Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Miencraft wrote:I would be willing to grant non-citizens only the basic unalienable rights that I'm sure we're all familiar with, and the right to free movement in and out of the region. But no more than that, because then we compromise the security of the region.

And just stop for a moment and think of why real countries don't let non-citizens do anything. It's pretty much for the same reason.

But there's no path for non-citizens to become citizens. Applications for citizenship are capriciously denied.

Just rename the region "Bureaucratem" or "Tyrannyeum" if you don't want anyone else getting votes and civil rights.

I've voted with my feet and have moved out of the region.

Bad Libertopia wrote:But there's no path for non-citizens to become citizens. Applications for citizenship are capriciously denied.

Just rename the region "Bureaucratem" or "Tyrannyeum" if you don't want anyone else getting votes and civil rights.

I've voted with my feet and have moved out of the region.

As is your right.

Let's the rest of us get back to business, eh?

Bad Libertopia wrote:Depends on whether you think the members of the region should get a say in their own governance.

Do your job or resign your post, sir.

application denied.

Happy?

Reason? Ummm... I do what I want. Oh and espionage or something.

Biggest Dred wrote:Road, when do you hold services at the Holy Church?

Tuesdays, bring a jar of peanut butter.

Ultimately Dred

hey roads, what about my application?

Muh Roads wrote:Tuesdays, bring a jar of peanut butter.

You need to stop disappearing.

Also, I have no idea if we reached the 2/3 for the new Constitution, but because we're still debating it (I don't know why people waited until it was in the polls to start actually debating, but whatever), I'm just going to say it failed anyways and we're still running with what we have now.

So, yeah. I think I can get a nice compromise of a Constitution drafted up soon, and we'll see what people think about that.

Muh Roads wrote:application denied. Happy? Reason? Ummm... I do what I want. Oh and espionage or something.

Citizenship applications are tossed in the rubbish or framed in museums based on the whims of the ruling overlords.

Libertatem has been reclassified as a Psychotic Dictatorship.

Muh Roads wrote:Tuesdays, bring a jar of peanut butter.

Chunky or creamy?

Bad Libertopia wrote:Citizenship applications are tossed in the rubbish or framed in museums based on the whims of the ruling overlords.

Libertatem has been reclassified as a Psychotic Dictatorship.

If you don't want to be a part of this region, that's fine, but do not come back to our RMB just to troll us.

I will start suppressing your posts if this continues.

I've always hated the idea of Bicameral legislature's. Why don't we just keep the board?

San Andrias wrote:I've always hated the idea of Bicameral legislature's. Why don't we just keep the board?

The Senate isn't in addition to the Board. It replaces the Board with something with a name more befitting a legislature.

It's also smaller, because nobody wants to do anything anymore, but it can be grown later because that's how things work.

"The powerhouse Miencraftic economy, worth a remarkable 1,999 trillion Denares a year"

So goddamn close to 2 quadrillion Denares.

One Denare is about a quarter-ounce of silver, which makes one of them worth 4 bucks and change.

That is a lot of American moneys.

New Jaslandia

Miencraft wrote:You need to stop disappearing.

You need a beer. :)

Bad Libertopia wrote:Citizenship applications are tossed in the rubbish or framed in museums based on the whims of the ruling overlords.

Libertatem has been reclassified as a Psychotic Dictatorship.

Your welcome to try again, but you attract more ladies with honey than vinegar, and im a fine fine dame.

Muh Roads wrote:Your welcome to try again, but you attract more ladies with honey than vinegar, and im a fine fine dame.

Breaking Now:

Roads is a girl

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Breaking Now:

Roads is a girl

How DARE YOU i identify as a genderfluid mochacino salty butternut muffin and my pronoun is that.

Lol. J/k. I am genderfluid though, im 95 percent straight. The 5 percent gay goes to Humpy, some TS women, and Nikki Sixx.

Rateria, Bastians

Ultimately Dred wrote:Chunky or creamy?

Not telling, but if you choose wrong... so help you me..

Muh Roads wrote:Not telling, but if you choose wrong... so help you me..

does cheamy or crunky count?

Muh Roads wrote:How DARE YOU i identify as a genderfluid mochacino salty butternut muffin and my pronoun is that.

..

I'M SO SORRY. OH FORGIVE ME, MY CLEAR MORAL SUPERIOR.

I'M NOW GOING TO GO OUTSIDE AND WHIP MY SELF WHILE CHANTING "MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA,

MEA MAXIMA CULPA"

*uncontrollable sobbing*

Muh Roads, Rateria

Narland wrote:does cheamy or crunky count?

Crunky sounds very appealing

The United States Of Patriots wrote:I'M SO SORRY. OH FORGIVE ME, MY CLEAR MORAL SUPERIOR.

I'M NOW GOING TO GO OUTSIDE AND WHIP MY SELF WHILE CHANTING "MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA,

MEA MAXIMA CULPA"

*uncontrollable sobbing*

Now now. Just check your privelege.

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Bastians

Muh Roads wrote:

Pev has his grumpy shorts on today =P

Pevvania wrote:Yeah well you should just move to Somalia.

Hi guys. I'm from the New Generation Alliance. I'm posting to see if anyone is interested in par taking in an alternate history RP called "The Silence of the Guns".

For more information, follow this link: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=huddenbourg/detail=factbook/id=546652

If you wish to play, please telegram me with your preference.

Cheers

New Jaslandia

3 ways to get a lot of dislikes on a libertarian video:

1) Bashing Trump

2) Advocating open borders or abolishing the military

3) Getting raided by leftists

Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Bastians

muh borders

muuuuuuuuh borders

muh imaginary lines

"The powerhouse Miencraftic economy, worth a remarkable 2,000 trillion Denares a year"

2 quadrillion Denares.

That's almost 9 quadrillion dollars according to my numbers.

NS might give my country horrible inflation though, but who cares, this is a nice shiny number.

Bastians

The cringeyest kind of libertarian, is the one that goes on saying how Clinton is going to fck up the nation and give to the radfems, and then says the pragmatic choice is to vote Trump, cuz it's also the only way to stop the anti-liberty aliens that are going to destroy our nations freedom.

Oh, and also when one says, "It's not immigrants we're against, it's illegal immigrants were against", like it makes a difference between stopping 100% or 70% of immigrants.

New Jaslandia, Bastians

The Aradites wrote:Oh, and also when one says, "It's not immigrants we're against, it's illegal immigrants were against", like it makes a difference between stopping 100% or 70% of immigrants.

To be fair, Congress is fully within its rights to decide "you're not allowed to enter the country unless you're a seventeen-foot-tall blue woman with three arms, four heads, and twelve legs", so if they decide they want to implement Trump's bans, fine. I doubt they will, and in fact I think Trump will find himself unable to do a lot of the things he boasts about.

I'm predicting that if he does get to the White House, he's either going to mellow down a lot or just not actually do anything and just keep yelling.

Rateria

The Aradites wrote:The cringeyest kind of libertarian, is the one that goes on saying how Clinton is going to fck up the nation and give to the radfems, and then says the pragmatic choice is to vote Trump, cuz it's also the only way to stop the anti-liberty aliens that are going to destroy our nations freedom.

Oh, and also when one says, "It's not immigrants we're against, it's illegal immigrants were against", like it makes a difference between stopping 100% or 70% of immigrants.

You should respond that you are also against illegal immigration and to solve it you'll make all the illegal immigrants legal.

Ron Paul opposes capitalism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DI9qfgxbkU

Ron Paul: The first free market socialist? More at 11

GET #BERNIEBTFO TRENDING TWITTER. LADDIES.

Venomringo wrote:GET #BERNIEBTFO TRENDING TWITTER. LADDIES.

What?

Real men do not "Tweet." So you will need to enlighten me and the rest of us.

BTFO? What did he do, decide he could Beat Trump First Out?

Miencraft wrote:What?

It's fun to trigger bernie supporters.

Libertitad

Venomringo wrote:It's fun to trigger bernie supporters.

That was more along the lines of "what the hell does that even mean and also why does it seem like spam".

New Jaslandia, Bastians

Miencraft wrote:To be fair, Congress is fully within its rights to decide "you're not allowed to enter the country unless you're a seventeen-foot-tall blue woman with three arms, four heads, and twelve legs", so if they decide they want to implement Trump's bans, fine. I doubt they will, and in fact I think Trump will find himself unable to do a lot of the things he boasts about.

I'm predicting that if he does get to the White House, he's either going to mellow down a lot or just not actually do anything and just keep yelling.

On the other hand, it's also possible Trump will use even more executive orders than Obama to get his policies enacted; Trump definitely has authoritarian leans, and with someone like him, you never know what to expect. I would like to think a President Trump (*shudders*) would be a hands-off administrator that leaves a lot of stuff to his Vice President and the Cabinet, but I'm not sure.

Rateria, Salton Juncture

Ive criticized Rand Paul in the past but I think this is a step in the right direction. Very heartfelt.

https://m.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/4mwpec/in_honor_of_muhammad_ali_sen_rand_paul_will/

Perhaps he can restore the Paul legacy come 2020. Or he can continue being a religious right pandering fool, his choice.

Rand Paul 4 2020, Bastians

What are your opinions on the process to something becoming one's property, and why?

Personally, I would need to study a little more on the subject, but generally adhere to Rothbard's version of the Lockean "Mixing one's labor with the Earth", primarily because it is the process that I can see that wouldn't invade other's property rights and that one can actually enforce to be his property.

I reject the premise that our Constitution does not work as it is written and that we must choose between having the Bill of Rights and national security. Our nation did not become the most powerful nation in the world because we abandoned our Second and Fourth Amendment rights when outside forces threatened us in ways even more menacing than we now face.

Question for you guys: Should I be RP'ing as Rand Paul or just be normal?

Post self-deleted by Bastians.

Miencraft wrote:That was more along the lines of "what the hell does that even mean and also why does it seem like spam".

I decided to do some research.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=btfo

Bastians wrote:I decided to do some research.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=btfo

So basically I was right to assume it was spammy.

Also, how do people feel about a title like High Chancellor instead of President?

Probably sounds too royal or something, but I've been playing a lot of Oblivion lately and I love the title. It'd be a nice distinction from the Presidents of the first Republic, and also from the Chancellors of the Cabinet, but I dunno. There's also Potentate (oh would you look at that Ocato also had that title) but that sounds even more royal.

Bastians

I'm in the WA and I feel like it doesn't do much except pass legislation and then immediately repeal it. What are the pros/cons of being in the WA, and should I leave it?

Bastians wrote:I'm in the WA and I feel like it doesn't do much except pass legislation and then immediately repeal it. What are the pros/cons of being in the WA, and should I leave it?

Pros:

You get to support a WA delegate, which in this region is completely useless.

Cons:

Literally everything.

It's very counter-intuitive for a libertarian of any kind to be in the WA. I keep my dictatorial puppet, Minovdigon in just so that I can vote in it, because that's kinda fun sometimes, but other than that it's either going to be really oppressive (basically any new GA legislation) or have nothing to do with us at all (any SC legislation).

Rand Paul 4 2020, Bastians

Bastians wrote:I'm in the WA and I feel like it doesn't do much except pass legislation and then immediately repeal it. What are the pros/cons of being in the WA, and should I leave it?

If your the type that likes to wear a collar and be leashed around the WA is perfect!

Bastians

Miencraft wrote:So basically I was right to assume it was spammy.

Also, how do people feel about a title like High Chancellor instead of President?

Probably sounds too royal or something, but I've been playing a lot of Oblivion lately and I love the title. It'd be a nice distinction from the Presidents of the first Republic, and also from the Chancellors of the Cabinet, but I dunno. There's also Potentate (oh would you look at that Ocato also had that title) but that sounds even more royal.

Yeah, High Chancellor not only sounds royal, but also kind of fantasy-like to me. Maybe we could use 'Consul' instead of 'President', and have a slight Roman tinge?.

Thanks for the input, I'll be leaving the WA immediately.

New Jaslandia wrote:Yeah, High Chancellor not only sounds royal, but also kind of fantasy-like to me. Maybe we could use 'Consul' instead of 'President', and have a slight Roman tinge?.

We could use Premier but that's probably been a bit tainted by the Soviets.

I dunno, I'll just stick with President in my edits of my edits. Then we get the sweet title of Second Republic President.

Miencraft wrote:We could use Premier but that's probably been a bit tainted by the Soviets.

I dunno, I'll just stick with President in my edits of my edits. Then we get the sweet title of Second Republic President.

Why not make up a word.. like.. libersident.. presi..tatem?

Presitatem.

Miencraft wrote:We could use Premier but that's probably been a bit tainted by the Soviets.

I dunno, I'll just stick with President in my edits of my edits. Then we get the sweet title of Second Republic President.

Plus, the NGA is currently using 'Premier', and it might be a bit confusing to share a head of government title with a close ally. There's still nothing wrong with just 'President'.

Muh Roads wrote:Why not make up a word.. like.. libersident.. presi..tatem?

