[Real Democracy for All - A Plan for the West Pacific's Government]

It seems to me that vlagh's changes alter some of the main points of this proposal, as some of the fundamental goals were to put emphasis on in-game, rather than off-site. What is the point of an in-game poll if membership is limited to off-site members? It doesn't really matter to me, as I wouldn't have voted for the proposal in its original state and it seems kind of pointless now, but I predict Llamas will not be happy with the changes.

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

[The Union of the West Pacific]

I think that the reason we can be content with the balance we have now, where the off-site community doesn't affect the in-game too much, is because the Delegate reciprocates our trust with her laissez-fair way of not interfering with our business. If the delegate can have power over the off-site without any counter-balance, we lose the equilibrium, and the delegate becomes more of a benevolent (or non-benevolent, as the case may be) dictator.

 

As such, I would like to propose the following amendment to Vlagh's changes: of the five strike-throughs he has made, we will keep the last three. Again, limiting our power over the delegate is fine. However, undo the first two cuts he made referring to the autonomy of the in-forum community--like I said, it only makes sense to have things work (or not work) both ways.

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.

[Real Democracy for All - A Plan for the West Pacific's Government]

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'.

 

The West Pacific Constitution Act

 

1. The Legislative Assembly is hereby established as the sole legislative body in the West Pacific.

   1. The Legislative Assembly will consist of all members of the World Assembly of the off-site community residing within the region, subject to further reasonable restrictions imposed by the Prime Minister for purposes of regional security, who will each be granted an equal vote in all matters of legislation.

   2. The Prime Minister may choose to grant a nation honorary membership in order to confer voting rights upon a nation whose WA does not reside within the West Pacific.

   3. The Legislative Assembly shall operate using in-game polls to make the process of voting and participating simpler and easier with the permission of the Delegate. Should the Delegate be unable to create a poll for a particular vote within five days of a proposal being submitted, the Legislative Assembly shall instead hold a vote on the regional forums.

   4. A law shall be moved to vote if it receives explicit statements of support from five members of the region on the forums, or if it is proposed by the Executive Council as a whole.

 

2. The Executive Council of the West Pacific is hereby established and will be tasked with carrying out all commands and laws of the off-site community regional legislature.

   1. The Executive Council shall consist of the Prime Minister and all Officers appointed by the Prime Minister to assist in performing his or her duties.

   2. The Delegate shall be considered a non-member observer on the Executive Council and have access to all of its communications, but shall not be considered a full member of the body. However, the Delegate maintains ultimate authority over the actions of the Executive Council.

   3. All full members of the Executive Council will respond to the Prime Minister, and will be held responsible before them for their actions and omissions in the execution of their duties.

   4. Should any full member of the Executive Council fail to perform their duties as laid out in the law, the Delegate may call for a constructive vote of no confidence to remove the incumbent and replace them. In order to succeed, over three-fifths of all votes cast must be in favor of the motion. A full member of the legislature who is appointed in such a manner may not be removed from office until the next General Elections have ended.

   5. Any member of the Executive Council may appoint deputies to assist them in carrying out their duties.

   6. The Executive Council as a whole shall possess the power of legislative initiative, and may choose to propose a bill before the Legislative Assembly to be either approved or rejected by majority vote.

 

3. The following Offices are hereby established as part of the Executive Council.

   1. The Prime Minister will be Head of Government for the off-site community in the West Pacific as well as Head of the Executive Council, acting to coordinate its activities and set its agenda.

   2. The Officer of Foreign Affairs will, in consultation with the Prime Minister, be responsible for coordinating diplomatic interaction with other regions and nations, and will also be responsible for handling World Assembly Affairs.

   3. The Officer of Judicial Affairs will be responsible for maintaining order within the West Pacific, especially on its forums, by issuing punishment for minor crimes and judgement when guilt or innocence is clearly evident.

   4. The Officer of Community Affairs will be responsible for facilitating community affairs, including but not necessarily limited to integration, culture, and role play.

   5. The Officer of Home Affairs will be responsible for recruiting recently-founded nations within TWP so that they will join the forums and remain in the region, increasing the number of nations in the region who are both in the World Assembly and endorsing the Delegate to assist domestic security, and educate the people of the region IRC so that they may become active and productive citizens of the West Pacific.

 

4. The Judiciary will be the third branch of the West Pacific’s government, and will consist of the Regional Court.

   1. The Regional Court will be made up of three members: Two Justices of the Peace and the Minister of Judicial Affairs.

   2. Justices of the Peace will be nominated by the Delegate and then either approved or rejected by the Legislative Assembly.

   3. Should a Justice of the Peace fail to perform their duties as laid out in the law, the Delegate may call for a constructive vote of no confidence to remove the incumbent and replace him with another candidate. In order to succeed, over three-fifths of all votes cast must be in favor of the motion. A full member of the legislature who is appointed in such a manner may not be removed from office until the next General Elections have ended.

