NSG Senate General Discussion Thread

[Kamchastkia]

*returns to glorious applause*

Bitch leaving me like that who tf you think u r?

[Zurkerx]

But should we mandate Cabinet sizes? I'm not sure that's very helpful, either, since some Cabinets need flexibility.

I don't think putting a fixed limit on sizes is a good idea. It would be better to just have the admits step in if they feel that the Cabinet has gone a bit overboard. A case by case thing.

Yeah, putting fixed sizes isn't a good idea. I think though through legislation we can establish additional cabinet positions and start with a basic set such as Minister of Defence.

[Arkolon]

But should we mandate Cabinet sizes? I'm not sure that's very helpful, either, since some Cabinets need flexibility.

I don't think putting a fixed limit on sizes is a good idea. It would be better to just have the admits step in if they feel that the Cabinet has gone a bit overboard. A case by case thing.

That may end up biased and if the admins decide to be too lenient it might not to anything to solve (what I perceive to be) the problem. We must at least determine an outline of a reasonable Cabinet and from there the admins can determine whether an additional cabinet slot is really necessary (depending on circumstance).

For example, I'd be quite strict on Cabinet sizes if it was all up to me. I'd draw up an outline like this (going off of this):

Head of Government
Home Affairs
- Interior
- Justice
- Defence
- Foreign (?)
Economy
- Finance
- Labour & Social Development
- Transport, Public Works, & Urban Development
- Commerce & Industry
- Agriculture & Rural Affairs
Something Else
- Health
- Education
- Environment & Energy
- Culture

Maybe add MOFA as a separate ministry, and don't forget DPM. Yes, only four-five player-characters in the Cabinet, yes it somewhat reduces RP material, but that's still ~10% of active players (Cal.) and ~3% of all registered players, which isn't absolutely nothing when you factor in all those sleepers. Those 4-5 ministries are the only useful ones that majorly contribute to gameplay and roleplay and I think restricting Cabinet sizes, with extras added with consent of the admins, would stimulate players to play nicer to get these esteemed portfolios.

[Mollary]

I don't think putting a fixed limit on sizes is a good idea. It would be better to just have the admits step in if they feel that the Cabinet has gone a bit overboard. A case by case thing.

That may end up biased and if the admins decide to be too lenient it might not to anything to solve (what I perceive to be) the problem. We must at least determine an outline of a reasonable Cabinet and from there the admins can determine whether an additional cabinet slot is really necessary (depending on circumstance).

For example, I'd be quite strict on Cabinet sizes if it was all up to me. I'd draw up an outline like this (going off of this):

Head of Government
Home Affairs
- Interior
- Justice
- Defence
- Foreign (?)
Economy
- Finance
- Labour & Social Development
- Transport, Public Works, & Urban Development
- Commerce & Industry
- Agriculture & Rural Affairs
Something Else
- Health
- Education
- Environment & Energy
- Culture

Maybe add MOFA as a separate ministry, and don't forget DPM. Yes, only four-five player-characters in the Cabinet, yes it somewhat reduces RP material, but that's still ~10% of active players (Cal.) and ~3% of all registered players, which isn't absolutely nothing when you factor in all those sleepers. Those 4-5 ministries are the only useful ones that majorly contribute to gameplay and roleplay and I think restricting Cabinet sizes, with extras added with consent of the admins, would stimulate players to play nicer to get these esteemed portfolios.

I'd be up for reducing cabinet sizes a little, but that might go a bit far, I certainly remember a bit of a scramble for positions at various points. But certainly some departments could be merged into others, I mean, how many bills have ever been passed in this by a Rural Affairs or Culture department?

[Arkolon]

How would you restrict Cabinet sizes instead? Note that this is what I would use as an outline, not as a definite, mandated Cabinet.

[Mollary]

How would you restrict Cabinet sizes instead? Note that this is what I would use as an outline, not as a definite, mandated Cabinet.

