Reçueçn
-
Posts
1190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
55
Posts posted by Reçueçn
-
-
Ok, everything makes sense to me except this: http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1170-holy-grand-assembly-application-and-sign-in/?p=26436
I get that Elegarth's resignation is being rejected, that a con con is being started, but I don't think that means that the HGA should be immediately dissolved without even consulting a single person. As long as it stays around, even if only in name, until the con con's over, I'll be happy. So can we reopen the thread linked above and accept those new submissions?
I hold no real power except for a minimum of avoiding chaos, I guess.
Yes, and I think the best way to do that is *not* to simply announce your single-handedly closing our only legislative body, even if it admittedly has huge issues.
-
We have already revoted on the matter and reached a conclusion that was unsatisfactory, again.
Considering the recent turmoil within the HGA, I decided to reinstate the Prime Minister with the aim of moving forward with the Constitutional Convention. The authority to do so rests with me, and my authority rests with the Delegate.
That said, we will be starting a Constitutional Convention shortly to outline a new governmental structure for the forum based community. It will still maintain its separation from the ingame governance of the region.
I guess I'm a bit confused then, since the separation of in-game and in-forum powers has been emphasized a lot recently. I thought I recalled Darkesia saying she had absolutely no power over the forums (which doesn't really make sense to me anyways though).
So basically we're kicking the can down the road to the end of Elegarth's term but starting a con con in the meantime? I guess that makes sense. I'm still a bit confused as to why you specifically have that power, but I had no clue you held any position at all. I guess it's just surprise time for newbies like me.
-
Wait... how does the prime minister have the authority to disband the HGA? I would have voted for leaving the polls open another day, but that thread was locked. I feel like things are being raced at such a pace by a small number of people that most haven't had time to react yet.
I know this will be even more unpopular, but what if we just revoted? Or made those who abstained vote anonymously somehow?
-
Actually, Rec, that's an idea that's been floating around in my head for a while; Instead of an appointed upper house, I am considering making the Upper House fully elected on the forums.
That seems like the most logical way to do it I've heard you propose yet!
I still see absolutely no reason we would need an upper house. (They'd still both be on the forum, right? Then what's the point?)
-
Doesn't sound like a good idea; the HGA is an open legislature, so if we make it rotated and give everyone a turn it will end up with some random newb who knows nothing about running a government at some point or another. If it were an appointed or elected legislature that was more exclusive, however, it could work.
I have to agree with llamas here. And as he knows, I'm opposed to any legislature that could be described as "more exclusive," so I think we will have to stick with elections.
-
Well, it seemed earlier that this would have support, but it now appears ( http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=331828&start=175#p24330902as well as general reactions in this forum) that this has evaporated, or rather, perhaps, that it never existed at all. I will be the first to admit that I do not know much about our long-term relations with other regions. Therefore, I would like to withdraw my motion in the interests of community unity. (I seem to be the only one in disagreement on this issue anyways.)
-
I think this looks great, Arch! I don't think this discussion needs to get any more formal than it is now for a while, anyways. I agree with pretty much everything you've written already (as you say, it's all based off laws we already have) and I would probably stick to calling the office that of "speaker," but I don't think that's a point worth debating this early.
Right now, the next thing I'd like to see would be how you'll handle cabinet-type positions, from our Executive Council Act. That seems to be the next logical step.
I am also willing to help, but don't know what you would want me to do. Send me a TG to delegate some work.
Again, outstanding job, and full support!
-
I would suggest that we shelve any talk of closing our Embassies (plural if you'll notice) with The Pacific until we get a full accounting of the latest developments.
I think that our good friends will certainly share their corrective actions with us and with the NSverse in general as they work to rehabilitate their reputation that has been a bit damaged by these recent goings on.
I honestly second this motion. The issues seems to still be rolling and we don't yet have a full account of this.
This was I was originally hesitant to propose this motion myself. I have not been around long enough to get a good sense of whether or not TP were "our good friends" or not. It seemed not a little while ago. However, the more I hear new opinions, the more it appears to be to the contrary. If this does not get a third, I'm perfectly happy to let it sit here while the situation in TP develops.
-
Well, there's more opposition to this than I had foreseen, but I think while there may be for/against argument, the current form of the motion won't change much. Therefore, I would like to move this to formal discussion.
-
-
-
Idiot me >_>
You want to propose we move this to formal discussion or want to have some informal discussion first?
Well, we can have some informal discussion. The difference is that changes can no longer be made during formal discussion, correct?
I oppose this, the current Delegate of Lazarus is the only recognizable governing agent.
Unless you're talking about the forum embassy, you all can vote on that if you wish.
I think it the Delegate's choice whether to have an in game Embassy or not.
