Which essentially means that his call for Yakushev's tech plan was completely unnecessary.
But let´s continue! Are nominations for the new NK post now opened?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Which essentially means that his call for Yakushev's tech plan was completely unnecessary.
But let´s continue! Are nominations for the new NK post now opened?
Comrade regarding the research allocation hold your horses for a second. I have some corrections to make in response to Comrade Rakobolskaja's comments.
Regarding the other issues. I vote yes for:
-Intelligence Allocation
-New position
(I assume that the New Laws vote is legitimate).
Regards,
A.Y.
Comrade Gey, you are already a full voting member of the Politburo. Do you wish to change ministries anyway? If so, then if you are elected to the new slot we would still need nominees to replace you.
((Wait, is the voting for the creation of the Commissariat, or the definition of it's duties?))
Comrade Yagoda,
Are you sure you haven't overreacted?
You basically called for voting on your own proposal, which is both your right and good behavior.
Then you called for voting on the NK issue, by creating a new proposal (which is exactly Comrade Pasternak's proposal - you even copied his spelling mistakes), and calling a vote on it - which is illegal, since you've to allow "a reasonable period of discussion" before calling voting - and allowing zero seconds to discuss is definitely not reasonable. On top I consider it a really bad behavior to basically ursurp the proposal after just ~18 hours ((in this specific case, that's basically the time between my last online time yesterday, and my first today - I went to bed shortly after midnight CET - the proposal was posted at 0:32 CET - went to work in the morning, got home at 15:30 CET and see that a decree I haven't even seen got already approved)).
Third, you quoted Comrade Yakushev's tech proposal and called voting on it, which is null and void, since Comrade Yakushev is the presenter.
--
Comrade Sokolov,
the question is NOT who is allowed to vote (that's really clear law - everyone with full member status, the ten who've been full from start, plus everyone elected by full members to full member, minus everyone demoted from there), but who's allowed to make a proposal.
It's law, that only the presenter of a proposal can call voting. It's also law, that you need to allow a "a reasonable period of discussion" between presenting a proposal and calling voting. However it's not law, who's able to make a proposal (need for supporters in some cases, can counterproposals in fixed areas be made, can candidates make proposals and so on) ((hell, even Avindian could make a proposal and call for voting, as defined by the rules)).
As for a possible second voting: I agree on the NKVD plan - nobody complained, it would've my approvement as well.
However, for the other proposal where voting went on - Comrade Pasternak's NK proposal - are complaints of a full member (myself) - the complaints are not that important - it's more important to promote the Comrade who fits best, then how to name his position ((it's only flavor)).
Born in L'viv in 1894, then part of the Austro-Hungarian kingdom of Galicia, Oleksandr Smilyvyўenko is the son of a Ukrainian father and a Polish mother. His father, Kyryl, had previously been a Rittmeister in the K.u.K. cavalry.
When he was seventeen, Smilyvyўenko enrolled in the army himself, serving with the 1st Galician Cavalry. He was a noted marksman, and possessed a precocious ability with firearms, especially while mounted. By the age of twenty, at the outbreak of World War I, Smilyvyўenko had reached the rank of Strážmistr (sergeant.) This was around the time his native L'viv was taken by the Soviet Red Army. Now exposed to the Soviets, Smilyvyўenko learnt about the Bolskeviks, and developed socialist sympathies. In May 1915, Smilyvyўenko defected to the Red Army, joining the cavalry as a Captain. He became a wanted man in Austro-Hungary, but was sheltered by the Bolsheviks, who recognised him for his military ability. Smilyvyўenko repayed the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution, when he helped the insurgence in Kyiv. For his efforts, he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner.
After the Revolutions, Smilyvyўenko enrolled in the Faculty of Law at the University of Moscow, graduating with a first-class degree in 1921. He then began a career as a military prosecutor, acting on behalf of regiments in Ukraine. His efforts were recognised by the Kremlin and, in 1929, he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labour. In 1936, Smilyvyўenko transferred to working directly for the Communist Party, having been a member since 1915. He was appointed Prosecutor General by F. V. Sokolov, the People's Commissar for Justice, now working on behalf of the entire state.
Comrade Yagoda,
Even then we've to vote on his move.
((Basically a admin issue. You guys started voting before jeeshadow called to do so.))
As explained in post #845, the problem with the NK proposal is, that a complaint was raised. Yes, we got a majority for that proposal. However, history shows, that a lot more people like something bad, if they don't know the better things - or why the hell, the revolution occured in 1917 - and not already in the early Roman Empire (did the people back then like being suppressed?).
