Jump to content

Cormac

Members
  • Posts

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Cormac

  1. PD, Westwind, and Eli, I'm very sorry for your losses. I lost a very close friend in 2013, and it still hurts every day, though less now than it did before. My mother is also severely disabled and 62 now, and I know we may not have many more years left together, though I hope for as many as I can get. You're so right about enjoying the time we have with our loved ones. Please know that you have a community here that cares about you, not just TWP but the NationStates community in general, and you're in our thoughts.
  2. I would be surprised, but I've known Don for five years, so I'm not surprised. This was a good statement, but I do hope the upstanding people who are involved in KoGB will reevaluate their participation. I don't hold any ill will toward them either, but after all of this it's pretty difficult to justify citizens of KoGB remaining in the regions that have been threatened by their King and Curia. It's a time for choosing.
  3. Nation in The West Pacific: Cormactopia III World Assembly (WA) Nation: Cormactopia Prime (this changes for military gameplay) Please list any other names or aliases you use in NationStates: Cormac Skollvaldr, other surnames in the past. Please list regions or organizations with which you are currently affiliated as a resident, citizen, or member: Asgard, Osiris, The Beech Beach House, The Brotherhood of Malice, random inactive UCRs to keep them alive. Please list regions or organizations with which you have in the past been affiliated as a resident, citizen, or member: Would you like to join (check all that you wish to join)... [ ] The West Pacific Armed Forces [X] Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ambassador Corp [ ] The West Pacifican Newspaper Staff [ ] Ministry of Recruitment and Citizenry Staff [ ] Ministry of Internal Affairs Staff Please swear the following oath of citizenship: I, Cormac (Cormactopia III), swear that I have, to the best of my knowledge, been completely truthful in applying for citizenship in The West Pacific and that I have no other NationStates identity that has not been made known in this application. I swear my allegiance to The West Pacific and its citizens, and I swear not to engage in hostilities against The West Pacific or to violate The Manners of Governance, the constitution of The West Pacific, or any laws made pursuant to that constitution.
  4. Oh, I didn't make the connection. I figured it was because I'm annoying because, well, I am.
  5. I'm just wondering in what universe I'm more annoying than Llamas...
  6. I've added the following as 3(5), because it occurred to me we had no provision for election administration if the office of Advocate is vacant, which it will immediately be if this constitution is ratified.
  7. Individual nations can't attack each other, except in roleplay. So unless you get involved in roleplay you can't be attacked. I'm not much of a roleplayer myself, but if you're interested in it I could at least point you in the right direction. Groups of nations can attack regions without founders by moving into the regions and taking their WA Delegate positions, which gives them control over the regions. Many regions, including this one, have regional militaries for the purpose of either attacking or defending founderless regions, or both depending on the circumstances. If you're interested in participating in that we can explain more about it!
  8. Which WA nations are coerced to endorse the sitting Delegate or will face consequences if they don't? Which WA nations are told who they may or may not endorse?
  9. The in-game population has the most powerful voice of all: It elects the Delegate. This forum would not even be linked on the regional WFE if not for the Delegate elected by the in-game population willing it to be there, and if the in-game population disapproves of this forum or its community government, it can elect a Delegate who will link to a different forum and/or support a different community government. This proposal doesn't strip anyone of anything. Any resident of the West Pacific would be free and more than welcome to participate in the Union via this forum. Where this proposal differs from yours is that the Union does not force participation on a diverse in-game population. Take a look at the poll Darkesia is running right now. Most of those who have voted in the poll have indicated that they've declined to join the forum because they don't care. They're entitled to not care. Another option getting a lot of votes is from people who only play on weekends and don't want more commitment. Why should we force these residents to care and make more commitments by shoving government in their faces via dispatches, RMB clutter, and polls that would increasingly be devoted to government rather than casual fun? I've been critical of the West Pacific's system in the past, but one benefit of it is that this is one of the few regions in which not everyone has to participate in government in order to participate. Anyone who wants to can join this forum; let's not make them participate in government when they don't want to, and risk losing the other ways they participate, by inundating the in-game region with governmental matters.
  10. I continue to oppose use of in-game polls in regional governance, but anyone is welcome to use this draft as a basis on which to build their own draft.
