[The West Pacific Map]

Just because I like orthographic projections, here. (Note that I'm not sure Nox's map--which I really like, by the way--goes all the way to the poles, although it appears to match up at either end. So it may be off a bit.)

 

Nox's map:

 

Eluvatar's map (option 1):

 

original map:

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

Which WA nations are coerced to endorse the sitting Delegate or will face consequences if they don't? Which WA nations are told who they may or may not endorse?

While not outright coercion, the most obvious answer is the endo-cap. If you do not endorse the Delegate, you are only allowed to have 10 endorsements, which is definitely a consequence. Furthermore, going over this limit brings even stronger consequences--ejection. (Take Llamas for example--and he had even endorsed Darkesia.)

 

As for telling WA nations who they may or may not endorse, the example of Llamas again applies. We are not allowed to endorse nations at the endo-cap. Usually people go looking for endorsements rather than looking for people to give them to. So when WAs give their endorsements, if it's not as endotarting, it's usually to do someone the return favor. Thus limiting how many endorsements a person may have is the same as telling others they may not endorse them. (By definition. Not sure why it took me a whole paragraph to flesh that out.)

 

If we did decide we wanted a different delegate, and endorsed that delegate, that candidate would be ejected long before they passed the number of endos Darkesia has. The only other option would be to do it just before the update, raider/coup style. But besides being practically impossible, that defeats the purpose of the democratic process in the first place.

 

Again, I understand the reasons for the policy, and am not proposing its removal (although the lower cap could maybe be raised to 20, in my opinion. Then again I don't know the influence stats.) I just don't think it's completely fair to pretend that the giving and receiving of endorsements is completely voluntary--it's actually highly controlled and dictated. 

[The Union of the West Pacific]

I had a whole post written and I lost it. The jist of it: I really like Darkesia's comment, but will wait until Cormac posts the next draft to say anything of more substance.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

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.

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.

[The Union of the West Pacific]

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.

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 Union of the West Pacific]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

This simply allows the Executive Council to make recommendations to the legislature, something common in various NS governments. 

I like this, but it's not what you said earlier.

 

I said absolutely nowhere that we should abolish the forums. At all. I'd expect people to continue discussing on them. The only difference now is that now it won't be forced upon the people of TWP, but rather be their own choice.

If you expect people to continue discussing on the forums, I don't see why you're arguing so staunchly for other forms of communication. And it already is the choice of the people whether or not to participate. In fact, I would say it is the opposite--by pushing regional government in-game, that's how you force it upon TWPers. So your argument in the last sentence there is actually exactly the argument *I* would use against *you*.

 

And the fact that not everyone will want to be involved matters because...? If you're going to be arguing that, let's extend it a bit: Not everybody on the forums cares about politics. Ergo, we should completely remove politics from the forums. Doesn't sound reasonable, right? And there's a reason. Hurting everybody because of some people's actions makes no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps not *everybody* on the forums cares about politics, but definitely a very large majority and a much larger percentage than in-game. And your quote about hurting everybody because of some people's actions applies to moving the government in-game. Again, I would use that exact argument against you. 

 

Better, now. This is completely true, I'll grant you that. Why do you think that my proposal says nothing about removing the forums, or taking the government off of them entirely? The only difference is that now, voting would occur offsite, using a simpler and more accessible mechanism.

Apparently we are discussing two different things then. This is not the thread for your proposition, but for Punk Daddy's--which, if you will read the title involves precisely "taking the government off [the forums] entirely". Maybe that is how we can use the exact same arguments against each other--we're not discussing the same thing at all.

 

However, I did see your proposal in the other thread and I'm opposed to that too.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

It's similar, but not identical, Rec. The major difference is that this would be a simpler and more democratic system than the current one, by allowing easier participation, and would also grant the Executive Council as a whole a right commonly given to both RL and NS cabinets: Legislative initiative, which allows the executive to make informed recommendations to the legislature. As noted, this is a compromise, as opposed to entirely destroying everything we have in place.

I don't see how you can say "more democratic system" and "grant the Executive Council... legislative initiative" in the same sentence without blushing. Democracy means *everybody* has a say--not just those in the executive council.

 

Along that same line of thought:

You literally proved my point. You listed 3 whole places where legislation could be effectively debated or written, all of which are simpler to use and more accessible than the forums. Also, let's remember that we're not abolishing the forums, simply making voting easier for all.

I don't see how you can say any of those options are more "accessible" than the forums. There is no way to reply to a factbook. TG's can only be viewed by 8 people at a time, max. And the RMB is live and cannot be divided by topic--can you imagine trying to discuss new legislation on Karaoke friday? Did you see the RMB yesterday? It was inane.

 

The reason why the forums exist because they do have a lot of advantages: Improving communications, generating activity, and developing a regional culture are just a handful of these benefits. But we shouldn't try to give the forums more work that can better be handled by the people of TWP

My point exactly. I do not think that this kind of work *can* be better handled by "the people of TWP." 

 

I very much agree with Reçueçn's points, and I don't think moving government to the in-game region would be practical, productive, or at all beneficial to the in-game residents who enjoy the casual in-game atmosphere and don't want to be involved in government.

Exactly!

 

If this is true, then I'd like to ask: Why do some other regions have much more political participation than our own?

Like I said, I think instead of political participation, we have more banter. We do have high participation--it's just not political. That's what makes us unique.

 

Then put up some better arguments.

He just did. Not everybody in-game wants to be involved in government, guaranteed. It feels like you're not even reading what we're what we're saying when you respond with "Yeah? So what's your point?" 

 

It saddens me when such a great region as our own makes a mistake that leads it down a path of isolation.

I felt the same way, during my "political phase." But I've come to realize that TWP's culture and mindset don't necessarily want or work well with deep involvement with other regions. There are obviously different kinds of people, different ways to play the game, and isolationism may not float everybody's boat. (Excuse the barbarism.) I think it would be great if TWP would find a way to interact with other regions more, while maintaining its own sense of identity. But you can't push it--to use another cliche, it has to happen at its own pace.

 

This is like saying that murder should be legalized to give guns a purpose. Remember, Rec, the forums are a set of tools to be used for the common good of TWP. The reason why the forums exist because they do have a lot of advantages: Improving communications, generating activity, and developing a regional culture are just a handful of these benefits. But we shouldn't try to give the forums more work that can better be handled by the people of TWP simply because we want to give them a purpose when they already have one.

That is a terrible analogy. I don't see how you can compare regional government to murder. Be happy I'm not campaigning/running attack ads against you!

 

I will grant that I worded my argument badly, however. Instead of saying "The forum government gives the forums purpose," I should have said "The forums are purposed perfectly for regional government. I can imagine no environment better adapted to running an organized government and also keeping separate, distinct space for 'chillin,' all in a format that is easily accessible by everyone."

 

Allow me to propose a better analogy: it's like saying birthdays give cake a purpose.

Obviously, you can have birthdays without cake (in-game government) and cake without birthdays (a forum with no government) but they go together so well that if you're not going to eat cake for your birthday, what's the point of cake even existing? (Again, that's a rhetorical question.)

 

Here's the question: Why? Why should we keep the in-game and forum separate?

For all of the above reasons! This is exactly what what we're discussing, Llamas!

 

You're trying to attack me to harm my image. And it makes me sad that you do this, contrary to the spirit of TWP, simply to try to score a few points in an imaginary internet argument, rather than valuing the human being on the other side of the screen, trying to talk to them and be friendly towards them.

I apologize for any of my comments that could be construed in this sense--I certainly do not mean to attack or offend you. I hope we can continue this debate in reasonable fashion and stay friends.

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

I am opposed to making it the duty of the executive council to write the legislation--I think any TWP resident should be able to write legislation and have it discussed. Your compromise--getting signatures on petitions to send it to a vote--is really just re-naming our rules of procedure in the HGA--getting seconds on drafts to move them to a vote.

 

There are also other reasons I think the government should stay on the forum--it gives the forum purpose, and streamlines government a lot, not only when it comes to voting, but mainly communication in general--besides factbooks, TGs, and the RMB, there's not really anywhere well adapted to the kind of discussion needed for writing or debating legislation.

 

Finally, the forum government is completely separate from the in-game government, as has been said many times. That being the case, if what is currently the forum government migrated in-game, as per this proposal, there would be absolutely nothing from stopping me, and others who think like-wise, from setting up an entirely new forum government with exactly the same powers as the old one. (In fact, as has been mentioned a couple times recently, we could do that right now and have multiple forum governments. It makes sense to me, however, to keep a single forum government.) We could run the in-forum embassies and be self-governing, which is pretty much all we can do now anyways. I realize this may sound like a threat ("Leave the forums and I'll start a splinter group!") but it's not supposed to be. I'm just trying to say that I think the forums are best adapted to running a government, and would like to stay here.

