Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Trending Topics
Regional Information
The East Pacific brought to you by,
Where to Start?

Social
Discord
IRC
Skype
Steam Group

Roleplay
Regional Atlas
In-Character
News Broadcasts
Out of Character

Government
Executive Offices
Delegate: Yuno
Magisterium
Provost: Drachen
Conclave
Viceroy: Aelitia





Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit.


How to register an account
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here!


I'm registered. How can I post?
When you sign up on our forums, your account is classified under the "visa" group. Individuals who are in this group will only be able to post in certain areas of the forum. To gain the ability to post on all public sections of these forums, read this post and follow the directions to make a post in that forum. An administrator will review your account and if there are no problems you'll be able to post in no time!

Username:   Password:
Multiquote ON Multiquote off
Add Reply
Do you agree or disagree with the OP's view on mandating discussion threads before voting can begin for candidates?
Yes, we should open discussion threads before voting begins. 4 (44.4%)
Yes, but only for brand-new candidates who have never held office before. 0 (0%)
No, but we should explore different ways to increase our vetting policy. 0 (0%)
No, our current system is sufficient. 5 (55.6%)
No Opinion / Unsure 0 (0%)
Total Votes: 9
[DISCUSSION] Mandatory Discussion Period for Candidates; A discussion on a proposal about discussion threads.
Topic Started: Jan 11 2018, 04:58:43 AM (499 Views)
Masuicca
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
PROPOSAL DISCUSSION:
Should discussion threads be mandatory before voting on candidates opens?

One of the most interesting ó and thoughtful ó aspects of our regional government is the consideration afforded candidates for appointed or elected office to defend their views of our regional government, how they want the region to move forward, and what they offer to the region. I went through the process myself only recently, answering questions from some of our region members on my ideas for [region]The East Pacific[/region] and how we could improve on some of the features we already offer. In my case, two people inquired as to some information about who I was, why I wanted to join the Magisterium, and the ideas I had (specifically, a law to improve upon). Thirteen votes were cast in my election cycle; only two people posed questions to me.

Now, this posits an interesting discussion point: it would seem, on the surface, that a vast majority of the people voting on my application had made up their mind without a need for discussion. There could be any number of reasons for this: maybe my presence on the regional Discord server or the RMB, or even posting materials in the forums convinced people that I would be a good fit for the Magisterium. I had spent some time talking with different people in the region. Perhaps the two answers I gave in the discussion thread were enough for those voting. It's possible that the answers I gave satisfied any doubts that people may have held.

Yet, using my own case as an example, I pose a question to my fellow Magisters: how well did people really know me before I became a member of the Magisterium? Was my limited exposure to TEP and its various institutions enough to truly justify my entry to this body? To be voted in unanimously, despite only having participated in the region for a little under three weeks... It has made me think about the process by which we bring new members into office here in the region.

From a qualitative standpoint, our first mission as officers in this region is to make this region better, constantly. We should always be striving to improve upon our foundation, and lay the groundwork for bigger and better things to come. It's the oldest rule in NationStates: you stagnate as a region, you die as a region. We all understand that principle. But I would argue that one of the biggest components to the push for improvement is activity! Active voices bring about active change and progress. If you're not active, you're not contributing. If you're not contributing, then that's one less voice helping to drive the regional narrative.

Look at any major issue up for discussion. Look at any election we've had recently. Notice that there's a recurring pattern: some votes are barely getting half of the Magisterium's voting bloc to participate in these elections.

To be clear, my goal here isn't to punish people who have gone inactive within the Magisterium. I of all people understand that sometimes, life gets in the way. Things happen. My point here is that we as a collective group of players must come together and figure out solutions to some of the problems that we have in the region. And as I sit here, recognizing the irony of having gotten into this very body by virtue of the flaw I'm about to point out, I use myself as a prime example of what needs to change: we need to do a better job of vetting candidates.

There needs to be a fundamental understanding to all who apply to the Magisterium: this isn't about getting a shiny title to wave around as a symbol of status. Players in TEP should join the Magisterium because they recognize the importance of the community we have, and embrace the desire to not only sustain it, but help it grow. Too often, people rush into things in the larger-NationStates community just for the prestige of it. Sometimes people rush into something without fully appreciating the gravity of what it is they're taking on. This is the purpose of vetting, in any forum, our candidate discussion threads withstanding.

And so, I want to open a dialogue on the process of vetting in this region. There are plenty of steps that we can take to encourage activity, but this one small measure, I believe, will help make us better, because it will make us engage. It is my opinion that discussion threads for our candidates should be mandatory before voting can begin. I would very much like to hear others weigh in on this matter: if a consensus on this matter can be reached, then I will draft a formal proposal stating as such for our consideration.

Should [region]The East Pacific[/region] mandate that discussion threads for all candidates vying for appointed (i.e. the Magisterium) or elected office (i.e. contested races between nation members) before the voting window opens?

A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, MAGISTER AND PROUD SUPPORTER OF THE EAST PACIFIC

Posted Image

Official Roles



Roleplay Information



Important Links
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Masuicca
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
My personal argument: I am of the opinion that we need to engage prospective candidates, whether they're running for office against another player or whether they're seeking induction into the Magisterium. The lack of engagement before a voting cycle begins may preclude open and honest dialogue with candidates that lack popular support; conversely, it may facilitate the admission of players who lack the ability or the mindset to be productive members of the regional government.

If a young player arrives without much fanfare or notoriety in the region, but has some bold ideas that could really help TEP grow as a region, we need to be able to hear that player out. Under our present system, there is a greater chance that just such a player may fall through the cracks and be rejected, because our voting process has become an exercise in voting Aye or Nay without much dialogue. On the other hand, a long-time region member that has enough popular support from certain members of the Magisterium could gain entry, even though their only concern is lording their new position over other players. Again, if people aren't plugged in to the process, and are simply casting votes without much concern for who gets in and why, we are weakening the Magisterium.

My personal belief is that, for any position where a player must be elected (we're talking any of the contested offices in our government, or appointment elections in the Magisterium where a player is basically being voted in on merit), there should be a one-week mandatory discussion thread where that candidate answers questions from electors to the respective position. Rather than duplexing the voting and discussion cycles together like we currently do, we should put the onus on candidates to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why they are worthy of our vote. That way, if someone that should get in does not ó or if someone that shouldn't get in does ó because of our collective apathy, then it becomes a clear stain on the electors. This, I would argue, is a simple (but effective) step in improving our vetting process.

Just looking at the Magisterium as a test case: would adding one more week to what is already a week-long process really be that big of a deal?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Atlae
Member Avatar
Whaddya mean, there's no caek delivery down here?
Hi, and thanks on bringing this up for discussion. Iím glad to see you participating.

Although my voice is mere citizen now, Iíll voice my opinion. Currently, I think the way the process has been going is good enough, especially when we now have 20+ Magisters, now a record breaking number.

Now hear me out. I do think activity is paramount to a regionís growth, but Iím not sure how a longer admission process would help. In the year that I was in, I think the attitude was that we wanted to make admission into the Magisterium as easy as possible, to be more inclusive and transparent, since I think some see the Magisterium as an elite oligarchy. As dictated in the Standing Orders, not much is actually required to join the Magisterium.

In fact, I believe weíve also had a discussion in the other direction, automatic membership for all citizens (see Oanís proposal in the Plaza).

Now mind you, my personal theory for why people didnít ask questions is 1) they saw your work in the Executive server or 2) they thought your answers were good enough. I think itís rare for someone almost unknown to just join the Magisterium without any ideas for the Magisterium, which I believe they all said in the discussion threads. The one exception I can think of is Tiber Septim, which you should totally check out. :P (Just to be clear, he never joined the Magisterium, thankfully)

The Magisterium also has activity requirements - if youíre not active enough, you can be outright removed from the Magisterium.

