The South Pacific

The key problem with the existing two proposed structures is, I believe, the failure to realize that the expansion of legislative power to segments of the non-forum community requires more general and wide ranging alterations to our laws than merely altering the specific segments dealing with the Assembly. I worked from the following principals;


1. Whilst elements of the non-forum community should be inducted into the legislature, the regions citizenry should retain primacy
2. All possible measures to minimize the risk of fraud or manipulation of the in-game vote must be taken, even if it necessitates more limited induction
3. Powers should be primarily vested in the legislature, not the executive
4. Means must exist for the citizenry to act without the non-forum community in extraordinary sitautions

As such, I propose the following;

1. A bicameral legislature consisting of;
   a. An Assembly consisting of all citizens and all influential WA Nations, with legislative initiative
   b. A Senate consisting of seven elected citizens, replacing the CSS and Court, without legislative initiative
2. That citizen and Influential WA Nation votes in the Assembly be of equal weight, with voting via both forms allowed
3. That the right to elect and recall officials remain limited to citizens 
4. That the Senate be required to confirm passage of Assembly legislation, with a Senate veto overturnable via a supermajority
5. That the Chair of the Assembly may allow the Senate to vote on a matter without prior Assembly approval under extraordinary circumstances
6. That the existing CSS, Court and Vice-Delegacy be merged into the new Senate; with the Senators selecting one of their own to serve as Vice-Delegate and the others maintaining high endorsement count like the present CSS - the Senate is to serve combined Security, Judicial and Legislative purposes - Senators could not hold cabinet office
7. Complete revision of the bill of rights, criminal code, and penal code, which are all less than comprehensive

If there is a reasonable amount of interest in my proposed structure I will draw up draft versions of the Charter and Code of Laws with the proposed alterations. As is clear, it reflects my previously expressed preference for a bicameral legislature with a quasi-judicial/security upper chamber functioning as a "council of elders". It also ends the change to electing a Delegate/Vice-Delegate on the same ticket, which I believe was a mistake. The requirement for influential WA nations may seem harsh, but it is the only option that could not be abused on 12 hours notice.

I'm open to questions, queries, suggestions and lynch mobs.

I still believe granting legislative authority to the RMB will result in the breakdown among both communities. I don't think both can co-exist peacefully, while the functions of this (forum) community are devolved to the RMB community, as there will always been tension between one or the other wanting more effective authority. As elsewhere, I'm having trouble seeing where the line is drawn on how much is devolved to the game-side. I'm not sure how that line is drawn without being "patronizing" and remaining consistent with the rhetoric and stated purposes and reasons for devolution in the first place.

This is a pill I would still choke a little on, because I still so no reason why we're starting from the premise that the RMB community must have legislative authority. By keeping both communities under the same chamber, the tension effects above are dampened somewhat, but I'm pessimistic that similar flaws won't still exist.

I'm just not a fan of splitting up where legislative functions are actually conducted. If there was a way to seamlessly allow Influential WA nations in TSP to come to the forums and vote, that's something I think we could consider, because it keeps legislative functions where they make the most sense to conduct. But as far as I know, there's no efficient way to make that happen. Either the NS developers would need to completely overhaul the RMB to make it more similar to a modern forum (and we would move everything there), or somebody would have to write a plugin for our forums that automatically checks the qualifications of somebody trying to register. I'm sure the latter could be done, but I'm not sure I have the skill to do so in a short timetable (or if the NS API even has those calls at all).

The Senate idea is interesting, and it's been one you've floated around before. I'm not sure that it makes sense to get rid of the CSS in favor of it, or if it's really acceptable to have a body with so much jurisdiction and power. I think it's an interesting idea worth debating during the next phase of the Great Council. Not sure it's a cohesive part of the debate occurring here, though. Same thing with rewriting the bill of rights and penal codes, though I agree that will need to be done if any form of "bicameral" legislature is adopted. We will have to grapple with old customs and how to alter them to make our penal system apply to game-side quasi-citizens.

I don't really like this idea. It's just too big a change in such a short space of time and it is a change on our security and how we are governed. I can't really place my trust in it.

We cannot simply fundamentally change the nature of our legislature without revising our laws and institutions more broadly. What I set out may not to be everyone's taste, and I felt it necessary to give a legislative role to the Senate I hadn't previously envisioned it possessing to provide an emergency means of taking quick action not possible anymore with an "integrated" Assembly, but reforms on this scale would be required to make the integration possible.

I agree with you that we would need to rewrite pretty much everything. The Senate idea just seems tacked on, like the proposal could work the same without it by just allowing the forum-based Assembly to take action itself without Senate approval. Having a Senate is something I've thought of ever since you ran on it a couple years ago. But there's a lot of components to this alternative, and maybe some of them should be debated individually.

Yes! I always wanted a senate! But why dissolve the CSS and Court? I care more about a dissolution of the Court than of the CSS, but why?

And leaving the vote to citizens and influential WA members...Great idea! Our enemies just will not waste all that time into getting so much influence in their puppets! That way, our voting is not rigged! Great work, Belschaft!
(Sorry for exclaiming so much).

This might be a suitable solution.
Might.

I'm really worried that this Senate would be too powerful as an institution. This proposal could work just as fine without the Senate, in its original structure at least.

Honestly, dissolving the CSS and the High Court doesn't sit well with me at all.

(01-15-2015, 06:46 PM)TAC Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, dissolving the CSS and the High Court doesn't sit well with me at all.

Same here. The CSS in particular is one of the more important positions, even on the RMB.