Comrade Pasternak cannot call for a vote even on his own proposal. As stated by comrade Stalin, any proposal made by a junior member must be supported by a senior member. I am that senior member adopting/supporting his proposal. If you have an issue with the proposal, feel free to chime in comrade. Do you not like the name? I think that was the only complaint I saw and it was resolved.
NK Yagoda
NK Yagoda
((Oh, my bad. That's what I meant as well.
shierholzer, let's just drop the issue for now, whilst we will be more strict in future cases.
Really DensleyBlair - Smilyvyўenko?
I can't spell that!
))
General Secretary and Comrades of the Political Bureau,
I have concerns over several proposals and decisions that have been made recently by the Bureau and I would be remiss in my duty as a member of this body if I did not express them openly.
Regarding the introduction of a new Commissariat for Ideological Purity, I feel that while it has great potential to advance the Revolution it also has long-term potential to do harm. We already had all the necessary mechanisms in place:
- The Commissariat for Enlightenment (Education) has the tools to ensure that Correct Socialist Thought is taught throughout the Union.
- The Commissariat for Defense presumably has the tools to ensure that Correct Socialist Thought is maintained through the armed forces.
- The Commissariat for Communication has the tools to produce documentation that effectively spreads Correct Socialist Thought.
- The Commissariat for Foreign Affairs has the expertise to know where Correct Socialist Thought is best spread to for the maximum benefit of Socialism.
I fear that by establishing a new body we are creating a new bureaucracy that will initially cause immense disruption to those Commissariats affected by the shift in responsibilities. Additionally, we are giving one Commissar control over practicallyy all processes involved in Correct Socialist Thought. Let us hope that a Trotsky or other similar Counter-Revolutionary ever ends up in control of that position. By shaping Correct Socialist Thought, spreading it, and reporting back on it to the Bureau, we could be putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Let us hope that the fox we appoint is a right-thinking person.
Regarding the proposed Intelligence budget, I worry that we are not doing enough to protect the Motherland. Such a low level of counter-intelligence will leave us open to anyone and everyone who fears the Revolution, be they Tsarists or Anarchists, Fascists or Capitalists. We should have at least some proactive counter-intelligence running at all times.
Regarding recent events in this body, I believe that our haste to make decisions has caused these recent procedural snarls. I believe proposals must be given time for due consideration before being voted. While speed can be desirable, I fear that potentially important views and opinions are being sidelined in the rush to reach agreement and get on with the process of governing and administration. These are matters with effects on the Union, the world, and the Revolution. We should not make decisions lightly or without full discussion of a proposals merits and weaknesses.
Perhaps we should also investigate administrative punishments for those who, through negligence or Counter-Revolutionary tendencies, subvert the order of the Political Bureau and break its standing rules*. While good graces should be enough to ensure adherence to the rules, I have often found that the threat of repercussions guarantees close and steady adherence.
Pavel Pavlovich Teterev
Deputy Chief NKVD, Chief of the GUGB, candidate member of the Political Bureau.
* - "4. After a reasonable period of discussion ((probably 48 hours)), voting will be opened when the presenter calls for it." ((link))
((I had a perfect storm of a day where I was busy with family, a night where I was busy with friends, and a late night where I was busy getting MEIOU stuff done and I almost missed everything that happened today including the multiple votes. The only reason I didn't was because I figured I'd double check on the thread before packing up. No offence intended but I think we're moving too fast with this. For example, the first Intelligence proposal was made about 30 hours ago [as of posting time]. That is not a reasonable 48 hours of discussion IMO, especially since it was altered considerably after the first round of feedback and testing.
I apologise if I got a little rambly and/or ranty in this but it's a few hours until sunrise here, I'm dead tired, and I figured I needed to get this done and posted tonight in case the thread sped off again, although shierholzer is doing a good job of arguing for the brakes to be applied too. And now I am going to sleep so I'll respond when I'm next awake.))
I have concerns over several proposals and decisions that have been made recently by the Bureau and I would be remiss in my duty as a member of this body if I did not express them openly.
Regarding the introduction of a new Commissariat for Ideological Purity, I feel that while it has great potential to advance the Revolution it also has long-term potential to do harm. We already had all the necessary mechanisms in place:
- The Commissariat for Enlightenment (Education) has the tools to ensure that Correct Socialist Thought is taught throughout the Union.
- The Commissariat for Defense presumably has the tools to ensure that Correct Socialist Thought is maintained through the armed forces.
- The Commissariat for Communication has the tools to produce documentation that effectively spreads Correct Socialist Thought.
- The Commissariat for Foreign Affairs has the expertise to know where Correct Socialist Thought is best spread to for the maximum benefit of Socialism.
