Reçueçn

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!

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.

Elegarth

Well, I have just realized that lazarus has been liberated. Oops. This, of course, means we can reopen embassies with them (which we are doing), but in my opinion, does not change the situation with The Pacific. I have edited the motion in the OP to reflect this.

Well, we can have some informal discussion. The difference is that changes can no longer be made during formal discussion, correct? 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 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'm not sure if it's custom to announce returns after such short periods of time, but I'm back.

I will not be around for the next four days. Don't burn anything down while I'm gone.

Would it be possible to do something with all the corporations from the in-game "Global Economics and Trade" forum for that?

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.

Thanks

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?

Oops. Now that I have found and read the Standards and Procedures, I can answer my own question. At any rate, if this were to be moved to formal discussion, it would have my second.

I think it makes sense to pass this before the Executive Council Act, since from what I can see, most of the the powers of the prime minister come from that act. Meaning it makes sense to straighten out that office before we give it new duties. So, since I'm new, how exactly do we move this to a vote? Does it have to be put into "formal discussion" first? If so, can we do that now?

The allied states of Reçueçn, signing in. https://www.nationstates.net/nation=recuecn