Darkesia

That's Eli for you!XD

Unfortuantely in this instance, the forum community that Lazarus had previously linked to it's in-game component was shut down.  That effectively killed the culture.  Yes, they can and hopefully will, build another community forum, but as we have seen, that has as yet been unsucessful (not counting the weird pseudo community run by cormac et al).  The longer it takes to re-establish a singular identity, the more difficult it will become.  And Lazarus will become the same as TP, even sharing it's forum. 
 
The fact that the owner of the previous forum is the one that shut it down, is the only thing that keeps it from being a COPS violation.  But it certainly was a violation of the spirit of COPS.

I'm rather proud of myself having managed my first update surf in years.  I had nightmares about messing it up. 

I'm rather proud of myself having managed my first update surf in years.  I had nightmares about messing it up. 

I'm rather proud of myself having managed my first update surf in years.  I had nightmares about messing it up. 

Because Legislative RP is...  RP...  about legislation.
Just a guess.

lol good question, are you goblin city in TWP?
 
 
 
I think that was it.
 
 
took you off the ban list, I figured you'd see why when I did it.
 
 
 
*checks cormac for a sense of humor*

I'm just wondering in what universe I'm more annoying than Llamas...

Because Legislative RP is...  RP...  about legislation.
Just a guess.

*nods*
He posted this clarifcation in Equilism...

Your association with forum destroyer 94 block is disturbing.

The endo cap here is 70, not 10. I ran it without endorsement caps, BUT if anyone got over a magic number I sent them packing
 
This is The West Pacific, you most certainly can mount an operation to overcome the Delegate, it is possible. RolHeath did it

The giving and receiving is voluntary. But our recognition of the in-game mechanics also means the recognition of the sitting delegate to use the tools at his/her availability - banjections, WFE, moderation of the RMB - at his/her will to defend the position. If someone wants to take the delegacy, our system allows for it, they would just need to make it so, and it WOULD require a very good coordinated effort or collusion with a guardian - which while unlikely, is not impossible.

So, the system that permits you to run your questionable military activities is the very system you wish to destroy? I think you are putting yourself in a precarious position.

That is correct, should Tweedy decide that RL allows more time to participate here once again we will allow that.
 
 
There won't be any opposition, I'm sure. If there is we will persuade them to adopt our point of view.

Cormac, you are kicking ass! Just wanted to put that out there.
Carry on.

Cormac, you are kicking ass! Just wanted to put that out there.
Carry on.

I have made a couple of significant changes to the draft (which can be found here, for anyone who missed it):
 
1. There is now a provision, 2(3), which permits the Voice to admit non-residents as members by two-thirds majority vote, provided the non-residents in question cannot reside in TWP. This was to address a concern raised in another thread that Tweedy not be barred from participating. For those who aren't aware, Tweedy is delete-on-sight from NationStates and thus physically cannot reside in TWP, but has made significant contributions to TWP's community over the years.
 
2. There is a new section 5 on the military of the Union, which fleshes out command of the military and oversight by the Voice, while also implementing Darkesia's compromise suggestion for a home defense division under the command of the Delegate. I hope this will prove an agreeable compromise, but as this is a new section I'm happy to discuss further revisions.
 
I also wanted to point out something that may not be immediately obvious. There is nothing in this draft that prohibits the Delegate from also serving as Advocate, so a Delegate who wants a more active role in the forum community government could have that by running for Advocate. In recognition that TWP has had Delegates who prefer a less active role as more of an in-game guardian, the Delegate's legal role is minimized and optional, but I would imagine any Delegate would be the odds on favorite for winning an election for Advocate if they chose to run for the office.

I would be concerned if a long standing member of the community like Tweedy wasn't able to vote because he is DOS onsite....

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.

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.
 

 
Above is the draft Elegarth and I have come up with so far. I wasn't entirely sure how to incorporate Vlagh's and Darkesia's suggestions, which don't appear to be entirely the same, into the draft, so maybe now that the draft is posted they'll be able to suggest revisions to specific clauses.
 
 
Well, it originally was more like that because we were in the proposal stage of the convention rather than the drafting stage. I hope the above draft looks more like a constitutional document, and would welcome any suggestions you have for its revision.

I would prefer that the Voice (nice terminology) would only express it's misgivings or recommendations (by a vote) about treaties that the Delegate may wish to enter into
 
 
Surely any Delegate that wanted to maintain their position would work with the Voice to come up with a solution to any such issue without a vote in the first place.
 
Likewise I would advocate that any in game military be ultimately subservient to the Delegate, if the Delegate so desires.
 
 
But otherwise, I must say I'm quite impressed. Cormac you have done well with this.

I have a few tweaks to your edits, Vlagh. 
 
I would indeed like to see statements like "The Delegte has no authority off-site except that of any other resident of TWP, unless granted by off-site consensus/authority."  The idea is to compel the Delegate to cooperate as strongly as the off site is compelled to cooperate.  So, while the Delegate may have no authority over the off site, it is in everyone's best interested to follow the same foreign policy guidelines when it comes to embassies and treaties.  Therefore, I don't think one body should be charged with radifying the other's treaties.  In fact, in-game treaties are more like backroom political deals than treaties.  Just try to keep in mind that if you codify that the off site gets to radify the Delegate's treaties and vice versa, you are asking for trouble.  TSP is a good example.  (I have an embassy with them which mostly represents that we thing TSPers are cool and fun, but they refuse to recognize the in-game supremacy of in-game activity, so no treaty or even embassy on the forums.)
 
We want the forum community strong enough that if we were to put in place a crazy marsupialist as a Delegate, the community could organize and carry out a rebellion of their own.  
 
With respect to Militaries, the fourm community has a clear mission to organize and house a military for the protection of the region as a whole, both off site and in-game.  When things are going well, this means the Delegate and MoFA or PM( or whomever) will likely take the lead in selecting targets via in-game diplomacy and forum Foreign Affairs.  When things are not going well, this will result in an adversarial relationship which will be very threatening to the Delegate.  Personally, I like that.  It's one of the few ways to ensure cooperation is the goal.  But if the community wishes to change that relationship, they may do so.  Because in the end, the Delegate need only be active and have attentive Guardians in order to maintain conrol in-game.
 
I hope that clarifies a little bit.  I am heading out the door and won't be back for a few hours.  In a bit of a hurry and couldn't get to the actual editing of the text.  But I think we are all smart enough to figure it out

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.

I can't speak for Darkesia, but the repetitive, condescending refrain of "calm down," "calm down," "I'm glad to see you've calmed down" is on my last nerve. The constant references to ad hominem attacks like Elegarth is the only one who's engaged in them is also annoying. The fluffy kittens are also really condescending, like Elegarth needs to see kittens in order to "calm down." All of it seems very condescending, immature, and all around disrespectful, to be honest. Passive aggressive personal jabs are still jabs despite their passive aggressive nature.
 
Not meant as an attack on you, just pointing out some issues since you genuinely don't seem to understand what is frustrating people.