Reçueçn

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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: 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. My point exactly. I do not think that this kind of work *can* be better handled by "the people of TWP." Exactly! 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. 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?" 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. 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.) For all of the above reasons! This is exactly what what we're discussing, Llamas! 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.

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.

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

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?

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!

I can't even begin to list all the reasons I think this is a bad idea. A strong no from me.

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.

Edit: grammar. 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.

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.

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.

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.

I am more than eager to participate!

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

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.

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.

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.

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? 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.

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?

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?)