Dramatic Legal Reform?!

[Elegarth]

Yeah no, still sounds like a terrible idea, personally. If we are the forum government, then the forum MUST be the tool to make our work and voting and etc.

[That Called the Vlagh]

Just to be clear, no governmental structure that includes in-game stipulations (WA membership included) will be put forward for the vote.

[Reçueçn]

Edit: grammar. 

4. I'm considering simply making the upper house consist of everyone on the forums, to make things simpler and less prone to oligarchy; I'd prefer an elected upper house or an appointed one instead, however. The system I consider to be best would be one similar to TEP's Magisterium: Instead of being either appointed or elected, it consists of those who are active and dedicated on the forums; it's like our HGA, but with tougher requirements such as minimum post counts and a decent average post count per month.

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.

[URAP]

*strategic silence*

[Consular]

Yeah, that's a no to bicameral legislatures. They're slow, bureaucratic, and complicated.

[Llamas]

Alright, then. I see a lot of people are opposed to the idea of a full-on bicameral legislature. Here's another compromise: How about we use polls to hold in-game plebiscites on particular matters?

 

Think California. For those of you who don't live in the state, I'll explain:

 

Whenever we have elections here in California, we also get to vote on different laws that have been recommended to us. The legislature often can't reach the full two-thirds majority necessary to institute a new tax or amend the constitution, for example; However, there's a clause in our constitution which allows us to hold a referendum on anything the legislature recommends by a majority vote, and if most of the population votes in favor, it becomes a part of the constitution. We could do something similar here: If a majority of the Executive Council supports a bill, it can be moved to a public referendum using in-game polls to quickly take into account what our region's WA population believes, which is much simpler and faster than the long, drawn-out, and messy process of pushing a bill through the HGA, and also gives those who are not on the forums legal rights.

[Elegarth]

I insist, voting in in-game polls allows for easy not even hard to perform puppet manipulation of the results

[Nox]

Using in-game polls and other features for decisions puts a lot of trust in people not to make puppets or manipulate results.

While this can be avoided with certain filters, that alienates a lot of legitimate residents who don't meet that criteria, many active participants in the government don't have populations above 1 billion, myself included, and many are also not part of the WA, myself again included.

[Llamas]

I insist, voting in in-game polls allows for easy not even hard to perform puppet manipulation of the results

I feel like I've already explained this about 40 times. It's actually much easier to manipulate a vote on the forums than it is to manipulate an in-game vote. If I wanted to, I could have signed up on the forums using only a single proxy to cast another vote for myself and win the Prime Minister elections. By contrast, that's practically impossible with the in-game polls system; the WA has many, many checks to ensure a single individual cannot have more than one WA. Let's also remember that even if somebody managed to somehow get more than one WA into the region, which in and of itself is incredibly unlikely, this would not matter: a single vote is unlikely to change the course of a poll involving about sixty nations (The average size of a poll held in a GCR). By contrast, a single vote in an election involving twenty nations, which is very common on forums, can most certainly tip the balance. As to the idea of somebody moving their WA only to participate in a vote, I propose adding another requirement: That voters endorse the Delegate. So, if somebody needs to be endorsing the delegate for a week to vote, and it's impossible to know when a vote will come as votes will not be held on every bill but rather only when the Executive Council demands it... We have essentially said that if a foreigner wants to affect our voting in such a way that it will almost certainly not even change the outcome, they must contribute a significant amount of influence to our delegate and support them while simultaneously tying up their WA in such a way that they cannot participate in operations that could potentially harm TWP's interests abroad. That sounds like a definite win for the region to me.

 

 

Using in-game polls and other features for decisions puts a lot of trust in people not to make puppets or manipulate results.

While this can be avoided with certain filters, that alienates a lot of legitimate residents who don't meet that criteria, many active participants in the government don't have populations above 1 billion, myself included, and many are also not part of the WA, myself again included.

1. Read the above.

2. I would not require that nations have a population above 1 billion; that is a completely arbitrary distinction.

3. I already noted that special exemptions to the WA requirement could be made if a nation provided a good reason why their WA was not in the region.

