NATION

PASSWORD

Government Style Support Systems

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Rancilia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Jul 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Government Style Support Systems

Postby Rancilia » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:02 pm

I was wondering if anyone would want to start a bureau for each system of government. I mean that fo the democrats, they support the democratic bureau, and the communists support the communist bureau( Not as in reference to the Cold War, but there can be as many different bureaus as there are systems of government). So, if you like the idea please comment, and if it's popular, I'll try and pass it as a proposal.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:15 pm

Rancilia wrote:I was wondering if anyone would want to start a bureau for each system of government. I mean that fo the democrats, they support the democratic bureau, and the communists support the communist bureau( Not as in reference to the Cold War, but there can be as many different bureaus as there are systems of government). So, if you like the idea please comment, and if it's popular, I'll try and pass it as a proposal.


:blink:

Umm.... We were always under the impression that it was one function of the WA to bring disparate political and economic systems in the various nations together, not seperate them into individual groupings.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Rancilia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Jul 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rancilia » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:12 pm

Well, what I meant was that since there's nations of the same government type in each region, maybe all of the democrats, for example, would want to express their ideas to the "independent" nations, who choose not to be either, or maybe a group of imperialitsic nations would ban together to show their ideas. What I'm saying is that there would be like a federation for each government type. A few examples would be The Democratic Federation, The Communist Federation, The Theocratic Federation, so on and so forth. It would just be the people speaking for what they believe in.

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:19 pm

How exactly would you have the World Assembly implement this idea? And to what purpose? Couldn't like-minded nations already do this without World Assembly involvement?
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:19 pm

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:How exactly would you have the World Assembly implement this idea? And to what purpose? Couldn't like-minded nations already do this without World Assembly involvement?

Considering how many groups we had back in the UN days (NSO, the Int-Fed group, DEFCON, FAIRTRADE, etc.) I'd say you've hit the nail on the head.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:43 pm

Mandated Alliances. One more reason We would be very much against this idea. Just because my nation is a Monarchy, it does not automatically follow that we would care to be associated with each and every other Monarchy out there.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Enn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1228
Founded: Jan 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Enn » Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:50 am

Um. I very strongly doubt there are many other Triumvirates out there. And the Triumvirate of Enn is (currently, although likely to change as a result of an upcoming referendum) composed of one autocrat, one indirectly elected member of the People's Assembly, and one judge. Where the hell would we fit?

~ Stephanie Fulton, of Enn
I know what gay science is.
Reploid Productions wrote:The World Assembly as a whole terrifies me!
Pythagosaurus wrote:You are seriously deluded about the technical competence of the average human.

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:34 am

Quite. As a monarchic democracy, we would feel somewhat uncomfortable lumped in with the more common style of monarchy, and very unhappy indeed to be associated with purer democracies.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Rancilia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Jul 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rancilia » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:54 am

What I meant was that you don't have to join the federation your government style falls into. If you believe that your not a pure democrat ( As one said), then you don't have to be part of that federation. secondly, the federations wouldn't choose how their nations involved would be run. it would just oversee the ideas of the different nations in each federation that would help improve their societies.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:02 am

Then this would only create multiple layers of new bureaucracy. hoo-rah.

If nations want to join together in alliances, conclaves, coven, whatever.... let them, thats their right.

THE WA DOES NOT NEED TO MANDATE IT
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Rancilia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Jul 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rancilia » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:06 am

Actually, I believe that if the WA does not mandate it it is therefore not an official practice in NationStates, so maybe if they want to create an alliance, conclave, federation or anything, I believe that it has to be a passed resolution by the WA.

User avatar
Rancilia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Jul 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rancilia » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:10 am

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:How exactly would you have the World Assembly implement this idea? And to what purpose? Couldn't like-minded nations already do this without World Assembly involvement?

If nations wanted to start a federation, then they'd try and get a proposal passed to start the federation, then the nations would elect leaders, and discuss different ideas within the federation and try to spread their style of government to the "newcomers" in NationStates.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20835
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:21 am

Rancilia wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:How exactly would you have the World Assembly implement this idea? And to what purpose? Couldn't like-minded nations already do this without World Assembly involvement?

If nations wanted to start a federation, then they'd try and get a proposal passed to start the federation, then the nations would elect leaders, and discuss different ideas within the federation and try to spread their style of government to the "newcomers" in NationStates.

OOC: That would be 'illegal', because all WA resolutions have to affect (at least potentially) ALL of the member nations rather than (for example) those that have some specific form of government.
Last edited by Bears Armed on Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Rancilia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Jul 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rancilia » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:24 am

Well, in that sense your correct. But, the resolution I'm talking about is when world assembly nations meet each other in the forums and decide to either let the federation be created or not.
Last edited by Rancilia on Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:16 am

Rancilia wrote:Actually, I believe that if the WA does not mandate it it is therefore not an official practice in NationStates, so maybe if they want to create an alliance, conclave, federation or anything, I believe that it has to be a passed resolution by the WA.

You believe incorrectly. If the WA does not mandate it, it is not an official WA practice. That does not make it any less real, nor do the sorts of alliance you seem to be advocating have a great deal of relevance to the functioning of the WA.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Enn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1228
Founded: Jan 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Enn » Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:41 pm

Rancilia wrote:Actually, I believe that if the WA does not mandate it it is therefore not an official practice in NationStates, so maybe if they want to create an alliance, conclave, federation or anything, I believe that it has to be a passed resolution by the WA.

Absolutely not true. Enn has been a member of the National Sovereignty Organisation, the Green Think Tank and the ill-fated Pretenama Panel. It's also a member of the United Nations Old Guard, and (at the regional level) is the current delegate of the International Democratic Union, which I suppose you could call an alliance of democracies.

Of these, only the Pretenama Panel had anything explicitly to do with (then) NSUN resolutions, the EON Convention and Humanitarian Intervention. The others were/are all groupings of (to a degree) like-minded people/nations pushing for particular ideas.

Claiming that alliances need to be done through the WA would get you laughed out of II, as well.
I know what gay science is.
Reploid Productions wrote:The World Assembly as a whole terrifies me!
Pythagosaurus wrote:You are seriously deluded about the technical competence of the average human.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:21 am

Rancilia wrote:Well, in that sense your correct. But, the resolution I'm talking about is when world assembly nations meet each other in the forums and decide to either let the federation be created or not.


Then why in the name of all the saints and little fishes do you believe the WA is needed to mandate federations between nations when this is something that is already going on on a voluntary basis? This is nothing more than a proposal for the sake of submitting a proposal.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6999
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Hirota » Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:19 am

Rancilia wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:How exactly would you have the World Assembly implement this idea? And to what purpose? Couldn't like-minded nations already do this without World Assembly involvement?

If nations wanted to start a federation, then they'd try and get a proposal passed to start the federation, then the nations would elect leaders, and discuss different ideas within the federation and try to spread their style of government to the "newcomers" in NationStates.
If you are looking at making "federations" part of the game, this is illegal as game mechanics.

If you want to encourage the spread of federations as off-site groups, there is no need to legislate on this as plenty exist already.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Moubarakistan
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Apr 19, 2009
Ex-Nation

!!!!

Postby Moubarakistan » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:21 am

it is really nice to seek for a certain unification between countries having same government types but I don;t think it is wise to create bureaus because your government type change after answering a certain number of issues so REGIONS are more than enough

User avatar
Rancilia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Jul 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rancilia » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:08 pm

Yes, but you can keep the type of government you have if you keep making the right decisions.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:23 pm

Rancilia wrote:Yes, but you can keep the type of government you have if you keep making the right decisions.


Brikkel looked up from his novel, "Which has little or no bearing on the current debate. Mandating 'federations' is a bad idea, one whicch really needs to be locked away and forgotten. Soon."
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Ilharessa
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 155
Founded: Nov 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ilharessa » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:55 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Rancilia wrote:Yes, but you can keep the type of government you have if you keep making the right decisions.


Brikkel looked up from his novel, "Which has little or no bearing on the current debate. Mandating 'federations' is a bad idea, one whicch really needs to be locked away and forgotten. Soon."


"I do not know that is such a good idea," Velnayanis said. "Given what you oldtimers say, it seems every bad idea that you lock away and forget about ends up escaping to haunt you at some future date. Perhaps, instead, we could lock the bad idea away in a cage and put it on display? We could start a bad ideas zoo and charge people admission to see it. Plus, if they're locked in cages, they certainly are not out and about terrorising ambassadors."

User avatar
A mean old man
Senator
 
Posts: 4383
Founded: Jun 27, 2008
Father Knows Best State

Postby A mean old man » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:58 pm

As has already been stated, this idea is already catered to by the countless player-made organizations in NationStates.

EDIT: In fact, I think your idea of existing but not obligational-alliance-to-any-particular in-game alliances to join based on political (or social as well, in this case) beliefs is already taken care of by the existence of regions.
Last edited by A mean old man on Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
A: SC#16 - Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"
A: SC#26 - Commend The Joint Systems Alliance
A: SC#30 - Commend 10000 Islands
A: SC#37 - Condemn NAZI EUROPE
A: SC#38 - Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"
A: GA#149 - On Expiration Dates
C: SC#58 - Repeal "Commend Sedgistan"
A: SC#62 - Repeal "Condemn Swarmlandia"
C: SC#63 - Commend Ballotonia
A: SC#65 - Condemn Punk Reloaded
C: GA#163 - Repeal "Law of the Sea"
A: SC#72 - Repeal "Commend Mikeswill"
C: SC#74 - Condemn Lone Wolves United
C: SC#76 - Repeal "Condemn Thatcherton"
A: SC#81 - Repeal "Condemn Anthony Delasanta"
C: SC#83 - Condemn Automagfreek
C: SC#84 - Repeal "Liberate Islam"
C: SC#111 - Commend Krulltopia ← please forget

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:33 pm

A mean old man wrote:As has already been stated, this idea is already catered to by the countless player-made organizations in NationStates.

EDIT: In fact, I think your idea of existing but not obligational-alliance-to-any-particular in-game alliances to join based on political (or social as well, in this case) beliefs is already taken care of by the existence of regions.


OOC - Not always true. My own region, for example, has a long history of having a very diverse population and fair well every type of government known. We do not require that only one philosophy be followed, and we have all managed to get along nicely for 7 years now.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads