That Called the Vlagh
-
Posts
446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by That Called the Vlagh
-
-
Here are a few that would probably be called some of the most influential:
The Pacific: 2
They have been running under a corrupt dictatorship called the New Pacific Order for years now. They have recently made headlines with the installment of the New Lazarus Order in Lazarus. Unfortunately for them, the rest of NS rebelled and freed Lazarus, which is why I am ranking them 2 instead of 1.
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/
Charter of the Union of the West Pacific
Preamble
The Union of the West Pacific will endeavor to meet the needs of the West Pacifican community in a way that is unique to the polity and culture of this region. We, the residents who have assembled to ratify this Charter, will make no apology for maintaining a unique community. We will make no apology for thinking outside the box. We will make no apology for respecting the realities of Feeders and Sinkers in NationStates or the dynamics between Delegates and regional communities inherent to those realities. We will instead seek to provide a community government that is vibrantly active and open to participation by any resident of the West Pacific who wishes to participate, guided by reality rather than by ideological dogma. It is with this purpose in mind that we, the assembled residents, ratify this Charter and establish the Union of the West Pacific.1. Relationship Between the Union and the Delegate
(1) The Union will recognize the absolute authority of the Delegate over the West Pacific as the reality of NationStates mechanics.
(2) The Union will recognize as legitimate any Delegate elected by the endorsements of the World Assembly nations of the West Pacific.
(3) The Union will recognize the right of the Delegate to exercise any power granted to the Delegate by NationStates mechanics.
(4) The Union will recognize the right of World Assembly nations of the West Pacific to elect a new Delegate at any time.
(5) The Union will recognize its own autonomy from the Delegate as an autonomous off-site community government of the West Pacific.
(6) The Union will cooperate with the Delegate whenever such cooperation is desirable or necessary for the welfare of the overall regional community of the West Pacific.
2. Voice of the Union
(1) The Voice of the Union will be the supreme governing authority of the Union of the West Pacific.
(2) The Voice will be comprised of all residents of the West Pacific who wish to participate in the Voice. Each resident will have only one vote in the Voice regardless of how many nations they have residing in the West Pacific.
(3) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, admit non-residents to its membership provided the non-residents in question are prevented from residing in the West Pacific.
(4) The Voice will have only the powers enumerated by this Charter and may not assume additional powers except by amending this Charter.
(5) The Voice will have the power to enact, amend, and repeal its own procedural rules.
(6) The Voice will have the power to enact, amend, and repeal non-binding resolutions expressing the sense of the Voice in regard to all matters.
(7) The Voice will, with the approval of the Delegate, have the power to enact, amend, and repeal treaties.
(8) The Voice will have the power to confirm and rescind Union participation in treaties proposed by the Delegate.
(9) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote and with the approval of the Delegate, have the power to declare war and to repeal war declarations.
(10) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote, have the power to confirm and rescind Union participation in war declarations proposed by the Delegate.
(11) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote, have the power to amend this Charter or to repeal this Charter in its entirety in favor of a constitutional convention.
(12) Except where otherwise explicitly mandated by this Charter, all votes of the Voice will be determined by simple majority vote. The result of any vote will be determined by taking into account only members of the Voice who have voted and discounting abstentions cast in the vote.
3. Government of the Union
(1) The government of the Union will be administered by the Advocate, who will be elected by and preside over the Voice.
(2) Elections for Advocate will consist of a three day period for declarations of candidacy followed by a five day period for voting.
(3) Any member of the Voice who has held continuous membership in the Voice for one month or more will be eligible for candidacy for Advocate.
(4) Any resident who participated in the constitutional convention to enact this Charter will be eligible for the first election for Advocate immediately following enactment of this Charter.
(5) In the event that the office of Advocate is vacant during an election for Advocate, the Delegate may administer the election, may appoint an election administrator, or the member of the Voice with the longest continuous membership and who is available to serve will administer the election.
(6) In the event that no candidate receives a simple majority on the first election ballot, a run-off election will be conducted between the two highest voted candidates, starting no sooner than 24 hours and no later than 72 hours after the previous election has closed. This election will also last for a five day voting period.
(7) In the event that an election results in a tie between only two candidates, the incumbent will be re-elected or, if the incumbent is not a candidate, the candidate who first declared candidacy will be elected.
(8) The Advocate will serve terms of four months, with a limit of two consecutive terms.
(9) The Advocate may appoint officials to assist in government and may dismiss such officials.
(10) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, dismiss the Advocate from office.
(11) The Voice may dismiss any official appointed by the Advocate from office.
4. Justice in the Union
(1) The Voice will vote on whether to hear any complaint for unacceptable conduct filed against a member of the Voice by another member.
(2) If the Voice votes to hear the complaint, the matter will be referred to a public hearing by three Arbiters elected by the Voice prior to the hearing.
(3) Elections for Arbiter will follow the same procedure as elections for Advocate. Arbiters may determine hearing procedures. Arbiters will serve and their hearing procedures will be binding only for the duration of the hearing for which they are elected.
(4) During all hearings, the complainant may present their case against the defendant and the defendant may present a defense.
(5) At the conclusion of a hearing, Arbiters will find the defendant guilty or not guilty of unacceptable conduct.
(6) If a defendant is found guilty, they will be removed from the Voice for a period of time sentenced by the Arbiters.
(7) A defendant may appeal to the Voice within fourteen days of a guilty verdict imposed by the Arbiters.
(8) The Voice will vote on all appeals and may, by two-thirds majority vote, overturn a guilty verdict and its accompanying sentence. All appeal votes will be final and will not be conducted more than once.
(9) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, commute a sentence imposed by the Arbiters at any time following imposition of the sentence.
(10) The Voice will have no jurisdiction to impose justice on residents, or any other persons, who are not members of the Voice.
(11) The Voice will not infringe upon the right of forum administration to resolve out-of-character offenses at their discretion.
(12) The Voice will not infringe upon the right of the Delegate to resolve game-side offenses at their discretion.
5. Military of the Union
(1) The military force of the Union will execute the policies determined by the Advocate and officials appointed by the Advocate to assist in military command.
(2) The military force of the Union will maintain a division for home defense that will operate under the command of the Delegate and officials appointed by the Delegate to assist in command of the home defense division.
(3) The Voice will have the power to adopt and amend an official name for the military force of the Union.
(4) The Voice will have the power to override and bring to an immediate end any deployment of the military force of the Union.
(5) No participant in the military force of the Union will be compelled to participate in any military operation against their conscience or prudent judgment.
(6) The existence of an official military force of the Union will not prohibit other residents of the West Pacific from creating alternative military forces with the consent of the Delegate.
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.
-
I don't think I'll be able to finish it. AP testing. :/
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 don't agree regarding the military, and will not be amending that into this draft. Either we're going to have the forum government autonomous from the Delegate or we aren't, and either we're going to allow WA nations to organize against the Delegate if they choose to do so or we aren't. If we aren't, we should drop any charade of the forum government being autonomous from the Delegate and implement a government similar to the New Pacific Order. That is an approach I would not support.
This military isn't supposed to be the West Pacific's military. This military is supposed to be the Union of the West Pacific's military, e.g., the forum government's military. If the Delegate wants a separate military she can set one up herself*, but if we're going to make the forum government's military subject to the Delegate then we might as well drop this separation altogether and make the entire forum government subject to the Delegate.
* I'm using female gender pronouns in recognition that the current Delegate is female, but I'm speaking generally.
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.
-
Finally, regarding the military, I actually don't agree with the military being under the Delegate's jurisdiction. Most militaries have little to do with regional self-defense/security -- which is typically carried out by a security council, like our Guardian system -- and much more to do with raiding or defending (or both) other regions. Since the forum government's military would primarily, if not exclusively, be carrying out its activities outside TWP, I don't see any reason the Delegate should have jurisdiction over the military. Even for operations inside TWP, the military would either be supporting the Delegate (which shouldn't be a problem), or exercising the legitimate right of TWP's WA nations to engage in open rebellion. In the latter case, requiring the Delegate's approval to rebel against her doesn't make any sense. So I really don't see a circumstance in which it's appropriate for the Delegate to have jurisdiction over the military, but I'm open to hearing reasons from you or others who agree that the Delegate should have a military role.
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.
-
that thing is a complete hassle.
it doesn't like my screen name, insists on an email address, etc
suffice it to say I'm a right wing/libertarian type
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'm fine with saying that the delegate is supreme in game or that they can decide policy, but I'd also like to point out that we don't currently have elections for delegate via endorsements--there is an endo cap, and people can get ejected for passing it. If everybody decided today that Soandso would be a better delegate and endorsed him, he'd get booted. So saying Darkesia has the most endos, therefore she's in charge, fine. Saying that means that her popularity is directly proportional to her number of endorsements, however, is false. I don't mind not having perfect democracy as much as I mind the people in charge trying to make it sound like we do when we don't.
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.Frankly I find the original draft (Cormac's) to be fine. I myself couldn't really get behind the changes suggested so far. As it was pointed out, those particular parts struck out in said suggestion) act as a sort of "checks and balances" that I believe maintains an equilibrium that's worked quite well here. Why get rid it of that? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-
Fair enough, and I see the distinction now. However, I'd still like to see, at the very least, the delegate prohibited from throwing out the constitution entirely and starting a new assembly (as opposed to calling a referendum for reform of the existing system, for example.) This revolution we're in the middle of will greatly advance TWP, I think, but I don't think a revolution is appropriate every time the delegate is unhappy with the existing system. Constitutions are supposed to be a strong foundation that can last--otherwise they're not worth the trouble.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
I understand that the delegate is a de facto dictator in-game, but don't see that off-site as well. Off-site mechanics do not automatically make the delegate's word the final say, as it is in-game.
In any case, I don't think that just because it is de facto means we shouldn't legislate it. We left in the parts about the autonomy of the delegate, after all.
And as for the point I made about "working both ways," if anything made me think that's how it was, it definitely wasn't some regions' forums' power over their respective delegates--it was the laissez-faire approach of Darkesia. I'm not advocating the forum's power to approve the delegate's actions at all. I just think that the Delegate should also let the forums be self-governing.
At the very least, if we're going to strike out the clause saying "The delegate will have no authority over the union," we should spell out what kind of authority they *do* have. Can they veto legislation? That seems reasonable. Strip the union of its powers if they get sick of it, and ignore its legislation? That does not.
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.
Which regions are the most influential?
in The Lounge
Posted