The voting period for the 6th Culture Competitions have opened! To vote, click here:
Remember to send a telegram to Leftist Assembly Founder after you have voted.
How do economies get categorized? Mine was categorized as "strong" but recently went to "good". My actual economic output has only grown. Why did my economy get labeled worse even though my economic output has only increased?
Llorens and Podria
ATTENTION MEMBERS OF NSLEFT REGIONS,
It is time to start an NSLeft tradition, a sporting event to unify the workers of all our nations. Starting on 1 May 2020, there will be the first football tournament called the NSLeft European Football Tournament (NEFT). Using discord I will be creating pseudo matches (live announcements of a games shots, goals, and red and yellow cards.) The Pirotian Republic will be the host nation of our first NEFT and will also be in charge of organization of the tournament.
In order to have a chance at qualification, create a dispatch with a roster of at least eleven players and their numbers and send me a telegram expressing interest. That’s all that’s mandatory. However, available spots will correlate to a bracket tournament. If ten nations apply, then two will have to be disqualified. If forty nations apply, then eight will have to be disqualified. In order to get the best chance at qualifying, make your footballs team dispatch as nice and informational as possible (see mine at the bottom for a general idea.) See if you can include a team uniform (home and away), make a home stadium, anything like this will increase your chances of qualifying.
The tournament begins in eight days (1 May 2020), but registration ends in six days (28 April 2020), so you’ll have a week to make the best football team dispatch you can. The link to the discord will be telegrammed to those who qualify and posted on the RMB of the NSLeft regions. Daily RMB posts will keep everyone in all regions up to date on the results. I hope to see you on the field.
The Pirotian national football team is the team the represents The Pirotian Republic in all national, regional, and international football events. A week following the establishment of this socialist nation the football team was founded.
Current team Roster:
1 - Szilveszter Woods (goalie and captain)
2 - Raj Chaudhary (midfielder)
3 - Henri Dubois (defence)
4 - Ruslan Dvořák (midfielder)
5 - Manuel MacClellan (striker)
6 - Guy Andela (defence)
7 - Des Goodwin (defence)
8 - Iiro McNaughton (striker)
9 - Hipólito Kopecký (midfielder)
10 - Cináed Coghlan (defence)
11 - Hollis Glas (striker)
(SPARE) 12 - Mattéo Lowe (striker)
(SPARE) 13 - Bernát Farro (midfielder)
(SPARE) 14 - Ede O'Neill (defence)
(Because this region has higher activity, there will be an RMB post everyday so everyone has a chance to register)
Alright, should have every single other WA member endorsed now. If I missed anyone let me know.
Also regarding the sporting event, after reviewing our labor plans for the year we regrettably cannot spare enough workers of sufficient skill to create a team.
General Assembly Announcement: Election Amendment (Regional Poll) has now moved to vote within the General Assembly. All discussion by the public has been noted and will be taken into account by Members of the General Assembly while voting; results will be returned in a maximum of 72 hours. Thank you very much for looking over and airing your opinions on the bill, it's a very important part of the democratic process.
Unity in Diversity!
Certain communes, in the region I represent, have offered to produce munitions in support of your cause. We know far too well the brutal struggles of a civil war and would like to assist you in any way we can. If you would like such assistance, just say the word.
Llorens and Midterra
I don't appreciate the way this legislative process has been handled. The discussion period is a time for MGAs to engage with the broader population on the topic of bills to get their feedback. I was the only one to raise anything, presenting arguments in favour of the bill against some of the claims from its opponents, to which none of those individuals even responded.
Your provided reason, Podria, for voting against the bill currently at vote is as follows: "I believe that requiring applicants to both compete a poll and RMB post will ensure that those in the running have the skills and dedication required of a member of government. While removing one step from the process would increase the volume of those running, the quality of many of the candidates would be low, leading to slowdowns within the government should any of these undedicated candidates be elected." It should be noted that MGAs Kavagrad and Kongoland, the only two others currently voting against, have said that they voted as such "for the reasons given by Podria."
Apart from having entirely incoherent logic, I think this reflects a basic misunderstanding of what this bill will actually do. It removes the poll step in the election nomination period, requiring interested nations to only nominate on the RMB, which they are already required to do. That is all.
The nomination process has never been designed to ensure that confirmed candidates have the "skills and dedication" needed for being competent leaders. Its sole purpose is so that genuinely interested nations can nominate for office.
Similarly, removing the nomination poll step is in no way meant to affect either the volume or quality of candidates. It will not because, currently, candidates are only those who do actually confirm on the RMB. The only thing this bill will do is remove an unnecessary step from the process that currently does nothing but create confusion about whether the high number of new nations who have voted in the poll will confirm their candidacy or not.
I'd appreciate if those against this bill could actually engage with the region before voting on things, especially when someone raises a point counter to the arguments in the GA server.
Embassy Post from Forest
Greetings, residents of The Leftist Assembly!
Each month, the citizens of Forest take some time to focus on and discuss a particular subject with an Environmental, Health, and Social Agenda, and to share thoughts about it with our allies. While we all come down in a different place around each topic, and would expect others to do so as well, we use these opportunities to promote and encourage positive discussion, self-reflection, and informed debate on these subjects, as they relate to the environment and to our place in the world.
This month's topic, researched and presented by Turbeaux is "Earth Day & Lessons from the Pandemic"
The full dispatch is available here:
Here is a little Earth Day poetry to wrap this up with:
A bird came down the walk:
He did not know I saw;
He bit an angle-worm in halves
And ate the fellow, raw.
And then he drank a dew
From a convenient grass,
And then hopped sidewise to the wall
To let a beetle pass.
He glanced with rapid eyes
That hurried all abroad, —
They looked like frightened beads, I thought;
He stirred his velvet head
Like one in danger; cautious,
I offered him a crumb,
And he unrolled his feathers
And rowed him softer home
Than oars divide the ocean,
Too silver for a seam,
Or butterflies, off banks of noon,
Leap, splashless, as they swim.
— Emily Dickinson, A Bird Came Down the Walk
Thank you for being our valued allies. If you have any questions about doings in Forest, please don't hesitate to reach out to me!
Lone Tree Friends
Ambassador of Forest
General Assembly Announcement: Election Amendment (Regional Poll) has PASSED the General Assembly with four for votes and three against votes (4-3).
Argentigrad - FOR, "I don't think a regional poll adds anything of value to the election process and only complicates the law, and I believe the argument that it "filters out unqualified candidates" is absurd since it takes more time and effort to post a confirmation message knowing that everyone will see it than it does to vote on a poll; that's why we've had a lot of nominations but few confirmations in the past, and I believe removing the first step won't substract anything of value."
Delphinium pulchra - FOR, "I believe that if one takes the effort to state their intention to run and serve in the RMB, that should be sufficient to prove actual intent. Removing the regional poll will serve to simply the nomination process."
Kavagrad - AGAINST, "For the reasons stated by Podria."
Rhineland Ruhr and Alsace Lorraine - FOR, "I have read through the law and the dispatches our Secretary has sent me and I believe that this will simplify the elections because we could have a broader number of candidates who could excel in the GA or in any other position."
Kongoland - AGAINST, "For the reasons given by Podria."
Podria - AGAINST, "I believe that requiring applicants to both compete a poll and RMB post will ensure that those in the running have the skills and dedication required of a member of government. While removing one step from the process would increase the volume of those running, the quality of many of the candidates would be low, leading to slowdowns within the government should any of these undedicated candidates be elected."
Wascoitan - FOR, "I find the idea that adding one more easily fulfilled step onto the nomination process would decrease the amount of low quality candidates ridiculous, making people click one extra button to run doesn't show the extra desire or effort to run that the opponents of this bill thinks it does and needlessly complicates the nomination process and the code of law."
Unity in Diversity!
So apparently there were some issues with me contacting MGA Rhineland Ruhr and Alsace Lorraine via Discord DMs asking them to consider voting in favour of Election Amendment (Regional Poll). This was when the vote was at 3-3, and I felt that I should share the RMB post links of my arguments in favour. You can read the very short chat here:
Hi I understand you are the last person to vote on the current GA bill
I hope you will consider voting in favour for the reasons outlined by the other MGAs voting that way - I basically broke down the arguments of those against it on the RMB here to which none of them even replied so take of that what you will: (1) page=rmb/postid=38284670 and then (2) page=rmb/postid=38308221
Rhineland Ruhr and Alsace Lorraine, Today at 06:56
Oki, will read it now.
