Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The only proof needed is the fact that this place is inactive and has been for an extended period of time. The system is broken on several levels.

I have asked to be proven wrong on many separate occasions here now and we still end up right back here, with me pointing out that nothing is happening and others claiming that it is utopia but without any tangible results.

I simply believe it is time we get our collective heads out of our asses and try something different. I am not claiming that it will be a success but it has been proven in every other feeder and here in the far distant past that incorporating the Delegacy into the offsite at the very least generates a reason to take part in the offsite.

As it currently exists, there is no reason to join this board and take part because it is less relevant to the game we are all playing than a notice on the RMB, but requires more effort.

Posted

I agree in many of your points, but I also think the current system hadn't had the change to be REALLY tried. I'm not saying NO to the idea of a system as you propose. Nor I care for what Cormac thinks or not about it...

But after talking to BBB I think he has it right in a couple of accounts regarding small things happening and NOT GETTING exposure. That is just A PART of the problem of course. And it may be weird, if such integration occurred I'd have more chance to make changes, but that does not means they will also work...

What I'm trying to say is that another change, like the ones we've had in the past few months, has as much potential of bringing people on board as it has to drive them away... I honestly feel a drastic change now won't be for the best. We could try a partial attempt at it. As I mentioned before, I'm trying to take a more active role by advising BBB and trying to push stuff within the existing environment, and will probably run for Advocate myself in the next election, which would also create a similar situation. My point in short is, rushing into a new system, when we have not REALLY put efforts in the current one, seems as doom to failure as continuing in our current inactive path.

On a side note, we both play the same card in one aspect: I can't prove you wrong as much as you can't prove yourself right, as any kind of real proof of any of the two would require evidence of the other happening and being better or worse WITHIN our environment. The fact that something works in a place doesn't means it works everyone, with pseudo-liberal democracies being an example...

But in any case, I don't control the Voice. This is just my opinion. And everyone has one!

Posted

That's fine.  This seems to be the same conversation I have had with various people in authority multiple times over the last year or so and it always comes back to the same end result.  Something about the definition of insanity in there somewhere...

 

Since I have a fundamental disagreement with the structure of the Voice as it currently stands then I cannot be part of that solution.  That might not have been the case a few months ago but the fact is that the position of the Voice in the authority ranking within the region shifted dramatically when you decided to reinstall it against the wishes of a sitting Delegate.  I just cannot support a system that gives that much authority in a feeder to a body that does not recognize the supremacy of the Delegate in an executive role.

 

But, good luck, BBB.  I guess we will see?  Although I feel like I have said that before...

Posted

We will possibly reach a similar point again. It may be the voice itself changes into something different. I'm really bad a predicting the future.

Posted

I certainly believe that the Delegate should be the Chief Executive of any government we have, and I disagree about elections every four months.

 

 

We have elections every day, that election being when our WA nations choose to endorse our Delegate.

 

 

 

Go Ele :twpflag: :twpflag:

Posted

well let's modify our deal with the Voice.

 

I think:

 

1. The delegate is the Chief Executive

2. The guardians are appointed by the Delegate, the Voice can object to any it deems offensive.

3. The Advocate: Leader of the Voice, works with the Delegate/Guardians to legislate in the best interests of the region

4. Ministers, appointed by the Advocate, approved by the Delegate. Free to organize their Ministries as they see fit, may be removed by the Voice if that removal is agreed to by the Delegate.

 

 

thoughts?

Posted

The delegate in twp is not an elected-by-forum position. I'm the current delegate till I step down and elect a successor, or the guardians consider I'm no longer fit and ask me to quit, or the region arises in rebellion due to incompetence/behavior issues on my behalf or the region is taken over by someone else. The rules for electing delegates are game rules, no forum institution has any power over it.

Posted

1. The delegate is the Chief Executive

2. The guardians are appointed by the Delegate, the Voice can object to any it deems offensive.

3. The Advocate: Leader of the Voice, works with the Delegate/Guardians to legislate in the best interests of the region

4. Ministers, appointed by the Advocate, approved by the Delegate. Free to organize their Ministries as they see fit, may be removed by the Voice if that removal is agreed to by the Delegate.

So, how do we turn this into a small modification to our existing charter, so we don't have to start over from scratch? I can take a stab at it

Posted

So, as I'm bored... I'll be happy to help turn Eli's points into amendment form.

