Post Archive

Region: Spiritus

History

I think that leaving official and government declarations of war to the Regional Government will create interesting debates between raiders, defenders, and non-interventionist.

I can see your point there xD

Go for it, as long as we can essentially have an NRA style org :P

Sounds interesting actually.

Join the forum and you can have even more interesting stuff to look at xD

FIHAUIH: You made comments on Spirit's version but not mine? I has a sad now. :(

Spirit: I think it's very important to have a defined Regional Delegate. Now, it might not seem obvious to a raider, but to many people it's important what the region does in regards to the World Assembly. We should have something defined.

I do agree to that.

May I suggest that we have a position called WA Representative.

It can be held by any citizen no matter what other position they shall hold. The WA Representative shall vote in the WA with the majority of the region.

FIHAUIH seems to have left ;_;

Darn.

I was hoping we could develop the region's first political scene together as leaders of opposing political parties and then grow old as pen pals like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

I'm talking to him about coming back. Maybe we shall get lucky *hopeful smile*

If not. Dibs on Jefferson.

But of course. I am a dirty big government liberal like Adams.

I'm back to propose more ''f-cking bull'' ideas in this region.

*jumps up with joy*

Welcome back FIHAUIH ^_^

As for f-cking bull. I'm sorry. I explained why I ranted like that. I hope you can forgive me.

Welcome back!

Who called your ideas "f-cking bull"? I'll beat 'em with a stick!

Oh, nevermind. I can't beat the founder.

Elections for Supreme Court is ridiculous. Essentially, you've created this huge omnipresent judicial body. They decide guilt and innocence. They decide who goes to trial. They appoint their own vacancies. They preside over all civil and political issues.

The Supreme Court, or Regional Court as it is, is much greater of an idea. The Regional Court is nominated by the President and confirmed by the RA, making sure only qualified candidates are in office. Then the people must approve of them through referendum, compromising with those who want some form of election for Justices.

*hands Malsitar a stick*

*puts on padding*

I hated on his "f-cking bull" ideas on how raiding/defending should happen.

Bring the beating. :P

I could accept the compromise with the Judicial System.

Yet I don't wish to give way on the trial system. We don't have enough people for a jury.

@FIHAUIH: Would you support the idea which I originally had in which the Chief Justice is elected by the Assistant Justices are appointed? Seems to be like a good compromise between the two opposing camps here.

''I dislike this. It essentially lets the President put his own puppets into the court as long as he can sway the citizens and R.A.'' -Malistar on the Forum

I don't understand your issue. Having the President nominate candidates, with two checks on that is bad, and it's apparently some super easy task to sway the majority of the region and the Regional Assembly to support them.

However, what is OK is to have a Supreme Court that fills its own vacancies, can deem people guilty or innocent, decides who goes to trial, and has say in all civil and political matters.

When did I say that?

Let me get this straight. We had plenty of people to fill the Judicial Branch, because apparently our regional population was supposed to massively increase, but then when we need a jury, we don't have enough people, Malistar?

''When did I say that?''

Your constitution says it for you.

No direct election for any position on the Supreme Court. They must be allowed to make objective decisions on the constitutionality of laws, not be forced to vote a certain way because they feel they might lose their position if they don't.

No, I meant specifically "I dislike this. It essentially lets the President put his own puppets into the court as long as he can sway the citizens and R.A." I don't remember ever writing that.

And I've never supported juries. I generally have very little faith in people. Also, there is the issue of selection with a population whose numbers may wildly fluctuate between small and large and the fact that, under my proposal, the people who would be jurors are also the legislature, which would harm the system of checks and balances.

How do you feel about the current revision?

No, I meant specifically "I dislike this. It essentially lets the President put his own puppets into the court as long as he can sway the citizens and R.A." I don't remember ever writing that.

It was from somebody else. Nevermind.

And I've never supported juries. I generally have very little faith in people.

You really are John Adams, aren't you? The people are just too stupid and dumb to decide guilt or innocence. Of course, they're smart enough to elect people to do that for them, but they can't do it themselves.