[Administrative Question]

Will new members still need to link to a TWP nation?

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1349-dramatic-legal-reform/?p=26701

 

^This quote applied to asking the delegate to run on-site polls for the government. Is this not the exact same situation?

[The Union of the West Pacific]

I'm really liking everything here. I would go with three month terms probably. And perhaps not a term-limit but a *consecutive* term-limit?

 

I would say somewhere from 3-5 months in the region before being advocate. But being new myself, I don't know if I can give the best judgment on this.

 

I think that a certain number of ministries should be mandatory, and always filled. Foreign Affairs and Military Affairs are the two main ones that come to mind. Instead of putting a limit on the number ministers the advocate can appoint (the first thing that comes to mind) perhaps there can be a list of powers that the advocate is not allowed to have or give out? Then the voice could add or subtract this list if they feel it necessary.

 

As for the justice, I like Elegarth's idea--it's very similar to one Llamas and I came up with independently in the other thread. I would suggest a single Arbiter rather than three. This way there's less risk of inactive judges and it is more streamlined. We had imagined the position being appointed, but I think elected is even better--another balance on the power of the advocate. And then appeals going to the voice sounds great to me.

 

I fully support all the other compromises you two have come to here so far. This looks great!

[Goodbye Offsite forum government - A revolution]

I can't even begin to list all the reasons I think this is a bad idea.

 

A strong no from me.

[Three Secrets About the Judicial Branch Lawyers Will Never Tell You!!1]

^This. Thanks, Clunt.

 

However, I can still see where you're coming from, Resu; you make some very good points. As such, I propose the following compromise:

-From here on out, the Prime Minister will appoint an Officer of Judicial Affairs, who shall hold a seat on the Executive Council. The Officer of Judicial Affairs will serve to uphold the law, administer punishment on the forums, and generally keep the order.

-However, the Officer of Judicial Affairs will not be the sole judicial authority in TWP. The Officer, combined with two other justices appointed by the HGA to a six-month term with no reelection, shall together make up TWP's Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals will be charged with hearing appeals from those who have been punished by TWP's Officer of Judicial Affairs and can also rule on issues of constitutionality or discrepancies in the law to more formally interpret it.

 

Together, these two authorities will make certain that our judicial process is not complicated and convoluted, but still fair, balanced, and respectful to the rights of individuals in TWP.

I think this is a great compromise. However, I feel that if we have a court of appeals, we might as well start with a court in the first place--it kind of defeats the purpose. Perhaps appeals could go to the entire HGA, to steal part of Cormac's idea? I think if every complaint goes to them they might get overwhelmed, but it makes more sense to me to let it take care of just the appeals. A court of appeals that has a six-month term and is only ever called into duty in an appeal sounds like a recipe for more judicial inactivity and stagnation to me.

[Dramatic Legal Reform?!]

Edit: grammar. 

4. I'm considering simply making the upper house consist of everyone on the forums, to make things simpler and less prone to oligarchy; I'd prefer an elected upper house or an appointed one instead, however. The system I consider to be best would be one similar to TEP's Magisterium: Instead of being either appointed or elected, it consists of those who are active and dedicated on the forums; it's like our HGA, but with tougher requirements such as minimum post counts and a decent average post count per month.

As I've said to you before Llamas, but not that I recall in public (although perhaps I have and am forgetting, forgive me), this is the part that scares me. Let's look at the two main options:

 

1. upper house=everybody on the forums.

 

2. upper house=any limitations at all (elected, appointed, post counts, etc., whatever, anything besides having a nation in the region).

 

As you say, option 2 is more prone to oligarchy, which is why I am staunchly opposed to any option that takes this form. And if we go for option 1, membership is ideally identical to that of any lower house, so why make a distinction at all?

 

I get that it looks cool to have a bicameral legislature. But I honestly see no reason for it--all your arguments in favor are actually rebuttals of arguments against--reasons it wouldn't hurt, not reasons it would help.

 

I consider the points I have just made to cover all circumstances and to be basically irrefutable. I also feel that I have said more than enough on this subject and have probably talked your ear off by this point, so this will be my final word on this topic.

[Timetable - for discussion]

I think this makes lots of sense. Although I predict that we'll not be able to keep up with your schedule--especially the second step I can see taking a while. A little bit of pressure may be good though.