 

"1. The delegate is the Chief Executive"

 

I am working under the assumption that this means "Chief Executive of the Union of The West Pacific". To me this means that the titles and powers of Delegate and Chief Executive are separate but (usually) held by the same person. The only case which the title and powers of Chief Executive would be separate from the Delegacy is in a State of Rebellion.

 

 

Basically, my point is this: Delegate holds on-site powers, Chief Executive who is 99% of the time the Delegate holds some off-site powers. 

 

There are two articles in Section One which right away require a look, those being (5) and (6).

 


(5) The Union will recognize its own autonomy from the Delegate as an autonomous off-site community government of the West Pacific.

(6) The Union will cooperate with the Delegate whenever such cooperation is desirable or necessary for the welfare of the overall regional community of the West Pacific.

 

I propose the following changes:


(5) The Union will recognize the Delegate as Chief Executive of the Union.

(6) The Union may declare a State of Rebellion against the Delegate and name a new Chief Executive if the Union deems the Delegate to be severely detrimental to the welfare of the overall regional community of the West Pacific.

 

6 can be re-worded. However, if we're going to keep a roughly similar system where the Delegate is "elected" by the onsite community, and recognized as Chief Executive of the Union, there needs to be a clear State of Rebellion clause.

 

As per "2. The guardians are appointed by the Delegate, the Voice can object to any it deems offensive" in Eli's list, I propose the addition of Article 7 to Section 1. I'm proposing that the Voice can do a vote of non-confidence in the Guardian in both nomination and conduct. I am not sure if the Voice can/should have the power to force the Delegate to get rid of a Guardian, hence why I view "non-confidence" as the best phrasing here. Also, while I have "a majority of members" here, the percentage required to pass a vote of non-confidence can be adjusted if we wish.

 

 


(7) The Union will recognize the Delegate as having the right to name Guardians to assist with the on-site security of the West Pacific. If a majority of the members of the Voice of the Union finds the naming of or conduct of a Guardian to be objectionable, it will inform the Delegate of the Union's non-confidence in the Guardian.

 

As we are now entering the off-site territory of the Charter, and because the above amendment recognizes the Delegate to be the Chief Executive (except in State of Rebellion), I propose that in all cases of Section Two (those being Articles 7-10) where it mentions "the Delegate", it be replaced with "the Chief Executive". It will look like this:

 


(7) The Voice will, with the approval of the Chief Executive, have the power to enact, amend, and repeal treaties.

(8) The Voice will have the power to confirm and rescind Union participation in treaties proposed by the Chief Executive.

(9) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote and with the approval of the Chief Executive, have the power to declare war and to repeal war declarations.

(10) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote, have the power to confirm and rescind Union participation in war declarations proposed by the Chief Executive.

 

Alright, fun time: Dealing with the Advocate and the Government.

 

First, the Advocate: I am changing Article 1 from stating that the government was administered by the Advocate to simply stating they are in charge of the Voice. The Advocate will still maintain a high profile in Government, and that'll be in the new Section 4. Also, I am eliminating the old article 4, which read: "Any resident who participated in the constitutional convention to enact this Charter will be eligible for the first election for Advocate immediately following the enactment of this Charter." As I am uncomfortable about one running their own re-election, I am further changing the old article 5 (now article 4) so that the Advocate does not run Advocate elections. Old article 9 (now 8) is changing to allow the Advocate to appoint Deputies (who are not Ministers, they will go in the new Section 4) who will assist them in the administration of the Voice (not the Government, please see Section 4 for Ministers). Old article 11 (now 10) is going to be eliminated, as the Ministers are covered under Section 4.

 

 

3. Advocate of the Voice of the Union

(1) The Voice of the Union shall elect an Advocate, who will preside over the Voice.

(2) Elections for Advocate will consist of a three day period for declarations of candidacy followed by a five day period of voting.

(3) Any member of the Voice who has held continuous membership in the Voice for one month of more will be eligible for candidacy for Advocate.

(4) The Delegate may administer the election, may appoint an election administrator, or if both are unavailable the member of the Voice with the longest continuous membership and who is available to serve will administer the election.

(5) In the event that no candidate receives a simple majority on the first election ballot, a run-off election will be conducted between the two highest voted candidates, starting no sooner than 24 hours and no later than 72 hours after the previous election has closed. This election will also last for a five day voting period.

(6) 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.

(7) The Advocate will serve terms of four months, with a limit of two consecutive terms.

(8) The Advocate may appoint deputies to assist in the administration of the Voice and may dismiss such deputies.

