NationStates

Grey County wrote:

Daytime to Night wrote:
What is more concerning is the absolute lack of response from any of the interim Council to these concerns here (as far as I can tell) and the apparently lack of progress on their reforms. Why didn't they have those prepared before taking action?

Instead they have wiped the region clean (including removing its fundamental values from the WFE) and there is absolutely no sense that the message has got through to them that this is bad - only to the few citizens who are defending them vociferously on here. I hope the citizens of the region are holding them to account for their actions and demanding better (no matter how much you like them), but from what I've seen on here - I doubt it.

Letting those who have zero regard for your laws write the new ones is... an interesting move at best

On discord they have responded to concerns and It appears it will be done in a couple of days hopefuly

Their discord isn't a public platform and their lack of willingness to address this on the forums, where concerns are being discussed, is concerning.

Toerana wrote:

Grey County wrote:On discord they have responded to concerns and It appears it will be done in a couple of days hopefuly

Their discord isn't a public platform and their lack of willingness to address this on the forums, where concerns are being discussed, is concerning.

Yes

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:

Bormiar wrote:If something so basic was unjust, I think they'd have to provide a strong case -- or at least a rational case -- for why. And for why their method is better. Your argument assumes that they bypassed it because it was unjust.

Oh but they did.

As explained above, the problems are systemic and thus cannot be resolved via a simple amendment to the Constitution. While the established methods for altering the Constitution would lead to further instability and place the region in limbo for an indefinite period. Furthermore, Arenado and Wymondham, who have been the most prominent authors of legislation in Thalassia since the beginning of the year as well as possessing extensive external legislative experience, have both concluded that the current system in place for repealing and replacing the Constitution would be unworkable for the purpose for implementing a new Constitution to resolve the difficulties outlined above.

We can of course challenge whether this is a good reason or a bad one (sigh this is why we are here), but they did make a "rational" case. Their argument is properly constructed, there are two premises (1. "we have fundamental problems that can only be solved by a new Constitution", 2. "it would be unworkable to gain a new Constitution via normal means") and a conclusion logically flowing from these two. If the premises are true, then keeping it would be unjust for the region. Again, you may argue with the premises, but saying that no reasoning at all was given is not accurate.

That's not what I'm looking for. Why is it "unworkable to gain a new Constitution via normal means"? Saying that amending the constitution via a vote would lead to instability is just talking out their ass. They need explain why. They need to substantiate their claims (i.e. provide a rational/strong "case") that the normal method will lead to instability and limbo, and also why their method is better (which you haven't yet attempted to answer).

I'm asking the IC, not you, SRE, so don't feel obliged to respond.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:

Bormiar wrote:Seriously, though, Latin?

You clearly don't know me enough. Besides if we are just going to repeat talking points, like you did in this thread, may as well spice things up with resolving to a foreign dictionary.

I could tell from your nation name (Holy Roman Church?).

Latin isn't convincing in the slightest, especially not on a forum.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:

Bormiar wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=147701

Therefore, that's also not an applicable comment. Sho did not decide on the constitution, therefore your argument doesn't justify Sho dissolving the constitution. Had the constitution been dissolved the same way it were made -- by equal vote (no Interim Council, as that is unequal vote) -- I would've had no problem with it.

You say "Thalassia established its own governing law, Thalassia may also abolish it". What is 'Thalassia' supposed to mean?

You have an awful low opinion of my intelligence.

Don't try to prove anything. I wasn't calling you stupid.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Of course that the people voted on the constitution, you think I would gather that much from this whole "Thalassia is no longer a democracy" drama. But the last time I checked, the current one is temporary means for getting a proper new one. That will be subject to referendum approval. You could fear that this temporary will in reality be a permanent one, but since as long as they don't get a new Constitution they are locked down, I can't imagine anybody on the IC intentionally delaying the process.

A closed legislature is not subject to a vote. The other key distinguishing feature is that normal citizens aren't given formal ability to draft the constitution.

This doesn't apply to your claim, as you said that the same authority which approved the constitution also dissolved it -- that is blatantly wrong.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:You can also complain about that it's the IC submitting new document for people's approval, but since you claimed somewhere in the beginning of this thread that the people will just accept anything that the key players draft, then yeah, I don't see how you can raise this complaint genuinely.

The IC still unfairly strengthens their vote-- some dissent is possible.

Also, I don't think that's how laws work. I may predict with enormous certainty that someone will be elected, but that doesn't mean I have to say we should bypass the election altogether.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Thalassia means the founder, the most active and involved players, and the general populace of the residents. Same is true for every other UCR. All three were involved in making the previous constitution and all three are involved in it now. The accents may be placed differently now and you may make your own inferences as for what that means for future Thalassian system (democracy, oligarchy, autocracy?), but you don't really have grounds for making a claim of illegitimacy.

"The accents may be placed differently now"

What a ridiculous euphemism, and it really shows how intellectually dishonest your post is. The power -- and therefore the authority -- is completely redistributed to the point where (for reasons listed above) the IC has full power over the new constitution, whether the citizenry likes it or not. That is not the "same authority".

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:

Bormiar wrote:As for "Thalassia's residents seem to support it": benevolent dictatorships ≠ democracy.

We are discussing the legitimacy of this action, not whether it is emblematic of a democracy. I said nothing one way or the other about the former issue.

That does have to do with legitimacy insofar as it's responding to your comment. Just because the citizenry superficially supports the constitution doesn't make that democratic.

Bormiar wrote:I'm asking the IC, not you, SRE, so don't feel obliged to respond.

Trust me, I don't.

Been waiting a while to ask this but didn't because I was TSP's MoFA at the time. Why does the Thalassian Constitution profess "democratic traditions" when neither the head of state nor government is democratically elected? While the region democratically elects the Delegate and Chancellor, who are members of the Curia Regis, the collective head of government, that doesn't even matter when they have two-fifths of the power. Meanwhile, the Monarch is part of the Curia Regis and appoints two members to this body, having a three-fifths majority that could overrule the democratically elected members whenever they wish. What's more, there's no limit to how many members the Monarch could appoint. So, why does Thalassia call itself a democracy when it's all in but name only?

Hey all. It is with a heavy heart that I announce Thalassia's closure. And no, we won't be moving to another region this time either. The citizenry and the CR have both decided it's time to end the story of Pacifica, and then Thalassia, here. It's been a great time with you all, but everyone has decided we cannot simply keep going while sacrificing time, money, and our mental health.

Here's what that means for everyone

Embassies: diplomats will be around to announce the end of Thalassia shortly, and you may close embassies with us if you wish. However, I will be preserving the region and keeping embassies for the time being.

Citizens/residents: since I'll be preserving the region, it is in your best interest that you move your nations out in three days. I'll be kicking nations out then. No hard feelings

Everyone else: the fate of the discord server and the guilded server is still being discussed, but I assume it will be archived.

Finally, since Thalassia is ending, if anyone would like to suggest regions for members of Thalassia to move to (we are not merging, we don't wanna put that pressure on anyone) that would be appreciated.

Thank you all. This has truly been a great time with y'all and I'm going to be sad we're not gonna be around anymore. But all things must come to an end. A ship must finally sink.

I had a good time there, but I'm glad to see the region put to rest. Bittersweet.

This is Tough, It will always hold a special place in mty heart but it was time to put it to rest and move on, Thank you for all the memories everyone, Luv You all


Semper Thalassia,
Former WA Delegate of Thalassia Grey County

This is Tough, It will always hold a special place in mty heart but it was time to put it to rest and move on, Thank you for all the memories everyone, Luv You all


Semper Thalassia,
Former WA Delegate of Thalassia Grey County

An incredible shame to see a community that has been through so much together close its doors, best of luck to everyone in whatever they choose to do on NS.

To reiterate some of what I said to Bad on Discord yesterday, possibly more coherently than I said it then:

As Thalassia's first Founder, I think you've all done a great job running the region. Sho and Bad were everything I could have hoped for in successors, and honestly, probably did a better job with Thalassia than I would have done especially at the time. I'm proud of all of you for holding the community together as long as you did. Sustaining a UCR that long is a feat, because most don't even get off the ground. Most that do get off the ground do have an invisible expiration date as well.

I've seen a few people on the NSGP Discord server or elsewhere questioning this, saying things looked fine to them, or suggesting the Founder nation should have been handed over to someone else who wanted to keep the region open. With respect, that isn't their call to make. They aren't Thalassians and they aren't there to see how things are going behind the scenes, they aren't there to know if there's someone appropriate and trustworthy enough to be a new Founder. Sometimes these things just happen. If this is the call you think is right for Thalassia's community instead of leaving them lingering in a region that isn't going to be able to move forward, then it's likely the right call. I don't think it's really the end for the community anyway, because now members of the community get to start a new chapter elsewhere, and bring a little bit of what was great about Thalassia to other regions. It's normal to be a little sad or sentimental, but personally I'm excited to see what you folks do elsewhere now because so many of you have a lot of potential in this game, as you've demonstrated by recognizing when change is needed.

Very sorry to see this, it's always unfortunate when wonderful regions like this one decline. I hope all citizens are able to find new home regions, though I'm sure nowhere else can properly fill in the space in your hearts for Thalassia <3