Ecclesia Improvement Act [Discussion]

[Prydania]

And at the end of it all, the result is that the "RPer" side of this argument has gotten exactly what it wants in the form of #taijitu_cabana while the "GPer" side has seen two of its members driven out of the region. This is an absurdly inequitable outcome which I believe is in many ways far more damaging to the region than the the original grievances ever were. How are we supposed to find any sort of meaningful resolution to this division when half of one side is now missing?

I'm "crossing this over" in the spirit of friendly debate. I had addressed this post earlier, yet I've been told that Gulliver was unhappy I ignored what he saw as the central argument.
Gulliver, I'm unsure what ways you would expect either "side" to go about fixing the problem. Myro is back in the Ecclesia. I don't know if that constitutes his "return" though. Funk posted in this debate, but said he'd be staying away at the end of his post.
Ultimately? The choice to return or stay away is theirs. And theirs alone. Regardless of what happens. Do I feel guilty over them leaving? No. I do not. From what I can tell? Myro left in response to Delfos trolling him. And I stepped up and condemned Delfos for that in the very thread. The attack was also aimed at Funk, for whatever that is worth. I am upset that they left, and upset and disappointed that what I thought was a rational discussing raising valid arguments turned into a means to attack people.
Do I feel guilty though? Well Gulliver, I was raised Jewish. I have a Jewish aunt and grandmother. It'll take more then what you've dished out to make me feel guilty over anything. The part of my brain that deals with guilt is just emotional scar tissue by this point

That last part was a joke, for the sake of clarification
That aside? Yes, I am upset that something I thought could be a reasonable discussion turned out the way it did. I don't know if this will convince Funk and Myro to come back, but I'm being totally honest and sincere here.

Myro. I've known you since the Lex. Your RP skills are second to none. I never wanted you gone. That would be like a hockey coach trying to drive Wayne Gretzky off the team. Not only that, but I have grown to like you as a person in the nearly nine years I've known you. I've enjoyed RPing with you. I've enjoyed just chatting with you. I'm sorry that I've felt some agitation on your end, and I've hoped to fix that. I don't WANT an issue to exist between us, I certainly don't want you gone from Taijitu. Both as a GPer and RPer. 

Funk, if you're reading this. I got to know you a year ago or so. I've never had issues with you until SD and I returned recently and you responded to him by being insulting. There's been a lot of talk about "friends" here. SD is my best friend. I started this game in the Lex in high school. I'm now teaching high school. Through all of that. Friends from high school have come and gone. Friends from uni have come and gone. New friends from work have arisen. SD's been my friend through it all though.
I didn't appreciate the way you tried to insult him when all he did was give his two cents on the region. That upset me. And bothered me. As I said, I got to know you a year ago, and we seemed to get along. So the fact that upon my return I saw you insulting my closest friend? That was upsetting on a few levels.
I never wanted to drive you away though. Or give people an "opening" to attack you. If anything? I wanted to get to the root of why you were so hostile because I know you're a good guy.

Drastic times call for drastic measures. Sometimes you need to shock the establishment into acting via extreme action.

I hardly see how times are "drastic". We have 373 nations and are ranked 27th in the world.

I don't mean drastic in the sense that the region is in dire straights numbers-wise. I meant drastic in the sense that it seemed as if reform on the surface would be rejected by those who seemed to have an interest in the status quo. Will the piece of legislation pass? I don't know. If it doesn't though? Well more on that below...

The current system is imperfect, but it has accomplished enough that I would have hoped it bore building upon rather than discarding. Indeed, initially that's what it sounded like you wanted to do, and we seemed to be off to a good start (e.g. your brainstorming in the Centre Party, the recruitment gains, a prospect of new life in the Militia). All in all this seems like throwing things out without any replacement plan just for the sake of stirring things up, and past experience has shown that's not an effective solution.

Um, Gulliver? I'm not stirring this up. I didn't even propose the legislation being discussed here. Neither did SD. It came from someone who has joined the Centre Party, yes. What is a political party though? Aside from a collection of like-minded people?