(9) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, dismiss the Advocate from office.

 

Essentially, the Government is the executive council/cabinet. The new section will outline the Government and Ministers. Now, I'm at present adding in the Guardians as non-voting members, as frankly I see them being of service to the Government when it comes to on-site security and stability, along with providing advice to the Government in confidence. Is this something you guys wish to see?

 

4. Government of the Union

(1) The Government of the Union shall be comprised of the Chief Executive, the Advocate, and Ministers.

(2) Guardians shall serve as non-voting members of the Government.

(3) The Advocate shall from time to time provide names to the Chief Executive for approval to be Ministers.

(4) The Advocate and Chief Executive will delineate the responsibilities of each Minister. Ministers have the right to organize their department in ways which they believe best carries out the execution of their responsibilities.

(5) The Voice may, by majority vote, dismiss a Minister from office and instruct the Advocate to name a new Minister.

 

 

Moving on, the old "4. Justice in the Union" becomes "5. Justice in the Union".

 

In the final section, regarding the Military, there are just a minor change to reflect that executive power is in the Government, not just the Advocate. I am unsure whether to change Article 2 from being "under the command of the Delegate" to the Government, or allow it to stand. Thoughts?

 

 

6. Military of the Union

1. The military force of the Union will execute the polices determined by the Government of the Union.

 

 

So, I'm going to hold off for now from taking all the above amendments and make them into one bill. I figure (unless it looks really damn good to you guys) that there'll be plenty of discussion about the technical details. 

Posted

-edit: redacted-

I'll be frank, seeing this type of empty comment annoys me. The purpose of this discussion is to try to find ways to encourage more activity, including structural activity. So... what's up, Mal, that you feel you couldn't say and thus needed to redact? If you don't like it, then cool. Let's talk about it.

Posted (edited)

I see. As far as I understand Eli's list, your position as Deputy Advocate for Foreign Affairs will become a Minister. As such, under the draft amendments listed above, it will be covered under the new Section 4. 

 

Please note that the above amendments drafted and proposed are just that, a draft. And the proposals I made last night were made interpreting some of the wishes and desires listed here. If we are to properly move on, the more information we have, the better.

 

Thus, do you have any proposals?

 

Edit: Note, I should add this: All positions that hold potential Ministerial responsibilities, and in the current situation they are styled 'Deputy Advocate', would be included under Section 4. This is not to point only to you, Mal, and your position, but merely I am using your position as an illustration of what would be considered as Minister under Section 4.

Edited by Dalimbar
Posted

I do not personally believe forcing the Delegate to conform to an offsite government is the way to go, but I am just one voice.

 

+1

 

If I wanted to participate in such a system I'd become active in TSP

Posted

6 can be re-worded. However, if we're going to keep a roughly similar system where the Delegate is "elected" by the onsite community, and recognized as Chief Executive of the Union, there needs to be a clear State of Rebellion clause.[/size]

Technically, the right to rebellion is BEYOND the constitution and charter, since it is a right in-game: any region is allowed to rebel to its sitting delegate and try to take it off, as the delegate is allowed to try to hold to its seat, all within Max's rules. There was no clause of rebellion when we rebelled against URAP and there is no need to create one: it is a game coded right of any region and its population.

My suggestion:

(5) The Union will recognize the Delegate as Chief Executive of the Union.

(6) The Union and the Delegate will cooperate both in-game and in the off-site forums for the welfare of the overall regional community of the West Pacific.

I really like your # 7.

No commens in your other changes.

Ah. I was going to ask if DAs were included in the term 'Minister', before reading again that it wasn't; hence the redaction.

As Dali says, you'd become a Minister should this pass, and be both under the shared supervision of the Advocate, who is sort of a prime minister if you may, and head of the legislative voice, and the Delegate.

Posted

I haven't been incredibly receptive of systems like this in the past, but I like where this is going. My only problem is in section 3, number 6. I feel like that should be changed to being just another runoff election or a vote by the Voice instead of something as arbitrary as who declared candidacy first.

I would have quoted it, but mobile doesn't feel like doing that today.

Overall it's a great proposal.

Posted

That is part of the original charter and I'd rather not remove it: we once had to see the region freeze due to run-off elections that ended tied twice, and a third one would have meant over a month voting and doing nothing :S

Posted

Yeah, that makes sense, and it's doubtful that that'll even happen in the first place.

×
×
  • Create New...