Convention (OOC, TWI)

[Vancouvia]

Then don't double dip here.

You don't want me to share my opinion on a constitution that affects me?

You have a major conflict of interest. Do you think you should?

[Taziristan]

You don't want me to share my opinion on a constitution that affects me?

You have a major conflict of interest. Do you think you should?

Conflict of interest doesn't apply when I don't have a position in government and I don't think my owning a region which has nothing to do with TWI is a conflict of interest. The only conflict of interest I have is when trying to get primary nations defined and getting rights for nonmembers, which I conceded was pointless. Those are both from my disputes with you which makes me afraid of losing my spot in this region and the role plays I have planned. So yes, I want things defined better in the constitution and I want to appeal being thrown off the map.

Edit: in short, yes, I should.

[Agadar]

Van, Taz, please don't continue the bickering between you lads in the convention thread. Let's try to stay on-topic.

I'd like to get back to the current item, Concerns that the President and the Founder may have too much power. Is there anyone that would like to bring forth a specific case?

@Eutriston, we passed over your laundry list of ambiguities because you weren't here to raise arguments/solutions for them when we moved to discuss it. If you want to we can reopen that item at the end of the concerns list.

[Pacific Peace Union]

I think it's fine for them to have a lot of power. One is the owner and the other the elected head of state. Their positions require power, and the owner (vancouvia) cannot be tyrannical as he wants the region to succeeed more than anyone, and the president would be voted out of office should he abuse his powers.

[Realm of Councilry]

I think it's fine for them to have a lot of power. One is the owner and the other the elected head of state. Their positions require power, and the owner (vancouvia) cannot be tyrannical as he wants the region to succeeed more than anyone, and the president would be voted out of office should he abuse his powers.

^
this

[Taziristan]

I think it's fine for them to have a lot of power. One is the owner and the other the elected head of state. Their positions require power, and the owner (vancouvia) cannot be tyrannical as he wants the region to succeeed more than anyone, and the president would be voted out of office should he abuse his powers.

Not so much as cannot as will not

[Eutriston]

Van, Taz, please don't continue the bickering between you lads in the convention thread. Let's try to stay on-topic.

I'd like to get back to the current item, Concerns that the President and the Founder may have too much power. Is there anyone that would like to bring forth a specific case?

@Eutriston, we passed over your laundry list of ambiguities because you weren't here to raise arguments/solutions for them when we moved to discuss it. If you want to we can reopen that item at the end of the concerns list.

I don't think that we need sweeping removal of the founder from power like my proposal suggested, I've been persuaded otherwise. I think I'd rather edit the part about the President or Founder being able to ban someone no questions asked.

[Agadar]

Will be moving to the next item tomorrow unless someone has something to add to the current item.

[Agadar]

We now move onto the next item: '6. With old laws being scrapped, there's no more punishments defined for specific crimes.'

Anyone care to weigh in?

[Vancouvia]

We now move onto the next item: '6. With old laws being scrapped, there's no more punishments defined for specific crimes.'

Anyone care to weigh in?

Presidential EO can reestablish "criminal code" if need be, but I doubt that would be necessary

[Agadar]

We now move onto the next item: '6. With old laws being scrapped, there's no more punishments defined for specific crimes.'

Anyone care to weigh in?

Presidential EO can reestablish "criminal code" if need be, but I doubt that would be necessary

I'm inclined to agree, mostly because, and many keep forgetting this, we're making a new constitution for an online game region. We're not going to be running a country with this.

Besides, I also believe specifying crime and punishments is too specific for a regional constitution. It should simply fall under the President's scope.

[Taziristan]

Hold on, what about the assurance that people thrown off the map can appeal to get back on?

[Agadar]

Hold on, what about the assurance that people thrown off the map can appeal to get back on?

You already asked this before and I have already answered this before, Taz.

[Taziristan]

You proposed something, but was it changed?

[Taziristan]

You proposed something, but was it changed?

I don't see that it has been.

[Agadar]

You proposed something, but was it changed?

I don't see that it has been.

I suppose I could put up a live copy of the proposal in a dispatch of mine and live-track all changes.

[Vancouvia]

I'll change it, we just didn't finalize any language

[Agadar]

I'll change it, we just didn't finalize any language

I guess we did, if you consider me proposing something and no-one objecting it as 'us finalizing' it.

[Vancouvia]

I'll change it, we just didn't finalize any language

I guess we did, if you consider me proposing something and no-one objecting it as 'us finalizing' it.

I'm talking about the language; what specifically the words will be

[Agadar]

I'm now live-tracking changes we've agreed upon in the following dispatch: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=711867.

If there are no qualms with the change that ensures former member nations can request hearings, then let us continue discussing the current item: '6. With old laws being scrapped, there's no more punishments defined for specific crimes.' Does anyone disagree with the opinion that defining punishments for specific crimes does not fall under the scope of the Constitution but rather under the President's office?

[Agadar]

Two days passed and no disagreements with the conclusion on the current item, so we now move onto the next item:

7. Lack of definition of what constitutes a 'primary nation'.

Would anyone care to weigh in?

[Taziristan]

I would like to see this defined. My personal bias is large here, but it does need to be defined. I was thinking something along the lines of this being the nation you spend most your time on, that no other nation occupied positions in other regions (government, namely), and that certain requirements of being a citizen are defined as well. For instance, posting on the RMB at least every week.

After this Constitution is ratufied, the President should also pass an EO that requires the listing of all puppets made by citizens suspected of violating the rules.

[Vancouvia]

I would like to see this defined. My personal bias is large here, but it does need to be defined. I was thinking something along the lines of this being the nation you spend most your time on, that no other nation occupied positions in other regions (government, namely), and that certain requirements of being a citizen are defined as well. For instance, posting on the RMB at least every week.

After this Constitution is ratufied, the President should also pass an EO that requires the listing of all puppets made by citizens suspected of violating the rules.

Please call them member nations instead of citizens.

An EO like that would be largely useless; the best way to find puppets is to pretend like you're not looking for them, and what would this mccarthy suspiscion list do anyway?

[Taziristan]

I would like to see this defined. My personal bias is large here, but it does need to be defined. I was thinking something along the lines of this being the nation you spend most your time on, that no other nation occupied positions in other regions (government, namely), and that certain requirements of being a citizen are defined as well. For instance, posting on the RMB at least every week.

After this Constitution is ratufied, the President should also pass an EO that requires the listing of all puppets made by citizens suspected of violating the rules.

Please call them member nations instead of citizens.

An EO like that would be largely useless; the best way to find puppets is to pretend like you're not looking for them, and what would this mccarthy suspiscion list do anyway?

More to have players list their puppets to watch activity levels if needed, and I do apologize. It's members.

[Agadar]

I was thinking something along the lines of this being the nation you spend most your time on

We have no way of measuring that.

that no other nation occupied positions in other regions (government, namely)

I don't see much merit in enforcing people not to have puppets fulfill officer positions in other regions. Besides, how would we ever enforce this anyway? Merely proving someone's puppet has an officer position in another region is nigh impossible already, let alone enforce a rule such as this.

and that certain requirements of being a citizen are defined as well. For instance, posting on the RMB at least every week.

I suppose it's more 'democratic' if map placement prerequisites are defined in the constitution rather than the regional rules, though I'm not sure whether this is really needed. No one's ever complained about it.