Hello comrades! Youleft's most recent poll has come to a close, people were asked to respond to the following question "in general do you approve or disapprove of the 18th GA’s performance and how strongly do you feel in either direction"
Strongly Approve: 60%
Somewhat Approve: 36.67%
Somewhat and Strongly Disapprove: 0%
1.the sample size for this poll was 30 nations meaning the margin of error was 16.86%
2. the nations selected to be polled were all the electoral citizens and all the WA nations endorsing secretary greylyn
A 96.67% approval rating?!
Comrades, I'm stunned. Thank you all so much for your continued support of the legislative branch. I can say, on behalf of us all, that we will continue to do everything that we can to serve this region. In fact, we will surely raise our own standards in response to this polling!
Again, I cannot thank our community enough for the support that you continue to show us.
Unity in Diversity!
Kavagrad, Speaker of the General Assembly
As a Member of the General Assembly,
I'd like to thank every single citizen for your support for the 18th General Assembly, your support means a lot. I'm happy (and glad) to be part of this General Assembly and I hope that I can continue to conscientiously serve the region, fulfilling my promises made in my June 2020 election manifesto.
Unity in Diversity!
The ឵឵឵឵ of Antinios, Member of the General Assembly
Hi, could you please elaborate on your plans here? I’m not quite sure what you meant to say.
Civil Service Initiative Update
I have updated the Civil Service dispatch to include the Ministries of Information and Roleplay. Assemblians may now volunteer for these two ministries.
The Civil Service Initiative is a multifaceted executive project to bring Assemblians into our community’s political process through volunteer work within our various ministries. Though each ministry’s civil service will have its own unique characteristics depending on the conditions thereof, volunteers will assist in the day-to-day functions of the Cabinet. At the end of the term, individuals will be awarded for their service to our community.
In order to become a Civil Servant, one need only fill out a brief application via a google form. Applications will be reviewed at the cabinet’s earliest convenience and applicants will be informed on whether they’ve been accepted into their program of interest. Individual ministries may have restrictions such as length of residency prior to being eligible to participate.
In short, the Guide Program is an opportunity for new members to have a mentor accompany them as they transition into The Leftist Assembly and become a part of our community. The nature of the Guide Program is the following.
In order to be eligible to become a Guide, one must reside in the region for a minimum of three months.
Guides will be assigned upon request by a new member who wishes to have a mentor from the Guide Program.
Guides will remain with their assigned newcomer for a week, during which, the Guide will answer any questions or concerns and otherwise assist in the integration process.
To request a Guide, individuals are encouraged to fill out the following form with the information requested.
The Community Affairs Ministry is the cultural enrichment wing of the Civil Service Initiative. Here, volunteers can work with Minister Libertasnia to select leftist art, such as poems, songs, photos, etc, and give them a spotlight within our region to provide a unique experience and resource to the comrades in our Assembly. Volunteers may also work with the Minister, as well as other Members of Government to plan and run cooperative events with other allied regions, such as a game night, movie night, or joint culture shows.
Civil Service members in Roleplay will help by maintaining the roleplay resources. Major responsibilities will be to maintain the map by adding new members or making map change requests, once they have been approved by the MORP. Another will be to maintain the list of active roleplayers. Should further needs arise, the input and assistance of civil service members will be gladly accepted.
Civil Service members in the Information Ministry will help by informing citizens of various events, through the use of dispatches. Those who wish to apply should have an understanding of how to use BBCode (the code used to create dispatches on NationStates). Should further needs arise, the input and assistance of civil service members will be gladly accepted.
Grod Island - Ministry of Recruitment
Wascoitan - Ministry of Recruitment
Antinios - Ministries of Recruitment and Community Affairs
Podria - Ministry of Community Affairs, Ministry of Roleplay, Ministry of Information
The Admin Team for TLA's Main Discord Server has agreed to release an official rebuttal of the attempted political interference in the server by certain members of the Executive branch.
First of all, for transparency, the Admin Team has just announced a change suggested by Comrade Courelli to bring actual democratisation for the members of our server, without the need for government seizure. The Secretary and Vice-Secretary were informed of our internal discussions on this matter and have continued to push their misguided legislative proposal.
We believe that these 5 points sum up our reasons for staunchly and unanimously opposing this attempt at political interference.
1) We have run the Discord this way for 3 years, and even the Secretary and Vice-Secretary can't deny that it is well-moderated, it's one of the most well-moderated servers on NS. One of the most crucial reasons for this is how we appoint admins to the main server, based on whether or not they'd actually be good admins. Bringing other factors into it will make server moderation worse and harm our community.
