The Union of the West Pacific

[Cormac]

Introduction

 

This is a reform proposal to create the Union of the West Pacific. This proposal seeks to meet the community where it is, rather than where any individual or interest group would like it to go -- to provide a functional government to meet the needs and standards of the current community rather than some idealized future utopia (or, depending on one's perspective, dystopia). This is only a proposal; the point is to discuss the merits of it and then, once the details have been worked out, to formalize it into a constitutional document. I expect that this proposal will be competing with others' ideas, which is fine, and hopefully the constitutional document that emerges will incorporate ideas proposed by many participants. Comments on this proposal are welcome and encouraged!

 

The Union of the West Pacific

 

The Union of the West Pacific will aim to meet the following needs of the West Pacifican community:

• Provide a functional forum government in which any resident will find it easy to participate, should they so choose;
• Ensure the autonomy of the in-game regional community and Delegate from the forum government;
• Ensure the autonomy of the forum community and government from the in-game Delegate;
• Provide a practical framework for cooperation between the in-game and forum governments when desirable or necessary.

Relationship Between the Union and the Delegate

 

The Union will respect the absolute in-game authority of the Delegate as the reality of game mechanics, as well as the autonomy of the Union as the forum government of the West Pacific, by clearly adopting the following principles:

• The legitimate Delegate of the West Pacific is the nation elected by the World Assembly endorsements of nations in the West Pacific, and the Delegate may exercise any power over the West Pacific granted to the Delegate by game mechanics. The Union will have no authority over the in-game region.
• The Union will respect the right of World Assembly nations of the West Pacific to elect a new Delegate at any time.
• The Delegate will have no authority over the Union.
• The Union will cooperate with the Delegate whenever such cooperation is desirable or necessary for the welfare of the overall community of the West Pacific.

The Voice of the Union

 

The Voice will not be a typical legislature but will instead function as more of a town hall, comprised of any resident of the West Pacific who wishes to participate in the Voice. To avoid the development of complicated legalism and bureaucracy, the Voice will not legislate except to amend the Charter of the Union and to adopt and amend rules of order. Instead, the Voice will have broad governing powers exercised by simple majority vote, including:

• The power to adopt and amend rules of order;
• The power to elect an Advocate to preside over government of the Union on behalf of the Voice;
• The power to hear complaints against members and to remove members from the Voice after such hearings;
• The power to propose treaties for the approval of the Delegate;
• The power to approve treaties proposed by the Delegate;
• The power to declare war against other regions or organizations, with the approval of the Delegate;
• The power to approve a declaration of war proposed by the Delegate against other regions or organizations;
• The power to amend the Charter of the Union of the West Pacific.

A note on treaties and declarations of war: This is the one area where the in-game Delegate and the forum community are interdependent, in recognition that treaties and declarations of war affect the entire community. Naturally, as the Delegate can in reality do anything that game mechanics permits, the Delegate could still enact a treaty or declaration of war without the approval of the Union, but under this proposal such a treaty would not be recognized as valid or binding upon the Union and whatever military it establishes. Because of the negative effect treaties and declarations of war can have on the in-game region, the Union couldn't enact either without the approval of the Delegate.

 

Government of the Union

 

Government of the Union will be administered by the Advocate:

• The Advocate must be a member of the Voice.
• The Advocate will serve terms of two months, with a limit of three consecutive terms.
• The Advocate will be elected by the Voice in elections that last ten days (five for nominations, five for voting).
• In the event that no candidate receives a simple majority on the first ballot, a run-off election will be conducted.
• In the event that an election results in a tie between only two candidates, the incumbent will be re-elected or, if the incumbent is not a candidate, the candidate who first declared candidacy will be elected.
• The Advocate may appoint officials to assist in government and may dismiss such officials.
• The Voice may dismiss the Advocate or any official appointed by the Advocate.

Justice in the Union

 

The Union will adopt the following procedure for matters of justice:

• Any member of the Voice may file a complaint before the Voice against another member for behavior that the complainant believes is unbecoming of a member of the Voice.
• The Voice will vote on whether to hear the complaint.
• If the Voice votes to hear the complaint, the complainant may present a case against the defendant and the defendant may present a defense, in a public hearing before the Voice.
• Hearings will be presided over by an Arbiter elected by the Voice at the beginning of the hearing, who will serve only for the duration of that hearing. Elections for Arbiter will follow the same procedure as elections for Advocate.
• At the conclusion of the hearing, the Voice will vote to find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
• If the defendant is found guilty, the defendant will be removed from the Voice for a period of time sentenced by the Arbiter.
• The Voice may commute a sentence imposed by the Arbiter before expiration of the sentence.
• OOC offenses will be resolved by the policies of forum administration.
• In-game offenses will be resolved by the Delegate.

