Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Democratized Peoples wrote:What Brototh misunderstands is that I fundamentally believe, as do all other NS regions and IRL jurisdictions that I am aware of, that breaking the law does not always necessitate a punishment or even the possibility of a punishment. For the purposes of this bill, I will make no distinction between the two. We should not assume perfectly rational Justices giving everyone warnings, we should assume irrational Justices and think of ways to minimize irrationality.

I was more objecting to the inconsistency the amendments create with two separate, conflicting, definitions of what constitutes an item. I sure hope that when you say "things may change" you are not seriously considering cutting the Executive fully out of the lawmaking process.

The former Constitution gave the Court the explicit power to ban and do it whenever they saw fit. We removed that from the current Constitution because it was an overly broad power. The Speaker should also be aware that changes in law now do not retroactively change previous sentences of the Court unless the law demands it. I feel like I've already responded to your other points but if Senators would like me to elaborate once again on them I will do so.

I think that Senators, and all Thaecians, should be aware of how strongly I feel about the independence and proper functioning of the Judiciary and how your bill will completely and utterly destroy both of those basic principles.

In regards to the final textbloc, all of what Cinema factually contended is true. I believe that unless Congress makes something a crime there should be no criminal punishment. So if Congress believes that there is an action that deserves more than actions taken to restore any damage done by a violation of the law, Congress should specify. But what we should not do is give the Court a carte blanche to remove people from office or ban people for violations of the law which Congress have not specified should deserve a criminal punishment. There is no system that I am aware of where any Court has such broad power.

I personally believe there is a very strong difference between realism and covering for every circumstance- at such a rate, we should totally abolish the Court, because well, they could abolish all procedures, go insane, and declare everyone guilty with no evidence and dismiss all cases against them. That's obviously a ridiculous solution to a ridiculous problem that will never exist. This is exactly what you are proposing could happen under this bill. And again with the amendments, first offences cannot constitute a ban. I'd like to remind you that a system you wrote exists- recalls. If Justices go off the rails, Congress can recall them. The problems of Justices going completely irrational relies on them somehow also having at least 6 Congresspeople- in the Senate and House, under their command. At such a rate, would we not also recall them via the people? And if the people won't do that- then there is literally nothing that can be done, because this is a democracy. The only thing that would allow Justices to go insane is people democratically voting for it. Your "irrational Justices" are quite literally extremely improbable to exist - remember they need to be confirmed and can be recalled just as easy - and impossible to sustain. This is fearmongering at its finest - the Justices COULD go insane and start removing everyone from office and banning them oh no! I could do a number of awful, terrible things- so could you, so could quite literally anyone: but the vast majority of people on this planet do not do terrible awful things.

I can't respond to this section because I did not once suggest to cut out the Executive, nor did I say the words "things may change"- what section of my text are you specifically talking about? Until Peeps either says the section doesn't exist, or clarifies what he means, and for future record I urge people to use direct quotes instead of again, fearmongering that this bill is simply a stepping stone to cutting the Executive, I ask the Senators to discard this part of the debate.

The notion the previous Constitution gave the full power to ban whenever they saw fit is also not true from what I can find- the latest version of the old Constitution includes no powers to ban whenever they want- it only mentions being able to unban when they want. I ask you to either produce evidence for this or discard it, and once again ask Senators to discard this part of the debate until it can be clarified.

It is astounding that we are being given vague statements with no quotes or evidence to back up the points.

While I respect your opinion on the bill being bad- everyone is entitled to that opinion, and while I respect you showing that off in a great manner, attempting to intimidate Senators into voting the bill down because "Otherwise I'm going to think about resigning from the Court" is a very dirty tactic honestly- argue on the bad parts of the bill, argue the merits of voting against it, there is really no need for you to attempt to intimidate us: it just makes you look bad.

And I say it again: this is the heart of the problem. What we need, Senators, is a system where the Court does not have to dance around itself twice (and remember: that takes a long time) and can simply get to the solution - I really like the Hon. Sen Islonia's proposed system where the Court would order the law breaking to be reversed instead of any other punishment if possible. But we seriously cannot have a legal system where we allow people to go off and do whatever with no initial repercussions, or even any resolution. At the present time, the Court doesn't have the power to "restore any damage"- seriously, it's just legal reviews is the only system we have. Chairman, the Honourable Senator as I mentioned has promised to write amendments later today and I ask that the debate is kept open until he is able to do so.

In respect to Democratized Peoples, I feel that the removal from office is perhaps a strong step- it could be dialled down to simply a warning. In mind was the Military Commission Act and Secretary of Defence, considering it has been the focus of legal interest lately. I would like though, to gauge other Senator's opinions on that- I felt that perhaps it was a good place to start. We do already have precedent for warnings becoming bans if they are repeat offences, so I feel that it could fit in well here. I repeat that I would appreciate the opinions of other Senators on this matter.