Presitatem.

Well, I've heard worse.

Rateria, Bastians

New Jaslandia wrote:Plus, the NGA is currently using 'Premier', and it might be a bit confusing to share a head of government title with a close ally.

Well, we wouldn't be the only one of our allies to have used Chancellor had we gone with that.

I'll just shove President into the edited edited Constitution. Not like we can't change it later if we want to call it Supreme Dictator of Total Freedom.

New Jaslandia, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Muh Roads wrote:Why not make up a word.. like.. libersident.. presi..tatem?

Presitatem.

Liberident.

I'm currently righting a factbook article called "How Capitalism Can Save the Whales (and Other Animals)." Once I am done, I'll share it with you guys.

Bastians

Republic Of Minerva wrote:righting

Why.

The Ambassador To The Clfr, Rateria, Shirayuki Mizore, Bastians

So other than stirring up a good controversy, anyone got any ideas to boost activity around here?

Discuss anyone one of the following:

—Gay marriage and whether or not business owners should be required to attend them.

—That slime ball that got six months for raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and whether or not her intoxication contributed to the rape.

—Who belongs in what bathroom.

—Who sucks worse: Trump, Hillary or Bernie.

—Star Wars or Star Trek, which is the best?

—Whether or not government should...

Oh wait. You specified "other than stirring up a good controversy..."

Uhm...

No clue.

Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Rateria, Rand Paul 4 2020, Salton Juncture

Miencraft wrote:So other than stirring up a good controversy, anyone got any ideas to boost activity around here?

Do we have some sort of recruitment department? If we don't, that could be good start. Someone buys some stamps from the NS store, we write up a recruitment telegram, and we're off.

New Jaslandia wrote:Do we have some sort of recruitment department? If we don't, that could be good start. Someone buys some stamps from the NS store, we write up a recruitment telegram, and we're off.

That would require a functioning government, which I don't think we yet have.

Rand Paul 4 2020

Shirayuki Mizore wrote:That would require a functioning government, which I don't think we yet have.

Then I guess we need to make one. The problem is that government is a necessary evil BUT we cannot have a large government that goes into our lives and how we control our nations, small government is what we might need.

Bastians

Shirayuki Mizore wrote:That would require a functioning government, which I don't think we yet have.

Speaking of, let's hope that this is the last Constitution we need to propose.

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=miencraft/detail=factbook/id=634364

I'd like to have everyone's opinion on it now before we put it up to vote. I don't want to see anything like last time where it goes up to vote and then people start to have issues with it.

Miencraft wrote:Speaking of, let's hope that this is the last Constitution we need to propose.

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=miencraft/detail=factbook/id=634364

I'd like to have everyone's opinion on it now before we put it up to vote. I don't want to see anything like last time where it goes up to vote and then people start to have issues with it.

2 things:

1) A process should be specified (if it's a possibility) that the senate may increase in seats, if necessary, to better represent a larger population in the future. This way, an amendment vote wouldn't be needed at that time for such an obvious and accepted thing, may it occur.

2) Question: If this constitution comes into affect, do any active bannings and executive orders that occurred beforehand, become null and void?

P.S. Thanks for the inclusion of my 2nd republic idea :)

The Aradites wrote:2 things:

1) A process should be specified (if it's a possibility) that the senate may increase in seats, if necessary, to better represent a larger population in the future. This way, an amendment vote wouldn't be needed at that time for such an obvious and accepted thing, may it occur.

2) Question: If this constitution comes into affect, do any active bannings and executive orders that occurred beforehand, become null and void?

P.S. Thanks for the inclusion of my 2nd republic idea :)

1) I was thinking that, since the number is specifically in the Constitution, we'd have to amend it later. There's really not much else I can think of that would work very well beyond that, so we'll just have to stick to that.

2) That was the intent, and I will adjust it to reflect this.

Active citizens from the registry (as deemed in the new constitution)(We would need 12 votes yes to pass the new consitution):

[nation=short]miencraft[/nation]

[nation=short]ronald reagan and rick grimes[/nation]

[nation=short]funkytopia[/nation]

[nation=short]yrellian confederacy[/nation]

[nation=short]the serbian empire[/nation]

[nation=short]yankee freedom fighters[/nation]

[nation=short]coumba[/nation]

[nation=short]the aradites[/nation]

[nation=short]muh roads[/nation]

[nation=short]united environmentalist states of mhomen[/nation]

[nation=short]humpheria[/nation]

[nation=short]the szechuan chickens[/nation]

[nation=short]the dark lieutenant[/nation]

[nation=short]the final horseman[/nation]

[nation=short]new jaslandia[/nation]

[nation=short]the united states of patriots[/nation]

[nation=short]san andrias[/nation]

[nation=short]shirayuki mizore[/nation]

Like this post if you are voting for Gary Johnson (need numbers).

Dalamarian States

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Like this post if you are voting for Gary Johnson (need numbers).

Me personally or me RP'ing? :P Anyways, I know Garyjohnson42016 definitely will

I have proof that robots will make capitalism redundant below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdtmmHEs9jg

Rand Paul 4 2020 wrote:Me personally or me RP'ing? :P Anyways, I know Garyjohnson42016 definitely will

personally

New Jaslandia

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

The Aradites wrote:[nation=short]united environmentalist states of mhomen[/nation]

"Who the hell".

Seriously though, thanks for taking the time to find out how many votes we need. I have no idea how we're going to get 12.

Oh, hey, you know what, I'll redefine active citizens again to specify that they need to be in the region to be considered active, because a few of those guys aren't even in the region anymore.

I'll do that, and then you count 'em again, Aradites, yeah?

So by my count, doing that narrowed it down by removing exactly 2 people.

Since there were 18 citizens on that list, reducing it to 16 brought down the requirement from 12 to 10, if we don't round up.

We don't round up.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I have proof that robots will make capitalism redundant below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdtmmHEs9jg

Okay, I actually thought that was pretty funny, in a sort of 'cute pet video' kind of way. Someday, cute cat videos will be replaced by cute robot videos. Assuming, of course, that the cats don't rise up and destroy all robots in order to prevent this course of events.

Rateria

The Aradites wrote:Active citizens from the registry (as deemed by Miencraft)(We would need 10 votes yes to pass the new consitution):

[nation=short]miencraft[/nation]

[nation=short]ronald reagan and rick grimes[/nation]

[nation=short]funkytopia[/nation]

[nation=short]the serbian empire[/nation]

[nation=short]coumba[/nation]

[nation=short]the aradites[/nation]

[nation=short]muh roads[/nation]

[nation=short]united environmentalist states of mhomen[/nation]

[nation=short]humpheria[/nation]

[nation=short]the szechuan chickens[/nation]

[nation=short]the dark lieutenant[/nation]

[nation=short]the final horseman[/nation]

[nation=short]new jaslandia[/nation]

[nation=short]the united states of patriots[/nation]

[nation=short]san andrias[/nation]

[nation=short]shirayuki mizore[/nation]

Miencraft

Opinion,

Should I start being that douche who uses the "œ/oe" digraph for words that used to use them? Like the old-spelling of oeconomics.

mmm i could taste the future rage

The Aradites wrote:Opinion,

Should I start being that douche who uses the "œ/oe" digraph for words that used to use them? Like the old-spelling of oeconomics.

mmm i could taste the future rage

I actually really like œ and æ.

Miencraft wrote:I actually really like œ and æ.

I really like them too, but especially œ, has been reduced to e, while æ has been reduced to a, so œ or oe looks a lot more awkward than ae. But I think I'll start using it, especially since this fall I'll be taking commerce in college (which I'm starting) so I can finally use oeconomic terms with reason and finally use oe.

Hi, I'm the new guy. Feel free to throw ideas for how I can try to help out around here at me. I played this game for a while a few years ago, but never got that involved and everything looks different now. I am probably more interested in diplomacy type things than being involved with wars is my initial 2 cents. Cheers!

- Kevin

New Jaslandia, Rateria, Libertitad

The Aradites wrote:Active citizens from the registry (as deemed in the new constitution)(We would need 12 votes yes to pass the new consitution):

[nation=short]miencraft[/nation]

[nation=short]ronald reagan and rick grimes[/nation]

[nation=short]funkytopia[/nation]

[nation=short]yrellian confederacy[/nation]

[nation=short]the serbian empire[/nation]

[nation=short]yankee freedom fighters[/nation]

[nation=short]coumba[/nation]

[nation=short]the aradites[/nation]

[nation=short]muh roads[/nation]

[nation=short]united environmentalist states of mhomen[/nation]

[nation=short]humpheria[/nation]

[nation=short]the szechuan chickens[/nation]

[nation=short]the dark lieutenant[/nation]

[nation=short]the final horseman[/nation]

[nation=short]new jaslandia[/nation]

[nation=short]the united states of patriots[/nation]

[nation=short]san andrias[/nation]

[nation=short]shirayuki mizore[/nation]

I feel like I'm active and I just got citizenship, why am I not on this list?

Organizations like the non-profit I'm on the board of have ways of handling the problem of members who can't attend every meeting; they have different permutations of what the "board" is, for example. Using your terminology you might define:

"All Citizens": Total number of citizens in the registry (16 here)

"Active Citizens": Number of citizens that cast a vote in the current poll (5 I think it was)

And then say that a motion "passes with a 2/3 majority of the Active Citizens". There was no way to vote "no" in the poll except not to vote, but if that option were enabled and you had 2 "no" votes, then your motion would pass 5-2.

Another safeguard is to define a quorum--such as "40% of All Citizens", and say that an amendment "passes with a 2/3 majority of the Active Citizens, with a quorum present". 40% of 16 rounds to 6, so you would have that since a 5-2 vote means 7 votes were cast. The quorum requirement is to stop sneaky people to put up a poll during Thanksgiving and get a 3-0 vote and pull a fast one. That vote wouldn't count since 6 votes are required for a quorum.

Also it helps to have a "Yes" a "No" and an "Abstain" since that's a way of meeting quorum more easily.

New Jaslandia, Bastians

Bastians wrote:I feel like I'm active and I just got citizenship, why am I not on this list?

The list is taken from the Register, which Roads has failed to update for a while.

Bastians

Castaway Island Of Wilson wrote:Another safeguard is to define a quorum--such as "40% of All Citizens", and say that an amendment "passes with a 2/3 majority of the Active Citizens, with a quorum present". 40% of 16 rounds to 6, so you would have that since a 5-2 vote means 7 votes were cast. The quorum requirement is to stop sneaky people to put up a poll during Thanksgiving and get a 3-0 vote and pull a fast one. That vote wouldn't count since 6 votes are required for a quorum.

Also it helps to have a "Yes" a "No" and an "Abstain" since that's a way of meeting quorum more easily.

I don't understand how either of these would be useful.

Since we're not defining active citizens as citizens who did vote in the poll, we don't need a quorum. Defining active citizens like that is going to cause a whole lot of problems on its own anyways, so I'd rather stick with what we've already got.

We also don't need an Abstention option because that's literally just not voting.

For the last poll, there was no option for "No" because, if you voted "No", that would literally be the same as not voting at all.

Even in this case, because we need 2/3 of the total active citizens to vote "Yes", voting "No" would still be the same as not voting, but this time I will have a No option just because there's no other Constitution being proposed.

Well, I feel like the telegram about the push to instate a new constitution gives me to opportunity to say: I, for one, kind of miss the War on Communism, though I can understand why it's something you all no longer wish to pursue.

It was nice having a force in opposition to TRF that wasn't fascist. Times change, I guess.

Hello everyone, I'm fairly new here. Where exactly should I start? I've only been on this website a few minutes?

Miencraft wrote:The list is taken from the Register, which Roads has failed to update for a while.

Ah, I got you.

Capitopia World wrote:Hello everyone, I'm fairly new here. Where exactly should I start? I've only been on this website a few minutes?

I assume you want the quick rundown of how the game works?

Every couple of hours, you'll get a new issue. You can answer the issues, which will change some of your nation's stats. If you do decide to answer issues, you need to be very careful, because plenty of issues do things that you wouldn't normally expect them to do, so watch what they do and be prepared for bad things to happen.

There are specific issues you'll get when you unlock a leader, capital city, and religion, and you'll need to answer them a certain way to unlock the ability to change those fields. If you don't, the issues will eventually come back.

Rarely, you'll encounter an Easter Egg issue. They're easy to spot on account of how they tell you that they're easter eggs.

Beyond that, you can get active on the RMB here, strike up some conversation, and potentially become a Citizen of Libertatem in the future.

Miencraft wrote:I don't understand how either of these would be useful.

The problem you have (same as my 510(c)3) was that we had a lot of inactive board members and to change the bylaws with a "2/3 vote of the full board" was a bar that was impossibly high, even with a unanimous vote at the meetings (board members didn't show up and so they all counted as if they did come and voted "no" on everything).

You need a definition of "active citizen" that (1) is clear and consistent, (2) allows for citizens to move in and out of activity without everything to a halt, (3) makes it easy to see if a motion passes or fails, (4) doesn't become a distraction from the game.

Miencraft wrote:For the last poll, there was no option for "No" because, if you voted "No", that would literally be the same as not voting at all. Even in this case, because we need 2/3 of the total active citizens to vote "Yes", voting "No" would still be the same as not voting, but this time I will have a No option just because there's no other Constitution being proposed.

Counting abstentions as "No" votes will definitely slow things down, since that 2/3 bar is very high...doing that means that with 18 "active citizens" means you need 12 votes for the constitution to pass and 10 votes just for a simply majority! You or somebody is going to be constantly culling that "active citizen" list for dead wood and adding people like Bastien on who are obviously active and it's going to be a huge pain in the rear end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention

Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect attending only to contribute to a quorum.

Abstentions should NOT be counted the same as "No" votes. 7 "Yes" and 3 "No" and 8 abstentions means...the motion passes 7-3, with 8 abstaining.

Castaway Island Of Wilson wrote:Counting abstentions as "No" votes will definitely slow things down, since that 2/3 bar is very high...doing that means that with 18 "active citizens" means you need 12 votes for the constitution to pass and 10 votes just for a simply majority! You or somebody is going to be constantly culling that "active citizen" list for dead wood and adding people like Bastien on who are obviously active and it's going to be a huge pain in the rear end.

Well, the only solution I can see is just to have the Constitution be ratified only by a simple majority of people voting for it.

Naturally, I sent out a telegram to the entire region with the hope of getting people to opine on the Constitution.

I don't particularly want to go the route of simple majority, but we do need to get the thing passed. No matter what, our count of people who are actually active in this region is going to be about ten.

We have more than twenty citizens, many of whom ceased to be.

Having some kind of quorum in place is just going to get really messy and confusing later on down the road, and especially so now when we can only get maybe three people to actually come out and vote.

I don't know, I'm basically the only veteran of the region who's actually active. I've got a pretty good idea of what's going to happen if we do certain things, but at the same time, we're missing people like Pevvania and Humpheria, whose input would be invaluable. What I know, though, is that nothing we can do is ever going to be good enough. As a last resort, I can alter the constitution so it requires only a majority, but anything like quorum or not counting abstentions as no will not work. They can't work, because the game's mechanics won't allow it, and the activity level in the region won't allow it.

We need more people to give input, but we're not going to get any opinions because people are really bad at giving opinions and wait until something's already up for vote before they decide they have a problem with it.

Just watch, I'm not going to have any opinions now, but if I were to put the Constitution up for vote tomorrow, there'd be a flood of people pointing out stuff they'd want to change.

And, y'know, I don't even remember my original point. I'm just really fed up with all this nonsense. This is the only way we'll be able to get anything done in this region anymore and we can't even do that, because nobody cares enough to show up. Starting to look like there's a good damn reason this place has gone downhill.

Bastians wrote:I feel like I'm active and I just got citizenship, why am I not on this list?

I'm also active. I appreciate this region and all the greens in the 3 categories of most of the countries. I just don't post much on the board. I haven't seen the proposed constitution(but haven't looked that hard). Not really sure what I'm doing other than trying not screw up my country and make it a bad place to live in.

My personal take: Use the US constitution as a template. Add the Bill of Rights. No slavery. Stay out of wars for corporate benefit. Let people do what they want as long as they aren't hurting others. Free the Green. Keep taxes as low possible but keep infrastructure and defense strong.

ok. I'm here. tell me where to vote and where to read this constitution.

Bastians

I'm here for the voting...

Miencraft wrote:As a last resort, I can alter the constitution so it requires only a majority, but anything like quorum or not counting abstentions as no will not work. They can't work, because the game's mechanics won't allow it, and the activity level in the region won't allow it.

If indeed only about 10 people are active at a time, 7 "Yes" and 3 "No" would pass the 2/3 bar, even if you had 80 abstentions (mostly inactive citizens/residents who didn't vote).

Counting abstentions as "No"s implies that whenever someone goes inactive, they become this chained zombie in the corner shouting "No" on everything. That's not really the intent of the inactive--they just went on vacation or got a girlfriend or a job or something. They should be counted as an abstention, not as a "No".

When the zombies reach 51%, even a unanimous vote from the active citizens won't defeat their growling "No"s.

Libertitad wrote:ok. I'm here. tell me where to vote and where to read this constitution.

It's in my factbook.

But I don't think you're a citizen?

Castaway Island Of Wilson wrote:If indeed only about 10 people are active at a time, 7 "Yes" and 3 "No" would pass the 2/3 bar, even if you had 80 abstentions (mostly inactive citizens/residents who didn't vote).

Counting abstentions as "No"s implies that whenever someone goes inactive, they become this chained zombie in the corner shouting "No" on everything. That's not really the intent of the inactive--they just went on vacation or got a girlfriend or a job or something. They should be counted as an abstention, not as a "No".

When the zombies reach 51%, even a unanimous vote from the active citizens won't defeat their growling "No"s.

I'm not saying that an abstention is counted as a "no", it's just that it's pretty much always functionally equivalent to voting "no". In the case of this Constitution, since 2/3 of active citizens need to vote in favor of it, not voting at all is absolutely identical to voting "no", because it doesn't contribute at all to the 2/3 requirement.

When we have things that just need a majority, not voting is just not voting. Take our Presidential elections, for example. The only requirement is that the majority of citizens vote for a candidate and they win. In that case, not voting isn't equivalent to a vote for the other guy, it's just you didn't vote at all, so you having not voted is meaningless.

When it's this, where 2/3 of active citizens need to vote in favor of it, not voting is the same thing as voting "no", because if you didn't vote, you weren't part of the 2/3 needed to pass, so rather than just not voting, you actually contributed to the failure of the Constitution to be ratified.

Miencraft wrote:It's in my factbook.

But I don't think you're a citizen?

I'm a citizen

Libertitad wrote:I'm a citizen

Ok

I'm not a citizen. Sending in my request now. My bad lol. Still learning.

Section II, Subsection I says "The House of Representatives shall consist of all nations in Libertatem not vested with a legislatoral position."

and Section III, Subsection III says "The House of Representatives may seek an amendment with 2/3 of the Representatives voting."

According to the above, every (non-vested) nation in Libertatem gets a vote (not just citizens) and the bar is "2/3 of of the Representatives voting".

So if there's 88 nations and the vote is 6-2 with 80 abstentions, "2/3 of the Representatives voting" voted for the amendment, so it passes.

Now if the new Constitution counts "No"s as abstentions (contrary to how boards and legislatures and congresses everywhere do it), you'll find yourself painted into a corner really fast as inactive nations become zombie "No" voters.

Sorry, the "2/3" quote in the previous post is from Article IV, Section I, Subsection III.

Castaway Island Of Wilson wrote:Section II, Subsection I says "The House of Representatives shall consist of all nations in Libertatem not vested with a legislatoral position."

and Section III, Subsection III says "The House of Representatives may seek an amendment with 2/3 of the Representatives voting."

According to the above, every (non-vested) nation in Libertatem gets a vote (not just citizens) and the bar is "2/3 of of the Representatives voting".

So if there's 88 nations and the vote is 6-2 with 80 abstentions, "2/3 of the Representatives voting" voted for the amendment, so it passes.

Now if the new Constitution counts "No"s as abstentions (contrary to how boards and legislatures and congresses everywhere do it), you'll find yourself painted into a corner really fast as inactive nations become zombie "No" voters.

Nice try, but I suggest you take a closer look at the Constitution, especially the part where the House is redefined in the House Citizenship Reform Amendment.

Not only that, but that's also not how ratification for the new Constitution works. For these purposes, we don't care about the amendment process for the old one. For the new one, we clearly defined that it needs the support of 2/3 of active citizens to pass, and we then defined active citizens.

For these purposes, not voting is equivalent to voting "no", because if you didn't vote, then you didn't contribute to the 2/3.

The eighty nations that don't care don't matter; most of them don't qualify as active citizens, let alone any kind of citizen. If you qualify for "active citizen", but you fail to vote, then you have effectively voted "no", because, requiring 2/3 support, that 1/3 that doesn't support it can either be people who explicitly voted "no" or failed to vote. It really doesn't matter at all in this situation.

The way a real legislature would work is absolutely irrelevant, because the game mechanics prevent us from achieving full realism. We need 2/3 support of active citizens to ratify the Constitution. Whether you vote "no" or you don't vote, your impact on the ratification is the same.

But I also have no idea why you're still caught up on this. Of all the possible things to pick apart about the constitution, you chose the non-issue.

Post self-deleted by Capitopia World.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.