[Elegarth]

I'm gonna comment on the parts I have comments for only.

 

The Voice of the Union

 

The Voice will not be a typical legislature but will instead function as more of a town hall, comprised of any resident of the West Pacific who wishes to participate in the Voice. To avoid the development of complicated legalism and bureaucracy, the Voice will not legislate except to amend the Charter of the Union and to adopt and amend rules of order. Instead, the Voice will have broad governing powers exercised by simple majority vote

What will be the difference between "rules of order" and laws per se? And what is the idea to avoid a proper legislature? I'm not against this, I'm curious as to the mail goal of this specific change. Simplification comes to my mind, somehow...

A note on treaties and declarations of war: This is the one area where the in-game Delegate and the forum community are interdependent, in recognition that treaties and declarations of war affect the entire community. Naturally, as the Delegate can in reality do anything that game mechanics permits, the Delegate could still enact a treaty or declaration of war without the approval of the Union, but under this proposal such a treaty would not be recognized as valid or binding upon the Union and whatever military it establishes. Because of the negative effect treaties and declarations of war can have on the in-game region, the Union couldn't enact either without the approval of the Delegate.

That also means that embassies and in-game and forum embassies are separated and independent.

• 1) The Advocate must be a member of the Voice.
• 2) The Advocate will serve terms of two months, with a limit of three consecutive terms.
• 3) The Advocate will be elected by the Voice in elections that last ten days (five for nominations, five for voting).
• 4) In the event that no candidate receives a simple majority on the first ballot, a run-off election will be conducted.
• 5) In the event that an election results in a tie between only two candidates, the incumbent will be re-elected or, if the incumbent is not a candidate, the candidate who first declared candidacy will be elected.
• 6) The Advocate may appoint officials to assist in government and may dismiss such officials.
• 7) The Voice may dismiss the Advocate or any official appointed by the Advocate.

Some issues here, in my view:

1) I would advocated for the Advocate to have a minimum time of active membership in the Voice, as it would give us candidates best prepared and knowledgeable about the forum community.

2) Too short a term. With elections lasting a minimum of 10 days and options for run-off, 2 months is WAY to short. I'd like it to be at least 3 months, and I found 4 months ideal, since it allows for people to run programs and projects and plans. I'm also personally against limiting someone's legal rights in any manner different than judicial, hence I'm opposed to the re-election limit.

3), 4) and 5) No issues

6) Whatever officials he likes? Shouldn't the structure of the officials be limited somehow? I see how not limiting them would allow for more flexibility.

7) I'd say that would require both a quorum and a supermajority... Else, it would be too destabilizing...

• Justice in the Union

   

  The Union will adopt the following procedure for matters of justice:

• Any member of the Voice may file a complaint before the Voice against another member for behavior that the complainant believes is unbecoming of a member of the Voice.
• The Voice will vote on whether to hear the complaint.
• If the Voice votes to hear the complaint, the complainant may present a case against the defendant and the defendant may present a defense, in a public hearing before the Voice.
• Hearings will be presided over by an Arbiter elected by the Voice at the beginning of the hearing, who will serve only for the duration of that hearing. Elections for Arbiter will follow the same procedure as elections for Advocate.
• At the conclusion of the hearing, the Voice will vote to find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
• If the defendant is found guilty, the defendant will be removed from the Voice for a period of time sentenced by the Arbiter.
• The Voice may commute a sentence imposed by the Arbiter before expiration of the sentence.
• OOC offenses will be resolved by the policies of forum administration.
• In-game offenses will be resolved by the Delegate.

Doesn't that seems awfully complicated? I'd rather have a small body, say 3 members of the voice, who can also be either elected or selected some other way tht judges this in the manner of a tribunal? Then appeals could be heard by the voice as a whole. But I feel this option implies too many votings, and too many runarounds to hear a complaint. We would also require some code of possible repercussions to people find guilty?

[Cormac]

What will be the difference between "rules of order" and laws per se? And what is the idea to avoid a proper legislature? I'm not against this, I'm curious as to the mail goal of this specific change. Simplification comes to my mind, somehow...

Rules of order basically means procedural rules -- things like how and when matters go to vote, etc. It would be one document rather than multiple laws.

The idea is definitely simplification. I'm hoping for the Voice to be less like a legislature and more like a town hall, because the West Pacific doesn't seem like a region that is all that interested in constant legislating as the main source of its activity. The legalese and bureaucracy of the former HGA system have already proven really contentious and frustrating for many people. What I would like to see the Voice become is an assembly where regional matters can be discussed, rather than laws being discussed. But also an assembly that has broad governing powers to make sure it can keep the executive in check without legislation.

 

That also means that embassies and in-game and forum embassies are separated and independent.

Yes. The former would fall under the Delegate's authority, the latter under the International Union's authority. Hopefully there can be some degree of cooperation but it isn't strictly necessary; in-game and forum embassies have drastically different functions.

 

1) I would advocated for the Advocate to have a minimum time of active membership in the Voice, as it would give us candidates best prepared and knowledgeable about the forum community.

I think this is a sensible idea and one I would be in favor of as well, it just didn't occur to me. What do you think the minimum time period should be?

 

2) Too short a term. With elections lasting a minimum of 10 days and options for run-off, 2 months is WAY to short. I'd like it to be at least 3 months, and I found 4 months ideal, since it allows for people to run programs and projects and plans. I'm also personally against limiting someone's legal rights in any manner different than judicial, hence I'm opposed to the re-election limit.

I'm flexible on term length. Four months seems okay to me, though I wouldn't want to go any longer than that. I would probably be more comfortable with three months, personally, as I could see burn-out and inactivity happening in that fourth month.

Regarding term limits, I wasn't sure about those either. My reasoning was that a term limit would ensure that no one holds office for too long and that others have a chance to advance. On the other hand, that may be better left to voters to decide, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to serve for longer than six to eight months anyway.

 

6) Whatever officials he likes? Shouldn't the structure of the officials be limited somehow? I see how not limiting them would allow for more flexibility.

I was going for flexibility here, for times when the community is less active (e.g., during the summer lull) or more active. My hope is that the structure of the cabinet would be a factor in elections, and if voters feel that a candidate is proposing too few or too many ministries, they will vote for another candidate. Again, the idea behind the entire proposal is simplification and flexibility.

 

7) I'd say that would require both a quorum and a supermajority... Else, it would be too destabilizing...

I'm not a huge fan of quorum requirements in an open assembly, but a supermajority is probably sensible for removal of the Advocate, at least. I could go for a supermajority to remove the Advocate, a simple majority to remove appointees?

 

Doesn't that seems awfully complicated? I'd rather have a small body, say 3 members of the voice, who can also be either elected or selected some other way tht judges this in the manner of a tribunal? Then appeals could be heard by the voice as a whole. But I feel this option implies too many votings, and too many runarounds to hear a complaint. We would also require some code of possible repercussions to people find guilty?

The justice section is probably the least fleshed out part of the proposal -- I'm not good at NationStates judiciaries, and I don't like them -- so I'm definitely open to alternative proposals. I think election of three Arbiters to hear trials, with the ability to appeal to the Voice, would probably work. Does anyone else have alternative ideas?

Thanks for your comments, Elegarth.

[Reçueçn]

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!

[Llamas]

I like many of these ideas, Cormac. o7 Support.

[Cormac]

I'll be putting this in the form of a constitution draft sometime over the next couple of days.

[Llamas]

Good. I look forward to crushing it in debate soon.

[Cormac]

I like many of these ideas, Cormac. o7 Support.

 

Good. I look forward to crushing it in debate soon.

 

Whatever you say...

[URAP]

Oh dear.

That was rather contradictory, aye, llamas?

[Llamas]

Oh dear.

That was rather contradictory, aye, llamas?

Indeed. Turns out I changed my mind.

[Elegarth]

I'll be putting this in the form of a constitution draft sometime over the next couple of days.

Let me know if you need any help, I'd like to formally co-sponsor this proposal if we are able to reach a nice ground where we both feel comfortable.

[Darkesia]

... Trying not to faint...

 

I like this one the best, thus far.  I've not had a chance to read it until now.  It's a good starting place.  If Archi's proposal and this one can get smushed together in some acceptable way, I will be a happy TWP citizen.

[Elegarth]

That's more or less what I'd like to have, a sort of addition of them.

[The Church of Satan]

I gotta be honest, this proposal is easily the most open and transparent form of governance I've ever seen for an NS region. I really do like this and I firmly believe that it can function well. Very good work Cormac! 

[URAP]

Like this too, most of it.

[Cormac]

Let me know if you need any help, I'd like to formally co-sponsor this proposal if we are able to reach a nice ground where we both feel comfortable.

 

That would be great! Once I have a first draft finished, I'll send it to you for your suggestions (some of which I'll already be incorporating, from your above comments) and hopefully we can arrive at a draft we both like that we can post here. I should have a first draft done tomorrow.

 

 

... Trying not to faint...

 

I like this one the best, thus far.  I've not had a chance to read it until now.  It's a good starting place.  If Archi's proposal and this one can get smushed together in some acceptable way, I will be a happy TWP citizen.

 

That's more or less what I'd like to have, a sort of addition of them.

 

I would also be happy to incorporate some of Archsium's proposal. It wasn't fleshed out quite enough for me to know how to incorporate it, but if he would like to comment here or contact me privately I would love it if he, Elegarth, and I can hammer out a final draft that all three of us could co-sponsor. I have to admit this proposal was already inspired by the ideas he put forward about simplifying the government and reducing the need for legislation.

[Nox]

I definitely like this one, I'm looking forward to seeing what you three come up with.

[That Called the Vlagh]

In order to facilitate this form of governance into what is expected of the off-site community I have made a few minor editing suggestions. While it is true that we could maintain the forum community without the support of the Delegate, I very much doubt we could continue to call ourselves the offsite community of TWP by doing so and we would not have the benefit of having this forum directed to as the main point of offsite activity for the region. It has never been stated that the Delegate has no say in how we do things here, the current Delegate has simply opted not to be directly involved and has let us more or less have free reign. That does not mean it will always be the case and expecting it to be so by incorporating potentially adversarial language will not be helpful.

Overall, I have made no structural changes to the document, just some minor editing, which is clearly marked below. If the proposer does not accept these changes or wishes to discuss them with me directly, I am happy to have that conversation, but ultimately if I feel that the documents being presented do not represent current reality here in TWP fully they will not be put forward for approval (unless I am overruled by the Delegate, of course). There are several points within this document that outline ways in which the Delegate must get approval for various actions from the Union. This is unacceptable.

The Union of the West Pacific

The Union of the West Pacific will aim to meet the following needs of the West Pacifican community:

• Provide a functional forum government in which any resident will find it easy to participate, should they so choose;
• Ensure the autonomy of the in-game regional community and Delegate from the forum government;
• Ensure the autonomy of the forum community and government from the in-game Delegate;
• Provide a practical framework for cooperation between the in-game and forum governments when desirable or necessary.

Relationship Between the Union and the Delegate

The Union will respect the absolute in-game authority of the Delegate as the reality of game mechanics, as well as the autonomy of the Union as the forum government of the West Pacific, by clearly adopting the following principles:

• The legitimate Delegate of the West Pacific is the nation elected by the World Assembly endorsements of nations in the West Pacific, and the Delegate may exercise any power over the West Pacific granted to the Delegate by game mechanics. The Union will have no authority over the in-game region.
• The Union will respect the right of World Assembly nations of the West Pacific to elect a new Delegate at any time.
• The Delegate will have no authority over the Union.
• The Union will cooperate with the Delegate whenever such cooperation is desirable or necessary for the welfare of the overall community of the West Pacific.

The Voice of the Union

The Voice will not be a typical legislature but will instead function as more of a town hall, comprised of any resident of the West Pacific who wishes to participate in the Voice. To avoid the development of complicated legalism and bureaucracy, the Voice will not legislate except to amend the Charter of the Union and to adopt and amend rules of order. Instead, the Voice will have broad governing powers exercised by simple majority vote, including:

• The power to adopt and amend rules of order;
• The power to elect an Advocate to preside over government of the Union on behalf of the Voice;
• The power to hear complaints against members and to remove members from the Voice after such hearings;
• The power to propose treaties for the approval of the Delegate;
• The power to approve treaties proposed by the Delegate;
• The power to declare war against other regions or organizations, with the approval of the Delegate;
• The power to approve a declaration of war proposed by the Delegate against other regions or organizations;
• The power to amend the Charter of the Union of the West Pacific.

A note on treaties and declarations of war: This is the one area where the in-game Delegate and the forum community are interdependent, in recognition that treaties and declarations of war affect the entire community. Naturally, as the Delegate can in reality do anything that game mechanics permits, the Delegate could still enact a treaty or declaration of war without the approval of the Union, but under this proposal such a treaty would not be recognized as valid or binding upon the Union and whatever military it establishes. Because of the negative effect treaties and declarations of war can have on the in-game region, the Union couldn't enact either without the approval of the Delegate.