My personal opinion is that the process takes too long - one week always seemed unnecessary. But the reason for it (which I cannot type out on mobile right now) is in Oanís discussion thread.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this up! I hope to see your response and other people's comments as well.

EDIT: for reference, here is Oanís thread. http://forum.theeastpacific.com/topic/7007465/
[edit_reason]On the second page of the Plaza! Wow, am I old. [/edit_reason]
Edited by Atlae, Jan 11 2018, 12:47:50 PM.
"Gloria in Terra"

"The pronunciation of "Atlae" is /śtleɪ/. Don't you forget it." AND NOT ALTAE

Maintainer of the "game streak," or posting on the whole first page of the game room.

It's dark and lonely down here in TEP's server.
All these banners
TEP Positions
Other Positions
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drachen
Member Avatar
Yare yare dawa...
Absolutely. I would certainly vote for any measure that seeks to separate the discussion thread from the current voting window.

A discussion thread that takes place during the voting period for a prospective candidate has never made any sense to me. To draw from real world examples, candidates for any sort of office don't hold vote-changing debates or interviews on Election Day. Such events are typically held before as an effort to connect with and educate a constituency that holds authority over their future in office. Of course, game-side, the idea is that we might expedite the process by having the debate of a candidate's worth coincide with their vote with the hopes that those voting inform themselves prior to actually casting their decision, but it's clear that this isn't always the case. Many Magisters seem to have their minds made up before the voting even officially begins, which is fine to an extent; however, there always exists the possibility that their minds could be changed by taking the effort to learn a bit more about a candidate beforehand. There is no guarantee that through a separation of the two events in a temporal sense that such Magisters will heed the discussion, but it's a good start.

On this note, I feel it's important to mention that there would be next to no excuse for a Magister to throw away their vote vote "Nay" without having the courage to actually do so vote "Abstain" when they have more than ample opportunity through a discussion thread to learn more about a candidate and make that vote in good conscience. We simply need to be doing more as Magisters who have already been admitted to curate future additions, and the bulk of this responsibility falls on our shoulders in educating ourselves on who we seek to allow in to the legislative body of the region. Proper curation takes time, time it seems some don't want to take. We need to start favoring quality instead of quantity (or apparently rapidity).

I've brainstormed below some possible replacements for the current system that might work out. It would be recommended for any of the options where voting spans less than a week that the days are weekend days (when Magisters are most likely to be available). I'm personally of the mind that we should hold more days for discussion rather than actual voting, since an active Magisterium shouldn't have any trouble voting in a short period of time, but discussion on activity (and activity requirements) is for another thread.

Candidate Election Process
  • 7 days total: 2-3 days for discussion, 4-5 days for voting
  • 7 days total: 1 day for discussion, 6 days for voting
  • 10 days total: 3 days for discussion, 7 days for voting
  • 10 days total: 7 days for discussion, 3 days for voting
  • 14 days total: 7 days for discussion, 7 days for voting
[edit_reason]Word usage; added some extra thoughts[/edit_reason]
Edited by Drachen, Jan 11 2018, 02:45:48 PM.
Badges

Actual Dragon
Posted Image

Loli Protector
Posted Image

Marine Biologist
Posted Image

Queen of the Fairies
Posted Image

Yuri Enthusiast
Posted Image
Shan'alah bandu ni Verdrassil

Posted Image

"Fal andu'balah nei il'amare."
"Through love, the nation is preserved."
- Lady Al'Ameth
Posted Image
Roles

Vizier
Posted Image

Minister of Culture
Posted Image

Minister of World Assembly Affairs
Posted Image

Provost of the Magisterium
Posted Image

Pollster
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Atlae
Member Avatar
Whaddya mean, there's no caek delivery down here?
That is a fair point. However, I donít think that mandating a discussion period will actually result in Magisters utilizing it more, or field better Magisterial candidates.

Furthermore, if you wish to change the current attitude for applications (quality > quantity), I think a more effective route is to maybe require more things for a Magister to do, or change how Magisters think of admitting new members, in which my experience had told me they are mostly fine with admitting whoever qualifies. Not many object to new applicants, and Iím not sure a longer discussion process will change that (unless an applicant REALLY screws up, but thatís another issue).

Iím still not quite sure how a longer discussion period for a candidate will field a more active Magisterium. In my mind, this could still perpetuate making up your mind before the vote/discussion.

As for voting ĎAbstain,í I think thatís more of an issue with the Magister themself and not a problem with the system thereof.

If I were to choose a method, Iíd choose 1 day of discussion and 6 days of voting to minimize the amount of time for an application, since, to be fair, the long wait is a bit of a nuisance for someone who wants to get started in TEP fast. (Especially when you consider that voting on a Magister application wasnít a permanent thing; see Oanís thread.)

However, that poses a problem. Does that mean that the discussion ends, then the vote starts? Because that would mean that anybody who wasnít online during a discussion period could not inquire into the candidate further. Rather, if this route were taken, I believe that would be interpreted to mean the discussion starts a given amount of days before voting and ends when voting ends.

Overall, however, it seems to me as an unnecessary extension that disadvantages new applicants.
"Gloria in Terra"

"The pronunciation of "Atlae" is /śtleɪ/. Don't you forget it." AND NOT ALTAE

Maintainer of the "game streak," or posting on the whole first page of the game room.

It's dark and lonely down here in TEP's server.
All these banners
TEP Positions
Other Positions
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bachtendekuppen
Member Avatar
The Puffin
The current system is rather simple in the sense that, the Standing Orders have some basic requirements, and we discuss and vote at the same time.

This has the advantage that almost anyone can apply and join, and the whole process doesn't need that much time.

As TAI said:

"However, that poses a problem. Does that mean that the discussion ends, then the vote starts? Because that would mean that anybody who wasnít online during a discussion period could not inquire into the candidate further. Rather, if this route were taken, I believe that would be interpreted to mean the discussion starts a given amount of days before voting and ends when voting ends."

This, to me, makes the whole point as to why discussion and voting at the same time, provided it takes a couple of days so Magisters can notice it and respond, is not so bad at all. It's just easy and wins time.

Given all that, I don't think mandatory discussion periods are necessary. It's not because you implement a mandatory period, that people will actually have more discussions.

As to new applicants, I generally make up my mind considering the following aspects:
- when did they join Nationstates;
- what did they do so far in NationStates;
- when did they join TEP;
- what did they do in TEP;
- post counts on the forum;
- replies in the discussion thread.

I'm mostly interested in what they want to accomplish as Magister, and generally I'll welcome just about any Citizen really.
Posted Image
Bach for TEP

Main Nation
 
Motto
 
"No matter how hard your day, no matter how tough your choices, how complex your ethical decisions, you always get to choose what you want for lunch." - Denny Crane
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Respublika Bielarus
Member Avatar
The Candy Man
I do quite like a discussion period before we vote on candidates. The reason I would like such a thing is so that we could, as many others have echoed already, get a feel for who this person is and if they would be a right fit for the Magisterium or for any position they are being voted into. There should, in my opinion, be at least 1 or 2 days of a discussion window before voting is allowed to begin. I also echo the sentiment of Masuicca when the Magister recommended a debate period between Provost candidates, and potentially even between the Delegate candidates. I would be willing to work with Masuicca and other Magisters in making this a possible reality. But I do believe that we need to leave the discussion period open during the voting period so that people will be able to continue to ask questions.
Edited by Respublika Bielarus, Jan 11 2018, 05:12:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
A Slanted Black Stripe
Member Avatar
What stripe?
I'm retired from Magistering, but I'm not convinced a mandatory discussion period would change the outcome. You have 7 days to vote. You can discuss and ask questions before you vote. You don't need to vote as soon as the window opens.

Quote:
 
To draw from real world examples, candidates for any sort of office don't hold vote-changing debates or interviews on Election Day. Such events are typically held before as an effort to connect with and educate a constituency that holds authority over their future in office.


For some of us, our voting is not limited to one election day. In our real world, we get our ballots about a month before the election and we can submit by mail any time prior to the end of voting. And there are debates and discussions during this voting period.
Edited by A Slanted Black Stripe, Jan 11 2018, 07:42:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drachen
Member Avatar
Yare yare dawa...
Respublika Bielarus
 
But I do believe that we need to leave the discussion period open during the voting period so that people will be able to continue to ask questions.
Agreed entirely. I might not have made myself clear enough on this point considering some of the previous replies, but discussion threads should certainly last throughout an election period. We should only be restricting the "voting period" in favor of a "discussion period" where only the latter takes place, though it continues through the former.

A Slanted Black Stripe
Jan 11 2018, 07:35:05 PM
I'm retired from Magistering, but I'm not convinced a mandatory discussion period would change the outcome. You have 7 days to vote. You can discuss and ask questions before you vote. You don't need to vote as soon as the window opens.

For some of us, our voting is not limited to one election day. In our real world, we get our ballots about a month before the election and we can submit by mail any time prior to the end of voting. And there are debates and discussions during this voting period.
Yes, I'm aware that procedures like this exist and are utilized, but in terms of total volume, they still count for a much smaller percentage. As for any debate or discussion going on at the time, the bulk of such as typically been said in a larger election campaign before, depending on the position.

Digression aside, the point was that, in the majority of cases within United States politics, the favorability and qualifications of a candidate are largely discussed before the actual vote begins. I see no reason why this should be any different when it comes to the election of Magisters. I'm sure most (if not all) Magisters realize you "can" participate in the thread before voting immediately, but the fact of the matter is that many often do not.

It seems apparent that the division here is between those who believe such a hold on the voting period in favor of early discussion would have an effect and those who believe it wouldn't. It certainly will not guarantee participation, as nothing would other than making such mandatory, which I would be firmly against. There's nothing wrong with individuals such as Bach having their own system for evaluating the legitimacy of a prospective Magister. I have done this myself for most candidates and only requested additional information from one other in memory.

That being said, as someone who does believe such a change would have a positive impact on the election process, I don't see why there's any harm in giving it a shot. I can't see how it would hurt, only help, since it seeks to prevent premature voting by enforcing a period of discussion only. On the argument of elections lasting for "too long" as a result, which itself is subjective, the timing (as previously mentioned) can be flexible. Frankly, we could see the whole process shortened a great deal, but that would require Magisters to be much more attentive of their duty to vote.

Anyway, the Provost seems willing enough to at least entertain the idea, so I'd like to request everyone else follow suit. I've pretty much said all I'm going to say on the matter.[edit_reason]Word usage; added some extra thoughts[/edit_reason]
Edited by Drachen, Jan 11 2018, 09:05:19 PM.
Badges

Actual Dragon
Posted Image

Loli Protector
Posted Image

Marine Biologist
Posted Image

Queen of the Fairies
Posted Image

Yuri Enthusiast
Posted Image
Shan'alah bandu ni Verdrassil

Posted Image

"Fal andu'balah nei il'amare."
"Through love, the nation is preserved."
- Lady Al'Ameth
Posted Image
Roles

