government matters anyway!!
 
GM and Polsts do bring up a couple of good points, and I would tend to agree but for a practical consideration - one that has gone largely unnoticed.

If the purpose of having a private/secure RA sub-forum is designed to keep things private from the cabinet, it won't work. It won't work because Cabinet members are generally members of the RA anyway.

If a private RA sub-forum is designed or has the effect of keeping things private from non-RA members, it is not good for PR purposes of transparancy.

It might be argued that if someone isn't a member of the RA and as such has abrogated their opportunity to 'have a say' in regional government, then have no business looking at the RA forum. There is, a big 'however' to that - if non-RA members can't see what's going on, they might not be as likely to sign up for the RA.

Transparency is is needed for effective democracy. Lack of transparency in the legislative, and even the executive and judicial branches tends to breed conspiracy theories.

My :2c: on this would be that if private communications meant to be kept private are to remain private, their are very secure means of those types of transaction like IRC, PMs, Game TGs and RL emails, etc. Private forums/secure forums on any board may be neither secure nor private when you get right down to it.

R
 
Ah, but those methods are rather ad-hoc and restrictive. With a private forum, the RA would be allowed to discuss more sensitive matters away from every Tom, Dick and Harry who comes our way.

Also, in regards to PR, as TNP is an isolationist region, why do we give a fig about PR?
 
Actually, Cabinet members vote in the RA, so it is not to have a private area to avoid the Cabinet's eye!! Just to keep some of our discussions out of foreigners' vision!!

Sniffles: If you have nothing to offer a discussion it is probably best you not post!! You may risk your generic response to my post becoming boring..oops..too late!! ;)
 
I actually support Gracius Maximus and Poltsamaa on this.

I support giving the RA a hidden forum simply because it adds to the curiosity factor. I really doubt this will hurt our public relations in any way, either.
 
mr_sniffles:
The response has been utterly predictable too.
Click to expand...
If this thread is so onerous to you, Minister then perhaps we would all be better served if you were to take your attentions elsewhere?


Petty flame-bait is hardly becoming of a Cabinet Minister, don't you think?
 
That curiosity point is BS, if I may say. It just srengthens the feeling that "the real stuff" is always discussed behind closed doors. It gives a picture of us as some secretive conspirators. Maybe it suits some of you but I couldn't care less. I want to be remembered as a straightworfard person, not as a crooked one.
 
Then perhaps you should reread the points raised on the issue!! Your comments seem to reflect someone who looked at the blurb and jumped straight to a conclusion!!

As has been clearly stated a number of times, the private chambers of the RA will exclude only foreigners(ie. non-TNP citizens under the Constitution)!! How is that in any way secretive?! Do we owe it to every other nation in NationStates to publicise our regional discussions?! What business is it of theirs?!

A "secret" forum open to every citizen registered on this forum is secretive and crooked?! Don't be ridiculous!!
 
What about a long time TNP citizen who does not wish to join RA? He/she should also have the right to know what is happening. What about a citizen who hasn't registered RA membership yet? I had to wait over a week for my RA membership because of the elections that were going on at that time.

Why should we keep these conversations private from visitors, when these could give an educative example to some new regions? What about foreign press?

Non-members may be kept from posting here, but I can't see any RA content, so far or coming, that should be hidden.
 
Lazy Wizard:
What about a long time TNP citizen who does not wish to join RA? He/she should also have the right to know what is happening. What about a citizen who hasn't registered RA membership yet? I had to wait over a week for my RA membership because of the elections that were going on at that time.

Why should we keep these conversations private from visitors, when these could give an educative example to some new regions? What about foreign press?

Non-members may be kept from posting here, but I can't see any RA content, so far or coming, that should be hidden.
Click to expand...
We're not suggesting that all RA discussions be held in private, but that the option to hide sensitive discussions from prying eyes should be available.
 
What about a long time TNP citizen who does not wish to join RA? He/she should also have the right to know what is happening. What about a citizen who hasn't registered RA membership yet? I had to wait over a week for my RA membership because of the elections that were going on at that time. 
Click to expand...

It's debatable whether someone who lives in TNP but refuses to participate is an actual "Citizen" (i.e protected by the Constitution) or just a Resident. Either way, if they care enough to know what is going on in the regional government, then they will join. If they don't, then the large majority of what the RA discusses won't affect them anyway. And, either way, I don't really care if someone who doesn't want to participate is kept out of a few sensitive discussions. They have a right to get involved, telling them they have to post a little oath and vote every now and then in order to see sensitive discussions isn't denying them that right.

Transparency is all well and good, but it is supposed to protect the citizens. As it is, the only people that would be barred from some of these discussions are, essentially, non-citizens. I also have a right to be able to say what I wish without having to worry about who is listening in.

Why should we keep these conversations private from visitors, when these could give an educative example to some new regions? What about foreign press?
Click to expand...

I believe most of the discussions would be public still, and, quite frankly, I don't care about the foreign press. Our decisions should be based off of what is best for TNP, not what is best for the foreign press.
 
I should note that I am in no way advocating a forum that is closed to the Cabinet as someone mentioned earlier. That would, in my opinion, be pointless.
 
Here's an idea:

By legislative act/'House Rule', we establish a forum, the contents of which are visible only to RA members, that would be titled "Closed Session' and be the equivalent of a closed session of the RA?

Legislative bodies have traditionally establised by legislation 'house rules' to provide for private discussions and committee activities.

I believe that this type of arrangement would fit the bill (no pun intended...OK, the pun was intended) without compromising the 'transparency' of legislative debates and acts which are conducted in public anyway. I also see no problem with keeping 'closed session' items out of the view of non-citizens.

R
 
IRL most US state legislatures have enacted open meeting or "sunshine" laws. The laws stipulate that all meetings are to be open to the public, but do make allowances for private metings or executive sessions. The reasons a governing body may conduct business in private are limited. Those reasons might include personnel issues or legal matters.

The suggestion to have a private forum was made absent any similar safeguards for the residents of TNP who are not in the Regional Assembly. Here's a scenario: We start out by saying don't think we'll use a private forum much, but it would be nice to have. As things evolve, it becomes used more and more frequently. Before long it is used almost exclusively. The freedom of information once enjoyed by all becomes, in practice, limited to the few.
 
Yet the Constitution is clear that the only members considered "citizens" are those that join the Regional Assembly so why should we ever care if that scenario comes to pass?

Of what point is transparency to those that can not be bothered to take part in the governance of the region?
 
A point I also raised earlier!!

According to the Constitution, citizens are those who have registered as members of the RA!!

So, according to the Constitution, a chamber for the RA viewable only by the RA is an open forum viewable to all citizens!!

Unless of course there are some non-TNP citizens we are somehow required to report all activities to?!
 
Gracius Maximus:
Yet the Constitution is clear that the only members considered "citizens" are those that join the Regional Assembly so why should we ever care if that scenario comes to pass?

Of what point is transparency to those that can not be bothered to take part in the governance of the region?
Click to expand...
I care. I am not more important than the thousands of other nations that make their home in TNP. Each and every one of them has "a right to know."

Suppose the RA holds preliminary discussions on issues such as endo caps or changing RA membership requirements. This legislation could affect those nations who have not taken the oath we now require. I think it would be unfair to hold legislative discussions in secret, particularly when the outcome has a potential to impact any TNP nation.
 
If that is the case then the Cabinet chambers should be completely open as well. No use being discriminatory over this is there?
 
Could someone elucidate for me.....

what are the potential discussions that would need secrecy??

I would like some specifics so as to clarify exactly under what circumstances a closed RA forum would be deemed nescecary (sic).....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top