That Called the Vlagh

Reminder: Today and the first part of tomorrow are the last chances to vote on the ratification of the Union Charter.

Reminder: Today and the first part of tomorrow are the last chances to vote on the ratification of the Union Charter.

I don't mind playing stuffy.

I have to agree with this. While certain aspects of TNP have traditionally been considered a laughingstock in some corners, I have found the community there to be quite resilient in the face of adversity and they tend to incorporate a lot of influential people from various aspects of NS. Also, it has one of the most active offsite governmental systems in the GCRs (possibly the game). I believe in their last elections they had 90 nations take part in the voting and their military routinely gets 30+ nations into action.

Maybe the wrong people were in charge of the operation?

I'm a bit confused by the part in bold. I thought the Delegate nation simply switched sides? I am fairly certain that the 'rest of NS' was just sh*tting their pants. At least that is how it looked to me from the outside looking in.

For clarification purposes, my vote is at the bottom of the ratification OP. It was posted as the first post in the thread but the forum mechanics merged the posts automatically.

Please post in this thread whether your nation seeks to ratify the Union of the West Pacific Charter as detailed below. This vote will close on 19 May 2015. Your post should state whether your nation (or in the case of non-nation holding participants, you) approve of this as the new form of governance for the off-site community or if you do not approve and would like to reopen discussion. Ratification or denial will be decided by simple majority. In the event that the Charter is ratified, all parties voting for or against will be considered members of the Voice, unless a nation or non-nation participant specifically requests to be excluded from the roster. In the event of non-ratification, the floor will reopen to proposals. Please keep discussion of the vote to the designated Discussion Thread: http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1383-ratification-vote-discussion-thread/ The Treehugger Imprisoning Fortress State of That Called the Vlagh votes in favor of ratification.

This thread is for discussion of the ratification vote taking place concurrently on the Charter of the Union of the West Pacific. Please maintain the ratification thread only for voting. Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your quick reply.

The timetable is flexible. If you would like to see a draft of your proposal put up for the vote we can accommodate that provided it is within a reasonable amount of time. How long would you need? Or, conversely, if you are fine without submitting a final draft, are you okay if we move forward with an approval vote for Cormac's legislation?

Should I assume that the Cormac draft is the only completed draft that we will be voting on? Llamas?

Please finalize your drafts so that voting can begin tomorrow or Wednesday.

Tweedy has been a part of this community for well over a decade. I can imagine no scenario where he wouldn't be allowed to vote.

I was not stating that the forum government should have no authority over the military. I was asking if the current TWP Army would be incorporated into the Union.

The only issue I have with this part is that the military could be used as a means of supporting open rebellion without that necessarily being the aim of those taking part. What I mean is that the leadership of the military could be subverted to some extent and nations (perhaps uninformed nations?) could blindly follow orders that were counterproductive to what the offsite community wants. But, provided that the chain of command conforms to the Voice I do not foresee this as an issue. That said, will the current TWP Army be considered subject to this setup? At present it seems to act more or less independently of the offsite government, at least that is the impression I got with the HGA.

I thought the same thing and then just clicked past that page and it took me to the results without registering.

I actually have no recommendations for changing this document. It conforms to what I was anticipating the forum government structure to be about. I will say that it appears, although she stated she will comment further later today, that the Delegate wanted the Army incorporated into this structure to some extent and I don't see that present. Also for Article 3, Section 10, should the method of dismissal for an official be stated as the same as that of the Advocate or is the threshold lower (e.g. a simple majority)?

I never said anything about democracy. As far as I am concerned, The West Pacific is a (benevolent) dictatorship and nothing else. What I stated was that the will of the region is reflected in the Delegate having the most endorsements. That is a fact. If the will of the region were otherwise it would not matter what the cap is because nations have the option to unendorsed the Delegate. If the masses truly believed that another nation would better serve in the role then it would happen with or without ejections. The simple fact is that Darkesia is the current Delegate because she has the most endorsements. If she chooses to protect that position against opposition while maintaining high support among the populace that doesn't make it any less valid.

Then that new Delegate can decide differently. I think the entire point, when you get down to it, is that a relatively small minority on an offsite forum can not legitimately claim to know what the region wants. The only tangible mechanism for knowing what a GCR wants is via endorsements. Darkesia has the most, therefore she is what the region wants.

My comments and positions are centered on the stated desire of the Delegate to have a separate offsite system of government. If the Delegate wanted an in-game government that was directed by offsite legislation then TWP would have one.

I have modified my edits. The offsite community will evidently have the power to approve the Delegate's foreign policy. If this was not the intention of the Delegate, my apologies. I am reading this on my phone while walking to a meeting.

Thanks for the clarification, madam Delegate.

Because there are no 'checks and balances' here. The Delegate has ultimate authority in TWP and that will not change.

The ultimate problem with this is that what you want is not feasible with reality in TWP. With the authority of the Delegate, this is exactly what has just happened and why we are having a Convention at all. A constitution can be a strong foundation and I can assure you that so long as this constitution does not seek to impose itself unnecessarily on in-game authority it will not be summarily rejected by the Delegate.