Cormac

Niadh can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 94 Block is involved in LWU anymore. Merely speaking to a forum destroyer shouldn't be disturbing; harboring one should be.

That would be great! Once I have a first draft finished, I'll send it to you for your suggestions (some of which I'll already be incorporating, from your above comments) and hopefully we can arrive at a draft we both like that we can post here. I should have a first draft done tomorrow. I would also be happy to incorporate some of Archsium's proposal. It wasn't fleshed out quite enough for me to know how to incorporate it, but if he would like to comment here or contact me privately I would love it if he, Elegarth, and I can hammer out a final draft that all three of us could co-sponsor. I have to admit this proposal was already inspired by the ideas he put forward about simplifying the government and reducing the need for legislation.

I can't speak for Darkesia, but the repetitive, condescending refrain of "calm down," "calm down," "I'm glad to see you've calmed down" is on my last nerve. The constant references to ad hominem attacks like Elegarth is the only one who's engaged in them is also annoying. The fluffy kittens are also really condescending, like Elegarth needs to see kittens in order to "calm down." All of it seems very condescending, immature, and all around disrespectful, to be honest. Passive aggressive personal jabs are still jabs despite their passive aggressive nature. Not meant as an attack on you, just pointing out some issues since you genuinely don't seem to understand what is frustrating people.

Whatever you say...

I'll be putting this in the form of a constitution draft sometime over the next couple of days.

Llamas, does it bother you that you and Punk Daddy -- who I'm not sure supports all of the logistics you're proposing, in any case -- seem to be the only ones in favor of this idea? It would seem more productive to me to work toward something more people are willing to support.

I very much agree with Reçueçn's points, and I don't think moving government to the in-game region would be practical, productive, or at all beneficial to the in-game residents who enjoy the casual in-game atmosphere and don't want to be involved in government. As ever, anyone who wants to be involved in government beyond endorsing or declining to endorse the in-game Delegate can register on this forum and participate. That's even easier to do in the West Pacific than in most regions, so I don't see the need to move things to the in-game region.

Welcome! I hope you enjoy it here.

I don't really mind non-residents contributing ideas, but voting should be restricted to residents, in my view. This is an off-site community, but it's still the off-site community of the West Pacific. It's so easy to create a nation that anyone who can't at least reside in the region has no business voting on community matters.

I have some concerns, though I'm not necessarily opposed. First, where would we discuss legislation and other matters to vote on? Hosting those discussions on the RMB will disrupt the flow of casual discussions, discouraging them completely. There is only one RMB and trying to cram government onto it is, I fear, going to push everything else off of it. Second, how do we prevent the massive potential for abuse? The on-site polls are not abuse-proof. These are the criteria you can select for on-site polls: Residents: Nations in the region. Natives: Nations that possess more Regional Influence here than in any other region. WA Members: Members of the World Assembly. Large Nations: Nations with a population of at least 1 billion. Influential Nations: Nations possessing Regional Influence equivalent to having spent 1,000 unendorsed days in the region. The most secure option is obviously to select all of these criteria, but in doing so you will also be preventing a large number of legitimate residents from voting. If you start knocking off options, you open up the potential for malicious outsiders to try to influence the West Pacific through our on-site poll system. Specifically, the WA Members option is a must in order to prevent one person from voting with fifty (or more!) puppets. But even that is open to manipulation by outsiders because someone can just switch their WA status here temporarily; the only thing this option would prevent is multiple votes per person. Finally, where would the executive government be run? Where would the cabinet coordinate, where would the military coordinate? Would we even have these things anymore? This needs a lot of fleshing out before it can even start to look practical.

Rules of order basically means procedural rules -- things like how and when matters go to vote, etc. It would be one document rather than multiple laws. The idea is definitely simplification. I'm hoping for the Voice to be less like a legislature and more like a town hall, because the West Pacific doesn't seem like a region that is all that interested in constant legislating as the main source of its activity. The legalese and bureaucracy of the former HGA system have already proven really contentious and frustrating for many people. What I would like to see the Voice become is an assembly where regional matters can be discussed, rather than laws being discussed. But also an assembly that has broad governing powers to make sure it can keep the executive in check without legislation. Yes. The former would fall under the Delegate's authority, the latter under the International Union's authority. Hopefully there can be some degree of cooperation but it isn't strictly necessary; in-game and forum embassies have drastically different functions. I think this is a sensible idea and one I would be in favor of as well, it just didn't occur to me. What do you think the minimum time period should be? I'm flexible on term length. Four months seems okay to me, though I wouldn't want to go any longer than that. I would probably be more comfortable with three months, personally, as I could see burn-out and inactivity happening in that fourth month. Regarding term limits, I wasn't sure about those either. My reasoning was that a term limit would ensure that no one holds office for too long and that others have a chance to advance. On the other hand, that may be better left to voters to decide, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to serve for longer than six to eight months anyway. I was going for flexibility here, for times when the community is less active (e.g., during the summer lull) or more active. My hope is that the structure of the cabinet would be a factor in elections, and if voters feel that a candidate is proposing too few or too many ministries, they will vote for another candidate. Again, the idea behind the entire proposal is simplification and flexibility. I'm not a huge fan of quorum requirements in an open assembly, but a supermajority is probably sensible for removal of the Advocate, at least. I could go for a supermajority to remove the Advocate, a simple majority to remove appointees? The justice section is probably the least fleshed out part of the proposal -- I'm not good at NationStates judiciaries, and I don't like them -- so I'm definitely open to alternative proposals. I think election of three Arbiters to hear trials, with the ability to appeal to the Voice, would probably work. Does anyone else have alternative ideas? Thanks for your comments, Elegarth.

Of course. I learn through experience.

Introduction This is a reform proposal to create the Union of the West Pacific. This proposal seeks to meet the community where it is, rather than where any individual or interest group would like it to go -- to provide a functional government to meet the needs and standards of the current community rather than some idealized future utopia (or, depending on one's perspective, dystopia). This is only a proposal; the point is to discuss the merits of it and then, once the details have been worked out, to formalize it into a constitutional document. I expect that this proposal will be competing with others' ideas, which is fine, and hopefully the constitutional document that emerges will incorporate ideas proposed by many participants. Comments on this proposal are welcome and encouraged! The Union of the West Pacific The Union of the West Pacific will aim to meet the following needs of the West Pacifican community: Provide a functional forum government in which any resident will find it easy to participate, should they so choose; Ensure the autonomy of the in-game regional community and Delegate from the forum government; Ensure the autonomy of the forum community and government from the in-game Delegate; Provide a practical framework for cooperation between the in-game and forum governments when desirable or necessary. Relationship Between the Union and the Delegate The Union will respect the absolute in-game authority of the Delegate as the reality of game mechanics, as well as the autonomy of the Union as the forum government of the West Pacific, by clearly adopting the following principles: The legitimate Delegate of the West Pacific is the nation elected by the World Assembly endorsements of nations in the West Pacific, and the Delegate may exercise any power over the West Pacific granted to the Delegate by game mechanics. The Union will have no authority over the in-game region. The Union will respect the right of World Assembly nations of the West Pacific to elect a new Delegate at any time. The Delegate will have no authority over the Union. The Union will cooperate with the Delegate whenever such cooperation is desirable or necessary for the welfare of the overall community of the West Pacific. The Voice of the Union The Voice will not be a typical legislature but will instead function as more of a town hall, comprised of any resident of the West Pacific who wishes to participate in the Voice. To avoid the development of complicated legalism and bureaucracy, the Voice will not legislate except to amend the Charter of the Union and to adopt and amend rules of order. Instead, the Voice will have broad governing powers exercised by simple majority vote, including: The power to adopt and amend rules of order; The power to elect an Advocate to preside over government of the Union on behalf of the Voice; The power to hear complaints against members and to remove members from the Voice after such hearings; The power to propose treaties for the approval of the Delegate; The power to approve treaties proposed by the Delegate; The power to declare war against other regions or organizations, with the approval of the Delegate; The power to approve a declaration of war proposed by the Delegate against other regions or organizations; The power to amend the Charter of the Union of the West Pacific. A note on treaties and declarations of war: This is the one area where the in-game Delegate and the forum community are interdependent, in recognition that treaties and declarations of war affect the entire community. Naturally, as the Delegate can in reality do anything that game mechanics permits, the Delegate could still enact a treaty or declaration of war without the approval of the Union, but under this proposal such a treaty would not be recognized as valid or binding upon the Union and whatever military it establishes. Because of the negative effect treaties and declarations of war can have on the in-game region, the Union couldn't enact either without the approval of the Delegate. Government of the Union Government of the Union will be administered by the Advocate: The Advocate must be a member of the Voice. The Advocate will serve terms of two months, with a limit of three consecutive terms. The Advocate will be elected by the Voice in elections that last ten days (five for nominations, five for voting). In the event that no candidate receives a simple majority on the first ballot, a run-off election will be conducted. 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. The Advocate may appoint officials to assist in government and may dismiss such officials. The Voice may dismiss the Advocate or any official appointed by the Advocate. Justice in the Union The Union will adopt the following procedure for matters of justice: Any member of the Voice may file a complaint before the Voice against another member for behavior that the complainant believes is unbecoming of a member of the Voice. The Voice will vote on whether to hear the complaint. If the Voice votes to hear the complaint, the complainant may present a case against the defendant and the defendant may present a defense, in a public hearing before the Voice. Hearings will be presided over by an Arbiter elected by the Voice at the beginning of the hearing, who will serve only for the duration of that hearing. Elections for Arbiter will follow the same procedure as elections for Advocate. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Voice will vote to find the defendant guilty or not guilty. If the defendant is found guilty, the defendant will be removed from the Voice for a period of time sentenced by the Arbiter. The Voice may commute a sentence imposed by the Arbiter before expiration of the sentence. OOC offenses will be resolved by the policies of forum administration. In-game offenses will be resolved by the Delegate.

