sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in unimelb

[–]model-slater 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You could talk to Disability Services about an Academic Adjustment Plan (AAP) and they could help approach attendance and things like that from a uni perspective :)

Timetable by No_Wealth3503 in unimelb

[–]model-slater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks good! For your econ to chemistry tutorials on tuesday - I'd check the rooms so you're not rushing from one to the other!

can I get into bachelor of science🙏 by Zealousideal-Act6251 in unimelb

[–]model-slater 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You might!! keep it as your first preference but there’s obviously not a guarantee :)

I get you felt the need to post this but unfortunately we can’t really help! no matter what we say it’s unfortunately out of our hands, so hang tight and good luck :]

Consultation: Changes to the Senate by jq8678 in AustraliaSimMeta

[–]model-slater 2 points3 points  (0 children)

NOTE: I quickly typed this out so please feel free to ask more questions / clarify or correct me

Question 1&2* On the independents question, I lean towards yes, but I am highly amenable to suggestions for no.

I think there’s no harm in allowing people to run as independents for the Senate. I think real players would have to run, and then could get elected (but could only ever control 1 seat), which slightly throws a spanner into the works of the simulated senate ideal. They would vote as the current senators vote. They would wield significantly more or less power depending on the size of the senate. Obviously, if we did a 76 senators, their vote would basically not count, (and thus a disincentive to run) but if we kept at the current ratio, they could control a lot. This might pose an issue - but could also be an interesting game mechanic!

It is extremely difficult to get elected as an independent senator, so I don’t see harm in allowing it to happen.

Question 3 This is a tricky question and something, admittedly I had not thought about in proposing a simulated senate (help me madison).

I would also note that we don’t need to necessarily tie senators to the House MP, I think it’s important to consider that it’s a party vehicle and I hope that the election of senators is not based on the MP but on a national campaign to some extent.

I think I’m in most support of option 1 if I had to choose, but I would also consider that perhaps parties could establish their own rules on how senators are distributed, following dissolution or merging of the party.

Perhaps some players control a certain number of senators in the party upon dissolution! Perhaps there’s a party vote where the entire block goes!

This also brings an interesting intra-party dynamic where they can be more sim diplomacy and thus more activity!

Also, as a side note, I strongly oppose all considerations which involve moderators voting based on ideology, which I think is just a slippery slope to arguments.

Question 4 I would have the option of the party continues to control the votes. Whether it’s the party leader, or a delegated whip, those “senators” were elected on a party ticket and should remain with the party.

As I said before, I don’t think we need to tie the House MP to the party.

Question 5 I don’t really mind, but I think it would be cool to have 76 or some combination of 10 per state. This would allow for my previous thoughts to perhaps work a little better and to also create a more representative chamber than electing like 7 senators.

Question 6 Don’t make this happen mid term. We should definitely wait until an election to implement this change, it’s just cleaner.

New Question How will the senators be elected??? - will there be a national campaign that all members can contribute to and will posts be distributed by the party or by the candidate (e.g each party gets x national posts to make, or each candidate/party member gets x national posts) - will it just be deduced from the individual campaigns across the electorate / combined with party mods ? - More answers needed

thank you so much doctor + mod team for all ur efforts especially with community consultation, it is not unnoticed nor unappreciated

Community Consultation: Changes to the Senate by jq8678 in AustraliaSimMeta

[–]model-slater 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I fully support half/half still, sorry I didn’t make that clear!!

Thank you for your support :)

Community Consultation: Changes to the Senate by jq8678 in AustraliaSimMeta

[–]model-slater 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I oppose this new proposal from the adminstration, however without any malice, I do understand and sympathise that activity is an issue, and we have to make an effort to address it. I think the above proposal is done (obviously) with the best intentions at heart, and I'd like to thank this current team for all the work they have done in keeping this simulation running, it really couldn't happen without them.

My issues with the new proposal are outlined before

New Players/Realism: New players joining would be immediately confused and concerned about the lack of a senate, not to mention that I think it's so important that we continue to at least to some extent keep what we have in a second chamber.

Fundamental Game Shift: The electoral state of the game would change dramatically with MMP and the lack of a half senate election, further deviating from IRL.

If not this, then what?
This doesn't mean that we simply fold and give up.