   4. The Regional Court will handle appeals from those who have been punished by the Minister of Judicial Affairs and grant all accused a fair trial upon agreeing to hear their appeal.

   5. The Regional Court is granted the authority to interpret laws of the region off-site community.

   6. Should any law passed by the Legislative Assembly contradict the Constitution without explicitly modifying it, the offending law will be struck down.

   7. No member of the Regional Court apart from the Minister of Judicial Affairs may also be a member of the Executive Council.

5. General elections will be held every three months to select a Prime Minister.

   1. General elections will begin on the first of every March, June, September, and December.

   2. Elections will consist of a three-day nomination and campaigning period in which any member or honorary member of the Legislative Assembly may declare their candidacy, followed by a five-day vote in which every member or honorary member of the Legislative Assembly will receive a single vote.

   3. Should no candidate receive a majority of votes cast in the election, a runoff shall be held between the top two candidates.

   4. Should the office of Prime Minister become suddenly vacant, the Delegate will appoint an Acting Prime Minister to serve for the duration of snap elections.

 

[The Union of the West Pacific]

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.

The Union of the West Pacific

The Union of the West Pacific will aim to meet the following needs of the West Pacifican community:

• Provide a functional forum government in which any resident will find it easy to participate, should they so choose;
• Ensure the autonomy of the in-game regional community and Delegate from the forum government;
• Ensure the autonomy of the forum community and government from the in-game Delegate;
• Provide a practical framework for cooperation between the in-game and forum governments when desirable or necessary.

Relationship Between the Union and the Delegate

The Union will respect the absolute in-game authority of the Delegate as the reality of game mechanics, as well as the autonomy of the Union as the forum government of the West Pacific, by clearly adopting the following principles:

• The legitimate Delegate of the West Pacific is the nation elected by the World Assembly endorsements of nations in the West Pacific, and the Delegate may exercise any power over the West Pacific granted to the Delegate by game mechanics. The Union will have no authority over the in-game region.
• The Union will respect the right of World Assembly nations of the West Pacific to elect a new Delegate at any time.
• The Delegate will have no authority over the Union.
• The Union will cooperate with the Delegate whenever such cooperation is desirable or necessary for the welfare of the overall community of the West Pacific.

The Voice of the Union

The Voice will not be a typical legislature but will instead function as more of a town hall, comprised of any resident of the West Pacific who wishes to participate in the Voice. To avoid the development of complicated legalism and bureaucracy, the Voice will not legislate except to amend the Charter of the Union and to adopt and amend rules of order. Instead, the Voice will have broad governing powers exercised by simple majority vote, including:

• The power to adopt and amend rules of order;
• The power to elect an Advocate to preside over government of the Union on behalf of the Voice;
• The power to hear complaints against members and to remove members from the Voice after such hearings;
• The power to propose treaties for the approval of the Delegate;
• The power to approve treaties proposed by the Delegate;
• The power to declare war against other regions or organizations, with the approval of the Delegate;
• The power to approve a declaration of war proposed by the Delegate against other regions or organizations;
• The power to amend the Charter of the Union of the West Pacific.

A note on treaties and declarations of war: This is the one area where the in-game Delegate and the forum community are interdependent, in recognition that treaties and declarations of war affect the entire community. Naturally, as the Delegate can in reality do anything that game mechanics permits, the Delegate could still enact a treaty or declaration of war without the approval of the Union, but under this proposal such a treaty would not be recognized as valid or binding upon the Union and whatever military it establishes. Because of the negative effect treaties and declarations of war can have on the in-game region, the Union couldn't enact either without the approval of the Delegate.

Government of the Union

Government of the Union will be administered by the Advocate:

• The Advocate must be a member of the Voice.
• The Advocate will serve terms of two months, with a limit of three consecutive terms.
• The Advocate will be elected by the Voice in elections that last ten days (five for nominations, five for voting).
• In the event that no candidate receives a simple majority on the first ballot, a run-off election will be conducted.
• 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.
• The Advocate may appoint officials to assist in government and may dismiss such officials.
• The Voice may dismiss the Advocate or any official appointed by the Advocate.

Justice in the Union

The Union will adopt the following procedure for matters of justice:

• Any member of the Voice may file a complaint before the Voice against another member for behavior that the complainant believes is unbecoming of a member of the Voice.
• The Voice will vote on whether to hear the complaint.
• If the Voice votes to hear the complaint, the complainant may present a case against the defendant and the defendant may present a defense, in a public hearing before the Voice.
• Hearings will be presided over by an Arbiter elected by the Voice at the beginning of the hearing, who will serve only for the duration of that hearing. Elections for Arbiter will follow the same procedure as elections for Advocate.
• At the conclusion of the hearing, the Voice will vote to find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
• If the defendant is found guilty, the defendant will be removed from the Voice for a period of time sentenced by the Arbiter.
• The Voice may commute a sentence imposed by the Arbiter before expiration of the sentence.
• OOC offenses will be resolved by the policies of forum administration.
• In-game offenses will be resolved by the Delegate.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

I like that, actually. I recommend we hold an in-game poll to select a constitution as a pilot to see how it works out, then have the forum community either approve or reject the constitution that has been selected using a majority vote.

