Convention (OOC, TWI)

[Miklania]

Considering no one seems up to discuss Eutriston's laundry list, I propose we dock it for now and instead debate the next point, which is:

5. Concerns that the President and the Founder may have too much power.

Would anyone like to weigh in?

In general, it's not that big of a deal to have people with power. This is not a real government, all we need it to do is keep things stable and enforce the rules. The only thing that I think we need to limit founder and presidential power on is role-play and canon related things, which should be the domain of the SoI, or SoRP, whichever we end up calling it. (As an aside on that matter, I vote for keeping the name SoI, it's been around forever and there's no point in changing it now.) Big shifts such as map changes should be voted on by the whole RP community. (That's a discussion for another day.)

[Corindia]

Considering no one seems up to discuss Eutriston's laundry list, I propose we dock it for now and instead debate the next point, which is:

5. Concerns that the President and the Founder may have too much power.

Would anyone like to weigh in?

In general, it's not that big of a deal to have people with power. This is not a real government, all we need it to do is keep things stable and enforce the rules. The only thing that I think we need to limit founder and presidential power on is role-play and canon related things, which should be the domain of the SoI, or SoRP, whichever we end up calling it. (As an aside on that matter, I vote for keeping the name SoI, it's been around forever and there's no point in changing it now.) Big shifts such as map changes should be voted on by the whole RP community. (That's a discussion for another day.)

What about map power? I'd like to see it handled a bit more democraticly, and maybe even with more elaborate borders than ellipses and straight lines.

[Ostehaar]

and maybe even with more elaborate borders than ellipses and straight lines.

That's not an issue for the region's constitution... :P

[Corindia]

and maybe even with more elaborate borders than ellipses and straight lines.

That's not an issue for the region's constitution...

It should be then. Our map is strange looking and I think the slow addition time can be off-putting to new nations

[Agadar]

That's not an issue for the region's constitution...

It should be then. Our map is terrible.

I have to agree with Ostehaar that the map's design isn't something we should be discussing in the constitutional convention thread. Rules on the map and who is in charge of designing it, sure, but not the design itself.

[Corindia]

It should be then. Our map is terrible.

I have to agree with Ostehaar that the map's design isn't something we should be discussing in the constitutional convention thread. Rules on the map and who is in charge of designing it, sure, but not the design itself.

Oh, you're completely right, I was getting off topic.
I think that control of the map should be moved to the Secretary of Roleplay

[Ostehaar]

I think that control of the map should be moved to the Secretary of Roleplay

I don't think so. It's a very difficult job already. Adding map managing to it would be too much.

[Pacific Peace Union]

I think that control of the map should be moved to the Secretary of Roleplay

I don't think so. It's a very difficult job already. Adding map managing to it would be too much.

Not to mention transfer of map power when a new SoRP comes into power may be messy.

[Polar Svalbard]

Linaviar's stuff

Alright, probably time to weigh in on the constitutional draft as it is right now. Here's some of my reservations that haven't (probably) already been covered. Might be a few duplicates in there, but meh.

All of Eut's comments on ambiguities apply to my concerns. Now, let's get into this.

Article I
Section I: I have some reservations about continuing the tie in of membership to the map, due to the ability for those who are purely an RMB presence, yet still a big part of the region, to be kicked or banned without recompense, among other lacks of rights. We really should shift away from this structure, but I realize it's unlikely. Just putting in my thoughts on the matter.
Section II: Lack of explicit protection for kicked/banned nations - as written, a member who has had said status revoked through punishment does not have the right to appeal the punishment. Explicitly codifying this right should be a priority IMO. Either that, or make it so in order to kick/ban a member nation (and thereby strip of rights), they must first undergo some sort of due process; a hearing as supplied by Article 5 should do (I'll get to my reservations with this system later).

Article IV
Section 1: A definition of what the "standardized format" is would be good to have, either within the section or as an article of its own.

Article V
Section 2: "Upon request, the Founder and President shall provide information and reasoning to the member and region pertaining to the situation in question." This should probably be changed so that members receive a notice and justification upon the deliverance of the punishment. I have a few qualms with the information on the punishment needing to be requested by the punished.
Section 3: And here's my major problem with this constitution - the system of arbitration is incapable of handling conflict of interest. Let's say that someone requests a hearing against one of the secretaries - that secretary then gets to appoint one of the arbitrators. Even if it says that the arbitrators should be unbiased, the system is open to abuse. There needs to be some way to ensure that if a secretary or their staff gets involved in a hearing, that an unbiased party can take the place of appointing an arbitrator. Maybe shift the decision up to the president, maybe keep a pool of trusted arbitrators that can be drawn from in these situations, maybe something else, but some system needs to be in place to avoid conflict of interest, and the draft currently lacks such a framework.

Article VII
Section 4: Define "a reasonable period of time"

Article IX
Section 1: "...and shall not be misconstrued..." - That is a highly subjective phrase; I honestly don't think it should be in there, as who gets to decide who has "misconstrued" the document? Unless some major clarification as to how to decide what constitutes misconstruing is put in there, the section should go.

General Concerns
I think there should be some sort of supremacy clause - an explicit declaration as to whether the Constitution trumps regional rules or vice versa.

So yeah, there's my concerns with the current draft.

[Vancouvia]

Our government's role is to provide a good role-play environment, not a good chatroom on the RMB. Therefore, only those who participate in RP should be able to elect officers, establish policy, etc.

[Taziristan]

Then perhaps a clause protecting noncitizens from banning or giving them a way to appeal a punishment if they post on the RMB a lot, like randmar?

[Vancouvia]

Then perhaps a clause protecting noncitizens from banning or giving them a way to appeal a punishment if they post on the RMB a lot, like randmar?

What's the rationale behind giving someone who wasn't on the map rights if they get banned? I.e. if someone hasn't taken the brief time to become a member, why give them the right to a "trial"?

[Taziristan]

So that people like randmar who are part of our community but not on the map due to lack of desire doesn't get banjected without the ability to appeal. If they appeal, then they obviously care enough to be here.

[Vancouvia]

So that people like randmar who are part of our community but not on the map due to lack of desire doesn't get banjected without the ability to appeal. If they appeal, then they obviously care enough to be here.

If someone can't take the 10 seconds to request a map spot, why give them hours worth of effort and time? Why are you arguing this when in our entire history, no non-member has ever been banned and requested a "trial"?

[Taziristan]

I'm simply asking for the option, van. It's not unreasonable

[Agadar]

@Polar_svalbard, I'll add that entire thing to the end of the list.

My current opinion on the current discussion on non-member rights: even though our region indeed revolves primarily around role-play, as Vancouvia stated, I don't think we should explicitly go out of our way to make non-member nations second-class citizens with no legal rights. I think that it might indeed be reasonable to extent the right to appeal bans to non-member nations. There's no harm in it.

[Vancouvia]

@Polar_svalbard, I'll add that entire thing to the end of the list.

My current opinion on the current discussion on non-member rights: even though our region indeed revolves primarily around role-play, as Vancouvia stated, I don't think we should explicitly go out of our way to make non-member nations second-class citizens with no legal rights. I think that it might indeed be reasonable to extent the right to appeal bans to non-member nations. There's no harm in it.

There is, if trolls or psychopaths, want to get their fair share of wasting everyone's time. That's the harm.

[Agadar]

@Polar_svalbard, I'll add that entire thing to the end of the list.

My current opinion on the current discussion on non-member rights: even though our region indeed revolves primarily around role-play, as Vancouvia stated, I don't think we should explicitly go out of our way to make non-member nations second-class citizens with no legal rights. I think that it might indeed be reasonable to extent the right to appeal bans to non-member nations. There's no harm in it.

There is, if trolls or psychopaths, want to get their fair share of wasting everyone's time. That's the harm.

What if a nation may only appeal a ban if at least one of the three Secretaries believes it might be worth it?

[Vancouvia]

There is, if trolls or psychopaths, want to get their fair share of wasting everyone's time. That's the harm.

What if a nation may only appeal a ban if at least one of the three Secretaries believes it might be worth it?

That's basically the same because one of the three Secretaries would be liberal enough or angry enough to waste everyone's time.

This Constitution was made to slim things down to the essentials and re-focus on role-playing, and now we're discussing giving rights to non-role players who don't even have those rights in our current Constitution.

[Taziristan]

Yes, but this is also a time to expand those rights. I have never liked the idea of the government having second class citizens that it can treat how it wants.

[Vancouvia]

Yes, but this is also a time to expand those rights. I have never liked the idea of the government having second class citizens that it can treat how it wants.

We don't have second class citizens. We have members and we have residents who are either too lazy to become members or content not being them. "Treat how it wants?" like we have separate water fountains or something? There's nothing stopping anyone from becoming a member. It's not exclusionary or discriminating in the slightest.

[Taziristan]

This is simply trying to protect members of our community who want to remain part of our community despite not being on the map. The government shouldn't just be able to ban randmar for no reason. It hasn't, but constitutions are all about the what ifs.

[Agadar]

I'm conflicted on the matter. On one hand, Van is right that it would only take a single telegram to be accepted on the map, so earning the right to appeal is child's play. But on the other hand, do we really want people asking for a map spot even though they don't intend to roleplay or get involved in regional government, but for the sole reason to have member rights such as the right to appeal?

[Pacific Peace Union]

I'm conflicted on the matter. On one hand, Van is right that it would only take a single telegram to be accepted on the map, so earning the right to appeal is child's play. But on the other hand, do we really want people asking for a map spot even though they don't intend to roleplay or get involved in regional government, but for the sole reason to have member rights such as the right to appeal?

I thought that too but in the end, if they don't intend to roleplay or post on the RMB every 3 days to keep their spot, they are not at all important to the region and contribute nothing. Therefore I don't really think it is that important to give them certain rights like appealing because their very existence in our region is useless. If they want to just discuss on the RMB and not roleplay, then they can ask Vancouvia for a small island and be a tiny dot on the map no one cares about.

[Taziristan]

Hmm I could see that. Well, back to the issue at hand. If member nations get kicked off the map by some punishment or any other reason, they should be ensured the right to appeal.