[DRAFT] Founding the G20

[Kranostav]

I could see this being increasingly relevant in a world where the current changes proposed in technical come to fruition, but I'd suggest drafting is revisited when that is rolled out. Lest we create something that wont properly address the gamestate of NS.

[Unibot III]

This will never pass because of the complexity of the idea.

Not true. It won’t pass because people will look at who is pushing this, whose original idea this is and refuse to touch it with a 10 foot barge pole.

I’ve been clear from the beginning that I have no intention of being involved with the organization of this forum, I’ve put together a text as a proof of concept and solicited feedback. I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire text is dropped or changed as major regions engage with the idea.

Generally speaking: it’s been a fairly positive response from potential member-regions, but lacking in initiative from possible organizers.

I’ll be happy to move along as others step in to take the idea and build on it. I haven’t heard of folks prejudicing the idea because it initially came from me — the reality is there is a need for it, it’s something that has been missing for a long time in NS, it may increasingly become more needed even, and the idea isn’t exactly my creative product (the G20 is a RL org).

If you’re interested in playing a lead role on the G20 launch, feel free to let me know btw! (The best way to ensure I’m not involved in the initiative is to take a lead role yourself in organizing it! )

I could see this being increasingly relevant in a world where the current changes proposed in technical come to fruition, but I'd suggest drafting is revisited when that is rolled out. Lest we create something that wont properly address the gamestate of NS.

You might be on to something! The Frontier proposal could fundamentally shake up UCR-GCR relations, especially.

[Quebecshire]

Opposed due to the author. Not planning on commenting further so long as the current author is spearheading the initiative.

[Tinhampton]

Opposed due to the author. Not planning on commenting further so long as the current author is spearheading the initiative.

Unibot moved to a region called "The End" a few months ago and has resigned WA status.

[Quebecshire]

Opposed due to the author. Not planning on commenting further so long as the current author is spearheading the initiative.

Unibot moved to a region called "The End" a few months ago and has resigned WA status.

And? As long as he's the one pushing it in the thread and otherwise spearheading it, I'm not giving it further time of day.

I know you live for weak gotcha attempts, but c'mon, Tin.

[Unibot III]

Opposed due to the author. Not planning on commenting further so long as the current author is spearheading the initiative.

If you’re interesting in helping to spearhead the idea, I can point you in the direction of others who have said they would join in on planning, execution etc.

(There may also be plans to launch a G20 that I’m unaware of! I’m often out of the loop!)

The transition to a new author and organizer depends ultimately on the initiative of others at this point. The proof of concept is complete. I can bump this thread. I can send out invites to possible authors. But my work is more or less done here. However, I can’t completely step away until people who have an interest in carrying forth with the G20 proposal take on an active organizing role.

I think I’ve been pretty clear from the start of this thread that my participation ends when the participation of others begins. I’ve been around NS long enough to see good ideas — that everyone generally like — get forgotten because of inaction. I hope you appreciate this dilemma, Quebecshire, and if you want to help make a G20 happen, I would be more than happy to step aside and let you and other interested parties make it happen (indeed, that’s the only way this will work!).

[Porde]

Why do we form G20 only with delegates?

[Unibot III]

Why do we form G20 only with delegates?

The size of the region is based off WA Delegate endorsements to cut out puppet farms & discount the use of puppets to plump up numbers.

[Unibot III]

Because my telegram box was being just flooded with requests for me to update the list of proposed G20 regions based on the new January 1st 2022 Daily Dump, I've taken the liberty of parsing out the new list from the XML.

There is a tie present in the new 2022 G20 list, so both Lands End and Karma would become members. CoCD and Anteria are out. Forest, Cape of Good Hope, and Lands End are in.

1. The North Pacific 942
2. the South Pacific 788
3. The East Pacific 745
4. the West Pacific 511
5. The Communist Bloc 508
6. the Pacific 466
7. 10000 Islands 432
8. Europe 413
9. Conch Kingdom 288
10. Balder 281
11. Europeia 257
12. Lazarus 243
13. the Rejected Realms 213
14. Osiris 197
15. The Leftist Assembly 163
16. Thaecia 152
17. The Free Nations Region 147
18. Forest 127
19. Cape of Good Hope 122
20. Karma 119
21. Lands End 119
22. + URA

Karma would still be the next (i.e., first) scheduled host.

Karma
Europe
Forest
Thaecia
10000 Islands
The Communist Bloc
URA
the Rejected Realms
Europeia
The Leftist Assembly
Conch Kingdom
Lands End
the West Pacific
Osiris
The North Pacific
The Free Nations Region
Cape of Good Hope
Balder
the South Pacific
Lazarus
the Pacific
The East Pacific

What is the status for this proposal? I've spoken to two great authors who initially committed to redrafting and submitting the proposal in a different form, but they had to back out due to other RL time commitments. One lovely person got themselves DoS'd. Another author volunteered but kind of went AWOL. Major regions appear to be interested in the idea, but waiting for someone to do the legwork and advance it forward. If you're interested in pursuing the idea or significantly redrafting or whatever, you're welcome to get in touch, or don't and just go forth with your own plans. I have no intention of submitting the resolution, but I've prepared this draft as a proof of concept.

[Great Algerstonia]

This is nothing more than a flex.

Because my telegram box was being just flooded with requests for me to update the list of proposed G20 regions based on the new January 1st 2022 Daily Dump

No, it hasn't.

[Apatosaurus]

feedback

The Group of Twenty (G20)
Category: Declaration | Authored by: Coffee mostly

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the need for a series of regular intergovernmental forums to facilitate discussions between world powers on current events and international challenges,

Believing that the international recognition and codification of these forums will help ensure structure, continuity, and adoption, and

Cognizant of the importance of giving special voice to smaller regions internationally in recognition of the contributions they make to NationStates and the international community-at-large,

Hereby declares: declares the following.

Article 1: Membership

1. The Group of Twenty (G20) shall include the twenty regions with the most highly endorsed WA delegates in NationStates on January 1st of the current year.
   
2. In the event of a tie, all qualifying regions will form the G20 for that year.
   
3. The G20 shall also include special membership, with full voting and hosting rights, to the United Regions Alliance (URA) and may elect only by a two-thirds decision to revoke this membership and/or confer this membership to a different region or organization. Why the URA specifically? What about other blocs like WALL or PfS? And also, what if the URA collapses? Would this have to be repealed?

What I didn't quote here is all fine and I have no feedback on :P

[Andusre]

Ok I realise this is gonna look super shady of me because of my own personal feelings towards the AA, and not gonna lie it kinda is. Just being honest.

But if this absolutely must become a thing, I'd far rather the AA was put in a group like the URA is. The AA regions are way more strongly interlinked than the URA regions are, they're literally just larger regions - and as a result they're taking up more space in the prospective G20 than they do in actual GP. You'd free up 2 more spaces for regions that otherwise would be excluded by what is effectively a huge monolith of pretty insular RP regions.

[Quebecshire]

Ok I realise this is gonna look super shady of me because of my own personal feelings towards the AA, and not gonna lie it kinda is. Just being honest.

But if this absolutely must become a thing, I'd far rather the AA was put in a group like the URA is. The AA regions are way more strongly interlinked than the URA regions are, they're literally just larger regions - and as a result they're taking up more space in the prospective G20 than they do in actual GP. You'd free up 2 more spaces for regions that otherwise would be excluded by what is effectively a huge monolith of pretty insular RP regions.

I could not agree more. It is irrational to me that we would let an organization with a unified Discord server and a single founder that has shown his ability to silence or puppeteer the region's governments have multiple seats at this event. Honestly, I might go as far as to say the AA should fall within the URA for this, since they control a majority of the URA's internal voting system, last I checked.

[Unibot III]

This is nothing more than a flex.

Because my telegram box was being just flooded with requests for me to update the list of proposed G20 regions based on the new January 1st 2022 Daily Dump

No, it hasn't.

It was a joke. No one sends me shit.

@Apatosaurus: I like your edits, I’ll make those changes.

@Andurse & Apatosaurus: The inclusion of the URA was deemed a political necessity by many people more politically aware than me when this draft was originally made.

Essentially, the arrangement was a response to a strong anti-GCR sentiment; the inclusion of a “small UCRs” org was regarded as a way to ensure small UCRs would have a voice at the table permanently. It’s possible the geopolitical mood has since changed or URA has declined in stature, requiring the draft to adapt to a new environment.

As I’ve been an involuntary recluse for six years now, I’m about as insightful in these matters as Captain America after he was frozen in an iceberg. I believe URA was preferred over WALL/PoS/AA as it’s a collection of smaller UCRs, with no GCRs present, and not associated with one personality (August), and the URA had a bit of an activist bent (pro-UCR).

The way the current clause works is that players can use the procedure it lays out to assign URA’s seat to another power by a new vote, without repealing this initial founding resolution.

However, it may be deemed by whoever submits this eventually to handle the issue differently or have a different org listed. I’m personally flexible on it, I included it to respond to a groundswell of opinion at the time. I should add the best way to ensure the draft reflects how you think it should be done is to rewrite it and submit it yourself.

I could not agree more. It is irrational to me that we would let an organization with a unified Discord server and a single founder that has shown his ability to silence or puppeteer the region's governments have multiple seats at this event. Honestly, I might go as far as to say the AA should fall within the URA for this, since they control a majority of the URA's internal voting system, last I checked.

If the URA is that compromised by the inclusion of the AA regions, it may indeed be best not to use the URA in the resolution in the way that was popularized last year. As that’s, as you’ve said, multiple votes for AA in addition to a pseudo-vote through URA.

I should emphasize I don’t really know August, or AA, or URA.

From time to time, people have complained about the independence of various GCRs and UCRs, I don’t think it’d be fair to single AA out permanently for that in this resolution, but I could see the reasoning in changing the URA clause as a result of this, choosing a different org, or dropping the notion altogether.

[Astrobolt]

For obvious reasons, which I will not go into here, this is dead on arrival.

[Unibot III]

For obvious reasons, which I will not go into here, this is dead on arrival.

If you want to take a stab at the idea and take it in a different direction disassociated from me, be my guest. I’ve been quite clear I’m not going to claim royalties.