Elegarth

Agreed

But those are isolated cases that would perhaps more easily be handled in a case by case basis I think

And I was just thinking out further ideas

The military may be revisited, as Cormac said. I think that perhaps, if the military is seen more as a part of the Delegate's power, we could set up some way in which the forum government may request the Delegate's militia to perform assistance or help to governments friendly to the forum? Some sort of collaboration, that is both non mandatory for the delegacy nor for the military. What do you think?

To include or integrate some of Dark's comments more strongly, we would probably need to re.visit the text. Or post it and get comments

LOL, you evil

Cormac's proposal is gonna have an updated version soon Vlagh, just for the record.

Agreed

Mine is totally OOC. I just took it IC out of curiosity and I also got Conservative

Question: Last time I discussed it, I may remember (my memory is not that good) that Dark mention the forum gov may have embassies open that the in-game does not, and vice-versa. I thought that reflected on some of the parts you scratched out, Vlagh. Can I have clarification to that? Honest question.

I'll reserve my comments to Llamas changes once he has made a decision on Vlagh's suggestions.

Those are both terrible....

That, PD, is an idea I can totally support. Even in general for not biding things we can run opinion polls and find a way to introduce them into the dynamics of the government

Moderate Your feel that all three principles are important. You take some interest in politics and definitely have opinions. However those opinions may be formed on a case-by-case basis because you lack an overriding commitment to any of the principles. You may sometimes get confused by complex political issues because you can be persuaded by different arguments. Moderates like yourself are important in mediating between others in a parliamentary democracy. If you get involved in politics then you may well be working alongside the pragmatists among Conservatives or Liberals or Socialists depending on your inclinations and circumstances.

Can't see videos embedded in mobile version of the forum

I'll gladly reply to your comments tomorroW morning, with additions or details or specifics as requested

Indeed, my friend!

Never before head of a Chalupa Song

I'm going to assume that you are unable to debate the concerns I've raised. I'm pretty calm and raised the two most obvious defects of your proposal and you just keep your condescending teenager attitude. Fine by me. I should point out the rest: 1) Your executive council proposal is stiff and not flexible, is also a reflect of the one we previously approved when the activity was killed due to the Holidays and we were willing to accept anythying we could to have some action. So, by all means, your "reformation" is just more of the same in regards to an executive staff. 2) Your election process could easily take 13 days at least, should any delegate don't feel like posting the poll / is unable to do so. This does not address the concerns that originally caused the previous installment of our system to stall, and this is WITHOUT counting in any possible ties or run offs votes, which could easily, as per your proposal, extend to 26 days... Bureaucratic mess comes to my mind... 3) You let awful holes in the overall document: a) there is no explanation of the difference tasks between the Minister of Justice and the Court, to which the Minister of Justice belongs to and according to your text, will be able to review the appeals made to his own work... B ) no indication is made of what should happen if a Prime Minister resigns and the remaining officers in the line do not wish to uphold the position, your elections will ONLY be held on 4 specific times of the year... and hence the will of the people will have to wait all that long to select again? doesn't seems too democratic... c) point 4-7 contradicts point 3-3 unless there is yet ANOTHER judicial system over the other REGARDING YOUR BOLDED PART: Please let me know if you will be mature enough to stop your condescending ad hominen attacks (I don't need to link), and actually debate the glaring holes of your proposal? I'm making very single arguments here, and you are just hiding behind ridiculous emoti-faces and a clear and weak attempt to weasel out of this...

Ok, so the one marked I HAVE NO IDEA seems like either a CHALUPA or aa PUPUSA. Since most of the others are mexican stuff, I'll go with CHALUPA CHALUPA: usually is a toasted tortilla covered with refried beans, meat, cheese and then some sort of salad (lettuce or cabbage and tomato), and then covered in sauce (mayonaise, ketchup, hot chili, whatever you want)

It is not. The only thing the Speaker checks is the existence of a TWP nation. This is conceptually TOTALLY different that establishing than WA members have automatic citizenship and non WA member MAY (or MAY NOT, which you are conveniently ignoring here) be granted a special HONORARY citizenship. When you deal with creation of legal documents, the fine print is the most important part, as the devil is in the details, which you are purposely ignoring to try to shrug off a very honest and sincere critic of your proposal.

By the way, this is the third or fourth time you reply to your fellow citizens in disrespectful condescending manner. I thought you had understood PD's comment yet you didn't. Dark also asked you to stop the "eye-rolling". If you don't the capacity to debate back the points of your proposals that are weak or flick, then you either concede the point, or retract them. Else, debate them. Your condescending eye-rolling disrespectful manners are unbecoming, tiresome and are getting on the nervers of many people. People IS READING your comments and not agreeing with them. Deal with it. And do READ the arguments that are presented to you next time.

Guess who didn't, little Llamas?

This is inaccurate. Your proposal says: And by this simple fact, you are basically FORCING people to move their WA here to become citizens of the region. While your second part talks about the Prime Minister being able to confer "honorary membership", him being able to do so is the same as him being able NOT to do so, and hence it is NOT accurate to say what you said.

.... I would comment further on the topic, but I'd like to have a beer right now...