Post Archive

Region: Thalassia

History

If my country were to have a history with Thalassia, it would be of minimal contact, involvement, and alot of isolationism, kinda like Bhutan.

But I am sure one of your countries would come in with an army of battleships and force us to establish trade with the outside world, or be annihilated by superior technology.

Jokes aside, because I’m not a good writer, I could never write such an elaborate detailed history like the German countries have done here.

Kalderisara wrote:So am I, despite not being socialist or democratic. Private industry makes up over half my GDP!

You just made me realize state-owned industry was a thing. Weird how I didn’t have any until... probably yesterday.

The 3Nd German Republic

This ain't fair, I go to sleep for a few hours and the people become rant-y, then Sho comes into the picture and then everything goes back to history. I'm tempted to quote Banq here, what monsters have you become?

Hopal

I have a question, is the WA voting system based on the electoral college? Because it seems that delegates of powerful regions have absurdly high voting power. (1000-2000+) votes.

Nationific

Mornicoder wrote:I have a question, is the WA voting system based on the electoral college? Because it seems that delegates of powerful regions have absurdly high voting power. (1000-2000+) votes.

Yes,higher endos mean more votes per person

Monkelandd

Nationific wrote:Yes,higher endos mean more votes per person

Sounds really undemocratic, to be honest.

Mornicoder wrote:Sounds really undemocratic, to be honest.

It's based on the real UN, where it's the same way. The five permanent members of the Security Council can veto any Council proposal they don't like.

Nationific, Tirr Savattstra

Mornicoder wrote:Sounds really undemocratic, to be honest.

Max wanted to hold up the really absurd things going on in the real world with this game

Hello, everyone, I have an announcement to make! The Minister of Information, Owl Archipelago, and I have been working on a Constitutional Amendment. After a long period of drafting and after cabinet voted in favour I am now ready to present this Amendment to the Public!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1368627

Now, I want to be clear, this amendment would not change our democratic principles, our form of government and your rights are still paramount above all. This would just be a cosmetic change that would open cultural and roleplay opportunities for the region and I fully support this Amendment. If anyone has any questions they would like to ask I am more then willing to answer any questions. I hope this Amendment will earn your support, thank you very much for your time and I hope you all have a great day!

Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Monkelandd, Portugal And Great Britannia

The real question: Why do we go in for such a cosmetic change? Why change Thalassia to an Empire when nothing else changes?

Owl Archipelago, Arenado

Because effectively it simply reflects the situation as is. I want to be clear, we are not going to change anything about the system of government we currently have or our democratic norms, we are simply making a cosmetic change to more accurately reflect the way that our government is currently organized which is, as it stands now, pretty much a Constitutional Monarchy in all but name. This cosmetic change simply reflects the way our government is currently organized as well as opening potential for new cultural and roleplay opportunities. I support this change for these reasons and I honestly think that this would be in the best interests of the region.

Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago

Arenado wrote:Because effectively it simply reflects the situation as is. I want to be clear, we are not going to change anything about the system of government we currently have or our democratic norms, we are simply making a cosmetic change to more accurately reflect the way that our government is currently organized which is, as it stands now, pretty much a Constitutional Monarchy in all but name. This cosmetic change simply reflects the way our government is currently organized as well as opening potential for new cultural and roleplay opportunities. I support this change for these reasons and I honestly think that this would be in the best interests of the region.

Okay!

Owl Archipelago, Arenado

Nationific wrote:Okay!

Thank you for your question, if there are any other questions or concerns you have feel free to ask them, I hope this Amendment earns your support and that you have a good day! :]

Nationific, Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago

If this passes, them what will happen to Sho? As kind of the founder will she become Queen? Or will the title of founding dudette stay?

Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Arenado, Hopal

Monkelandd wrote:If this passes, them what will happen to Sho? As kind of the founder will she become Queen? Or will the title of founding dudette stay?

If this passes Sho will become the Monarch. Again, this is simply a cosmetic change, for the Founder it simply changes the title, everything else would be the same.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Monkelandd

Where will the referendum be Arenado?

Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Arenado, Portugal And Great Britannia

Full support on this amendment, as Aren said, its merely updating current titles to reflect the reality of the situation

Nationific, Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Arenado, Portugal And Great Britannia, Hopal

Mornicoder wrote:Where will the referendum be Arenado?

There will be a poll held on the RMB in a day's time.

Nationific, Owl Archipelago

Arenado wrote:There will be a poll held on the RMB in a day's time.

When would it be held? (What time?)

Nationific, Owl Archipelago, Arenado

Mornicoder wrote:When would it be held? (What time?)

In a day, roughly, the vote will be two days long.

Nationific, Owl Archipelago

Arenado wrote:snip

I am firmly against this amendment. I see this as the beginning of a path into Thalassia becoming a full blown Monarchy.