Also, there is the issue of selection with a population whose numbers may wildly fluctuate between small and large and the fact that,

It doesn't give a fixed number. The RA decides the process for making jurors, so it's always flexible.

under my proposal, the people who would be jurors are also the legislature, which would harm the system of checks and balances.

Another reason to be against it.

Before I take into account your latest post, what are you feelings about the current draft, besides your feelings on a jury.

I think my version is easier to understand for the average person.

I also like the part where the Court can convict a person of a crime and get them off of the RA, essentially giving them powers over the legislative branch.

''If you don't vote this way, you get a guilty verdict.''

And you've established a fixed way of how trials are conducted, leaving us inflexible for any future events. My version leaves trial procedure to the RA, giving us flexibility as things change.

Well, do you want criminals on the Assembly?

No. I want representatives.

I would actually rather have an assembly with a few criminals than a legislature dominated by the judiciary.

And what makes you so sure that the Justices will remove anyone who doesn't vote a way they like? If the Judiciary has become that corrupt, it will be time to start over.

Or we can avoid having to start over to begin with by letting guilt or innocence being decided by a jury rather than three people.

As it stands, those who do not vote how the court wants will be thrown out. Those who make an issue over it will have their request denied by none other than the court. The judiciary branch seems to be everywhere and able to do everything with nobody to stop them, and that is why my draft is better.

If I concede support for a jury, would you concede to support my draft's more direct RA?

How exactly can the court throw anyone that they do not like out.

''How exactly can the court throw anyone that they do not like out.''

1: RA votes on everything.

2: People who have committed crimes cannot serve on the RA.

3: The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court only can try and decide guilt for somebody.

4: Therefore, the Supreme Court can use this unchecked power to dominate the RA.

''If I concede support for a jury, would you concede to support my draft's more direct RA?''

No, I don't want mob rule in this region either.

Woah O.o

The court tries them?

I'm pretty sure it says that a citizen must bring the person up before the court. The court does not try anybody. A citizen must do that..

As for people who have committed crimes... they should be able to serve on RA unless said so in their punishment.

Would you support, then, a representative RA in which any citizen could propose matters and debate, even though they could not necessarily vote?

The members of the court are citizens themselves (impossible otherwise, because you have to be a citizen to be on the court), so they could therefore bring people to trial.

@The Spirit: I think I see where he's coming from in the the Justices are also citizens.

''Would you support, then, a representative RA in which any citizen could propose matters and debate, even though they could not necessarily vote?''

You mean: Everybody can participate and debate on things, but only elected representatives get the final vote?

If so, I'm fine with that.

We have compromise, then, I think.

How's it look now?

I edited my draft with the compromise and posted it on the Forum.

I've updated my draft as well to include some of the better things stated in yours. I think now the major differences between the two are mostly (mostly!) trivial matters.

And for anyone who would like the link again: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CymnsrzV0AqkrMwyOdn7Pgd3TwjF04282YX0h5nx50Y/edit

''b. Members may be removed from their seats by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly.''

So the majority can essentially vote the minority out? What utility does this power serve?

Hm... I don't remember why I put that there, and I don't see a good reason to keep it.

Probably a reference to the constitution of the U.S.A allowing 2/3rds to expel a member, but that means from the debate.

Ah, yes, that was it. Either way, it's gone now.

Back from a raid.

Ha. Even in Malsitar (which is supposed to be somewhat dystopian), my citizens are smart.

I want advice, what does Spiritus think I should do? I don't want to ban automobiles or bicycles.

The Issue:

Several major city streets were clogged with bicycles this morning, as the environmental group 'Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad' staged a protest. Several hundred riders ambled through downtown streets, blissfully ignoring the torrent of abuse hurled at them by thousands of motorists running late for work.

The Debate:

#1 "People are sick of dirty, smelly automobiles," said protest organizer Jazz Dimitrov. "They're choking the city, the environment--our lives! Cars must be banned!"

#2 "The only thing people are sick of is long-haired idiots riding their bicycles at two miles an hour on major thoroughfares," says committed motorist Tobias Licorish. "People shouldn't be able to protest like this. The government needs to crack down on them."

That issue has a third option, doesn't it?

Yes, the issue has three options, but, I'm deciding between the ferst two.

I think the #2 may be :P

Spiritus Media and Polling Article #1

Spiritus Media and Polling is a news organization that will inform the citizens of the region on regional issues, write articles covering elections and debates, and make polls regarding controversial issues or the support of a candidate.

If you would like to suggest a poll, help contribute, or want an interview, please telegram Spiritus Media and Polling.

Post by Hojosakia suppressed by The Spirit.

Hojosakia

any body out there this is prez l

republicans sorry my son posted that other message

No problem. The supression button is very handy :)

Does anyone have any ideas they would like to see proposed to the World Assembly?

Hrm... perhaps a Resolution regarding Governmental Itelligence services and their conduct dealing with non-profit groups providing needed services to countries unable to provide them for their own citizens? In order to help people in a country that is either not wealthy enough or unwilling to help their own citizens, there should be a code of international conduct, more refined, so when you want to provide humanitarian aide, the ways you transport the supplies cannot be comprimised by smuggling in under-cover agents or military material or personnel. Providing clear rules to a medical blockade restriction, and the conduct of both sides is, i think, needed.

Would you be willing to propose such an idea?

Is there already a resolution establishing standards for giving/receiving humanitarian aid?

Sorry It has nothing to do with the matter, but i have to say that i'm new in this site and I like it and i see that you understand a lot about politics and i find it hard especially with the language because i'm from Argentina so you don't mind, i will try to keep up as i can. Thanks :P

Argentina looks like a very interesting country. I'm glad to have you here in this region, and I will do my best to work with you.

Such a proposal might run afoul of Humanitarian Aid Coordination.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=249294#p249294

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CymnsrzV0AqkrMwyOdn7Pgd3TwjF04282YX0h5nx50Y/edit

I've updated my draft for the constitution.

I would really appreciate input from someone who is not Spirit of FIHAUIH. I know what their positions are, but I don't really know how the other 47 of you feel.

docs.google.com/demo/edit?id=scACCkA2JnsrcYwpNnIZwLv7H&hl=en utm_medium=gaia&utm_campaign=#document

^My draft of the constitution.^

(3rd times the charm)

Damn well high time I got out of GGR. Wish I had paid more attention to the place, it was a shock to realize that they were actually Nazis and stuff.

Welcome :)

It's about time you got out of TGGR ;)

I always thought that they were just gameplay Nazi's. I didn't know they were RL neo-nazis.

Some of them might be.

I'm still trying to decide if the founder is just a major internetz troll or the real deal

I'd like to see a resolution drafted to see the nations classified as "anarchy" to be 'persuaded' to be any other classification. I experimented with this, creating an anarchy, and then I removed political freedoms so I could "start over" and the economy didn't suffer for it. The Whole point of an Anarchy is that it's Not a government. So wouldn't it make sense to enforce "some" type of a government? Anarchys have wide-spread crime, humanitarian concerns, and several crimes against humanity. There should be "some" action to resolve it, right?

That's more of a problem with Technical I believe. The game is made to be weird :P

eh... but you see my point.

Have we decided upon a constitution? I'd love to see if we could ratify one so we can get the government up and running. :)

I think the founder is a troll. He sent me a message asking why I left; he would not have referred to his region as "evil" if he was serious.

Greetings, everyone!

@ Dalmascus and Palmeria- It's all on the forum. Check it out. We're still drafting to make the best one possible and would love your input

@Imperial Cross- Probably. Or she/he aknowledges the evil and embraces it

@Karthaus- Welcome. I've sent you a telegram with information

The international federalism v.s. national sovereignty debate in the WA is really heating up.

Would anyone mind if I began the referendum for the constitution?

Oh yes it is.

As for referendum. Drafting has slowed. I think we can roll with it and if need be, after the R.A is made we can form our ammendments.

http://w11.zetaboards.com/Spiritus/topic/7652711/1/#poll410511

^The referendum on the proposed constitution has started.^

Post self-deleted by Spiritus Media And Polling.

Referendum on the Constitution

Do you approve of this constitution?

83.3% yes

16.7% no

That's great Palmeria!

What do you guys think about the idea of implementing some type of monetary system in the region? We could give money to people for things like recruiting new people here, participating in the region, etc. There just needs to be something to spend it on.

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