This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Attorney General Role - Clearer Definition

Reply 20

toronto353

19

Original post by Cheese_Monster

I have to admit, Toronoto's arguments are swaying me towards no..

Thanks.

In reality, it's a mantra which we must adopt if we are to have a wider appeal - simplify, simplify, simplify. We're too stuffy and bureaucratic for our own good. :smile:

Reply 21

Cheese_Monster

14

Original post by Morgsie

What about what I want?

I have views too you know

With respect, you are irrelevant. You hold the position but that does not mean we should vote yes or no depending on how much power you want. And yes, you are entitled to express an opinion, I would never deprive you of that.

Reply 22

Kiss

2

I'm drunk, can someone just summarise this quickly please?

Reply 23

The Mad Dog

OP

3

Original post by toronto353

If there's so little legal stuff for the AG to do, then abolish the role. It isn't a leadership role at all - I hardly think that people view the AG as a leadership role at all, but I shall take your advice and draft a counter amendment to reduce the role to what I (and I am sure many others) think that it should be.

If you wish to abolish the role I'd probably not oppose you given my experience of the kind of person who occupies the role since taking office I'd be glad of being shot of the pain in my side however I'd also prefer there to still be some form of UNO to fall back on if the legal eagle is needed for these issues.

Here we're simply encouraging a return to the fragmentation of the MUN through the blocs - they didn't work last time and I personally think that the blocs are a road which we don't want to try again. The fact that we are discussing the blocs and reforming them without first having a vote on how we want to proceed on the blocs front is also a concern. Need I also remind you of a lot of the trouble which the blocs caused the last time around? We don't want that kind of trouble flaring up again. Blocs give people a sense of self-importance on here which is ill-befitting the community feel which we want to foster. Finally, it's all about simplification. Blocs don't simplify this place they simply are another layer of bureaucracy.

The EU rep and Arab Union rep exist mainly for the purpose of reform the EU and AU, without the aim to reform the blocs those reps are as close to pointless as you're going to get and we might as well abolish them, I'm pretty happy to do this again if you guys vote in favour of doing so. There's a difference between complication and adding another dimension for people to get involved with and enjoy, the blocs do have the potential to provide another dimension for community users without being devise.

Contrary to the fact that a) the MHoC rep/ Foreign Secretary should do this already; b) the MUN has little to no bearing on the MHoC making this clause pointless and c) there is little appetite for these kind of links in the MHoC and no clear appetite here for those links - in fact the fact that we have an MHoC and a UK rep seems to cause confusion.

When was the last time the MHoC rep actually bothered using this forum in that capacity, the MHoC has a habit of putting people who show no interest in developing relations with this community in the role or semi-inactive users in the role which ultimately means there is justification for giving the AG the opportunity to work alongside (not in place of) the MHoC foreign secretary. As for no clear appetite, there's been very little clear discussion surrounding this aspect.

Can't you and Rory do this? Why do you need someone else to help you with this? It's pointless.

We probably could but it's often useful to have another member to bounce this stuff off and to be able to clearly identify that member.

With regards to the mod issue, I also disagree because they wouldn't be responsible for much admin barring sending the odd update out and have you even asked the mods if they can cover when you're away?

The point I was trying to make is that responsibility isn't something I've just wheeled out it's something the AG has had for nye on three years with little complaint about that role. It depends on the activity level in the MUN what they'd be responsible for giving the place would pretty quickly stagnate if no resolutions, discussions etc were posted over a 7 day period, surely it's better to have someone who already uses the community to a big level such as the AG to do this than drag a mod in to the bread and butter stuff in the community.

To be honest this only fuels my concern further. To me it just feels like a way of people becoming a sort of SG-lite without needing to run for the SG position (a similar thing happened when the blocs were around with a certain atmosphere of self-importance around many of those with leadership roles). It seems very shady to me indeed and personally we need strong leadership with a community which backs the SG not a situation whereby there are seemingly many SGs hanging around and no one clear authoritative figure. Furthermore, we never elected you to take on extra duties only to the AG job as was back then. In my opinion, you should seek re-election if this came to pass because you would no longer have a mandate to do the new AG job.

Well yes in part this was driven by trying to make a certain user feel like more than a redundant spare wheel sat piggy-banking on a useless role and try to expand the management team trying to drive change through so that hopefully more stuff gets done. It's not shady at all though and it's certainly not about making anyone an SG-lite. And I am open to holding a new election to the role if this passes so that whoever does it has a mandate to do the job they'll be doing.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 24

toronto353

19

Original post by The Mad Dog

If you wish to abolish the role I'd probably not oppose you given my experience of the kind of person who occupies the role since taking office I'd be glad of being shot of the pain in my side however I'd also prefer there to still be some form of UNO to fall back on if the legal eagle is needed for these issues.

Then are you happy for us to collaborate on an amendment to move the AG to this definition with an emphasis on them writing position papers so as to ensure that the AG is a relevant and active role in the MUN?