Brototh wrote:I personally believe there is a very strong difference between realism and covering for every circumstance- at such a rate, we should totally abolish the Court, because well, they could abolish all procedures, go insane, and declare everyone guilty with no evidence and dismiss all cases against them. That's obviously a ridiculous solution to a ridiculous problem that will never exist. This is exactly what you are proposing could happen under this bill. And again with the amendments, first offences cannot constitute a ban. I'd like to remind you that a system you wrote exists- recalls. If Justices go off the rails, Congress can recall them. The problems of Justices going completely irrational relies on them somehow also having at least 6 Congresspeople- in the Senate and House, under their command. At such a rate, would we not also recall them via the people? And if the people won't do that- then there is literally nothing that can be done, because this is a democracy. The only thing that would allow Justices to go insane is people democratically voting for it. Your "irrational Justices" are quite literally extremely improbable to exist - remember they need to be confirmed and can be recalled just as easy - and impossible to sustain. This is fearmongering at its finest - the Justices COULD go insane and start removing everyone from office and banning them oh no! I could do a number of awful, terrible things- so could you, so could quite literally anyone: but the vast majority of people on this planet do not do terrible awful things.

I can't respond to this section because I did not once suggest to cut out the Executive, nor did I say the words "things may change"- what section of my text are you specifically talking about? Until Peeps either says the section doesn't exist, or clarifies what he means, and for future record I urge people to use direct quotes instead of again, fearmongering that this bill is simply a stepping stone to cutting the Executive, I ask the Senators to discard this part of the debate.

The notion the previous Constitution gave the full power to ban whenever they saw fit is also not true from what I can find- the latest version of the old Constitution includes no powers to ban whenever they want- it only mentions being able to unban when they want. I ask you to either produce evidence for this or discard it, and once again ask Senators to discard this part of the debate until it can be clarified.

It is astounding that we are being given vague statements with no quotes or evidence to back up the points.

While I respect your opinion on the bill being bad- everyone is entitled to that opinion, and while I respect you showing that off in a great manner, attempting to intimidate Senators into voting the bill down because "Otherwise I'm going to think about resigning from the Court" is a very dirty tactic honestly- argue on the bad parts of the bill, argue the merits of voting against it, there is really no need for you to attempt to intimidate us: it just makes you look bad.

And I say it again: this is the heart of the problem. What we need, Senators, is a system where the Court does not have to dance around itself twice (and remember: that takes a long time) and can simply get to the solution - I really like the Hon. Sen Islonia's proposed system where the Court would order the law breaking to be reversed instead of any other punishment if possible. But we seriously cannot have a legal system where we allow people to go off and do whatever with no initial repercussions, or even any resolution. At the present time, the Court doesn't have the power to "restore any damage"- seriously, it's just legal reviews is the only system we have. Chairman, the Honourable Senator as I mentioned has promised to write amendments later today and I ask that the debate is kept open until he is able to do so.

In respect to Democratized Peoples, I feel that the removal from office is perhaps a strong step- it could be dialled down to simply a warning. In mind was the Military Commission Act and Secretary of Defence, considering it has been the focus of legal interest lately. I would like though, to gauge other Senator's opinions on that- I felt that perhaps it was a good place to start. We do already have precedent for warnings becoming bans if they are repeat offences, so I feel that it could fit in well here. I repeat that I would appreciate the opinions of other Senators on this matter.

We shouldn't allow irrational Justices handing down unfit punishments to exist at all. This is why we insert maximum punishments and have specific crimes that must be committed in order to bring about punishment.

Here is your quote. "retain looking over the meaning of a motion- no reason why we should cut that out either, it does no harm and may come in useful one day." I don't see how retaining a motion being an item in the section saying crimes are committed if an item is violated could "come in useful one day" if you weren't saying that perhaps motions should be elevated.

As per the old constitution, I couldn't find it immediately after a cursory look, but that is my recollection. If I am incorrect, my latter point regarding past decisions not being overturned unless the law requires stands.

The public should know that I would regard this bill as a vote of no confidence in the Judiciary and in my opinions on its basic function. I do not see myself being able to meaningfully participate in the Judiciary you envision.

Finally, your contention is, and always has been, that the only solution to breaking a law is some sort of criminal punishment. This could not be further from the truth. I've dictated numerous reasons and examples of why this is not the case. Brototh's contention that my system causes the Court to take two cases is only the case if you assume that all court orders will be violated and that the only way to fix problems is punishing people. That hasn't been the legal norm since I believe the time period of Hammurabi's code, and I think Thaecia's legal system should be a bit more advanced than that of the ancient Mesopotamians.

The solution to this bill is not amendments. It is a fundamentally flawed bill that does not establish a modern, good, fully-featured legal system. It imposes an ancient and punitive form to the legal system and should be defeated outright.

I would like to state that I am going to reply to the above concerns later. We are already waiting for Islonia's amendments, so I don't feel that delaying the debate a little bit to give me the right time to debate is any problem.