Vizier
Posted Image

Minister of Culture
Posted Image

Minister of World Assembly Affairs
Posted Image

Provost of the Magisterium
Posted Image

Pollster
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Masuicca
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
A Slanted Black Stripe
Jan 11 2018, 07:35:05 PM
I'm retired from Magistering, but I'm not convinced a mandatory discussion period would change the outcome. You have 7 days to vote. You can discuss and ask questions before you vote. You don't need to vote as soon as the window opens.
One of the major problems is that people seem to be bypassing discussion threads altogether and just voting flat-out. My vote total was pretty much locked in within the first three days or so it felt like, and the last four were just waiting on things to be made official. It distressed me that so many people voted 'AYE' to me without even taking the time to get to know me or what I wanted to accomplish here. That's really the concern that I wanted to discuss here: figuring out a way to avoid letting people in that aren't going to take the responsibility seriously.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Atlae
Member Avatar
Whaddya mean, there's no caek delivery down here?
Masuicca
Jan 12 2018, 06:49:41 PM
A Slanted Black Stripe
Jan 11 2018, 07:35:05 PM
I'm retired from Magistering, but I'm not convinced a mandatory discussion period would change the outcome. You have 7 days to vote. You can discuss and ask questions before you vote. You don't need to vote as soon as the window opens.
One of the major problems is that people seem to be bypassing discussion threads altogether and just voting flat-out. My vote total was pretty much locked in within the first three days or so it felt like, and the last four were just waiting on things to be made official. It distressed me that so many people voted 'AYE' to me without even taking the time to get to know me or what I wanted to accomplish here. That's really the concern that I wanted to discuss here: figuring out a way to avoid letting people in that aren't going to take the responsibility seriously.
If this was prompted by just your Magister vote, I would recommend checking other Magistersí applications and discussion threads.

Concerning your reasoning many voted quickly, I can think of answers why:

1) Many is the Magisters serve in the Executive Discord, where you were active in, giving the impression that you were a promising candidate. In other words, your reputation precedes you.

2) You gave very long-winded answers to the questions. I think you've noticed that you have a flair for writing and wrote paragraphs for the questions in your discussion thread, and I applaud you for that. Most Magisters (myself included back in late 2016) would not have put as much effort into it, usually opting for maybe a few sentences. I would imagine that this is a very promising quality for a prospective Magister, and such thorough answers that you have left little doubt in the votersí minds.

If you believe that the Magisteriumís requirement for entry is too loose or that the prospectively Magisters may not have the quality needed to be a Magister, then chances are you need to change the requirements for entry in the Standing Orders, or you need to change the collective attitude of the Magisterium concerning new applicants, because, in my experience, the goal was to be as inclusive as possible and it is very likely for a prospective Magister would be admitted unless they really make a bad impression (see Tiber Septim). It is unlikely a longer discussion period would solve that, since even if the period were longer, if your hypothesis is right that Magisters donít look at it, it doesnít force them to read it, and if my hypothesis is right that there are other factors, because they donít correlate.

(Sorry for the jumble of words I may have typed, typing on mobile is not ideal. Hope I am coherent.)

EDIT: I just realized that technically, the discussion threads do happen before voting begins, just not at a significant amount. :P
Edited by Atlae, Jan 12 2018, 10:24:32 PM.
"Gloria in Terra"

"The pronunciation of "Atlae" is /śtleɪ/. Don't you forget it." AND NOT ALTAE

Maintainer of the "game streak," or posting on the whole first page of the game room.

It's dark and lonely down here in TEP's server.
All these banners
TEP Positions
Other Positions
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Masuicca
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
The Atlae Isles
Jan 12 2018, 10:18:51 PM
Masuicca
Jan 12 2018, 06:49:41 PM
A Slanted Black Stripe
Jan 11 2018, 07:35:05 PM
I'm retired from Magistering, but I'm not convinced a mandatory discussion period would change the outcome. You have 7 days to vote. You can discuss and ask questions before you vote. You don't need to vote as soon as the window opens.
One of the major problems is that people seem to be bypassing discussion threads altogether and just voting flat-out. My vote total was pretty much locked in within the first three days or so it felt like, and the last four were just waiting on things to be made official. It distressed me that so many people voted 'AYE' to me without even taking the time to get to know me or what I wanted to accomplish here. That's really the concern that I wanted to discuss here: figuring out a way to avoid letting people in that aren't going to take the responsibility seriously.
If this was prompted by just your Magister vote, I would recommend checking other Magistersí applications and discussion threads.