I suppose merge departments, but not quite as much! Some of the proposed ones might have too much work to do for just one person. Maybe keep Finance, some general and rather large "Economic Affairs department" (which would include Commerce, Labor, Employment, Social Development, Energy, Transport & rural affairs), Home Affairs (Interior & Justice), Defense, Foreign Affairs, Education and Culture merged together and Health?

[Collatis]

How would you restrict Cabinet sizes instead? Note that this is what I would use as an outline, not as a definite, mandated Cabinet.

I suppose merge departments, but not quite as much! Some of the proposed ones might have too much work to do for just one person. Maybe keep Finance, some general and rather large "Economic Affairs department" (which would include Commerce, Labor, Employment, Social Development, Energy, Transport & rural affairs), Home Affairs (Interior & Justice), Defense, Foreign Affairs, Education and Culture merged together and Health?

Health should probably be merged in with something else, but I'm not sure what.

[The Sarian]

If we are going to have 'mega departments', I'd go along the lines of:

Minister for Economic Affairs
- Finance
- Economics
- Commerce
- Labour
- Rural Affairs
- Urban Development

Minister for the Home Department
- the Interior
- Justice
- Environment
- Energy

Minister for Foreign Affairs
- Foreign Affairs
- Defence
- Trade
- International Development

Minister for Public Services
- Health
- Education
- Transport
- Science

Minister for Social Affairs and Citizenship (#TheThickOfIt)
- Communities and Local Government
- Culture
- Employment
- Welfare & Pensions
- Social Policy
- Human Rights
- Sport

[Arkolon]

That isn't so bad, Sarian. Only nitpick is why trade features in the FA portfolio but other than that, very complete. With a PM and DPM thats a seven person Cabinet which is very efficiently streamlined.

[The Sarian]

That isn't so bad, Sarian. Only nitpick is why trade features in the FA portfolio but other than that, very complete. With a PM and DPM thats a seven person Cabinet which is very efficiently streamlined.

In the UK, the Minister of State for Trade and Investment is a member of the FCO.

[Collatis]

That isn't so bad, Sarian. Only nitpick is why trade features in the FA portfolio but other than that, very complete. With a PM and DPM thats a seven person Cabinet which is very efficiently streamlined.

Agreed. I think that works.

[Arkolon]

That isn't so bad, Sarian. Only nitpick is why trade features in the FA portfolio but other than that, very complete. With a PM and DPM thats a seven person Cabinet which is very efficiently streamlined.

In the UK, the Minister of State for Trade and Investment is a member of the FCO.

I must have been thinking of the Department of Trade and Industry which was since dissolved.

That isn't so bad, Sarian. Only nitpick is why trade features in the FA portfolio but other than that, very complete. With a PM and DPM thats a seven person Cabinet which is very efficiently streamlined.

Agreed. I think that works.

So, "Resolved:"....?

[New Werpland]

What if we implement institutional sectarianism into this stratification?

Such as apportioning certain roles to certain minorities/demographics like they do in Lebanon or (at one point)Cyprus.

I'm only thinking about this in terms of Ephiria but I suppose it could be done with some of the other scenarios as well.

[Arkolon]

(from IRC)

Additionally, a Head of State-Head of Government split is tedious and only complicates gameplay in the name of formality. The fact that NSGS operates in such a way that every registered player is a member of parliament and every registered player has suffrage in executive elections totally alters the state-government relationship compared to the real world. Confidence in the house reasonably implies a popular mandate and vice versa - unless either the Head of State is politically independent or the Head of Government is politically independent. Since I see this as fact and not opinion the only way to change this is by instating NABBAW's campaign finance method for presidential elections or by instating a monarchy. Otherwise we may as well fuse the President and Prime Minister into one but still require them to have the confidence of the house.

[Dejanic]

So who's interested in making another radical centrist party?

I'm thinking "New Labour" would be a good name.

[The Nihilistic view]

I actually think it makes things more fun. There were some serious political shit slinging around some presidents in Aurentina. It just has to be set up in the right way with the right power distribution.