As the final Justice to present their opinion on the proposed bill and amendments, I suppose I'll keep it relatively short compared to my counterpart and their opponent's antithesis. For my fellow citizens who have the honor of representing democracy in the Senate, please consider the following:

1. That in the Judiciary Regulation Act, Article I, Section IV, a criminal case is being defined as "a case heard in a court that seeks to confirm whether or not a nation, or group of nations, has violated an item," and that an item consists of the following: "a law, the constitution, a treaty, a motion passed by both chambers of Congress, or a court ruling." I highlight this specific aforementioned definition of an item which is eligible to be violated to constitute grounds for a criminal case, as it completely bypasses the system of checks and balances the region of Thaecia presents itself as having in its Constitution. Separate from a law, which, after being passed by both chambers of congress, requires the Prime Minister's signature of approval (or lack of action on the choice between signing and vetoing thereof), allowing a motion passed by both chambers of congress to be the grounds for any case at all in Thaecia's justice system, let alone a criminal case, is absolutely unconstitutional, and if the esteemed members of the Senate pass the bill as is, I feel it important to inform that that specific definition of an item eligible for a criminal case will have to be null and void due to violating the constitution. Please do the right thing and edit this bill ahead of time so it does not need to go through the High Court.

2. Far be it from me, an impartial Justice, to present considerations on the great power being given to the High Court in Article II of the proposed Judicial Regulations Act, although my fellow Justice has already done the same, but a couple of things need to be considered:

[list][*] The current Justices in power will not always be in power.

[*] It cannot be assumed a Justice, due to their title alone, will act with any sense of presumed reasonability for punishments available for them to hand down for violations of a crime over specific limits given to the crimes already listed in L.R. 044. [/list]

3. I have no strong bearing in this except that the Senators should consider the ramifications of it, but that for the Judiciary Regulations Act, Article I, Section IVd also lists a treaty as being an item eligible to be violated and to constitute a criminal case by fashion of this list. The noted lack of public discussion of this bill on the House of Commons RMB in favor of group discussion via Discord instead has not previously allowed for a more open discussion on the terms listed in this bill. I encourage all Senators to consider publicly and openly on this RMB the consequences outlined by passing this bill, rather than conspire your votes privately. As a former Member of Parliament, while backroom deals are always going to take place, it is unbecoming of the honor of both chambers of Congress that such a significant law would be attempted to be passed with unanimous consent with no publicly available discussion of it beforehand.

Thank you all for your time.

I would like to inform the Senate that myself and the Honourable Associate Justice have reached an arrangement, and as such, this bill is no longer relevant.

We have combined both our points and, as such, I no longer support this bill and request that the Chairman Veden tables the Judiciary Regulation Act permanently.

I still request the Amendments to LR 044 are voted upon, because if anything, they remove a section of the law that does nothing & is a grammatical error.

After taking in consideration the motions to suspend the Bill and having proper reasoning to do so—from reading many of the Justices statements as well as the Authors, actions have been taken by both sides to reach an agreement on this Bill. I will be tabling (suspending) the Bill, Judiciary Regulation Act. We will only be voting on the Amends authored by Cinema as well. If no one has anything else to say we shall move to voting on the Amends to L.R. 044 only. Senators I advise you to take careful consideration into the Amends.

Justices:

The Marconian State

Democratized Peoples

Sma Cyrillic

Senators:

The Sarangtus Lands

Angypt

Islonia

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Creckelenney

Gifty

Author:

Brototh

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1658598

If no one has anything else to say in the next 7-9 hours, we shall move to voting.

Brototh, Sevae

Aye: Both the Author and Justice concluded with the Judiciary Act which resolved in it being tabled. The amends I agree with so Aye.

Aye. This is a good, solid compromsie bill which will move the region forward in terms of our law system and prevent a situation like last time.

Senators, I am closing the vote on the Amends. They pass. I'm now opening the debate on both of these Bills.

These Bills are both Authored by Cinema herself-along with one authored by both her and Peeps

Criminal and Punishment Act:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1662660

Judiciary Framework Act:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1662613

The Sarangtus Lands

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Angypt

Gifty

Islonia

Creckelenney

I agree with both Acts I see nothing to debate here. They both are needed and can be vital so I will vote Aye to both.

Brototh

I agree with most of what it brought up in these bills. They have some excellent clarifications that will be quite welcome.

I have one issue with this bill: the mention of lower courts when it comes to appeals, despite the fact we have none as of now, and the framwork proposed by Peeps in his former proposal to create them is not present.

Doesn't that simply make appeal cases worthless as of now?

Islonia wrote:I have one issue with this bill: the mention of lower courts when it comes to appeals, despite the fact we have none as of now, and the framwork proposed by Peeps in his former proposal to create them is not present.

Doesn't that simply make appeal cases worthless as of now?

Speaking as the author of bills up for debate have a standing invite to speak.

You are correct, right now appeals would be useless. But the idea of this bill is to set out what the Judiciary should broadly look like and the mechanisms for various types of cases, and if we ever do decide lower courts are necessary, it would be nice to have the mechanics for how appeals would work already set out.

While I agree with the contents and ideas this seems like it's jumping the gun, suggesting frameworks for things such as the lower courts that are yet to exist. Whilst having a framework to work from isn't a bad idea until we have a system in place it just seems redundant.

I am now closing the debate on these to Bills and opening up the vote on both of them. I am closing the debate because it has been over 48 hours, and, it seems as though no one has anything else to say.

The Sarangtus Lands

Angypt

Gifty

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Creckelenney

Islonia

Bill 1 and 2: Aye. I stated my reason in the debate.

Aye to both, as Chairman Veden said in the debate, these bills are very crucial, and I fully support them after looking at them.

Chairman Veden

I am tabling the Bill, “Crime and Punishment Act”. After being notified of on-doings within the House and having been suggested to take said actions, I am going to table Crime and Punishment. Senators you are still allowed to vote on the other Bill but I have tabled the Crime and Punishment Act.

In that case, I'll vote aye

Gifty wrote:While I agree with the contents and ideas this seems like it's jumping the gun, suggesting frameworks for things such as the lower courts that are yet to exist. Whilst having a framework to work from isn't a bad idea until we have a system in place it just seems redundant.
So as the author I still have a right to talk anyway I'm sure, so I'll just specify here: this is indeed, just a framework. It's not "jumping the gun"- we've had a lower court clause in the Constitution for three long years, and we've never used it. The bill can be applied to the High Court anyway, so it's fine- it just has a procedure in case we randomly decide to establish one in the future.

Ok Senators, I am closing the voting for this Bill. I do not expect anymore Senators to vote within the next 12 hours for personal and unmentioned reasons, that being said I am closing the vote.

Senators do remember I tabled the Bill “Crime and Punishment Act” and we only voted for “Judiciary Framework”. Both were Authored by Cinema herself while JF was authored by her and Peeps. The voting Senators all voted in favor of this Bill; it passes.

Upon it being requested, I ask unanimous consent for this Bill:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1662660

Senators:

The Sarangtus Lands

Angypt

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Creckelenney

Gifty

Islonia

Authors:

Brototh

Democratized Peoples

Brototh

I acknowledge the motion

Brototh

I acknowledge the motion

Brototh

I acknowledge the motion.

Brototh

I acknowledge the motion.

Brototh

I acknowledge the motion

Brototh

Post self-deleted by Chairman Veden.

Senators, please do forgive me for my above post, we are not debating Sunipi’s Bill but, Cerds. Also, the UC passes.

”The Legislation of Political Party’s Act”

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1652263

Senators:

The Sarangtus Lands

Angypt

Creckelenney

Islonia

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Gifty

I fully support the bill. They are some important outlines to have in place

Cerdenia

I am quite sceptical of this, though mildly supportive so far, as I believe that the codification of political parties has no purpose, though I believe it might help clarify confusion, I am still personally confused as to why this bill wishes to do what it does. Regardless, here's a clarifying amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Hereby changes the name of the bill to the Codification of Political Parties Act.[/spoiler]

Cerdenia, Chairman Veden

The Sarangtus Lands wrote:I am quite sceptical of this, though mildly supportive so far, as I believe that the codification of political parties has no purpose, though I believe it might help clarify confusion, I am still personally confused as to why this bill wishes to do what it does. Regardless, here's a clarifying amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Hereby changes the name of the bill to the Codification of Political Parties Act.[/spoiler]

Personally, I think the benefit is that you have set parameters for what qualifies as a party, for elections and so forth. I imagine this would be of great benefit to people wishing to found a party, as they have very explicit requirements to officially found it.

Cerdenia

I think this is a good Bill, I have nothing against it. No major comments or highlights from me at this time. This can be beneficial in my opinion.

Cerdenia

I'm against this. The principle is horrible and the execution comes from traditions. Since when have we gotten so low as to regulate political parties now? That's the job of the bloody politicians [to decide what is a party], not the lawmakers.

Islonia does make a very valid statement, what do you have to say to this Cerdenia?

Cerdenia

Chairman Veden wrote:Islonia does make a very valid statement, what do you have to say to this Cerdenia?

Cerdenia

i disagree

Brototh

That is very vague, so we as Senators can get a better judgment on the Bill at hand to make a conscious decision on how we will vote, could you elaborate please?

Cerdenia wrote:i disagree

Chairman Veden wrote:That is very vague, so we as Senators can get a better judgment on the Bill at hand to make a conscious decision on how we will vote, could you elaborate please?

The whole purpose of the bill is just to ensure we have a minimum set of procedures regarding how parties work, so that things such as, for example, labels next to candidate's names aren't something unclear during elections. The requirements are pretty generous, it's not hard to found a party under this system, so the idea that this restricts parties in any significant manner is just wrong.

Vedenmark

Couldn't we just require candidates to submit a favoured affiliation/affiliation acronym (i.e. in many IRL places people can often be marked as, say, "Independent Liberal" without actually being part of a party, as they list it as their affiliation despite not being part of any party) rather than regulating parties themselves?

Ok senators, I am closing the debate on this Bill and moving to vote.

My vote is Nay

It is with the amends.

Post self-deleted by Islonia.

Chairman Veden wrote:Ok senators, I am closing the debate on this Bill and moving to vote.

My vote is Nay

Amends: https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=46695602

Bill: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1652263

Ok senators, we are voting on the final Bill. The Final Bill is exactly what it says, the exact Bill authored by Cerd himself. We voted on the Amendments first, and now the final Bill. Make sure to vote

The Amendments pass 3-1-1

It has been good serving you guys and I look forward to seeing most of you again next term!

My vote is Nay.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1652263

Hello Senators. We have completed our final order of business. Cerds Bill fails.

3-1-1

It was a good term!

Inauguration

I can now declare the following have been inaugurated:

Sevae, Gifty, Creckelenney, Angypt, Porflox, Actias & Vedenmark are inaugurated as Senators

__________________

Senators - Commencement of the Chairman Election

Please state below whether you wish to to stand for Chairman of the Senate. You have 24 hours to declare your intent.

- Rayekka

Electoral Commissioner

Actias, Dunlando

I declare my candidacy for the chairmanship.

Xernon, Sevae

I declare my candidacy

Actias, Marvinville, Vedenmark

Chairman Election - Statement Phase

Senator Vedenmark & Senator Sevae have declared their candidacy for Chairman. We now enter the statement phase that will last ~12 hours. Candidates can now make a statement on why they should be elected Chairman.

[spoiler=Senators]Sevae

Gifty

Creckelenney

Angypt

Porflox

Actias

Vedenmark[/spoiler]

- Rayekka

Electoral Commissioner

Senators, I'm the best option for this position because I have already had experience within the job, and I will know what I will be doing along with I will be dedicated to the position wholeheartedly.

Sevae is currently the Vice President, they do not need to have the chairmanship as well in my opinion. The Chairman of the Senate's job is to keep Senate business moving and it is no lie that I will do that. Sevae may have too much on their plate which would be overwhelming and we do not need that.

Many are against me just because of the party politics and affiliation, but that's ok. I'm the better option for the Senate Chairmanship because of my recent policies and because I will know what I am doing since I've learned from my mistakes in my previous term. My dedication and activeness will also do help me with this.

Vote Veden!

I will accept questions at this time.

I also have experience with basically being Chair when I was Deputy Chair under ICH and he was very often on an LOA. Back then we debated the whole docket, even the Make Cerdenia King Act, and the Senate was very efficient. I used recall motions against inactive people, which made them come back to activity.

As Chair, I will take a Laissez-Faire approach to people voting and debating. Ultimately it is their choice whether they participate in the chamber, and I would not constantly ping them to make them vote. I would quickly move on if something is non-controversial and widely supported, and I would allow more time if a debate is going on. And as I said, if I am not satisfied with someone's activity, I will initiate a recall motion against them as a private citizen. As for the docket, I will obviously take on minister nominations first, then important legislation that has already passed the House

As for my activity, as Vice President I will mostly take care of World Assembly business together with the President. As you know, World Assembly resolutions come to vote around every 2 days, and between them I am totally free NS-wise. I know being Chair isn't an easy job, but I'm confident that I know what I'm doing, and I wouldn't have run if I thought I can't do both jobs.

I am also a non-controversial person, and would be neutral as Speaker. I would let bills from all parties be debated, whether I agree with them or not.

You're welcome to ask any questions!

Of Altonianic Islands, Marvinville, Santa Marana

What makes you a better candidate, rather than me?

Sevae wrote:I also have experience with basically being Chair when I was Deputy Chair under ICH and he was very often on an LOA. Back then we debated the whole docket, even the Make Cerdenia King Act, and the Senate was very efficient. I used recall motions against inactive people, which made them come back to activity.

As Chair, I will take a Laissez-Faire approach to people voting and debating. Ultimately it is their choice whether they participate in the chamber, and I would not constantly ping them to make them vote. I would quickly move on if something is non-controversial and widely supported, and I would allow more time if a debate is going on. And as I said, if I am not satisfied with someone's activity, I will initiate a recall motion against them as a private citizen. As for the docket, I will obviously take on minister nominations first, then important legislation that has already passed the House

As for my activity, as Vice President I will mostly take care of World Assembly business together with the President. As you know, World Assembly resolutions come to vote around every 2 days, and between them I am totally free NS-wise. I know being Speaker isn't an easy job, but I'm confident that I know what I'm doing, and I wouldn't have run if I thought I can't do both jobs.

I am also a non-controversial person, and would be neutral as Speaker. I would let bills from all parties be debated, whether I agree with them or not.

You're welcome to ask any questions!

As Altys said repeatedly in the Prime Minister debate, there is no "better candidate". I just think that I am qualified to lead this chamber. But you aren't less qualified, you just have different qualifications.

What sets me apart from you is leadership style. You like pinging people on discord repeatedly to get votes out of them (I'm not judging that, merely stating the fact), and I wouldn't do that. None of the other qualities that we possess have any relevance to the Chair position. Our party affiliation has no relevance. We both have the experience of de facto being Chair, and we both were pretty good at that (I didn't really follow your Chair term though, so others may have differing opinions).

Maybe one thing that I can add is that I will be good at communication with the Prime Minister and House Speaker. But again, I don't want to say I'll be better than you at it, I just want to point out that I'd be good at it because I'm friends with both of them and a political ally of both

I really don't know what else I can say that will convince people to vote for me. The 5 other Senators whose votes will determine the outcome of this election all have their own opinions on what the Chair should do. We both have some sort of political reputation among them. We both want to be Chair and will commit to the position. The Chair is a position that is so administrative, so neutral, that it's hard to participate in an *election* for it.

So what I'm going to say is - vote Sevae if you think I'll do a better job, but I'm not going to convince you either way. It should be your decision and I'm not going to try and influence it. I have merely stated the facts and my opinions, and if you want to hear more, just ask me here during the debate period

So in other words, nothing really? I have another final question, what makes me less qualified.