The Centre Party will remain committed to reform even if this proposal fails to pass. If it fails? At the very least I hope it has shown the establishment that there are problems people have with the status quo.

It seems as if you and I tend to think the original Tai Senate had a good system in place Gulliver. That's a good starting point as any to build on future compromises. Be they take place in the form of a constitutional convention or a debate to reform existing structures of government.

[Delfos]

Myro left in response to Delfos trolling him. And I stepped up and condemned Delfos for that in the very thread. (...) a rational discussing raising valid arguments turned into a means to attack people.

Let's make one thing clear, if you participated in the taijitu_tavern channel fiasco and it brings you pain and or makes you regret your actions, good - that means you have some sort of spinal cord, congratulations, you're not a psychopath - but that's not my doing, it's yours alone.

You kept a reference to the whole fiasco on the topic, it's not ethical to say you regret one thing but keep things as they were. If my post made you realize things couldn't be as they were, then you should take that and work here, the people of Taijitu need you to be an adult human, specially being an admin you can prevent people from being douches.

Don't shoot the messenger, imo it's unethical to use the taverngate "episode" in anyone's favor, stop it.

If you think discussing things like this is counter-productive, they are fully productive, this is how grown ups solve things, they express what bothers them and we all work on that. It's necessary for an Ecclesia Imprevement Act that we reinforce ethics into the administration. That also means you can't defend your friends, that crap is unethical. Do we need an ethical code? I'm pretty sure we can go for a gentleman's agreement.

[Guy]

I've always been wary of proposal for reform that oppose the current system, without declaring a replacement for it.

The people who bring it forward either don't have the foresight to suggest a workable system of government, or are too caught up in the moment to think it through.

It's usually resulted in wrecking. I've opposed it in many places, most recently in the FRA, where there was an argument to dismantle prior to positive reforms occurring. Eventually, all of us came together, and reached a framework for reform.

I would be all for considering actual reform proposals. Ones that bring forward something new, not just oppose what exist. Until then, I will be opposing this proposal.

[AwesomeSaucer]

I've always been wary of proposal for reform that oppose the current system, without declaring a replacement for it.

The people who bring it forward either don't have the foresight to suggest a workable system of government, or are too caught up in the moment to think it through.

It's usually resulted in wrecking. I've opposed it in many places, most recently in the FRA, where there was an argument to dismantle prior to positive reforms occurring. Eventually, all of us came together, and reached a framework for reform.

I would be all for considering actual reform proposals. Ones that bring forward something new, not just oppose what exist. Until then, I will be opposing this proposal.

This is why we should at least start using the Google Doc and convention thread.  We still vote tomorrow, but for something that's at least a little baked.

[Khem]

I've always been wary of proposal for reform that oppose the current system, without declaring a replacement for it.

The people who bring it forward either don't have the foresight to suggest a workable system of government, or are too caught up in the moment to think it through.

It's usually resulted in wrecking. I've opposed it in many places, most recently in the FRA, where there was an argument to dismantle prior to positive reforms occurring. Eventually, all of us came together, and reached a framework for reform.

I would be all for considering actual reform proposals. Ones that bring forward something new, not just oppose what exist. Until then, I will be opposing this proposal.

That is a fair belief however I will state that I do not wish to construct a new system alone or even with only my own party, hence I am more than willing to call for the destruction of the old system before knowing the shape we will collectively choose. You may call it half baked, I call it cooking.

[Prydania]

The people who bring it forward either don't have the foresight to suggest a workable system of government, or are too caught up in the moment to think it through.

How very nice of you to take the varied concerns and desires of a group of people and boil them down to one of two insulting options. That's not going to increase tensions at all.

Seriously, if you'd like to see productive change? Stop assuming you know what the people across the aisle are thinking.

I would be all for considering actual reform proposals. Ones that bring forward something new, not just oppose what exist. Until then, I will be opposing this proposal.

The proposal calls for a constitutional convention where we would all put forward proposals for a new government. Where everyone here would have a say.

