Eluvatar

Big Bad Badger

I nominate Malviet.

The distinction is on how they are proposed and the process is within the Voice for them. The separation is defined by the Charter.

It can't and doesn't. These procedures are subordinate to the charter. That said maybe we're interpreting the Charter slightly differently. I understood: "The Voice will, with the approval of the Delegate, have the power to enact, amend, and repeal treaties." to mean that the Voice can propose such changes and the Delegate then approves or denies them. Might you be interpreting that as a requirement for pre-clearance from the Delegate to even vote on a treaty? I was under the impression that except for the Delegate's special roles only a member of the Voice should be able to formally propose actions by the Voice. I don't particularly care for that necessity, personally. If others are fine with not requiring such a Guardian to be a member of the Voice, I'm happy to get rid of it. The intent of that language is to allow persons capable of acting on a resolution and generally respected by the region to make such a proposal when the Advocate is unable to, if the community needs it. The Charter does not define the Guardians, so to refer to them in this procedure I felt I needed to somehow define them. Defining them as the group recognized by the Delegate, however, would lead to a pretty obvious end-run around the clause. It'd be simpler to just remove this language entirely and allow any member of the Voice to propose any resolution, even resolutions of rebellion. Perhaps those could instead have a greater requirement for debate?

I don't specify the majorities needed for passage either, because those are in the Charter. This document governs who can formally make what proposals and administer votes and when and how long voting is. It does not govern what it takes for a proposal to pass. Resolutions to Rebel under this proposed procedure are under the Voice's power to pass any sort of non-binding resolution as per the Charter. What this document would do is limit who can formally propose resolutions of that nature. These procedures would be legally unable to expand the power of the Voice, so I'm not sure how I could possibly have accomplished that in this proposal. I think that we need to have written procedures at least for how voting to dismiss an Advocate works.

There are no new powers in the rules, only matters already in the Charter of the Union...

Changed "Clerk" to "Deputy Advocate" in the proposal. At the end of the day, every administrative aspect of the Union is the Advocate's responsibility. That doesn't mean we should expect them to personally do every little thing. Could you show an example of how this worked? I'd be happy to rewrite this, I just wrote up something that made sense to me and seemed to map out a process that fits what the community seems to want.

Is the Advocate intended to be primarily a head of government or the presiding officer of a deliberative body?

Would that not imply that all DAs are responsible for procedural matters? I intended for Clerks to be a special kind of Deputy Advocate, in effect. I could change it to Deputy Advocates of Legislation?

Well, there is joining the Voice. One could also get started in foreign affairs or TWPAF (the military). Whatever you do, welcome

To me, the object of government is to protect individuals from abuses by more powerful individuals.

Could the subtitle of The Judiciary of The West Pacific please be changed from "The Court of The Imperium" to, say, "Arbiter Hearings here"? Could the subtitle of Application Center under The West Pacific Union Intelligence Division be changed from "ISS Application Center" to, say, "Intelligence Division Application Center"?

Seeking to get something going here, and perhaps clarify the concept of Rebellion a little bit. Definitely interested in constructive criticism! (Also, let me know if I'm not in the Voice anymore, I'm not sure where to check). Edit: I've been pointed out here. Edit2: Changed "Clerk" to "Deputy Advocate of Legislative Affairs".

Security council 2.0 (as you say) was created after the previous Security Council had been abolished for several months. The group of people that drafted the initial proposal definitely had TWP on their minds. I should know, I was one of them. Credit should be given of course to The Minister for drafting the revised proposal which was finally palatable to a sufficient consensus in TNP, which was as a result ultimately better, I think, than the original proposal. I'd had similar ideas myself, prior to TAO's introduction of the Guardians in TWP, but my thoughts were influenced in their further development by that approach, and the notion of instituting "Guardians" specifically, with the comparison drawn to TWP, was a subject of discussion during the war with the Crimson Order. (back to the subject of trust) There are of course two different levels of trust to measure: how much guardians trust one another, and how much the regional public does.

I would agree that TNP drew inspiration from the Guardians when it introduced its Security Council. It never had them be appointees of the Delegate, however. Punkdaddy is right that it's a bit more fluid. In fact, Flemingovia isn't TNPSC, even, and never has been. Current membership: # Nation Endorsements Offsite Forum Member since 1 Novare Res 511 2004 2 McMasterdonia 0 2012 3 Democatic Donkeys 488 2004 4 Grosseschnauzer 506 2004 5 God n Country n Byron 375 2012* 6 Former English Colony 449 2004 7 Great Bights Mum 359 2003 8 General COE 366 2012 9 Malvad 347 2012 10 SillyString 609 2013** 11 Territorio di Nessuno 424 2014 12 Plembobria 439 2014 *Lord Byron joined the forum in 2012, God N Country N Byron joined the region in 2011. **SillyString was registered in 2013, but Astarial had been a part of the IRC community for some time before this Edit: WTF in my input box that was a pretty table