Changing the size of the RA

[Jamie Palisades]

Thanks, Pat; no need for a re-hash. All apparently are satisfied that the Constitution provides that the number of seats in the RA is set for each term at the beginning of that term -- and so is 7 through this term. While a Consititional amendment could change that immediately, theoretically, we did ask, and no-one has indicated a desire to raise such an amendment, so it can be regarded as a closed matter. And the SC will proceed to run an election to fill the two seats. Regards Jamie

[Jamie Palisades]

Let's keep talking about optimum RA size for the future, though.

If Patroklus is right that 5 is an optimal number -- and more than that would become unruly -- then the current Constitution will give us a really big, really unruly RA as we grow.

By the way, I'm not sure 7 is unruly, necessarily -- let's see how my short term as interim LRA works out :)

Still. Imagine one RA for each of Caledon's sims (shudder). And they would probably insist on titled forms of address, order of precedence ... I would like to live my life quietly without having to consult Burke's Peerage ... or ever having to say "would the Honorable the Duke of Koala yield?" ...

Please also note also Beathan's earlier thread on this issue: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1668

regards JP

[Jon Seattle]

As someone who knows a great deal of what went on both at and outside of RA meetings and behind the scenes, it is very very clear that the CSDF delegation to the RA was severely and repeatedly harassed with the intention of forcing them to resign. This has been extended to IMs received by a number of CSDF members, attacks on myself in meetings, and now fresh attempts against Moon as New Guild secretary, and Arria as PIO in this forum.

1. I have been at every single CSDF meeting, and at no time as anyone suggested breaking up the CSDF into smaller factions in order to manipulate an election. To the contrary, we have had long discussions about why it is important for us to stay together.

2. We assumed, when the CSDF voted to resign from the RA, that the by-election would be called immediately and other issues would be quickly addressed by the SC. When Gwyn was dean of the SC, such issues would result in a meeting called within a day or so. Unfortunately Claude was unavailable for a while. Our clear preference would have been to get the process underway as soon as possible.

3. The CDS cannot expect RA members to stay in office when faced with harassment, including private IMs, obscenities, insults in and out of meetings, ganging up on individual citizens, etc. This was an attempt to deprive CSDF members of their right to representation that succeeded. It is clear from the continuation of this campaign, that any CSDF member at all who volunteers for an RA seat will be met with similar personal attacks and defamation.

As long as this continues, it has the intended consequence of making it very difficult for the CSDF to participate in CDS politics, and indeed to function as an organization. However, we intend to hang in there with the hope that representative democracy can be restored some day soon.

I am deeply offended by Beathan's assertion that I voluntarily gave up my civil rights. I did not. By tolerating and supporting the political use of such methods, members of the RA say very clearly, that they do not consider democracy and an individual's civil rights to be very important. By not standing up to such tactics, they send a clear signal that, in the future, the CDS will prefer to make its important decisions though political gaming and whisper campaigns, rather than solid planning and public consent.

[Beathan]

Jon --

I don't understand your post or where you are getting your "facts."

First, it is patently untrue that there was some plot to "get the CSDF to give up its seats." Everyone outside the CSDF was shocked when the CSDF did so. Your novel claim that the CSDF was the target of a secret plot to strip it of its representation is paranoid political revisionism and blame-shifting at a Clintonesque level.

The CSDF voluntarily chose to give up its seats. I was advised by the CSDF leadership on the RA that the CSDF did so openly, but popular will, and after a vote. This decision was made without reservations -- such as "we will give up our seats as soon as a by-election is scheduled." In fact, it was clear to me that the CSDF did not want and did not seek a by-election -- but rather wanted (as Pat points out) to engage in in Sinn Fein like protest with the goal of making governance in the CDS more difficult. It was a completely petulant, "I'm going to take my marbles and go home" move.

Now the CSDF is seeing the unforeseen consequences of its ill-advised decision. The RA has responded appropriately here -- setting up by-elections. I believe we could and should have moved more quickly -- but we were caught flat-footed by the CSDF's move.

The critical things are twofold: 1. we need to get on with the public business (including by-elections) and 2. we need to recognize that the blame for the confusion and wasted time that has resulted from this mess rests with the CSDF. That is not to say that the last two sessions of the RA have not been unduly rancorous and (until recently) poorly run. That is undeniable. We need to get passed that, too -- and now that we have a LRA willing to move us passed that, we are.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan

I will put together all the insults and personal attacks that I received as LRA in RA meetings and via IM and post them here on the forums. That way, everyone can see the level of abuse that was aimed at me. I don't know if, as Jon asserts, that the intention was to force me to resign. Actually, I think that you and your friends in NuCARE thought that I would stay on, do all the tasks that I had performed as LRA for over six months, make sure the new sim was planned and delivered and basically get the job done and put up with week after week of personal attacks and bullying abuse. You were disappointed when I and Leon resigned because we had had enough. Now it's turned into an attack on the CSDF for 'disruption' when it was you and NuCARE who were disrupting RA meetings all along!

Our intention was never to make 'governance in the CDS more difficult'. Read what I said about our reasons for resigning. It was *never* about disruption. I know that's the lie being spread around town but, like all the rumours being spread about the CSDF right now, it's untrue.

[Beathan]

Pat --

I cannot speak for NuCARE, and I again reiterate that it is not accurate to refer to NuCARE as "Beathan's NuCARE allies." The fact is, I don't have allies -- I have principles -- and my principles cause me to put together "pick up" coalitions based on who my allies of the moment in my fight of the moment are.

I also need to state that I have never said that there is anything wrong with the rank-and-file of the CSDF or with the CSDF platform. The CSDF platform is a good one -- as seen by the fact that it garnered the support of a strong plurality (perhaps of a majority) of our community. My criticism of the CSDF is based on its apparent willingness to abandon its platform and its supporters in the face of political (albeit sometimes vitriolic) opposition.

Also, I want to again state that my goal was not even to remove you as LRA. It was to inform you of the problems of your leadership style as LRA. I tried to do this gently last term -- to no effect whatsoever. I stepped up my rhetoric to try to get the point through. However, not only was my goal never to remove you -- I was prepared to offer alternatives to any proposal seeking to remove you. (My "no confidence" proposal was intended to be in lieu of harsher measures.) That said, it is no accident that the RA began to break down when Claude ceased to be LRA -- and that it has improved now that Jamie is LRA.

That said, our collective experience in the last four terms screams for reform of how the LRA is selected. Claude was rightly criticized for running the RA in a partisan manner -- sometimes railroading legislation through, despite CSDF opposition, because the DPU held a solid majority. When you took over as LRA, you had a more fractured RA, but it was still run in a partisan manner -- with proposals favored by the CSDF given more of a hearing and preference on the agenda. This alienated much of the opposition (especially CARE and NuCARE) -- and their complaints are legitimate.

My personal goals on the RA are to acknowledge and resolve legitimate complaints, wherever they come from. This has caused me to work with NuCARE on these issues -- just as it caused me to side with and defend Jon Seattle on the election issues.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan

You repeat the allegation that I acted as LRA in a partisan manner, promoting CSDF legislation over that from other factions. I'd like you to back that up with some evidence because it's a charge I utterly reject.

[Beathan]

Pat --

To pick an example which actually benefited me and my party --

Last term, the SP, CSDF and CARE all proposed legislation on election reform and other matters. In each case, the CSDF legislation (or legislation co-proposed by the CSDF and SP) was placed first on the agenda. Debate on these matters often ran long, such that the time available for the RA session expired before the CARE proposals were reached. In other case, the CARE proposals were summarily dismissed without discussion because the RA had already passed SDF proposals on the same subject.

In fact, until I drafted my agendas for the two sessions in which I was acting LRA, there has not been, to my knowledge, an agenda in the last four sessions of the RA in which the legislation favored by the faction holding the office of LRA was not preferred over other legislation. I know that Claude has argued that this ability to control the flow and presentation of legislation is one of the few benefits that recognizes the faction has had the strongest legislative support in the last election -- and that it is an important and real benefit that should not be denied to the paramount faction. That may be -- although I disagree with Claude's policy argument. However, we cannot reach this important policy discussion in the face of your flat denial that such partisan preference was a key historical benefit of the office of the LRA.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

In all of the meetings where electoral reform was discussed the CSDF and CARE proposals were presented together. You're going to have to do a *lot* better than that to make your allegation stick. Next!

[Jon Seattle]

I don't understand your post or where you are getting your "facts."

Lets see abusive language directed at Pat and other CSDF members including "arse" and “F* Y*” etc. People from CSDF receiving insulting and abusive IMs. Attempts to limit speech from a citizen who introduced a bill in the RA. Assertions from RA members that the New Guild is limited to Moon’s “cronies”. Accusations that Moon is purposely delaying the new sim (which she would never do)? A long string of abuse today leveled at Arria posted in this forum. All well documented. Which one are you denying now?

Its true that I cannot tell about your and other’s intentions, but it is also obvious that you coordinated closely with the people who are carrying out this campaign. You gave a nice example just this Sunday when you posted your accusation that Moon was purposely delaying the new sim (something she would never do) just as the meeting was ending. A meeting, by the way, that you did not attend. ThePrincess said at the New Guild meeting:

[11:58] ThePrincess Parisi: can you tell the RA exactly what you need point by point
[11:58] ThePrincess Parisi: moon has stalled the sim last week”

(http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1704) Eighteen minutes later you posted:

The Guild is stalling and being willfully obstinate in its handling of the fourth sim expansion proposal.

This thread illustrates how far you will go to invent stories to attack the CSDF. According to you:

If the CSDF breaks up into a coalition of pseudo-parties to unfairly increase its electoral share, then we will know that it is interested in electoral manipulation. If it does not, then these whispered concerns can be dismissed as unfounded paranoia.

This really could be a sticky wicket the CSDF has created for us -- and if they are, in fact, planning to manipulate the by-elections by running a coalition of fragmented pseudo-factions, it will be stickier yet.

Serious accusations, and completely untrue. You are trying very very hard to establish an unfounded rumor. Based on what evidence? Apparently you don’t need any. No, it seems to me that you were fishing for something else to use to discredit the CDSF, and lacking anything at hand, you made something up. Where do you get your facts? Apparently you are very happy just to go spread rumors and whispers. By doing so you are saying that you want a CDS where politics is based on nasty rumors. Welcome to Beathan's bright new CDS.

[Beathan]

Jon --

With regard to my posts about the allegations that the CSDF will facture into pseudo-factions to manipulate the election, I have been very clear that I don't know that this is true. (In fact, give your and Pat's response to the claim, I am inclined to think that the fear is unfounded paranoia.) I have always said that, if true, it would be unethical -- but that I don't know that it is true.

With regard to my post about the fourth sim, I was not responding to anything TP said in the RA. Rather, I was responding to the fact that we sent the Guild a proposal; two weeks later, Moon appeared in the RA and asked us questions which had already been clearly and completely answered in our proposal; a week after that I learned that the Guild spent its entire session discussing branding and logos and had not advanced the goal of building the sim at all. I did not accuse Moon of anything -- I accused the Guild of stalling. That was an impersonal accusation of an institution. Perhaps I was wrong -- and the Guild is not stalling -- but it is undeniable that the Guild is slow, unacceptably slow under the circumstances.

I am trying to fix the situation by supplementing, rather than destroying, the Guild (which is a wonderful and worthy institution).

With regard to your other accusations -- no citizen was ever denied the opportunity to speak on pending matters of debate in the RA. Pat was prevented from speaking on points that had already been voted on and decided by the RA. That is, Pat, who was private citizen, was prevented from distrupting the RA proceeding by filibustering it from the peanut gallery. What is wrong with that?

I also acknowledge that intemperate and improper things have been said in the RA and in the forums. (I have no knowledge of the content or character of private IMs, but I do not doubt your description of them.) Just today, a flame war has erupted, based on intemperate and (I am persuaded) inaccurate accusations against the PIO. These are real -- and they are problems -- but they are not part of any coordinated campaign (at least not a campaign I am part of) to alienate or exile anyone or to cause any person or faction to resign from power. Despite that, the CSDF, of its own free will and accord, for its own reasons (which I find suspicious and probably improper -- although various explained at different times by you and Pat), chose to withdraw from public life and power. That was your choice -- and I disagree with and lament it, plain and simple.

Beathan