Government of the Union

Government of the Union will be administered by the Advocate:

• The Advocate must be a member of the Voice.
• The Advocate will serve terms of two months, with a limit of three consecutive terms.
• The Advocate will be elected by the Voice in elections that last ten days (five for nominations, five for voting).
• In the event that no candidate receives a simple majority on the first ballot, a run-off election will be conducted.
• In the event that an election results in a tie between only two candidates, the incumbent will be re-elected or, if the incumbent is not a candidate, the candidate who first declared candidacy will be elected.
• The Advocate may appoint officials to assist in government and may dismiss such officials.
• The Voice may dismiss the Advocate or any official appointed by the Advocate.

Justice in the Union

The Union will adopt the following procedure for matters of justice:

• Any member of the Voice may file a complaint before the Voice against another member for behavior that the complainant believes is unbecoming of a member of the Voice.
• The Voice will vote on whether to hear the complaint.
• If the Voice votes to hear the complaint, the complainant may present a case against the defendant and the defendant may present a defense, in a public hearing before the Voice.
• Hearings will be presided over by an Arbiter elected by the Voice at the beginning of the hearing, who will serve only for the duration of that hearing. Elections for Arbiter will follow the same procedure as elections for Advocate.
• At the conclusion of the hearing, the Voice will vote to find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
• If the defendant is found guilty, the defendant will be removed from the Voice for a period of time sentenced by the Arbiter.
• The Voice may commute a sentence imposed by the Arbiter before expiration of the sentence.
• OOC offenses will be resolved by the policies of forum administration.
• In-game offenses will be resolved by the Delegate.

[Reçueçn]

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.

[That Called the Vlagh]

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.

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending upon your point of view, the Delegate in TWP is a de facto dictator, just benevolent in the current situation.  That is how the system works.  There will be no institutions put in place that seeks to 'limit' the authority of the Delegate.

 

It doesn't actually work both ways.  The only reason some here think that it does is because some other regions have put systems in place that require the off-site government's approval of the Delegacy.  

 

That is not how things are in TWP.

[Reçueçn]

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending upon your point of view, the Delegate in TWP is a de facto dictator, just benevolent in the current situation.  That is how the system works.  There will be no institutions put in place that seeks to 'limit' the authority of the Delegate.

 

It doesn't actually work both ways.  The only reason some here think that it does is because some other regions have put systems in place that require the off-site government's approval of the Delegacy.  

 

That is not how things are in TWP.

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.

[That Called the Vlagh]

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.

Except that is exactly what the Delegate can do.  The Delegate does not have to support this government at all.  The Delegate can, at any time, decide that this is not a form of government that he/she approves of and disband it.  The Delegate can set up a new forum elsewhere and put it into the WFE.  It isn't that the Delegate controls this offsite community, it is that the offsite community seeks to associate itself with The West Pacific, which is controlled by the Delegate.  That may sound like the same thing but it isn't.  This community can survive without the Delegate but it can not do so as the 'official' offsite community of the NS region known as The West Pacific.

[Elegarth]

Question:

Last time I discussed it, I may remember (my memory is not that good) that Dark mention the forum gov may have embassies open that the in-game does not, and vice-versa. I thought that reflected on some of the parts you scratched out, Vlagh.

Can I have clarification to that? Honest question.

[Reçueçn]

Except that is exactly what the Delegate can do.  The Delegate does not have to support this government at all.  The Delegate can, at any time, decide that this is not a form of government that he/she approves of and disband it.  The Delegate can set up a new forum elsewhere and put it into the WFE.  It isn't that the Delegate controls this offsite community, it is that the offsite community seeks to associate itself with The West Pacific, which is controlled by the Delegate.  That may sound like the same thing but it isn't.  This community can survive without the Delegate but it can not do so as the 'official' offsite community of the NS region known as The West Pacific.

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.

[That Called the Vlagh]

Question:

Last time I discussed it, I may remember (my memory is not that good) that Dark mention the forum gov may have embassies open that the in-game does not, and vice-versa. I thought that reflected on some of the parts you scratched out, Vlagh.

Can I have clarification to that? Honest question.

It may, and I may be incorrect in some of my edits.  I have not claimed that they are absolute at this point, just that this is how I see the proposal as most effective for the aims of this Convention.

 

That said, if the distinction between Embassies with the offsite government and in-game Delegacy/governance of the region can be more clearly specified, I obviously will have no objection to it.  I just do not like the idea of stating that certain treaties will not be considered valid if the Delegate does not get off-site approval.

 

Also, I am a bit confused about the part regarding the creation of militaries.  Why would the off-site forum need a military?