IMPORTANT - NEXT STEPS

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Dear all,

It seems that the situation of the past few weeks, and particularly the past week, have opened up an opportunity for us.

On the RMB Ermerian has rightly said

The last Z13-elected government of the North Pacific is not currently in a state where power can be handed off to it, and we will need, at the very least, a new election. Along the way, we have identified some inefficiencies in our current law - inflexibility and overcomplexity, mostly - and some changes will probably be passed to address this. As the /interim/ delegate and an elected official of the last government, I personally promise to do my best in contributing to this process. I thank you for your trust.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think we need more than a new election. In part this latest coup was sparked by the difficulty of getting change effected within the current system. I share that frustration. When key members of the government and judiciary go inactive, the system simply cannot cope.

Our current constitution was crafted in reaction to rogue delegacies. It is designed to promote stability. But it was also crafted in an era when the game was larger and activity levels were higher. In the current period of low activity we often wander across the line between stability and stagnation. And that is what got us into the current mess.

Simply, I think we need to start again. And start again by asking some fundamental questions rather than having a document tabled (the current constitution or some new construct) and then us tinkering with it. Questions like:

What should be the role of the delegate in the offsite government? Our current crisis has been, in part, prompted by having two delegates (JAL and NK) who have played it, somewhat, for the lutz and have not bothered much with the government. Our current government is pretty dependent upon the delegate. When that key piece fails, it all unravels.

Do we want a constitution at all? I am one of the few who can remember the anarchy days before we had any sort of government in TNP. Actually we got on rather well. The delegate policed the region, the admins policed the forum, and we all played “guess who will post next”. If we needed a decision, someone started a thread, we all discussed it and came to a consensus. Simples.

How can we make sure that the government does not slip into inactivity?
How can we be protected from rogues, invasions and coups? (to be honest, I am not sure that legislation is the answer here.)

If folks are willing, I will create an area of the forum where this can be discussed. I also think it is important that what is forged is something distinctly TNP. While ideas from other regions is helpful, in the initial stages this ought to be about OUR regional identity. Input from others will be helpful at a later stage.
 
I would like to echo Flem's sentiments, and ask space be provided on this forum for the above questions to be debated and answered, along with I'm sure many more that will arise. I think we can all agree that we need a North Pacifican solution to our North Pacifican problem. I hope that these discussions will be productive, that all TNPers will be involved and making contributions, and that we can develop a better path for our region.

Also, we should telegram non-forum residents about these discussions, so that they at least are aware of what is going on, and are able to contribute if they wish. I will be happy to do that, but I ask for some assistance from forum members on this.
 
This is a very excellent idea. I was deliberately cautious in wording it like that so as not to step on toes, but a real review of how we do things is probably needed rather than a few small changes.

Hey, remember the days of Pixiedance? That was some interesting history. The stability that followed (for a while) was nice, but that feeling of being the hopeless rebellion against a vastly superior enemy, with not even influence to protect us... that was thrilling. The latest coups (like L&C) haven't lived up to that really.
 
influence has changed the landscape. It is probably easier to take a region nowadays (when I was delegate I had around 680 endos. Not easy to scale that height unnoticed) but it is more difficult to hold it against established natives, as all the latest coups have found.

If you think Pixiedance was fun, you should have been around in the days of Great Bight. PD was constrained by mod regulations on the use of the RMB and TG campaigns. There were far fewer restrictions in the days of Great Bight. It was a wild west era.
 
I'm going to be Mr States-the-bleeding-obvious here, so please bear with me.

The problems TNP is facing at the moment are split into two sides: the forums and the NS region side. The delegate is the face of the region, if not the leader, and this is important to realise. You can make as much complicated legislation as you want, but to the majority of players in Nationstates and especially to the newcomers, the Feeder delegate is the region. It's the delegates choice whether to be all 'no, there is actually a full community, and I'm not the only person in charge' or "Fools! I am your NS God! Bow down and worship me, and give me all your endorsements!! BWAHAHAHA etc!!!"

I remember when I first arrived, I thought that those feeder regions which had delegates with the shortest elected dates were the most democratic. Of course, I eventually realised that not only is this not always the case, but that feeders don't quite run under those principles (also most user regions, but thats not the point right now). Recently, someone in the NS forums put Kandarin forward as a shining example of democracy, as he had the shortest elected time on the regional page.

So my point is that we should try sorting out both forum activity and regional (NS wise) activity (RMB posting, recruiting etc), but they don't have to be both led by the delegate, although it might be helpful.

Eh, I was going to post more, but I'm running out of time. I'll think of something later.
 
Playing it for the lulz is about all the delegate can do under the current system. Why try to move forward if everything just dies in committee?
 
New Kervoskia:
Playing it for the lulz is about all the delegate can do under the current system. Why try to move forward if everything just dies in committee?
Click to expand...
this.... I tried to pass at least two constitutional amendments to streamline things and neither was given a vote.
 
I am facing a much more important appointment this evening* so I will create the appropriate forums and stuff tomorrow.



*Actually, I am going to the pub. Maybe not technically more important, but I once tried to restructure the forum when I was Dilbered, and it was not pretty.
 
I say we keep a basic government type, but otherwise let the sitting delegate craft it how they want. Kinda like JAL's Islamic regime we had when he was in charge. Then when the next guy comes in they can change to what they want. We'll still keep the basic part the same (delegate elections, judicial elections, and overall rights) but we'd have the added bonus of wacky new governments every 6 months or so.
 
Well, at least it has been acknowledged that you faced a "vastly superior enemy" during the Pixiedance era. :P

If a new election is to be held I would suggest that it be only for the Delegate and that said Delegate immediately convene a constitutional convention to establish a new government.
 
I've been in TNP for a few years and never bothered to find out. What does our government do? If we want to build something new I think smaller would be better.
 
New Kervoskia:
If I'm still technically the "legally elected" delegate...

I resign.


*signs*

There. No confusion.
Click to expand...
You have no idea how tempting it is to run :ph34r:

But seriously, I do think smaller is better. Elect a Delegate who has broad executive power, and a standing legislature elected via popular vote. (5-7 members maybe)
 
I just came up with a weird idea, yeah.. it's a weird one. But er.. one of the problems I have with the old system and really any 'democracy' in feeders is that there really just manufactured elections by the same old ... old, dirt old people. I mean, if you're going to run an oligarchy, have the balls to say you're running one.

My idea is nebulous at the moment, but it involves referendums using the WFE and two WA nations for people to endorse to show their support or their disapproval of something. A Forum Assembly and the Game Assembly would be two councils, like in the US, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to which support from the Elected Delegate and one assembly would be needed to pass anything. The delegate, the House and the Game Assembly would all be allowed to veto the bill, the delegate would need the approval of his vice, and the two Houses would need a supermajority to veto.

Two or three cabinet members who would be willing to switch their WA memberships around would be needed to run the referendums.
 
Dalimbar:
I would like to echo Flem's sentiments, and ask space be provided on this forum for the above questions to be debated and answered, along with I'm sure many more that will arise. I think we can all agree that we need a North Pacifican solution to our North Pacifican problem. I hope that these discussions will be productive, that all TNPers will be involved and making contributions, and that we can develop a better path for our region.

Also, we should telegram non-forum residents about these discussions, so that they at least are aware of what is going on, and are able to contribute if they wish. I will be happy to do that, but I ask for some assistance from forum members on this.
Click to expand...
^ :agree: :clap:

Yes I agree for once with Dalimbar, even though he hates me utterly.

As for why things put forward by JAL/NK didn't get passed......didn't we have an inactive speaker ? :ADN:
 
I just think this is all one brilliant excuse for us to get Ermarian more involved again, lets extend this crisis as long as possible so that we can reap suchs benefits fully.
 
HEM:
You have no idea how tempting it is to run :ph34r:

But seriously, I do think smaller is better. Elect a Delegate who has broad executive power, and a standing legislature elected via popular vote. (5-7 members maybe)
Click to expand...
I'll vote for you only if you appoint me Minister of Silly Walks... :lol:

I agree smaller is better, Delegate with broad executive power and an elected legislature based upon the number of registered voters (who you could divide into groups that elect their particular representative, perhaps?).
 
Westwind:
a standing legislature elected via popular vote.
Click to expand...

An elected legislature ? In a feeder ? With activity such as it is ? You are kidding, right ?
Click to expand...
Nay, elected legislatures provide for activity. Even if you start with only five elected members you are providing incentive to be active if you have to face re-election.

For it's much better to have 5 elected members than a 20 person Assembly where everyone is semi-active/inactive.
 
I'm just thinking from the perspective of being a new player and seeing that I have to wait till another election to be able to get invovled in the legislative action of the region. What incentive are you providing for me to sit and wait in the region ? I'd more likely take advantage of the many recruitment offers and leave.
 
...Who exactly is getting involved?

Once you join the forum, we should have other incentives to stay. Games, Junior Minister roles, ambassador duties. Give members a reason to stay, and keep an active legislator. Nebiews don't join the forum aiming to serve in the legislator, rather, they arrive there after doing other things our government should be leading.
 
HEM:
Westwind:
a standing legislature elected via popular vote.
Click to expand...

An elected legislature ? In a feeder ? With activity such as it is ? You are kidding, right ?
Click to expand...
Nay, elected legislatures provide for activity. Even if you start with only five elected members you are providing incentive to be active if you have to face re-election.

For it's much better to have 5 elected members than a 20 person Assembly where everyone is semi-active/inactive.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. It also allows the size of the legislature to expand or contract based upon overall activity.

It would also make the government more of a republic rather than a free-for-all mob-rule direct democracy.

Being a republic as opposed to being a direct democracy has a stabilizing effect that can work to ward off the very weakness that causes instability - direct democracy. All of our previous governments allowed for anyone and their brother to become members of the regional assembly. As a result, a patient group of invaders can simply flood the RA with new members and use the very liberties guaranteed in the Constitution to foil the constitution and thus seize power as the end result. If you have a republic (elected legislative representatives) with a limited number of seats in the legislature, it makes such a takeover a lot more difficult. Why? Because as HEM notes, it would encourage activity and, the patience required by invaders/usurpers would be increased purely by the limited number of seats in the legislature.

Also, a 'merit' requirement might be added as a requirement to hold certain executive or judicial positions - this assures that there would be a check and balance effect on the legislature which is very plebian by design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top