Currently, there is no way for our Gameside Advocates who are appointed by the LGA for serving in some other government official post to be listed in the government registry. I am creating an amendment to codify the position of Gameside Advocate and exempt them from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple offices.
[Shelved] Codifying Gameside Advocates
- Thread starter Comfed
- Start date
As the first delegate to institute the Gameside Advocates, I had a very particular idea of how they would work mechanically, as well as functionally. Mechanically, they were never intended to be government officials - they were all supposed to be appointed by the LGA, who was the only government official appointed by the delegate. Of course at the time, the LGA was simply known as the Gameside Advocate, and everyone else was just staff of the Gamesde Advocate (collectively known as gameside advocates). That was too confusing for people though, especially once I appointed a second Gameside Advocate for additional suppression power - this is when the Lead Gameside Advocate title first came about. It would never have occurred to me to appoint the GAs myself, because they couldn't actually do anything - they just issue warnings and pass messages along to people, and report what they find to people who can actually do something about it. They were, in fact, functionally no different from other members of the executive staff - and we don't name every person in the executive staff in the government registry. Nevertheless, in subsequent terms the idea of having more people take oaths just to be safe became commonplace and it was accepted common practice to have the delegate appoint the GAs. It was seen as better for them to be appointed and made official, but yes, since they are not codified, they also do not have an exemption from serving in multiple branches. If the LGA had continued to make these appointments as was originally designed, this never would have been an issue, which is also why that is still the easiest solution to this problem you are attempting to solve.
As for function - your list does a fine job of explaining GA duties, but it misses a few as well. The GAs were not just designed to be the RMB police. Yes, that role is important, but it's just the necessary aspect of watching the RMB and keeping the peace - every member of the cabinet has to do it too. They were intended to be much more than that, the bridge between the gameside and offsite communities, and the chief organizers of events and activities that would lead both communities to mingle and interact. They would manage appearances on the RMB by offsite officials or players, such as in AMAs, and they would be the familiar faces on the offsite properties that visitors from the RMB could rely on to help them find their way. A good number of them were not even intended to be citizens - we wanted residents with no offsite presence to be prominent in the GAs, because the best GAs had strong relations and credibility with both communities. Your bill would leave them out, which would be detrimental to the mission of the GAs.
I don't believe the GAs need to be listed in the government registry at all - they only are when they are appointed by the Delegate, and there was a time when that didn't happen. Codifying the GAs may or may not be something that should be considered, but I think this is entirely the wrong justification for it. If you were to take this step, I would hope it would lead to more substantial provisions than the summary of duties your bill currently lists. I don't know how you could expand on that to make it worth the change, but I think it requires more than just concern about when someone shows up in a list.
As for function - your list does a fine job of explaining GA duties, but it misses a few as well. The GAs were not just designed to be the RMB police. Yes, that role is important, but it's just the necessary aspect of watching the RMB and keeping the peace - every member of the cabinet has to do it too. They were intended to be much more than that, the bridge between the gameside and offsite communities, and the chief organizers of events and activities that would lead both communities to mingle and interact. They would manage appearances on the RMB by offsite officials or players, such as in AMAs, and they would be the familiar faces on the offsite properties that visitors from the RMB could rely on to help them find their way. A good number of them were not even intended to be citizens - we wanted residents with no offsite presence to be prominent in the GAs, because the best GAs had strong relations and credibility with both communities. Your bill would leave them out, which would be detrimental to the mission of the GAs.
I don't believe the GAs need to be listed in the government registry at all - they only are when they are appointed by the Delegate, and there was a time when that didn't happen. Codifying the GAs may or may not be something that should be considered, but I think this is entirely the wrong justification for it. If you were to take this step, I would hope it would lead to more substantial provisions than the summary of duties your bill currently lists. I don't know how you could expand on that to make it worth the change, but I think it requires more than just concern about when someone shows up in a list.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- Zyvet#9958
I am not entirely sure I follow why this bill is needed for the purpose set out. At the moment, Gameside Advocates are government officials if the Delegate appoints them and this issue could be solved by the Delegate making those appointments rather than leaving them to the Lead Gameside Advocate.
In relation to the exemption for multiple branches, what is the reason for this in relation to the Lead Gameside Advocate? I understand Gameside Advocates who are currently not government officials are not currently subject to the restriction so their exemption would continue the status quo in a sense but the Lead Gameside Advocate as a government official is subject to the restriction at the moment. Is there a reason why that should change?
In relation to the exemption for multiple branches, what is the reason for this in relation to the Lead Gameside Advocate? I understand Gameside Advocates who are currently not government officials are not currently subject to the restriction so their exemption would continue the status quo in a sense but the Lead Gameside Advocate as a government official is subject to the restriction at the moment. Is there a reason why that should change?