Concerning your reasoning many voted quickly, I can think of answers why:

1) Many is the Magisters serve in the Executive Discord, where you were active in, giving the impression that you were a promising candidate. In other words, your reputation precedes you.

2) You gave very long-winded answers to the questions. I think you've noticed that you have a flair for writing and wrote paragraphs for the questions in your discussion thread, and I applaud you for that. Most Magisters (myself included back in late 2016) would not have put as much effort into it, usually opting for maybe a few sentences. I would imagine that this is a very promising quality for a prospective Magister, and such thorough answers that you have left little doubt in the votersí minds.

If you believe that the Magisteriumís requirement for entry is too loose or that the prospectively Magisters may not have the quality needed to be a Magister, then chances are you need to change the requirements for entry in the Standing Orders, or you need to change the collective attitude of the Magisterium concerning new applicants, because, in my experience, the goal was to be as inclusive as possible and it is very likely for a prospective Magister would be admitted unless they really make a bad impression (see Tiber Septim). It is unlikely a longer discussion period would solve that, since even if the period were longer, if your hypothesis is right that Magisters donít look at it, it doesnít force them to read it, and if my hypothesis is right that there are other factors, because they donít correlate.

(Sorry for the jumble of words I may have typed, typing on mobile is not ideal. Hope I am coherent.)

EDIT: I just realized that technically, the discussion threads do happen before voting begins, just not at a significant amount. :P
I think the implicit goal is more so to encourage activity among our Magisters through discussion, with the byproduct being making sure that our vetting process is is strong. It's not that I think we let too many people in, or that we should be hyper-discriminatory when it comes to which applications are taken and which applications are rejected. In that sense, I don't think our standards are too low at all - we should be as inclusive as possible. The real goal is making sure that people are engaging with new candidates, and thus engaging with their responsibilities and ensuring that new candidates recognize this implicit responsibility themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelitia
Member Avatar
The Fluffy Horde
I would like to echo some points made previously-

1. Magisterium votes are not held at one point in time, like real-life legislatures which hold their discussions before. Each magister has the ability to change or withhold their vote while discussion occurs if the proposition was hurried to the vote;
2. That being said, the Magisterium (traditionally through the Provost) has asked Magisters to withdraw any premature motions to vote, rather than rushing before discussion.

There are plenty of ways the Magisterium can withhold itself to ensure the passing of at east some discussion. By appending a mandatory "discussion" phase would increase the (already lengthy) voting process; possibly unnecessarily since some proposals do not require much discussion.

I would perhaps ask the Provost to gauge the pace of debate and ask motioning Magisters to hold off until debate trails off or comes to some conclusion


Former Delegate
Posted Image


"Viceroy Aelitia, whatever pills he might use, sure has ushered in a new era of TEP law"-EPNS 18/09/14

Civillian Missile Commander, Nuclear Apocalypse, April 2017
Posted Image
Past Positions

Delegate
Viceroy of The East Pacific 05-25-14 to 09-08-16
Arbiter of Conclave 05-06-14 to 09-08-16
Vizier 07-30-15 to 11-24-16
Magister
Vice Chancellor TEP University



Aelitia on NS
Aelitia RP Embassy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Masuicca
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
Aelitia
Jan 13 2018, 12:57:21 PM
I would like to echo some points made previously-

1. Magisterium votes are not held at one point in time, like real-life legislatures which hold their discussions before. Each magister has the ability to change or withhold their vote while discussion occurs if the proposition was hurried to the vote;
2. That being said, the Magisterium (traditionally through the Provost) has asked Magisters to withdraw any premature motions to vote, rather than rushing before discussion.

There are plenty of ways the Magisterium can withhold itself to ensure the passing of at east some discussion. By appending a mandatory "discussion" phase would increase the (already lengthy) voting process; possibly unnecessarily since some proposals do not require much discussion.