"what makes you more qualified" and "what makes me less qualified" is literally the same question.

Again, we'd both be qualified for the job. I feel like at this point you're just baiting me into a hostile response.

Fine, I'll oblige. This is exactly what makes you less qualified. You try to be confrontational literally without any reason. You could have been Deputy Chair, and instead you're running against all odds, with all of the parties opposing you. Which is fine if you had any reasonable criticism, but you're literally just trying to create an argument.

You keep creating arguments here, in NS politics, even in your newspaper's server where you mute people for disagreeing with you. Granted, others are also sometimes at fault, but you do nothing to stop the arguments.

So decide now, Senators, if you want to vote for someone who is qualified for the job and won't be confrontational, or for someone who is also qualified for the job but will be confrontational. *micdrop*

Of Altonianic Islands, Cerdenia, Brototh

Seva says I'm baiting him by doing my job as a senator, participating in the debate by asking questions when that is something I intend to do as a current senator running for a position. Wouldn't it be reasonable if I as a candidate for the chairmanship intend to participate in the debate? I'd think so.

You stated that I'm being confrontational by participating in the debate, asking questions. Please elaborate. Though to him, I'm creating an argument. I fail to realize how asking simple questions is a problem.

Seva also stated how I muted someone for disagreeing with me. That was a confrontational statement. This is confrontational because he knows he is going to get a reaction out of people and you purposefully state a controversial topic that has nothing to do with this Senate debate. I would also note that I muted Bow due to already justified reasons. But, that is neither here nor there. He tells me that I do nothing to stop arguments when I don't start arguments. I simply just participate in them as they are topics that are debatable.

You've stated your basis on me asking questions saying I'm baiting you, yet, you plunder these utterly ridiculous topics that have nothing to do with the Senate to derail the matter at hand.

Senators, do you want Seva; a person who has thrown baseless arguments that have nothing to do with the Senate debate into this civilized disagreement? Yet he blames me for starting arguments.

Vote Vedenmark if you want a Chairperson with experience and who has learned from mistakes.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1673440

I motion for unanimous consent. I acknowledge the motion

If you acknowledge it as well, please post "I acknowledge this motion" on this RMB within the next 24 hours

Actias, Brototh

Sevae wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1673440

I motion for unanimous consent. I acknowledge the motion

If you acknowledge it as well, please post "I acknowledge this motion" on this RMB within the next 24 hours

I acknowledge this motion.

Brototh

Sevae wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1673440

I motion for unanimous consent. I acknowledge the motion

If you acknowledge it as well, please post "I acknowledge this motion" on this RMB within the next 24 hours

I acknowledge this motion

Actias, Brototh

Chairman Election - Voting

Senators, please vote for who you'd like to be chairman, candidates are:

Sevae

Vedenmark

Voting will close in ~24 hours.

[spoiler=Senators]Sevae

Gifty

Creckelenney

Angypt

Porflox

Actias

Vedenmark[/spoiler]

- Rayekka

Electoral Commissioner

Voting Sevae

Marvinville, Vedenmark, Sevae

Vedenmark wrote:Seva says I'm baiting him by doing my job as a senator, participating in the debate by asking questions when that is something I intend to do as a current senator running for a position. Wouldn't it be reasonable if I as a candidate for the chairmanship intend to participate in the debate? I'd think so.

You stated that I'm being confrontational by participating in the debate, asking questions. Please elaborate. Though to him, I'm creating an argument. I fail to realize how asking simple questions is a problem.

Seva also stated how I muted someone for disagreeing with me. That was a confrontational statement. This is confrontational because he knows he is going to get a reaction out of people and you purposefully state a controversial topic that has nothing to do with this Senate debate. I would also note that I muted Bow due to already justified reasons. But, that is neither here nor there. He tells me that I do nothing to stop arguments when I don't start arguments. I simply just participate in them as they are topics that are debatable.

You've stated your basis on me asking questions saying I'm baiting you, yet, you plunder these utterly ridiculous topics that have nothing to do with the Senate to derail the matter at hand.

Senators, do you want Seva; a person who has thrown baseless arguments that have nothing to do with the Senate debate into this civilized disagreement? Yet he blames me for starting arguments.

Vote Vedenmark if you want a Chairperson with experience and who has learned from mistakes.

You are baiting me by asking the same question twice. Baiting me by saying "so in other words, nothing really?" These questions "why are you a better candidate/why am I a worse candidate?" are totally non-substantive, they're only made to make me repeat the same things all over again. By asking the second question in particular you're daring me to criticise you.

And then, when I provide logical criticism of your actions, without attacking you personally, you launch this absurd rant that I "start arguments". I rest my case

I vote for myself

Marvinville

Voting Sevae

Marvinville, Sevae

Voting Sevae

Marvinville, Sevae

Sevae wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1673440

I motion for unanimous consent. I acknowledge the motion

If you acknowledge it as well, please post "I acknowledge this motion" on this RMB within the next 24 hours

I acknowledge this motion

Sevae

I acknowledge the motion

I vote Sevae

Sevae

I acknowledge the motion as well.

Sevae

Chairman Election - Results

I herby declare Sevae has been elected Chairman of the Senate.

Full Results:

Sevae (5): Gifty, Sevae, Actias, Porfloxia, Angypt

Vedenmark (1): Vedenmark

Did Not Vote (1): Creckelenney

Over to your Chairman Sevae.

[spoiler=Senators]Sevae

Gifty

Creckelenney

Angypt

Porflox

Actias

Vedenmark[/spoiler]

- Rayekka

Electoral Commissioner

Thank you everyone for placing your trust in me.

P. S. the docket is located here https://www.nationstates.net/nation=chair_sevae/detail=factbook/id=1673792

I'll pin it when I'm added tomorrow

We are now debating the nomination of Islonia for Foreign Affairs Minister. Islonia and Brototh are invited to speak.

I'm going to start us off with a question:

How will your term differ from the previous one?

[spoiler=Senators]

Actias

Angypt

Creckelenney

Gifty

Porfloxia

Vedenmark[/spoiler]

Actias, Brototh

I have known Altys as a dedicated and well-trusted individual ever since I’ve gotten involved in Thaepol. That being said, I have trust and I firmly believe that he will be very dedicated to the FA position. I can see why Madam PM chose him.

We should also note that he has great experience within the Foreign Affairs ministry. Such a position requires much experience and heavy dedication and he will provide both.

Though I do have one particular question; Altys, do you plan on focusing more on making new relations with other regions, or, building stronger affairs with the ones we have.

Islonia

Actias

Senators,

Altys/Islonia is an iconic heavyweight in Thaecian foreign policy and someone whose reputation precedes them. Their impact on Thaecia is worthy of the highest recognition and needs no cross-examination by this chamber. The Foreign Affairs Ministry will be in safe hands under Islonia's leadership.

My question to the nominee is: what new policies and practices will you bring into the F.A.M. to strengthen Thaecia's current position and broaden our influence?

Islonia

Vedenmark wrote:Though I do have one particular question; Altys, do you plan on focusing more on making new relations with other regions, or, building stronger affairs with the ones we have.

Technically speaking, there aren't many more [relevant] regions we can open relations with. However, considering the clear lack of care the past 8 months have shown to our existing relations; instead focusing on expanding them (Balder, TCB), resulting in *yet* another show of overextension of the MoFA; I see no point in making new relations with other regions.

Though it's worth noting this is only my opinion and the Foreign Affairs Council is currently composed of 8 people. And while I may stand against making new relations (and will most likely advocate for another round of cuts just like last time I held the position), the Council could still decide otherwise granted Cinema & I don't find their decision utterly ridiculous.

Actias wrote:My question to the nominee is: what new policies and practices will you bring into the F.A.M. to strengthen Thaecia's current position and broaden our influence?

2-3 days ago I've proposed a series of changes to how Thaecia conducts its Foreign Affairs, specifically in regards to internal participation and the distribution/reception/analysis of foreign information. This isn't an exhaustive list [as restructuring something isn't a short process] but it goes as follows:

(1) Abolishing the role of diplomats, instead replacing it with the role of 'socialites'. The reasoning is: diplomats are administrative workers, a boring job which teaches you nothing about foreign affairs. As such it was chosen to replace the role with one that does just that in a simple manner: granted you have time, you can go abroad and present yourself as a diplomat [as per native procedures] except we do not require you to post updates. Only to chat with the population there.

This is what Senior Diplomats have been doing in various regions already (ie all them in Europeia or myself in The Rejected Realms). This is one of the only ways to project our presence abroad--by actually being there. The recipient regions know we exist, that we care about them, and it improves relations between communities and incidentally, interregional relations.

(2) Creating a channel on Thaecord (main Thaecia Discord server) similar to ns-politics, except reserved to citizens (unsure whether or not we want them screened by the MoFA to see the channel, or have it open to all). The idea is to make foreign and GP information easily accessible (with anyone being able to post them in the channel) while encouraging people to discuss them.

(3) Adding the MoFA to military high command. The army basically is an FA tool, makes sense the MoFA's there.

(4) Putting back FA Records back on googlesheet. Dispatches are a pain to update and less flexible.

We've also got some ideas put on hold that might be done later, ie deleting the FA server and splitting its operations between Thaecord and the Executive server like before. It depends on how prospective discussions about them go.

Also it's a given given who I am but, obviously as MoFA [and DPM] I don't intend on bruteforcing plans down the Council's throat.

Actias, Brototh, Vedenmark, Chair Sevae

As expected, Altys answered my question thoroughly and I have decided how to vote.

Actias

I would just like to say we will not entirely abolish jobs for newcomers who want to get involved in the ministry of foreign affairs. We will still ensure there are certain roles that new people can play to help out if they would like.

Actias

Voting is now open on the nominee Islonia

[spoiler=Senators]

Actias

Angypt

Creckelenney

Gifty

Porfloxia

Vedenmark[/spoiler]

My vote is Aye

Actias, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye

The Islamic Country Of Honour

My vote is Aye

Actias, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye

Actias, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye

The Islamic Country Of Honour

The nominee passes 5-0-2 (Creckelenney and Gifty did not vote)

We are now debating the nominations of Toerana V for Communications Minister and Snalland for Home Affairs Minister. They and Brototh are invited to speak

[spoiler=Senators]

Actias

Angypt

Creckelenney

Gifty

Porfloxia

Vedenmark[/spoiler]

Toerana V

All mentioned nations are well known throughout Thaecia and in my opinion, seem to show great dedication among the positions they have served in before this very nomination.

