Pat/CSDF Resignation

[Beathan]

Pat --

I think you are being too hasty. Also, I am not sure what you and your faction is doing -- and whether you can.

I recall that Michel resigned from the RA and announced that no CARE member could fill his seat. That was improper -- and Mizou did step up to fill his seat. I trust that when you indicate that Leon will also resign and that no CSDF members will step up, you have the authority, as faction leader, to do so -- or, at least, that the members of your faction will follow your lead here. However, that is not clear. Please clarify.

I also want to be quick to point out that the electoral mandate for the CSDF agenda in the last election will not cease just because the CSDF is no longer actively pursuing that agenda. I will work hard to try to implement the many good ideas advanced and the many promises made by the CSDF in the last election. I hope that the CSDF's refusal to participate in implementing these good ideas and in fulfilling these promises will not mean that they do not come to fruition. I call on the remaining members of the RA to work with me to draft and pass specific legislation on all these points.

Also, in the event that the CSDF does withdraw from the RA completely, we need a ruling from the SC about what this means.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

Patroklus, the decision made by you and the CSDF to resign from the government is hard for me to understand, especially what you hope to achieve with it. Yet, naturally I will respect it as your decision to make.

Thank you very much for your work in the Representative Assembly.

[Jon Seattle]

I will not be participating in a back and forth on this issue, but wanted to fill in a few details.

1. We have no more ranked members in the CSDF.

2. I think I speak for all of us when I say we would have been quite willing to support a registered CSDF member who wanted to take Pat's position, or Leon if he wished to remain.

3. The resignation of from the RA was not something that Pat decided on or pressured others to support. It was voted on by a majority of our members in a general meeting that did have a quorum of CSDF registered members.

I would say with certainty, that there are a number of different reasons people had for voting for or against this, but I think one thing we all shared was the feeling that continuing the fighting in the RA would do no one much good. I will now remain silent on the issue for the next few weeks.

[cleopatraxigalia]

so let me see if i get this straight.. you are saying that Leon resigned, no one was available to fill his seat.. and then the membership voted that Pat should resign too...............oh? thats what i thought all along.
thanks for clarifying jon

a big lesson for all of us here....
thank you !

[cleopatraxigalia]

You know we need to rethink the FACTION vs. CANDIDATE thing. CSDF is a well organized faction.. it has a system and somehow got a lot of votes from ??? people .....but they had no people willing to serve. I think this speaks to our need to focus more on the person who will be in the office we vote for and less on the faction. .. see, it is possible to have a faction with no candidates and if thats the case.. i say again.. whats the point?

[Jon Seattle]

so let me see if i get this straight.. you are saying that Leon resigned, no one was available to fill his seat.. and then the membership voted that Pat should resign too...............oh? thats what i thought all along. thanks for clarifying jon a big lesson for all of us here....
thank you !

Quite the contrary. Pat resigned (I do not at all blame him given how he was treated). Then Leon resigned. Then we asked for volunteers for LRA and a second RA position. We then discussed the matter and decided as a group that we would withdraw from the RA this session. Does that clarify things Princess?

[Leon]

so let me see if i get this straight.. you are saying that Leon resigned, no one was available to fill his seat.. and then the membership voted that Pat should resign too...............oh? thats what i thought all along.
thanks for clarifying jon

Dearest ThePrincess,

Are you really this boneheaded, or do you work very hard at it

Hugs
Leon

[Bromo Ivory]

so let me see if i get this straight.. you are saying that Leon resigned, no one was available to fill his seat.. and then the membership voted that Pat should resign too...............oh? thats what i thought all along.
thanks for clarifying jon

Dearest ThePrincess,

Are you really this boneheaded, or do you work very hard at it

Hugs
Leon

Um ... insults ... that ain't cool.

[Leon]

Um ... insults ... that ain't cool.

You're right Bromo. Sorry everyone.

I thought to defuse the situation with some humour, but guess I was mistaken.

Leon

[Jamie Palisades]

I am sorry to see CSDF's representatives resign. Personally I didn't agree with some of their recent choices. But a democracy is meant to provide civil ways to work out disagreements. Judging from the minutes and Forum postings, the maturity of tone of RA meetings is declining. [1] I know I find it discouraging. Going back at least 8 months now, too many feuds.