  11. I have made a couple of significant changes to the draft (which can be found here, for anyone who missed it): 1. There is now a provision, 2(3), which permits the Voice to admit non-residents as members by two-thirds majority vote, provided the non-residents in question cannot reside in TWP. This was to address a concern raised in another thread that Tweedy not be barred from participating. For those who aren't aware, Tweedy is delete-on-sight from NationStates and thus physically cannot reside in TWP, but has made significant contributions to TWP's community over the years. 2. There is a new section 5 on the military of the Union, which fleshes out command of the military and oversight by the Voice, while also implementing Darkesia's compromise suggestion for a home defense division under the command of the Delegate. I hope this will prove an agreeable compromise, but as this is a new section I'm happy to discuss further revisions. I also wanted to point out something that may not be immediately obvious. There is nothing in this draft that prohibits the Delegate from also serving as Advocate, so a Delegate who wants a more active role in the forum community government could have that by running for Advocate. In recognition that TWP has had Delegates who prefer a less active role as more of an in-game guardian, the Delegate's legal role is minimized and optional, but I would imagine any Delegate would be the odds on favorite for winning an election for Advocate if they chose to run for the office.
  12. It could be, and I assumed it would be. Though it's also possible the Union could just create an entirely new military since TWPAF has not been active in a while. Also, my prior post was responding to Eli, but I should have been clearer about that. I agree that the military is in-game, but for the most part its in-game activities probably will not take place in the West Pacific. It will probably take place in other regions according to the policies of the forum government. I do understand that the Delegate could ban members of a forum government-sponsored military that is opposing the Delegate or the Delegate's policies, and I don't have a problem with that. It's part of the Delegate's in-game authority. But I think it's important to keep a military that will be carrying out the policies of the forum government separate from the Delegate's authority. I would be fine with that compromise, actually. It's not that I don't want the military to defend the in-game region or enforce in-game regional policy, I just want to make sure the separation between the authority of the Delegate and the forum government over their separate areas is maintained. But obviously it's best for them to cooperate whenever possible, so I'll see how best to work this compromise into the draft tomorrow.
  13. I don't agree regarding the military, and will not be amending that into this draft. Either we're going to have the forum government autonomous from the Delegate or we aren't, and either we're going to allow WA nations to organize against the Delegate if they choose to do so or we aren't. If we aren't, we should drop any charade of the forum government being autonomous from the Delegate and implement a government similar to the New Pacific Order. That is an approach I would not support. This military isn't supposed to be the West Pacific's military. This military is supposed to be the Union of the West Pacific's military, e.g., the forum government's military. If the Delegate wants a separate military she can set one up herself*, but if we're going to make the forum government's military subject to the Delegate then we might as well drop this separation altogether and make the entire forum government subject to the Delegate. * I'm using female gender pronouns in recognition that the current Delegate is female, but I'm speaking generally.
  14. Trials would have to wait eight days to be heard, yes. That isn't actually that significant a time period in NationStates judicial systems, and any way you slice it the Voice would have to vote on Arbiters. Even if they were, for example, appointed by the Advocate, surely we would want the Voice to approve their appointments or the Advocate could appoint Arbiters with some kind of agenda. While it may not be ideal to have to wait eight days, we want to make sure Arbiters remain independent and as unbiased as they can be, and the best way to do that is to directly elect them. We could potentially incorporate the military. Right now that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Advocate, like every other governmental matter. I don't see any reason to give the military special treatment, but I'll wait to hear what Darkesia has to say because she may have some compelling reasons. The method for dismissal of appointed officials was meant to be simple majority. My thought process here was that because the Advocate is elected, the Voice should have to vote by supermajority to remove the Advocate. But appointees are just appointed by the Advocate without any input from the Voice, so I think the threshold for their removal should be lower. Thanks, I'm glad you're impressed. That's actually high praise. Regarding treaties, I think votes on treaties that the forum community doesn't have any problem with would be relatively quick and efficient. I like having a vote on all treaties, even those with broad support, because it shows how broadly the community supports them. There have been some who have questioned the legitimacy of some of our current treaties because there wasn't an actual vote on them. While votes would have just been formalities for those treaties because the community clearly does support them, in that nobody has raised the possibility of repealing them, conducting votes would have removed the political ammunition from detractors of TWP and its allies. Finally, regarding the military, I actually don't agree with the military being under the Delegate's jurisdiction. Most militaries have little to do with regional self-defense/security -- which is typically carried out by a security council, like our Guardian system -- and much more to do with raiding or defending (or both) other regions. Since the forum government's military would primarily, if not exclusively, be carrying out its activities outside TWP, I don't see any reason the Delegate should have jurisdiction over the military. Even for operations inside TWP, the military would either be supporting the Delegate (which shouldn't be a problem), or exercising the legitimate right of TWP's WA nations to engage in open rebellion. In the latter case, requiring the Delegate's approval to rebel against her doesn't make any sense. So I really don't see a circumstance in which it's appropriate for the Delegate to have jurisdiction over the military, but I'm open to hearing reasons from you or others who agree that the Delegate should have a military role.
