Executive Proposal

[Todd McCloud]

I like what I'm hearing, all. I agree, we need to take some time to 'wake up' the region. Should we reserve a day, where we telegram people, talk on the RMB, etc, sort of like a "TSP Revival" day?? I'd love to participate in one of those things. Yeah, the spillage of the telegrams would mean this would have to go on for more than a day, but still, it'd be really nice if we could get that knocked out of the way and get people talking again!And QD is right, I don't believe there are any restrictions to talking about the home region in the RMB. I've seen feeders do it quite a bit.

[Southern Bellz]

Feel free to promote it. It's a good idea, as I am sure you have noticed my activity has slipped a bit.

[BKB]

To be honest, all the feeders seem to have the same issues, if i looked at this forum as a noob, i wouldnt have a clue where to start, to be honest i sometimes still have trouble finding things, there needs to be a serious spring clean, most of the forums could do with being archived if not in use, downsize a fair bit, form a government and make sure you are active enough on the rmb to get more people on the forum. It aint really that complicated

[Guest]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >I disagree. The assembly can be efficient, but needs an active speaker, one way or another. If the assembly is hold back because bills are not put to vote, or passed bills are not enacted, that is not a fault of the assembly. And if the assembly does not run properly, we should fix it, instead of replacing the charter with something that can be effectively summarized in one sentence:
Article 1. The Delegate's word is law.

It has taken you half a month or so for you to notice flaws that you consider strong ones. Can you honestly say the Assembly is effective?

This proposal doesn't make the Delegate's word law, it gives a central authority the power to make choice with the consent of the Assembly. As I said before, allowing the Assembly to veto any Executive Orders by a majority vote isn't something I oppose.
</blockquote> It can be effective (although it does need a decent kicking once in a while).

What I see in the current proposal is a delegate who has the power to do everything, but is not responsible (which doesn't work either, IMO, if you get power you get responsibility. Someone has to be responsible for what's being done). I see an elected prime minister who doesn't really have anything to say, and an assembly that can be overpowered by the delegate. In short, the delegate can do whatever she pleases, and there is no check, no balance, nothing. In my view that amounts to "The Delegate's word is law".

The "veto" option you proposed earlier would indeed be a big step forward, the other item that needs to be solved is a clear division of responsibilities between the delegate and the prime minister. I would rather have no prime minister at all than one who is there to keep the appearance of a democracy up, because the currently proposal can only lead to a) conflict between delegate and PM or B) a position of honour for the PM who doesn't do anything.

And HEM: No offense taken and v.v., that's what politics is about. There is nothing wrong with opposing viewpoints on what's best for the region.

[HEM]

The "veto" option you proposed earlier would indeed be a big step forward, the other item that needs to be solved is a clear division of responsibilities between the delegate and the prime minister. I would rather have no prime minister at all than one who is there to keep the appearance of a democracy up, because the currently proposal can only lead to a) conflict between delegate and PM or cool.gif a position of honour for the PM who doesn't do anything.

My proposal was one that allowed the Delegate to have the flexibility of a hands off approach, or a hands on approach.

That's to say, if TSP starts doing very very well, Southern Bellz could step back and allow the PM to control most government choices. But if TSP needs strong leadership, the Delegate has the power to step forward and take it.

[Southern Bellz]

While not the most effective solution, I have been very pleased with how most assembly discussions go, even if they take months. Haha.

[HEM]

I mean, a month later we still aren't sure what we want to do If we add a veto to this proposal, and write in an Assembly Speaker would that be more acceptable to people?

[Guest]

The veto can work. Another option is that the assembly can give the Delegate a term-limited (let's say, 1 month) free reign. After which an elongation for said term has to be applied for. A veto is less bureaucratic, but changing the charter on every up and down is not the way we should go, so a charter that sets democratic mode for default but makes authoritarian mode possible is perhaps better?

[Todd McCloud]