And you're wrong if you assume people backing this have no vision for a replacement. I've spoken to a few people who support this. Most, if not all, have solid ideas for proposals going forward.
I've been holding back here because I feel that's a different discussion. One that should come after the fate of the current system's fate is decided.
We can all bring our proposals to the forefront afterwards.

[Guy]

It's not the intention of those "across the aisle" that I seek to impugn, rather the wisdom of dismantling without having anything to replace the current system.

At the very least, the current system of government should be retained until the successful conclusion of the convention, and the implementation of a new system.

When you're looking for a new house, you don't become homeless in the interim.

[Sovereign Dixie]

I've always been wary of proposal for reform that oppose the current system, without declaring a replacement for it.

The people who bring it forward either don't have the foresight to suggest a workable system of government, or are too caught up in the moment to think it through.

It's usually resulted in wrecking. I've opposed it in many places, most recently in the FRA, where there was an argument to dismantle prior to positive reforms occurring. Eventually, all of us came together, and reached a framework for reform.

I would be all for considering actual reform proposals. Ones that bring forward something new, not just oppose what exist. Until then, I will be opposing this proposal.

That is a fair belief however I will state that I do not wish to construct a new system alone or even with only my own party, hence I am more than willing to call for the destruction of the old system before knowing the shape we will collectively choose. You may call it half baked, I call it cooking.

This. Exactly this.

[Gulliver]

Sovereigntism. And the idea that we ought to go on the offensive against folks who have never threatened Taijitu.

It is entirely possible to make a proposal to change our alignment without dissolving the Militia first.

This is the running theme in this debate that is not clicking me, that we have to destroy everything to rebuild. As someone who has participated in numerous constitutional discussions and debates, this is simply not true.

Right now, people could be discussing particular problems they see, starting discussions on alternatives on them, and then having a consultative vote to pick the best course of action to include in a final omnibus bill.

Nothing is preventing that from happening. Nothing is stopping us from having a constitutional convention or whatever you want to call it right now. Repealing everything and leaving us in limbo won't make it any easier (if anything, in the absence of formal structures it'll just give more power to the influential "oligarchy" that people love to complain about). And from what I've heard, the fundamentals that people want are largely the same.

Yet despite this there is continued insistence on going about this in the most confrontational way possible. Instead of seeking common ground on the failings of the current system and how to fix them, people are demanding that its successes be thrown out with it faults just to make a point.

It's a huge slap in the face to the people who helped to build it and not at all conducive to the bridge-building people say they want to do.

[AwesomeSaucer]

I've always been wary of proposal for reform that oppose the current system, without declaring a replacement for it.

The people who bring it forward either don't have the foresight to suggest a workable system of government, or are too caught up in the moment to think it through.

It's usually resulted in wrecking. I've opposed it in many places, most recently in the FRA, where there was an argument to dismantle prior to positive reforms occurring. Eventually, all of us came together, and reached a framework for reform.

I would be all for considering actual reform proposals. Ones that bring forward something new, not just oppose what exist. Until then, I will be opposing this proposal.

That is a fair belief however I will state that I do not wish to construct a new system alone or even with only my own party, hence I am more than willing to call for the destruction of the old system before knowing the shape we will collectively choose. You may call it half baked, I call it cooking.

Good point!

[Khem]

It's not the intention of those "across the aisle" that I seek to impugn, rather the wisdom of dismantling without having anything to replace the current system.

At the very least, the current system of government should be retained until the successful conclusion of the convention, and the implementation of a new system.

When you're looking for a new house, you don't become homeless in the interim.

You know, I quite like your aptitude for metaphor sir. I will say I am willing to hold a convention while holding the current government intact until the new constitution is hammered out by the collective. Honestly my goal is accomplished in the mass of people willing to admit what has been going on isn't working for the best. Those who had left poked back in for a minute. We're getting honest criticism from new folks. All of this for me is a good start.

[Sovereign Dixie]

Sovereigntism. And the idea that we ought to go on the offensive against folks who have never threatened Taijitu.