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.

[Timetable - for discussion]

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

[Real Democracy for All - A Plan for the West Pacific's Government]

Thank you.

[Real Democracy for All - A Plan for the West Pacific's Government]

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

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.

[Real Democracy for All - A Plan for the West Pacific's Government]

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

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

Even if she agrees?

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.

[Extraneous discussion from Dramatic Legal Reform thread]

Will do.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

Rigging the vote? I'm honestly not trying to do that. I told each and every one of them to be active in the region. If they fail to do that, I will kick them very hard in the arse, as I've already said they deserve.

 

But feel free to accuse me of whatever you want and contribute to the toxic atmosphere that's starting to develop. *shudders* God don't let this become a second TSP. >.<

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.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

I will fully say that I invited some of them to take part in this convention and the region as a whole. Recruiting friends to join a region, last I checked, is a good thing.

 

Still, I will kick them in the arse very hard if they do not get active in other sections ASAP. Some of them are annoying me because they're not being as active as I'd like them to be. >.<

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.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

Perhaps not you personally, but I'm glad to have the younger population of TWP on my side. It'll be up today or tomorrow.

Completely understandable if you don't have time, though I am a bit surprised as to that; I've created polls, they don't take too long. I'll make sure the system uses polls whenever possible but does not fully depend on it by allowing forum votes in the event that the Delegate cannot create a poll.

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?

[Extraneous discussion from Dramatic Legal Reform thread]

Ah, Vlagh, but it has everything to do with the two above posts. The PRL was successful where the NLO was not because the NLO failed to maintain the people's support. Perhaps the NPO's support managed to keep the Delegate at an equivalent endorsement count as before, but if the population hadn't unendorsed Stujenske and supported the liberation movement en masse, his count would have gone way up and any attempts to dislodge him could have been successful. It would have failed, quite simply put.

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.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

Perhaps we need just a bit of adversity here. Competition is what has driven the capitalist system to be so successful, after all, and it forces people to work hard and be effective if they want to be successful. It's the basic premise behind democratic republics, and has been quite successful. The problem is when competition goes too far. This proposal avoids that by ensuring an escape valve in the case of disagreement.

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.

[Extraneous discussion from Dramatic Legal Reform thread]

I like the above two posts.

 

Let's remember that this is what happened in Lazarus. The NPO's attempt to coup and absorb the region failed because the native population was strongly opposed to it, and instead supported the Lazarene Underground State, which is now the ruling government of the region.

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.  

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

I'd like to note (as I have multiple times in the past) that my constitution, which is still being drafted, contains a clause stating that if the delegate refuses to hold a poll, then it will instead be held on the forums. This eliminates the concern about the offsite forums dictating that the Delegate must hold polls by making it a strong recommendation as opposed to a full requirement.

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.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

You seem to be contradicting yourself:

 

"This is perhaps the only possible positive outcome / characteristic of this system that I can't argue. It makes sense that it creates the potential for this, but is it REALLY worthy to give it a trial period?"

 

" Co-existence of the separate entities seems to be a conceptual issue for many people lately. If tomorrow Max closes the game, the forum community would still exist "

If you truly believe that the forum should not seek to influence events in the region then you cannot argue that such a trial should not go ahead.

It would seem that the options to progress an in-game government decided via this method is to either convince the existing Delegate or install a Delegate that is willing to instigate it.

Who are you quoting and/or speaking to?

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

Sorry Elgarth, but is it your suggestion that, as, ultimately, this forum holds no sway over what does and doesn't occur in the in-game region that any form of government/administration we discuss here is not to consider how the region is run?

 

And Vlagh, if there are to be no restrictions on the Delegate then why do the Guardians exist? 

 

If we truly respect that the delegate is the nation with the most endorsements, then the whole endocap system is a manifestation of restricting the delegate

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.

[Timetable - for discussion]

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.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

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

[Administrative Question]

Do we think we could simply ask the delegate if she'd be willing to support particular proposals? By support, I mean she sees no issue with the proposal and how she runs the region. Obviously, as delegates change the new delegate would need to affirm the existing government (which is no change from today) and the current delegate is always willing to change his/her mind. The offsite government - imo - exists and has power at the pleasure of the sitting delegate. 

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.

[Classic TWP Flag?]

you're right, shouldn't have done that.

at any rate I've done the apology thing all I'm doing it,

Get over it. :o

lol

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

[Administrative Question]

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?