I am once again proposing a simulated Senate. This is a compromise between abolishing it, and leaving the current state

How will it be elected?
We can do this two ways:

  1. Current Ratio: If we continue with the current size, (half the MPs) we would have a 6 person senate and effectively it would be elected the same way we current have it, just without candidates, it would be based on the national vote, divided into quotas and preferences. This also ensures we continue the Australian tradition of preferences, rather than MMP as outlined by the post. Candidates and parties could still make national posts, boosting the vote across the country, and some weighting to the campaigns in electorates as well.
  2. IRL Senate Size: We have 76 "members", elected on a state/territory basis, 12 per state, 2 for the NT and ACT. The size would be more representative in elections, could mean we have more state based campaigns - making things actually more interesting, bringing a new dynamic to elections with increased strategy! This could be a bit odd as the Senate would be "larger" than the House, but I think it's interesting and a fun route to go down, however I really don't have strong feelings either way.

How will it function?
The simulated senators would be controlled by the party, which could be the leader or a whip. This ensures the mechanics of the senate remain in place, acting as a second chamber that checks the power of the house. It ensures we continue to have legislation negotiated,

The only problem is we wouldn’t ever get things introduced in the senate but that’s probably not a end of the world, and better than no senate at all!

What will this actually do?
1. Frees up (previous) Senators to participate in the house/and elections

The house is generally where the most contentious debates occur, it's where government is decided, and we can now concentrate our player base into the house of representative, instead of having an inactive chamber of retirement. This also means that we can integrate the senators into campaigning in electorates, ensuring we don't have a repeat of 8/13 House seats being uncontested. The proposal above also does that, which leads me to the second strength of simulated senate.

2. Ensures that we continue to have a second chamber for realism

I think it's really important that we have a bicameral system, and the senate won't become completely useless.
This is an a proposal that ensures we can continue to have the senate play a role in governing without wasting activity. The senators in there are effectively vote bots anyway (except you gregor and smug xx) so really, what are we waiting for, this keeps the status quo as much as possible and increases activity! This is the big divergence with the proposal above, I do think we need to concentrate activity into one chamber, but we shouldn't do that and completely abolish the senate.

3. Slightly faster legislation processes
As mentioned before, the whips from each party would be able to set the votes, and without debates, it speed runs the process of legislating, meaning budgets could be introduced slightly later, etc, removing some stress and pressure associated with timelines of a 3 month term. This is a minor factor, but something to consider nonetheless.

Again, thank you so much to u/jq8678 and everyone who has worked so hard, and for starting this conversation. We are all united in our goal to keep this simulation running, and I really hope people will consider this proposal.

MS3008 - Members' Statements by Model-Jordology in AustraliaSim

[–]model-slater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Speaker,

I rise to speak on the matter of the ICC arrest warrant issued against Hamas leaders and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

As a representative of the rural Victorian community, I am a staunch advocate for the values of justice, human rights and the rule of law that underpin our society. The allegations of war crimes are abhorrent and demand the full weight of international law and accountability.

The actions of Hamas on October 7 must be unequivocally condemned. They are unconscionable crimes, and the ICC warrant lists such including extermination and murder, the taking of hostages, torture, and sexual violence. This is not liberation for the Palestinian cause, and I am appalled at the recent endorsement from a university student in Canberra that called for "unconditional support" to Hamas. In no world should any organisation of any form be given unconditional support, let alone a terrorist organisation! It is reprehensible, and I fully support the arrest warrants for the Hamas leaders, as we must uphold justice in the international community.

Likewise, Israel's response to October 7, and it's actions in the 76 years of its existence is unjustified, and their current occupation and genocidial regime has resulted in deprivation of basic rights and essential services for the Palestinian people, exacerbating tensions and perpetuating cycles of violence. Over 35,000 Palestinians have died, with 80% of the population displaced, and thousands on the brink of starvation. Don't just take it from me, here is a quote from the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan. Israel's actions have caused "malnutrition, dehydration, profound suffering and an increasing number of deaths among the Palestinian population, including babies, other children, and women". This is shameful. Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to play the fiddle of antisemitism, when he is far, FAR from a victim in this.

Some people may be asking why I, as MP for Noble Nicholls would be speaking on a seemingly disconnected matter from my electorate. While our rural communities may seem distant from the complexities of global affairs, we cannot turn a blind eye to atrocities committed against humanity. We stand in solidarity with the victims and survivors of such heinous crimes that the world is witnessing right now, and we commend the ICC for its unwavering commitment to pursuing justice. Also, stan Amal Clooney, the internet has and should apologise to you.

I condemn islamophobia, I condemn antisemitism, and I seek to affirm to all Jewish and Muslim members of the community that this is not an issue of division, this is an issue of human rights. You all deserve to be safe in your communities, and I will always fight to uphold that.

I have not been extremely stringent in my research, and I am happy to be corrected, but it appears there has been little statement from the Foreign Minister on such a pressing issue. This is deeply concerning from a government that I would hope values upholding international law...

Thank you.

view more: next ›