ARCHIVED: New TNP Democratic Union

S

Sauceistan

TNPer
Several nations have come up with the idea to create a democratic union in TNP. As you may know, there was a plan for one, but it never really took off. I'm thinking that it would be good to start fresh with a new organization. There are already some ideas in the UDNNP thread, so if you have any comments, ideas, or suggestions, please share!
I've never done something quite like this, so I'd like to hear any tips from someone who has organized something similar.
 
Several nations have come up with the idea to create a democratic union in TNP. As you may know, there was a plan for one, but it never really took off. I'm thinking that it would be good to start fresh with a new organization. There are already some ideas in the UDNNP thread, so if you have any comments, ideas, or suggestions, please share!
I've never done something quite like this, so I'd like to hear any tips from someone who has organized something similar.
 
I just got home I'll work this tonight. I think it'd be safe to heavily borrow from the previous plan. I really liked the setup, plan, admittance standards, etc.
 
(Note: This is long and boring. Sorry...)

I was actually coming up with some ideas myself. Instead of something ridiculously long, I was thinking we could call the organisation something like the Inter-Regional Assembly.

The first thing that came to mind is how to organise the structure. What we could do is have a chairman who organises and runs sessions as well as picks a topic to debate about. The deputy chairman helps the chairman organise sessions and fills in when absent. The assembly members take a few days to a week (this is taking into account that we are not always online) to discuss what kind of actions need to be taken and vote.

I also believe that the IRA should stick solely to role play matters, such as what to do with war criminals from the recent conflict with Malvad or proper/more organised trade routes since this already resembles the Regional Assembly.

Also, every month a new chairman will be elected. The person with the most votes becomes the chairman and the person with the second most votes becomes the deputy chairman. New assembly members are admitted in by the current members.

Also, just for the sake of it, the IRA should have a stronger military presence. This is almost like a "League of Nations/United Nations" scenario.
 
Fenichi:
(Note: This is long and boring. Sorry...)

I was actually coming up with some ideas myself. Instead of something ridiculously long, I was thinking we could call the organisation something like the Inter-Regional Assembly.

The first thing that came to mind is how to organise the structure. What we could do is have a chairman who organises and runs sessions as well as picks a topic to debate about. The deputy chairman helps the chairman organise sessions and fills in when absent. The assembly members take a few days to a week (this is taking into account that we are not always online) to discuss what kind of actions need to be taken and vote.

I also believe that the IRA should stick solely to role play matters, such as what to do with war criminals from the recent conflict with Malvad or proper/more organised trade routes since this already resembles the Regional Assembly.

Also, every month a new chairman will be elected. The person with the most votes becomes the chairman and the person with the second most votes becomes the deputy chairman. New assembly members are admitted in by the current members.

Also, just for the sake of it, the IRA should have a stronger military presence. This is almost like a "League of Nations/United Nations" scenario.
Click to expand...
Love the idea, hate the name. We can't connect it to the actual RA. There's tons of other things we can name it though. As for terms we can all vote on that. I think chairman and deputy should have 3 month turns to have adequate time RP/run sessions/etc. Have sessions bi-weekly I think is good. The military pressence I support, it'd make for very fun RPs.
 
I have always thought that the RA should have a role play aspect. I have always thought that role play wise each nation has an ambassador to the RA and that they chose regional offices from among themselves. A connection to the RA would be nice. Then we can have the role play RA that does actual event stuff and then the one that takes care of the region.
 
Malvad Acronis:
I have always thought that the RA should have a role play aspect. I have always thought that role play wise each nation has an ambassador to the RA and that they chose regional offices from among themselves. A connection to the RA would be nice. Then we can have the role play RA that does actual event stuff and then the one that takes care of the region.
Click to expand...
That would be interesting. When I first came here, I thought it was weird that the RA only focused on logistics. I think a RP RA would make role plays much more interesting, as then we can have the RA choose how to intervene, or release a statement, etc.

Maybe we can have the real RA approve of certain actions, such as military attacks, before we execute them. We could also make those votes optional, for those that are not fans of RP.
 
I guess you could just steal modify the whole template from Grogeriovania's initial project. If you're planning to create some sort of conference where member nations discuss some issues and come up with common plans or something along the lines of that, I can help out :)
 
Pretty sure Grog's original intention is for a union of more democratic, liberal-oriented nations to form some sort of an alliance/conference group or something, less of a EU and more of a NATO-ish thing.

I think the idea of linking this to the RA would be very, very terrible and an unnecessary intrusion to regional structure that would not be terribly welcome. Not everyone who is involved in RP is interested in the minutiae of politicking and not every politicking person is interested in RPing.

(somehow I think I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but heck, I just don't think most RA members are terribly interested in role-playing stuff)
 
My original thoughts reflected this. I just think it would be unnecessary bringing people into role play issues that don't really concern them. It would also affect our game play as it would take roughly a week for us to organise an issue, than wait another week to wait for that issue to be formalised. I think Malvad is right in thinking it would be cool seeing the RA be intertwined with role play, but it just doesn't seem practical. The RA should focus more on regional issues, while the DU focuses on role play issues.
 
I meant like two separate RAs. One strictly role play that is not connected to the other but is like a representation of it. And then the actual RA. We would never be able to get the whole RA interested.
 
I just don't find it practical. Having A More nato Type Of alligance With Sessions On Democratic issues, Rp situations, etc. It's unnecessary to bring anything RA or very politics into it
 
If we are going to make this a NATO-like organisation of democratic states, we should also have a Warsaw Pact-like organisation of communist and socialist states.
 
Alright. I think I can see where the confusion is. We're all saying the same thing from what I am observing. The DU is meant for role play and we are just debating now how to organise it.

I think we should start coming up with some rules and see what we can all agree on, then let it slide from there.

For instance. What will be the DU's main goals? What similarities and what differences will it have compared to the UDNNP?

Next, and more importantly, how will we accept new members?

Than we should discuss what type of content will be reviewed during sessions?

If we are going to make this a NATO-like organisation of democratic states, we should also have a Warsaw Pact-like organisation of communist and socialist states.
Click to expand...

I actually find this clever, having an opposing political presence to the DU. We might want to focus on building the DU first before we get our hands full.
 
Thanks Fenichi! :kiss:
Here are my thoughts:
1. Like the UDNNP, we set basic standards: must have a nation in TNP, that nation must have a minimum level of democracy, etc.

2. We discuss actions to increase democracy and civil rights among member states (making nations come into compliance with certain regulations we debate as a union and such)

3. RP situations (such as a nation with a dictatorship we would choose how to intervene. Just an idea; it would have to be really thought out situations for this to work)
 
I really liked the goals set up in the last one, as well as the requirements to entry. I don't see a problem with borrowing from those and expanding out.
 
Alright, lets move on to another subject I suggested. If someone has anything they want to add they should feel free to post it so we can discuss it.

I suggested we have a chairman and a deputy chairman, who have responsibilities with their role. How does everyone feel about that? Any suggestions?
 
Sounds good. My thoughts are that we appoint the first chairman and deputy, and then every 3-6 months (I would say 4, and we could sync it up with another election cycle, so it would be easier to remember) we elect a new deputy chairman, and the old deputy takes over.
 
I like this. The deputy will gain experience and confidence until eletions and he will be properly equiped to become the new chairman. If for some reason he does not want to be, I think we should a next-in-line system. Most influential ratings? Or most democratic(ie. civil rights and political rights)?
 
I would use a date of admittance system. We would ask the oldest nation who has not served as chairman to serve and go down the list. Should we run out, we would ask the most recent chairman to serve and proceed backwards.

Or we could follow the same procedure above but only serve as sitting chairman while we hold special elections. I hope this won't be a problem, but it should be addressed.
 
Or we could follow the same procedure above but only serve as sitting chairman while we hold special elections. I hope this won't be a problem, but it should be addressed.
Click to expand...

I think we should do this, only because it allows people to participate in voting. Sticking with the first option seems a bit like what a monarchy would do. By doing the second option we have someone to act as chairman for a week or so, and then we democratically elect a new member.
 
What about a two week period where members can run for the position, campaigning so to speak and then we vote?
 
Interesting. At first I thought two weeks would be too long, but it would be interesting to see how the campaigns go.
 
I like where the discussion is going! I think that this will be a major success if we carry through with it.
 
Egalotir:
What about a two week period where members can run for the position, campaigning so to speak and then we vote?
Click to expand...
Sure. Two weeks does seem long, and I would be concerned that candidates would tire out from campaigning. But I would love to see some debate time, and I'm willing to try two weeks (rather too much than not enough right?)

Is there a reason the region doesn't have this?
 
I have an idea on how to divide the two weeks.

Days 1-4 can be for campaigning (what rp issues that can be addressed is a good idea, as well as what kind of political ideas that can be embraced).

Days 5-7 can be where candidates have a discussion/clash and try to debate their views (I know Canada and the US do this before federal elections, so it should work out fine).

Days 8-11 can be the actual voting process.

Days 11-14 can be vote counting, announcing who the new chairman/deputy chairman is, and it would be cool if the chairman writes a short speech.
 
Fenichi:
I have an idea on how to divide the two weeks.

Days 1-4 can be for campaigning (what rp issues that can be addressed is a good idea, as well as what kind of political ideas that can be embraced).

Days 5-7 can be where candidates have a discussion/clash and try to debate their views (I know Canada and the US do this before federal elections, so it should work out fine).

Days 8-11 can be the actual voting process.

Days 11-14 can be vote counting, announcing who the new chairman/deputy chairman is, and it would be cool if the chairman writes a short speech.
Click to expand...
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. Did I mention yes?
 
Excellent. Now we can discuss what kind of requirements are needed.

I know that we liked the original, but I don't like the minimum required civil/political rights thing. I don't want to discriminate against players like Malvad who, despite wanting to join and are actually interested in democracy, are unable to join do to their lack of civil/political rights. Perhaps we could lower the requirements or make exceptions for a temporary membership?
 
I'd be willing to make exceptions, particularly if the nation agrees to work towards meeting the requirement. We could also say that they only have to meet either civil or political rights marker, not necessarily both, or a combination of both at 25 or more. We could also in a vote to admit unqualified nations.

The idea is to promote democracy. It should be open to nations trying to change their ways.
 
Alright. Is there anything else that should be considered? I can't think of anything on the top of my head.
 
Let's compile what we have came up with:
  • Sharing goals with old DU.
  • First set of chairman and deputy will be appointed; all that follow will be elected and serve 4 month terms. Deputy will take over as chairman.
  • Should a deputy not become chairman after the term, date of admittance system will pick a sitting chairman for the length of the special elections.
  • 2 week for campaigning using guide Fenichi proposed.
  • Loosen old requirements for more participation.
Did I miss or assume anything incorrectly? Is there anything left to address?
 
Will there be a way to keep the old deputy chairman from becoming chairman? Like impeaching or voting out? Because we may end up not liking them or they might not be efficient.
 
Malvad Acronis:
Will there be a way to keep the old deputy chairman from becoming chairman? Like impeaching or voting out? Because we may end up not liking them or they might not be efficient.
Click to expand...
Like a vote of no confidence?
 
I would be for the vote of no confidence, but only in extreme cases. The long term should give the deputy adequate time to learn the position, what's expected, become experienced, etc. Of course if they don't want to become deputy, we can hold a vote.

I also second the motions stated above. I think a requirement limit of 30 would be better. One issue can up it pretty well. I think 2 month trails should be sufficient as well for those "temp membership" nations like malvads. 2 months is an average of 60 issues, should be plenty no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top