Fratellnoir
-
Posts
379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Fratellnoir
-
-
Military Affairs
I hope we are able to build a strong militant TWP militia that will be both independent from the petty schemes of existing ideologies, and also significant enough to be able to make a difference, both defending those that require our help and request it, be it through treaties or whatever, or attacking those who either try to harm us or our allies. We should also be able to keep regular practice, to both improve our jumping capacities and form new experienced soldiers.
Noble sentiments but..............
Rather vague
What are to be the Militaries objectives?
All I see is the same old tired cliches independent, defending and attacking.
The only way TWP will make a difference in this arena is if we maintain a force that holds TWPs interests at heart, that projects TWP power. If another regions interests converge with ours then they are welcome to become allies, but if they conflict or oppose our objectives, then they either stand aside or else find themselves in conflict with us.
Having a military should not be just a badge, "oh look we've got one of those aren't we a civilized well formed region" it should be a shield to project our principles and ideals, and a tool to achieve our goals.
TWPAF should be the REGIONS army, not a plaything for GCR career politicians, or a bargaining tool in interregional power politics between defender/raider/imperialist or whatever pretentious label some Gameplay Guru decides is this month flavour.
Respect is earned, not given in this field - most GCR militaries are a joke, and if we are serious about having a meaningful force here in TWP then we have to be prepared to dislodge a few noses in the established order, and draconian measures are needed to bring about a change in the way it conducts itself.
If we fail to recognise that fundamental fact, then any attempt to build a West Pacific Military is heading for a disaster of biblical proportions. Fire and brimstone falling from the sky, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!
If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.
-
Even thouch I am not that keen on Tom Jones (sorry BBD) I will vote in favour
-
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.
Any military activity in NS is reliant on the willing participation of those involved.
Without at least one supporter no such action can be undertaken - it is therefore probably more democratic than the existing delegate system here insofar as there is no coercion to do so, nor is there any consequence of not participating.
As it requires the co-operation of those involved it is imperative that their opinions, aims and desires are considered, rather than barking orders.
"The art of leadership is in the ability to make people want to work for you, while they are really under no obligation to do so"Haile Selassie
-
The WA elects a Delegate, not a Counselor or legislator.
Me thinks you don't understand the game Frat, the Delegate is the Ruler of the region.
There is a HUGE difference between the forum government working with the Delegate toward a desired goal and ordering the Delegate to do something.
Were you or the forum govt. to order me to do anything you'd be visiting Unibot in his fantasy world democracy, that you may depend upon.
I understand fully the WA/Endorsement/Delegate symbiosis
It is the only true instrument of "power" in the game - the Guardians. forums, governments etc are all peripherals to that basic
premise
If I or the other WA's decided that we did not like the way you were running things as delegate then we have the right to endorse an alternative
However, like almost every other feeder TWP has adopted the artificial "Guardian" system to prevent any getting "above their station" and upsetting the existing order
As the FAQ says: Delegates are elected: if you don't like yours, it's up to you to get her unelected!
-
How would the forum compel the Delegate to offer any specific poll for consideration?
I know how I would react to anyone telling me I have to do anything when I was Delegate. It would not remind anyone of campfires and kumbaya.
Even the voters (WA nations) that put you there? How like a RL politician!
-
Sorry to keep harping on about this but what about what the region wants?
It seems to me that PD would have been better off placing this proposal in the RMB rather than in this forum where, to be honest, the response has been biased towards the negative.
Darkesia has already intimated that sooner or later she will be stepping down - a new delegate may be keen to encourage on-site activity and make a clean break with the past.
Rather than dismissing the idea because the current administration is not receptive, it might be expedient to look into how it could be implemented if the atmosphere changed, and such a system became a requirement
-
TWP has always (mostly always) maintained that the in-game mechanics are supreme. A delegate is master and commander unless they are no longer delegate. It's simple, we're consistent, and it works, imo, far better than other ethos in other regions.
My proposal is that we take it to the next level - dissolve offsite forum government entirely.
My proposal would list a factbook entry on the main TWP page listing how government works.
The overall idea is that all votes take place in-game. The polling option truly helps in this. So when we have legislation we're going to vote on, we vote in game. If we're having elections, we vote in-game. Etc.
If we wish to have discussions on topics here and/or campaigns here, that's fine, but the game is where things truly happen. I don't know of any large region that is doing this. I think we could be a trailblazer in that regard and do something completely non-traditional but use some of the new NS tools.
Why try this? Like i said, TWP is about the supremacy of the in-game mechanics. We can support that idea by getting the in-game more involved and reducing the decision making that takes place off-site. That gives more of the in-gamers ability to direct the path of the region they've been in for a while.
I can take a stab of writing a draft of the proposal if there is any interest in something like this.
The in-game community of nations have every right and opportunity to come here and take part.
It saddens me to see that the last quote appears to be alarmingly similar to the responses of The Coalition when the suggestion that the Region should have a say in the running of itself in TSP.
I am paraphrasing here but the reaction was along the lines of "if they want to participate then they should join the forums and apply for citizenship"
I realise that there is no requirement to jump through the hoops that TSP impose, but nevertheless it is tantamount to saying the same thing
PD has put forward a proposal for a mechanism to introduce onsite Regional "Administration" without having to resort to any third party offsite forum
It in no way impacts on the in-game mechanism of electing a delegate (endorsements) or indeed on the powers of the delegate.
