NSG Senate Reboot Debate and Voting

[NSG Senate Administrators]

NSG Senate Reboot Debate and Voting

This thread will serve as a springboard to act on the set-up of the next iteration of this RP. Its format will be a series of votes and debates on the set-up of the RP, starting with the most basic issues and moving up to more detailed ones. Example propositions are below, but anyone may submit what they deem is an appropriate proposition. Propositions may take two forms, the first being two opposing resolutions such as the first examples below, and the second being a single resolution such as the third example below.

There will be a minimum of 24 hours to vote on each proposition, or 48 if deemed necessary by the Head Administrator. Once the voting period is over, there will be another 24 hours, or longer if deemed necessary, for people to post propositions and discuss them. The short time in between voting will hopefully encourage activity from everyone. There will be a queue of propositions similar to a bill queue in the Senate Chamber, but this queue may be amended if the provisions of one proposition supercede another.

The first vote to be held will be on the old "nation vs. UN" idea. The second will be either to use the "blank slate" or "Team Vestmark/UN" (respectively). Everything after that will be put into the queue. The first vote (nation v UN) will start 8 hours from the posting of the OP.

First two propositions:
-Resolved: The RP should be a nation simulator AGAINST Resolved: The RP should be a UN simulator (similar to NWO's plan)
-Resolved: The RP should start with a more minimal plan of IC details (blank slate) AGAINST Resolved: The RP should start with a more comprehensive plan of IC details.

Other proposition examples:
-Resolved: The name of the RP shall remain the NationStates General Senate (NSGS).
-Resolved: Non-location threads will be moved onto a different forum of NationStates.
-Resolved: No Senator will be allowed to join multiple parties.
-Resolved: The Senate will vote on the Administrator nominations of the Head Administrator.
-Resolved: Administrators will be subject to a recall vote, the details of which will be determined later.

Just as in the Chamber, these examples can be voted on by using “Aye” or “Nay,” or you may register an abstention. Voting will be restricted at first to former members of the Senate, as we have no way of making new voters join later.

When the voting period is up, the Head Administrator or a delegate of his choice will count up the votes. Votes without a ⅔ majority are not final within the planning process; counter-propositions may be submitted after a proposition has been passed with less than ⅔ of the vote. All votes with a supermajority are final.

Changes to the procedures of this thread, as well as all other discussion not related to the proposition(s) being voted on, must be directed to the General Discussion Thread. As a reminder, our disciplinary system still applies:

Overview of Disciplinary Procedures

Rules
All normal NS rules remain in force
Warning Levels
Green- Level 1, equivalent to one warning
Blue- Level 2, equivalent to two warnings
Yellow- Level 3, denoting 1-3 days of suspension time total
Orange- Level 4, denoting 4+ days of suspension time total, and also denoting that the next offence will likely result in a ban
Black- banned from Senate

Further points:
-After being suspended once, each subsequent infraction results in more suspensions (not necessarily of more time), not further warnings.
-Posting past suspension results in an automatic upgrade to the next level of delinquency
-Warning levels can decrease over time:

-From Green to None: 2 weeks
-From Blue to Green: 3 weeks
-From Yellow to Blue: 5 weeks
-From Orange to Yellow: 6 weeks
-From Black to Orange: Admin discretion after 8 weeks

The Co-OPs of this thread are this account, Maklohi Vai, and Ainin. Many thanks go to The Liberated Territories for his extensive help with this OP, and to a multitude others for their suggestions as to how to proceed.

[The New World Oceania]

Is this only for voting, or formal discussion, too?

[Maklohi Vai]

Is this only for voting, or formal discussion, too?

For both. Discussion may only be on the propositions in question, and all other discussion stays on the old thread.

The first vote (nation v UN) will start 8 hours from the posting of the OP.

EDIT: To 8 hours

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

Deleted.

[NSG Senate Administrators]

I vote for the NSGS being a nation simulator.

See the post above you. We're not starting for another 8 hours.

[Maklohi Vai]

Seeing as this first issue is a large one, and as it will be the first in a new process, the voting for "nation v UN" will be 48 hours long.

[The New World Oceania]

Seeing as this first issue is a large one, and as it will be the first in a new process, the voting for "nation v UN" will be 48 hours long.

Is voting open to everyone, with an assumption that voting non-members intend to join the Senate?

[Maklohi Vai]

Seeing as this first issue is a large one, and as it will be the first in a new process, the voting for "nation v UN" will be 48 hours long.

Is voting open to everyone, with an assumption that voting non-members intend to join the Senate?

Since we have no way of enforcing their joining in the future, voting will be restricted at first just to former members of the Senate.

[The New World Oceania]

I am a consistent advocate for the nation sim over the UN sim, if more than my bias towards my own creation - Vestmark. I believe that a UN would be too difficult, too bureaucratic, and too similar to the WA to go over well. If I wanted a UN simulator, I would of joined the WA (and suffered from it's idiotic "progressive" policies). Also, it would give people less power and roleplay creativity since the UN ambassadors would be more removed from the happenings of their country than individual senators, and will not be representing their own constituencies and have that freedom.

The comparison to the WA has to stop. They're demonstrably different systems; foremost, the UN emphasizes each roleplayer as a delegate of each nation — nations, on the other hand, are taking the place of parties, composed of multiple roleplayers, each a delegate. If anything, this allows more creativity on the very merit that nations with conflicting viewpoints, with further conflicting views within themselves, are far more engaging than the stamp-collecting process that killed not one, but three previous incarnations of the NSG Senate. Change is long overdue.

[The Liberated Territories]

I am a consistent advocate for the nation sim over the UN sim, if more than my bias towards my own creation - Vestmark. I believe that a UN would be too difficult, too bureaucratic, and too similar to the WA to go over well. If I wanted a UN simulator, I would of joined the WA (and suffered from it's idiotic "progressive" policies). Also, it would give people less power and roleplay creativity since the UN ambassadors would be more removed from the happenings of their country than individual senators, and will not be representing their own constituencies and have that freedom.

The comparison to the WA has to stop. They're demonstrably different systems; foremost, the UN emphasizes each roleplayer as a delegate of each nation — nations, on the other hand, are taking the place of parties, composed of multiple roleplayers, each a delegate. If anything, this allows more creativity on the very merit that nations with conflicting viewpoints, with further conflicting views within themselves, are far more engaging than the stamp-collecting process that killed not one, but three previous incarnations of the NSG Senate. Change is long overdue.

Accidentally deleted my post.

And how would that get people interested? What is there to roleplay? Are people going to be able to roleplay the happenings in their nation like their constituency? And then, isn't it redundant if we already are in a nation simulator called Nationstates? - There is no engagement to said nation either - people like being identified and arguing from their political beliefs first of all, which a nation cannot encompass as well. It was why the party system grew to be over 11 different parties and two coalitions in Aurentina, coalitions which were not static at all.

[Dragomerian Islands]

I believe that the NSG Senate would either do most efficiently in a UN based RP with players RPing as nations, or as a un-named nation with players given more RP room in their constituencies.

[Britanno]

I'm not going to say that the UN is the WA, but it certainly isn't the senate. The fundamental concept of the senate is what would happen if NS(G) ran a nation. I don't see how the UN could possibly be named the NSG Senate.

[Ikania]

I was in the senate for both Aurentina and Baltonia (oh the good old days) but I was totally inactive. Am I still allowed to vote?

[The New World Oceania]

I'm not going to say that the UN is the WA, but it certainly isn't the senate. The fundamental concept of the senate is what would happen if NS(G) ran a nation. I don't see how the UN could possibly be named the NSG Senate.

I beckon, what if NSG ran the world?

The comparison to the WA has to stop. They're demonstrably different systems; foremost, the UN emphasizes each roleplayer as a delegate of each nation — nations, on the other hand, are taking the place of parties, composed of multiple roleplayers, each a delegate. If anything, this allows more creativity on the very merit that nations with conflicting viewpoints, with further conflicting views within themselves, are far more engaging than the stamp-collecting process that killed not one, but three previous incarnations of the NSG Senate. Change is long overdue.

Accidentally deleted my post.

And how would that get people interested?

This is what was said when Dencaep started the first modern incarnation, and very likely what was said when the primary NSG Parliament was started back on Jolt.

What is there to roleplay?

Three chambers of debate, international relations and politics, monetary imbalances, international tensions, threat of terrorism, global instability, NGOs; crises, outbreaks, wars, recessions, depressions, secessions, collapses, revolutions, militancy; national conflicts, gridlock, competition, elections, party-politics, ideological clashing, federal issues, internal affairs, external management: take your pick.

Are people going to be able to roleplay the happenings in their nation like their constituency?

Yes, undoubtedly. There's nothing to stop it. That's the entire point, actually.

And then, isn't it redundant if we already are in a nation simulator called Nationstates?

No, because there's no international affair in the scripted game, and there is no conflict within a nation in the scripted game, and there is no roleplay in the scripted game, and you are the only player, playing with yourself, in the scripted game. The scripted game, much like Vestmark, s incredibly scripted and unsatisfying.

There is no engagement to said nation either - people like being identified and arguing from their political beliefs first of all,

And they still can, now on a greater stage with more engaging consequences.

which a nation cannot encompass as well.

And which a delegate, or a senator among senators from other nations, can encompass very well.

It was why the party system grew to be over 11 different parties

And why the Member State system would be managed by Admins so that there aren't eleven identical superpowers in the UN.

and two coalitions in Aurentina, coalitions which were not static at all.

You have an issue with the natural progression of coalitions and party-politics? Would you rather draft it out to the centimeter so everything fits into a flat, static "roleplay?"

[The Liberated Territories]

This is what was said when Dencaep started the first modern incarnation, and very likely what was said when the primary NSG Parliament was started back on Jolt.

No, I mean what would make people think this is any different from the stuff they can already roleplay? I could accomplish the same by allowing multiple people access my nation, do some of my issues, and roleplay in International Incidents the effects.

Three chambers of debate, international relations and politics, monetary imbalances, international tensions, threat of terrorism, global instability, NGOs; crises, outbreaks, wars, recessions, depressions, secessions, collapses, revolutions, militancy; national conflicts, gridlock, competition, elections, party-politics, ideological clashing, federal issues, internal affairs, external management: take your pick.

And all of that is in the Nation sim, except on a more manageable scale.

Yes, undoubtedly. There's nothing to stop it. That's the entire point, actually.

I can already see it. "This one policy caused our people massive starvation!" Holy shit that would kill the UN instantly.

No, because there's no international affair in the scripted game, and there is no conflict within a nation in the scripted game, and there is no roleplay in the scripted game, and you are the only player, playing with yourself, in the scripted game. The scripted game, much like Vestmark, s incredibly scripted and unsatisfying.

You can make do all of the above in the roleplaying part of the forums. I fail to see the difference between this, International Incidents, and the WA.

And they still can, now on a greater stage with more engaging consequences.

Who gets the power to roleplay out those consequences? Whereas in the senate we'd at the most start a riot, the UN would make people start wars!

And which a delegate, or a senator among senators from other nations, can encompass very well.

Sitting at an amphitheater like in Brussels, bickering like in the WA.

And why the Member State system would be managed by Admins so that there aren't eleven identical superpowers in the UN.

Uhuh. Because I would want my creativity limited by the Admins.

You have an issue with the natural progression of coalitions and party-politics? Would you rather draft it out to the centimeter so everything fits into a flat, static "roleplay?"

No. Reread what I said.

[The New World Oceania]

-rhetoric-

You're arguing exclusively moot points. The UN Compromise is not NS or the WA. I don't know what to tell you besides that, if you're so bent on the Vestmark you have individually planned every inch of, make a nation for it. That is what's identical to NS.

Because I would want my creativity limited by the Admins.

Even outright ignoring that the players' power to revoke an Admin from their seat, you're well aware that Admins already have to approve parties.

More accurately, you should accept that on three occasions, a nation has failed. This isn't a coincidence but an inevitable trend, and you'll be caught in and endless loop of reboots if we so decide. Shifting the NSG Senate to a more engaging, better managed setting is the only option for revival.

[The Liberated Territories]

-rhetoric-

You're arguing exclusively moot points. The UN Compromise is not NS or the WA. I don't know what to tell you besides that, if you're so bent on the Vestmark you have individually planned every inch of, make a nation for it. That is what's identical to NS.

Because I would want my creativity limited by the Admins.

Even outright ignoring that the players' power to revoke an Admin from their seat, you're well aware that Admins already have to approve parties.

More accurately, you should accept that on three occasions, a nation has failed. This isn't a coincidence but an inevitable trend, and you'll be caught in and endless loop of reboots if we so decide. Shifting the NSG Senate to a more engaging, better managed setting is the only option for revival.

It's the WA condensed. Admit it. The only real difference is arguing against other nations in a group than individually.

I would if some bastard didn't take the name before me and grew the population to several million.

Aurentina didn't fail. It ran strong for about 9 months and then slowly collapsed on itself. It was -highly- successful, and to be replicated.

We can do this again if we limit the powers of the admins while maintaining a fairly interesting and cohesive nation. Although I was first to put forward the idea of an Eastern European nation, I don't think anyone wanted the Swedish turd that was Baltonia. This reboot is precisely created to avoid that.

[Ikania]

I am a consistent advocate for the nation sim over the UN sim, if more than my bias towards my own creation - Vestmark. I believe that a UN would be too difficult, too bureaucratic, and too similar to the WA to go over well. If I wanted a UN simulator, I would of joined the WA (and suffered from it's idiotic "progressive" policies). Also, it would give people less power and roleplay creativity since the UN ambassadors would be more removed from the happenings of their country than individual senators, and will not be representing their own constituencies and have that freedom.

The comparison to the WA has to stop. They're demonstrably different systems; foremost, the UN emphasizes each roleplayer as a delegate of each nation — nations, on the other hand, are taking the place of parties, composed of multiple roleplayers, each a delegate. If anything, this allows more creativity on the very merit that nations with conflicting viewpoints, with further conflicting views within themselves, are far more engaging than the stamp-collecting process that killed not one, but three previous incarnations of the NSG Senate. Change is long overdue.

There were three? What was the third aside from Aurentina and Baltonia?

[Intermountain States]

The comparison to the WA has to stop. They're demonstrably different systems; foremost, the UN emphasizes each roleplayer as a delegate of each nation — nations, on the other hand, are taking the place of parties, composed of multiple roleplayers, each a delegate. If anything, this allows more creativity on the very merit that nations with conflicting viewpoints, with further conflicting views within themselves, are far more engaging than the stamp-collecting process that killed not one, but three previous incarnations of the NSG Senate. Change is long overdue.

There were three? What was the third aside from Aurentina and Baltonia?

I have no clue

[The New World Oceania]

You're arguing exclusively moot points. The UN Compromise is not NS or the WA. I don't know what to tell you besides that, if you're so bent on the Vestmark you have individually planned every inch of, make a nation for it. That is what's identical to NS.



Even outright ignoring that the players' power to revoke an Admin from their seat, you're well aware that Admins already have to approve parties.

More accurately, you should accept that on three occasions, a nation has failed. This isn't a coincidence but an inevitable trend, and you'll be caught in and endless loop of reboots if we so decide. Shifting the NSG Senate to a more engaging, better managed setting is the only option for revival.

It's the WA condensed. Admit it. The only real difference is arguing against other nations in a group than individually.

I would if some bastard didn't take the name before me and grew the population to several million.

Aurentina didn't fail. It ran strong for about 9 months and then slowly collapsed on itself. It was -highly- successful, and to be replicated.

We can do this again if we limit the powers of the admins while maintaining a fairly interesting and cohesive nation. Although I was first to put forward the idea of an Eastern European nation, I don't think anyone wanted the Swedish turd that was Baltonia. This reboot is precisely created to avoid that.

It collapsed. And it failed. Successes don't collapse — it had its successes; it did not succeed.

I can't keep up your baseless accusations that it's anything like the WA. That's like saying the NSG Senate is the WA on the scale of a nation. It's not. If it is, I wouldn't have an argument that it's not.

In opposition, you have not explained where it conceptually lacks nor offered evidence hat it would fail.

There were three? What was the third aside from Aurentina and Baltonia?

I have no clue

The NSG Parliament, Aurentina, and Baltonia. My apologies for not making that clearer earlier.

[Intermountain States]

It's the WA condensed. Admit it. The only real difference is arguing against other nations in a group than individually.

I would if some bastard didn't take the name before me and grew the population to several million.

Aurentina didn't fail. It ran strong for about 9 months and then slowly collapsed on itself. It was -highly- successful, and to be replicated.

We can do this again if we limit the powers of the admins while maintaining a fairly interesting and cohesive nation. Although I was first to put forward the idea of an Eastern European nation, I don't think anyone wanted the Swedish turd that was Baltonia. This reboot is precisely created to avoid that.

It collapsed. And it failed. Successes don't collapse — it had its successes; it did not succeed.

I can't keep up your baseless accusations that it's anything like the WA. That's like saying the NSG Senate is the WA on the scale of a nation. It's not. If it is, I wouldn't have an argument that it's not.

In opposition, you have not explained where it conceptually lacks nor offered evidence hat it would fail.

I have no clue

The NSG Parliament, Aurentina, and Baltonia. My apologies for not making that clearer earlier.

We had NSG Parliament?

[The New World Oceania]

We had NSG Parliament?

Jolt. Our founder was just a young'n.

[The Liberated Territories]

It's the WA condensed. Admit it. The only real difference is arguing against other nations in a group than individually.

I would if some bastard didn't take the name before me and grew the population to several million.

Aurentina didn't fail. It ran strong for about 9 months and then slowly collapsed on itself. It was -highly- successful, and to be replicated.

We can do this again if we limit the powers of the admins while maintaining a fairly interesting and cohesive nation. Although I was first to put forward the idea of an Eastern European nation, I don't think anyone wanted the Swedish turd that was Baltonia. This reboot is precisely created to avoid that.

It collapsed. And it failed. Successes don't collapse — it had its successes; it did not succeed.

I can't keep up your baseless accusations that it's anything like the WA. That's like saying the NSG Senate is the WA on the scale of a nation. It's not. If it is, I wouldn't have an argument that it's not.

In opposition, you have not explained where it conceptually lacks nor offered evidence hat it would fail.

I have no clue

The NSG Parliament, Aurentina, and Baltonia. My apologies for not making that clearer earlier.

You are acting as a nation's delegate - just like the WA.
You are roleplaying as a nation - just like in International Incidents, which can be connected to the WA through condemnations and etc.
You can propose policies - just like the WA.
You can go to war, again just like II which may affect the WA.
You can form "coalitions" (voting blocs) just like in the WA.

"Aurentina was a failure." Sure, tell anyone that in the middle of August of 2013 that it was a failure and you'd be laughed at. Even in February, it was going strong enough to make it NOT a failure. The biggest problem was that we weren't recruiting anymore people and the same old, same old happened. A crash isn't a failure. Was the Alamo a failure because the Americans failed to secure it? No.

[The New World Oceania]

You are acting as a nation's delegate - just like the WA.
You are roleplaying as a nation - just like in International Incidents, which can be connected to the WA through condemnations and etc.
You can propose policies - just like the WA.
You can go to war, again just like II which may affect the WA.
You can form "coalitions" (voting blocs) just like in the WA.

WA players act as entire nations.
You're roleplaying as a delegate, not a nation.
Okay? You can propose policies in the NSG City Council, do you have a point to make?
We're not going to bash into war willy-nilly. You are literally arguing against an egregiously false interpretation of something no one has suggested and pretending it's the multi-national system.
O k a y ?

Aurentina ended. You seem to be making it clear that you're totally okay with having an incarnation that can't be sustained, in which case you're correct in that we should just repeat what we've been doing.

[Maklohi Vai]

NWO, it's preposterous to suggest that the only way to qualify a perpetually moving event as a success is to have it last forever. The goal of this RP is not to make one situation or iteration last forever, it's just to roleplay a legislative body. Aurentina and Baltonia were both successes, albeit at very different levels, in that regard. Yes, we should be aiming for a long-lasting iteration, but saying that we failed because we're not still going doesn't help.

I was in the senate for both Aurentina and Baltonia (oh the good old days) but I was totally inactive. Am I still allowed to vote?

Yes.