That Called the Vlagh

I will state, again, that no proposal that incorporates 'limits' (in any form) on the Delegate will even be put forward to vote.

You are correct, we exist at the Delegate's pleasure. In the current situation, I am certain we can ask the Delegate which governmental system that is put up for vote she favors, but I am thinking that so long as we maintain complete separation of the off-site and in-game governance she will not care about the format.

lolI wasn't fishing for an apology, just stating my opinion on it since it is topical.

I am chair of the Convention in the sense that it is still within my Ministry and I will determine which proposals go to vote, specifically any form of government that does not seek to impose offsite rule over in-game situations. Since the offsite government is not reliant on in-game status, I am not certain linking a nation within TWP is necessary but am open to suggestions or other opinions. Perhaps if that is the case those that vote should include a nation link with their vote?

Unfortunately, the other admins succumbed to his babbling about being offended by an emoticon, even though it was in response to him calling me the person the emoticon represented, and I was removed from the admin team. *rollseyes*

Way, way too much Hawkeye.

Yes, it is.

It seems that they can be by these criteria (as noted by Cormac above): 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.

No legislation/constitution that in any way, shape, or form attempts to dictate to the Delegate will be placed before this body for a vote so discussion on such matters is unnecessary.

I found him amusing. Much more so than that guy that got so butthurt over a simple emoticon.

So long as Delegate elections are not set up in an on-site poll I am fine with this.

Just to be clear, no governmental structure that includes in-game stipulations (WA membership included) will be put forward for the vote.

Sure thing. Done.

He is upset that I spurned his man-crush.

So, instead of just blindly going forward with discussions, I think it might be best to have some form of timetable in place for the Convention. This is what I envision at present but I am open to suggestions for modifications: I. Open Debate - Style of government - Structure of government - Limits of government (Now to 5 May 2015) II. Formulation of Proposals - Formal consolidation of government structures for voting Cormac's Union of the West Pacific Llamas's West Pacific Constitutional Act (5 May 2015 to 12 May 2015) III. Voting on proposal(s) Ratification vote on the Charter of the Union of the West Pacific (12 May 2015 to 19 May 2015) Note: This is just a general layout and can be modified if necessary because of general consensus or whatever

And I do so love to help people...

Since we are an exclusively offsite government, why not make a complete system like once existed within the old Meritocracy? Obviously we would forego the election process and make Senate membership voluntary but we could perhaps incorporate some of the structures here. I hesitate to copy those structures for review because they are admittedly complicated and if we are looking solely for a system that is simple that may not be the best course of action.

I think those appointed into the positions did as well. The lack of involvement was the primary impetus for the introduction of the Civil Code. It was meant as a means of getting more people involved. Since it has never panned out and it appears that we are able to successfully navigate headaches without it, I would support its exclusion.

I care about people's feelings. It's just that sometimes the method in which I care is 'how much can I hurt their feelings'.

I saw the suggestion in the other forum and moved it here before reading this. Since Archsium was advocating change I feel certain he will be fine with the thread being moved. If not I will be happy to move it back.

Present

No, she has stated that the forums have no power over the game and that she has decided not to take an active part directly in the forum governmental structures, but that does not mean we are allowed to run amok and try to force change in-game when the Delegate has expressly forbid it.

We have already revoted on the matter and reached a conclusion that was unsatisfactory, again. Considering the recent turmoil within the HGA, I decided to reinstate the Prime Minister with the aim of moving forward with the Constitutional Convention. The authority to do so rests with me, and my authority rests with the Delegate. That said, we will be starting a Constitutional Convention shortly to outline a new governmental structure for the forum based community. It will still maintain its separation from the ingame governance of the region.

1. No idea what you are talking about. 2. Nope. 3. Elegarth, from what I understand, resigned from the NPO at the beginning stages of the recent Lazarus turmoil.

I believe you are crossing a few lines. Who is this Pierconium person that you speak of? Sounds like a cool dude. Also, for fact's sake, Elegarth is not a member of the New Pacific Order.