The Union of the West Pacific

[Darkesia]

Note: I disagree with Eli on this one.

Compromise maybe? *gasp*. Some sort of honor guard/home guard subset of the military which could be recalled to defend the in-game region or deployed to enforce in-game regional policy? Just tossing that idea out there.

[Eli]

I would never stand in the way of a compromise, I perceive a lack of compromise on that part of the author, thus my slash and burn answer.

[Cormac]

I was not stating that the forum government should have no authority over the military.  I was asking if the current TWP Army would be incorporated into the Union.

 

It could be, and I assumed it would be. Though it's also possible the Union could just create an entirely new military since TWPAF has not been active in a while.

 

Also, my prior post was responding to Eli, but I should have been clearer about that.

 

 

the forum government isn't in game, the military is in game, I'm just pointing out the (what I perceive as) lack of logic in your position.

 

 

I'm telling you that if the 'forum govt' military opposed a position strongly held by me and I was Delegate I'd remove all of them from the region, permanently, and the forum govt could do as they wished with that result.

 

I agree that the military is in-game, but for the most part its in-game activities probably will not take place in the West Pacific. It will probably take place in other regions according to the policies of the forum government.

 

I do understand that the Delegate could ban members of a forum government-sponsored military that is opposing the Delegate or the Delegate's policies, and I don't have a problem with that. It's part of the Delegate's in-game authority. But I think it's important to keep a military that will be carrying out the policies of the forum government separate from the Delegate's authority.

 

Note: I disagree with Eli on this one.

Compromise maybe? *gasp*. Some sort of honor guard/home guard subset of the military which could be recalled to defend the in-game region or deployed to enforce in-game regional policy? Just tossing that idea out there.

 

I would never stand in the way of a compromise, I perceive a lack of compromise on that part of the author, thus my slash and burn answer.

 

I would be fine with that compromise, actually. It's not that I don't want the military to defend the in-game region or enforce in-game regional policy, I just want to make sure the separation between the authority of the Delegate and the forum government over their separate areas is maintained. But obviously it's best for them to cooperate whenever possible, so I'll see how best to work this compromise into the draft tomorrow.

[lemonpledge]

Cormac, your argument about Arbiters is fair enough. I'd prefer a shorter voting time, but I do see where you're coming from.

 

Also, the Forum Community has every right to set up it's own military, but it's the delegate's right to recognize whether this military is official. I like Dark's compromise.

[Cormac]

I have made a couple of significant changes to the draft (which can be found here, for anyone who missed it):

 

1. There is now a provision, 2(3), which permits the Voice to admit non-residents as members by two-thirds majority vote, provided the non-residents in question cannot reside in TWP. This was to address a concern raised in another thread that Tweedy not be barred from participating. For those who aren't aware, Tweedy is delete-on-sight from NationStates and thus physically cannot reside in TWP, but has made significant contributions to TWP's community over the years.

 

2. There is a new section 5 on the military of the Union, which fleshes out command of the military and oversight by the Voice, while also implementing Darkesia's compromise suggestion for a home defense division under the command of the Delegate. I hope this will prove an agreeable compromise, but as this is a new section I'm happy to discuss further revisions.

 

I also wanted to point out something that may not be immediately obvious. There is nothing in this draft that prohibits the Delegate from also serving as Advocate, so a Delegate who wants a more active role in the forum community government could have that by running for Advocate. In recognition that TWP has had Delegates who prefer a less active role as more of an in-game guardian, the Delegate's legal role is minimized and optional, but I would imagine any Delegate would be the odds on favorite for winning an election for Advocate if they chose to run for the office.

[Darkesia]

Cormac, you are kicking ass! Just wanted to put that out there.

Carry on.

[Elegarth]

Agreed

[lemonpledge]

I'm happy with the new military section.

 

Keep on rocking, Cormac.

[Llamas]

I like most of what you've written, Cormac. Formatting and most of the details are quite nice. I'd like to ask you if you would be fine with me taking the constitution and rewriting portions of it to add in-game poll democracy, as I think that outside the disagreement on whether we should expand the franchise to in-game nations as well it's mostly a better draft than the rough outline I submitted earlier.

[Cormac]

I like most of what you've written, Cormac. Formatting and most of the details are quite nice. I'd like to ask you if you would be fine with me taking the constitution and rewriting portions of it to add in-game poll democracy, as I think that outside the disagreement on whether we should expand the franchise to in-game nations as well it's mostly a better draft than the rough outline I submitted earlier.

 

I continue to oppose use of in-game polls in regional governance, but anyone is welcome to use this draft as a basis on which to build their own draft.

[Elegarth]

I think that is an awful idea Llamas. No even 25 posts ago you were explaining how you were going to "destroy" this proposal, just a few days after having said you loved it, and now loving it again. Personally this seems to go beyond an opinion change and into approval seeking. I feel it makes you loose credibility, specially since you were strongly defending your already existing proposal not long ago. This is just an opinion, you are obviously free to ignore it, mate

[Llamas]

I think that is an awful idea Llamas. No even 25 posts ago you were explaining how you were going to "destroy" this proposal, just a few days after having said you loved it, and now loving it again. Personally this seems to go beyond an opinion change and into approval seeking. I feel it makes you loose credibility, specially since you were strongly defending your already existing proposal not long ago. This is just an opinion, you are obviously free to ignore it, mate

If I were approval seeking, there are so many things I'd be doing differently; I'd be supporting Cormac's proposal as a whole, rather than just most of it. I'm not in this to win votes or support, or I would have refused to criticize the NPO earlier, I would have avoided opening my mouth on the whole bicameral issue to avoid losing votes from people who don't like the idea; honestly, if what I wanted was to get votes and support, I'd be packing my bags and running off on the first train to TSP or TEP. Instead, I stay because I honestly like TWP and want to give it my all to improve it. If I've acted strangely, it's because I like this proposal outside the fact that it strips the in-game populace of its own voice.

[Cormac]

The in-game population has the most powerful voice of all: It elects the Delegate. This forum would not even be linked on the regional WFE if not for the Delegate elected by the in-game population willing it to be there, and if the in-game population disapproves of this forum or its community government, it can elect a Delegate who will link to a different forum and/or support a different community government.

 

This proposal doesn't strip anyone of anything. Any resident of the West Pacific would be free and more than welcome to participate in the Union via this forum. Where this proposal differs from yours is that the Union does not force participation on a diverse in-game population. Take a look at the poll Darkesia is running right now. Most of those who have voted in the poll have indicated that they've declined to join the forum because they don't care. They're entitled to not care. Another option getting a lot of votes is from people who only play on weekends and don't want more commitment. Why should we force these residents to care and make more commitments by shoving government in their faces via dispatches, RMB clutter, and polls that would increasingly be devoted to government rather than casual fun?

 

I've been critical of the West Pacific's system in the past, but one benefit of it is that this is one of the few regions in which not everyone has to participate in government in order to participate. Anyone who wants to can join this forum; let's not make them participate in government when they don't want to, and risk losing the other ways they participate, by inundating the in-game region with governmental matters.

[Elegarth]

Thank you Cormac.

[URAP]

Hmm.

[Eli]

I am opposed to in game polls having any role what so ever with the forum government.

[Cormac]

I've added the following as 3(5), because it occurred to me we had no provision for election administration if the office of Advocate is vacant, which it will immediately be if this constitution is ratified.

 

(5) In the event that the office of Advocate is vacant during an election for Advocate, the Delegate may administer the election, may appoint an election administrator, or the member of the Voice with the longest continuous membership and who is available to serve will administer the election.