Well, our in-game embassy with Lazarus has already been closed, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to go from there to closing the forum embassy. (Which yes, I am talking about.) Right now the motion doesn't actually close our lazarus forum embassy, but gives control of it to the lazarene underground state. However, if simply closing the embassy would garner more support, I have no problem with that.
As for the one in-game embassy this affects, yes, it is the delegate's choice, but it seemed to me that Darkesia made it sound like she would listen to polite suggestions--not orders--from the HGA, which is exactly what this is.
-
After looking at the discussion in this thread it appears to me that the motion I am about to propose would have some support, so I decided to go for it. This is my first time doing something like this, so even if you disagree, be gentle with me please!
The Holy Grand Assembly of The West Pacific,
Affirming our belief in the right of the people to choose their own delegate,
Declaring that this right should not be abridged,
Explicitly Including the importation of foreign votes as a means of abridging said rights,
Believing that this right has indeed been abridged by the New Lazarus Order (NLO) and New Pacficic Order (NPO) in Lazarus,
In order to avoid having our position compromised by ties with these regions and the imperialist policies they represent,
Hereby
Applauds the liberation of Lazarus,
Orders the closure of our forum embassies with The Pacific,
and
Formally Requests the closing of in-game embassies with The Pacific.
-
I'm in favor of closing the NPO's forum embassy. Even if TWP's philosophy/policy holds that the Delegate of a region -- he is not elected, by the way -- is the lawful holder of the position, which is absurd, that doesn't mean TWP has to be okay with him holding onto his Delegacy with the support of foreign raiders and forum destroyers.
I would be in favor of recognizing the LUS and granting them the use of the Lazarus forum embassy. If we aren't going to do that, we should close it. I would imagine the LUS doesn't have another region because it is the forum community of Lazarus, not another region. In my view, it would actually lose legitimacy be forming a user-created region as a base of operations. Its region is Lazarus.
I am in %100 agreement with this. Cormac's third paragraph, however, was a little unclear to me. My opinion is that we should both close our in-forum embassy with them and request that Darkesia close our in-game embassy with them. This is easily justified along the lines of what Cormac mentioned and what Elegarth said is our regional policy--regional sovereignty, as well as opposition to delegates being held in place by foreign votes.
-
Is deleting threads in embassy row (rather than simply locking them) historically considered part of closing an in-game embassy?
-
-
I will not be around for the next four days. Don't burn anything down while I'm gone.
-
-
I would like to express my support for pretty much everything Elegarth said in his platform. I think Occam's razor is the best principle to follow when deciding what kind of legislature to build, and the uni/bicameral debate seems to be the biggest difference between Llamas' position and Elegarth's.
-
-
This is a little bit of a segue, but in this thread: http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1303-statement-and-action-in-current-events-in-the-hga/?p=24660Elegarth asked our opinions of closing our forum embassy with with Lazarus. Suffice it to say I am fully in favor of closing the embassy.
Also, I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but what's "masking?"
-
Well, I think in this situation removing the embassies speaks for itself. If you've broken ties with Lazarus, then continuing conversation with them even one announcement longer seems pointless--you've already sent them telegrams, as you've said. Perhaps, however, an announcement to members of TWP would be in order. Then again, your post here may be good enough.
-
Hey, so i joined the forums about a month ago, but I never really introduced myself properly. To be honest, I'm pretty much just doing this for the contest Darkesia's running. But to be a tad bit more useful and IC than just saying "Hey, I'm in a contest!" I guess I'll mention a few policies of my country.
1. We stand for a somewhat adulterated version of National Sovereignty. We don't vote for all repeals and against all WA resolutions, but we do feel that the WA should hold itself to basic human and national rights.
2. Stemming from our support of national sovereignty and democracy, we are IC against endocaps. (OOC also, just a tiny bit. I recognize that it is important for stability and defense.)
3. I don't know much about military game-play, and IC, although Recuecn has a decently large military, we prefer to seek the diplomatic rout. (See how we handled Brasilistan. Pretty happy about that, actually.) This also applies to inter-regional politics--we think Foreign Affairs are more important than the military. (I admit, taking stuff over is awesome, but again, this is IC.)
I guess this is probably a really weird introduction. Not really sure what to say though. Looking forward to hanging out with you guys, though. Sent me a TG some time--my nation name is the same as my in-forum name.
-
I guess I might as well express my interest now--correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like applying here will actually do anything for the moment. All the same, I would like to be able to help with TWP's foreign affairs whenever it becomes possible. I will be the first to admit, however, I know next to nothing about it. Is there a way I could be set up with a mentor to show me the ropes? Or for a less demanding solution: someone near the top (or at least someone who knows a bit about things) could just send me a couple detailed telegrams about not only my role, but about the bigger picture of our foreign relations?
Regarding Recent Election Turmoil
in Voice of The West Pacific Union
Posted
Since we had about 0 restrictions on who could join the HGA, why do we need to limit membership at all? I think anyone on the forums should have a voice.