punkdaddy

I'm going to jump on the I told you so bandwagon too. 
 
We should dissolve the offsite government. I do not believe it serves any function any longer. I think instead we should create an onsite government and get really good at where our strengths are.
 
I've said this before and will continue to say it. 
 
Listen, I'm a member of the TNP community too and I'd not advocate that there because the offsite is supreme. But here in TWP our on-site communite is where we should put our focus, imo.
 
I'm going to jump on the I told you so bandwagon too. 
 
We should dissolve the offsite government. I do not believe it serves any function any longer. I think instead we should create an onsite government and get really good at where our strengths are.
 
I've said this before and will continue to say it. 
 
Listen, I'm a member of the TNP community too and I'd not advocate that there because the offsite is supreme. But here in TWP our on-site communite is where we should put our focus, imo.

Can't say how much I like this!!

Many years ago, TWP rivaled TNP as the most active offsite forum. There were many arguments back then. 
 
To me - the disconnect between delegate and offsite is the reason for little offsite activity.
 
I'm just going to throw this out there. If I was delegate, I would force the offsite government to be an arm of what I'm doing onsite. No if's and's or but's about it. 
 
I think that's the route we should take, imo.

Thank you, Mike!  That was informative. 
 
All the cool kids are from TWP.  Even if they don't stay.

So, for the first time ever, the game has actually introduced something that can make direct rule of the region a legitimate option.
 
While I am sure certain aspects will be changed over time to accommodate the raider/defender uproar, it looks like this could be a good step towards setting up actual onsite government.  The tools seem to work fairly well and allow the Delegate nation to distribute authority as they see fit without the influence of an offsite government.

The name of this thread made me think of this song: 

Here are the results of the election:
 
Big Bad Badger - 12 
That Called the Vlagh - 8
Punk Daddy - 1
 
Abstain - 1
 
Big Bad Badger received 12 of 22 votes which is a majority of the votes cast. 
 
Big Bad Badger is the WINNER!!

'BBB' becomes 'A'  

As it would appear I will not be your Advocate much longer, I'd like to say thank you to all you TWPers who navigated through the difficulty of the last couple of months. 
 
If my prelim view of the votes are right, BBB will be our next Advocate and I'm excited about that and excited about new blood taking leadership in this community. 
 
There were days when I was a young upstart looking for power, both those days are long gone and so I don't leave this position sad. I leave it envigorated and anxious to see what the "New Class" can do. 
 
Thank you all, and Godspeed to TWP!!

The answer to the question of your job is that the 3 of us should meet on a regular basis to put forth a unified foreign agenda. Typically, i wouldn't even post what i'm posting now for public consumption, but I can't stress enough the importance of being on the same page.
 
We all look silly when we're not and actively involving our delegate is key.

There is quite a bit going on behind the scenes.
 
My activity levels, though, have nothing to do with yours. 

no you do not. 
 
I am going to need to keep the noms open until 6pm US EST. The reason is I won't have time until to update the membership list of the Voice. Worked till about 10PM last night (unexpected) and I have a poker tournament tonight (expected).
 
Common Sense says no one needs to reapply to be Voice members. I like Common Sense, good guy. I'm glad to see we have a number of candidates for the position of Advocate. 
 
That is good.

Malviet. Elegarth has a say in the off-site and on-site.
 
Other Advocates may feel differently, but our foreign policy will be in tandem with the delegate. Your note is going to be extremely confusing, I'm afraid.
 
Foreign policy cannot be run without the delegate. Can it be run without the Advocate or DA of FA, you bet it can. As such we need to work with and not work outside the delegate, imo.

I was thinking of using North Pacific's Spy's tactic. 
 
I will update the list prior to the start of the election. I tend to be fair and won't mind delegating this if people think it's unfair and that i'm biased as a candidate.
 
Let's not let this derail us as it's procedural and we can get through it. I will make my best attempt to get the list updated before my head hits the pillow tonight.

I was thinking of using North Pacific's Spy's tactic. 
 
I will update the list prior to the start of the election. I tend to be fair and won't mind delegating this if people think it's unfair and that i'm biased as a candidate.
 
Let's not let this derail us as it's procedural and we can get through it. I will make my best attempt to get the list updated before my head hits the pillow tonight.

Rats...I mean...Yay, Malviet has declined.
 
I'll accept my nomination. 

As worded, the Advocate is both. 
 
Mind you, I'd love a "Speaker of the House" role to focus on running the government versus running the legislature but that's a matter of style I guess.
 
I would prefer a system where each Advocate was able to create their own rules for the legislature versus putting in a system. Keep it flexible for incoming advocates. 

I actually think the only problem was URAP. That has been corrected and we're back to business.
 
One can argue that the off-site activity is a problem, but I still maintain we should try an on-site only solution. We keep trying to fix a problem (off-site activity) without understanding why it exists in the first place. And without understanding the problem, you can't recommend a solution that will work, imo.

I actually think the only problem was URAP. That has been corrected and we're back to business.
 
One can argue that the off-site activity is a problem, but I still maintain we should try an on-site only solution. We keep trying to fix a problem (off-site activity) without understanding why it exists in the first place. And without understanding the problem, you can't recommend a solution that will work, imo.

As worded, the Advocate is both. 
 
Mind you, I'd love a "Speaker of the House" role to focus on running the government versus running the legislature but that's a matter of style I guess.
 
I would prefer a system where each Advocate was able to create their own rules for the legislature versus putting in a system. Keep it flexible for incoming advocates. 

You can't control the public's conversation on the topic. 
 
You certainly can control any response on any topic, however.

He's back folks!!!
 
Woo hoo!!

hehe.
 
Vlagh, can you pass along a message to Pierconium. Please advise that once things settle here, we are interested in restoring the relations our two regions have enjoyed for years.
 
We have just a little house cleaning to do and then we'll reach out.

Vlagh I think you see the URAP failing as the system failing.
 
Those are two different things. I also think you see a delegate failing as the system failing. Again, those are separate in TWP. 
 
The one thing I have liked about TWP is that the delegate chair itself while having the most authority wasn't something we (the Guardians) wanted to have as a rotation of the elite. Instead we did want newer folks in the chair (Enlightened Defenders) and people who hadn't been delegate before (Yy4u).
 
That's the difference between TP and TWP in my opinion and one isn't better than another, it's just that within this system we're willing to risk a bad delegate in order for the system we have established to continue. 
 
Elu - thanks for the comment on Flem. I'm shocked. 
 
I also think that TWP has proved influential in many ways b/c the system has worked for so long. I mean, I might chide the new kids a bit but the Guardians enabled us to retake the region fairly quickly. So I'll agree with AGP that URAP failed and the system showed how strong it is and needs to continue being.
 
 
Addendum: Thinking further,  Vlagh in your paradigm if the delegate fails the system fails. This could be true in TP (i'm not an officionado on that one) but in TWP we've built a system that will continue should a delegate fail precisely because delegates can fail. We haven't had something like this in TWP in probably a decade but even so this lasted an update, maybe two. That's not a failing system in my opinion.

Guardians chosen by popularity is a bad move. 
 
I don't want TNP's system here. I know TNP's system well, I'm currently a court justice and admin on TNP's boards. I'm probably the best (I'll put Vlagh as a distant second) person to compare the two systems. 
 
TWP has a system of trust and providing new people and opportunity to prove themselves. TNPs system has a trust component to it but it's much more fluid in terms of who comes and goes in the TNP Security Council. Yes some members have been there for ages, Flem/Grosse/GBM but others are very new. The level of trust needed to get on the SC is different than the Guardians, imo. 
 
As for in-game and off-site separation that really makes us unique, strong, and not victim to many characterizations of delegates such as "this delegate doesn't have the right to be delegate because of X". Nope, game mechanics settle the delegate and if you want to change a delegate use game mechanics to do it. Thus URA as Cormac is the legit TWP del right now. However, we put Guardians in place to protect us should a delegate wish to move the region in a direction that is bad for the community. Guardians are soldiers really and right now we need them, but we are well prepared for this.