[The Nihilistic view]

I would not fix cabinets. I would say we should think about a consensus for them being smaller in general to have more backbenchers and factions, a reason for political coups etc. But leave the exact sharing of responsibilities to a PM and the team they have to pick from.

[Jetan]

I would not fix cabinets. I would say we should think about a consensus for them being smaller in general to have more backbenchers and factions, a reason for political coups etc. But leave the exact sharing of responsibilities to a PM and the team they have to pick from.

I agree.

[Britanno 2]

I would definitely like to introduce a campaign-bonus system for presidential elections like the one we saw in that mini-election for the place in Calaverde that I cannot remember the name of. Basically posting role plays (that could be rated by either the admins or just a few people from the senate, I'd prefer the latter) gets you a bonus in the final result. It helps to prevent excessive TG-spam campaigns and encourages activity. Considering how much activity we got just for one tiny election of some tiny island in Calaverde I'd say it works.

I also like the idea of smaller cabinets, but would be wary of placing a limit or of giving the admins the power to just demand they be reduced. I support the idea, but enforcing it on people isn't fair. Big cabinets designed to satisfy every party in a coalition (the first AFA/my cabinet comes to mind) should be frowned upon, not banned.

So who's interested in making another radical centrist party?

I'm thinking "New Labour" would be a good name.

That picture... *vomits*

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

I would definitely like to introduce a campaign-bonus system for presidential elections like the one we saw in that mini-election for the place in Calaverde that I cannot remember the name of. Basically posting role plays (that could be rated by either the admins or just a few people from the senate, I'd prefer the latter) gets you a bonus in the final result. It helps to prevent excessive TG-spam campaigns and encourages activity. Considering how much activity we got just for one tiny election of some tiny island in Calaverde I'd say it works.

Adrius, I felt, was very rudimentary. It worked for a small, in-game subparliament but I don't know if it could consistently be used long term for the entire roleplay. I'm currently working on an improvement of the campaign finance system from Dagmar.

[MERIZoC]

I would not fix cabinets. I would say we should think about a consensus for them being smaller in general to have more backbenchers and factions, a reason for political coups etc. But leave the exact sharing of responsibilities to a PM and the team they have to pick from.

This.

[MERIZoC]

I would definitely like to introduce a campaign-bonus system for presidential elections like the one we saw in that mini-election for the place in Calaverde that I cannot remember the name of. Basically posting role plays (that could be rated by either the admins or just a few people from the senate, I'd prefer the latter) gets you a bonus in the final result. It helps to prevent excessive TG-spam campaigns and encourages activity. Considering how much activity we got just for one tiny election of some tiny island in Calaverde I'd say it works.

I also like the idea of smaller cabinets, but would be wary of placing a limit or of giving the admins the power to just demand they be reduced. I support the idea, but enforcing it on people isn't fair. Big cabinets designed to satisfy every party in a coalition (the first AFA/my cabinet comes to mind) should be frowned upon, not banned.

So who's interested in making another radical centrist party?

I'm thinking "New Labour" would be a good name.

That picture... *vomits*

Dej used that picture back in Calaverde too, iirc.

[MERIZoC]

I would definitely like to introduce a campaign-bonus system for presidential elections like the one we saw in that mini-election for the place in Calaverde that I cannot remember the name of. Basically posting role plays (that could be rated by either the admins or just a few people from the senate, I'd prefer the latter) gets you a bonus in the final result. It helps to prevent excessive TG-spam campaigns and encourages activity. Considering how much activity we got just for one tiny election of some tiny island in Calaverde I'd say it works.

Adrius, I felt, was very rudimentary. It worked for a small, in-game subparliament but I don't know if it could consistently be used long term for the entire roleplay. I'm currently working on an improvement of the campaign finance system from Dagmar.

Adrius used a complete mess of a system that nobody should ever try to replicate.

[Britanno 2]

What was so bad about Adrius?

[Atlanticatia]

I kind of like Ike's proposal.