  15. I also took this IC and OOC. IC: Your result for The Political Objectives Test ... CommunitarianYou scored 64 Equality, 29 Liberty, and 79 Stability! Your commitment to both equality and stability makes you a blend of the Socialist and the Conservative. This combination may seem unusual but consider the way in which both think loyalty to community takes priority over loyalty to oneself. You recognise the value of traditional culture and institutions. You also value government intervention in the economy. You hope that a combination of traditional values and interventionist economics will protect your way of life. You are concerned that the twin forces of free markets and permissive culture promote selfishness and erode community standards. If this is too bland for you then try the Authoritarian on for size. OOC: Your result for The Political Objectives Test ... ProgressiveYou scored 79 Equality, 64 Liberty, and 29 Stability! Your commitment to both liberty and equality makes you a blend of the Liberal and the Socialist. For you liberty and equality are two parts of the same condition. Everyone has to be free to pursue their own way-of-life but in order for that to happen everyone must start with a similar basic standard of living. You value liberty particularly in cultural and personal life. You also value government intervention to promote equity in economic life while still supporting private enterprise. If this is too bland for you then try the Radical on for size.
  16. Charter of the Union of the West Pacific Preamble The Union of the West Pacific will endeavor to meet the needs of the West Pacifican community in a way that is unique to the polity and culture of this region. We, the residents who have assembled to ratify this Charter, will make no apology for maintaining a unique community. We will make no apology for thinking outside the box. We will make no apology for respecting the realities of Feeders and Sinkers in NationStates or the dynamics between Delegates and regional communities inherent to those realities. We will instead seek to provide a community government that is vibrantly active and open to participation by any resident of the West Pacific who wishes to participate, guided by reality rather than by ideological dogma. It is with this purpose in mind that we, the assembled residents, ratify this Charter and establish the Union of the West Pacific. 1. Relationship Between the Union and the Delegate (1) The Union will recognize the absolute authority of the Delegate over the West Pacific as the reality of NationStates mechanics. (2) The Union will recognize as legitimate any Delegate elected by the endorsements of the World Assembly nations of the West Pacific. (3) The Union will recognize the right of the Delegate to exercise any power granted to the Delegate by NationStates mechanics. (4) The Union will recognize the right of World Assembly nations of the West Pacific to elect a new Delegate at any time. (5) The Union will recognize its own autonomy from the Delegate as an autonomous off-site community government of the West Pacific. (6) The Union will cooperate with the Delegate whenever such cooperation is desirable or necessary for the welfare of the overall regional community of the West Pacific. 2. Voice of the Union (1) The Voice of the Union will be the supreme governing authority of the Union of the West Pacific. (2) The Voice will be comprised of all residents of the West Pacific who wish to participate in the Voice. Each resident will have only one vote in the Voice regardless of how many nations they have residing in the West Pacific. (3) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, admit non-residents to its membership provided the non-residents in question are prevented from residing in the West Pacific. (4) The Voice will have only the powers enumerated by this Charter and may not assume additional powers except by amending this Charter. (5) The Voice will have the power to enact, amend, and repeal its own procedural rules. (6) The Voice will have the power to enact, amend, and repeal non-binding resolutions expressing the sense of the Voice in regard to all matters. (7) The Voice will, with the approval of the Delegate, have the power to enact, amend, and repeal treaties. (8) The Voice will have the power to confirm and rescind Union participation in treaties proposed by the Delegate. (9) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote and with the approval of the Delegate, have the power to declare war and to repeal war declarations. (10) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote, have the power to confirm and rescind Union participation in war declarations proposed by the Delegate. (11) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote, have the power to amend this Charter or to repeal this Charter in its entirety in favor of a constitutional convention. (12) Except where otherwise explicitly mandated by this Charter, all votes of the Voice will be determined by simple majority vote. The result of any vote will be determined by taking into account only members of the Voice who have voted and discounting