Hai Dali!

Unibot sees the world through defender colored glasses. He trusted your judgment, or pretended to, because he believed the NPO was headed in a defender direction. Now that it clearly isn't, now that you are no longer involved with the NPO in any case, and now that you are prominent in The West Pacific which is an independent region, he has no use for you and is free to attack you through use of what is supposed to be The Rejected Realms' newspaper but is actually Unibot's propaganda rag.

Unibot disapproves, so this was probably the right call.

I think this is much ado about nothing, and I don't think it's fair to shout "NPO! NPO!!!!1!" every time Vlagh does something here. And that's from our resident fearmonger. Had Vlagh declared Elegarth the Prime Minister and had he continued to serve until the end of June or whenever, that would have been a problem. As it stands, Elegarth chose to dissolve the Assembly in favor of a constitutional convention since it's clear after two deadlocked votes that the system that has been designed is very flawed. This gives everyone -- not just Vlagh and Elegarth, but Llamas, Consular, me, everyone -- the opportunity to participate in the convention. I'm not seeing the problem. I haven't been here long but it's fairly clear that e-lawyering, as Elegarth put it, isn't going to get anyone very far. If it isn't practical, it isn't practical. Let's design something that works instead of spending several days more on something that doesn't.

That would be more workable, as WA membership at least screens out multiple nations controlled by the same player. I'm still confused on how votes would be gathered though. If it's anything that requires them to go off-site, then they might as well just join this forum and participate in the assembly hosted on the forum, if they're interested. If we would be gathering their votes via the RMB, I think that would be really disruptive of the RMB. I guess it would be best to hear from Llamas the exact logistics of how he envisions this working, otherwise we can't really decide whether it's practical.

I think having an in-game "lower house" sounds nice in theory, but is a nightmare to implement in practice. If it were as easy as just waving a wand and doing it, most regions in NationStates would have that kind of structure. As it stands, there are few regions that take legislative votes directly to in-game residents. Can you imagine trying to organize votes for all in-game residents? If you do it on the RMB, the RMB would be dominated by that rather than by the casual, friendly discussions that usually take place there, and it would be -- I hate to keep using this word, but it's what comes to mind -- a nightmare trying to scroll back through the RMB to make sure you're getting all the votes. This isn't even to mention the difficulty in dealing with the possibility of multiple nations controlled by the same player voting, and how you would screen for that. Or how much you'd be annoying casual players who have no interest in regional government, who have as much a right to live in TWP in peace without being bombarded with constant votes as those who like regional government have a right to pursue what they enjoy. This is an idea that I think might work in a region of 60, or maybe even 600. But a region of 6,000? It's not practical. On a separate note, is the Prime Minister going to open separate threads for different aspects of regional governance? That's how I've usually seen constitutional conventions work.

I would like to participate.

Actually, if I'm going to work on getting to know the culture of TWP, I think it would be better to do that without also administering a party that is suggesting completely upending the culture. So I don't think the party will be accepting new applicants at this time. Thank you for the welcome back, BBD.

Wow, lots happening here since my post. I appreciate the welcome back messages and being given another chance. In regard to the Guardians, I hope people won't paint all of the Guardians with the same broad brush because of Eli's tone toward me. Eli is like this with almost everyone and has been for years, at least since I started playing in 2012, but probably longer than that. Darkesia was (is?) a Guardian before becoming Delegate and if not for her being friendly and civil toward me and challenging me to come back and invest more, I wouldn't have come back at all. So, among the Guardians, as with most groups, you have diversity of backgrounds, opinions, attitudes, etc. The words and actions of one shouldn't be taken to represent all of them. When they're speaking as a group instead of as individuals, which I don't think happens very often, I'm sure they'll let us know. For what it's worth, I don't feel bullied. But if some of the rhetoric is getting to newer players who aren't used to the sometimes contentious tone of NationStates politics, I would encourage everyone to take a breather. I doubt anyone wants to alienate newer players.

So, Delegate Darkesia noted on IRC earlier that I'm too thin skinned, and that when I feel too many people are opposed to me, I invest my time in more pleasant surroundings. That's generally true, because I don't see the point in sticking around somewhere you're broadly disliked. That said, I feel that I'm responsible for people disliking me here by not being more respectful of The West Pacific's political culture, and by proposing a big plan without first putting any actual effort into TWP and becoming part of the community. That doesn't sit well with me and it also doesn't sit well with me that some have been left with a negative impression of me without actually getting to know me and see me do something productive. So I would like to contribute here a bit less aggressively and with a somewhat thicker skin toward those who don't like me, some of whom didn't like me long before I ever tried to participate here, which is fine for them. So, my apologies for the disrespect to your political culture. I should put in the time and effort to be part of your community before thinking I should have input on how it should be run, and that's what I'm going to do.

Well, I've had a nation ejected and banned today and been asked to leave by a Guardian, all for expressing my views in a peaceful, initially respectful way. I think I'll be going now. Consider this my resignation from the HGA. Best of luck to TWP and to future Emperor Elegarth.

I'm in favor of closing the NPO's forum embassy. Even if TWP's philosophy/policy holds that the Delegate of a region -- he is not elected, by the way -- is the lawful holder of the position, which is absurd, that doesn't mean TWP has to be okay with him holding onto his Delegacy with the support of foreign raiders and forum destroyers. I would be in favor of recognizing the LUS and granting them the use of the Lazarus forum embassy. If we aren't going to do that, we should close it. I would imagine the LUS doesn't have another region because it is the forum community of Lazarus, not another region. In my view, it would actually lose legitimacy be forming a user-created region as a base of operations. Its region is Lazarus. I don't think the treaty with the NPO is a problem. That treaty was ratified by fiat of the Delegate without consulting the forum community, so by TWP's philosophy it is the Delegate's treaty, not the forum community's, and we shouldn't be bound by it.