[Darkesia]

This also assumes your Delegate desires to participate in such a manner.  I"m not saying that they won't want to help.  But keep in mind that not all will want or have time for such things.  If we choose to do this, it must be done as a sort of opinion poll only.  If it's written into law, the thing collapses if the Delegate decides not to do it.

[Llamas]

This also assumes your Delegate desires to participate in such a manner.  I"m not saying that they won't want to help.  But keep in mind that not all will want or have time for such things.  If we choose to do this, it must be done as a sort of opinion poll only.  If it's written into law, the thing collapses if the Delegate decides not to do it.

And if the delegate refuses to do it, I would expect a declaration of open rebellion to follow and the Guardians to work for the removal of that Delegate. In most regions, refusal to follow the law laid down by the government is considered just cause to remove the Delegate from power.

[Darkesia]

...  

 

And that is the same as saying you wish to create a forum law which dictates the Delegate's behavior.

 

>.<

[Elegarth]

And if the delegate refuses to do it, I would expect a declaration of open rebellion to follow and the Guardians to work for the removal of that Delegate. In most regions, refusal to follow the law laid down by the government is considered just cause to remove the Delegate from power.

Why would this call for an open rebellion? The Delegate owes no service to the forum government in ANY way or form. As much as the Delegate can't force us to pass or not pass a specific law related to forum matters, you can't pretend to FORCE the delegate to do the biding of the forum government....

[Eli]

there can be no forum law that dictates to the Delegate, then any delegate is subservient to the forum and then the game is subservient to the forum which is idiocy and an invitation political upheaval,

 

 

That is what the false democracies do and claim

[That Called the Vlagh]

No legislation/constitution that in any way, shape, or form attempts to dictate to the Delegate will be placed before this body for a vote so discussion on such matters is unnecessary.

[Consular]

People can and should cooperate with the Delegates and may request polls, but this is only a cooperative and optional thing and will stay out of any proposals.

[Llamas]

In any case, it hardly matters. Darkesia has given us the go-ahead and says she will work with this, and I don't see why any future delegate would be opposed to simply setting up a few polls from time to time.

[Elegarth]

In any case, it hardly matters. Darkesia has given us the go-ahead and says she will work with this, and I don't see why any future delegate would be opposed to simply setting up a few polls from time to time.

Last I saw, she criticized the assumption that the delegate would have to forcibly make polls, and any future delegate should have the right to say no if she/he so pleases, and hence if the design we made depends on that, then it is fundamentally flawed.

[The Church of Satan]

What else does the delegate do anyways? Sit pretty, occasionally banject a nation, suppress a post here and there? What's the big deal with giving the delegate something productive to do?

[Darkesia]

Srsly?

[Mediobogdum]

C of S be wary!  You need to make a chocolate sacrifice to have your sinful statement atoned!

[Fratellnoir]

Actually there would be no reason, or jurisdiction, for any intervention by the forum "government"

 

The "rebellion" would come from the WA's present in the region, exercising their in-game right to remove a Delegate that does not consider the desires, customs and aspirations of the region as a whole.

 

If the region as a whole buys into the concept, any future candidate would be foolhardy not to agree to post such polls. 

 

If you want to set the Forum Government up as taking precedence over the in-game mechanics you may be better off joining TSP's Coalition

 

The whole point of an in-game chamber is, in my opinion, to show that political engagement can by handled there rather than through a third party medium

[The Church of Satan]

Fratellnoir makes a valid point. If a large portion of the region (or in this case, a large portion of those getting involved) would like the delegate to post certain polls every now and then, the delegate would be disregarding the desires of the community that in my opinion, the delegate serves, by refusing. Being delegate is a privilege and one such delegate should listen well to what the community is telling him/her. After all, the delegate is always at the mercy of the community. So they would be prudent to appease them, within reason of course.

 

And, my apologies Darkesia if I may have insulted you in any way during my previous statement. That was not my intention.

 

btw Medio, if you haven't caught on by reading my name, sinful is what I do. And I do it well.

[Consular]

All of which is irrelevant as this would not be put in any constitutional draft. 

[Eli]

Indeed Arch, nail meet hammer