A few questions

Digitalis:
Petty flame-bait is hardly becoming of a Cabinet Minister, don't you think?
Click to expand...
"Boy I am not surprised", "the response has been utterly unpredictable too" don't sound like flamebait to me. If it's a flame, or bait, it's the mildest flame I ever saw. Maybe if you work at the Springfield Retirement Castle where they can't read newspapers because it angers up the blood. Otherwise, I don't see it.

Poltsaama:
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?!
Click to expand...

What super-secret business are we discussing? Refining various clauses in the constitution? Big need for secrecy there.

Gracius Maximus:
If that is the case then the Cabinet chambers should be completely open as well.  No use being discriminatory over this is there?
Click to expand...
There are clear differences between the Cabinet and Regional Assembly. One is not the same as the other.

Poltsamaa:
The arguments against a secure forum for RA discussion are at best, flimsy!!
Click to expand...

But the arguments for are not particularly strong either. What's the status quo? Free and open society. The onus is never placed upon the Negative to have a strong case, only the affirmative. There are many here who don't feel a need to create a closed forum, or who feel the type of precedent it sets (and the eventual impact on society) is undesirable.
 
Upper Kirby:
Gracius Maximus:
If that is the case then the Cabinet chambers should be completely open as well.  No use being discriminatory over this is there?
Click to expand...
There are clear differences between the Cabinet and Regional Assembly. One is not the same as the other.
Click to expand...
This is correct. The Cabinet often discusses matters that could potentially be critical to the Region's security. This information is best kept in a private forum so that it does not cause an internal or international incident.

The Regional Assembly does not deal with such information, and since it's legislation affects all TNP members, not just those in the Regional Assembly, it should be open to all so that everyone can offer their opinions.
 
Hersfold:
Upper Kirby:
Gracius Maximus:
If that is the case then the Cabinet chambers should be completely open as well.  No use being discriminatory over this is there?
Click to expand...
There are clear differences between the Cabinet and Regional Assembly. One is not the same as the other.
Click to expand...
This is correct. The Cabinet often discusses matters that could potentially be critical to the Region's security. This information is best kept in a private forum so that it does not cause an internal or international incident.

The Regional Assembly does not deal with such information, and since it's legislation affects all TNP members, not just those in the Regional Assembly, it should be open to all so that everyone can offer their opinions.
Click to expand...
Do those secret discussions within the Cabinet not effect those members of the region that are not part of the Regional Assembly as well?

It was my understanding that members taking Cabinet positions were put there by vote of the RA to be servants to the people, not lords over the people.

This line of reasoning seems to state that Cabinet level positions are more important than those of normal citizens taking part in the RA.
 
I have opened an informal poll on the subject. It reads like a leading question poll but it is not, it is taking the positions of concern set forth in this thread and utilizing them.

Cabinet members seem to be adamantly against this proposal and I can't really understand why aside from the fact that it was my idea and some have personal feelings they can't move past in that regard. Other than that I can see no reason for disagreement.
 
They elect public officials to handle the sensitive situations in times of dire need, as to specific security questions that's closed off to the Security Council not Cabinet.
 
mr_sniffles:
They elect public officials to handle the sensitive situations in times of dire need, as to specific security questions that's closed off to the Security Council not Cabinet.
Click to expand...
Then the items discussed in Cabinet are not security sensitive? Then there is no need for private Cabinet discussions, correct?

The argument is that since the RA doesn't discuss such items that it can not have a private forum in which it can post away from diplomats (who have seen fit to start interjecting here and elsewhere over my opinions) so why should the same not be true for the Cabinet, they are servants of the region correct? Didn't I just read that in your "Know Your Rights!!" listing? They are not superior to the RA, just custodians of policy and procedure for a predetermined amount of time.

So, either the RA has as much right to a private chamber as the Cabinet does or the Cabinet has no right to one just as the RA does not.
 
No the RA does not have any right to a private forum because they do not handle sensitive information. We don't have a private cabinet area just to let loose with wild hookers and booze, we have it to discuss areas sensitive to our specific ministries or would otherwise affect other ministries.

Our legislative system is fused with our executive system ever since our recent executive problems. We don't lord over, we're first among equals. Regional Assembly members were not elected and are not custodians of the region but those who choose to participate in our political system. Just because they choose to participate does not make them superior than the rest of the region, in fact it means they have more responsibility and more of a duty to act in the best interests of all of the North Pacific. It means they must be held under a closer scrutiny than those who live in this region and are not members of Cabinet.

But I'm sure you'll find these reasons as flimsy as I find having a secret area of club members ownly be an attractive selling point.
 
First, what recent executive problems?

Second, you just stated that high priority security sensitive items are handled by the Security Council and not the Cabinet. Which is it?
 
At the risk of sounding redundant, it is a general tradition in open democracies for the legislative branch to have the option to have an occasional closed session when the discussion may adversely affect another issue.

While the general legislative activities are open for all to observe, there may be certain issues that need to be discussed in a closed session on very rare occasions, especially if those items concern security issues.

Without getting into a debate about 'reserved rights', since a section of the RA forum reserved for 'closed session' items could not be used for legislative votes and only for limited and enumerated purposes, such a practice could be established by the enactment of a 'house rule' by the RA without bringing any constitutional issues to bear.

R
 
Upper Kirby:
"Boy I am not surprised", "the response has been utterly unpredictable too" don't sound like flamebait to me. If it's a flame, or bait, it's the mildest flame I ever saw. Maybe if you work at the Springfield Retirement Castle where they can't read newspapers because it angers up the blood. Otherwise, I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Sniffles has a habit of posting such comments after my comments!! Not that you'd know Mr.N00b!! ;)

What super-secret business are we discussing? Refining various clauses in the constitution? Big need for secrecy there.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, let me see. Voting on treaties or severing of diplomatic ties as requested by the Minister of External Affairs!! Such a vote might be best held without non-TNP citizens watching it unfold!! Members of the RA should have an area where they can discuss things that may be sensitive in nature!! If a nation wants to raise an issue about another region or alliance, would it not be prudent to raise such an issue in private rather than in public forum?!

But the arguments for are not particularly strong either. What's the status quo? Free and open society. The onus is never placed upon the Negative to have a strong case, only the affirmative. There are many here who don't feel a need to create a closed forum, or who feel the type of precedent it sets (and the eventual impact on society) is undesirable.
Click to expand...

The arguments "for" provide a flexibility to enable the RA to handle all posibilities that may arise!! The status quo means that the RA have no avenue for discussions only seen by citizens of TNP!! As has been pointed out numerous times, there is no negative impact!! The people who are in the RA/Cabinet are the citizens of TNP under our Constitution!! You know, the leagal document that determines how our region operates?! Under your logic, we should allow non-citizens to vote and run for office otherwise we are limiting their participation in the region also!! Why stop there, as GBM alluded to, registering on the forum is a barrier to participation so we might have to include those not even registered on the forum too!! They could vote and run for office by posting as guests!! Oh, but what about those without internet access...damn!! Maybe we can set up a TNP post office box and they can snail mail their votes and ideas!! Then there are those in remote areas that do not have access to snail mail...hmm..smoke signals?! Where does it end?!
 
Hmmm, let me see. Voting on treaties or severing of diplomatic ties as requested by the Minister of External Affairs!! Such a vote might be best held without non-TNP citizens watching it unfold!! Members of the RA should have an area where they can discuss things that may be sensitive in nature!! If a nation wants to raise an issue about another region or alliance, would it not be prudent to raise such an issue in private rather than in public forum?!
Click to expand...

Exactly my point about having the ability for certain items to be held 'closed session'

Stop agreeing with me, damn you! :lol:

R
 
Hey, it is not my fault you have started making sense all of a sudden!! :P

And kudos for looking at an issue with an open mind unlike all these n00b naysayers that have suddenly arrived on the scene!!
 
Does the length of time someone has been active give more relevance or credence to their opinion....
Some of us n00Bs actually bring a fresh perspective to the discussion....
Admittedly given some of the more sensible responses to the questions raised has swayed me towards an agreement with the concept of a closed RA forum....
Though perhaps you'd like to go further and have a closed forum for non-n00Bs....
 
Daimiaena:
Does the length of time someone has been active give more relevance or credence to their opinion....
Some of us n00Bs actually bring a fresh perspective to the discussion....
Admittedly given some of the more sensible responses to the questions raised has swayed me towards an agreement with the concept of a closed RA forum....
Though perhaps you'd like to go further and have a closed forum for non-n00Bs....
Click to expand...
Actually, I doubt some of the "n00bs" are actually n00bs!!

I don;t care how long you have been in the region, but yes, history does have some relevance when commenting on issues such as Sniffles generic replies to most things I post!! You must admit someone who has not been here long may not be up to speed on such things, no?!

As for general comments on issues, I listen to all comments and try and formulate an opinon based on commonsense!! When I see people pointblank dismiss comments because they do not sit with their preconceived conclusion or evidence of people not even reading a thread before commenting, then yes, I'll call them out on it whether they are n00bs or nations that have been here forever!!

Now, do you have anything constructive to bring to the table?!
 
Gracius Maximus:
First, what recent executive problems?

Second, you just stated that high priority security sensitive items are handled by the Security Council and not the Cabinet. Which is it?
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, not all sensitive situations are security related. Knowing this now, re-read what I said before and try to understand the differing view.

Since the principle of this has been debated to death, anyone feel like writing up the legalese to this and debating over semantics before a vote?
 
mr_sniffles:
Believe it or not, not all sensitive situations are security related. Knowing this now, re-read what I said before and try to understand the differing view.
Click to expand...
Yet amazingly when this argument is presented to justify a secure discussion room for the RA it is scoffed at!!

I have shown examples in which the RA may well be called upon to discuss sensitive issues that may require the use of a forum with access restricted to RA members!! I have also presented the situation whereby members of the RA may want to discuss other regions or alliances and that they may not wish for members of that region/alliance to have access to the discussion!! These are not security issues, but issues of sensitivity which you seem to think justifies a private chamber for the Cabinet but somehow does not justify a similar facility for the RA!!

I'm not sure I follow the logic there!! Perhaps you can help me out and point out what I'm missing here?!

Oh and Sniffles, while you are here, can you answer GM's first question?! What "executive problems" are you referring to?!
 
How times change.

During my Delegacy the thought that the Cabinet could even hold *part* of a meeting in private was grounds for Court action against them.

Funny how, if memory serves me correctly, it is some of those same people who then argued for absolute transparency of the government now argue for the opposite.

I would hate to call anyone a hypocrite...but...if the cap fits....
 
Cathyy,

Pot calling Kettle black. See Secret NPD/TNPG archives (Thanks Gracious Maximus).

Case in point for having private discussions within the cabinet.

As to the validity of having treaties discussed apon without the view of the members affected by the treaty I have a few concerns. 1. If we want the private forum that means that we have to kick out those members who have affialations with the group in question... That is probably the breeding ground for court chalanges to the discrimination and removal of rights of the individuals in question. It also means that all RA members have to disclose what extra regional groups they are members of. 2. I agree, that as a minister, some of the conversations that are occuring in the private cabinet forum are questionably suspect for necessity of privacy.
 
AlHoma:
Cathyy,

Pot calling Kettle black.  See Secret NPD/TNPG  archives (Thanks Gracious Maximus).

Case in point for having private discussions within the cabinet.

As to the validity of having treaties discussed apon without the view of the members affected by the treaty I have a few concerns.  1. If we want the private forum that means that we have to kick out those members who have affialations with the group in question...  That is probably the breeding ground for court chalanges to the discrimination and removal of rights of the individuals in question.  It also means that all RA members have to disclose what extra regional groups they are members of. 2.  I agree, that as a minister, some of the conversations that are occuring in the private cabinet forum are questionably suspect for necessity of privacy.
Click to expand...
Your first point is incorrect in that if such discussion is taking place then those taking part here should be doing so with only the best interests of TNP in mind. To be any otherwise is a contradiction to the oath of the RA and grounds for ejection altogether.

Regarding the pot and kettle, they are still both the same so I fail to see the relevance.

Specific to the link you posted, what does it redirect to? I do not have permission to view it. Is it something that any member of the RA should be able to view? (Everyone knows where I am going with this so a quick resolution would be helpful before the conspiracy gets a full head of steam.)
 
I stand corrected. I was under the impression that that thread had been cleared to the public. In short it was the cabinet's deliberations concerning BlackAddler's handing over of his nation to Moldavi and the subsequent ejection/banning spree.
 
AlHoma:
I stand corrected. I was under the impression that that thread had been cleared to the public. In short it was the cabinet's deliberations concerning BlackAddler's handing over of his nation to Moldavi and the subsequent ejection/banning spree.
Click to expand...
Why would the discussion of events taking place outside of TNP that have no bearing on TNP be considered too private to have in public? Why wouldn't that be available to members of the Regional Assembly?

It is this inconsistency that Poltsamaa and others bring up that baffles me.
 
The executive problems where the delegate siezed power and left us in a lurch. Our Constitution has since been framed to prevent such happenings.

As for discussion on treaties as such, the opinions of private citizens are theirs and theirs alone but when a public official states an opinion it is seen as the public opinion things such as this makes Cabinet liable for undue abuse! But to close off public (non-elected officials) discussion on things as important as ratifying a foreign treaty away from the prying eyes of the international community and the public is simply beyond me. We won't change each other's minds, only pot shots. So write it up and put it to a vote already.
 
mr_sniffles:
The executive problems where the delegate siezed power and left us in a lurch. Our Constitution has since been framed to prevent such happenings.

As for discussion on treaties as such, the opinions of private citizens are theirs and theirs alone but when a public official states an opinion it is seen as the public opinion things such as this makes Cabinet liable for undue abuse! But to close off public (non-elected officials) discussion on things as important as ratifying a foreign treaty away from the prying eyes of the international community and the public is simply beyond me. We won't change each other's minds, only pot shots. So write it up and put it to a vote already.
Click to expand...
It isn't something that needs to be voted on. It is internal RA structure. If anything it should be an issue debated only by RA members since we have the right to set up our own internal procedures so long as they do not violate or contradict the Constitution. Since it has already been proven that the only nations the Constitution dictates transparency to are those citizens that have opted to take part in the RA there is no issue.

It isn't a bill or a law.

Also, The NPD closed down over a year ago. How is that remotely "recent"?
 
Gracius Maximus:
mr_sniffles:
The executive problems where the delegate siezed power and left us in a lurch. Our Constitution has since been framed to prevent such happenings.

As for discussion on treaties as such, the opinions of private citizens are theirs and theirs alone but when a public official states an opinion it is seen as the public opinion things such as this makes Cabinet liable for undue abuse! But to close off public (non-elected officials) discussion on things as important as ratifying a foreign treaty away from the prying eyes of the international community and the public is simply beyond me. We won't change each other's minds, only pot shots. So write it up and put it to a vote already.
Click to expand...
It isn't something that needs to be voted on. It is internal RA structure. If anything it should be an issue debated only by RA members since we have the right to set up our own internal procedures so long as they do not violate or contradict the Constitution. Since it has already been proven that the only nations the Constitution dictates transparency to are those citizens that have opted to take part in the RA there is no issue.

It isn't a bill or a law.

Also, The NPD closed down over a year ago. How is that remotely "recent"?
Click to expand...
One year isn't recent?

Art  4.1.F
F - The Regional Assembly shall have power to adopt its own internal rules and procedures not in conflict with this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code. Voting on the adoption and amendment of such procedures shall be by a referendum of the members of the Regional Assembly for a voting period not to exceed 72 hours.
Click to expand...

Please don't tell me what the laws are.
 
mr_sniffles:
Gracius Maximus:
mr_sniffles:
The executive problems where the delegate siezed power and left us in a lurch. Our Constitution has since been framed to prevent such happenings.

As for discussion on treaties as such, the opinions of private citizens are theirs and theirs alone but when a public official states an opinion it is seen as the public opinion things such as this makes Cabinet liable for undue abuse! But to close off public (non-elected officials) discussion on things as important as ratifying a foreign treaty away from the prying eyes of the international community and the public is simply beyond me. We won't change each other's minds, only pot shots. So write it up and put it to a vote already.
Click to expand...
It isn't something that needs to be voted on. It is internal RA structure. If anything it should be an issue debated only by RA members since we have the right to set up our own internal procedures so long as they do not violate or contradict the Constitution. Since it has already been proven that the only nations the Constitution dictates transparency to are those citizens that have opted to take part in the RA there is no issue.

It isn't a bill or a law.

Also, The NPD closed down over a year ago. How is that remotely "recent"?
Click to expand...
One year isn't recent?

Art  4.1.F
F - The Regional Assembly shall have power to adopt its own internal rules and procedures not in conflict with this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code. Voting on the adoption and amendment of such procedures shall be by a referendum of the members of the Regional Assembly for a voting period not to exceed 72 hours.
Click to expand...

Please don't tell me what the laws are.
Click to expand...
Umm, why not? You are obviously uninformed.

As I stated, the setting up of a private forum is a structure of the RA. It is not a process or procedure and therefore not a bill or amendment. Please learn to read before telling me what I should or shouldn't tell you. I can assure you I have a firmer grip on the entirety of the situation than you.

And no, one year in NS is not recent. Are you daft? It is basically a lifetime in this game.
 
mr_sniffles:
The executive problems where the delegate siezed power and left us in a lurch. Our Constitution has since been framed to prevent such happenings.
Click to expand...
Ancient history as GM said!! But a handy crutch to lean on for those with nothing else to lean on I suppose!! Also, the Constitution does not prevent that happenign again!! Can you point out the section of the Constitution that prevents Eras from handing her nation to me right now?!

As for discussion on treaties as such, the opinions of private citizens are theirs and theirs alone but when a public official states an opinion it is seen as the public opinion things such as this makes Cabinet liable for undue abuse!
Click to expand...

Ah, so if a member of the RA or a small group in the RA had a serious issue regarding another region/alliance and had no choice but to post their misgivings publicly in the RA thread, the region/alliance mentioned would not be alarmed by such talk?! Wouldn't having the option to post potentially sensitive material in an area viewable only to the citizens of the region make more sense and be more prudent diplomatically?!

But to close off public (non-elected officials) discussion on things as important as ratifying a foreign treaty away from the prying eyes of the international community and the public is simply beyond me. We won't change each other's minds, only pot shots. So write it up and put it to a vote already.
Click to expand...

What business of the public's are our discussions of treaties in the RA?! Your use of the word "public" is misleading, either because you are naive or deliberately trying to be so!! The "public", under the constitution, are the members of the Regional Assembly!! So the "public" are not excluded from the discussions at all!! In fact, they are given the option to discuss matters they deem sensitive without foreigners seeing the issues that are being discussed!! Not once has anyone advocated holding all discussion in private, this change will merely give people an option to raise things in private if they believe the issue may be sensitive!! It gives the RA some flexibility to deal with all possible scenarios!!

Also, it does not require an amendment to procedures or the Constitution so it does not require a vote, in my opinion!! It is the creation of a sub-forum to better facilitate current procedures!!
 
Erm...could anyone tell me how long TNP has managed without this optional closed sub forum....If it's that essential how come it was never needed before now?
 
Daimiaena:
Erm...could anyone tell me how long TNP has managed without this optional closed sub forum....If it's that essential how come it was never needed before now?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

Not one person has stated that it is essential, it has been requested as an option and the use of this option would be voluntary.
 
Daimiaena:
Erm...could anyone tell me how long TNP has managed without this optional closed sub forum....If it's that essential how come it was never needed before now?
Click to expand...
Humans survived for thousands of years without sanitation, running water, cars, electricity, computers, penicillin...are you arguing that these innovations were not worth the effort of inventing?! Sure, without these inventions, the people died a lot younger and their lives were a hell of a lot harder but they still "survived"!!

It is called adapting and making sure our government has all the facilities it needs to do its job properly!! If there is a private chamber for the RA and it only gets used once, then it is of use to the RA!!
 
Poltsamaa:
mr_sniffles:
The executive problems where the delegate siezed power and left us in a lurch. Our Constitution has since been framed to prevent such happenings.
Click to expand...
Ancient history as GM said!! But a handy crutch to lean on for those with nothing else to lean on I suppose!! Also, the Constitution does not prevent that happenign again!! Can you point out the section of the Constitution that prevents Eras from handing her nation to me right now?!
Click to expand...
That little section that prohibits the Delegate being a Cabinet Minister. ;) Now GM on the other hand....
 
Poltsamaa:
Daimiaena:
Erm...could anyone tell me how long TNP has managed without this optional closed sub forum....If it's that essential how come it was never needed before now?
Click to expand...
Humans survived for thousands of years without sanitation, running water, cars, electricity, computers, penicillin...are you arguing that these innovations were not worth the effort of inventing?! Sure, without these inventions, the people died a lot younger and their lives were a hell of a lot harder but they still "survived"!!

It is called adapting and making sure our government has all the facilities it needs to do its job properly!! If there is a private chamber for the RA and it only gets used once, then it is of use to the RA!!
Click to expand...
I have heard that in some parts of the world (Australia) these conditions still exist to this day.
 
Well this is the second time I've asked a direct question....and been verbally stomped over....I wasn't argueing any point I was asking for information....But it seems Gracius Maximus and Poltsaama are more interested in proving some kind of point...not sure what...than to actually discuss this...shame really...I guess i won't bother getting involved anymore...seems whatever they want they will stamp their foot and shout anyone down til they get it....oh well...
 
Daimiaena:
Well this is the second time I've asked a direct question....and been verbally stomped over....I wasn't argueing any point I was asking for information....But it seems Gracius Maximus and Poltsaama are more interested in proving some kind of point...not sure what...than to actually discuss this...shame really...I guess i won't bother getting involved anymore...seems whatever they want they will stamp their foot and shout anyone down til they get it....oh well...
Click to expand...
:cry:

You spent your whole time trying to pick out a reason to disagree with the proposal of a private area for the RA to discuss issues!! Not once did you take anything anyone else said into account and now you complain when your arguments are shotdown with logic and commonsense!!

Maybe if you actually came into the discussion with an open mind you might have got more out of it!! But I guess its much easier to cry when you can't win the argument and hope that Sniffles and Co will come and protect you from big bad GM and Polts!!

If you can actually point out any flaws in the argument we have presented then please do so!! From your reaction and previous posts, I assume you cannot!!
 
Poltsamaa:
Former English Colony:
That little section that prohibits the Delegate being a Cabinet Minister.  ;)  Now GM on the other hand....
Click to expand...
It still doesn't stop you doing it!! ;) Give me your password and I'll show you!! :P
Click to expand...
Ture, but it prevent's any legal mechanism for such a nation handover. Any delegate doing so would be a rogue delegate and there are mechanisms for sealing with rogue delegates.

But the point is a valid one, Polts. There is nothing in any government or society that prevents anyone from doing anything illegal regardless of the laws in place. This is why we try to elect people we trust to be Delegate instead of electing Delegates who just hand the keys over to whomever. :yes:
 
Poltsamaa:
As has been pointed out numerous times, there is no negative impact!!
Click to expand...
I don't know of many resolutions reached because the proposition had no negative impact.

The people who are in the RA/Cabinet are the citizens of TNP under our Constitution!! You know, the leagal document that determines how our region operates?!
Click to expand...

Belittle me.

Under your logic, we should allow non-citizens to vote and run for office otherwise we are limiting their participation in the region also!!
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum, reduce my argument to an illogical conclusion. Then argue against that.

Where does it end?!
Click to expand...

When you got off that slope it just may. Be careful of your step: it's slippery.



For someone who has dismissed the majority of comments in this thread as either illogical, poorly strung together, or balderdash rhetoric masking ulterior motives you sure haven't made things easier for others to take you seriously.
 
And yet you still responded in kind (based on your assessment, I find Poltsamaa's points valid) and provided nothing of substance.

Simply because you disagree with his conclusions doesn't make them invalid. If you believe them invalid then provide reasons for that instead of just saying "no, you are exaggerating my point".
 
Upper Kirby:
Poltsamaa:
As has been pointed out numerous times, there is no negative impact!!
Click to expand...
I don't know of many resolutions reached because the proposition had no negative impact.
Click to expand...
Laws (resolutions) are like sausages - no one should ever see them being made.

I would agree - laws and other arrangements have the nasty tendency to accomplish, in part, exactly the opposite if the intended result to some degree.

R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top