Malviet

There is quite a bit going on behind the scenes.
 
My activity levels, though, have nothing to do with yours. 

If it's a blend of on- and off-site. maybe triple? 
*fills in compensation forms*

Darn it... Drak is going to be paid double!
Anyways, I support Drak's new job as Minister of NS Daily Issues.

I nominate Somebody.  Somebody needs to update the membership list of the Voice because there are 11 applications outstanding and who knows how many on the list should not be on it. The last update recorded is the 4th July, 2015 
 
People who have applied to join but have not yet been accepted will not be allowed to nominate a candidate or vote in the election which will make some players very annoyed/angry.  Until this list is updated the nomination process should either be extended, or we recommence the nomination process once the list has been updated.  We do not want a repeat of one of our previous Voice votes.                                                

I Wholeheartedly agree with PD

I think vlagh means the delegates approvals for war and treaties which are part of the charter but Elu removed from this.
I overall think this document has many contradictions with the charter's spirit and it borders on being a de-facto overstep on the separation of in-game and off-site... I need to analyze it more.

I actually think the only problem was URAP. That has been corrected and we're back to business.
 
One can argue that the off-site activity is a problem, but I still maintain we should try an on-site only solution. We keep trying to fix a problem (off-site activity) without understanding why it exists in the first place. And without understanding the problem, you can't recommend a solution that will work, imo.

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. 

Why would we need another position for something that is already a duty of the advocate? Seems an unnecessary slot to be filling over and over...
I really liked when the previous regional assembly could simply pronounce its own rules depending on the reality of the RA... we should go back to that instead of moving to a more bureaucratic system tbh

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?

 

You can't control the public's conversation on the topic. 
 
You certainly can control any response on any topic, however.

Tuna is not causing trouble. If he were, there would be Admin action. People disagreeing with you and wanting to have a conversation is not 'continuing trouble'.

That position is currently vacant.

He's back folks!!!
 
Woo hoo!!

As it is inappropriate to debate the legitimacy of banning URAP from the forums in the tech section, I took the liberty to create this thread in the Voice section where we can avoid pestering the forum administrators.
Start!

The fact that he keeps flying a flag of a type reserved only for TWP Delegate & Guardians, while at the same time posting miserably vile comments on the DEN rmb, brings his extremely sadly immature and idiotic behavior well into the pure treason realm — and without return.

We don't hate you, we nothing you.

URAP behaved poorly and negatively towards this community, and his fellow forumites, and I removed him from the forums.  Much as I would remove a town drunk from a community gathering.  He is no longer welcome here.

I hereby propose that the Voice condemns Cormac's behavior and issues a lifetime ban for him from the Voice.
 
 
 
Thank You

In my original post I had something in the back of my mind that DEN had some association with known forum destroyers, which I went and confirmed later.
Probably did that the wrong way around, but my first concern was the security of this site.
And yes two of the Admins have couped the region, but they were "family". By declaring for DEN URAP left that association and lost my trust that he would not try and do something stupid forum side.
You may find this hard to believe Vlagh, but I count you as TWP family, which means that there is an implicit trust in terms of things like forum security.

When I found out that DEN had invaded the West Pacific, I immediately telegrammed my resignation to DEN Field Marshal Gest. Surely this shows that I am more loyal to the West Pacific then to DEN?

The beauty of our TWP system -- as  Isee it -- is that ANY government format can be created in the forum and the Delegate can be a major player in that format both in forum and in game. What we look for in leaders is leadership.  The Guardians system in TWP is simply a failsafe for those times when leadership is weak. 
 
If someone thinks a bicameral construct is worthwhile and can sell the idea to the region, we will go with it.  If someone believes s/he can convince us all to go to the Dark Side and become the biggest damn Raiding Force in all NS history and that leader has a solid action plan  to present to the region, we might even go for that.  If the Delegate decides "Ahh F**k it!!!" and goes roo-pooh crazy, like we recently experienced, no big deal.  The Guardian system is in place to take the hit, correct and reset.  The recent "failure" (if there really was one) can be tied to only two things (imo) ... the lack of resolve and integrity of the URAP player and the retirement (and loss of major Influence) of the primary Old Guardians.  

Nor with a region that gives shelter to Shadoke, a forum destroyer.

Well, this is probably a terrible idea, considering the blatant disrespect happening in-game.
 
I realize that the forum government is separated from the in-game government, so it may be a conscious effort on the part of the forum government to maintain good relations.  However, considering the complete absence of any in-game government right now, I believe it is not prudent to open an embassy here with an invading power.

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?