We all deserve, and should expect, maturity from elected officials. No personal attacks. No questioning the logic, intelligence, motives or character of neighbors. If I went through the Forum right now with yellow highlighter marker, and tagged every post that broke those simple rules, I'd have ... well, very yellow Forums, and a dry marker. Go look for yourself.

I would like to thank Patroklus and his colleagues for their *many* contributions to our CDS community.

I hope we continue to create the kind of place where they, and all, feel that their contributions are welcome and appreciated, regardless of elections and politics. Over the course of a year, we've seen several dedicated volunteers [2] from multiple parties drop out of active CDS roles due to discouragement. Some felt unable to make progress because the government wouldn't respond, attend or pay attention. Some even felt hounded out of office by threats! We'd better improve our ability to welcome and tolerate people when we disagree with them. If we tolerate a catty or rancorous government, we will lose willing contributors.

Regards Jamie

[1] See the comments at
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1654
I regretfully agree with Salzie about this, even though uncivil behavior isn't evenly distributed across all members of the government. I think it's fair to say things are not going well, when RA members themselves say things like:
[quote] Last session was a zoo. This session is a zoo with the cage doors open. We are at the point of eating the zoo keeper (the LRA). We need better cages -- [/quote] and
[quote] Sunday's RA meeting was just disgraceful. If only we could channel the energy expended into something positive. ... that even though everyone was for expansion we somehow still had over and hours ... arguing for the sake of arguing ... [/quote]

[2] On "volunteer", see http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... =30#p10180

[Bromo Ivory]

I do agree the level of rancor has increased. Elsewhere I posted my thoughts on what some causes and possible solutions.

But ... RL democracy is rancorous, and also not terribly civil. The enforcement of RRO in the US prevents it form being a free for all. I watch some British TV once in awhile, and their Parliament is anything but what I would say is civil. In the US I recall on more than one occasion duels happened after session (18th and 19th century .. the most famous being Aaron Burr v Alexander Hamilton), and at least on occasion when one Senator physically attacked another in session. Recall recently the Republican threats to change the Senatorial rules to bypass filabuster "the nuclear option" which was full of partisan name calling and also nastiness - in and out of session - to get some judges rammed through. There are tons of examples from all over the world ... the idea is that the democracy can get the best possible eventual outcome on average and most of the time - well at least the most popular best supported laws. I suppose I am saying - as the RA grows we have to look closely at the size and group dynamics and make sure our rules allow for a productive meeting. As far as civility, I would like to see all factions pledge to be civil, but as democracy is messy and ANY democratic RA is fraught with power-plays those outside of the plays are likely to get frustrated as well so it, even then, won't be perfect.

I am not saying that rancor is desirable, but I do think democracy is a messy thing and its purpose is not civility (I think the least powerful legislatures are usually the most civil). And even with the best rules of order, will only make meetings more effective. And only if the voters insist on voting in factions who will behave (i.e. no name calling, no resignations when things get tough, etc.) will we get the above behavior. So far the voters have not voted in "civility" and given they voted in a platform of aggressive expansion (18 sims in 2 years or something like that) we may be experiencing growing pains as we deal with larger citizen sizes, and growing RA size.

I have been thinking about this ... and I see a lot of passion and a desire to make CDS better. But also we are getting the dark underbelly of democracy - the messiness and uncivility of it.

[Sonja Strom]

The Swiss parliament is also no exception to rancor. Here is an article that describes relatively current developments in Switzerland for those who don't already know about them, in German:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0 ... 02,00.html
Here is one in English about the same topic, which is not as direct as the other but gives you an idea:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Suspe ... 0000&ty=st

Probably the RA would be more enjoyable if it were more positive and the members more supportive of each other. At the same time, it can not realistically be expected that there will never be disagreements. In the past I have not agreed with all of the decisions made in the RA. This is one of the main reasons why I made the decision to run for office - which I assure you is not the easiest route to take - because I felt that my own views and those of others who agreed with me were not well-represented in the Representative Assembly.