Yy4u

You are mistaken.  Control of this forum does not belong exclusively to the Voice.  The Embassy Row has been around for a very long time and has nothing to do with this 'government' directly.
 
If I chose to start a separate government within this forum and assign my own Foreign Affairs minister to reject the Ambassador from TNP then what?
 
As I have stated elsewhere, this nonsense of the offsite government taking control of traditional Delegate authority does nothing but set up a future coup or rogue Delegate.  Ignoring the authority of the Delegate is foolhardy and telling the other feeders that the Delegate is simply a figurehead in regards to Foreign Policy is a mistake.

That or a 'blend'. In game,directing new players to game info, off site, to provide discussion of said game play further.

A thread can most certainly be started for that.

Minister of NS Daily Issues has a nice ring.

That might be a thing to have Ministers in game to sort of 'mentor' the new players. A sort of concierge for the game.

That or a 'blend'. In game,directing new players to game info, off site, to provide discussion of said game play further.

A thread can most certainly be started for that.

Minister of NS Daily Issues has a nice ring.

That might be a thing to have Ministers in game to sort of 'mentor' the new players. A sort of concierge for the game.

As worded, the Advocate is both. 
 
Mind you, I'd love a "Speaker of the House" role to focus on running the government versus running the legislature but that's a matter of style I guess.
 
I would prefer a system where each Advocate was able to create their own rules for the legislature versus putting in a system. Keep it flexible for incoming advocates. 

All this discussion of what doesn't work and what does.

Anyone present a viable or at least 'something on paper' outline for a system?

 

I think it's time to move on. I appreciate Mal starting this thread, but I believe we should look at what we've done already and say that's enough, no need to keep picking the scab.

We don't hate you, we nothing you.

Leave us not mention further the vile, lest it fester like smoldering embers in a fire that will not die.

Whatever is said publicly, we know what happened. If anyone wishes to use that as an opportunity to further inflate their ego, then let it be. Let them have their 'moment'.
If all else, remember that there is indeed karma.

Take solace in that we are unscathed, stirred, not shaken.

It takes a village and it took a village.

Leave us not mention further the vile, lest it fester like smoldering embers in a fire that will not die.

Whatever is said publicly, we know what happened. If anyone wishes to use that as an opportunity to further inflate their ego, then let it be. Let them have their 'moment'.
If all else, remember that there is indeed karma.

Take solace in that we are unscathed, stirred, not shaken.

It takes a village and it took a village.

We don't hate you, we nothing you.

We don't hate you, we nothing you.

We don't hate you, we nothing you.

Leave us not mention further the vile, lest it fester like smoldering embers in a fire that will not die.

Whatever is said publicly, we know what happened. If anyone wishes to use that as an opportunity to further inflate their ego, then let it be. Let them have their 'moment'.
If all else, remember that there is indeed karma.

Take solace in that we are unscathed, stirred, not shaken.

It takes a village and it took a village.

Guilt by association is fine In Game where the worst damage to be done is a free trip to TRR. 
 
In Forum, there needs to be proof that a player is harmful to the Community as a whole (we have had a few like this who will remain unnamed) or violators of COPS. 
 
If anything, TWP is forgiving to a fault and even once-banned players can truly repent, be given another chance, and become productive ... and even loved ... members of the Community again (Tweedy is the poster child for that.)

So what is it you propose(in simple terms)?

You would have the delegate tied up?
I tend to view it as two sides of the same coin actually. The delegate does indeed have absolute authority by way of game mechanics that the 'virtual' entities off site have to deal with. You cannot prevent a rogue delegate no matter what system is in place. Human behavior nulls that. It is a risk because it is a game and mechanics of the game allow this fundamentally.

The off site is supposedly a representation of the governing body that is The West Pacific, those WA  and non WA. But because it is an entity removed from the game physically, there are no mechanics to prevent any damage by a rogue delegate. Any actions will have to be inclusive of mechanics in game by default, if any effects are to be realized.

How do you securely and effectively 'blend' the two as a harmonious machine?

While it is true we did suffer a very minor setback with URA's apparent 'insanity', that is still not reason enough to dramatically change the fundamental core that is TWP offsite/ingame system.
Mistakes will be made, poor choices will be made, we are all human after all.
We learn. We adapt. We modify. The way things are currently, is fluid enough to incorporate those things/entities that would, in the future, address such aberration/anomalies such as you describe.
 

There is no such thing as a rogue Delegate in some systems.  For example, if Pierconium dissolved the NPO tomorrow and set up a new form of government within The Pacific that would be what occurred and the system would adjust around his design, as occurred with the PRP in the distant past.
 
Obviously, that won't work here, and yes, it is two sides of the same coin, which is why I advocate that they can not ultimately be separated completely.  Future Delegates will be more inclined to maintain a system that incorporates them and their authority within it.
 
I think the Voice as it existed on paper before the rebellion clause was a good model for this (and yes, that means some form of liaison, perhaps with limited/curbed authority but still in existence) as it recognizes the Delegate as the ultimate authority of the region.  I do not think the Voice should pass laws that state the Delegate can not make changes because it quite frankly is not true in functioning reality and is just a hope and a wish.
 
And if that isn't sufficient, then I would suggest that TWP adopt a bicameral system that would accomplish the same thing.  An upper house consisting of the Delegate and Guardians and a lower house made up of the Voice.  Both having to ratify laws, with ties going in the Delegate's favor.  This maintains the idea of separate but (almost) equal.
 
It is late here and I am just brainstorming as I type so apologies if that seems a bit muddled.

Guardians chosen by popularity is a bad move. 
 
I don't want TNP's system here. I know TNP's system well, I'm currently a court justice and admin on TNP's boards. I'm probably the best (I'll put Vlagh as a distant second) person to compare the two systems. 
 
TWP has a system of trust and providing new people and opportunity to prove themselves. TNPs system has a trust component to it but it's much more fluid in terms of who comes and goes in the TNP Security Council. Yes some members have been there for ages, Flem/Grosse/GBM but others are very new. The level of trust needed to get on the SC is different than the Guardians, imo. 
 
As for in-game and off-site separation that really makes us unique, strong, and not victim to many characterizations of delegates such as "this delegate doesn't have the right to be delegate because of X". Nope, game mechanics settle the delegate and if you want to change a delegate use game mechanics to do it. Thus URA as Cormac is the legit TWP del right now. However, we put Guardians in place to protect us should a delegate wish to move the region in a direction that is bad for the community. Guardians are soldiers really and right now we need them, but we are well prepared for this.

URAP's mod rights have been removed to prevent any harm being done to the forum.  The forum is private property and our security comes first.  
 
Any further action is currently under admin discussion.  Thank you for your input.

With his latest WFE update (All nations are required to endorse United RussoAsia or face immediate banjection.) I support this sadly

Well let's burn his here. We can never, ever trust him again and therefore he must go from these forums - permanently.

*grabs brand new pen,  starts filling out forms*

Let's see... write your full name at the top of the form

O_o

No one said there was going to be a test.....

*grabs brand new pen,  starts filling out forms*

Let's see... write your full name at the top of the form

O_o

No one said there was going to be a test.....

*squeaks*

Can I join?

This right here is why I would have love URAP to give me a heads up. I would have never, repeat never, gotten TWP's NS embassy restarted had I known this was coming. Utter waste of time and makes me look pretty foolish.
 
I don't like to waste my time. 
 
Piling on Vlagh is the misdirection. As I said before, I don't really care enough to try to discern if he has ulterior motives. It takes a lot of brainpower and i don't think he's the source of the problem. 
 
The problem that we have is our offsite forum's activity levels are light years below what they are on the in-game site. As the offsite oligarchs  - and yes we're the oligarchs - we have constantly sought ways to make the offsite forum more active because we think that the game should have an offsite forum and that it should be active.
 
As I stated months ago, why don't we try to change the whole paradigm and do away with  the offsite government dichotomy and do something different. Let's have the government be in-game and have the delegate establish whatever he/she/it wants it to be as delegates change. If we want to use this forum great, and if we only want to use this forum for limited things that's great too.
 
I think our constant reboot of forum governments is akin to a leopard trying to change it's spots and become something it isn't. We are a Karaoke Friday, Chocolate Loving, Marsupial hating, region and we don't need to be like TP, TNP, TEP, or anyone else. We just need to be comfortable enough in our own skin to realize the offsite may never be what the onsite is. But our onsite activity and TWP-ness is pretty da-- good.
 
So I say let's just let go of trying to fit a square peg in a circular hole and build our government at the delegate's direction on the onsite forum. Let's be the leopard and accept, no embrace, our spots.