The Abstention Movement

Cormac

Cormac

TNPer
TNP Nation
Cormactopia III
Discord
Cormac#0804
The Council of Five has recently enacted a policy that requires a WA nation in The North Pacific and/or service in the NPA in order to vote on WA resolutions. The argument behind this policy is that WA nations are predominantly impacted by WA resolutions, therefore only WA nations in TNP should have a role in deciding how the Delegate votes -- and those with WA nations located elsewhere should vote elsewhere.

This argument is flawed in several ways. First, all nations involved in roleplay can be indirectly impacted by General Assembly resolutions whether they are WA nations or not because the General Assembly can impact the WA nations they're roleplaying with. Second, the outcome of Security Council resolutions and TNP's vote on those resolutions have political implications for the entire region and not simply for those with WA nations in the region. Third, part of the point of having WA Regional Delegates is to give entire regions rather than just individual WA nations a role in the World Assembly. And fourth, this policy flies in the face of our Bill of Rights which insists on equality for TNP citizens.

There are potential ways to remedy this problem. The possible contradiction between this policy and the Bill of Rights has been brought before the courts. The Regional Assembly could also potentially intervene to ensure that all citizens can vote on WA resolutions. But until then, those of us who can still vote on WA resolutions and who believe that our fellow citizens have a right to vote have a responsibility to do what we can to limit the impact of this policy. The best way to do that is to ensure that if all TNP citizens can't vote, the Delegate won't vote either -- and the way to ensure that is by voting Abstain on every WA resolution.

If you are still able to vote on WA resolutions and if you believe that every TNP citizen should have the right to vote, add your name to this thread as a pledge that you will vote Abstain on every WA resolution until this policy is reversed and every TNP citizen can vote on WA resolutions.
 
BRILLIANT-s1022x768-340120.jpg
 
Oh, great. Promote democracy by not participating in it in any way. How effing silly is that? That's like not getting off a sinking ship onto a life boat because you weren't invited to dine at the captain's table last night. :lol:

Cormac Docherty:
"The Council of Five has recently enacted a policy that requires a WA nation in The North Pacific and/or service in the NPA in order to vote on WA resolutions"
Click to expand...
Well, duh. If said nations have their WA nations in another region and not in TNP, then those nations essentially get to vote twice on WA resolutions as far as how the Delegate votes. Why should they be allowed to vote twice?

Our rights in TNP only extend to citizens in TNP who have primary loyalty to TNP, not another region.

And frankly, I think that if you are a citizen of TNP you should have TNP as your first and only loyalty. No ifs, ands or buts. This 'duality' crap is just a skirt around using one region as a tool to promote the agenda or another region or foreign organization.

Get? Got it. Good. :fish:
 
Romanoffia:
Oh, great. Promote democracy by not participating in it in any way. How effing silly is that? That's like not getting off a sinking ship onto a life boat because you weren't invited to dine at the captain's table last night. :lol:
Click to expand...
There's a long history of protesting a lack of democratic values in a political system by refusing to participate in that system. In this case, it would be hypocritical for me to vote either for or against WA resolutions while my fellow citizens are deprived of the right to do so -- it's much more principled to abstain in the hopes of rendering the Delegate unable to vote, just as some citizens are unable to vote.

Romanoffia:
Well, duh. If said nations have their WA nations in another region and not in TNP, then those nations essentially get to vote twice on WA resolutions as far as how the Delegate votes. Why should they be allowed to vote twice?
Click to expand...
Everyone with a WA can vote twice, by voting as an individual and by casting regional WA votes. If you're arguing that people who have WA nations in other regions get to cast regional votes twice, this policy doesn't prevent that -- all they would need to do is move their WA nation to TNP and they'd still be able to cast votes in regions that don't have this policy, which are the vast majority.

Romanoffia:
Our rights in TNP only extend to citizens in TNP who have primary loyalty to TNP, not another region.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're defining a primary loyalty to TNP as having a WA nation here or being in the NPA. There are citizens who demonstrate their loyalty in other ways. Take Mahaj, for example. He is a member of the Council of Five and actually writes reports on WA resolutions, I think it's safe to say that his primary regional loyalty is to TNP (or at the very least that he contributes in a significant way). The idea that someone who's putting that much time and effort into TNP isn't loyal enough to the region just because his WA nation is elsewhere and/or he isn't in the NPA is, frankly, ludicrous.

I'm also going to point out that while this might not seem like much of an issue now, it's going to become a much more significant issue if the NPA starts more actively raiding (thus excluding defenders from it) or if it goes completely defender (thus excluding raiders). And that's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility; all it would take is a change of Delegate for that to happen. You would then have either defenders or raiders, many of whom make significant contributions to this region, discriminated against for no good reason.

Romanoffia:
And frankly, I think that if you are a citizen of TNP you should have TNP as your first and only loyalty. No ifs, ands or buts. This 'duality' crap is just a skirt around using one region as a tool to promote the agenda or another region or foreign organization.

Get? Got it. Good. :fish:
Click to expand...
No need to preach to me about this, as I actually do meet the requirements in that I'm in the NPA. But I disagree with you, strongly. There are many people -- most, probably -- who are citizens of more than one region, and the fact that they are involved in other regions doesn't mean they can't or won't make significant contributions to each of the regions in which they're involved. If TNP is going to make unreasonable demands upon its citizens regarding their activity in other regions, it's going to find that it has a lot fewer citizens and a lot less activity.

Can you name a single candidate besides yourself running for anything in the general elections who is not involved in another region or non-regional organization?
 
I agree with your actions but not your cause.

You didn't answer my question in IRC about why it's not possible to vote in the region your WA is located in.
 
I have gone the other way and left the NPA, so I no longer have a vote. I'd rather be equals with those who have been disenfranchised than equals with those who think their demonstration of "commitment" makes them something special and deserving of "extra" rights.
 
Cormac Docherty:
Romanoffia:
Oh, great. Promote democracy by not participating in it in any way. How effing silly is that? That's like not getting off a sinking ship onto a life boat because you weren't invited to dine at the captain's table last night. :lol:
Click to expand...
There's a long history of protesting a lack of democratic values in a political system by refusing to participate in that system. In this case, it would be hypocritical for me to vote either for or against WA resolutions while my fellow citizens are deprived of the right to do so -- it's much more principled to abstain in the hopes of rendering the Delegate unable to vote, just as some citizens are unable to vote.

Romanoffia:
Well, duh. If said nations have their WA nations in another region and not in TNP, then those nations essentially get to vote twice on WA resolutions as far as how the Delegate votes. Why should they be allowed to vote twice?
Click to expand...
Everyone with a WA can vote twice, by voting as an individual and by casting regional WA votes. If you're arguing that people who have WA nations in other regions get to cast regional votes twice, this policy doesn't prevent that -- all they would need to do is move their WA nation to TNP and they'd still be able to cast votes in regions that don't have this policy, which are the vast majority.

Romanoffia:
Our rights in TNP only extend to citizens in TNP who have primary loyalty to TNP, not another region.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're defining a primary loyalty to TNP as having a WA nation here or being in the NPA. There are citizens who demonstrate their loyalty in other ways. Take Mahaj, for example. He is a member of the Council of Five and actually writes reports on WA resolutions, I think it's safe to say that his primary regional loyalty is to TNP (or at the very least that he contributes in a significant way). The idea that someone who's putting that much time and effort into TNP isn't loyal enough to the region just because his WA nation is elsewhere and/or he isn't in the NPA is, frankly, ludicrous.

I'm also going to point out that while this might not seem like much of an issue now, it's going to become a much more significant issue if the NPA starts more actively raiding (thus excluding defenders from it) or if it goes completely defender (thus excluding raiders). And that's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility; all it would take is a change of Delegate for that to happen. You would then have either defenders or raiders, many of whom make significant contributions to this region, discriminated against for no good reason.

Romanoffia:
And frankly, I think that if you are a citizen of TNP you should have TNP as your first and only loyalty. No ifs, ands or buts. This 'duality' crap is just a skirt around using one region as a tool to promote the agenda or another region or foreign organization.

Get? Got it. Good. :fish:
Click to expand...
No need to preach to me about this, as I actually do meet the requirements in that I'm in the NPA. But I disagree with you, strongly. There are many people -- most, probably -- who are citizens of more than one region, and the fact that they are involved in other regions doesn't mean they can't or won't make significant contributions to each of the regions in which they're involved. If TNP is going to make unreasonable demands upon its citizens regarding their activity in other regions, it's going to find that it has a lot fewer citizens and a lot less activity.

Can you name a single candidate besides yourself running for anything in the general elections who is not involved in another region or non-regional organization?
Click to expand...
Actually, Democracy always decays into mob rule. That's why the US is not a Democracy but is a Republic.

I actually favor a limited size elected RA that is a representative body. Divide the citizens up into different representative groups that elect their own representative. I saw one region that did this very well and it worked very well. They divided their citizens into different 'houses' and each house elected a representative. So, seven people represented about 100 people each.

I'll tell you, there was no problem getting legislation passed with that arrangement.
 
I wish I could remember the regions that had that type of system. One of them was modeled on the Ancient Roman Empire and they had a senate that represented the Seven 'Tribes' of ancient Rome. It was really fascinating to watch.

Each "Tribe" had its own section of the forum to conduct as they like, and then a main central section where the over-all government was conducted (and a general discussion forum). Other than that, each "tribe" was allowed to have their own sub-government of their own design. If someone didn't like the form of government in one tribe, they could move to another Tribe. That simple.

Overall, it was a very elegant governmental structure. Very effective and very quick in terms of legislation and judicial processes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top