Call me stupid (and I'll be honest I'm not looking _really_ close) but what charter amendment is needed!?

Reply

It's a complete reimagining of the whole foundation of government. It allows legislators to flow from an unlimited number of separate regions. All these separate regions are bound by a Charter that's written with only The South Pacific in mind. How is Colony Alpha being bound by Article IV-X of the Charter? How does Article 2.2 of this bill work in the context of the Charter-- how does a local colonial government create its own governing structure while "they remain subordinate to and do not contradict [the structures and laws] of the South Pacific as stipulated in the Charter"?

We can't just create this weird pseudo-colonial system, where colonies are separate but also not, have their own systems but also members of the Assembly, etc., and expect our current Charter to work with it all. Our Charter was only written with a single region in mind.

Reply

Going to have to agree with Glen regarding Charter amendments.

I'm also unsure about turning regions founded for specific purposes by the South Pacific into colonies with any degree of autonomy. Take Knowhere and Versailles Isle, for example. The entire purpose of Knowhere is to give TSP's RMB posters somewhere they can RP and spam. The entire purpose of Versailles Isle is to give the SPSF a jump point. If we let these regions develop local governments, what happens if the government of Knowhere decides it no longer wants our RMB spam, or the government of Versailles Isle decides it no longer wants the SPSF jumping from Versailles Isle? What if they secede? Sure, we could found new regions for the same purposes, but there is nothing to prevent them from doing the same thing.

It makes more sense, if we're going to legislate them at all, for regions founded for specific purposes to be regarded as protectorates, i.e., regions under the care of the South Pacific with no autonomy. If we're going to have semi-autonomous colonies -- which in my mind is still a big if -- they should be pre-existing regions that voluntarily choose to become colonies. Regions founded for specific purposes by the South Pacific, like RP/spam regions and jump points, don't need local governments or even permanent residents. They're just regions that exist to facilitate specific, necessary purposes; they're puppet regions, if you will, not real regions with real residents. Creating local governments in such regions is bound to just complicate the purposes they exist to serve.

I'm also really uncomfortable with calling any region a colony. There has to be a better word that doesn't make me feel like I'm in The LKE.

(This post was last modified: 03-24-2017, 11:29 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

OK, I have to honest, because I've been thinking this for a while, and it seems nobody else has said it.

I'm with Cormac in that I feel very uncomfortable about the region having colonies. We are a region whose aim should be to achieve internal improvement, not external expansion.

Where Cormac and I differ is that I don't consider the issue of semi-autonomous colonies an if. I really feel that having regions subordinate to the South Pacific, whatever you call them, and however voluntarily they might have joined, is contrary to who we are as a region. We shouldn't have to have superiority or control over other regions, however benevolent that control might be.

It feels wrong, particularly considering how we have much better ways to develop externally, namely by establishing closer ties with other regions, working closely with them (through WA endeavours, joint roleplays, lecture series, cultural festivals) and overall showing our own internal success. That would be much better than having colonies, even if you renamed them to something else, and much more effective because external development would be directly tied to our internal development, which is ultimately much more important to our members.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 03-24-2017, 11:46 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I tend to agree with Kris. While I did offer advice in the context of this legislation to avoid complications with regions created for specific purposes, I'm not terribly comfortable with this legislation or colonialism in general -- even with regions that voluntarily opt to become colonies of TSP. I'm not sure colonialism would benefit TSP in the long run. I understand the argument that colonialism could lead to colonial residents making contributions to our community, but it is equally true that colonialism could divert attention away from TSP and toward colonies. There is also the issue that, while voluntary colonialism is not necessarily imperialist in the NationStates sense of the word, I am concerned that colonies would lead to the slow creep of NS imperialism in TSP.

