Posts: 30,914
Likes: 4,036
XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Red XKI NS Join Year: 138 - Monday, 18 October 2010 Historical XKI Political Party: MSPP - Mayor Shelter Political Party Ancient House of: Wordiness
- For those candidates who are not emissaries or ambassadors, why? I ask not accusatorily but rather out of curiosity, given that I have done a lot of work over the years as MoL to attract and retain nations to the job and often wondered why some nations don't take up the role. We need a lot of emissaries to sustain our diplomatic relations, and the job is not all that work-intensive.
- Answering either "yes" or "no," with no middle ground, hedging, or caveats, is XKI a democracy?
Last Edit: Sept 5, 2019 20:44:22 GMT -5 by Paffnia
Posts: 9,199
Likes: 912
XKI Generation: The Mortimer Generation XKI NS Join Year: 248 - 11/28/16 Historical XKI Political Party: TCP - The Circle Party Ancient House of: Ater Nox
Post by United Royal Islands on Sept 5, 2019 23:33:11 GMT -5
Paffnia - Will you abide by the transparency pledge I have proposed for non-sensitive Council matters: 10000islands.proboards.com/thread/33503/small-step-transparency 1) I do not think it is necessary any longer. We have the Transparency Act which provides a methodical and clear process by which the council may solicit public comment on any matter it desires. Further it provides for the archiving of those discussions which are able to be released for public viewing. We also have a clearly stated policy welcoming any citizen to bring up matters for consideration.
Taken together I find these policies to be highly effective and addressing the concerns raised about XKI governance. I do not think Transparency is what ails our system, nor is it the panacea it is promoted. Especially given that XKI continues to be a target of raider spies and infiltrators.
- For those candidates who are not emissaries or ambassadors, why? I ask not accusatorily but rather out of curiosity, given that I have done a lot of work over the years as MoL to attract and retain nations to the job and often wondered why some nations don't take up the role. We need a lot of emissaries to sustain our diplomatic relations, and the job is not all that work-intensive. 2) I have held emissary roles at various point throughout my career. At this time I do not, mostly given that I withdrew from the last post I held when I became busy during late July and August. In general, I am less adept with foreign affairs, and I am inclined to leave emissary roles to those more familiar with the region in question. This does raise a few questions about the nature of emissaries and what can be done to ensure this work is taken care of.
- Answering either "yes" or "no," with no middle ground, hedging, or caveats, is XKI a democracy? 3) No. l have stated so in the past and will do so again. While we may have democratic elements, the fundamental nature of how power is structured and exercised in the islands is not democratic as it is widely used and understood to mean. I would be happy to walk you through my reasoning in more full detail, but it deserves it own post - perhaps even its own specific thread for counter arguments and claims dedicated to the question. I am also unsure why the issue is suddenly germane to senate candidates, given that this is the first you feel compelled to inquire about it.
Having trouble editing that term paper? Needing help with polishing that business proposal? Want help with your NS Factbook? Try XKI Wordsmith . Open for all your word crafting needs! (Wordsmith: Its a blacksmith but for words 😎)
I rent a place on Cornelia Street, I say casually in the car.
Posts: 3,567
Likes: 656
XKI Generation: The Upgrade Generation Historical XKI Political Party: MSPP - Mayor Shelter Political Party Ancient House of: Aersoldorf
Yes! In fact, I already have pledged to abide by it! I believe that transparency should be a goal for each and every member of the Council of 9, and that people who serve the public should respect the public enough to want to be truthful, transparent, and open. I believe that for the best accountability, the best results, and the best communication, this transparency pledge is an absolute necessity and if re-elected, I will help lead the push to pass this pledge into law!
- For those candidates who are not emissaries or ambassadors, why? I ask not accusatorily but rather out of curiosity, given that I have done a lot of work over the years as MoL to attract and retain nations to the job and often wondered why some nations don't take up the role. We need a lot of emissaries to sustain our diplomatic relations, and the job is not all that work-intensive.
I am currently and have served at many embassies over the course of my time here! I always liked it, so I’m afraid I can’t really give you an answer here, as it’s not totally applicable.
- Answering either "yes" or "no," with no middle ground, hedging, or caveats, is XKI a democracy?
No, we definitely are not. I would peg this region as a constitutional monarchy; we have a chief executive who rules with absolute authority, and is surrounded by a ‘parliament’- the Council of Nine. This council can put forth bills, amendments, resolutions, etc, but all must pass the inspection and adhere to the standards of the chief executive. When the chief executive retires, the metaphorical crown is handed down to the successor, and the lineage continues.
Posts: 30,571
Likes: 2,567
XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Gray XKI NS Join Year: 143 - Friday, 28 January 2011 Historical XKI Political Party: MSPP - Mayor Shelter Political Party Ancient House of: Echolilia
Yes, I stated this in my campaign thread. I believe it remains important despite the passing of the Transparency Act because public discussions on my personal proposals will start earlier and Islanders who bring proposals to me will have a more direct line of response/feedback.
- For those candidates who are not emissaries or ambassadors, why? I ask not accusatorily but rather out of curiosity, given that I have done a lot of work over the years as MoL to attract and retain nations to the job and often wondered why some nations don't take up the role. We need a lot of emissaries to sustain our diplomatic relations, and the job is not all that work-intensive.
I’m not an emissary right now although I have in the past been emissary to Philosophy 115, TSP, and (I believe) the RIA. In the past I can’t say I’ve found the job particularly fulfilling because I find it really hard to effectively integrate myself into the region’s culture when I casually visit. I honestly have so much respect for those who do this effectively, including the ambassadors from other regions to XKI that I’ve spammed with over the years. But for whatever reason I’ve never had great aptitude for it, so I’d rather give someone else the shot.
- Answering either "yes" or "no," with no middle ground, hedging, or caveats, is XKI a democracy?
No.
I agree in a very textual/institutional perspective with DoC’s “constitutional monarchy” idea. However, I don’t really think that’s how this works. It’s also not a dictatorship. I feel like there are an unwritten set of norms that govern the actual functioning of the system and which are continually being written and rewritten.
For example, during Grub’s tenure I felt it was very difficult to challenge the Chief Executive, even from within the Nine. I was frustrated by this and at times felt the body was useless, or at the very least not a representative body but rather the region’s Activity Planning Committee. I haven’t really witnessed any subsequent tenure but it seems the norms are slowly changing toward the idea that the Council provides advice to the CE - and sometimes even acts of its own accord.
In many ways, I feel as if the Council is an informal, non-binding check on the Chief Executive. I say “informal, non-binding” not as an insult. So rarely do we severely disagree on substantive matters - instead, it’s most important for the CE to have people to give feedback and delegate to, which no one opposes. If the CE goes against the Council - which in many areas they have the Constitutional prerogative to do - then there is a legitimacy cost to doing so. CEs obviously and should act independently on individual questions, but the CoN also allows the senior elite and representatives of the people to have an institutionalized voice when they oppose the CE, which is inevitable.
Moreover, I don’t think it’s *bad* that we aren’t a democracy. We shouldn’t be. I think the beauty of the CoN is that it’s an administrative group of senior Islanders who are able to provide meaningful advice and dialogue with the CE. I think the exact norms that govern the relationship between the CoN and the CE are always in flux. I think there are also important unspoken norms governing the exact role of the WA Delegate and the relationship between Ministers and the CE. I think it’s important to talk about these norms, to explicitly identify ones we do and do not think should change, and to more importantly recognize the role of informal governance in our region. I don’t think informal governance is bad - I think it must be understood.
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Former Delegate, Minister of Immigration and Labor, Senior Senator, Cultural Officer, Cards Co-op President - 10000 Islands Former Chief Executive - Renegade Islands Alliance
Posts: 30,914
Likes: 4,036
XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Red XKI NS Join Year: 138 - Monday, 18 October 2010 Historical XKI Political Party: MSPP - Mayor Shelter Political Party Ancient House of: Wordiness
The ideas of House Stewards and active vs. inactive houses are good ones, but they only seem to be updated when Louisistan is in office. United Royal Islands and any other candidates who may declare for Lyonnesse East, how would you stay on top of which houses need stewards or new stewards and which need to be classified as inactive or reclassified as active? Do you propose any changes to the way this system works?
No. I am in agreement with URI. At this point it really doesn't seem necessary. The transparency act seems to fit the job nicely.
- For those candidates who are not emissaries or ambassadors, why? I ask not accusatorily but rather out of curiosity, given that I have done a lot of work over the years as MoL to attract and retain nations to the job and often wondered why some nations don't take up the role. We need a lot of emissaries to sustain our diplomatic relations, and the job is not all that work-intensive. I contribute more to inter regional affairs by being a part of TITO command. Although I am considering applying for an emissary role in the future.
- Answering either "yes" or "no," with no middle ground, hedging, or caveats, is XKI a democracy? No, but I don't think that's a problem. I trust our CE to use his powers responsibly and only act with them if deemed absolutely necessary. It also contributes to the security and stability of the islands. The last CE had excellent judgement in picking his successor and I am confident if the time comes Mark will do the same.