I would perhaps ask the Provost to gauge the pace of debate and ask motioning Magisters to hold off until debate trails off or comes to some conclusion
Point of clarification: this discussion is exclusively for candidates to office, not for general proposals, since those proposals typically do have discussion threads and the like before going to vote. We're only talking about candidates since the discussion threads for candidates typically coincides with their voting thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bachtendekuppen
Member Avatar
The Puffin
Masuicca
 
I think the implicit goal is more so to encourage activity among our Magisters through discussion, with the byproduct being making sure that our vetting process is is strong. It's not that I think we let too many people in, or that we should be hyper-discriminatory when it comes to which applications are taken and which applications are rejected. In that sense, I don't think our standards are too low at all - we should be as inclusive as possible. The real goal is making sure that people are engaging with new candidates, and thus engaging with their responsibilities and ensuring that new candidates recognize this implicit responsibility themselves.

It seems to me you are assuming that if you install a mandatory discussion period, that will automatically create more actual discussion. I'm not convinced this will be the case, because we already can discuss as much as we want and, as it seems, sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. I don't think that will change.

Masuicca
 
One of the major problems is that people seem to be bypassing discussion threads altogether and just voting flat-out. My vote total was pretty much locked in within the first three days or so it felt like, and the last four were just waiting on things to be made official. It distressed me that so many people voted 'AYE' to me without even taking the time to get to know me or what I wanted to accomplish here. That's really the concern that I wanted to discuss here: figuring out a way to avoid letting people in that aren't going to take the responsibility seriously.

I don't see the problem with people voting flat out. If they made up their mind, and I assume Magisters think before they vote, they made up their mind. As to letting people in that don't take it seriously : anyone can fall of the bandwagon during a stint as Magisters, and anyone not performing their duties can be removed. That shouldn't be reason to not let people try to join in.

Drachen
 
That being said, as someone who does believe such a change would have a positive impact on the election process, I don't see why there's any harm in giving it a shot. I can't see how it would hurt, only help, since it seeks to prevent premature voting by enforcing a period of discussion only. On the argument of elections lasting for "too long" as a result, which itself is subjective, the timing (as previously mentioned) can be flexible. Frankly, we could see the whole process shortened a great deal, but that would require Magisters to be much more attentive of their duty to vote.

The harm is, in my opinion, that adding rules that don't have any practical effects just complicates things for no good reason.
Posted Image
Bach for TEP

Main Nation
 
Motto
 
"No matter how hard your day, no matter how tough your choices, how complex your ethical decisions, you always get to choose what you want for lunch." - Denny Crane
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelitia
Member Avatar
The Fluffy Horde
Masuicca
Jan 13 2018, 04:25:18 PM
Point of clarification: this discussion is exclusively for candidates to office, not for general proposals, since those proposals typically do have discussion threads and the like before going to vote. We're only talking about candidates since the discussion threads for candidates typically coincides with their voting thread.
Thank you for the reply, but I believe my points stand for candidates to office as well. Magisters can ask the Provost to avoid bringing to a vote quickly so they can discuss, but the discussion can be held concurrently with the vote since the vote lasts for a week.

Plenty of time to ask questions of a candidate, and act/vote accordingly.

I appreciate when the Magisterium starts to look inward and looks for ways to increase the quality of discussion, but as Bach pointed out, I am not certain this proposal would do what it seeks to do.


Former Delegate
Posted Image


"Viceroy Aelitia, whatever pills he might use, sure has ushered in a new era of TEP law"-EPNS 18/09/14

Civillian Missile Commander, Nuclear Apocalypse, April 2017
Posted Image
Past Positions

Delegate
Viceroy of The East Pacific 05-25-14 to 09-08-16
Arbiter of Conclave 05-06-14 to 09-08-16
Vizier 07-30-15 to 11-24-16
Magister
Vice Chancellor TEP University



Aelitia on NS
Aelitia RP Embassy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Magisterium · Next Topic »
Add Reply


© The East Pacific 2003-2018