punkdaddy Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 There is a change to the Charter I'd like to propose. I hope this gets our juices flowing. Here goes: Current (3) The Union will recognize the right of the Delegate to exercise any power granted to the Delegate by NationStates mechanics. Proposed (3) The Union will recognize the right of the Delegate to exercise any power granted to the Delegate by NationStates mechanics. In the event that the Union can no longer recognize the policies of the Delegate, the Union will seek to enter into a "State of Rebellion", after a vote in which four-fifths of the Voice approve, to unseat the sitting Delegate with a more preferred candidate. Why? I am definitely a believer in the Delegate is the in-game authority. But I also believe that we can fight the delegate if we believe his/her policies run counter to what we would like to see in TWP. A State of Rebellion is just that and would take 80% of the Voice to approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerboat_Racer Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I just want to make sure I understand this proposal before commenting. The way I am reading it is this is a legal form of a coup as it were, am I correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkdaddy Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 I just want to make sure I understand this proposal before commenting. The way I am reading it is this is a legal form of a coup as it were, am I correct? That's correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerboat_Racer Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I am not completely against the idea, but I am not quite sold on it either. The way it is worded currently, how will we ensure checks and balances are in place, in case someone is pursuing the delegacy of TWP for the wrong reasons? I would hate (As I am sure most members of the voice and TWP as a whole) to see TWP fall due to the wrong delegate being putting in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I'd like to remember you all that any implication of in-game regulation over the delegacy from the off-site government is by default invalid, per TWP construction. If the voice wants to unseat the delegate all they need are Max's laws, already in place in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediobogdum Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Status quo for me please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple country Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I like this plan. Keeps us more in line with the rest of the feeders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediobogdum Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Why do we need to be "in line with the other feeders"? Same is boring Hariko 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
URAP Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Why do we need to be "in line with the other feeders"? Same is boring Amen. Hariko 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langburn Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I approve of Punk Daddy's proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I will say this only once more: the delegate is not bound by the voice laws. You can vote this as many times as you wish, it is not relevant for the delegate's in-game position. This is, hence, pointless and a waste of time. TWP is NOT a fake democracy like SOME other GCRs, and any off-site law is not compulsory for the in-game delegate, nor will ever be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkdaddy Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 I will say this only once more: the delegate is not bound by the voice laws. You can vote this as many times as you wish, it is not relevant for the delegate's in-game position. This is, hence, pointless and a waste of time. TWP is NOT a fake democracy like SOME other GCRs, and any off-site law is not compulsory for the in-game delegate, nor will ever be. The reverse of your first sentence is also true that the Voice in not necessarily bound by the delegate and what this proposal does is say that if the Voice wishes to depart from the delegate we can. We don't recognize that each delegate has the right to rule the region as they see fit, but we also have the right to remove any delegate we wish if they prove unresponsive and/or counter to our wishes. The thing with the delegate being the supreme point of authority is that whomever is in the chair is the authority until the next person comes along and establishes a new authority. And on and on it goes. This proposal is not seeking to align us with other feeders...yuck! This proposal gives the Voice a way to have a - pun intentional - voice in how the in-game functions by giving us a tool to declare a state of rebellion from the sitting delegate. This doesn't state that the in-game delegate is illegitimate, but let's say URAP was couped, right now we have no legal method to fight that delegate. Not sure about you dudes but if someone were to coup TWP, I know I'd take up arms to get our region back. I am trying to build a method for us to do that and this requires 80% of the voice to go down this road, so it's not likely to be abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkesia Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I think there may be another way to accomplish what PunkD intends. It is in effect the way things actually exist in the region now (without the vote part). Give me a day to try to figure out how to put it into words? I think I can find a way to compromise in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkdaddy Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 I think there may be another way to accomplish what PunkD intends. It is in effect the way things actually exist in the region now (without the vote part). Give me a day to try to figure out how to put it into words? I think I can find a way to compromise in this case. Thanks, Dark. I've worded things intentionally to elicit feast/famine responses again to get our "juices flowing". I am sure there are better ways to get to the same place. thanks for taking a stab at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts