Post Archive

Region: Thalassia

History

The Outer Union wrote:Why is there a not a neutral option in the poll?

To abstain from the vote, don't submit your vote.

Toerana Iii, Veaetmar, Arenado, Monkelandd, Portugal And Great Britannia, The Lustrous Ones

Ayeinc wrote:To abstain from the vote, don't submit your vote.

Make sense

Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Zentata, Arenado, Portugal And Great Britannia

I don’t have discord, so if you don’t have it or do have it please consider joining ICTTN!

Nationific, Ayeinc, Zentata, Maxilains

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:I don’t have discord, so if you don’t have it or do have it please consider joining ICTTN!

You can still be in TAN if you don't have discord! However, making a discord account is easy, and you don't need to get the app! You can just use the website. If you can be on nationstates, you can likely be on discord.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Monkelandd, Maxilains

Hello, I just want to once again express my support for the Amendment currently at vote, I do truly believe that this is the best path forward for the region as a whole, it more accurately reflects our government and opens new opportunities for cultural and roleplay events while ensuring our rights, liberties and democratic ideals are still protected. I do honestly believe this is the best thing for the region and I hope that this Amendment earns your support. Thank you and I hope you all have a great day!

Liruslau, Nationific, Ayeinc, Zentata, Maxilains, Kalderisara

While I will be voting "no" on the amendment for the various reasons I've stated throughout the debate, power rises from the people, and if the people want a queen... well, that's their right.

And for anyone interested in new roleplay/cultural opportunities, note that republican states, although much rarer, also have orders, titles, and knights. There's no need for us to abandon those ideas if the amendment fails!

Clarkstan, Toerana Iii, Zentata, Monkelandd, Maxilains, Holy Land Of Germania

What do politicians do when they desperately want legislation passed?

They talk about it till our ears fall off.

Jokes apart, I voted for.

Zentata, Monkelandd, Kalderisara

Nationific wrote:What do politicians do when they desperately want legislation passed?

They talk about it till our ears fall off.

Jokes apart, I voted for.

Well, I'm not going to lie, I do want this legislation passed and I am a politician soooooooo......prepares 3 hour speech. :]

Nationific, Veaetmar, Zentata, Monkelandd, Kalderisara

Kalderisara wrote:While I will be voting "no" on the amendment for the various reasons I've stated throughout the debate, power rises from the people, and if the people want a queen... well, that's their right.

Broke: Thalassia’s Queen, Sho!

(picture of sho in a queen outfit)

Woke: Thalassia’s Guardian of Light, Sho!

(picture of Sho in winged armored robes and a bladed staff)

Nationific, Veaetmar, Zentata, Arenado, Monkelandd, Kalderisara

Arenado, did you expect this amendment to be as controversial as it is?

Nationific, Arenado

The Lustrous Ones wrote:Broke: Thalassia’s Queen, Sho!

Woke: Thalassia’s Guardian/Protector, Sho!

Well, I personally think that if we wish to do something like that, change the title to something like Guardian or Protector, then voting in favour of this and then advocating for that specific title to be adopted if the legislation passes would be the best way to accomplish that.

Monkelandd wrote:Arenado, did you expect this amendment to be as controversial as it is?

I would not say it is controversial, per say, there are differing opinions, yes, but as far as I can tell no controversy.

Nationific, Zentata, Monkelandd

I like debate. And I totally love the quality of debate going on over this. I'm gonna ask you people for arguments next time I prepare for a debate in school,lol

Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Zentata, Arenado, Monkelandd, Kalderisara

Nationific wrote:I like debate. And I totally love the quality of debate going on over this. I'm gonna ask you people for arguments next time I prepare for a debate in school,lol

Same! (Also I voted against cause I dunno)

EDIT: RP

I just don’t think we need this amendment that much and I honestly don’t see the purpose says Prime Minister Charles Wincer

Nationific, Ayeinc, Zentata, Monkelandd, Maxilains

Well start preparing the speeches, it's all tied up 8 - 8 (I would vote for neutral but I technically already abstained from the Vote which counts)

Nationific, Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Zentata, Kalderisara

Arenado wrote:cutty flam and the post is the clam

Well, seeing as how the premises of this proposal has been met with fairly strong opposition and debate, I’d say it was fairly controversial.

Controversial as in invoking an uproar... well kinda but not really. Things did get heated but it’s nothing compared to online toxic flame wars.

Controversial as in invoking lots of public disagreement (the dictionary criteria), absolutely.

I think I’ll exorcise patience and watch the results before voting.

Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Zentata, Monkelandd, Kalderisara, Holy Land Of Germania

The Lustrous Ones wrote:controversy snip

I'd call it controversial for Thalassia, since pretty much every other amendment has passed by at least 80% (correct me if I'm wrong), and elections are often landslides.

Nationific, Veaetmar, The Lustrous Ones, Holy Land Of Germania

Monkelandd wrote:I'd call it controversial for Thalassia, since pretty much every other amendment has passed by at least 80% (correct me if I'm wrong), and elections are often landslides.

Like I said: Nothing's permanent in a democratic setup!

Monkelandd

The Lustrous Ones wrote:Controversial as in invoking an uproar... well kinda but not really

I haven't done my job, then. Time to throw tea into the Great Ocean!

Nationific

After I answerd one issue I changed from Inoffensive Central Democracy to Moralist Democracy, only to immediately change back in Inoffensive Central Democracy :I

Nationific, Holy Land Of Germania

If this amendment fails... I think there will be a shift in power which is always exciting! From what I see.

Nationific, Maxilains, Kalderisara

Maxilains wrote:After I answerd one issue I changed from Inoffensive Central Democracy to Moralist Democracy, only to immediately change back in Inoffensive Central Democracy :I

Yeah that happens, I went from a Inoffensive Centra Democracy to a Democratic Socialist and back to Inoffensive Central Democracy

Nationific, Maxilains

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:If this amendment fails... I think there will be a shift in power which is always exciting! From what I see.

Just look at the influence statistics. Almost all of the monarchists are "high" or "very high", while the republicans are relatively new.

Nationific

Kalderisara wrote:Just look at the influence statistics. Almost all of the monarchists are "high" or "very high", while the republicans are relatively new.

I beg to differ

Monkelandd

I might move to The Great region with Hopal so we can turn the region around. I wasn’t told the details I will explain I really don’t know what do I do?

EDIT: never mind I am about to get him back here.

Veaetmar

Kalderisara wrote:I haven't done my job, then. Time to throw tea into the Great Ocean!

Yeah. I believe it was Toerana III who did most of the uproaring in this case.

Also I should really make up my mind before posting and stop editing posts 5 times within 5 minutes of sending. All the good ideas seem to hit after I hit send.

The Lustrous Ones wrote:Broke: Thalassia’s Queen, Sho!

(picture of sho in a queen outfit)

Woke: Thalassia’s Guardian of Light, Sho!

(picture of Sho in winged armored robes and a bladed staff)

I think I’ve finally found my position on this matter.

Nationific, Veaetmar, Monkelandd, Holy Land Of Germania

The Lustrous Ones wrote:Uproar? Hell yeah!

I always like a good uproar. Looking forward to countering your arguments, aka, sitting on the fence!

Zentata, The Lustrous Ones

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:If this amendment fails... I think there will be a shift in power which is always exciting! From what I see.

Not at all. All governments sometimes have failures, and this has not failed yet. Not everything can be a success, but Arenado has been a wonderful Prime Minister and I don't think that this should change anyone's opinions.

Kalderisara wrote:Just look at the influence statistics. Almost all of the monarchists are "high" or "very high", while the republicans are relatively new.

This is not entirely correct. Using the words Monarchists and Republicans implies that the monarchists support dictatorship/autocracy, when in reality they support being honest. The republicans merely do not think that the change is a good idea.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Monkelandd, Kalderisara

Zentata wrote:Not at all. All governments sometimes have failures, and this has not failed yet. Not everything can be a success, but Arenado has been a wonderful Prime Minister and I don't think that this should change anyone's opinions. This is not entirely correct. Using the words Monarchists and Republicans implies that the monarchists support dictatorship/autocracy, when in reality they support being honest. The republicans merely do not think that the change is a good idea.

Arenado is a great prime minister! I never said not?

Nationific, Zentata

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:Arenado is a great prime minister! I never said not?

Ah, I misinterpreted your statement. Apologies!

Nationific, Monkelandd, Holy Land Of Germania

Nationific wrote:I always like a good uproar. Looking forward to countering your arguments, aka, sitting on the fence!

Err you’re better off countering other people’s arguments, because I also sit on the fence! Until someone convinces me with a good argument. So if you derail that argument that I liked, I would probably just change my mind.

Nationific, Zentata

Something about the monarchy, and unrelated to this amendment.In real life I have the same opinion as Kalderisara,Every government branch should come from the people either directly or indirectly (even judges and prosecutors, in my opinion, should be elected by the people's representatives or deputies). Anyone in any monarchy(no matter Sweden,Arabia etc) has no legitimacy of the people.

And as soon as you do not have the legitimacy of the people, you cannot consider yourself their representative, even if it has the support of 70% of the population.Everything has to go through a democratic process, one monarch can be replaced by a coup d'etat while the president or prime minister can be replaced by parliament.According to the Russian constitution, for example, the president can be replaced by the council, to say right away is another story that this has not been shown in practice since 1990.

In the case of Thalassia, the monarchy may be the solution, it is like now that the founder has excellent power, this amendment in my opinion only adds the title and classification of the region. No less, everything will remain the same and I hope it will progress.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Zentata, Arenado, Kalderisara

Sweden is not total monarchy, they have a parliament, the monarch is simply a figure head like in the UK, but Saudi Arabia... nope!

Clarkstan, Nationific, Zentata

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:Sweden is not total monarchy, they have a parliament, the monarch is simply a figure head like in the UK, but Saudi Arabia... nope!

Yes, Sweden is a successful constitutional monarchy, but again it is a monarchy and the head of state is a monarch. And I talked about that a little while ago.Yup Arabia is absolute monarchy.

Ayeinc

I think we can all agree that the technical accuracy of the term monarchy wasn’t the issue (well it “was” an issue but it wasn’t THE issue)

The issue was actually the empire label.

Sho wrote:Hello! I saw my name mentioned. I’ve been holding back on my opinions because of the clear conflict of interest- the referendum being about me, I thought it best to step back for a while to allow for open and honest discussion without worrying about potentially offending me. As I was mentioned directly regarding my stance, I’d like to briefly share my thoughts with you. I won’t be pinging and quoting left and right because I don’t want to flood out discussion- I won’t be available again until tonight, but if there are any additional questions that I may answer after this, please do not hesitate to message me or ping me.

[spoiler=Snipped! Click me for more.]In regards to whether or not I was contacted about this: Yes, I was. Legally, I handle all referendums (except for non-legal opinion polls) unless the Prime Minister has permission to do so. Due to the conflict of interest, the Prime Minister and I decided jointly it would be best for him to oversee this referendum.

As to whether or not I agree with its contents, I do, but not as a vanity title. Functionality of the role in government would stay the same, yes, this is solely a cosmetic change on that front. For all intents and purposes, what is a non-elected executive in most cases that A. has constitutional limits and B. does not control the day-to-day running of the government? We already could be seen as a Constitutional Monarchy in quite literally everything except name. This in no way, shape, or form robs citizens of their ability to elect their own representatives- the government will exist as it does. I would never support a system that takes away that right. In my time as the PM of Pacifica, PM of Thalassia, and then the Founder of Thalassia, I would like to think I have proven that I am capable and willing to listen to, compromise with, and abide by decisions in regards to what is best for the region. I’d also like to think that I’ve proven myself as “not the dictatorial type”. 😂 If I was, would I have handed off the Founder account when we came to Thalassia? Would I respect the constitutional limits of my office?

What it boils down to, ultimately, is how to best serve our community, and I personally believe this opens cultural avenues for our region. Things like titles for those who have earned them, knighthoods/honors, character roleplay opportunities and events (perhaps in the discord, so people on the RMB are still able to have their nation-based roleplay undisturbed), and a richer cultural history for Thalassia beyond the elections. For example, a few people have mentioned that the standard names for various monarchies don’t suit us. To avoid confusion for outside parties and newcomers, I believe it would be beneficial to have a standardized word for the monarch/monarchy... but we could also consider creating a word for use in Thalassia- one that suits us and our unique character.

To reiterate in brief: This is a cosmetic change and would not effect how the government operates. It does, however, open the door to many new ideas and many ways to build onto and enrich an already existing identity. This doesn’t give me any powers I don’t already have- it’s a title change. We still value democracy through elections that will continue to exist and we’d still be upholding Thalassian values. We would simply be reflecting through a name what is already true in practice. [/spoiler]

Bump

The Lustrous Ones wrote:The issue was actually the empire label.

Which was removed in favor of discussion and polling regarding the name yesterday by the Prime Minister.

Czech Germania, Nationific, Ayeinc, Arenado, Hok Sou, Maxilains

Even though I cannot vote, I know that maybe a person or two listens to me. I would be voting for on this, and it makes a bit of sense. Of course, should it not work out, y'all can put forward and petition an amendment taking it back.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Zentata, Arenado, Hok Sou, Maxilains

The Lustrous Ones

We're not having a change in power status. We're, in fact, voting on the change in a name. Any result therefore, is a direct manifestation of the majority of the people's wishes. A true democracy always have people who will oppose and support. You can't make EVERYONE happy. We humans aren't made that way. So, that's that for the power of the people. Any considerations whatsoever of our image presented to the world has been looked after in the amendment to the amendment. So, I fully support it now. If this passes, people want a new name, to be proposed by the people. If not, then we must accept that we're better off as we are. Like I said, there will always be some people who'll not be happy with whatever is going on. It's quite natural, but the best representation of the people is done by the people themselves. This amendment, in no way, takes away our power over the region. We're not gonna become dictatorial just by changing a name. I do believe that our current members of the executive will not go authoritarian at just a name change. But we do require it to correctly show ourselves to the world. And that is why, again, we're having a poll to decide what name to choose.

So, this is my argument for the amendment.

Ps-Toerana, I'm not prepared for YOUR arguments. You're wayyy better than any of us here, I believe, and it's gonna take a lot of work to attain the standards of arguments you have. Here, I'm ready to accept defeat.

Clarkstan, Ayeinc, Zentata, Hok Sou, Kalderisara, Holy Land Of Germania

See we have no use for the amendment we can still have the role play but the amendment is useless.

Nationific

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:See we have no use for the amendment we can still have the role play but the amendment is useless.

Ahhh, never underestimate the depths to which people go for absolute truth and absolute falsehood

Holy Land Of Germania

Once again, I would like to re-iterate what this vote is about.

This is not a vote on becoming an Empire.

This is a vote on if we should become a Constitutional Monarchy. If this passes, we will have a period for discussion on a name followed by a vote for the specific name and title we, as a region, wish to adopt. Our democratic rights, freedoms and political processes will remain intact. I strongly support this Amendment and urge people to vote for this Amendment, I truly believe this Amendment is the best path forward for the region as a whole.

Clarkstan, New Camelot Of Avalonia, Nationific, Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Kalderisara

The Lustrous Ones wrote:The issue was actually the empire label.

I agree that rebranding Thalassia as an empire is far more problematic than changing the title of the founder. That's not changing the law to match fact, that's a complete reformation of the government. Thalassia is not an empire, neither by law nor by fact.

Veaetmar, The Lustrous Ones

Kalderisara wrote:I agree that rebranding Thalassia as an empire is far more problematic than changing the title of the founder. That's not changing the law to match fact, that's a complete reformation of the government. Thalassia is not an empire, neither by law nor by fact.

That's the sole reason that the amendment was amended

Nothing will change if we become a constitutional monarchy, we will forget that in 3 months because there will simply be no differences. We will have RP, elections for prime minister and referendums. That's all.

New Camelot Of Avalonia, Nationific, Ayeinc, Sho, Zentata, Arenado

While I can appreciate it is only a change in name, in an RP situation names and concepts matter quite a bit. In Libertinian morality (and my own, I guess), I don't care to elevate any person above another in any way. I believe all people have the same inherent value, and in a monarchy that simply isn't held to be true. In a monarchy, there are some people who are born better than the others and by that birth are entitled to receive their support, allegiance, and even adoration. It's a road I don't wish to tread.

That said, I love this group and enjoy the time I spend here. You have all been super helpful to me.

Clarkstan, Nationific, Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Monkelandd, Banq, The Lustrous Ones, Kalderisara

Yes, this isn’t about being an empire.

That’s not even a technically accurate label so it was good that it was scrapped. Idk what everyone made out of my last post but this was my statement all along.

I’m sure Arenado’s camp would’ve had a far easier time convincing Thalassia’s members if a constitutional monarchy term was in the opening statement. Well, this debate’s conclusion wasn’t bad either.

I’m not really posting with a motive or position anyway, I only share what insights can be found in existing discussions. And of course some memes.

(Disclaimer: my Guardian of Light proposal is legitimate though. It is only about 10-20% meme.)

Kalderisara wrote:I agree that rebranding Thalassia as an empire is far more problematic than changing the title of the founder. That's not changing the law to match fact, that's a complete reformation of the government. Thalassia is not an empire, neither by law nor by fact.

Yessir that is the elaborate and detailed version of what I wanted to say

Ayeinc, Veaetmar

Libertin wrote:While I can appreciate it is only a change in name, in an RP situation names and concepts matter quite a bit. In Libertinian morality (and my own, I guess), I don't care to elevate any person above another in any way. I believe all people have the same inherent value, and in a monarchy that simply isn't held to be true. In a monarchy, there are some people who are born better than the others and by that birth are entitled to receive their support, allegiance, and even adoration. It's a road I don't wish to tread.

That said, I love this group and enjoy the time I spend here. You have all been super helpful to me.

But isn't this the case here also? NS simply doesn't provide for a true democratic regional government. The Founder is supreme and necessary, and isn't the Founder something like a monarch? If you're in this region you automatically consent to the Founder's authority over all regional governance. I guess, this is another of Max's reference to reality... Absolute security needs absolute power, but absolute power is unstable without the people's consent

Before I turn into a philosopher, I'd like to say how much my respect for Max Barry has increased over the last 24 hours. He's become, from a cool guy to a cool guy who knows exactly what needs to change in real life but doesn't have the power to do it so he created a satire, where everyone has the power to do it

Clarkstan, Ayeinc, The Lustrous Ones

Nationific wrote: The founder has supreme power and is necessary

Well, in theory, this is completely accurate. The founder doth have all power lest they CTE or something.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean the members would have zero leverage over power struggles should they occur. Member states can leave and are free to pursue their own standards elsewhere.

Apply this concept to real life where people could re-locate in the blink of an eye when facing political hardship, and suddenly you’ll discover that North Korea’s population would eventually fizzle out to nothingness. Or perhaps they would be desperate enough to pander to their people to convince them to stay. See where I’m going with this?

Personally I see this moreso as a non-essential business agreement rather than consenting to a (hypothetical) absolute authority. Yes, there is nothing you can do to stop a founder from going ballistic and using that power to prove it exists, but it’s still has to appeal to its members lest it becomes a 1nation sandbox.

I don’t even know if I’m agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but biggest takeaway is that the reach of such a position isn’t all that impressive relative to the position itself

Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Zentata, Monkelandd, Banq, Kalderisara

It is true that true democracy is not possible. However, there is a stigma against monarchy that may drive people away from the region. I do completely trust the founder, or I would not be here. The founder has supreme rule, and J am fine with that. I just do not support the cosmetic change.

Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Zentata, Monkelandd

World Assembly-Security Council-Commend Audioslavia

Vote:For

Audioslavia has been a strong and sucessful force in the sports roleplay community, and they have helped shape, and been a tremendously good impact there. They are an outstanding and dedicated member of that community, and that deserves to be recognized, especially with such a well-written commendation. I encourage all of you to vote for.

Toerana Iii, Ayeinc, Holy Land Of Germania

I missed a whole lot,didn't i?

Nationific, Zentata, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones, Holy Land Of Germania

Coalandia wrote:I missed a whole lot,didn't i?

Yup, loooads

Zentata, Coalandia, Holy Land Of Germania

I'm really enjoying this discussion on the amendment and there are some eloquent arguments on both sides.

I also appreciate that supporting an amendment without knowing [I]what[/I] you are voting for in actuality is difficult too. It is like receiving your food and having the option to keep it or change it, but not knowing what might come out next.

However, I think Thalassia would benefit from a re-brand of sorts. As a region I feel that we have far too much character and creativity to continue using the simple titles we use now in perpetuity.

So the issue therefore is not a limited question of just 'Yes' or 'No' to the question before us at referendum. Instead the real question is 'What' do we want to be and 'Why' do we want to identify ourselves in that manner. We have our core values, those that brought us together as a region in the first place and are set out at the very beginning of our Constitution - but we need to better establish what that looks like as a region-wide identity and community.

The discussion won't end with the referendum result, regardless of the outcome. I hope people continue this debate with the commitment to the region and respect for each other that has been shown so far. It is an exciting discussion to have!

Kelazi, Liruslau, Czech Germania, Nationific, Ayeinc, Zentata, Arenado, Monkelandd, Banq, Coalandia, The Lustrous Ones

Coalandia wrote:I missed a whole lot,didn't i?

Yep. Also I insist that people vote “No” because we have no us Ecke this amendment. It wouldn’t make a change but it would show to others that we are more willing to show that we are a democratic monarchy than a free and fair democracy.

Ayeinc, Zentata, Monkelandd, Banq, Coalandia, The Lustrous Ones, Maxilains

I am voting "No" on the Constitutional Monarchy Amendment. Although I support the idea of cultural development in more areas such as the regional government, I am against the idea of shifting the region towards a monarchic aesthetic. I would think it detrimental to the region to adopt the image of any one form of government, as opposed to acting as more of a general union of states which any newcomer nation may find more welcoming.

Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Carlia, Banq, The Lustrous Ones, Kalderisara, Holy Land Of Germania

RP

Hopal has been kicked out of our pact due to his withdrawal from Thallassia. Also join the ICTTN! Ad: Vote no to the vote! Preserve freedom!

Ayeinc

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:RP

Hopal has been kicked out of our pact due to his withdrawal from Thallassia. Also join the ICTTN! Ad: Vote no to the vote! Preserve freedom!

First, when did he left Thalassia?

Second, Arenado already said that it only changes the title, so, everything will stay the same, it only becomes a monarchy.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Banq

Portugal And Great Britannia wrote:First, when did he left Thalassia?

Second, Arenado already said that it only changes the title, so, everything will stay the same, it only becomes a monarchy.

Exactly like I said, and hopal left like 11hours ago

Nationific

Well, I did not think I'd be writing this much today on the RMB.

[spoiler=Monarchy Amendment]The amendment currently at vote is quite probably the most contested in all our legislative history. I don't find myself to be an avid debater over these amendments, but considering this, I feel I should give my two cents on the topic.

Firstly, I want to state that I am in favor of this amendment. When it was presented before Cabinet, I kept a relatively neutral stance on it but have since decided to push for its passage. I think the simplest way I can explain my position is by responding to a couple arguments I've read (I won't mention specific people, as I only skimmed through the RMB and don't wanna enter into unnecessary conflict over who's saying what) or think may come forth later on and by making whatever other comments I feel I should make. So, here are my points to make on the topic of this amendment:

1.) Any argument based on a supposed threat this amendment could place on the democracy of Thalassia is invalid. The amendment does not change the government of this region in any way beyond a change in titles. Every single one of the changes this amendment makes to the Constitution is purely cosmetic. "Renaming" is explicitly mentioned twice in its contents.

