Elegarth

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...

Aren't you like under the legal age to drink?

It should be!

As far as I understood, the NATIVE population of Lazarus who was endorsing both the delegate Stu and the "liberator" were the same, and only after the "liberator" show his true colors, a myriad of foreign nations from the "liberation army" went in and increased his endorsement count. This is DESCRIPTIVE, and I'm not implying anything regarding judgement, but description wise, this hardly applies to "loosing the natives support en masse" However, as Vlagh says, this is pure speculation on your argument, man, and it harbors in the realms of speculative propaganda, plus it has nothing to do with the TWP forum government creation, or it shouldn't.

We could all bring friends and then argue we just told them to be "active", and you would still call it out, Llamas... /me shrugs It does feels forced to be honest. But I don't want to dabble on this again. I do insist that it takes a bit to become a truly fledged TWPian, it honestly took me quite a while to FULLY and REALLY understand the TWP system, and I personally feel there are details that still escape my grasp, and I've been here for quite a while. So it surprises me when people pretends to be fully knowledgeable of it all in a matter of hours. TWP is different and interesting because of the things that make it different and special. Perhaps I grew to love the place slowly. /me shrugs. Let's just try our best, our HONEST best?

That's more or less what I'd like to have, a sort of addition of them.

Still waiting for LS

Is there any left for me?

Welcome to the Chaos of the Forums

I hate that stupid limit too >_>

Theory is both a precursor to fact or to counter-proof, in equal measure. But you are right on arguing that it could pay up. Each and all ideas are possibilities, this does not mean some have more merit than others. Do I see merit in this one? Barely, that of activity, or engagement, of those not willing to make a forum account... But would they even care for that either? Will they really become engaged? Or will they just randomly select poll options to get it out of the way? You see my point? Is this a gamble that could REALLY be worth the risk? I personally BELIEVE not, but I don't KNOW it. You BELIEVE it is, but you don't KNOW it either. How much uncertainty are we - as the sum of all participants to the convention right now - be willing to take? thinking about it, we could even open a poll about it I'm sure it would not be voted down there, as YES are usually selected over NOs

Let me know if you need any help, I'd like to formally co-sponsor this proposal if we are able to reach a nice ground where we both feel comfortable.

I'm glad she is better now, my boy. Welcome back.

This is perhaps the only possible positive outcome / characteristic of this system that I can't argue. It makes sense that it creates the potential for this, but is it REALLY worthy to give it a trial period? I don't personally think it is, as the negative outweighs the positive in my view. We could still use the polls and other in-game features to try to engage more people into the forum governance, by using the dispatches, messaging, and why not, some opinion polls that the delegate be willing to do. It is hard to respond to a scenario that is totally in-game from an in-forum perspective. You should ask the current delegate and the guardians how would they react to the first part of this scenario, as I'm neither one or the other, nor have authority over their in-game reactions. Interestingly enough, for all matter and purposes the forum government would not need to stop existing if that happened, not would it need to abide by the in-game laws the new delegate makes. Co-existence of the separate entities seems to be a conceptual issue for many people lately. If tomorrow Max closes the game, the forum community would still exist and it can still have a "government structure" and continue "role playing nations and governments" regardless of the in-game existing or not. It would be, perhaps, weird, but nothing makes it impossible.

Not exactly, but close enough. On ideal terms, the in-game and in-forum aspects would collaborate at all times. But the inforu government shouldn't depend on in-game features in order to prevent any scenario where the collaboration is weak, which could potentially stop the operation of such government. You have to consider all scenarios

Everywhere. I'm not saying it is a bad thing that it does. After all, people is the power technically.

And it would be infinitely easier and much more stable to create a system that does not requires a compromise from the delegacy and that would potentially be at odds if any future delegate does not wants to play... specially if we already have a place - the forum - when such dependency does not exist