I have one question for both nominees and a question for the Hon. Prime Minister Brototh.

Snall, what is your experience with the Home Affairs Ministry?

Toerana V, what do you plan to do during your term as the CM?

And lastly, PM Brototh; Why did you specifically choose both of these candidates? And if you’d like to add on anything else with my question on the behalf of both nominees, please do so.

Brototh

Snalland

Toerana

Toerana V

Regarding Vedenmark’s question. I’ve been a recruiter for several months now, and am a member of the mentoring team. Now, I recognize that recruiting is just a part of what the HAM does. Another big part is keeping all of the Thaecian government’s dispatches up to date. This is a fairly rudimentary task, it only requires you to be active and pay attention. Needless to say, I meet those standards.

Toerana V, Vedenmark

I thank Snalland for reassuring me with answering my question thoroughly. Knowing Snall throughout the region and noting what he has just told me, he seems he will be dedicated to the position and I trust he will be active to do the job.

Snalland

Toerana V

I'd like to ask Toerana V some questions:

What did you learn from your past term? What were the successes and failures of last term, and what will you do differently?

Will you appoint any deputy ministers?

What would a successful term in Communications look like?

As for Snalland:

Prime Minister Brototh said there will be a competition incentivising participation in the government. How much progress have you made on it, and when can we expect the program to officially launch?

Are you satisfied with the current recruitment numbers, and which number of telegrams should we expect to be sent by the end of the term?

What would a successful term in Home Affairs look like?

Toerana V

Vedenmark wrote:Toerana V, what do you plan to do during your term as the CM?

Regional Updates.

In my opinion, Communications has been too ambitious for too long without getting the basics nailed. In this case, the basics are regional updates.

Our first goal is to meet monthly regional updates, and I believe we can do this by making a few major changes;

1. Remove any distinction between "Regional Updates" and "Foreign Updates". Something Xernon pushed for, which I believe is just a bad idea, is attempting publish two different sorts of regional updates, muddling up the process and giving the Communications staff the fun job of what is "worthy" for interregional consumption and what is not. We're going to do away with that and streamline the process by publishing consistent regional updates for internal consumption first and foremost. The purpose of Communications is to cater to the region, not our regional partners. A streamlined process with a clear expectation of what should be in each will go a long way to simplifying basic tasks of the communications Ministry.

2. Recruitment. I completely failed at recruitment of any kind in the first term, but I'm confident that with a narrower off the bat focus I can be clearer on recruitment and bolster the Communications Ministry's staff. I'll make it clear that there is no expectation to write, just to be there and participate in discussions is enough. IF we move on the regional newspaper idea, the internal discussion will help to hammer out ideas and hopefully build some enthusiasm for people to go away, research and write. Instead of telling people "oi go write some nonsense" I want them to want to write.

Regional Newspaper.

We made some progress, including having a couple of articles written under my tenure last time, the problem with the regional newspaper was Xernon didn't know what he wanted, and abused his position to protect political allies. Brototh isn't like that, and we see eye to eye on what is okay for publication, and what isn't. There is no conflict of interest there. We may disagree on many political manners but we're both capable of being level-headed individuals who can look at articles objectively. A regional newspaper is also more realistic this term because the Prime Minister who wants one is actually interested in writing for one. This couldn't have been more from the truth for Xernon. Brototh has experience in the NS Journalism field and has already made it clear she is willing to heavily contribute if others won't. I won't be expected to write a newspaper singlehandedly, which I like quite a bit.

Sevae wrote:I'd like to ask Toerana V some questions:

What did you learn from your past term? What were the successes and failures of last term, and what will you do differently?

Successes: We got a single regional update out (woo!)

Failures: Everything else.

I attribute a lot of the failures to myself, I wasn't as active or pushy as I could have been, and I failed in recruitment completely. I was clearly incompatible with Xernon and that term wasn't destined to work out. High expectations have been set for comms for its entire existence, all while there was nobody actually interested in helping me reach those goals.

The government wanted a newspaper, but didn't want to do any of the work towards it. Brototh, as I've mentioned earlier, is the polar opposite. I wouldn't say I've so much "learnt" from the past term, and I firmly believe the executive has better, willing leadership this term. The difference will be the support and encouragement I receive.

Sevae wrote:

Will you appoint any deputy ministers?

Yes, we already have one lined up and I'm open to the prospect of more. For Comms to be successful beyond myself and Brototh there needs to be a number of people willing and qualified enough to take up the mantle of Minister.

Sevae wrote:

What would a successful term in Communications look like?

We hit goals. We get our updates out monthly, our staff is resuscitated.

A Newspaper is a "nice to have" but I don't believe it is a necessity to label the term as successful.

Sevae

Thank you for the answer. I am ready to vote and will vote to confirm

Toerana V

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.