I fear that by establishing a new body we are creating a new bureaucracy that will initially cause immense disruption to those Commissariats affected by the shift in responsibilities. Additionally, we are giving one Commissar control over practicallyy all processes involved in Correct Socialist Thought. Let us hope that a Trotsky or other similar Counter-Revolutionary ever ends up in control of that position. By shaping Correct Socialist Thought, spreading it, and reporting back on it to the Bureau, we could be putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Let us hope that the fox we appoint is a right-thinking person.
Regarding the proposed Intelligence budget, I worry that we are not doing enough to protect the Motherland. Such a low level of counter-intelligence will leave us open to anyone and everyone who fears the Revolution, be they Tsarists or Anarchists, Fascists or Capitalists. We should have at least some proactive counter-intelligence running at all times.
Regarding recent events in this body, I believe that our haste to make decisions has caused these recent procedural snarls. I believe proposals must be given time for due consideration before being voted. While speed can be desirable, I fear that potentially important views and opinions are being sidelined in the rush to reach agreement and get on with the process of governing and administration. These are matters with effects on the Union, the world, and the Revolution. We should not make decisions lightly or without full discussion of a proposals merits and weaknesses.
Perhaps we should also investigate administrative punishments for those who, through negligence or Counter-Revolutionary tendencies, subvert the order of the Political Bureau and break its standing rules*. While good graces should be enough to ensure adherence to the rules, I have often found that the threat of repercussions guarantees close and steady adherence.
Pavel Pavlovich Teterev
Deputy Chief NKVD, Chief of the GUGB, candidate member of the Political Bureau.
* - "4. After a reasonable period of discussion ((probably 48 hours)), voting will be opened when the presenter calls for it." ((link))
((I had a perfect storm of a day where I was busy with family, a night where I was busy with friends, and a late night where I was busy getting MEIOU stuff done and I almost missed everything that happened today including the multiple votes. The only reason I didn't was because I figured I'd double check on the thread before packing up. No offence intended but I think we're moving too fast with this. For example, the first Intelligence proposal was made about 30 hours ago [as of posting time]. That is not a reasonable 48 hours of discussion IMO, especially since it was altered considerably after the first round of feedback and testing.
I apologise if I got a little rambly and/or ranty in this but it's a few hours until sunrise here, I'm dead tired, and I figured I needed to get this done and posted tonight in case the thread sped off again, although shierholzer is doing a good job of arguing for the brakes to be applied too. And now I am going to sleep so I'll respond when I'm next awake.))
((Admin mode))
I clarified proposals and voting, but shierholzer might have missed it; could everybody check the OP and make sure everything is clear there? We don't need to vote on it, I just want to make sure everything is easy to understand.
I'm of two minds on the 48 hour period. I did not specify 48 hours as ironclad, but merely as a suggestion. Now, the benefit of officially mandating the 48 hour rule -- making it law instead of suggestion -- is that people have a chance to examine it and make criticisms. The downside of mandating it is that the most important advantage of the proposer is the timing of when to call for the vote. I could see somebody sneaky getting a quorum of users, proposing something, and then calling for a vote right away, like the actual Bolsheviks did.
Because this issue is something for all players to be concerned with, I ask that we suspend all further discussions until it is settled, and that all Politburo members, candidate and full, vote on it. So, in other words, your vote is either:
48 hour discussion period is mandatory for all proposals.
or
48 hour discussion period is optional at the proposer's discretion. -- In this specific instance, whether or not the discussion period is to be used must be part of the actual draft.
This will pass when we get 11 votes (total number of members is now 21, so 11 is a majority) in either direction. The two non-passed questions -- NKVD and new laws -- shall be held in abeyance until this major procedural matter is complete. I will go ahead and add the law creating the new People's Commissariat to the Table of Contents.
I clarified proposals and voting, but shierholzer might have missed it; could everybody check the OP and make sure everything is clear there? We don't need to vote on it, I just want to make sure everything is easy to understand.
I'm of two minds on the 48 hour period. I did not specify 48 hours as ironclad, but merely as a suggestion. Now, the benefit of officially mandating the 48 hour rule -- making it law instead of suggestion -- is that people have a chance to examine it and make criticisms. The downside of mandating it is that the most important advantage of the proposer is the timing of when to call for the vote. I could see somebody sneaky getting a quorum of users, proposing something, and then calling for a vote right away, like the actual Bolsheviks did.
Because this issue is something for all players to be concerned with, I ask that we suspend all further discussions until it is settled, and that all Politburo members, candidate and full, vote on it. So, in other words, your vote is either:
48 hour discussion period is mandatory for all proposals.
or
48 hour discussion period is optional at the proposer's discretion. -- In this specific instance, whether or not the discussion period is to be used must be part of the actual draft.
