Elegarth

If we can jumpstart the voice, then I'm sure we could focus our first efforts on recruiting back former and new active forum members

I've added you to the list of Voice supporters Eli. I'd like PD to finally confirm his take of the Advocate position he was selected to, so we can move on with whatever changes we want to do to our charters and the recruitment of prospect DAs as well to start moving our government institutions

I guess my position here is both the more advantageous and at the same time the more disadvantageous. As an interested party in both Regions, the last thing I'd like to see is for our treaty and alliance to end, tbh. My take on this at this point is that I'll gladly serve as the bridge to fix whatever needs to be fixed here, but I require both URA and IVAN to each tell me what they expect/Seek/need for this to get fixed.

Do you wish to join The Union of the West Pacific, and its body, The Voice?

I'm re-creating this government institution completely aside from whatever the sitting delegate decides to do. If he recognizes us or not, is up to him. As such, I consider this iteration of the Union not to be bound to any Ministery of Legislative RP, which is now empty anyway. So by all means, I believe the conditions are met. Please let me know.

Fair enough, my friend.

Malviet are you trying to make it all worse for any particular agenda?

Should I count you both in, PD and Dark? (I've added you to the list with a note)

My heart is not really on this. As TWP's structure allows for simultaneous off-site governments to exist, I'll pull myself out of this. I help write it to combine the voice with the other ideas, but I don't think is the right way. I'd opened a thread to restart the voice. As things are, any and all members are totally able to either join the voice, or assist on the creation of this alternative. I have no hard feelings of any kind for whoever decides each or the other. Cheers.

I've decided after much deliberation and thinking that, while on my position as a Guardian I work for the delegate and the in-game stability of the game, I'm also a member of the off-site community and as such, I have the same rights and powers as everyone else to create an off-site government of its own. This is, however, not what I want. I liked the Union, and I liked the Voice, and I really liked the constitution we created a few months ago. The Voice was having issues due to the inactivity that hit us during the summer, but it doesn't means we can't fix it. I hereby would like to call the members of the Voice, or those interested on kick-starting again, to sign up here. I'd like to start the voice over using the already existing constitution we have, and using its existing structure to make whatever changes we need to make it more lean and efficient. I'd also like to plea to PunkDaddy to take back his role as elected Advocate, so that the Voice can have a coordination and we can together kickstart it, as I think we should. The Union, and the Voice, can and should be fixed. Please sign up here to join me in re-instating the voice. The Current Charter is below. It may need fixes, which is why I'm calling for people to sign-up and for PD to take his place as rightful advocate. MEMBERSHIP LIST - Elegarth - TunApocalypse - Bhang Bhang Duc - Darkesia - Fujai - Mediobogdum - simple country - Big Bad Badger - Powerboat_Racer - Malviet - Consular - Eli - PunkDaddy (pending he confirms)

I think BBB's sound cool tbh

Isn't that about the same thing with just a different name? Is the same intention, you are just changing the tag. Furthermore, technically speaking, the Guardian's organization is up to the Delegate, and the names he gives them as well. But you are basically proposing that we do the same things that is being done. What I'm trying to say is, I don't see the difference in role, just a name change cuz you don't like Vice-Delegate? Please elaborate perhaps? Should I change the "GOVERNOR" for "NAME TO BE DECIDED"? Seems easier to include that

A little. They should coordinate the in-game and the off-site needs and goals for the overall improvement of the joint effort. I see how that can be a problem, but the day to day job should be spearheaded by the Governor, as you say the guardian's primary job is security of the delegacy, this will be an extra thing, as I understand it.

Technically, I left that part open, so your proposal is the first about it =D And a duel of sorts sounds interesting, doesn't it? But how.

To address the first one, the Council could easily be made BY the Governors and the Advocate?? Is an idea, we could call it the Governor's Council. And to the second paragraph, is in my PENDING part: indictment or challenge system to remove them, not sure how to implement it or handle it.

Yes and no. The Voice, as a whole, outranks them all - including its advocate - but ideally, the Advocate's role is representation and coordination, not oversight and supervision. If the advocate is ranked ABOVE the governors, then the departments are also under his oversight, mixing again the executive part and the legislative part, and with it, you get to the same problem of an inactive advocate potentially killing all decision making. My opinion is that the Advocate, as a serving members of The Voice, be considered on the same rank as the Governors. Again, the consultative body called the Voice is the oversight, not the person who embodies its will. This is: is not the advocate who hires or fires people. Is the Voice as a whole.

Ok, since this is an ongoing discussion, I've edited the main text and made a note for final versions as we discuss things along

Ok, give me a bit then... I'll do it soon

Do you want me to introduce the changes in the current proposal text, or do a next text, URA?

As far as I understood, no. URA would need to confirm. Otherwise, your suggestions are pretty good, again, imo.

I did missed it. You made amazing comments there indeed.

I've got no idea what you mean. If I were condescending I wouldn't be discussing. I would be dismissing people with jokes, or silly-talking to them.

Valid points. Vice-Delegate is only meant to be used as a secondary communication tool and decision malingr in case of justified delegate absence. The governors imo should be appointed and removed by the voice, either through indictment or challenge. But I t am not sure about how the delegate wanted to do that. The lawmaking, I feel you may be right about it.

It has more changes than that, but they are as minimal as possible to adapt the voice - that seemed to me the preferred thing from people - and the delegate ideas. The main changes are: - depts are no longer under the advocate supervision, this is, the DAs rebranded as governors are no longer below the advocate, and hence an in active advocate would not stop activity of the departments. - guardian supervision and coordination of the areas that are more in-game than offsite, with a voice governor to attempt unified activity - the vice-delegacy position, which (this is important) is not tied to a delegacy succession in any way, but formalizes some form of deputy to oversee activity of the governors/other guardian. There are in my personal opinion several improvable things on this, some of which I can't really think of - meaning that I feel the fix is needed but can't totally pinpoint or solve it - and hence why I wanted to bring it out: more eyes see more. The Union just needed activity imo, and I think it was in the process of recovering it.

The fact that you fail to see the difference is either cultural or on purpose. In both cases, we seem to hit a wall of your own devise. Awesome.