Embassy of the South Pacific

[Canton Empire]

This should be taken with a grain of salt, considering this comes from the NPO

What does that mean?

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

[Pierconium]

What does that mean?

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.

[Canton Empire]

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.

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

[Pierconium]

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

Checks and balances are not the same thing as a blanket statement of removing the Delegate as part of the offsite government apparatus.

[Consular]

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

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.

[Zaolat]

Canton is obsessed with Direct Democracy, Representative, or at least a combination of the two. Anything which does not adhere to that will face his ire and complaints of his distaste.

I'd advise to heed it no attention and carry on.

[Unibot III]

I disagree with Pierconium's reasoning, the means to administer policy does not necessarily require a role in the decision-making behind a policy provided there are means to hold those deciding policy accountable for their leadership; this is a principle that marks the basis for responsible government, civil service and it's been the governing rationale for western bureaucracy for well over a hundred years with its roots in Imperial China.

Arguing that delegates would ignore the word of the Assembly and the Prime Minister if divorced from the legislative and executive spheres is a moot point. We've been told this "nugget of wisdom" from past NS generations on the basis of a disastrous experiment with separated powers in TNP but the truth is delegates, whether they are the chief executive or not, have time and time again usurped legislative powers!

The South Pacific has been couped, not by one delegate, but two delegates: Milograd and Hileville. Quite a lot of the current problems facing the South Pacific have nothing to do with laws or the political system at all (I would contend a constitutional convention, while needed, probably won't change much in terms of TSP's stability), it's just a matter of personalities.

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. That image could be extremely damaging to the stability of the Coalition. "Why does every other GCR have a new delegate every few months?" is a tricky complaint to answer without suggesting the South Pacific is somehow at more risk to rogue delegates than the North Pacific or Lazarus or Osiris (all of whom have had rogue delegates - some multiple cases.)

[Warzone Codger]

Or we could have a caretaker delegate in the true sense of the word, a delegate only there to hold the position but otherwise be absent from any regional decision making and the government abolishes the delegate as a political position once and for all.



Aka ...#peacezone2k16

[Cormac Stark]

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.

[McMasterdonia]

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.

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.

[Canton Empire]

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.

It's a rebellion against the people. We just saw that a delegate can rebel against a legitimate government.
@Zaolat: Guilty as charged, I suppose, but that doesn't mean that I am ignorant to other forms of government.

[Cormac Stark]

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.

[McMasterdonia]

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.

Fair enough. Definitely agree that a more difficult system would not be a better alternative.

[Pierconium]

The problem with separation is that there is no direct game-related impetus to join the offsite if the government of the offsite is completely apart from the ingame reality. If you want to have a RP-only region then so be it, but if you ignore the Delegate in a GCR are you actually still playing NationStates or are you just taking part in an offsite community that has no actual relevance to the game?

Contrary to some of the points made above, I still maintain that incorporating the ingame aspects onto the offsite platform is the best option. No, I do not believe the system that we have cultivated in the Pacific over the last 12.5 years to be the best fit for all of the feeders, but I do believe that ignoring the onsite Delegate is simply asking for a 'rogue' Delegate to take form if only from the frustration of being ignored.

Also, if the Delegacy is completely separated from the offsite, how would one even define a 'rogue' Delegate? The offsite community would not depend on who was Delegate and would not even depend on being present within the region, which goes back to the question of whether or not you would even still be playing NationStates at that point.

Similar institutions have worked on a smaller scale in UCRs. The Meritocratic Senate comes to mind as a good example. But that region had a Founder and World Assembly (UN at the time) membership was forbidden, thereby making the onsite moot. And again, it was largely RP based and I honestly felt at many points as if we were not actually part of the NS-verse when there (unfortunately certain parties *coughs*ADN*coughs* couldn't grasp the concept and pushed it to breaking point).

Regardless of all of this, if you ignore the onsite then you are just asking for problems down the road, in my opinion.

[Kringalia]

That depends on who you elect as Delegate.

[Pierconium]

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.

[Icecream Princess]

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.

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.

[McMasterdonia]

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.

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

[Belschaft]

Historically TSP used a system with a separate Head of State and Head of Government between 2003 and 2009, and it was an effective model for the region.

[Kringalia]

Better solution. We get an inanimate lampshade and appoint it Emperor of the South Pacific.

[Icecream Princess]

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

I'm really not the one who calls the political shots however. I have no power over the Statsminister and the Storting who do what they wish. What I do do, is provide advice and in particular try to build community and add people to the region. There is also no reason for the Statsminister to send me demands as I play an apolitical role. I couldn't even get a SM recalled, that is totally up to the Storting. The more the SM and the cabinet does on its own, the happier I am. The ultimate goal in this system would be that the SM is more like Europeia's President. Although in this system of constitutional monarchy it means I would never be able to be SM unlike how in Euro, HEM could be President.

It's still developing of course politically, which is why the SM is likely not seen as a dominant figure but it keeps improving and each term should see more dominance from the SM position and his cabinet.

I thought it'd be funny to sow seeds of doubt if I was Rach or not

[Belschaft]

Better solution. We get an inanimate lampshade and appoint it Emperor of the South Pacific.

Hmm... that is an appealing idea.

[Pierconium]

Better solution. We get an inanimate lampshade and appoint it Emperor of the South Pacific.

That would be a better solution than the one being proposed.

[Ayvari]

Better solution. We get an inanimate lampshade and appoint it Emperor of the South Pacific.

Will the lampshade have drama llamas on it?

[Kringalia]

It might be filled with SPIT*.

*South Pacific Iced Tea.