2.) Any argument against placing a lot of power in the hands of one individual is not an argument against this amendment but against the system already inscribed in the Constitution, established largely under the Executive Powers Amendment. I won't give any opinion on that, but I just wanted to point out that that's a different conversation to be had.

3.) Any argument based on a fear that even if our government remains unchanged by this amendment, it could more easily become changed and manipulated into a more undemocratic form due to the image of authoritarian governments (both in the real world and in NationStates regions) that is supposedly suggested by terms such as "monarchy" is invalid. That fear is irrational. It's a fallacious slippery slope argument that assumes making a few tiny cosmetic changes to our region is going to give it a bad reputation in the eyes of nations that already call it home, nations considering calling it home, and/or regions that are its allies. If there is any nation who takes a look at our region, sees it is a monarchy and sees nothing else, and then looks on to find another region, it is my honest opinion that Thalassia is better off without that nation than with them, because what we need in order to support a sturdy democracy is a population of voters who care a lot about the actual workings of our government, looking past names and labels to see and criticize the real flaws.

4.) I've explained why this amendment isn't a bad thing, but some people may be wondering up to this point why am I in favor of it rather than being neutral as I was before. Well, what I realized is that monarchy is more accurate of a term for our government. Whether you support the way our government works or not, you should be in support of this amendment, because no matter what, it is a more accurate representation of the way things are. There are some varying definitions for monarchy, but here's one I pulled off Wikipedia that I think most people would agree with - "a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication." Is this not what we are? Does Article IV, Section 1 of our Constitution not read, "The Founder is the head of state of Thalassia."? If you don't want Thalassia to be a monarchy, call it a monarchy so you can more easily explain why. If you want Thalassia to be a monarchy, call it a monarchy so you can more easily explain why. Take this opportunity to officially label our government for what it is.[/spoiler]

Clarkstan, Ayeinc, Sho, Arenado, Monkelandd, Tirr Savattstra

Portugal And Great Britannia wrote:First, when did he left Thalassia?

Second, Arenado already said that it only changes the title, so, everything will stay the same, it only becomes a monarchy.

"It only becomes a Monarchy" is a significant thing.

We may be a de facto constitutional Monarchy, but self identifying as one is unnecessary and only serves to open the door to the path that may lead us into becoming a true Monarchy. All of the cultural additions that are claimed to be opened up by becoming such a state, things like titles, can occur in non Monarchial states, so there is quite literally no argument in favour of officially becoming a Monarchy outside of "well it sounds cool doesn't it."

I hope no one truly believe in that argument, that a "cool" sounding name is more important than one that properly identifies what we wish to be.

Yes, I understand, "this amendment itself doesn't change how we work," but it does significantly change how we identify ourselves. We would go from identifying ourselves as a democracy, to a Monarchy with democratic aspects. We are not currently a Monarchy with democratic aspects, we are a democracy with an unelected Head of State out of the necessity that arose from a troubled Presidential office, of which the blame can firmly be put on two people, not the office itself.

If this amendment fails, which I (shockingly) hope it does, then I believe we should look back towards reinstating a democratically elected head of State to properly end this debate and sort out whether we wish to be a constitutional Monarchy or a fully fledged Democracy.

Either way, this amendment is unnecessary and the "cosmetic" changes may only serve to change how Thalassia acts and is viewed by new nations, and maybe even potential allies and partners, not as the region claiming to be a Democracy, but claiming to be a Monarchy. Any region that already views us as a Monarchy is clearly not interested in Thalassia as a region, as they are not caring to recognise our core values and beliefs. If we vote to become a Monarchy, those core values and beliefs may be overshadowed by how we choose to identify ourselves.

Kelazi, Nationific, Ayeinc, Monkelandd, Tirr Savattstra, Kalderisara

I just got discord. Can someone help me with it? My discord thing is VenaticGnat7305. No:1149

Nationific

Post self-deleted by Kalderisara.

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:Snip

What do you need help with?

Can I join the thalassia discord server? How?

Czech Germania

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:Can I join the thalassia discord server? How?

There's a link in the "helpful links" section that, when clicked, will invite you to the server.

Czech Germania, Monkelandd

Czech Germania wrote: If there is any nation who takes a look at our region, sees it is a monarchy and sees nothing else, and then looks on to find another region, it is my honest opinion that Thalassia is better off without that nation than with them, because what we need in order to support a sturdy democracy is a population of voters who care a lot about the actual workings of our government, looking past names and labels to see and criticize the real flaws.

This almost won me over because it addresses the main qualm I had, and, in the event that the amendment wins, I agree and thank you for your reasoning, Czech Germania.

But not quite; I vote no. It's been stated several times that this would be a cosmetic change, and I've yet to see any compelling reason for its necessity.

Czech Germania, Nationific, Ayeinc

Tirr Savattstra wrote:This almost won me over because it addresses the main qualm I had, and, in the event that the amendment wins, I agree and thank you for your reasoning, Czech Germania.

But not quite; I vote no. It's been stated several times that this would be a cosmetic change, and I've yet to see any compelling reason for its necessity.

I’d ask you this in response, what is the necessity to not change it? Is there a actual reason to keep it as it currently is? In my opinion changing the region title to a constitutional monarchy title would fit the regions actual government much better. Why keep it as it currently is when there is another option that fits the region much better?

Czech Germania, Ayeinc, Tirr Savattstra

Tirr Savattstra wrote:

But not quite; I vote no. It's been stated several times that this would be a cosmetic change, and I've yet to see any compelling reason for its necessity.

I think this is a strong argument for abstaining, because I agree that there isn't an extremely compelling argument that necessitates a vote For. However, it's not like there isn't any argument at all that carries at least some weight. As The United Nations Of Kvenland noted, a monarchy is a more accurate label and theme for us, and I think that's reason enough to at least not vote Against.

The United Nations Of Kvenland, Ayeinc

Czech Germania wrote:I think this is a strong argument for abstaining, because I agree that there isn't an extremely compelling argument that necessitates a vote For. However, it's not like there isn't any argument at all that carries at least some weight. As The United Nations Of Kvenland noted, a monarchy is a more accurate label and theme for us, and I think that's reason enough to at least not vote Against.

Our main argument has been this, it has no necessity and doesn’t give us any advantage. It seems more of a hassle, y’all say that we will continue to be democratic but be a monarchy I will say that why not continue to be totally democratic and no show an inch of a monarchy for the government of our region, i may be a monarchy, that is because our king is blessed by our god and has united our people ina great revolution that I was to lazy to write anything about, but that is democratic though, sorry I am getting off subject, what I mean is why must we be a monarchy, it brings NO advantages.

Mornicoder, Kalderisara

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:snip

I agree. To be honest, we should be like what Pacifica was and be what we actually stand for, a seafaring bastion of liberty, democracy, and solidarity.

In my opinion, I prefer that we are a full-fledged democracy.

Kalderisara

I come back from a work related break to 200+ new people and the most 50/50 vote I’ve ever seen in my time here. Oh boy.

I’ve been around since Pacifica off and on and I’ve seen both regions grow in many different ways. Here’s the real reason voting FOR is the best choice for Thalassia. And a lot of those voting against are really not going to like it.

Look at the list of people voting against. Save for maybe three people, they’re all newbies. Most of their arguments against are logical fallacies because it is painfully obvious they are not actually knowledgeable in terms of how the region is run or how the constitution works. How can you be so concerned about the values of a region you can’t even be bothered to read the constitution of? Notice the long term members, their line of reasoning, and their votes? These people have been here long enough to know and create the values this region stands on. Who are you to tell them they are wrong when they built this place from the ground up?

You’re all so concerned about how embassies and outsiders will view us at a glance because you’ve barely given the region more than a glance. Which is exactly why a cosmetic change like this is necessary- it avoids new nations from being mislead and the region from being misrepresented.

The other argument I’ve seen is that’s this is a stepping stone to a full monarchy or dictatorship. Why on earth would there be a democratic vote, then, when using basic game mechanics, those in opposition could easily be removed from the region? Wouldn’t that be easier than attempting to give people a choice in the matter? There is no removing the founder due to game mechanics unless he CTE’s. If he were to CTE, then you would have to create a contingency plan which (guess what!) a line of succession automatically creates. Which would also imply the Founder account is unlikely to CTE given the founder’s history of handing off the account when he had to leave or had other responsibilities. If, despite this, the founder account CTE’d... the region would be in a state of emergency. Just like the Republic/Democratic Union of Pacifica. You would be better off crossing that bridge when you got there or trusting that the account would be handed off rather than clinging to this silly idea that being dishonest about what the region functions as somehow avoids that issue entirely.

Voting FOR not only brings in whatever cultural options have been discussed, but it keeps us honest with embassies, outsiders, and new people. Being honest with them will bring stronger relations and internal affairs because the confusion over how things operate now is what brought on all this infighting. The concrete executive founder is the head of state, the elected non-executive Prime Minister is the head of government. Thalassia is a Constitutional Monarchy. It’s time we were up front with that.

The United Nations Of Kvenland, Czech Germania, Nationific, Ayeinc, Zentata, Arenado, Kalderisara

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:Our main argument has been this, it has no necessity and doesn’t give us any advantage. It seems more of a hassle, y’all say that we will continue to be democratic but be a monarchy I will say that why not continue to be totally democratic and no show an inch of a monarchy for the government of our region, i may be a monarchy, that is because our king is blessed by our god and has united our people ina great revolution that I was to lazy to write anything about, but that is democratic though, sorry I am getting off subject, what I mean is why must we be a monarchy, it brings NO advantages.

I think your still confused about what this is a vote for. This is simply a cosmetic change that changes the title of the region to better fit what the actual governmental system already is. The founder (monarch) already has quite a bit of power within the region. By changing the title of the region all we would be doing is acknowledging what our government is already actually like. We are changing nothing with this vote besides acknowledging the fact that we are already a constitutional monarchy.

Post self-deleted by Sho.

I need to catch up on some of these arguements. The RMB has kept busy. 😅

I have to say I’m rather confused about the idea of bringing back the Presidency. We voted to remove it because of how problematic it proved to be for the region. Cosmetic change or not- bringing back those issues is somehow a solution?

Czech Germania, Nationific, Ayeinc, Monkelandd

To be honest, I wouldn't want a presidential system, but more of a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch (like the U.K.) as a compromise.

Mornicoder wrote:To be honest, I wouldn't want a presidential system, but more of a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch (like the U.K.) as a compromise.

You’re in luck- the discussion regarding a legislature has been in the works for a while. How it’s formed is still up in the air, but I believe that was meant to be discussed sooner than later.

Mornicoder, Czech Germania, Ayeinc, Monkelandd

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:...It seems more of a hassle, y’all say that we will continue to be democratic but be a monarchy I will say that why not continue to be totally democratic and no show an inch of a monarchy for the government of our region...

Maybe because we are not and never were "totally democratic"? We established the office of the Founder as our head of state (to be occupied indefinitely by Sho) as a safeguard against the terrible situation that was Pacifica and the failures of the Presidency in Thalassia.

The United Nations Of Kvenland, Nationific, Ayeinc, Sho

Czech Germania wrote:I think this is a strong argument for abstaining, because I agree that there isn't an extremely compelling argument that necessitates a vote For. However, it's not like there isn't any argument at all that carries at least some weight.

You're right; I like the title of Founder much better than any royal designation because a Founder indicates someone who has undertaken a great deal of work, and a goal that has been begun and achieved (royal titles might mean as much, but...not always). However, as many have pointed out, this amendment is just giving the proper name to the reality.

I won't balk over semantics.

The United Nations Of Kvenland, Mornicoder, Czech Germania, Nationific, The Lustrous Ones

Another 50/50 situation? I should really read all the arguments again. And oh, people have been asking about the necessity of such a cosmetic change. That is for the absolute truth, truth that we're not a full democracy, the truth and nothing but the truth. It's as simple as that! Or perhaps, maybe not.

The United Nations Of Kvenland, Ayeinc, Tirr Savattstra, Holy Land Of Germania

Whichever way Thalassia votes on this amendment, we will still be a democratic region. This debate and discussion would not be possible without our constitution which grants us free expression. We will still be a seafaring bastion of liberty, democracy, and solidarity, and let no one forget that. This is an exciting time in Thalassia's history. Our region, our community will continue to thrive for years to come.

Semper Thalassia.

Nationific, Tirr Savattstra, The Lustrous Ones, Holy Land Of Germania

Like my new flag? Thank you Monkelandd!

Ayeinc, Arenado, Monkelandd, The 3Nd German Republic, Tirr Savattstra, Holy Land Of Germania

Czech Germania wrote:If there is any nation who takes a look at our region, sees it is a monarchy and sees nothing else, and then looks on to find another region, it is my honest opinion that Thalassia is better off without that nation than with them

Well, err, there is one problem with this statement.

I only joined Thalassia because it was a bastion of liberty, democracy, etc and didn’t call itself a monarchy. Yes, I would know there was probably more to it, but I would’ve just looked over and joined another region. Joining for shallow reasons doesn’t necessarily entail shallow involvement or shallow motives.

I mean, I can leave the region if it is your honest opinion that Thalassia is better off without me, but I highly doubt others feel that way. And also I don’t want to lose my endorsements either

Speaking of endorsements, noo Hopal left! :( I lost an endorsement T_T

Kelazi, Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Tirr Savattstra, Kalderisara, Holy Land Of Germania

Don't leave. I joined for an even shallower reason; Thalassia is an awesome name that goes well with my country's name. Fortunately, the people here are interesting, friendly and fun. Also fixed that endorsement issue for you.

Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones

The Lustrous Ones wrote:Snip of liberty

You have likely misinterpreted Czech's post. They say that there is more to Thalassia than the WFE. And surely, people aren't stupid enough to make a decision based just on a few lines? That is another reason why the WFE is not being changed. We all advertise the values that are closest to us and well, if you need to think before joining a region, that adds another layer of complexity to the game. Here, we all like complexity!

I also agree that joining for shallow reasons doesn't necessarily mean shallow involvement. But it isn't anyone's opinion that such a person leaves. Once you've joined, you're as much a part of the community as is the first person to come here. Did I confuse you? Sowwwy!

The Lustrous Ones

Tirr Savattstra wrote:Snip

When those semantics bring new meanings, it's right to balk at them. A monarch isn't just an unelected head of state, there are very real official and unofficial differences. Kim Jong-Un, despite being a hereditary dictator, is not seen as the embodiment of the state or the Korean people in the same way a monarch is.

A monarch usually has the following characteristics (although not all of them may be true, nearly all of them will be):

1. Succession by blood

2. Non-popular sovereignty (often divine investiture)

3. Lifelong rule

4. Perceived as the embodiment of the nation and/or the state

The first two don't apply here, and the fourth is questionable. Certainly, the founder is the head-of-state, but when you (or perhaps more importantly, outsiders) think of the Thalassian identity, does Sho come to mind as the personal embodiment of that? Maybe, maybe not. It seems to me that Sho is more like a George Washington (valued and highly regarded for their contributions and advice) than a Pope (infallible, blessed rule and embodiment of authority).

Regardless, it seems to me that the current form of government is a sort of constitutional dictatorship than a monarchy. Obviously, this is quite an odd status-quo to have and it would probably be good to straighten it out.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I feel the need to point out that this is not so clearly "giving the proper name to reality" that some are claiming it to be.

Monkelandd, Tirr Savattstra, The Lustrous Ones

The Lustrous Ones wrote:snip

I certainly don't think that Czech or anyone else was implying you should leave or anything else. You have as much right to be here as anyone else.

Czech Germania

Nationific I was with you until the last couple of lines. There should be some level of participation beyond a couple of RMB posts before someone is considered part of a community. To truly be part of a community, an individual needs to actually find their place in it, not expect the group to mold around them. It’s not the responsibility of the group to bend around someone else’s misunderstanding.

Superficial reason or not, you know better now. Either stay for the community, learn about it, and find your place in it, or find one that matches the superficial reason you crave.

Nationific, Tirr Savattstra

Arenado wrote:I certainly don't think that Czech or anyone else was implying you should leave or anything else. You have as much right to be here as anyone else.

No, I interpreted it just fine. I don’t think anyone is going to try to kick me out based on those reasons anyway. Nor do I think Czech was actually calling me out. All I’m saying is that I don’t agree with the premise that Thalassia is necessarily better off without those who join without much context on the region.

Most of us newer players were brought along by Drew’s videos. The game just looked cool and there wasn’t a whole lot else to it. By all means we joined Nationstates on shallow terms as well

Kelazi

Kalderisara, you have a lot of opinions on what Thalassia is and isn’t for someone who has existed for the grand total of a week. You almost sound like a puppet with how vehement you are now, given you supposedly didn’t understand how many parts of this game operates a couple of days ago. ☕️

Toucan Samgu

Napier wrote:Nationific I was with you until the last couple of lines. There should be some level of participation beyond a couple of RMB posts before someone is considered part of a community. To truly be part of a community, an individual needs to actually find their place in it, not expect the group to mold around them. It’s not the responsibility of the group to bend around someone else’s misunderstanding.

Superficial reason or not, you know better now. Either stay for the community, learn about it, and find your place in it, or find one that matches the superficial reason you crave.

I was just talking about community involvement. Aren't the nations who joined last week a part of our community now? I'm not talking about being molded by this community...If you understand what I mean. I believe that each and every one has the ability to mold the community to their own ways, and also interpret it in their own ways. I mean, you join a region to be involved in it, to have some company, right?

Veaetmar, Monkelandd, Kalderisara

Depends on who you are, I guess. My point was more “get integrated and get to know and enjoy what a community is before you decide what’s good for it”. I do not think that is unfair. Hell, I would take comments from any long term inactive first because they’ve at least been around long enough to know for sure what the region’s values are.

Nationific

Napier wrote:Snip

"Many"? I asked one question about embassies! Anyway, I've played this game on and off for quite a while (here's an old one of mine that I restored when I decided to start playing the game again before deciding to make a new nation: West Oly. I'll go make a factbook or something if you want me to prove it), so I know most of how this game works.

Also, I understand that I'm new to the community, but does that disqualify me from having an opinion? Perhaps my perspective might be useful since it's come up several times about how the outside world perceives us.

Veaetmar, Monkelandd, Tirr Savattstra, The Lustrous Ones

> knows how this game work

> supposedly doesn’t know one of it’s most basic mechanics

> proceeds down this vehement path of opposition despite barely having had the time to integrated or understand this community or it’s history.

I have opinions on how I would like many regions to operate, but it doesn’t make my opinions right or even equal to the long standing members. As in my first message: look who is standing on either side of this vote. The majority for are integrated and active members of the community. The majority against came into a region for various reasons, many superficial, and gave two cents on what they couldn’t be bothered to look into beyond “oh no that doesn’t seem right to me”. That’s no better than flipping a coin.

The point of this is that the outside world has misunderstood Thalassia, hence why you and couple of others joined.

I’m almost certain you are a puppet. Sho Thalassia Founder and anyone else running telegrams: check recruitment.

Napier wrote:Snip

I understand that, but in accordance with region law, all member nations have the right to free speech (subject to moderation), and any WA member may participate in votes if they were residents before the vote began. I do value the opinions of more experienced community members, but I'm not going to be silent and say "well, whatever they think is best must be best."

Further, I'm not even that vehement. I've done my best to be civil with everyone and calmly state my opinions. If I've failed in that, I sincerely apologize. If the community truly feels that I have acted poorly, I will withdraw my vote and retract my statements.

Nationific, The Lustrous Ones

Oh come on, I've been in this region since it was founded. I moved from Pacifica. So, I kind of know enough about the region to tell you that this kind of speech isn't gonna get you anywhere constructive, Napier. Sorry if I sound harsh.

Mornicoder, Veaetmar, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones, Kalderisara

You’re right, you have the right to free speech. So do I. No one is censoring you. But I’m not going to ignore what I consider to be BS from a puppet. You compared our Founder to a dictator and then proceeded to barely save it by then comparing him to George Washington. I can work past the rest of the arguement, but that? That’s either malice or pure unadulterated ignorance depending on how you spin it.

And I’ve played this game on and off since it was created, Nationific. With all due respect, I know puppet propaganda when I see it.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Arenado

There's nothing in this region against puppets, we all have some, I'd say. And, why not let someone say whatever they like? I'm just trying to keep some peace on the RMB, because since a few days, that's my job. Unless someone says anything directly to you which is offensive, that person has every right to say whatever they like. I may not be here long, 1 year isn't such a long time, but I've seen enough hate to last me a lifetime. Please don't add to it, both of you, and I promise I'm not gonna interfere with anything. I'll mind my business.

Monkelandd, Kalderisara

Napier wrote:You’re right, you have the right to free speech. So do I. No one is censoring you. But I’m not going to ignore what I consider to be BS from a puppet. You compared our Founder to a dictator and then proceeded to barely save it by then comparing him to George Washington. I can work past the rest of the arguement, but that? That’s either malice or pure unadulterated ignorance depending on how you spin it.

And I’ve played this game on and off since it was created, Nationific. With all due respect, I know puppet propaganda when I see it.

Okay, time out. If you can’t debate something without attacking individuals rather than debating their opinions then you need to stop posting for a bit.

If you have genuine security concerns then we have a Ministry that deals with that and you should contact the Minister privately.

Nationific, Arenado, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones, Kalderisara

You seem to misunderstand what I mean by puppet. I’m not talking about a cute roleplay puppet. To be blunt, I think this person has a vendetta. I could very well be wrong, and if proven wrong I will issue my public apology. But I have been in a number of regions where this pattern of feigning ignorance followed by an intense political push was done with underlying intent. The first step to knowing that is seeing if they were recruited, because seeing as they have NO other history on this account, that would mean they came here directly. And Thalassia is large, sure, but its not big enough in GP on the forums for that to have much more explanation.

I’m not arguing at this point. I’m voicing concern. If you want to overlook my points beyond this concern, then that is none of my concern.

Arenado

All valid concerns, but it doesn’t do anyone any good to air them out publicly rather than privately with the Minister - especially if you are wrong.

Nationific, Arenado, Monkelandd, Kalderisara

Wow, this went from thoughtful conversation to vitriol far too quickly. Allow too much of this style, and you risk a toxic culture.

Also, I wasn’t aware that in a democracy, the votes of some are worth more than those of others. This must be a new form of democracy I don’t know about.

I didn’t join the game because of a video or anything. I joined because my friends were talking about it. They aren’t in this region - I joined Thalassia because 1) I got a message telling me about it, and the Thalassian pitch of democracy and equality jived with me. It is more than fair for me to want the pitch to be true now that I’m here. I am no pawn of anybody, but I don’t appreciate being spoken down to. There’s a lot of that going on right now, in this conversation.

Truth be told, getting new blood is the best way to invigorate and rejuvenate a community. I mean, you could always build walls or say that the newly immigrated have invalid opinions. I live in a nation IRL where this happens far too often. Or... members can be helpful, kind, thoughtful listeners who value the contributions both new AND experienced players bring to the table, recognizing their thoughts as valid.

I hope we don’t let the toxic opinions of the few compromise the values that brought many of us to Thalassia in the first place.

Nationific, Veaetmar, Monkelandd, Tirr Savattstra, The Lustrous Ones, Kalderisara

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