That Called the Vlagh

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending upon your point of view, the Delegate in TWP is a de facto dictator, just benevolent in the current situation. That is how the system works. There will be no institutions put in place that seeks to 'limit' the authority of the Delegate. It doesn't actually work both ways. The only reason some here think that it does is because some other regions have put systems in place that require the off-site government's approval of the Delegacy. That is not how things are in TWP.

In order to facilitate this form of governance into what is expected of the off-site community I have made a few minor editing suggestions. Overall, I have made no structural changes to the document, just some minor editing, which is clearly marked below. If the proposer does not accept these changes or wishes to discuss them with me directly, I am happy to have that conversation, but ultimately if I feel that the documents being presented do not represent current reality here in TWP fully they will not be put forward for approval (unless I am overruled by the Delegate, of course). The imposition of WA membership on members of the off-site community government is not in keeping with the purpose of this convention. This is unacceptable. Further, it should be clear that the off-site community government is just that, the government of the off-site community. TWP maintains that the Delegate is head of government for the region and in-game 'head of state'.

In order to facilitate this form of governance into what is expected of the off-site community I have made a few minor editing suggestions. While it is true that we could maintain the forum community without the support of the Delegate, I very much doubt we could continue to call ourselves the offsite community of TWP by doing so and we would not have the benefit of having this forum directed to as the main point of offsite activity for the region. It has never been stated that the Delegate has no say in how we do things here, the current Delegate has simply opted not to be directly involved and has let us more or less have free reign. That does not mean it will always be the case and expecting it to be so by incorporating potentially adversarial language will not be helpful. Overall, I have made no structural changes to the document, just some minor editing, which is clearly marked below. If the proposer does not accept these changes or wishes to discuss them with me directly, I am happy to have that conversation, but ultimately if I feel that the documents being presented do not represent current reality here in TWP fully they will not be put forward for approval (unless I am overruled by the Delegate, of course). There are several points within this document that outline ways in which the Delegate must get approval for various actions from the Union. This is unacceptable.

I don't believe having the foundation of how the forum community governs itself as the pilot testing is the best course of action. Ultimately, we are still discussing how the offsite community will be governed. The in-game community of nations have every right and opportunity to come here and take part.

It seems that we now have two forms of government submitted for discussion for this second phase of the Convention: Cormac's Union of the West Pacific Llamas's West Pacific Constitutional Act

Thank you.

Just in case you missed this. Since this is about the forum government, linking to another site in order to facilitate discussion of your proposal is unacceptable.

If the proposal is not present on this forum then it will not be considered.

Since she has stated publicly and privately that she does not support the idea of limits on the Delegacy, then that is my position until such time as I hear otherwise. Obviously, if the Delegate wishes to change her position on the situation then I would be obligated to do likewise.

Will do.

I believe you are attempting to make TSP the straw man of the region. There are some nations now taking part in this Convention that seem to be interested solely in the diminishing of the Delegacy as an independent body and they almost unanimously support your political agenda. You have just confirmed that you invited them here for this reason. I have commented that this level of manipulation is not in keeping with the spirit of TWP, because it is not. I make no accusations beyond what is readily apparent. I am not 'contributing' to anything, just making observation of your actions. If your actions are contributing to that which you state, so be it. Own it.

I didn't need you to verify it, as it is readily apparent to anyone that has been in this community for any length of time. But, yes, it is good to invite friends to take part in a region. I personally have a difference of opinion on whether that includes inviting people who have never taken part in anything here at all to just pop in so that they can vote in favor of my own agenda, but to each his own, I guess. We will see how many of them stick around after the fact and actually contribute. I will say that rigging the vote, which this most assuredly is, is not in the spirit of TWP at all and while we are open to having all parties take part here freely, if it turns out that the vote was so heavily rigged and that those rigging it were not here as legitimate members of the community (meaning that if they disappear afterwards) then it will call any form of government that takes shape's legitimacy into question.

Your definition of 'younger' is perhaps different than mine. If you mean newer, in that there are several nations that have decided to come forward and take part in this Convention without having taken part in the community prior, then you may be correct. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that several of them seem to only be concerned with your proposal and have not contributed to the other discussions taking place. I wonder why that might be?

As I said, I disagree. Speculating on whether or not a sitting Delegate would have lost endorsements is all well and good after the fact, but as one that has held close association with beleaguered Delegate nations in the past, I can safely say that such speculation is often in error. That said, unless you are supporting the idea of an unendorsement campaign within TWP, I still fail to see your point.

I await your proposal. Based upon your wording elsewhere and the continued discussion in other threads about seeking to curb the authority of the Delegate, I will be honest and say that I am not looking forward to it with much enthusiasm.

Interesting. While I do not wish to dwell on this subject, as it has absolutely no bearing on what we do here in TWP, I thought the issue in Lazarus was that the Delegate decided to support the underground. The population of the region (as a whole) really had absolutely nothing to do with that outside of the endorsements, which the Delegate held prior to his switch in loyalties. So no, I do not believe any sort of correlation exists between the posts above and your point.

I will await the draft to comment fully, but my initial concern about this is that it places the off-site government and Delegate into adversarial roles if there is ever disagreement, even if there is no direct coloration between that adversarial position and in-game action.

Who are you quoting and/or speaking to?

The Guardians are part of the in-game governance of the region and have nothing to do with the off-site government. We do not place restrictions on the Guardians either.

Just a reminder that tomorrow is the scheduled wrap-up day for open discussion. At present, only Cormac has presented a firm governmental proposal. I would suggest that others interested in presenting alternative forms of government get to work so that we have more than one option to discuss moving forward from tomorrow.

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*