2) This is not some push for democratisation, it is the Secretary and Vice-Secretary going after the admin team because the admin team unanimously rejected a governemnt plan to consolidate all Assemblian servers. These ideas were completely unrelated to plans to democratise the server, which curiously didn't surface until directly after they were told that the admin team rejected their plan for consolidation on the grounds that our admin team shouldn't have the ability to moderate government discussions. People must understand that this proposal to seize the server is an attempt to attack this admin team for rejecting unrelated ideas. That's what this is about, it's nothing to do with democratisation. This is a wholly political power grab, plain and simple.
3) Government work does not occur on the main server, this is a social server, and the relevant government officials already have control of all government servers.
4) The current admin team is independent of government, and those of us that are in government in some form are in the minority more often than not. Handing the server over to government appointees, as Grey and Pod propose, would result in politically-tainted decision-making. This team makes decisions based on the needs of the community before anything else, do you really believe that an admin team stuffed with political appointees will do the same? We've had Secretaries impeached before, what would have happened if Losinia had control of our Discord server?
5) We have a balance of ideologies on the current admin team. Destabilising this balance is asking for DSA-style sectarian moderation to occur. They lost multiple embassies and ended up leaving NSLeft due to that sectarianism. We would risk endangering our pan-leftist balance and going down a divisive path of sectarianism in future terms if we politicise Discord moderation. TLA is a region dedicated to pan-leftism, and the possibility of ruining that is an irresponsible risk to take.
We hope that Assemblians understand why the proposed legislation is misguided, and reject the use of political language to try and justify a political takeover of a social Discord server.
Unity in Diversity!
Thank you for your post, Kava. I'd like to start off by saying two things; one is that this "attempted political interference" makes what is happening sound like a scary and illegal action that is being taken by myself and Secretary Greylyn, which is absolutely untrue, what is happening is that there is a relatively minor bill on the legislative queue for the GA that would bring small amounts of democratic oversight to the Discord administration team that they are kicking up quite the fuss about; there is no "government seizure" and there is no "political interference" there is only the struggle for democracy that these entrenched and unaccountable administrators are doing everything they possibly can to prevent. I would also like to say that while the quite rude and unreasonable denial of the server template in the process of starting a pilot/testing program for the superserver was the straw that broke the camels back, this bill has nothing to do with the superserver project and I have no intent on using said legislation to make drastic changes to the server; nor do I have an inkling of an idea as to how I would do so.
I don't deny that it is well moderated, but there have been incidents and I feel that waiting for a disaster to happen before implementing certain limits to the admin's absolute power would be a short-sighted, poorly informed decision. This bill will not change the basis on which administrators or moderators are selected, it stipulates that administrators shall elect or appoint via democratic means the team which they use to control our communications. The argument you are making that democratic leadership = poor leadership is in poor taste and something I truly hope that you know is incorrect. This is an argument I would expect to hear from a reactionary or traditional conservative, not a group of leftists and socialists.
You really do enjoy milking this confabulation dry. First and foremost, this bill will not create a superserver nor will it be possible to do such a thing with this quite mild legislation, the accusations that I am whining about you rejecting to even hear my idea, and creating this legislation to push a "political agenda" are completely false, have gotten old, and begin to border on the libelous. Secondly, this is not going to make Discord into a government office, there will be no "Ministry of Discord Affairs" nor will there ever be if I can help it. This will simply provide the oversight from the directly elected head-of-government, our Secretary (whomever that may be in the future), and our Founders. This entire point is moot as it is untrue, and quite frankly, contorting and perverting my words and actions into things they never were and never will be.
It is completely irrelevant whether or not the government does work on the main server, governments don't work on rails or roads, yet they should still be a public good designed with the people's best interests in mind. The fact of the matter is, the core activity of our region occurs on the main Discord server, and by extension, the core of our region exists on the main Discord. Democracy should be implemented everywhere, and this is somewhere where I will fight as hard as I can for democracy to thrive.
This, again, is you bringing back the "boogyman of big government" just as you did with the CSI and you will continue to do any time the government tries to help the people even more. This will not hand over the server to government appointees, it will be controlled by the Founders, a semi-democratic institution that is considered the most trusted and stable entity in TLA, and the Secretary, who is elected by the people to represent them and execute their will. The admin team is already stuffed with appointees, why not make them democratically chosen to control and protect our communications platform. Again, this legislation will not choose the basis on which admins are chosen, but instead ensure that they are accountable to the people.
If anything at all, this legislation would prevent a sectarian moderation team, as they are accountable to the people, elected by the people, and able to be recalled from office by the people. You continuously say that having the admin team be appointed by elected officials is a terrible idea, is it really a better idea to have the admin team appointed by unelected officials? Look at yourself, you're bending in so many different directions to try and avoid democracy.
All in all, I truly hope that the Assemblians are able to look past the big man saying big words because he doesn't want to lose his monopoly over our communications. Look past the libel and slander, and make a decision for yourself. The vote is coming up fast, and if you feel that Democracy for Discord is something important to you, then I encourage you to reach out to our MGAs and voice your opinion to them. I also encourage you to read the bill being debated here. This is not about a "political takeover" this is about nothing but democracy.
Unity in Diversity!
Democracy for Discord!
Much as I appreciate the intent of this proposal... I must come out against the proposed changes to this system. As everyone likely knows, a great amount of our regional activity has moved onto Discord, and this is largely the consequence of the success of a well-run, well-oiled moderation team. Where there have been issues, they've been discussed and addressed and dealt with and when there's been a need for change, the changes have been forthcoming. I disagree with the characterisation of the current Discord setup as 'monopolising' our regional communications. In all my time here I've never encountered a situation where that was a fair characterisation, and I've been here since the beginning.
I am loath to take such a stance publicly on this issue, since I consider my active days in the policy rough-and-tumble to be largely over. However, I believe this issue is too important to get wrong, and I regret to say that the current actions of the Secretary and Vice-Secretary do have it wrong. They've miss-stated the case, and rather then engage in a discussion about how best to democratise the servers and what changes might be made, have decided to go ahead and outright seize it, directly over the objections of our very successful moderation team, all of whom are active regional members in good standing, and none of whom have shown themselves adverse to making changes in the past. This is not conducive to a policy that ensures Discord and its various applications work for this region and everyone in it.
I urge the Secretary and Vice-Secretary to urgently reconsider these proposed changes, and shelve plans pending further discussion with the Admins about a more productive way to pursue this matter. If we want to 'democratise' the Discord, whatever we mean by that, there are ways too do it that are productive and beneficial. This is not that way, and it's not the TLA way.
If these changes are not shelved, I'll be fully lobbying all MGAs to vote against this bill, and urging everyone else to do the same. Done in this way, these changes would be highly destructive and have not been well-thought out. This is a disaster in the making if it's passed, so I urge all relevant parties to ensure it doesn't.
The fact that I so rarely speak on these matters anymore should be taken as a measure of how seriously I view this situation. I do not support the proposed changes in this form and I urge all others to oppose them as well. None of this can end well for us if these changes are forced through in this way.
I don't want to have to get into the semantics of the argument *again*, but it's very to me clear that people are against your proposal. Look at who's liking your RMB posts on this matter, for instance. Only Greylyn and Nangka. Whereas Kava's post from the mods on this matter has 7 likes excluding the mods. My post on the matter has three likes excluding mods. If it was up to me, I'd say you really need to put this up to community discussion before you push further with it, and potentially also open an opinion poll on it. Because, at least from where I'm sitting, it looks like your proposal isn't getting the support you're assuming it should - and if you really claim to be acting for "democracy", you should at least ask the people you're claiming to be speaking for what they think.
I concur, discussions about big changes to the running of our highly successful Discord need serious discussion and aren't to be taken lightly. This idea at the very least should have a period of serious consultation before it comes up for vote.
Podria and I were planning to hold a public poll on the matter. Discussion is also welcome from the community. Also, we are pulling the current bill in favor of codifying the suggestion put forward by Courelli. I assure you neither Podria nor myself take this matter lightly.
As for the continued mischaracterizations of the initially proposed bill as some sort of coup d’etat or complete government seizure, or the related claim that this is simply a power grab or a personal vendetta for Podria’s super server being shot down, I have half a mind to pursue a lawsuit under Section 1J of the Criminal Offence Act for libel. However, for the good of the region, the will refrain for now.
I look forward to the implementation of Courelli’s compromise and its codification to solidify the procedures.
Nonetheless I wish everyone a good night.
I understand where you’re coming from, but we genuinely do believe that the server is well-run, and would be made worse by the introduction of political appointees into the admin team. If the phrasing is of issue, I can only say that while I personally get the concern, and it perhaps isn’t ideal phrasing, we stand by the underlying point, and so I can only ask you to focus on that.
Thank you for approaching this in good faith, it’s nice to see with everything else that’s been going on.
I just want to say two things about this.
First, I’m against the proposal that was put forward by Greylyn and Podria.
Second, and keeping in mind that, like most people, I have no back room information about how this came about, the way the admin team responded to this was aggressive, unnecessary, and disrespectful. Regardless of your feelings about it, its motivations, or the person who proposed it, the response to it was out of line. It looks like this proposal will be defeated by vote, so relax and trust the voters of TLA.
It seems that individuals are still under the impression that the bill is still in the GA. We have pulled the bill from the legislative queue (if it isn’t off yet, it should be). We are accepting Courelli’s compromise (with codification) of having admins directly elected. The initial bill was intended to start a conversation.
I don’t appreciate this narrative of me and the Vice Secretary attempting to “ram” this through the General Assembly that I’m seeing certain individuals run with. The bill was marked as “normal” priority on the queue and was further down the list. It hadn’t even been introduced publicly but was thrust to the forefront of discussion because the admin team decided to falsely accuse me of forcibly seizing power. To which I still have heard no apology and it seems as though they are committed as portraying the Vice Secretary and I as acting in bad faith when they are the ones who have made personal attacks, including that gross mischaracterization of a “public statement”.
I have no interest in being an admin on the regional discord. I never did. The contents of the initially proposed bill were to have a beginning framework and then as it was introduced take suggestions from the public (including the admins) and find something we could all agree with. Like Courelli’s compromise. This has turned into something truly ugly and in all my time as a public figure in TLA, I have never seen such a gross campaign bent on attacking the character of the Vice Secretary and myself over a minor bill that wasn’t even at vote yet.
Denouncement of Vice Secretary Podria’s Remarks on Discord
As for the matter of Vice Secretary Podria‘s comments on the #ns-gameplay channel, suggesting that members of the admin team ought to step away from their position — this statement was not authorized by me, and he was acting outside of his capacity as Vice Secretary. Nonetheless, in light of recent hostilities, it would be negligent of me not to denounce the Vice Secretary’s behavior. Regardless of personal intent, it is clear that these remakes did not sit well with members of our community and I want to give no illusions that I support pressuring anyone to step down from a position (on or offsite). Regardless if the member is “inactive”, that is not up to the Vice Secretary or myself to decide.
As you commented on the posts that I made in the gameplay channel of the social server yesterday evening, I assume that it is those posts that you refer to?
If so, I will say that I regret my use of inflammatory language, though I stand by the underlying opinions.
What I will also state is that, as part of this debacle, I personally have been accused by the Secretary of this region, both in public and private, of libel, for expressing the opinions of both myself and the admin team. I have been subject to thinly-veiled threats of legal action by the same. The Vice-Secretary has advocated for members of the admin team to resign, called us despots and autocrats, and has privately emotionally manipulated multiple members of the admin team all the while. They hastily created a group chat that they dragged members of the team into to pressure us into accepting their demands. We put forward changes to our admin recruitment system in that same chat, making clear that we were already planning to carry out all but one of those demands before they were even issued, and were met with vitriol that I've never seen in my 2 1/2 years in TLA, including completely unfounded suggestions that I would rig the vote on the now-withdrawn legislation.
I did not act as I should have, in the one conversation which you note, Burni, and I will admit to that and am happy to apologise for it. However, the behaviour of the Secretary and Vice-Secretary has been consistently abhorrent throughout this process. They have not only created a unnecessary sense of mistrust and resentment between themselves and the admin team as well as, from what I have seen, the public, but they have also behaved in a way that disgraces the posts that they hold.
As I understand it, there is no further legislation coming that would breach the sovereignty of the social server. I hope that this is, in fact, the case. I now ask the Secretary and Vice-Secretary to ensure that they hold themselves accountable for their actions. Podria has offered me an apology, about half an hour ago. I don't know whether or not it is enough to make up for what I, and the rest of the admin team, have been put through, and I have not yet accepted it. Each member of the team will decide for themselves how much they are willing to forgive, but I personally would like to see some accountability.
Since typing this up, another post has been made by the Secretary. I sincerely hope that he ceases his continued attacks on the admin team, and changes his path. This needs to end.
I hope that I will not need to make any further public statements on this matter. The last 48 hours have cast a shadow over the community that I love. I want it to be over.