It is entirely possible to make a proposal to change our alignment without dissolving the Militia first.

This is the running theme in this debate that is not clicking me, that we have to destroy everything to rebuild. As someone who has participated in numerous constitutional discussions and debates, this is simply not true.

Right now, people could be discussing particular problems they see, starting discussions on alternatives on them, and then having a consultative vote to pick the best course of action to include in a final omnibus bill.

Nothing is preventing that from happening. Nothing is stopping us from having a constitutional convention or whatever you want to call it right now. Repealing everything and leaving us in limbo won't make it any easier (if anything, in the absence of formal structures it'll just give more power to the influential "oligarchy" that people love to complain about). And from what I've heard, the fundamentals that people want are largely the same.

Yet despite this there is continued insistence on going about this in the most confrontational way possible. Instead of seeking common ground on the failings of the current system and how to fix them, people are demanding that its successes be thrown out with it faults just to make a point.

It's a huge slap in the face to the people who helped to build it and not at all conducive to the bridge-building people say they want to do.

I have latched onto pretty much every single suggestion offered in this thread with which I could agree. I did this in the spirit of finding common ground and compromise where possible. I admit in frustration I may have let my irritation get the better of me but I utterly hate having every single word picked apart and dissected.

This mentality of it for some reason being desirable or necessary to have some kind of proposal available to vote on before dissolving the current set up is something I just don't seem to be able to wrap my head around.

For one thing, when we (Myself, OT, Prydania, and Khem) agreed to put forth this proposal we deliberately did it in this matter because we seen it as the more bi-partisian route. We deliberately did it in this manner as opposed to simply saying "HERE IS NEW CONSITUTION! VOTE!" or alternatively  a sudden out of no where "OMFG CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION YO!" because that made little sense to us and we felt it would only ruffle more feathers than were already going to end up being ruffled.

And yet for reasons that I do not fathom it seems to have had the exact opposite effect.

Besides the Militia... taking that off the table because I dont think anyone really is going ot pitch a fit if it keeps operating while we do this. So.. taking that out of the equation let me ask this.

What "essential" government function is it that is so imperative as to have created this massive sticking point? The Ecclesia? What is going on there that is so important that it couldn't wait or something? Help us understand this. All I keep hearing is that you guys have an objection to it on some grounds of seeming to think that something undesireable will happen if we just shut it all down and begin discussing a new constitution.   

[Gulliver]

I have latched onto pretty much every single suggestion offered in this thread with which I could agree. I did this in the spirit of finding common ground and compromise where possible. I admit in frustration I may have let my irritation get the better of me but I utterly hate having every single word picked apart and dissected.

This mentality of it for some reason being desirable or necessary to have some kind of proposal available to vote on before dissolving the current set up is something I just don't seem to be able to wrap my head around.

For one thing, when we (Myself, OT, Prydania, and Khem) agreed to put forth this proposal we deliberately did it in this matter because we seen it as the more bi-partisian route. We deliberately did it in this manner as opposed to simply saying "HERE IS NEW CONSITUTION! VOTE!" or alternatively  a sudden out of no where "OMFG CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION YO!" because that made little sense to us and we felt it would only ruffle more feathers than were already going to end up being ruffled.

And yet for reasons that I do not fathom it seems to have had the exact opposite effect.

Besides the Militia... taking that off the table because I dont think anyone really is going ot pitch a fit if it keeps operating while we do this. So.. taking that out of the equation let me ask this.

What "essential" government function is it that is so imperative as to have created this massive sticking point? The Ecclesia? What is going on there that is so important that it couldn't wait or something? Help us understand this. All I keep hearing is that you guys have an objection to it on some grounds of seeming to think that something undesireable will happen if we just shut it all down and begin discussing a new constitution.   

I am sorry that my previous post got a bit pointed at the end. And I agree, just coming up with a proposal and putting it out wholesale would have been the wrong way to do and I am glad that you have been trying to find common ground.