It is more than a title change to reflect current events, it is announcing to the world that Thalassia is more than willing to drop democratic ideals in favour of a more dictatorial approach. This does not align with our value of democracy.

Despite what was said by Arenado, becoming an Empire clearly displays to Thalassia and her friends that we are prepared to drop our democratic ideals in favour of a system that strips Thalassians of their voice.

I'd also like to ask Arenado, how does becoming an Empire help Thalassia open new roleplay and Cultural opportunities?

For some regions, if they will only conduct events, join roleplay or participate in events we hold because we are an empire, then those regions do not hold our democratic ideals and do not care about Thalassia as it currently is.

Mornicoder, Nationific, Badivermeraed, Ayeinc, Arenado, Monkelandd, Portugal And Great Britannia, The Lustrous Ones, Holy Land Of Germania

Toerana Iii wrote:snip

Except we are not dropping our democratic ideals, the government is still elected, the power still lies with the people. How can we be dropping our democratic ideals in a democratic vote? How can we, as you put it, be 'stripping Thalassians of their voice' by holding a fully fair and democratic election where the people express their voice? At the end of the day, if this passed tomorrow, nothing practical would change, there would still be an elected Prime Minister, an elected WA Delegate and referendums. Our democratic institutions would be intact and unchanged. At the end of the day we would still be bound by the Constitution, a Constitution that would be identical with the sole exception of the title of our region and our head of state. If you truly believe that this legislation would create a dictatorship I would ask that you demonstrate how we are currently in a dictatorship considering the system of government would be the same.

As for your fear that the message we would send is that we 'are prepared to drop our democratic ideals in favour of a system that strips Thalassians of their voice' to our friends and our ally, I would say that is quite overblown. The message that would be sent by a fully democratic vote in which the people voice their view on a piece of legislation would be the opposite, that Thalassia is a region that values democratic ideals and protections. And, again, I would ask that you demonstrate that claim, that we would adopt a system that strips Thalassians of their voice, beyond your, frankly, baseless congecture.

Sho has, in the entirety of not just Thalassia's existence but in Pacifica as well, proven that she is dedicated to democratic ideals, that she is fair, that she is a capable leader and that she is reasonable. Any claim that Sho would become dictatorial with what amounts to a new job title is incredibly unreasonable in my view.

As for the idea of new Cultural or roleplay opportunities I should specify, I was referring to internal opportunities, not external ones.

In any case, if I can not earn your support for this Amendment I hope I can assuage any concerns about it that you may have. Thank you very much, Toerana, I hope you have a good day.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Monkelandd, Portugal And Great Britannia

I am against Thalassia becoming a monarchy. I see this as violating our political voting rights. This could get out of hand and we would lose our power. For freedom, vote against! After this vote we will lose our democratic ideals. Or how about we become a democratic empire? Or at least a holy empire I would be fine with that. Well we would still have votes but to show our allies that we would take away the title of freedom called democracy? I don’t understand.

Mornicoder, Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Arenado

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:snip

I assure you, this is simply a cosmetic change. Your political voting rights are still held sacrosanct in the Constitution and will continue to be. All this Amendment does is reflect our form of government more accurately. The rights of our citizens and our region's democratic ideals will still be held sacrosanct above all else.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Owl Archipelago, Portugal And Great Britannia

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:I am against Thalassia becoming a monarchy. I see this as violating our political voting rights. This could get out of hand and we would lose our power. For freedom, vote against! After this vote we will lose our democratic ideals. Or how about we become a democratic empire? Or at least a holy empire I would be fine with that.

The situation you described cannot happen. This amendment, if you read it, only specifies a title change. Any other legislation that might be proposed would have to go through a referendum. Democracy and voting rights are not going away as it’s the most important pillar of our region. All that will be done is having the founder receive a monarchical title. The founder isn’t elected and as such we are not changing anything besides titles.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Arenado, Portugal And Great Britannia

Toerana Iii wrote: snip the kripp

Well so much for the welcome motto if this passes.

Welcome to ⚓Thalassia!⚓ We're a seafaring bastion of liberty, democracy, and solidarity! imperialism.

Edit: hmm I see Toerana’s post has already been addressed so I’ll withhold my opinion on the matter, but this post shall remain as I’m too attached to my own jokes.

Mornicoder, Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Arenado, Monkelandd, Portugal And Great Britannia

Good Thalassia!

I am Portugal's Vice-Delegate and I bring you our most recent cultural initiative. The Portuguese language has been an important staple of the Nation States community since the site's inception. However, and even though there are large communities that solely speak the language, there are still many lusophones scattered around several regions.

It's to those Portuguese, Brazillians, Angolans, Mozambicans, etc, we are directing this contest. If you speak the language of Camões and Machado de Assis, and think you have what it takes to write an epic tale (or just a simple story), then join us. You can read more about our competition here (dispatch in Portuguese only):

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1341814

I know there are a bunch of portuguese speaking people in this region, so I expect all of you 3 or 4 participate.