EDIT: Just a bit of spelling
Last Edit: Sept 7, 2019 4:37:18 GMT -5 by Aschente
Minister of Immigration Chief if Staff Discord Moderator Former Senior Senator Formerly served 4 LE Terms Formerly Served 1 NRS Term Former TITO Tactical Officer Former TITO Executive Officer Former TITO Tactical Liaison Former Discord Administrator
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 433
XKI Generation: New Dawn Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Gray XKI NS Join Year: 295 - 7/11/2019 Historical XKI Political Party: TCP - The Circle Party Ancient House of: Wordiness Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"0723b8"} Mini-Profile Name Color: 000000 Mini-Profile Text Color: ffffff
Somewhat, I think that some proposals to the Council should be discussed publicly, whilst others (such as sensitive material, etc.) need not be declared publicly.
- For those candidates who are not emissaries or ambassadors, why? I ask not accusatorily but rather out of curiosity, given that I have done a lot of work over the years as MoL to attract and retain nations to the job and often wondered why some nations don't take up the role. We need a lot of emissaries to sustain our diplomatic relations, and the job is not all that work-intensive.
I have applied for an emissary job, and my application is currently being reviewed by the delegate.
- Answering either "yes" or "no," with no middle ground, hedging, or caveats, is XKI a democracy?
No, the Islands operate somewhat similarly to a constitutional monarchy, however, I do not perceive this is necessarily bad, this system ensures that the Islands are stable and a coup is extremely hard to be initiated, I don't think the current system should be changed.
Posts: 30,571
Likes: 2,567
XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Gray XKI NS Join Year: 143 - Friday, 28 January 2011 Historical XKI Political Party: MSPP - Mayor Shelter Political Party Ancient House of: Echolilia
Post by HumanSanity on Sept 7, 2019 14:47:34 GMT -5
A question for all of the other candidates -
In my campaign thread I identified what I believe to be the core values of the 10000 Islands as friendship, respect, compassion, and excellence. What do you think are the core values of XKI? How do they implicate decisions you'd make or actions you'd take as a Senator?
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Former Delegate, Minister of Immigration and Labor, Senior Senator, Cultural Officer, Cards Co-op President - 10000 Islands Former Chief Executive - Renegade Islands Alliance
Posts: 9,199
Likes: 912
XKI Generation: The Mortimer Generation XKI NS Join Year: 248 - 11/28/16 Historical XKI Political Party: TCP - The Circle Party Ancient House of: Ater Nox
Why is Council Transparency such an issue for you at this time? Is this a matter of virtue or something else? What problems do you see with the current process and and system? How do you feel that such a pledge (or law) would resolve those issues?
I am genuinely curious. The reason I ask, is because the debate about holding council discussions in public was a debate we already held. It is available for all Islanders to read even, and the council found that the interests of regional security and transparency need to be balanced. There was a lot of work on the matter and we achieved the transparency act. No longer are debates held in reserve forever to be lost to time, and the public comment process seems to be decently effective at involving the islands in our political process.
So lastly, what in your view has changed since this consensus?
And specifically for DoC: why is it a positive value to not just advocate and adhere to the pledge yourself but to actively seek to impose it on the whole of the council? What about the law you are suggesting is fundamentally different than the proposal that Paffnia originally made about holding council debates in public? And given the need to balance council security with transparency how would you handle these competing values and concerns?
EDIT: to link the debate referenced, spelling adjustments
Having trouble editing that term paper? Needing help with polishing that business proposal? Want help with your NS Factbook? Try XKI Wordsmith . Open for all your word crafting needs! (Wordsmith: Its a blacksmith but for words 😎)
Posts: 30,571
Likes: 2,567
XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Gray XKI NS Join Year: 143 - Friday, 28 January 2011 Historical XKI Political Party: MSPP - Mayor Shelter Political Party Ancient House of: Echolilia
Why is Council Transparency such an issue for you at this time? Is this a matter of virtue or something else? What problems do you see with the current process and and system? How do you feel that such a pledge (or law) would resolve those issues?
I am genuinely curious. The reason I ask, is because the debate about holding council discussions in public was a debate we already held. It is available for all Islanders to read even, and the council found that the interests of regional security and transparency need to be balanced. There was a lot of work on the matter and we achieved the transparency act. No longer are debates held in reserve forever to be lost to time, and the public comment process seems to be decently effective at involving the islands in our political process.
So lastly, what in your view has changed since this consensus?