This will pass when we get 11 votes (total number of members is now 21, so 11 is a majority) in either direction. The two non-passed questions -- NKVD and new laws -- shall be held in abeyance until this major procedural matter is complete. I will go ahead and add the law creating the new People's Commissariat to the Table of Contents.
Last edited:
((continuing Admin mode))
Since that's mostly a issue of time zones, I'd propose a slightly altered variant:
For each possible player, the final proposal has to be online from at least six to eight pm local time, before voting could possibly begin (the exact times aren't set in stone).
That's mostly to first cut down the time we need for that, but secondly also giving each player the definite ability to view that proposal in their free time.
Eg: You're west coast based and post your proposal at exactly five pm west coast time, the earliest time voting can begin is 1 am on the next but one day (west coast time). Basically, this means, that we're allowing two hours to discuss for everybody around, while keeping minimum waiting times between 26 and 50 hours for everyone. However for the sake of flavor, I think raw discussion shouldn't alter that point.
--
If Avindian doesn't approve on the upper (possibly because the rule is too difficult?), I vote for 48h mandatory.
The problem with no minimum time set is, that some people (basically Aussies and Kiwis) will almost certainly get more and more excluded - simply because they're at work or in their bed at the time things develop - that's something even the real Bolsheviks didn't - stay up deep in the night, to get some law passed (well, maybe only because they hadn't the time zone advantage) - also, Avinidian that comparison is a bit wrong: the real Soviets were only able to pass some law in their regular politburo meetings - what they did was something similar - they passed these laws in meetings were most (or all) of their possible opponents weren't present. Most of the times some members weren't there - if it was for them having something better to do with their time (like drinking Vodka, making childs and so on).
--
If one hates that decree (assuming it has passed), he should be able to do his own proposal and call for voting immediately (since that's basically the vote on killing a proposal already existing, I don't think we need to discuss about it). If that proposal get's the majority of votes (the one who presented the original one is presumed voting Nay), the presenter of the original one is losing his seniority (since that's a really clear lack of confidence), as well as the presenter is losing his upon the defeat (without needing the normal two-thirds rule, since that's basically a voting on the loss of seniority). I think that should be also possible for fixed NK proposals - some sort of a lighter variant of voting someone out of office (Currently the only two possibilities for you to get a specific unit - like transport ships - built is either to convince me to do so, or to vote me first out of Defense and then some naval guy in. Which is a bit much for just some transport ships, isn't it?
Since that's mostly a issue of time zones, I'd propose a slightly altered variant:
For each possible player, the final proposal has to be online from at least six to eight pm local time, before voting could possibly begin (the exact times aren't set in stone).
That's mostly to first cut down the time we need for that, but secondly also giving each player the definite ability to view that proposal in their free time.
Eg: You're west coast based and post your proposal at exactly five pm west coast time, the earliest time voting can begin is 1 am on the next but one day (west coast time). Basically, this means, that we're allowing two hours to discuss for everybody around, while keeping minimum waiting times between 26 and 50 hours for everyone. However for the sake of flavor, I think raw discussion shouldn't alter that point.
--
If Avindian doesn't approve on the upper (possibly because the rule is too difficult?), I vote for 48h mandatory.
The problem with no minimum time set is, that some people (basically Aussies and Kiwis) will almost certainly get more and more excluded - simply because they're at work or in their bed at the time things develop - that's something even the real Bolsheviks didn't - stay up deep in the night, to get some law passed (well, maybe only because they hadn't the time zone advantage) - also, Avinidian that comparison is a bit wrong: the real Soviets were only able to pass some law in their regular politburo meetings - what they did was something similar - they passed these laws in meetings were most (or all) of their possible opponents weren't present. Most of the times some members weren't there - if it was for them having something better to do with their time (like drinking Vodka, making childs and so on).
--
If one hates that decree (assuming it has passed), he should be able to do his own proposal and call for voting immediately (since that's basically the vote on killing a proposal already existing, I don't think we need to discuss about it). If that proposal get's the majority of votes (the one who presented the original one is presumed voting Nay), the presenter of the original one is losing his seniority (since that's a really clear lack of confidence), as well as the presenter is losing his upon the defeat (without needing the normal two-thirds rule, since that's basically a voting on the loss of seniority). I think that should be also possible for fixed NK proposals - some sort of a lighter variant of voting someone out of office (Currently the only two possibilities for you to get a specific unit - like transport ships - built is either to convince me to do so, or to vote me first out of Defense and then some naval guy in. Which is a bit much for just some transport ships, isn't it?
