That Called the Vlagh

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.

It may, and I may be incorrect in some of my edits. I have not claimed that they are absolute at this point, just that this is how I see the proposal as most effective for the aims of this Convention. That said, if the distinction between Embassies with the offsite government and in-game Delegacy/governance of the region can be more clearly specified, I obviously will have no objection to it. I just do not like the idea of stating that certain treaties will not be considered valid if the Delegate does not get off-site approval. Also, I am a bit confused about the part regarding the creation of militaries. Why would the off-site forum need a military?

Thank you for letting me know. I will correct the link once it has been proposed.

Except that is exactly what the Delegate can do. The Delegate does not have to support this government at all. The Delegate can, at any time, decide that this is not a form of government that he/she approves of and disband it. The Delegate can set up a new forum elsewhere and put it into the WFE. It isn't that the Delegate controls this offsite community, it is that the offsite community seeks to associate itself with The West Pacific, which is controlled by the Delegate. That may sound like the same thing but it isn't. This community can survive without the Delegate but it can not do so as the 'official' offsite community of the NS region known as The West Pacific.

I took it from an IC and OOC perspective. My stability score is basically the same but my equality and liberty are very different. IC: Conservative You scored 7 Equality, 14 Liberty, and 71 Stability! You think stability is important for a society. You feel that ‘change for the sake of change’ is stupid and that political changes need to be limited to only those things that are demonstrably necessary. The traditional institutions of society have ‘stood the test of time’ and therefore work better than untested proposals. The most important institution is the family which you consider to be the fundamental unit of any society. Another institutions you value is government and you recognise parliamentary democracy as a useful way of ensuring that only incremental change occurs. You are likely to embrace traditional culture. You tend to prefer a predominantly free-market economy but only to the extent that it can be accommodated by traditional cultural – some of the products of a free-market like advertising and conspicuous consumption are way too crass for your liking. For information on conservative political parties worldwide see here (but note that this international also includes Establishmentarian and Moderate and Communitarian parties). If this is too bland for you then try the Ultra-Conservative on for size. OOC: Moderate You scored 64 Equality, 57 Liberty, and 79 Stability! 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.

Indeed. What is the point of in-game polls for an off-site community? I asked myself the same question when reading this proposal.