[Three Secrets About the Judicial Branch Lawyers Will Never Tell You!!1]

I still think the region needs some sort of consultative body that is both allowed and charged with interpreting our codes and laws when there is differences between members...

Why not just give that job to the executive council?

 

I am actually asking the question here. There may be good reasons we don't.

[The West Pacific Map]

Yes, that was me. I prefer #1. But it's less to do with the fact that it's "united" by itself, as much as I think the channels of water between the different continents in the maps which have more continents look somewhat unrealistic. Although much more geographically interesting.

 

That's my opinion, but don't let it weigh heavily. I'd say "I don't care," except that sounds a bit negative. I'll go with whatever you choose.

[Three Secrets About the Judicial Branch Lawyers Will Never Tell You!!1]

Well, I guess someone should start some discussion. And I do mean, logical rational discussion--my apologies for the title. I'm actually going to try to be serious.

 

While Archsium's vision is (or was) to write a constitution that maintained all the aspects of government we already had, I get the feeling that others expect changes, even if they're minor ones. (We need to change election procedure so we don't have this stupid 50/50 split ever again--but that's a different story.) I don't really want to see a lot of change, but despite that, what I'm about to propose is technically and legally speaking a huge change. However, in the way we actually play the game, and in the way it affects things in the HGA, nothing will change.

 

Here's my proposition: we do away with the judiciary entirely.

Hear me out. I'm not really sure of this myself, but I think a discussion about it will at least mean we take the judicial branch more seriously in the future.

 

I have three reasons. (Mostly just to fit with the clickbait title.)

 

1. Redundancy. Most of what the judicial branch does is already done--it's enumerated powers include only giving its opinions on things and enforcing the law. We have no lack of people giving their opinions, and it is the executive branch's job to enforce the law. 

 

Counter-argument: the "intentionally vague" clause. This clause seems to imply that the judicial branch has many un-enumerated powers, or that its responsibilities will grow.

 

Rebuttal: It says right in the charter "All powers of the Judiciary shall be enumerated by the Government, and it is from there that the authority of the Judiciary derives. The Judiciary may be suspended or abolished by the Government by that same authority." This severely limits its power, effectively nullifying the "intentionally vague" clause in my opinion, especially as nobody has ever to voted to give it any more authority at all, and as the entire branch could be dissolved by a single vote.

 

2. Lack of purpose. This is kind of a rehash of the first argument. Normally the executive branch would be there to "enforce the laws." The judiciary would be there to judge cases to determine guilt, but in a situation where almost all action takes place in exchange of text visible to everyone, this is usually pretty obvious. Furthermore, the balance between an in-forum judiciary enforcing the civil code which is mostly in-game would be quite awkward.

 

Counter-argument: Well how is the executive branch supposed to do any better?

 

Rebuttal: I suggest a new position, perhaps one even borrowing a name from what has traditionally been the judiciary, but being part of the executive branch/council, with power to punish infractions. 

 

Counter-argument: what about appeals?

 

Rebuttal: I don't know.

 

3. Inactivity. I've never seen the judicial branch do a single thing in the entire time I've been in TWP. But, instead of this causing issues, we've gotten along fine without it. So why not do away with it altogether and majorly simplify our government?

 

I recognize that this may be controversial. I myself do not have strong-founded opinions on this subject, and am open to being convinced otherwise. But at the very least, I think a discussion of the judicial branch's role in TWP is in order.

[Sign in List]

I am more than eager to participate!

[Welcome to the Constitutional Convention]

Would it be a good idea to get Archsium's "dramatic legal reform" thread moved and pinned here, if possible?

[Regarding Recent Election Turmoil]

That seems a good idea, we could just open new sign ups for that

Edit

BUt it may also open a window to foreigners intervention or jumping in... I'd probably limit it to people who signed up till yesterday.

I see your point. But then, there was nothing stopping foreigners from intervening or jumping in the HGA, either. 

 

I don't know, it's a hard decision and I'm obviously not qualified to make it. But I would lean towards openness rather than exclusiveness.

[Regarding Recent Election Turmoil]

Right. I was kind of just assumed that. I'm not sure if when Darkesia talks about "automatic membership for HGA members" she means only current members though. I think anyone who would be able to join the HGA but hasn't yet ought to be able to join the constitutional convention likewise. That may be what Darkesia meant--I'm just trying to be doubly sure.