At the very least, we're going to need much more discussion of what colonialism would mean for TSP, and probably a lot more discussion of what kind of Charter amendments would be needed. As Glen noted, this would really be a complete re-imagining of how TSP works, and whether one likes colonialism or not, I think we can all agree this isn't something that should be rushed. It almost seems like a Great Council level of change. Colonialism wouldn't just require changes to basic structures, it would mean a fundamental change in the way TSP thinks about itself and its role in the world. That isn't just a structural discussion, it's a philosophical discussion. I'm not necessarily advocating a Great Council, but we do need to make sure this discussion is deliberative.

Meanwhile, this legislation does identify an important issue, which is that regions created for specific TSP-related purposes are currently unregulated. I would suggest basic legislation to address how such regions should be administered as a matter completely separate from what needs to be a broader and much more thorough discussion of colonialism. I don't think legislation exclusively focused on regulating the administration of regions created for TSP-related purposes would require Charter amendments, provided such regions aren't granted any kind of autonomy and the legislation merely addresses how these regions should be administered. Such trimmed down legislation probably wouldn't even need to be constitutional law.

(This post was last modified: 03-25-2017, 02:48 AM by Cormac.)

Reply

It's a complete reimagining of the whole foundation of government. It allows legislators to flow from an unlimited number of separate regions. All these separate regions are bound by a Charter that's written with only The South Pacific in mind. How is Colony Alpha being bound by Article IV-X of the Charter? How does Article 2.2 of this bill work in the context of the Charter-- how does a local colonial government create its own governing structure while "they remain subordinate to and do not contradict [the structures and laws] of the South Pacific as stipulated in the Charter"?

We already have a model for local government independent from but subordinate to the charter. You created it. There's no reason other models could not work also.

We can't just create this weird pseudo-colonial system, where colonies are separate but also not, have their own systems but also members of the Assembly, etc., and expect our current Charter to work with it all. Our Charter was only written with a single region in mind.

I think our charter is more flexible than you give it credit for. If anything, most necessary changes would be semantic in nature.

Going to have to agree with Glen regarding Charter amendments.

I'm also unsure about turning regions founded for specific purposes by the South Pacific into colonies with any degree of autonomy. Take Knowhere and Versailles Isle, for example. The entire purpose of Knowhere is to give TSP's RMB posters somewhere they can RP and spam. The entire purpose of Versailles Isle is to give the SPSF a jump point. If we let these regions develop local governments, what happens if the government of Knowhere decides it no longer wants our RMB spam, or the government of Versailles Isle decides it no longer wants the SPSF jumping from Versailles Isle? What if they secede? Sure, we could found new regions for the same purposes, but there is nothing to prevent them from doing the same thing.

It makes more sense, if we're going to legislate them at all, for regions founded for specific purposes to be regarded as protectorates, i.e., regions under the care of the South Pacific with no autonomy. If we're going to have semi-autonomous colonies -- which in my mind is still a big if -- they should be pre-existing regions that voluntarily choose to become colonies. Regions founded for specific purposes by the South Pacific, like RP/spam regions and jump points, don't need local governments or even permanent residents. They're just regions that exist to facilitate specific, necessary purposes; they're puppet regions, if you will, not real regions with real residents. Creating local governments in such regions is bound to just complicate the purposes they exist to serve.

I'm also really uncomfortable with calling any region a colony. There has to be a better word that doesn't make me feel like I'm in The LKE.

So, several of the stated purposes for creating colonial regions actually require local government of some kind: developing new GP players, experimenting with government types, trialling legislation.

The existence of separate colonial/regional contacts could also be made to ensure regions which don't require local government or, indeed, require a lack of it, have that restriction in place.

OK, I have to honest, because I've been thinking this for a while, and it seems nobody else has said it.

I'm with Cormac in that I feel very uncomfortable about the region having colonies. We are a region whose aim should be to achieve internal improvement, not external expansion.

Where Cormac and I differ is that I don't consider the issue of semi-autonomous colonies an if. I really feel that having regions subordinate to the South Pacific, whatever you call them, and however voluntarily they might have joined, is contrary to who we are as a region. We shouldn't have to have superiority or control over other regions, however benevolent that control might be.

It feels wrong, particularly considering how we have much better ways to develop externally, namely by establishing closer ties with other regions, working closely with them (through WA endeavours, joint roleplays, lecture series, cultural festivals) and overall showing our own internal success. That would be much better than having colonies, even if you renamed them to something else, and much more effective because external development would be directly tied to our internal development, which is ultimately much more important to our members.

I think that the dislike of the term colony is kinda ridiculous, since that's exactly what they would be - new territories under the control of the South Pacific - but hey it’s semantics, and I don't care about it that much. I'm happy to use other terms. Outpost? Satellite region? Whatever you like.

As for the internal/external development issue: for me this is internal development. A major part of my vision is to provide more GP opportunities for players at all levels and all that's really expanding is the in-game space and resources we have available to us in order to help us do that. With the exception of the clause allowing other regions to join (which, as has already been pointed out, they probably won’t, so I’m happy enough to drop that), this is just adding rooms to the mansion, not claiming other people’s homes.

I tend to agree with Kris. While I did offer advice in the context of this legislation to avoid complications with regions created for specific purposes, I'm not terribly comfortable with this legislation or colonialism in general -- even with regions that voluntarily opt to become colonies of TSP. I'm not sure colonialism would benefit TSP in the long run. I understand the argument that colonialism could lead to colonial residents making contributions to our community, but it is equally true that colonialism could divert attention away from TSP and toward colonies. There is also the issue that, while voluntary colonialism is not necessarily imperialist in the NationStates sense of the word, I am concerned that colonies would lead to the slow creep of NS imperialism in TSP.

At the very least, we're going to need much more discussion of what colonialism would mean for TSP, and probably a lot more discussion of what kind of Charter amendments would be needed. As Glen noted, this would really be a complete re-imagining of how TSP works, and whether one likes colonialism or not, I think we can all agree this isn't something that should be rushed. It almost seems like a Great Council level of change. Colonialism wouldn't just require changes to basic structures, it would mean a fundamental change in the way TSP thinks about itself and its role in the world. That isn't just a structural discussion, it's a philosophical discussion. I'm not necessarily advocating a Great Council, but we do need to make sure this discussion is deliberative.

Meanwhile, this legislation does identify an important issue, which is that regions created for specific TSP-related purposes are currently unregulated. I would suggest basic legislation to address how such regions should be administered as a matter completely separate from what needs to be a broader and much more thorough discussion of colonialism. I don't think legislation exclusively focused on regulating the administration of regions created for TSP-related purposes would require Charter amendments, provided such regions aren't granted any kind of autonomy and the legislation merely addresses how these regions should be administered. Such trimmed down legislation probably wouldn't even need to be constitutional law.

I’m all for more discussion. I’ve left this here for nearly two weeks with the hope (and, indeed, the express request) that people discuss it and improve it. I’m glad people are finally starting to look at it critically.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

I agree with Cormac. It's reasonable to regulate how regions created solely for auxiliary regional use work, but establishing some kind of colonialist structure where TSP is at the top and can control other regions that have their own communities (even if you use a term other than colony, because the actual term is meaningless) is something we should avoid.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 03-25-2017, 03:07 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I agree with Cormac. It's reasonable to regulate how regions created solely for auxiliary regional use work, but establishing some kind of colonialist structure where TSP is at the top and can control other regions that have their own communities (even if you use a term other than colony, because the actual term is meaningless) is something we should avoid.

They would be spin-off communities. Sub-communities even, something we already have. We're not talking about conquest here.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

What I'm disagreeing with is the provision to allow existing regions to join. I don't think it's proper for TSP to have what would be, whatever term is ultimately used, colonies. It's one thing, and an entirely reasonable one, to create regions like Knowhere, but it's quite another to incorporate regions that have their own communities, laws and cultures. It's the latter that I dislike.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Then, if I may :

With the exception of the clause allowing other regions to join (which, as has already been pointed out, they probably won’t, so I’m happy enough to drop that), this is just adding rooms to the mansion, not claiming other people’s homes.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply