Autocracy is what the NPO believes in, right? So of course the idea that a delegate cant be removed from office would align with your views. Your thinking with beliefs, not with logic
Advertisement
by Canton Empire » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:06 am
by Pierconium » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:10 am
by Canton Empire » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:25 am
Pierconium wrote:Canton Empire wrote:Autocracy is what the NPO believes in, right? So of course the idea that a delegate cant be removed from office would align with your views. Your thinking with beliefs, not with logic
An interesting conclusion based on nothing.
Logic would seem to indicate that the primary power within the game, being the World Assembly Delegate nation within most GCRs, would be the primary point of power for the region's government. Even the most 'liberal' feeders adhere to this generally. TNP for example allows the Delegate the authority to appoint Cabinet ministers.
How is an autocratic view of the Delegate a belief system? It has the power to appoint Regional Officers, eject, ban, suppress, control the WFE, and the ingame foreign affairs of the region. Mandating that all of this be ignored seems to be the illogical position to me.
by Pierconium » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:44 am
Canton Empire wrote:Pierconium wrote:An interesting conclusion based on nothing.
Logic would seem to indicate that the primary power within the game, being the World Assembly Delegate nation within most GCRs, would be the primary point of power for the region's government. Even the most 'liberal' feeders adhere to this generally. TNP for example allows the Delegate the authority to appoint Cabinet ministers.
How is an autocratic view of the Delegate a belief system? It has the power to appoint Regional Officers, eject, ban, suppress, control the WFE, and the ingame foreign affairs of the region. Mandating that all of this be ignored seems to be the illogical position to me.
Logic should indicate that there needs to be a way to remove the delegate from power, otherwise no government could stand if a delegate rebelled
by Consular » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:14 pm
Canton Empire wrote:Pierconium wrote:An interesting conclusion based on nothing.
Logic would seem to indicate that the primary power within the game, being the World Assembly Delegate nation within most GCRs, would be the primary point of power for the region's government. Even the most 'liberal' feeders adhere to this generally. TNP for example allows the Delegate the authority to appoint Cabinet ministers.
How is an autocratic view of the Delegate a belief system? It has the power to appoint Regional Officers, eject, ban, suppress, control the WFE, and the ingame foreign affairs of the region. Mandating that all of this be ignored seems to be the illogical position to me.
Logic should indicate that there needs to be a way to remove the delegate from power, otherwise no government could stand if a delegate rebelled
by Zaolat » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:57 pm
by Unibot III » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:33 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Warzone Codger » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:47 pm
by Cormac Stark » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:38 am
Unibot III wrote:I would advise against a split executive but for different reasons: the image of a "caretaker" delegate in a region immediately signals to the region that the region is not a democracy but a dictatorship, especially when every other democratic GCR elects their delegates.
by McMasterdonia » Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:05 am
Cormac Stark wrote:Unibot III wrote:I would advise against a split executive but for different reasons: the image of a "caretaker" delegate in a region immediately signals to the region that the region is not a democracy but a dictatorship, especially when every other democratic GCR elects their delegates.
I'm uncertain how a Delegate separated from the executive translates to an unelected Delegate in your mind. My constitutional draft would have an elected Delegate serving a one year non-consecutive term, which would ensure a new Delegate on an annual basis. The big difference, aside from term length, would be that the Delegate won't have any role in the executive government, but will instead have an in-game role.
This type of system doesn't have to be undemocratic.
by Canton Empire » Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:11 am
Consular wrote:Canton Empire wrote:Logic should indicate that there needs to be a way to remove the delegate from power, otherwise no government could stand if a delegate rebelled
If a Delegate rebelled from what? In the kind of system Ivan advocates, there is no authority higher than the Delegate. They are the source of all authority. What they decide is how things will be. They can't rebel... Because there's nothing for them to rebel against.
by Cormac Stark » Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:20 am
McMasterdonia wrote:Separation and everything aside. Also noting that I haven't had time yet to read your draft, or any others. From what you just said though; one year seems incredibly long for a Delegate's term. Given that people go through bouts of activity/inactivity at different times throughout the year. I don't think there would be that many people who could commit to a high enough activity as Delegate for an entire year. The activity requirement would be reduced by it being separated, but even with just in-game stuff there is still seriously a lot to do for people who want to do the job well.
by McMasterdonia » Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:17 am
Cormac Stark wrote:McMasterdonia wrote:Separation and everything aside. Also noting that I haven't had time yet to read your draft, or any others. From what you just said though; one year seems incredibly long for a Delegate's term. Given that people go through bouts of activity/inactivity at different times throughout the year. I don't think there would be that many people who could commit to a high enough activity as Delegate for an entire year. The activity requirement would be reduced by it being separated, but even with just in-game stuff there is still seriously a lot to do for people who want to do the job well.
Others were wanting indefinite terms (i.e., service until resignation) or a very difficult challenge system (Brave Little Toaster) that would be unlikely to ever see a successful challenge -- both of which would be likely to leave a Delegate in office even longer than a year. While I don't necessarily disagree with you, my one year, non-consecutive term is actually the moderate alternative being proposed. I don't think there would be support for a shorter term because longevity is something people are looking for to keep the office apolitical, by ensuring it isn't subject to frequent election.
by Pierconium » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:01 am
by Kringalia » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:44 am
by Pierconium » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:48 am
Kringalia wrote:That depends on who you elect as Delegate.
by Icecream Princess » Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:13 am
Pierconium wrote:Kringalia wrote:That depends on who you elect as Delegate.
While generally true, there comes a point when even the most devoted nation can get fed up with being regulated. I have seen significant democratic proponents turn rogue in the past. Sometimes, it only takes a few choice words to push (or pull) a nation to the edge, and then just a nudge to push them over.
by McMasterdonia » Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:17 am
Icecream Princess wrote:Pierconium wrote:While generally true, there comes a point when even the most devoted nation can get fed up with being regulated. I have seen significant democratic proponents turn rogue in the past. Sometimes, it only takes a few choice words to push (or pull) a nation to the edge, and then just a nudge to push them over.
Balder uses this system, but I think the Queen doesn't mind being regulated and wouldn't be pushed over the edge. There is lot of cultural and community involvement by the Queen. If you can find a leader who can fit the mold, it's a good system.
by Belschaft » Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:51 am
by Kringalia » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:11 am
by Icecream Princess » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:17 am
McMasterdonia wrote:Icecream Princess wrote:Balder uses this system, but I think the Queen doesn't mind being regulated and wouldn't be pushed over the edge. There is lot of cultural and community involvement by the Queen. If you can find a leader who can fit the mold, it's a good system.
Referring to yourself in third person now? The Queen is also an extremely influential and popular figure and nobody would doubt that it is the Queen that calls the political shots regardless of who the statsminister is. And I seriously doubt anyone in Balder would want the Statsminister to start overruling the Queen or sending her demands. Just wouldn't happen If it did happen, that Statsminister would probably be recalled
by Belschaft » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:18 am
Kringalia wrote:Better solution. We get an inanimate lampshade and appoint it Emperor of the South Pacific.
by Pierconium » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:23 am
Kringalia wrote:Better solution. We get an inanimate lampshade and appoint it Emperor of the South Pacific.
by Ayvari » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:28 am
Kringalia wrote:Better solution. We get an inanimate lampshade and appoint it Emperor of the South Pacific.
Severisen wrote:You literally couldn't have missed the point more, even if you endorsed the native delegate.
Northern Chittowa wrote:If you look at those who have made names for themselves in this game, they are those who have stood up to defenders on an equal footin and actually beaten them on a tactical level...Those are the ones who will be remembered and indeed revered in history.
Syberis Montresor-Isaraider: There should be no distinction between a good raider and a good member of the GP community.
by Kringalia » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:37 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Sorianora
Advertisement