The EU rep and Arab Union rep exist mainly for the purpose of reform the EU and AU, without the aim to reform the blocs those reps are as close to pointless as you're going to get and we might as well abolish them, I'm pretty happy to do this again if you guys vote in favour of doing so. There's a difference between complication and adding another dimension for people to get involved with and enjoy, the blocs do have the potential to provide another dimension for community users without being devise.

I agree, but the extra dimension element is only true once we have the numbers and activity to justify the blocs existing. We don't at the moment and therefore since effectively we're in recruitment mode all we're doing is creating a complication.

When was the last time the MHoC rep actually bothered using this forum in that capacity, the MHoC has a habit of putting people who show no interest in developing relations with this community in the role or semi-inactive users in the role which ultimately means there is justification for giving the AG the opportunity to work alongside (not in place of) the MHoC foreign secretary. As for no clear appetite, there's been very little clear discussion surrounding this aspect.

I feel that this is an issue for the MHoC to look at and to force further links on the MHoC would only serve to alienate the MHoC from the MUN even more. It's a softly softly approach if anything which is needed.

We probably could but it's often useful to have another member to bounce this stuff off and to be able to clearly identify that member.

Former SGs and DSGs might be worth consulting at times - don't be afraid to do so. :smile:

The point I was trying to make is that responsibility isn't something I've just wheeled out it's something the AG has had for nye on three years with little complaint about that role. It depends on the activity level in the MUN what they'd be responsible for giving the place would pretty quickly stagnate if no resolutions, discussions etc were posted over a 7 day period, surely it's better to have someone who already uses the community to a big level such as the AG to do this than drag a mod in to the bread and butter stuff in the community.

Short term using the mods is not a bad solution. Creating more leaders would have more of a negative impact in the long term on the MUN than having a mod stand in for a few days would have.

Well yes in part this was driven by trying to make a certain user feel like more than a redundant spare wheel sat piggy-banking on a useless role and try to expand the management team trying to drive change through so that hopefully more stuff gets done. It's not shady at all though and it's certainly not about making anyone an SG-lite.

Certainly commendable and I'm not saying that you're being shady - you're not, but it's about impressions and it would create the impression of the AG being an SG-lite.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 25

Morgsie

7

I am happy with how things stand at the moment it is working fine and I have stuck to the letter. I have an encyclopedic mind.

Reply 26

The Mad Dog

OP

3

Original post by toronto353

Then are you happy for us to collaborate on an amendment to move the AG to this definition with an emphasis on them writing position papers so as to ensure that the AG is a relevant and active role in the MUN?

Ideally I'd prefer to see how the changes outlined here are actually received by the community by seeing out this process rather than back out at this early stage, many members haven't contributed and a small minority have and I don't want the future of the AG's role to be decided that quickly. If this vote was to go against these changes, I'd luck at helping you with a resolution implementing some of the changes you're suggesting.

I agree, but the extra dimension element is only true once we have the numbers and activity to justify the blocs existing. We don't at the moment and therefore since effectively we're in recruitment mode all we're doing is creating a complication.

On the flip side of that coin the extra dimension could well bring in the extra numbers we're craving for.

I feel that this is an issue for the MHoC to look at and to force further links on the MHoC would only serve to alienate the MHoC from the MUN even more. It's a softly softly approach if anything which is needed.

I'm certainly not attempting to force further links on the MHoC but the sad truth of the matter is there is clear justification for potentially allowing the AG to work in that role alongside the MUN rep from the MHoC.

Former SGs and DSGs might be worth consulting at times - don't be afraid to do so. :smile:

Of course they're worth consulting and I've already done so since taking office but for certain issues active members of the community such as the AG are worth consulting as they offer a fresh insight which can be used to find a middle ground or at least weigh up the points they make.

Short term using the mods is not a bad solution. Creating more leaders would have more of a negative impact in the long term on the MUN than having a mod stand in for a few days would have.

I'm not actually creating more leaders though and the old AG role even asked for the AG to be used as stand-in when the SG and DSG were away and I personally think someone else in the community is better than relying on moderators. Whilst I'm sure you wouldn't be I'd like to say that try not to be base this on the current occupant of the role but on the role itself.

Reply 27

toronto353

19

Original post by The Mad Dog

Ideally I'd prefer to see how the changes outlined here are actually received by the community by seeing out this process rather than back out at this early stage, many members haven't contributed and a small minority have and I don't want the future of the AG's role to be decided that quickly. If this vote was to go against these changes, I'd luck at helping you with a resolution implementing some of the changes you're suggesting.

On the flip side of that coin the extra dimension could well bring in the extra numbers we're craving for.

I'm certainly not attempting to force further links on the MHoC but the sad truth of the matter is there is clear justification for potentially allowing the AG to work in that role alongside the MUN rep from the MHoC.

Of course they're worth consulting and I've already done so since taking office but for certain issues active members of the community such as the AG are worth consulting as they offer a fresh insight which can be used to find a middle ground or at least weigh up the points they make.

I'm not actually creating more leaders though and the old AG role even asked for the AG to be used as stand-in when the SG and DSG were away and I personally think someone else in the community is better than relying on moderators. Whilst I'm sure you wouldn't be I'd like to say that try not to be base this on the current occupant of the role but on the role itself.

I'll come back to this tomorrow, but first paragraph agreed and the last paragraph - I can assure you that I am dealing with this on the role itself. The current incumbent has no bearing on my opinions on this matter - you know that I believe that simplification is the best way forward for the MUN. :smile:

Reply 28

Cheese_Monster

14

Original post by Kiss

I'm drunk, can someone just summarise this quickly please?

Sure thing my drunken pal. The resolution wants to give the AG position more responsibilities/power so the role is not redundant like it is at present.

Reply 29

Cheese_Monster

14

Original post by Morgsie

I am happy with how things stand at the moment it is working fine and I have stuck to the letter. I have an encyclopedic mind.

Without resorting to conspiracy theories and name calling, can you tell me when you've commented or forwarded any sort of action as the Attorney General?

Reply 30

Morgsie

7

Original post by Cheese_Monster

Without resorting to conspiracy theories and name calling, can you tell me when you've commented or forwarded any sort of action as the Attorney General?

Yeah sure, I warned over a potential withdrawal from the EU. I informed the relevant people at that time and went public when certain restrictions were relaxed.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 31

The Mad Dog

OP

3

Original post by Morgsie

Yeah sure, I warned over a potential withdrawal from the EU. I informed the relevant people at that time and went public when certain restrictions were relaxed.

With the greatest respect you seem to be alluding to something that happened in the MHoC and are forgotten even if I'd like to build some links the two places are very separate entities.

Reply 32

toronto353

19

Original post by The Mad Dog

Ideally I'd prefer to see how the changes outlined here are actually received by the community by seeing out this process rather than back out at this early stage, many members haven't contributed and a small minority have and I don't want the future of the AG's role to be decided that quickly. If this vote was to go against these changes, I'd luck at helping you with a resolution implementing some of the changes you're suggesting.

Agreed.

On the flip side of that coin the extra dimension could well bring in the extra numbers we're craving for.

I disagree because you're then confusing what you're marketing. Are you advertising the MUN or the MUN with some international bodies as well? It all becomes very vague and actually confusing to an outsider and that puts them off. Sure bring the blocs back, but only when you've got the numbers who understand what the blocs are about and actually understand the MUN. You'll only put people off by making the MUN seem more confusing than it actually is.

I'm certainly not attempting to force further links on the MHoC but the sad truth of the matter is there is clear justification for potentially allowing the AG to work in that role alongside the MUN rep from the MHoC.

If you're not attempting to force links, then don't. Don't make the AG suddenly have a role in the MHoC's affairs because you then are forcing further links with the MHoC and in fact you're doing so without consulting the MHoC at all. If you want the MHoC to be involved, then it has to be on its terms and not in this forced way.

Of course they're worth consulting and I've already done so since taking office but for certain issues active members of the community such as the AG are worth consulting as they offer a fresh insight which can be used to find a middle ground or at least weigh up the points they make.

Consult senior members, but even then I don't see why you need to give extra powers to the AG in order to consult with them - it's madness!

I'm not actually creating more leaders though and the old AG role even asked for the AG to be used as stand-in when the SG and DSG were away and I personally think someone else in the community is better than relying on moderators. Whilst I'm sure you wouldn't be I'd like to say that try not to be base this on the current occupant of the role but on the role itself.

Technically you're right - you're not creating more leaders, but I don't see why we shouldn't look to the mods if needed and in theory it could work quite well - they're meant to moderate this forum so why not get them involved from time to time so that they can actually see what they're moderating.

I've already the last sentence, but to make clear, I'm discussing theory. I do have reservations about the current occupant of this role and these new powers, but let me assure you that I am dealing with theory and not with the current situation.

Reply 33

Qwertish

13

When was the last time there was an election for the AG position?

Reply 34

toronto353

19

Original post by Qwertish

When was the last time there was an election for the AG position?

August 2012 - the election's here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2077299

Reply 35

Qwertish

13

Original post by toronto353

August 2012 - the election's here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2077299

Ah, okay. Is there no term limit?

Reply 36

toronto353

19

Original post by Qwertish

Ah, okay. Is there no term limit?

Nope - and introducing one would probably be a sensible reform - after all we're touting that as a method for SC elections.

Reply 37

Birchington

20

With the greatest of respect to Morgsie, who has been a good Attorney General, I have felt this position is irrelevant for a while now. Once activity picks up, it could complement debating but doesn't really serve a purpose right now.