Sorry for the general inactivity, I'm trying to make time
Llorens, Today at 06:57
That's okay! :smile:
I've been informed by Speaker Podria that apparently my actions could be conceived of as corrupt and harming the very integrity of the legislature itself considering I'm the leader of the executive branch, which is a claim that I can understand in principle, but which I think is unfounded.
The legislation was completely irrelevant to my job as Secretary, and I would have had a very clear conflict of interest if it was actually pertaining to the activities of the Cabinet, such as the Minister Responsibilities Act. Also, I have the same right as every other citizen of this region to attempt to convince MGAs of my stance on legislation such as this, particularly given the public means I employed did not engage a single response from the three MGAs who apparently disagreed with me.
In addition, my attempts at 'convincing' them were limited purely to linking the RMB posts that I had already posted with the same intent of trying to convince MGAs to vote in favour, and RRAL was completely free to ignore my suggestion - it isn't as if they couldn't also see the arguments against the legislation laid out by Podria in the voting channel.
The accusation that somehow I was out-of-line for trying to convey my stance on whether there should be an election nomination poll, of all things, strikes me as ludicrous. Feel free to suggest I was in the wrong or file a Supreme Court case or remove me from office, if that's what you believe to be most appropriate. Hey, if any of the MGAs actually respond to this RMB post, we'd be making progress already!
I understand where you're coming from Llo. I understand that it must've been frustrating having been the only one commenting on the bill publicly on the RMB and having no engagement from MGAs. However, I think Pod also makes a good point. I don't think that what you did is some earth-shattering thing that's going to tear apart the fabric of our region. Your message was a mild push at most. However, I do believe as a matter of principle, as members of government, we are held to a higher standard and even if I am not explicitly saying "I'm Minister of Foreign Affairs, vote for this because I want you to!", the political capital I wield having been MoFA for some time now cannot be understated. Yes, ultimately, the bill in question had nothing to do with the executive branch, and I understand why you did what you did. But as Secretary, whether you realize it or not, you wield so much influence and so many people look up to you -- not just because you're Secretary, but because of how much you've done for this community. You've been an historical figure for TLA. I mean, I look up to you and have a lot of respect for all the things you've accomplished.
But, with this influence comes responsibility and it's important that we realize that. All of us have some sphere of influence, some of our spheres are wider than others. So, to reiterate, I don't think this needs to become a whole debacle or a court case needs to be lodged against you or that you need to be removed from office. That would be ridiculous, in my view. Just, for future reference, keep in mind that receiving a private message from the Secretary of The Leftist Assembly is a big deal to some people and that can sway a decision. Please don't let this turn into some major fallout or division in our community. This goes for all concerned parties. Let's treat this as a learning experience to be more mindful in the future (heaven knows I put my foot in my mouth sometimes) and move on with the more important things like governing the region. :)
Podria, Slackertown, and Lone tree friends
Mr. Secretary, while I respect you point of view and your opinion, I feel that you were out of line and are falsely representing the exchange between us.
I think that these claims are absolutely founded. This whole exchange began as a mere question; a quick investigation to ensure that no illegal or downright corrupt actions had been taken. As Speaker of the General Assembly, it is my duty to ensure that our legislature remains unaffected by ulterior motives and retains its integrity. I never claimed that what Secretary Llorens committed any illegal acts, it was simply a matter of integrity and transparency.
Whether or not it's irrelevant to the Secretary or the executive is itself irrelevant. Any bribery or inducement of a member of government with the intention of influencing a government decision or action is serious, and even the possibility of such an event happening must be investigated. While I understand that as Secretary, Llorens is a citizen of The Leftist Assembly and may appeal to a MGA regarding legislative activities, as Secretary, you have an obligation and duty to ensure that actions, especially interactions involving the legislature, are transparent and disclosed.
This is quite bluntly, a lie. You very clearly made a conceded effort to sway the vote of the MGA in question in the line "I hope you will consider voting in favour" You directly appealed and attempted to persuade and impact the vote of the MGA in this line. While a general appeal on the RMB, or a neutral availing of information is absolutely OK and actually encouraged, the Secretary of the Assembly should not be, intentionally or unintentionally, exercising influence and power of the position to sway to legislature.
The issue is, you did not just convey your stance, you directly asked an MGA to vote in a certain way, and your insistence that you didn't despite the evidence proving that you quite obviously did, is actually more suspect. While I don't intend on filing a Supreme Court case, I do want to remind you of Section 1, Subsection B of the Criminal Offence act, "Bribery or inducement of a member of government, with the intention of influencing a government decision or action" and while I do not believe you did anything with malice or poor faith, you did induce a member of government in a manner that did influence a government decision or action.
Thank you very much Mr. Secretary for you transparency, I just wish that you wouldn't have to be confronted by the Speaker to remain transparent. Feel free to respond to or refute this.
Yours in Solidarity,
Speaker of the General Assembly
Unity in Diversity!
Thank you, Grey! I absolutely agree with your sentiment and statements.
And I never said or implied that it was, but if something like this were to become a habit, it could have massive repercussions on the democracy of our region.
This is exactly what I said, the power, influence, and clout that a member of government wields must be accounted for in action.
I never intended for this to become a debacle or end up in court, I was just fulfilling my duty.
And I sure hope it doesn't, let us remember our motto, "Unity in Diversity"
Unity in Diversity!
Never have I ever wanted to bang my head so hard into a desk. Honestly.
I get the point both of you are getting at, but it is frankly ridiculous. If I hold more political capital as Secretary and people value my opinion, good for me! There is literally nothing wrong with that unless I am using it for malicious purposes.
In this situation, I did not intentionally use my position of power to exert influence and, even if I did unintentionally as you suggest, that point is completely irrelevant because there I gained absolutely nothing out of this. If I was pressuring the MGA in question to suspend any means of recalling the Secretary from power, then I would definitely have something to gain and me contacting them would be wholly inappropriate.
If I am so apparently influential, then perhaps I shouldn't be able to comment on any legislation, even publicly? Using your reasoning, that is the only viable conclusion to draw, given you are suggesting I wield some undue influence.
Please let me know when you find the evidence of me using "bribery or inducement". I don't know when "I hope you will consider" turned "I demand that you do so". 🤔
I feel like I need to address this issue, as the person whose objections to a minor change in our election rules sparked this whole scrap. I aim this at both Secretary Llorens and Speaker Podria. I will not target either in particular, only speaking in general terms, as I feel that both need to read most of this. I'm afraid that I'm not as diplomatic as Grey, and I won't start trying to be so now.
I am both Deputy Speaker and Vice-Secretary. If the Speaker or the Secretary feels that I am out of line, I am happy to offer my resignation to either, or both.
Put simply and directly, I think both of you need to take a step back and remember what this all started over. We are talking about the smallest possible change to our election procedures, and somehow this has turned into talk of corruption, of court cases, with snarky and accusatory posts thrown around. You should both take a moment and think about what you are doing here. You are the heads of our two most powerful branches of government, this behaviour is below you both. I have worked with you both closely for a long time, and this is becoming of neither of you.
Had I known that this would come of me raising my objections to the bill that has just passed the GA, I would've kept my mouth shut, and my opinions to myself, because I'd much rather watch a bill that I disagree with, but that is largely trivial, pass into law than watch both of you act this way in front of the region. This is the sort of thing I'd have pulled in my early days as a stunt, so to see this happening between two of the most senior members of the region leaves me only to suggest that you both take some time to get a grip before returning to anything approaching this subject.
If you want to talk to me about this, do so on Discord through the appropriate private channels. If you really take issue with this to some irreconcilable extent, or just want to yell at me, read the second paragraph again and figure out how much continuing this petty scrap is worth to you.
P.S: My L key loosened as a result of having to type this out. This is what I give for my beloved Assembly.
The fact that you see no issue whatsoever with using your political power as Secretary to interfere with the legislative branch honestly scares and disgusts me, Mr. Secretary. You, I, and the region all know that this is wrong and goes the very idea of democracy and separation of powers, and if you can't see that then this is a sad day for our government.
While I understand that you did not intentionally use your power and influence, you did use it in an undue fashion. It is completely irrelevant whether or not this impacts, benefits, or detriments you; it's the idea and precedent that it sets which is gross and wrong. If this becomes a habit, maybe you and others won't see an issue with you weighing in on and influencing the vote on a bill or amendment that affects you.
You know that nobody is implying that you not be allowed to weigh in and comment publicly, this is such a blatant use of rhetoric and bad faith argument. There is a massive difference between reading the Secretary's public opinion, and being directly confronted and asked by the Secretary to vote one way or the other. You are better than this, Llorens.
This whole exchange has gone from a civil discussion about integrity and influence to a massive debacle and argument. I ask that all parties take a step back, think, and breathe for a second. I will absolutely take a moment to do so, and I hope you do the same.
Unity in Diversity!
Greylyn and Slackertown
I am inclined to side with the Secretary here. Folks like [nation]Cedoria[/nation ]and others, as previous Secretaries, would also carry a certain measure of political capital. Certain folks who have served as founder even more so. But I've yet to see anyone take a swing at Cedoria (indeed, I would like to hear old members of government's views on this matter, as well) for giving his opinions and using his status as a respected old man. I think the same can be applied to Llorens.
Llorens is the current Secretary (and carries "political capital," but it is political capital he would have in or out of office simply because he a well-known and active member of the community), but the matter at hand had nothing to do with the executive branch or his powers, and he was pointing to information readily available and already publicly dispersed on the RMB (and even if Llorens *had* messaged the MGA an original, private argument in favor of the bill, I wouldn't see anything wrong with it, considering hardly anything has been said on the RMB against it (a fact which Llorens *stressed* in a RMB post 2 days ago, literally appealing to those against the bill to speak about their opposition on the RMB) and since anyone else can do the same).
Nothing was promised to the MGA who was contacted, and nothing was gained by Llorens aside from a policy that I had personally figured would pass without any hassle, and that doesn't benefit Llorens in any way (and if it doesn't benefit him, how can it be corruption? We don't see people accusing Senators of corruption IRL when they appeal to Representatives to vote one way or another on a bill). As far as I know, bribery consists of *something* being gained by the party being bribed, and I'm not sure what it could possibly be.
Thank you Mr. Kava, as I said in my post, I will be taking a moment to think this over and breathe. I do still stand by my word and believe that this was my duty and obligation as Speaker to address the concern I held. I never intended for this to become what it has become now, a flame war.
I emplore all parties to follow Kava's direction and take some time to ponder our motto.
Unity in Diversity!
Hello comrades! I know shocking sight to see me actually posting on the RMB, but I was asked to weigh in on the whole secretary situation. TL;DR I mostly agree with secretary Llorens on this whole situation but have some extra thoughts to add
I don't see why how much influence somebody holds should determine whether or not they get a voice on the laws that are made, if somebody wants to advocate for or against a law we should let them, sure there should be extra standards for people who currently hold power but those standards should only be used to prevent corruption that would, for example, result in them getting more power or benefiting them in an election or something, which is something that this bill does not do. to add further onto this point there are plenty of times when people with lots of influence do stuff like this to try and influence voters in elections such as endorsements and neither you or podria have ever batted an eye at that.
while I agree that any direct discussion or debate about a bill should be disclosed, all secretary Llorens really did was just point a MGA in the direction of an argument for a bill to ensure they got a balanced view of the bill and got to hear all the sides of the argument before voting. to me, this doesn't seem like a corrupt action if anything it's beneficial to our democracy to have our MGA's hear all sides of the argument.
the whole point of the RMB debate period is to ensure that MGA's get to hear the citizens point of view, just quickly adding that he hopes they consider voting for it (something that was said on the RMB already) changes literally nothing compared to if he just sent him a link to the arguments in favor of the bill.
what's the point of conveying a stance during the RMB discussion period if not to try and get MGA's to vote a certain way? again I don't see how him just asking an MGA to vote a certain way is in any way different from simply conveying a stance, after all, the whole point of conveying a stance is to try and get somebody to have the same opinion as you and thus in a roundabout way try to get them to vote a certain way. if I just went up to somebody and ranted against a specific law, if you asked the person whether or not if put up to vote I'd want them to vote against it the answer would be obvious the fact that he directly asked them to vote for it changes literally nothing.
everyone's least favorite MGA,
I can admit that I have handled this in a juvenile manner, and that probably deserves the criticisms as you've laid out. I apologise for dealing with it like this, and I could certainly be more diplomatic in my approach.
That being said, I'd like to contend with the fact that what we are talking about is "largely trivial". The issue at hand extends merely beyond changes to a relatively minor electoral law, and more to the fact that accusations are being levelled at me that I'm effectively exploiting my authority as Secretary to achieve political aims. I have every right to defend myself from that, though I admit definitely more calmly. Losinia's description of me as one of the "public firebrands" seems to ring true here. 😛