I'm keeping my comments more brief due to time constraints - I apologize for any lack of clarity -
The history of the Transparency Pledge, and the Transparency Act, to me has some of its origins in the Citizen's Response Act (vote here and "public discussion" here). I was on the Council of Nine when the CRA was voted on - it was rejected 2-5 and only Hahiha / USSR and I voted for it. Granted, the CRA was a deeply flawed solution on an execution level. I voted for it at the time because it felt like our only opportunity to make any difference on the vitally important issue of citizens' participation.
The CRA would've required responses to proposals brought by Citizen's in the public lobby. This is still a problem we haven't addressed. While the original post was deleted, Paffnia's post here contains some quotes from Louisistan that really highlight the irony of the poor handling of the CRA. In my opinion, clause 2 of the Transparency Act (and the Citizen's Response Act itself) are insufficient at resolving the original problem - a disconnect between the Council and the public because an update on "status" is not the same as an update on "what the actual f**k is going on" including who in the discussion is where, what their issues are with the idea and how to potentially resolve them, etc.
On non sensitive matters, Council debates should be open, at the time they are occurring, to the public. I believe there are two reasons - 1) it makes ideas better - and the current structure of the rules where members of the Nine cannot discuss any details of negotiations in public, even on ideas brought by members of the public, means there's still limited direct back and forth, even with Public Comment. I think this part of the transparency pledge is important here -
2) If I have a response, suggestion, modification, etc. to an idea that is both in the Council and in the Senate Lobby, I will post it in both (possibly paraphrased).
Since a post that I make in private Council chambers wouldn't go public - even if it was on a public idea - there is a lack of transparency. Legally, I would also often have to redact portions of my post that are in direct conversation with other members of the Council because that would divulge the intellectual pedigree of the proposal.
2) it's frustrating and alienating to the citizenry. I think the contents of the post in the CRA debate above proves this - a member of this community, even a highly highly respected one, can come up with an idea and not hear back because structurally, despite all the guarantees we give in law, as long as the chamber itself is closed there is a fundamental disconnect.
I get that we're de-classifying threads post-fact. I'm happy with this but not satisfied. There is no purpose to having Senators at all if they are not directly accountable for how they represent the citizenry. We could have a Council of Five with the CE, the three Ministers, and the WA Delegate. There's also no point to an elected - as opposed to appointed - Delegate. Further, if there is this supposed perfect pipeline between the CoN lobby and the chamber, then there really is no need for Senators because they aren't representing people. As an example - some threads will be declassified after this current session. If a Senator is running for re-election, how you vote in this election should be able to vary based on what that Senator said and the informal parts of Council discussion that occurred. If a Senator projected more chamber activity than they actually conveyed, I would want to know that before I cast my vote.
But, I'll be candid - I'm likely very alone in wanting an open Chamber. It's not something I'm intending to make a push about in the near future because I'm not seeing likelihood of having many on the Council who agree with me. But if I'm being honest, that's something I've believed in for a long time. Maybe that'll change once I have some experience in the Transparency Act regime, but there's my blueprint thoughts. Further - I believe my duty as a Senator is to represent, and since the vast majority seems opposed, then I won't make a push on this because that wouldn't be representing the people.
Sorry if this is rambly or unclear HS
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Former Delegate, Minister of Immigration and Labor, Senior Senator, Cultural Officer, Cards Co-op President - 10000 Islands Former Chief Executive - Renegade Islands Alliance
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 433
XKI Generation: New Dawn Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Gray XKI NS Join Year: 295 - 7/11/2019 Historical XKI Political Party: TCP - The Circle Party Ancient House of: Wordiness Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"0723b8"} Mini-Profile Name Color: 000000 Mini-Profile Text Color: ffffff
Post by Marxist Germany on Sept 11, 2019 15:02:27 GMT -5
I agree with HumanSanity to some degree. Although some discussions should not be declassified before the vote such as matters of regional security. I believe that some discussions should be available for WA Islanders to view at the moment at least. It allows citizens to voice their opinions and maybe even contact the co9 members and make suggestions. It's similar to how House of Commons discussions are usually broadcasted live.
I still think some security matters and other sensitive information should be kept classified.
Edit: My opinion on such matters may change if I serve in the co9 so I'm currently on the fence and have not really made up my mind yet.
Posts: 30,914
Likes: 4,036
XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Red XKI NS Join Year: 138 - Monday, 18 October 2010 Historical XKI Political Party: MSPP - Mayor Shelter Political Party Ancient House of: Wordiness
Why is Council Transparency such an issue for you at this time? Is this a matter of virtue or something else? What problems do you see with the current process and and system? How do you feel that such a pledge (or law) would resolve those issues?
I am genuinely curious. The reason I ask, is because the debate about holding council discussions in public was a debate we already held. It is available for all Islanders to read even, and the council found that the interests of regional security and transparency need to be balanced. There was a lot of work on the matter and we achieved the transparency act. No longer are debates held in reserve forever to be lost to time, and the public comment process seems to be decently effective at involving the islands in our political process.
So lastly, what in your view has changed since this consensus?
I'm keeping my comments more brief due to time constraints - I apologize for any lack of clarity -
The history of the Transparency Pledge, and the Transparency Act, to me has some of its origins in the Citizen's Response Act (vote here and "public discussion" here). I was on the Council of Nine when the CRA was voted on - it was rejected 2-5 and only Hahiha / USSR and I voted for it. Granted, the CRA was a deeply flawed solution on an execution level. I voted for it at the time because it felt like our only opportunity to make any difference on the vitally important issue of citizens' participation.
The CRA would've required responses to proposals brought by Citizen's in the public lobby. This is still a problem we haven't addressed. While the original post was deleted, Paffnia's post here contains some quotes from Louisistan that really highlight the irony of the poor handling of the CRA. In my opinion, clause 2 of the Transparency Act (and the Citizen's Response Act itself) are insufficient at resolving the original problem - a disconnect between the Council and the public because an update on "status" is not the same as an update on "what the actual f**k is going on" including who in the discussion is where, what their issues are with the idea and how to potentially resolve them, etc.
On non sensitive matters, Council debates should be open, at the time they are occurring, to the public. I believe there are two reasons - 1) it makes ideas better - and the current structure of the rules where members of the Nine cannot discuss any details of negotiations in public, even on ideas brought by members of the public, means there's still limited direct back and forth, even with Public Comment. I think this part of the transparency pledge is important here -
2) If I have a response, suggestion, modification, etc. to an idea that is both in the Council and in the Senate Lobby, I will post it in both (possibly paraphrased).
Since a post that I make in private Council chambers wouldn't go public - even if it was on a public idea - there is a lack of transparency. Legally, I would also often have to redact portions of my post that are in direct conversation with other members of the Council because that would divulge the intellectual pedigree of the proposal.
2) it's frustrating and alienating to the citizenry. I think the contents of the post in the CRA debate above proves this - a member of this community, even a highly highly respected one, can come up with an idea and not hear back because structurally, despite all the guarantees we give in law, as long as the chamber itself is closed there is a fundamental disconnect.
I get that we're de-classifying threads post-fact. I'm happy with this but not satisfied. There is no purpose to having Senators at all if they are not directly accountable for how they represent the citizenry. We could have a Council of Five with the CE, the three Ministers, and the WA Delegate. There's also no point to an elected - as opposed to appointed - Delegate. Further, if there is this supposed perfect pipeline between the CoN lobby and the chamber, then there really is no need for Senators because they aren't representing people. As an example - some threads will be declassified after this current session. If a Senator is running for re-election, how you vote in this election should be able to vary based on what that Senator said and the informal parts of Council discussion that occurred. If a Senator projected more chamber activity than they actually conveyed, I would want to know that before I cast my vote.
But, I'll be candid - I'm likely very alone in wanting an open Chamber. It's not something I'm intending to make a push about in the near future because I'm not seeing likelihood of having many on the Council who agree with me. But if I'm being honest, that's something I've believed in for a long time. Maybe that'll change once I have some experience in the Transparency Act regime, but there's my blueprint thoughts. Further - I believe my duty as a Senator is to represent, and since the vast majority seems opposed, then I won't make a push on this because that wouldn't be representing the people.
Sorry if this is rambly or unclear HS
This sums up my thoughts really well. Thanks for putting your sentiments into words. You're not alone in thinking this way.
Posts: 9,199
Likes: 912
XKI Generation: The Mortimer Generation XKI NS Join Year: 248 - 11/28/16 Historical XKI Political Party: TCP - The Circle Party Ancient House of: Ater Nox
Post by United Royal Islands on Sept 11, 2019 17:11:37 GMT -5
HumanSanity - thank your for clarifying your thoughts. It was enlightening and I do think benefits the process. While I don’t agree with everything you have highlighted, I also find myself not disagreeing with it either. It has given me some ideas to think about. I find a clearer description of the exact problem and causes to be more beneficial to finding a solution in general and your answer highlights some of them.
Having trouble editing that term paper? Needing help with polishing that business proposal? Want help with your NS Factbook? Try XKI Wordsmith . Open for all your word crafting needs! (Wordsmith: Its a blacksmith but for words 😎)