by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics



Region: The Leftist Assembly

Auven wrote:What I did as Prime Minister was participate as a member of government in scrutinising Law, in addition to my creation of the act that was forced when we had political parties, where no opposition was able to run, in order to create a government with the purpose of decreasing political apathy. I also served in the triple role of PM, Minister of the Archives and "overseer" during this time, albeit the Red Star stalled for a while, I'll admit my faults, but it was suffering from and will always suffer from a relative lack of regional participation and one man cannot create a sustainable system by becoming the workhorse without ensuring there is cooperation and continuity of the system.

You mistaken experience simply as holding these positions. That isn't experience. Experience is both holding these important positions and actually executing their responsibilities, and considering this is an election for Secretary, it is going beyond that and contributing more to the region. You were basically never, throughout the past six months that I have worked with you in the GA, active in GA discussion and have consistently had long periods of inactivity during the term. I should also find it relevant to mention that I was preparing with Cedoria to begin a minister replacement process just before the last election as you nearly went inactive. This kind of inactivity has been repeated several times with weeks where not a comment has been heard from you and my dossier tells me the same thing. This sort of trend is extremely troubling.

Auven wrote:Regarding this, you should already know, as I made known to the cabinet, that during my proposal my internet went down and I had to use open WiFi spots, limiting the time I could spend online. With regard to the making necessary amendments, the topic at hand was a delicate one that needed proper lawmaking, while I appealed to the cabinet for solutions to the problems, they, mainly you were extremely brash in trying to rush it through despite obvious loopholes that needed to be addressed, which, as you always do it, is what gives reason for the Legislative Strength Act.

Regardless if your internet went down during that particularly unfortunate time, the times that you did get online you simply did nothing and completely stalled the process. Your allegations here are simply false. Trying to not waste time in discussing a bill so as to spare time for future proposals, of which they were queuing during the time that you took to finally get it through, is not being "extremely brash". I do tend to be very active, which is why I try to get things through at a fast pace, and I don't exactly see this as an undesirable quality in a Secretary. In fact, this is something that you tend to have the complete opposite of.

Auven wrote:The point of this Act is that when a SoE is declared, since the Secretary is only subject to the limitations set out in the act, as is said, they can banject at will. Say there is an election, Socathei let's call him, the current Secretary is rerunning against Atealia perhaps, whoops SoE bye bye Atealia. Even if the election has to take place after the SoE, there are no reprocussions for this Act, and Atealia remains banned. This is what I seek to address, not apply all regional law, I thank you for bringing this up and I will clarify it.

Electing a Secretary requires a level of trust in the person elected. This is why we have vigorous elections to determine who can hold this esteemed position. Think about it, what are the repercussions for the founders if they were to randomly banject a completely innocent native nation? We also place a level of trust in them. I think that perhaps shortening the maximum time frame that a Secretary can host a SoE without judicial authority would be a good idea, which is what you have proposed, but you have also suggested that they still be subject to regional law. Had you proposed to rid the region of the SoEPA in its entirety, this would make sense, but the fact that you have proposed to keep it and implement this change creates the very loophole I previously described.

Auven wrote:I don't think "participate in the solidarity pact" is really a policy either. This is a policy solely to clarify the vague and rushed law, mainly your laws.With regard to your policies there is nothing of note to criticise because there is nothing of note.I have no feeling either way towards the diplomatic corps.

You don't think it because you probably aren't very aware, if at all, what the Solidarity Pact actually is. I've mentioned this several times on the RMB, perhaps you simply ignored them or glanced straight over, but I happen to maintain the region member dispatch of this very pact. What TSP grants us is mutual interregional diplomatic relations and military defence, as well as offering us a space to communicate with other regions via The Internationale's offline forum. I believe that we have not quite involved ourselves in this and that we should strive to improve in the area.

I do not exactly deny that there is nothing of real note in my policies, bar the abolition of The Diplomatic Corps, because I, very simply, wish to maintain the status quo in large part. I believe that Secretary Cedoria has led our region down a great path and I would like to continue to following a similar direction if elected as Secretary of the Assembly. On the other hand for your 'policies', you have a loophole proposal and a redundant 'plan' to close up OTHER loopholes.