But what we remove is just as important as what we add. By proposing to first repeal everything before you begin a constitutional discussion, you are saying that none of what we currently have should be in the new system we adopt. In this sense, by pursuing this route you are proposing a half-constitution from the get go, which you rightly said yourself was undesirable.

By repealing everything and starting from scratch, you are limiting the opportunity to retain elements of the old system that may be desirable, and there are things which I believe are worth keeping. This is doubly frustrating when a lot of what you seem to want is what we already have, so it can feel like it's not the system itself that's the problem, but that it's someone else's version of the system, and you need to replace it with a near identical one of your own.

[Sovereign Dixie]

I have latched onto pretty much every single suggestion offered in this thread with which I could agree. I did this in the spirit of finding common ground and compromise where possible. I admit in frustration I may have let my irritation get the better of me but I utterly hate having every single word picked apart and dissected.

This mentality of it for some reason being desirable or necessary to have some kind of proposal available to vote on before dissolving the current set up is something I just don't seem to be able to wrap my head around.

For one thing, when we (Myself, OT, Prydania, and Khem) agreed to put forth this proposal we deliberately did it in this matter because we seen it as the more bi-partisian route. We deliberately did it in this manner as opposed to simply saying "HERE IS NEW CONSITUTION! VOTE!" or alternatively  a sudden out of no where "OMFG CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION YO!" because that made little sense to us and we felt it would only ruffle more feathers than were already going to end up being ruffled.

And yet for reasons that I do not fathom it seems to have had the exact opposite effect.

Besides the Militia... taking that off the table because I dont think anyone really is going ot pitch a fit if it keeps operating while we do this. So.. taking that out of the equation let me ask this.

What "essential" government function is it that is so imperative as to have created this massive sticking point? The Ecclesia? What is going on there that is so important that it couldn't wait or something? Help us understand this. All I keep hearing is that you guys have an objection to it on some grounds of seeming to think that something undesireable will happen if we just shut it all down and begin discussing a new constitution.   

I am sorry that my previous post got a bit pointed at the end. And I agree, just coming up with a proposal and putting it out wholesale would have been the wrong way to do and I am glad that you have been trying to find common ground.

But what we remove is just as important as what we add. By proposing to first repeal everything before you begin a constitutional discussion, you are saying that none of what we currently have should be in the new system we adopt. In this sense, by pursuing this route you are proposing a half-constitution from the get go, which you rightly said yourself was undesirable.

By repealing everything and starting from scratch, you are limiting the opportunity to retain elements of the old system that may be desirable, and there are things which I believe are worth keeping. This is doubly frustrating when a lot of what you seem to want is what we already have, so it can feel like it's not the system itself that's the problem, but that it's someone else's version of the system, and you need to replace it with a near identical one of your own.

There indeed elements of the current system which I think at least a few of us feel could be modified slightly or adapted to be improved. I can however say, at least speaking for those of us that introduced this that it had nothing to do with it being a system created by someone else, etc.

Now, this next part is just my own thinking at the time we were discussing the introduction of this proposal over skype. To me if the existing laws were left in place it would place an emphasis on working around what's already in place as opposed to having that sense of freedom to restructure as we agreed would be beneficial. I didn't want existing structure to hamper "creativity" or muddy up  the waters by changing the thinking from "What would be fun/beneficial/functional" to "what needs to be done to alter the existing documents".

In my line of thinking, anything that already was in place that we agreed upon could simply be re-added into the new document(s) as it would take very little time to do so.

[Guy]

It's not the intention of those "across the aisle" that I seek to impugn, rather the wisdom of dismantling without having anything to replace the current system.

At the very least, the current system of government should be retained until the successful conclusion of the convention, and the implementation of a new system.

When you're looking for a new house, you don't become homeless in the interim.

You know, I quite like your aptitude for metaphor sir. I will say I am willing to hold a convention while holding the current government intact until the new constitution is hammered out by the collective. Honestly my goal is accomplished in the mass of people willing to admit what has been going on isn't working for the best. Those who had left poked back in for a minute. We're getting honest criticism from new folks. All of this for me is a good start.

I think this is a good idea.