However, rather than embracing the idea of an in-game government (the prime aim of the proposal) and examining what would be required to implement it (how to address "poll tourism" ,who would maintain the factbooks/dispatches etc) the refrain has been "we will not and cannot seek to control the delegate"
This, in my opinion misses the point of the original proposal
Is seems clear that GCR's are not fertile environments for innovation in this area, preferring to consolidate existing methods rather than act as the vanguard of a new, inclusive way of doing things.
-
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?
You got me bang to rights gov'nr, I confess its a conspiracy, but they said I could keep me kneecaps if I did what they said
-
I believe there is a misunderstanding of terms.
The forum Community should absolutely influence the Delegate and Guardians. They should not control them via legislation.
The forum government is the means by which the community organizes and allows it's voice to be carried loudly to The Delegate and Guardians.
Simple Examples:
If the forum community actually cared about how I voted on WA resolutions, they could hold a vote on the forum and present that desire to me. I'm not insane, therefore I would realize that in order to keep the regional community happy, I would be wise to comply with their wishes. However, I am not bound by any law other than common sense to do so. Because, if there was a law on the forums, that I must comply, and then the in-game community desired something else, or I felt strongly about it, or was bound by treaty or political favor to vote a certain way, I would then break the community law. Which would be an absolutly silly reason to rebel and would end up getting ignored. So why make the law? Instead, make the ability to vote in the community and then use the structure to ask the Delegate for help.
Personally, I don't think I would have the time. I haven't been able to comply with a simple request to post this convention in the WFE yet. I fully intend to do so. And I'm not avoiding it, I just have not logged into the game with anything but my phone in days. Adding official elections to my plate would not be practical. Again, this has nothing to do with my desire to be difficult. I just don't have time. Heck, my own contest ended Friday and I have yet to complie the results and post them.
Anyone who has not been a Delegate in an active GCR doesn't realize how time consuming it is.
That's not to say that the next Delegate won't have the time to do it. So perhaps if there was some sort of means to request the polls be posted and administered, but don't make the system reliant on that part...
Maybe our Delegate should looking into delegation of duties eh?
-
'pologies
Elgarth
-
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.
-
Consider this scenario:A candidate who believes that the decisions about the region should be made by the region, runs for Delegate.Somehow the candidate convinces sufficient WA nations in the region to endorse them, and attains the post.As part of the manifesto they have pledged legislation will in future be conducted via the in-game polling system.A referendum will be held to decide if the Endocap remains a device to maintain security, and whether the Guardian scheme is also to be maintainedIf the response is in favour then new Guardians will be selected and prior to taking up their post will be ratified by the Region, again by using the polling system.All of these decisions have been made without reference to the forum, which is now redundant and is discarded as being surplus to requirement.How does the forum community, and the existing Guardians, respond?
-
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
-
-
Actually there would be no reason, or jurisdiction, for any intervention by the forum "government"
The "rebellion" would come from the WA's present in the region, exercising their in-game right to remove a Delegate that does not consider the desires, customs and aspirations of the region as a whole.
If the region as a whole buys into the concept, any future candidate would be foolhardy not to agree to post such polls.
If you want to set the Forum Government up as taking precedence over the in-game mechanics you may be better off joining TSP's Coalition
The whole point of an in-game chamber is, in my opinion, to show that political engagement can by handled there rather than through a third party medium
-
-
On the subject of in game regional polls, can anyone tell me who said this:
Are you kidding me? It's an outstanding tool on which to base political upheaval. I will bet this is the best thing to happen to the large scale R/D (inter-regional politial) game since the Farkers came to town.
With regards to flooding the votes with puppets there is a method which could alleviate the problem
If a snapshot of the nations resident in the region is taken before announcing the pool via this little facility, a comparison can be made with the list of voters that participated - any that are not on the first list but on the second could be discarded.
Its not a perfect solution, but would at least mean that anyone seeking to rig the polls would have to maintain puppets in the region on the off chance that a snap vote was called
If you wanted to go further into the issue of *polling puppets" there are ways of checking activity of nations to determine their true nature
As for Darkesia's assertion that "Feeder delegates are ego maniacal power mongers. We don't do subservient. Not in our nature", implying that such a system would not be adopted it is perhaps timely to remind anybody in a position of power (especially and elected post) that they are public servants, not hereditary monarchs.[/size]
As the FAQ states "Delegates are elected: if you don't like yours, it's up to you to get her unelected!"
-
i think two assemblies and allowing people outside the forum (i know a lot of people don't get bothered by joining the forums on this type of games) to vote are good ideas. then again I'm relatively new here, so I could be missing a lot.
This is exactly why the Gameside needs some chamber to act as the voice of the region.
Unlike flo32om, many will not join the forum.
By adding a in Game chamber we also add value to the game itself by providing something else that can be done in NS rather than people having to divide their time between forum and region
-
Although I appreciate the concerns about puppets and possible vote - rigging with them I cannot help feeling this is a red herring in a region the size of a feeder
Dependent on the buy-in and participation of the region, the quantity of puppets needed to sway a vote could be prohibative - not perhaps impossible, but a lot of work for very little return in terms of influence
-
-
Where would this Assembly be convened?
-
-
Cheers Winni, I didn't want to have to try to recreate this and get the colour/dimensions/layout all wrong
Do you have a larger/svg version available or is this the biggest one?
-
I will also be absent from 10th to 26th of this month
In the meantime I have instigated the Palantine programme and trust that the Warlord will oversee things in my absence
No doubt I will return to a drastically changed TWP
Which regions are the most influential?
in The Lounge
Posted
TBRs "success" has been the ability to maintain a high profile in public
They have been very effective at appearing to be extremely active whilst not really doing much that has an enduring effect