| Welcome to The City State of Q102. We hope you enjoy your visit. 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'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Vote Joe Bobs; For Delegate | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 3 2006, 09:21 AM (1,378 Views) | |
| Zakaroo | Apr 5 2006, 08:33 PM Post #16 |
|
Priceless National Treasure
![]()
|
thanks JB. The idea of assigned recruitment days has already been suggested by myself when I was councillor. It did attract some positive feedback but I was never in the position to try it out. Do you plan to create a whole new forums for the uni idea, or include it in a exsisting forum? Can I ask as well, much of your ideas are based around the forum, and activity, however what are your security issues? If I have missed this I apologise, but I have read so much from both candidates ;) |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Apr 5 2006, 08:45 PM Post #17 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
I think the Uni should be a forum within the Cultural Affairs section, in the style of the Awards Ceremony. Thus all lectures would be found in one place. A staff room could also be included for discussion of organisation. On security, I will back AFX's reform of the QPD, and I particularly value his experience in this field. My neutral policy aims to bring Q102 away from possible dangers, so threats will never emerge, rather than becomeing a problem later that will need the use of force. |
![]() |
|
| Zakaroo | Apr 5 2006, 09:08 PM Post #18 |
|
Priceless National Treasure
![]()
|
yes on the issue of the free port act. The whole reason why it was brought down so to speak was because it limited and restricted so much Q102 in the first place, Are you saying you will be reinforcing the free port act, and introducing new ammendments to it? or will you be leaving it as it is? With Q102 having a clear stance in neutrality but under the current bill we will enter into new treaties and such. Is it not right to say you are trying to isolate q102 again from the rest of NS (purely IC comments) |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Apr 5 2006, 09:12 PM Post #19 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
I would not be bringing back the Free Port Act, but would officially hold a neutral stance. I would not ratify this neutrality via acts and laws as the region may change and need to be open to varying circumstances. As I have stated, I would encourage diplomatic relations, just not militant relations, so this is not an isolationist policy. |
![]() |
|
| Nevareion | Apr 5 2006, 11:31 PM Post #20 |
|
Bringing fabulousness closer
![]()
|
Thanks Joe B. If I may make some points as I am finding your answers very interesting: Ministers are already required to recruit. Their role is defined by their Councillor. The incentive to perform is that they may well end up on the Council - indeed this has happened several times that the Minister of a Department has been promoted due to their experience and proven dedication when a Councillor has retired. Would it be better to formalise this rather than add a new Council seat? I still don't understand why an additional Councillor would change things rather than cause confusion and less incentive for the two who get the job - which of them is responsible, how do they split the work? Also as we do have parties and we cannot ignore them while they exist, why is this more than a way to ensure that your party outnumbers the other in a coalition? Also what legislation would you expect to bring to Parliament? |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Apr 6 2006, 02:41 PM Post #21 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
Sorry, I just realised I hadn't posted a government list in here!
Nev, in my list there are 7 PPP and 5 UOC. So the UOC does not outnumber. I have made a great effort to ensure that we have the best man/woman for the job in every department, and they have been placed to suit their experience, not with any consideration of party allegiance. The possibility of formalising (and enforcing) Ministerial role is a plausible alternative to the scheme. It would boost recruitment massively too. I am willing to accept this as an alternative. However, enforcing it would be more difficult, as we don't have enough active members to replace ministers that don't fulfil their duites. If a Councillor fails to perform, they can be replaced with a minister, but there is no one to replace ministers. Perhaps if the number of active members increases this could be effective. The work could be split in two ways: either so each councillor takes half of the overall workload, or that one manages recruitment whilst the other manages ambassadors and embassies. As for legislation, I would like to propose a formalisation of the ministerial position, clearly outlining roles and responsibilites. In an effort to increase activity in the courts, I think more "fun" things should be introduced. By this, I mean more legislation similar to the Slander and Misrepresentation Act, where punishments are more humorous. This could give the courts a use and be interesting. As we have left political parties under the Coalition government, I think pressure groups and lobbyists could be an interesting way for members to combine their voices and introduce legislation. Any citizen's concerns are always listened to in Q102, but this could be fun and add a dimension to politics. |
![]() |
|
| Nevareion | Apr 6 2006, 07:49 PM Post #22 |
|
Bringing fabulousness closer
![]()
|
I like the pressure group/lobbyist idea, sounds interesting and I applaud your commitment to legislation on Ministers. Ministers can be replaced from the general population of course. I personally am not in favour of a commitment to change the Council. The Constitution has evolved to where it is now and the set up does seem to work without it having been fully exploited yet. I think that should be done before new posts/changes are made. Also I would like to say that the Foerign Affairs and I&O Departments already overlap and it would worry me to see one of them diluted further. Oh and thanks for making me interested! Kudos for the answers, keep it up! |
![]() |
|
| Zakaroo | Apr 7 2006, 11:42 AM Post #23 |
|
Priceless National Treasure
![]()
|
Could you elaborate on this please? As I would hate Q102 to loose the serious aspect of its parliament in order to boost the activity of its court |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Apr 7 2006, 12:51 PM Post #24 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
Firstly, to Nev, the problem with replacing ministers from the general populace is that we don't have a general populace. Maybe when numbers have grown we will, and then this will no longer be an issue, but for now, we don't have that option. To Zak: Obviously, this is a question of just how far to go. One must mediate between keeping politics fun and active, and serious and useful. I'm merely suggesting that two or three laws that could have "fun" consequesnces be brought in. Taking this too far could reduce the credibility of our parliament (and Courts), and these issues would have to be considered in the writing of such legislation. Thankyou for your kind words Nev, and thankyou for the questions both of you. |
![]() |
|
| Nevareion | Apr 7 2006, 07:19 PM Post #25 |
|
Bringing fabulousness closer
![]()
|
:) If we don't have enough people to replace Ministers then why do we have enough to make extra Councillors? By appointing Ministers people get the chance to learn and to prove they are staying long enough to gain the trusted position of Minister surely? I like the courts idea, but then I am a Judge so I would :D |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Apr 7 2006, 08:50 PM Post #26 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
My point is, if a Councillor doesn't perform their duites, they can be replaced by a deserving minister. If a minister doesn't perform their duties, they cannot be replaced as we have no general populace. There are enough people to fill all positions, but only just. I hope this makes sense. I sense maybe it doesn't, if I could only phrase it more clearly. If I win this election, you'll be the sole judge Nev! Judicial elections will be in the air... :) |
![]() |
|
| Nevareion | Apr 8 2006, 11:34 PM Post #27 |
|
Bringing fabulousness closer
![]()
|
I don't see how having an extra Councillor solves the problem is all, I think it makes it worse as when a Councillor is missing it is hard for the Coucnil to function but not when a minister is missing. If you make the Council larger then you have more positions that must be filled when, as you say, we don't have a large enough population to replace people. What will you do if having made the Council larger you can't fill it or you find you don't have enough active people and there is no pool (however small) of Ministers from which to promote? I just am not seeing the logic of expanding the number of irreplaceable government positions when the population is so low. Sorry :) |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Apr 9 2006, 11:26 AM Post #28 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
There's a number of points raised there. Firstly, Councillor absence. Conversely to what you suggest, having two Councillors will help, as one Councillor can be absent but the department can still function perfectly under the other Councillor. The basic principle is thus: with one Councillor, x amount of work is done. With two Councillors, 2x amount of work is done. Thus, recruitment should double, and (hopefully) the number of nations that join the region will also double. One can only estimate how many of these new nations will be active. As for replacing Councillors (which, I hasten to add, is something that we do not want to happen and should not occur), I do not think we can reach an agreement. I only hope that I have highlighted the benefits of having a second Councillor to an extent that this worry can be seen as minimal in respect to the advantages the scheme will bring. Again, thanks for the questions Nev. I'm happy to field any more. Does anyone else want to ask any? |
![]() |
|
| Zakaroo | Apr 9 2006, 03:57 PM Post #29 |
|
Priceless National Treasure
![]()
|
me me lol only mine isnt a question more a comment. I see both sides to this. I&O Is I think one fo the biggest departments tbh. I loved ding it all but only when I had the time. This department is one which always has something to so in it, whether that be checking ambassadors are active, writring update reports, checking for recruitment etc etc. However I should stress that one person is able to do this alone, I did do this for x amount of time. Its only when time got less that I struggled. I do see the benefits of having a second body in this area, however I also think a minister would be just as effective. However another idea that no one has put forward is to increase the responsibility of the foreign affairs councillor. Under your delegatship, your saying you wouldnt actively persue new alliances-correct? well this pretty much renders the foreign affairs councillor jobless as this is their primary role. Perhaps a soluation would be to ask foreign affairs to maintain embassies (check they are active and report back to the I&oO if they're not) and have the I&O councillor organising them? thats just a suiggestion though. However I think it may be better to have a minister in I&O and tie the duties in more closely with foreign rather then create another councillor? Thats my thoughts anyway |
![]() |
|
| Joe Bobs | Apr 10 2006, 11:36 AM Post #30 |
|
Former Delegate of Q102
![]()
|
I like your thoughts Zak. However, it would in fact mean ammending the Constitution, which may be harder to do. Having a second I&O Councillor could be an ammendment to the Emergency Powers Act. I do think your plan makes more sense though Zak. It is a clever 'n. See, this candidate is willing to bend their ideas to fit new and better ideas. He is no stick in the mud. :D haha! If we did Zak's idea, whilst also writing legislation on Ministers so they had to recruit too, it could revolutionise the I&O department, allowing the Councillor to dedicate their time to recruitment whilst FA controls embassies and ambassadors. I think this idea works well. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lobby · Next Topic » |