((Admin))
I vote nay on 48 hours mandatory because I think it would slow the game down too much. How about 24 hours mandatory(for all new proposals from this point forward) with the option to continue if debate requires it.
I vote nay on 48 hours mandatory because I think it would slow the game down too much. How about 24 hours mandatory(for all new proposals from this point forward) with the option to continue if debate requires it.
((continuing Admin mode))
I think that your rule is a bit complicated to implement shierholzer, but I see your point and it would make sense to create such a rule. However I would say the 48h rule would be better as it is easily defined, so I would vote for 48h mandatory. Since I am CET I have also had those moments, where everything was quiet, and suddenly the thread was 3 pages longer.
As for the last paragraph, I don't understand exactly what you meant in the first sentences, but the fixed NK proposals would be good to implement. F.ex. if someone badly wants those transports to quickly invade Finland and Turkey, they should be able to make a proposal to overrule you with (let's say) 2/3 majority in the Politburo. I would definitely see this rule applied.
I think that your rule is a bit complicated to implement shierholzer, but I see your point and it would make sense to create such a rule. However I would say the 48h rule would be better as it is easily defined, so I would vote for 48h mandatory. Since I am CET I have also had those moments, where everything was quiet, and suddenly the thread was 3 pages longer.
As for the last paragraph, I don't understand exactly what you meant in the first sentences, but the fixed NK proposals would be good to implement. F.ex. if someone badly wants those transports to quickly invade Finland and Turkey, they should be able to make a proposal to overrule you with (let's say) 2/3 majority in the Politburo. I would definitely see this rule applied.
I meant something similar, but different:
If someone wants that TP badly, he should be able to create his own Defense proposal (only after my proposal has been approved). That proposal would be tied to a loss of seniority by simple majority - if his proposal gets elected I loose my seniority, while he looses his if it's defeated.
Let us go with the Optional plan. Of course, if a fellow Politburo member requests such a period, the proposer is free to accept or deny the discussion time still.
- Comrade M.V. Kamensky
- Comrade M.V. Kamensky
I vote on the optional rule. On the provision that if someone wants to submit a counter proposal with 48 hrs the vote has to restart. If the counter proposal loses with 2:1 then one who proposed it loses seniority.
Democratic centralism relies on the exchange of opinions, but if there are no opinions to be exchanged what is the point of waiting? Perfect example of this contradiction are the two proposals submitted by the Commissariat of Enlightenment. The leadership allocation was simple and I had already tested it multiple times, there was no need for debate. The research allocation is more complicated so I called a 48 hour discussion.
Waiting 48 hrs to proceed with simple matters is unacceptable. We threw away the Czarists, not by speeches in closed rooms for technicalities, but by raising our fists. Sitting idle discussing about the process of voting for policies, specially if we do not disagree to the policy itself, but only to the process on which it was initiated happens only in the so-called democracies of the west. We will not be affected by their decadent parliamentarism.
We have work to do comrades, work that is de-railed by this bureaucratic nonsense. Comrade Rakobolskaja I was planning a detailed response to your comments regarding the research allocation, but now we have to discuss 2 days about how to vote for policies that were already voted. Perhaps after two days we start discussing around other policies. I estimate that in your attempt to look important we will have to discuss 14 days for 7 policies and the 7 days to vote. So we will be able to proceed after 22 days. Well congratulations on your great input.
Regards,
A.Y.
Democratic centralism relies on the exchange of opinions, but if there are no opinions to be exchanged what is the point of waiting? Perfect example of this contradiction are the two proposals submitted by the Commissariat of Enlightenment. The leadership allocation was simple and I had already tested it multiple times, there was no need for debate. The research allocation is more complicated so I called a 48 hour discussion.
Waiting 48 hrs to proceed with simple matters is unacceptable. We threw away the Czarists, not by speeches in closed rooms for technicalities, but by raising our fists. Sitting idle discussing about the process of voting for policies, specially if we do not disagree to the policy itself, but only to the process on which it was initiated happens only in the so-called democracies of the west. We will not be affected by their decadent parliamentarism.
We have work to do comrades, work that is de-railed by this bureaucratic nonsense. Comrade Rakobolskaja I was planning a detailed response to your comments regarding the research allocation, but now we have to discuss 2 days about how to vote for policies that were already voted. Perhaps after two days we start discussing around other policies. I estimate that in your attempt to look important we will have to discuss 14 days for 7 policies and the 7 days to vote. So we will be able to proceed after 22 days. Well congratulations on your great input.
Regards,
A.Y.