abstentions cast in the vote. 3. Government of the Union (1) The government of the Union will be administered by the Advocate, who will be elected by and preside over the Voice. (2) Elections for Advocate will consist of a three day period for declarations of candidacy followed by a five day period for voting. (3) Any member of the Voice who has held continuous membership in the Voice for one month or more will be eligible for candidacy for Advocate. (4) Any resident who participated in the constitutional convention to enact this Charter will be eligible for the first election for Advocate immediately following enactment of this Charter. (5) In the event that the office of Advocate is vacant during an election for Advocate, the Delegate may administer the election, may appoint an election administrator, or the member of the Voice with the longest continuous membership and who is available to serve will administer the election. (6) In the event that no candidate receives a simple majority on the first election ballot, a run-off election will be conducted between the two highest voted candidates, starting no sooner than 24 hours and no later than 72 hours after the previous election has closed. This election will also last for a five day voting period. (7) In the event that an election results in a tie between only two candidates, the incumbent will be re-elected or, if the incumbent is not a candidate, the candidate who first declared candidacy will be elected. (8) The Advocate will serve terms of four months, with a limit of two consecutive terms. (9) The Advocate may appoint officials to assist in government and may dismiss such officials. (10) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, dismiss the Advocate from office. (11) The Voice may dismiss any official appointed by the Advocate from office. 4. Justice in the Union (1) The Voice will vote on whether to hear any complaint for unacceptable conduct filed against a member of the Voice by another member. (2) If the Voice votes to hear the complaint, the matter will be referred to a public hearing by three Arbiters elected by the Voice prior to the hearing. (3) Elections for Arbiter will follow the same procedure as elections for Advocate. Arbiters may determine hearing procedures. Arbiters will serve and their hearing procedures will be binding only for the duration of the hearing for which they are elected. (4) During all hearings, the complainant may present their case against the defendant and the defendant may present a defense. (5) At the conclusion of a hearing, Arbiters will find the defendant guilty or not guilty of unacceptable conduct. (6) If a defendant is found guilty, they will be removed from the Voice for a period of time sentenced by the Arbiters. (7) A defendant may appeal to the Voice within fourteen days of a guilty verdict imposed by the Arbiters. (8) The Voice will vote on all appeals and may, by two-thirds majority vote, overturn a guilty verdict and its accompanying sentence. All appeal votes will be final and will not be conducted more than once. (9) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, commute a sentence imposed by the Arbiters at any time following imposition of the sentence. (10) The Voice will have no jurisdiction to impose justice on residents, or any other persons, who are not members of the Voice. (11) The Voice will not infringe upon the right of forum administration to resolve out-of-character offenses at their discretion. (12) The Voice will not infringe upon the right of the Delegate to resolve game-side offenses at their discretion. 5. Military of the Union (1) The military force of the Union will execute the policies determined by the Advocate and officials appointed by the Advocate to assist in military command. (2) The military force of the Union will maintain a division for home defense that will operate under the command of the Delegate and officials appointed by the Delegate to assist in command of the home defense division. (3) The Voice will have the power to adopt and amend an official name for the military force of the Union. (4) The Voice will have the power to override and bring to an immediate end any deployment of the military force of the Union. (5) No participant in the military force of the Union will be compelled to participate in any military operation against their conscience or prudent judgment. (6) The existence of an official military force of the Union will not prohibit other residents of the West Pacific from creating alternative military forces with the consent of the Delegate. Above is the draft Elegarth and I have come up with so far. I wasn't entirely sure how to incorporate Vlagh's and Darkesia's suggestions, which don't appear to be entirely the same, into the draft, so maybe now that the draft is posted they'll be able to suggest revisions to specific clauses. Well, it originally was more like that because we were in the proposal stage of the convention rather than the drafting stage. I hope the above draft looks more like a constitutional document, and would welcome any suggestions you have for its revision.
×
×
  • Create New...