TEP's having delegate elections again. But, I feel I should say I like that region's setup. One of the nice things about that region is that anyone can run for the slot. We currently have a well-known RPer / arbiter running in addition to a few other newbies (who have yet to be 'seconded'). The current delegate and I are not running because we want to see how well the region steps up, and just who would step up to the plate. It's pretty fun, but it made me realize, perhaps this is a setup we in TSP should follow? TEP has well documented elections. They happen often, and people do respond to them. Plus, as one person there pointed out, elections allow for a region of many for many opportunities, which can and does tend to keep people active and excited. We have an interesting prospect here in TSP. A feeder with a low 'active population'. Elections can spice things up a bit. Not only that, but they can serve as motivators. Delegates would set up goals and be motivated to accomplish feats in a time frame. The TSP populace would have a chance to say who they want at the helm. Now, this does open the opportunity for a bad delegate. Elections do that. BUT, the beauty of a race is that the region can choose one candidate over the other. If someone's just not settling right with the region, well, the region does not need to vote on them. A system like TEP's would be very, *very* difficult to coup, mostly because we watch elections closely and look out for any foul play. Furthermore, we have people with high endo counts and large influence to protect us.I am not trying to turn TSP into TEP. TSP will never be TEP - it must be its own separate entity, with an identity solely its own. But, in order to get there, we need to shape it. This assembly has done a very good job in that, but we need to build from this. I think the next step for this region is to allow for elections, in the delegate slot, but also in other areas. I do like how we now allow for the delegate to generally choose his or her cabinet, but I believe the judge, who will oversee all elections, must be a separate entity altogether. This is not me trying to say Bellz is doing a bad job. I am not saying that. What I am saying is even good delegates can go stale after a while. And when the positions at the top get stale, the region gets stale. The more I think about it, the more I think a change every six months would be a good thing. Fresh start, new change, new energy, a set itinerary... etc. What does everyone think?

[HEM]

I'm on the fence here...I think in some respects we have elections here. You can challenge the delegate at any time, and I think that works.The activity part is a compelling argument, but stability and activity is a big balance...TSP has clearly been the most stable feeder over the years, and that might have to do with our inclusive system..At the same time, we can't let the same person sit idly for months upon months without challenge...It's a tough call in my opinion...

[Todd McCloud]

I'm on the fence here...

I think in some respects we have elections here. You can challenge the delegate at any time, and I think that works.

The activity part is a compelling argument, but stability and activity is a big balance...TSP has clearly been the most stable feeder over the years, and that might have to do with our inclusive system..

At the same time, we can't let the same person sit idly for months upon months without challenge...It's a tough call in my opinion...

Stability has its pros and cons. One pro is that we don't need to worry much about a delegate going nuts and going against what we have here. But, look at where we have arrived with this stability. A con would be that stability, in the sense we have here, could make things stale. Personally speaking, I don't think elections for the delegate slot would bother stability, but that is entirely dependent on us. I am certain that there are rogues and pretenders out there who would love to take our region... but that's with every feeder. Some feeders are good at watching their backs, others are not. The trick there is to watch people closely. We could set limits as to who could run, like they need to be in the region for 90 days, etc (sort of like what we have in place here already). I have my reservations about restricting citizens to run, personally, but that is an option.

I think as long as we are watchful and mindful of who runs, and vote accordingly, we shouldn't have a problem. I mean, we could even have a clause protecting us from a rogue group coming in, throwing off the votes, and taking over, like the judge reviews it or something. This makes the MOJ post even more important.

[Todd McCloud]

Well, it's been over a week and we haven't had much discussion, lol.One thing that is beginning to worry me is the following: I don't know where we are as a region right now. We've been in this assembly since mid-July, and have agreed on a few things which I'm quite glad about, but we've hit a snag again. To those who have added their input and helped out with this process, I thank you. But what worries me is that despite this, we've only had about half a dozen folks adding input and working together. It just seems... burned out. Perhaps I'm used to things being more active, and I in no way mean that as a put-down, but it is kind of disappointing. However, on the contrary, I think this can be used as an opportunity. We have a good mix of players here. Different backgrounds, outsiders, insiders, old guard, new folks, userites, feederites, etc. At our core is still a region. And it's a damn good one, one that could stand to have more members, but still, we can build on this. We just need to come to grips that we need some sparks. This is why I suggested delegate elections. Changes bring spark. I know this is not very popular among certain members, but sometimes we need to step out of our respective comfort zones to see what we can do. We've tried a few things, it's still a bit inactive, so let's try some more stuff. This would fit nicely into the more stuff category. That, however, is only a start. Let's see what we can make of it. A few other things we need to do: we need to get the ball rolling with this assembly. I like that we've been patient, and I'd love to hear how more region members think about this, but we need to get going on this. Let's keep up a good discussion and see where it goes then, when it looks like things are finished, we can wrap it up and move on. We should try to win back our RMB. I noticed in TEP that when we started to reclaim our RMB, we began getting members over to our forums. Also, recruitment drives - a telegram would be good. I've started doing this, but with limited success... hopefully that improves. Let's see what we can do as a region.Who is willing to help? We're going to need everyone on this. And by everyone, I mean everyone can do their own part. Let's see what we can do - not just one person or a select group of people, but us all, because we're collectively the region. I'm going to maintain optimism and see where we go with this, but it's my belief that we need some changes in order to get excited, get organized, and get down to doing some pretty awesome things.

[HEM]

I fully agree with Todd, we need some more action on this. We've heard lots of ideas, now we have to decide on an idea and run with it.

[BKB]

Also in agreement, too much talking not enough doing!

[Todd McCloud]

Also in agreement, too much talking not enough doing!

Couldn't agree more XD

Let me work on a few changes to this thing, and hopefully we can move to a vote.

[Todd McCloud]

I'd like to propose a few changes, after stepping back a bit and re-reading the document:



Change this:

Article 11 - Election of the Prime Minister





  1. The Prime Minister shall serve a three month term starting the 5th of a given month. Campaigning for the post shall be opened by the Delegate one-week before the date polls open, and all candidates shall be required to state their intent to run.

To this:

Article 11 - Elections



1. Both the Prime Minister and Delegate shall be subject to regular elections.



2. The Prime Minister shall serve a three month-term in conjunction with the first or prior Prime Minister elections, while the delegate shall serve a six-month term in conjunction with the first or prior Delegate elections. Nominations, campaigning, and voting for the post shall be monitored by the Minister of Justice



3. The Minister of Justice is charged with initiating and overseeing elections. Both elections shall begin with a three-day nomination period in which candidates are nominated and seconded by another citizen. Non self-nominations will require the acceptance of the nominee. Following this, a three-day campaigning period will begin in which candidates are urged to outline their respective platforms. Finally, a three-day voting period will follow in a public voting thread by which a voter must state which candidate they are voting for.



4. Both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Security are charged with monitoring elections and checking for any foul play. Voter fraud, electioneering, and other illegal activities may be subject to a trial. Admins will check for matching IP's to ensure everyone only votes once.



5. Election processes will take place in a voting sub-forum. Election topics will be closed once the elections have passed.



6. The Prime Minister and the Delegate shall not serve more than two consecutive terms.

We've also missed out the Minister of Justice. I'm suggesting this becomes article 12 and the other articles are bumped up:

Article 12 - Responsibilities and authority of the Ministry of Justice



  1. The Ministry of Justice shall be responsible for all judiciary activities in the region, as outlined in Article 7, and voting, as outlined in Article 11.



  2. If a nation feels it was wrongfully ejected from the region, they may file a claim with the Ministry of Justice. Providing the Justice finds in favor of the plaintiff, the Delegate will then un-ban the nation in order to allow them to return to the region.



  3. The Ministry shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Code of Laws (archiving, interpreting, etc.).



  4. The Ministry is responsible for following through with Judicial Review when necessary.

The impeachment section, to me, is worrying in that the delegate cannot be impeached. While an impeachment cannot remove the delegate from the seat, it can remove it from the forum government.



Old:

Article 16 - Impeachment





  1. Any government member may be impeached for incompetence or violation of The South Pacific law.



  2. The Regional Assembly may impeach and remove any government official with a 2/3 supermajority.



  3. The Delegate cannot be removed in this fashion

Suggested:

Article 16 - Impeachment



  1. Any government member can be impeached for gross violation of the Charter or for gross misconduct.



  2. When a call for impeachment has been received it will be processed under Article 7 of the Charter.



  3. If a guilty verdict is reached, the Cabinet, excluding the subject of the impeachment proceedings, must decide on a sentence.



          * The sentence must at minimum result in the subject of the impeachment proceedings being relieved of their responsibilities.



          * The sentence may include, in addition to the above, the application of one to three Warnings, a temporary or permanent ban on standing for office, and temporary or permanent expulsion from The South Pacific. The sentencing must be determined within a three-day period, or Article 12.3a shall be applied automatically.



  4. No appeals are possible to an impeachment verdict.

Also...



Suddenly, we have become The North Pacific, lol:

Article 8 - Responsibilities and Authority of the Delegate





  1. The Delegate?s power is only binding as long as they hold the Delegate position. All Ministries and official arms of the Coalition bow to the will of the office of Delegate, not the individual nations wielding the power.



  2. The Delegate shall be the Head of State of <strong class='bbc'>the North Pacific</strong> as well as Commander-in-Chief and First Diplomat.

I would suggest we change it to The South Pacific XD. I also believe executive order should be interpreted to avoid any problems. I would perhaps instead suggest the following:

Article 8 - Responsibilities and Authority of the Delegate



  1. The Delegate?s power is only binding as long as they hold the Delegate position. All Ministries and official arms of the Coalition bow to the will of the office of Delegate, not the individual nations wielding the power.



  2. The Delegate cannot surrender the sovereignty of the region to any group or alliance without approval from the region in form of a Cabinet vote.



  3. The Delegate may act only in the interest of the region with the consent of the region. Expulsion may only take place as outlined above. The Delegate must follow the Charter completely.



  4. The Delegate shall be informed of all information concerning the region by the Cabinet immediately.

[HEM]

I like these changes muchly, good work Todd!

[Todd McCloud]

Since we haven't had a discussion in over a week, perhaps we should move to a vote?

[Southern Bellz]

I say move it to vote, but I believe that is up to the prime minister in the end.It has never been more evident to me that the well being of TSP is in the hands of the active. Every time I take a brief time of inactivity, the region takes 5 steps backwards.These changes are all pretty moderate, but I think maybe something more substantial has to be made. With HEM as my Prime Minister, I think there needs to be more of a divide and conquer mentality. I can not handle doing all of the grunt work, and maintain my position as the face of the region. HEM has some fantastic ideas, and I would really like to see him come out of his shell a bit and get things done.I see he has the same frustration that I do about the region. This is our chance to make those changes.I think The South Pacific needs to have a system based on merit and activity, and we need to re-examine why this region, despite having some of the best talent and one of the most dedicated communities can really only thrive at regional security. All of the other feeders has made major impacts to the game in the last 5 years.The Pacific and The West Pacific are both shining examples of what a feeder region is, in my eyes. We need to try something new. I know a lot of you don't want to see a major shift in The South Pacific, but if you guys want members like myself, HEM, and Todd to stick around and actually grow the region, I think we have to take the stance of, hey maybe we should try this new idea, instead of the idea that in the long run this might lead to a dictator/invasion.I also don't want to make it seem like I am blaming this on anyone, because I am just as at fault here. The region has been more than generous and letting me expand my powers, and still I have not been able to come up with a solution. However, I am starting to think that this isnt the right solution any more.Sorry for letting any of you down so far, but I have not lost my resolve to make this region special yet.

[HEM]

I agree with alot of what Bellz said...I propose that we sit down and write out a new Charter instead of just amending this one.The Articles of Confederation just aren't working anymore.

[Todd McCloud]

We started this assembly on July 14th. That means we've been at this for two months now. I think it'd be disappointing to simply scrap what we've been working on and start anew. Just how long are we planning to work on this? Is it really a good idea to draw something up completely anew with only 5-6 people working at it?



The reason why they are not working anymore is because we've been in this limbo period for quite some time and are adhering to a Charter that is rigid, out of date and, in some cases, it is impossible to follow (ie, we have one PM, one MOR, and one delegate consisting of the government). We can't go forward with that charter. My hats off to those who wrote it, and it worked well at the time. But we as a region have changed. And I wouldn't say that's a bad thing, but we've changed to the point where the current charter just will not work. We've made suggestions, proposed new things, and I think we've got a good document on our table right now.



I echo the frustrations of those in this thread who want others to participate. I fear if we keep heading down this road, TSP will permanently become a region of few, and not extending the chance to others that they can participate. If we shoulder all responsibilities to just the PM and delegate, where does that leave everyone else in the region? If you don't give people things to do, they won't feel as compelled to stay. But it doesn't have to be about positions. The nice thing about a general assembly such as this is <em class='bbc'>you don't need a position of power to participate</em>. Anyone here can and should be validated. Will we keep that by handing the power over to just a few people? I don't think so. I believe what we have written is a good recipe for success: it allows for participation, gives nations a chance to run in elections, and gives the old guard something to do as well, should they choose to get involved in the government in either branch.



But there are problems in this region. To me, the glaring problem is the lack of activity. Collectively, just half a dozen folks have participated in this assembly. That is disappointing to me. Where is the source of this problem, though? Is it:



1. The people in the region just don't care about the government

2. The region just doesn't have enough 'hooks' to keep people in the region actively.

3. Those in the government haven't been doing their job, and the region's been falling by the wayside.

4. We're just not being creative enough.

5. We're too slow and people lose interest.



1 just isn't feasible - I can't be convinced we're a region of 2,000 apathetic people. Personally, I think it's a mix of 2, 3, 4, and 5. What incentives does a nation have by staying here over moving to a userite region? I know this is an uncomfortable question, but we've really got to be prepared to reflect on this question, accept a few things, and move on from them with carrying on some changes. But with each hook we add, each creative point we come across and try to implement, we must be prepared to put the time in for it. As far as #3 is concerned, I'll shoulder some of the blame for that. It's just hard for me to stay consistent, and I'll take the rap for not being as quick, creative, or active as I should be round these parts. I think we've all been trying, but we may not be on the same page. After all, just look at the last... four posts on this thread, then read the rest of this thread. We're all pulling a little - we should make sure we're pulling in the right direction, I guess is what I am trying to say. But look at #5. We're moving at a slow pace now. Expedience should not be a substitute for democracy and hashing things out, but we do need to keep moving, keep active, and look forward. If we keep getting hung up in these bouts of activity, is it unfair for us to expect new members to keep going? Look at the new members we've had in the past six months. Where are most of them?



I really want to see this region succeed. I think we all do. But wanting isn't the same as doing. We have to put in the effort.



We've got a good charter right now in the draft stage, additions made and the like. Heck, it even doesn't have an MOR position. I'm the current MOR, lol. That's ok - I don't need a position to contribute in this region. No one really does, no one really should. In all honesty, we don't have a government right now, so I don't know why people are being appointed to such things. Appointing people shouldn't be priority. This, this assembly, should be #1 priority right now. After that, fixing the government should be #2. That's going to be tough as nails, but we're going to have to do this, and we're going to need to sort of help and lean on each other to do it. This is not a job of one, or two, or even a small group. This should be a job of all. Hopefully, through this, we become a closer region because of it.



All across NS, TSP is regarded as the "inactive region". I hate when people refer to us as that. We <em class='bbc'>can</em> get active, have a functioning government and move forward. We have a crew of "shakers and rollers" in this region. I call them that because they tend to be sparks wherever they go. We have a few right here in this region, in the old guard, and in a few new folk here. Collectively, we make up the forum community of this region. We can make a difference and march forward. I think if we keep at it and do some work each day, we can obtain the goal of being active. This doesn't have to be boring or agonizing, on the contrary, it will be probably much less agonizing than listening to me and my silly rant .



Does anyone else feel the same way? Sometimes I have a big mouth, I admit, so I apologize if any of this came off as brash.



[/rant]

[Guest]

Great speech, Todd

1. The people in the region just don't care about the government
2. The region just doesn't have enough 'hooks' to keep people in the region actively.
3. Those in the government haven't been doing their job, and the region's been falling by the wayside.
4. We're just not being creative enough.
5. We're too slow and people lose interest.

A bit of everything, I'm afraid. I don't think there is a single cause, and those points are connected. Over the past four years or so the government has collapsed in on itself.

1. The amount of players from the game who come here is very low (as far as I remember it has always been like that). Less than 1% of the nations appear here. Of course I don't know how many of them are puppets. Going by the amount of WA nations, which is about 5 % (I don't have this number recorded, but I think it has always been about this much), I would say some 7-10% of the nations must be unique players, so we attract only 10-15% of the player potential. And I'll stop speculating about numbers now Well, ok, one more: the influx of new players on this forum, who actually make an effort to announce themselves, is about 1 per month or less in average, I think, but I'm too lazy to look up the exact number right now.

2. The problem is that we cannot keep that 1 new player per month. They have various reasons to leave, ranging from loss of interest to RL issues. But they all leave

3. As I said before, the government has collapsed in on itself. This is something that tends to happen to almost every web community I have seen. What exactly the sociological mechanism behind this is, I'm not sure. The only thing that one perhaps could blame the former government of, is that they have been blinded by their past activity and not made use of the full potential of the NS game site to draw in new members to the community (e.g., neglected the RMB).

4. Apparently we do have an issue to keep those few people that make their way across. Apparently the current package of opportunities is not attractive enough.

5. Maybe that's something that shies people away. Or maybe we're too demanding from people when it comes to commitment. When I look at myself, it took about a year for me between joining the forum and taking up a government job.

I call them that because they tend to be sparks wherever they go.

We do have a few here. An issue I see is that we have sparks, but no flames. We have a few people here who want to keep a community going, but no one who has the time and energy to head a monstrous NS-wide revival campaign. So we should not aim for that.

I echo the frustrations of those in this thread who want others to participate. We've made suggestions, proposed new things, and I think we've got a good document on our table right now.

Exactly. Things don't happen when you wait for others to make them happen, things happen when you do it yourself. I suggest to the delegate to put what we have to a vote (which does not mean we have to stop discussing ).

you don't need a position of power to participate.

I've been saying that for years (usually when some idiot wanted delegacy on a "I am change" platform)