Your language counts on you!

If you have any doubts, please send me a telegram.

Veaetmar, Owl Archipelago, Arenado, Alvaro Reis

The Lustrous Ones wrote:snip

We would still be a bastion of liberty, democracy and solidarity, our freedoms and rights would remain unchanged, our democratic ideals would still be protected and both this government and future governments would be bound by the Constitution as they are now, our democratic ideals and our rights would still be held sacrosanct.

Owl Archipelago

Arenado wrote:We would still be a bastion of liberty, democracy and solidarity, our freedoms and rights would remain unchanged, our democratic ideals would still be protected and both this government and future governments would be bound by the Constitution as they are now, our democratic ideals and our rights would still be held sacrosanct.

So I take it what you’re saying is, we’re gonna be like Japan or the UK.

Owl Archipelago, Arenado

The Lustrous Ones wrote:snip

Exactly, a Constitutional Monarchy, our democratic institutions, ideals and systems would remain intact, along with the rights of our citizens.

Owl Archipelago, The Lustrous Ones

Arenado wrote:snip

Regardless of how the vote is removed from Thalassians, it is still stripping Thalassians of their voice, should they go down that path. Alongside this, you did not answer my question, how would becoming an Empire help us Culturally or further roleplay opportunities? As far as I am aware the type of government does not effect roleplay, only those who partake in it and manage it.

I'm not debating whether Sho is fit for the position, I was for Sho becoming head of state when we removed the Presidency because I trust Sho, if others were founder I likely would have favoured continuing with a troubled Presidency over an unelected Head of State.

This amendment alone is not actually changing how Thalassia works, but it is changing how Thalassia will be viewed by other regions and citizens. When people join Thalassia for the first time, despite the claims that we hold democratic ideals highly, they will see us as an Empire. I fear that displaying ourselves to the world as an empire would change the way we act and change the way the world assumes we act.

The amendment itself won't change how we work, but it will start us down a path that will change how we work.6

And once again, I am not saying that this legislation would make us a dictatorship, I am saying that it is a gateway for us to go down that path. When people join Thalassia they will see us as an empire, and expect us to act as such. This normalises the idea that we aren't a democracy, we are not a Republic. This would make it significantly easier to portray further steps down that path that would turn Thalassia into a true autocratic state.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Arenado, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal

I just wanted to post the full legislative text of the Amendment here for clarity.

1. The Republic of Thalassia is to be renamed to The Empire of Thalassia,

2. The Constitution of the Republic of Thalassia is to be renamed to The Constitution of the Empire of Thalassia,

3. Every mention to the Republic shall be amended to Empire,

4. Every mention to the Founder shall be amended to Emperor,

5. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:

1. The Founder is the head of state and the Emperor of Thalassia.

As you can see, this is nothing more then a cosmetic change, our democratic institutions, our political rights and the protections of those democratic ideals and rights would remain the same, held sacrosanct. In no way is the democratic rights of our citizens impinged upon.

Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Portugal And Great Britannia

Toerana Iii wrote:snip

Except we cannot turn into an autocratic state unless people support that idea and I know that on that matter I can speak for everyone. Nobody wants that. Japan is called an Empire and it is a democratic country. Will anyone expect us to act differently, I don’t think so. We are allied to Osiris and they are a monarchy.

Ayeinc, Arenado

Arenado wrote:snip

Owl Archipelago wrote:snip

No matter how much I say this, you're yet to address it. It changes the way Thalassian is viewed and displays herself to the world. Not as a Republic, holding democratic ideals close, but as an Empire. Some regions and people will recognise our ideals, others may believe they only exist for appeasement.

A title change is unnecessary, and to me it displays the intent of the current government. It is called the "Monarchy Amendment" for a reason.

This, as I have said before, normalises the idea that Thalassia is an empire, and that we aren't as democratic as we appear.

This is the start of a path that leads us to an autocracy, the normalisation of this and with new members being introduced to Thalassia as an Empire would only serve to make the passing of a future amendment that strips democracy from Thalassia much easier.

Ayeinc, Arenado

Toerana Iii wrote:snip

You may think it changes the way others see us, and to be honest it might, but it won’t change how our allies and embassies see us. Because they know who we are and that democracy is a fundamental pillar of our region. There’s nothing that says Empires can’t be democratic. How can you be so sure that anyone will try to end our democracy?

Nationific, Ayeinc, Arenado

The concerns raised by Toerana are fully valid. While I don't see any problems with the renaming part-our current system ISN'T totally democratic-I'd like to see a clarification to the world, something like, Welcome to ⚓Thalassia!⚓ We're a seafaring bastion of liberty, democracy, and solidarity! We're not a full Monarchy but a Constitutional Monarchy, and hold democratic ideals sacrosanct!

That's silly, straightforward and fits in with both Toerana's and Arenado and Owl's views.

Edit: This amendment has got the most hostile reception I've ever seen!

Again, my views are entirely my own and innocent Nationificians must not be persecuted for my views

Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Arenado, Tirr Savattstra, Hopal

Owl Archipelago wrote:Japan is called an Empire and it is a democratic country.

I... did you just... hahahahahahahaha.

Forgive me for laughing, but allow me to correct you here in good faith. The Japanese empire you know is the one from World Wars 1 and 2.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan

The Empire of Japan (大日本帝国, Dai Nippon Teikoku, literally "Empire of Great Japan")[10] was the historical nation-state[nb 2] and great power that existed from the Meiji Restoration in 1868 to the enactment of the 1947 constitution of modern Japan.

I suppose you’re referring to the current Japan who does have the emperor with no real political power and democratic elections, but they’re anything but an empire these days.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Arenado, Monkelandd

Toerana Iii wrote:snip

Again, I would ask you to demonstrate how Thalassians will be stripped of their vote or how their vote will be removed.

The idea that because the title of our region would be Monarchical that our region would become autocratic or dictatorial is somewhat flawed, after all, not all Republics are democratic, like the People's Republic of North Korea, and there are plenty of Monarchies that are democratic, such as the United Kingdom or the Netherlands, so the idea that the title of the region will necessarily lead to a specific style of government, in this case an autocratic one, is a slippery slope argument that is not supported by either real life examples or NS examples.

As for Cultural and roleplay opportunities, we could start roleplays based in this setting, we could have cultural events that are based on our Monarchy, there are opportunities that would be more fitting and possible in this setting.

Nationific, Ayeinc, The Lustrous Ones

Nationific wrote:snip

This is a reasonable suggestion and if this Amendment was to pass I would not be opposed to a message in the WFE, our welcome telegram, our recruitment documents and the welcome dispatch that clarifies and maintains our strong commitment to democracy and the rights and freedoms of our citizens.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal

I believe Toerana raised a good point.

Pardon me if you mentioned it before as I'm joining the conversation in the middle of an argument, but could someone explain to me how becoming an empire could help further roleplay opportunities? I may be wrong but I assume any position in the management of an empire can have its equivalent in a Republic?

I understand the change is supposed to be purely cosmetic but "empire" do have a sense and I dont believe it fits with Thalassia's current state. Why not choosing to be a Union instead, or an alliance perhaps?

Toerana Iii, Ayeinc, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal

Owl Archipelago wrote:You may think it changes the way others see us, and to be honest it might, but it won’t change how our allies and embassies see us. Because they know who we are and that democracy is a fundamental pillar of our region. There’s nothing that says Empires can’t be democratic. How can you be so sure that anyone will try to end our democracy?

The amendment chose Empire and Emperor, it is the Monarchy amendment. This isn't changing cosmetic titles to reflect de facto positions, this is changing titles to show what some people would prefer Thalassia to be, an empire. If we truly wanted a new title for the founder that accurately depicts their role, while still fitting a more democratic theme, then Emperor/Queen wouldn't be chosen.

Nationific wrote:snip

It's not the WFE motto I care about that badly.

Arenado wrote:snip

The DPRK is not something we should be aiming to emulate. Furthermore, the UK has a Monarch with little to no power, same as Japan which has been mentioned here before.

Furthermore, we could start roleplays based in a Monarchy theme regardless of our government, we could have cultural events based on Thalassia. We do not need a Monarchy to celebrate Thalassia, its government and its citizens. A Monarchy is not something we need to celebrate Thalassia, it can be celebrated in its current form.

And my Lord, as I have said. This amendment does not do that, it does however normalise the idea that Thalassia isn't a democratic region, which may lead to Thalassians loosing their vote. Your insistence on me displaying how Thalassians will loose their vote only serves to show myself and others that this is the direction we are going down, as you are yet to recognise that I said this amendment is the beginning of a path that could lead to that, not that this amendment itself will cause that, instead insisting that I show you how Thalassians may loose their vote.

Sorry if I don’t have much value to add to this debate, so I’ll chip in with 2 cents before falling back into the void of the lurkers.

Both sides do have... some credible reasoning (well according to me at least) to their stances, but being a nation that joined Thalassia because its selling point was that of a free region of liberty and egalitarianism and so and so, seeing the classification changed to being an empire and having emperors and monarchies and whatnot just doesn’t... feel right.

With that said, I’m still remaining neutral and it may or may not change depending where the conversation goes.

Toerana Iii, Ayeinc, Tirr Savattstra, Hopal

The Lustrous Ones wrote:Sorry if I don’t have much value to add to this debate, but I accidentally posted before I finished my post so I’m just going to post the whole thing first.

Everyone's views are needed and warranted in this debate, regardless of how little they believe they add to it, everyone has their right to be heard.

Ayeinc, Monkelandd, Tirr Savattstra, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal

Cabinet discussed the matter and several ideas were introduced and discussed, after a period of discussion the general consensus was that Empire was the most fitting and was what cabinet agreed upon.

Opportunities for a new setting for either roleplay or cultural events would be an opportunity that, frankly, would be less lackluster or interesting otherwise. The specificities I cannot say because I don't have specificities but I do honestly believe that it would open more opportunites for Cultural events.

Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago

Arenado wrote:snip

When the amendment was written, it wasn’t made to be an “Empire”. It was made to be used with whichever title people liked the best. An unofficial poll was made in the discord server to gather opinions on titles and the one that won was Empire.

So, what I think y'all are missing here is that the amendment does nothing except help Thalassia be more honest with the world. We are already a democratic-monarchy in all but name. This amendment changes nothing. However, Toerana does make a point. We would be presenting ourselves as a monarchy, and not as a democratic republic. But, I'm not sure if that matters. I hope that embassy regions are looking deeper into the region then the WFE, and can see that we are a democratic republic at our heart. Also, due to the democratic nature of this region, a move deeper into the realm of dictatorship would need to be supported by most of the region. While I'm here I don't think that that'll ever happen. I'd still support this amendement, but perhaps it would be beneficial if sho decided to call herself the Constitutional Monarch?

Nationific, Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Arenado, Carlia, Monkelandd, Tirr Savattstra, Hopal

Owl Archipelago wrote:snip

Arenado wrote:snip

This doesn't change my point, the government chose Empire, which doesn't display their pro democracy intent on this issue. Would the Prime Minister like to share which options he gave the Cabinet in this opinion poll that the general population was excluded from?

Nationific, Zentata, Arenado, Monkelandd

Toerana Iii wrote:Monarchy level snip

Well, the WFE is the first impression for a nation who comes upon our region. Welcome and Recruitment telegrams too. I'm tempted to add a fail-safe to the amendment. I'd like every citizen to have the power to create polls. I don't know if it's there, but I'd like it to be mentioned in our Constitution, and NOT in the legendary fine print. That way, any citizen, regardless of membership in the WA has direct power over gameplay politics. Bam! You don't like a monarchy? Do a poll, let's see who else doesn't. And, if such a poll would have a majority (above 50%)'Nah, Monarchy is lame', then I guess, we will see the extent of the Constitution's power to grant us things.

I'm aware of the argument I'd get: We're already having a poll! But, nothing in a democratic setup is permanent. These again, are my views... My rants

Toerana Iii, Ayeinc, Zentata, Monkelandd

Nationific wrote:

Only twelve people can have regional powers, although I may be wrong. Nevertheless, if you can create a poll you can end it. (Little issue there)

If you were talking about a constitutional right, then it already exists.

Nationific, Ayeinc

Zentata wrote:Only twelve people can have regional powers, although I may be wrong. Nevertheless, if you can create a poll you can end it. (Little issue there)

If you were talking about a constitutional right, then it already exists.

Now the really lame question: where do you go to create a poll?

Zentata

Toerana Iii wrote:This doesn't change my point, the government chose Empire, which doesn't display their pro democracy intent on this issue. Would the Prime Minister like to share which options he gave the Cabinet in this opinion poll that the general population was excluded from?

You seem to be ignoring what I said. The general population was not excluded. The options presented to the cabinet were presented to the general population before. And those voted empire. Most of the cabinet stayed neutral regarding the title and we decided to go with what the people seemed to like the most.

Nationific, Ayeinc, Zentata

Nationific wrote:Now the really lame question: where do you go to create a poll?

You need Regional Officer poll permissions, but whether this was your point or not I do kind of agree that the Thalassian public should have had a vote on the naming of the Founder's new role and Thalassia at large, submitting ideas to decide where we go, instead of being given one option and told to vote on whether they like it or not in an amendment.

Owl Archipelago wrote:You seem to be ignoring what I said. The general population was not excluded. The options presented to the cabinet were presented to the general population before. And those voted empire. Most of the cabinet stayed neutral regarding the title and we decided to go with what the people seemed to like the most.

Would you care to point me in the direction of when and where the general populous was given their vote/chance to input opinions? Members of the government are not the general population.

Nationific, Hopal

Toerana Iii wrote:snip

But your argument is just a wild slippery slope argument that basically boils down to "Because the title is this people may not think that the region is democratic, despite the fact it clearly is, so other regions might not think we are democratic, despite the fact that we are and even a cursory look will show that, and new people might think that we are not democratic, despite the fact that we are, and a new law making the region a dictatorship is possible in the region, somehow, maybe". It's, frankly, ridiculous.

The reason why I brought up things like the UK and the DPRK is to demonstrate that Monarchies can be democratic and Republics can be autocratic so your point about the title was overblown. The reason why I am asking you to demonstrate your point is that, basically, your point assumes a)the people now would elect a dictatorial leader if the title changed. How would changing the title significantly effect the odds of that and, frankly, I have more faith in the people of Thalassia then you seem to do, Toerana. I don't think that they are going to elect a dictator or support an amendment taking away their freedoms simply because the region has a different title. It also assumes b)that Sho would go along with something so antithetical to everything she has ever done.

Your argument is just a slippery slope fallacy.

Owl Archipelago, Zentata, Hopal

Toerana Iii wrote:You need Regional Officer poll permissions, but whether this was your point or not I do kind of agree that the Thalassian public should have had a vote on the naming of the Founder's new role and Thalassia at large, submitting ideas to decide where we go, instead of being given one option and told to vote on whether they like it or not in an amendment.

Exactly my point. And, well, I talked about everyone having the right to hold a poll.

Toerana Iii

Toerana Iii wrote:You need Regional Officer poll permissions, but whether this was your point or not I do kind of agree that the Thalassian public should have had a vote on the naming of the Founder's new role and Thalassia at large, submitting ideas to decide where we go, instead of being given one option and told to vote on whether they like it or not in an amendment.

To be sure, we should be able to vote on the specific title, out of a few the founder chooses.

Toerana Iii, Nationific, Carlia

Arenado wrote:Except we are not dropping our democratic ideals, the government is still elected, the power still lies with the people. How can we be dropping our democratic ideals in a democratic vote? How can we, as you put it, be 'stripping Thalassians of their voice' by holding a fully fair and democratic election where the people express their voice? At the end of the day, if this passed tomorrow, nothing practical would change, there would still be an elected Prime Minister, an elected WA Delegate and referendums. Our democratic institutions would be intact and unchanged. At the end of the day we would still be bound by the Constitution, a Constitution that would be identical with the sole exception of the title of our region and our head of state. If you truly believe that this legislation would create a dictatorship I would ask that you demonstrate how we are currently in a dictatorship considering the system of government would be the same.

As for your fear that the message we would send is that we 'are prepared to drop our democratic ideals in favour of a system that strips Thalassians of their voice' to our friends and our ally, I would say that is quite overblown. The message that would be sent by a fully democratic vote in which the people voice their view on a piece of legislation would be the opposite, that Thalassia is a region that values democratic ideals and protections. And, again, I would ask that you demonstrate that claim, that we would adopt a system that strips Thalassians of their voice, beyond your, frankly, baseless congecture.

Sho has, in the entirety of not just Thalassia's existence but in Pacifica as well, proven that she is dedicated to democratic ideals, that she is fair, that she is a capable leader and that she is reasonable. Any claim that Sho would become dictatorial with what amounts to a new job title is incredibly unreasonable in my view.

As for the idea of new Cultural or roleplay opportunities I should specify, I was referring to internal opportunities, not external ones.

In any case, if I can not earn your support for this Amendment I hope I can assuage any concerns about it that you may have. Thank you very much, Toerana, I hope you have a good day.

Yes, I perfectly understand what you're saying, but why go through the unnecessary hassle of changing titles (e.g. "Republic" to "Empire" and "Founder" to "Emperor")? It just feels like a need to conform to some non-existent peer pressure. As referenced in the previous posts made by several concerned Thalassians, this could and will lead this region down a major slippery slope towards imperialism and a full-blown monarchy. And as for the added "benefits" for roleplay and culture of this region, there would be nothing much other than a few RPs.

Arenado, could you please explain the reason and intentions behind that particular amendment?

Toerana Iii, Zentata

My last post has been successfully edited and finished (because I accidentally tapped the send button after sentence #1). I have no idea if the people who read the unedited version is aware of it... well I guess you are now.

Things look like they are getting interesting, so I’ll see if both sides can reach an agreeable conclusion. Back to the void of lurkers I go

Toerana Iii

Nationific wrote:snip

I agree. I would definitely vote for this amendment if it came with Petition powers for citizens (through polls and stuff). This would give a balance to the system: we are a constitutional monarchy, but also more democratic than ever before.

Nationific, Hopal

People can currently submit legislation to referendum, either through presenting it to the Prime Minister or Founder and having them refer it, or by having a number of citizens sign a petition for a referendum on an issue.

Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Owl Archipelago, Monkelandd, Hopal

Okay folks, debate all you want, I'll see y'all later.

Toerana Iii, Arenado, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones

For those who want the constitution's wording, here you go:

All WA citizens have the right to:

7. vote in regional elections and referendums;

8. stand in regional elections;

9. create and join petitions to start referendums;

.......................................

15. Referrals to referendum by WA citizens require either the approval of the Founder or the Prime Minister, or a petition numbering ten percent of the region’s WA citizens.

Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Veaetmar, Owl Archipelago, Arenado, Monkelandd, Hopal

Thanks, but polls are more user friendly...

Monkelandd

Arenado wrote:But your argument is just a wild slippery slope argument that basically boils down to "Because the title is this people may not think that the region is democratic, despite the fact it clearly is, so other regions might not think we are democratic, despite the fact that we are and even a cursory look will show that, and new people might think that we are not democratic, despite the fact that we are, and a new law making the region a dictatorship is possible in the region, somehow, maybe". It's, frankly, ridiculous.

The reason why I brought up things like the UK and the DPRK is to demonstrate that Monarchies can be democratic and Republics can be autocratic so your point about the title was overblown. The reason why I am asking you to demonstrate your point is that, basically, your point assumes a)the people now would elect a dictatorial leader if the title changed. How would changing the title significantly effect the odds of that and, frankly, I have more faith in the people of Thalassia then you seem to do, Toerana. I don't think that they are going to elect a dictator or support an amendment taking away their freedoms simply because the region has a different title. It also assumes b)that Sho would go along with something so antithetical to everything she has ever done.

Your argument is just a slippery slope fallacy.

I have run in numerous elections since I was forced to resign from my position as Minister over my issues with Lazarus, and ever single time I have been attacked over Lazarus and told that PR and the region's image is incredibly important, and that my minor transgression would reflect so badly on Thalassia that me in any role would be detrimental to the region.

What I see now is that argument being sidelined. This will drastically change Thalassia image, not as a Republic, but as an Empire. Empires, by their nature, are undemocratic. There are rare examples irl that say otherwise, similarly to how there are examples irl of autocratic republics, but when someone says to you "Thalassia is a Republic, most people think of democracy, when people say to you "Thalassia is an Empire," democracy is normally one of the first few things people go to.

For those who seem to lack any knowledge of the constitution. The Supplementary Legislation section has an article that states that further legislation may not contradict the current constitution. This means we won’t become a non democratic state.

The title is not set in stone. We weren’t clear on this part, I’m sorry for that but it’s still up for debate. There are options and we can allow suggestions by citizens and make an official poll to decide the title.

Thucydide

Mornicoder wrote:Yes, I perfectly understand what you're saying, but why go through the unnecessary hassle of changing titles (e.g. "Republic" to "Empire" and "Founder" to "Emperor")? It just feels like a need to conform to some non-existent peer pressure. As referenced in the previous posts made by several concerned Thalassians, this could and will lead this region down a major slippery slope towards imperialism and a full-blown monarchy. And as for the added "benefits" for roleplay and culture of this region, there would be nothing much other than a few RPs.

Arenado, could you please explain the reason and intentions behind that particular amendment?

Firstly, please snip long quotes or your post will be suppressed. Secondly, are you an honest person? Because This amendment is all about being honest with the rest of ns. We are a constitutional monarchy in all but name. Let's stop hiding this, and let's be honest with ourselves. And, to be frank, if this prevents relations with another region, then they have shown to us that they gave nothing but a cursory glance at us. Also, as has been said, if Thalassia wants to be a dictatorship, then they could vote for it now. This won't change anyone's belief in democracy, nor will it change Thalassia to not be a democracy.

Owl Archipelago, Hopal

Mornicoder wrote:Arenado, could you please explain the reason and intentions behind that particular amendment?

We simply want to more accurately reflect the current government of the region, we operate as a Constitutional Monarchy now in all but name, the intention behind this legislation was simply to more accurately reflect the current government and open up new opportunities for culture and roleplay, whatever form those opportunities take.

Toerana Iii wrote:This doesn't change my point, the government chose Empire, which doesn't display their pro democracy intent on this issue. Would the Prime Minister like to share which options he gave the Cabinet in this opinion poll that the general population was excluded from?

Several options were discussed and suggested, things like Caspian, Graceful Empire, Principality and the like. Empire was settled on due to it being both simple and because of the unofficial poll that Owl conducted where a plurarity supported Empire.

Owl Archipelago, Zentata, Hopal

A compromise I wish to suggest is removing references to Empire and Empress in the legislation, leaving it open, and holding a subsequent vote on the specific title if the Amendment establishing a Monarchy is succesful.

Mornicoder, Nationific, Monkelandd

Owl Archipelago wrote:snip

It would be nice to have an official poll on the matter!

Owl Archipelago

The democratic Socialism thing was just for one day

, no joke. I am back being a Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. Okay game, you do you but make your mind up

Veaetmar, Owl Archipelago, Tirr Savattstra

Arenado wrote:

Several options were discussed and suggested, things like Caspian, Graceful Empire, Principality and the like. Empire was settled on due to it being both simple and because of the unofficial poll that Owl conducted where a plurarity supported Empire.

As has been mentioned by Toe, that poll was unfair due to it not being held on ns, and due to it being held offsite. Personally, without knowing what it was for at the time, my vote is not accurate to what I think Thalassia should be. Due to this in equality, I'd like for a poll to be held deciding the name of the Monarch after the amendement passes, should it pass.

Veaetmar, Owl Archipelago, Carlia, Tirr Savattstra, Thucydide, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal

Owl Archipelago wrote:snip

No, but you can amend the constitution, which is what this is.

Arenado wrote:Several options were discussed and suggested, things like Caspian, Graceful Empire, Principality and the like. Empire was settled on due to it being both simple and because of the unofficial poll that Owl conducted where a plurarity supported Empire.

Owl clarified to me offsite, which I appreciate, as to the location of the poll. It was a poll in the AMA Discord channel, with no prior notification this was an impactful opinion poll, and with owl explicitly asking what type of Monarchy Thalassians prefered. This wasn't a poll based on what title would people prefer for the Founder/Thalassia, it was a poll on what type of Monarchy people prefer. There was no link to Thalassia mentioned.

It also didn't involve everyone in Thalassia, it involves those who are active offsite. There are members of this region active mainly offsite, mainly onsite and on both, but a majority of the citizenry participates onsite, not offsite, so it was unlikely to be a representative poll.

Veaetmar, Zentata, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones

I have made an amendment to the Constitutional Monarchy Amendment.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1368627

I think it would be best if we voted on the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy first and then subsequently decide upon the specific title if this legislation is successful. I feel like this would be a good compromise, how does everyone else feel?

Veaetmar, Zentata, Carlia, Monkelandd, Thucydide, Hopal

Arenado wrote:I have made an amendment to the Constitutional Monarchy Amendment.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1368627

I think it would be best if we voted on the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy first and then subsequently decide upon the specific title if this legislation is successful. I feel like this would be a good compromise, how does everyone else feel?

This is valid.

Ayeinc, Monkelandd, Hopal

Arenado wrote:snip

So, are you now saying this vote is on the idea that Thalassia becomes a constitutional Monarchy, not a vanity title for the Founder?

Arenado wrote:snip

Agreed, any way to organize a debate to discuss it before voting? I'd love to hear everyone's arguments

Thucydide wrote:Agreed, any way to organize a debate to discuss it before voting? I'd love to hear everyone's arguments

This is the debate period for the amendment.

Toerana Iii wrote:So, are you now saying this vote is on the idea that Thalassia becomes a constitutional Monarchy, not a vanity title for the Founder?

It was always the intention of this Amendment, Toerana. Whatever you may believe about me the intention of this legislation was always supposed to be a referendum on a Constitutional Monarchy.

Thucydide wrote:Agreed, any way to organize a debate to discuss it before voting? I'd love to hear everyone's arguments

We are currently in the discussion period for this Amendment.

Zentata

Arenado wrote:It was always the intention of this Amendment, Toerana. Whatever you may believe about me the intention of this legislation was always supposed to be a referendum on a Constitutional Monarchy.

Arenado wrote:This would just be a cosmetic change that would open cultural and roleplay opportunities for the region and I fully support this Amendment.

I appreciate you telling us this, and I am for a vote on whether Thalassia should be a Constitutional Monarchy prior to a title being selected, but I am still against the idea that Thalassia should officially recognise itself as a Monarchy.

Zentata, Holy Land Of Germania

What I would like to say is that we in our title should show that we are democratic. A democratic empire, per say. If our ideals are democratic than we should show that. Changing the name is changing the region. And this is definitely not Pacifica’s ideals and this region was founded in those. Why change them when the system right now is free and fair. There are some region leaders that stripe their comrades of their rights, please don’t let happen here.

We can become a parliamentary monarchy as the U.K is (irl) This System we have now is perfectly fine and as many see; better, and I don’t want to contradict those in power, but why must we change. There is no advantage, well a lot of us of whom are posting can’t see it. Show is the advantages and show us the disadvantages and you can persuade the people. We need a reason to and a Guarantee that we will continue to hold democratic and fair elections. Let us vote on this after the discussion period.Give is a response that will convince your citizens.

Mornicoder, Toerana Iii, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal

Toerana Iii wrote:I appreciate you telling us this, and I am for a vote on whether Thalassia should be a Constitutional Monarchy prior to a title being selected, but I am still against the idea that Thalassia should officially recognise itself as a Monarchy.

Yes, a cosmetic change, as I said here:

Arenado wrote:....we are simply making a cosmetic change to more accurately reflect the way that our government is currently organized which is, as it stands now, pretty much a Constitutional Monarchy in all but name......

I support the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy, we currently operate pretty much as a Constitutional Monarchy now, this is simply a cosmetic change that more accurately reflects our current system of government. I do feel it would be more then possible to have a Constitutional Monarchy and have democratic ideals, protections and rights as several real life nations and NS regions have shown. I also think there are other benefits, cultural and roleplay benefits, that would manifest itself more under a Constitutional Monarchy then other forms of government.

Owl Archipelago, Hopal

Arenado wrote:Because effectively it simply reflects the situation as is. I want to be clear, we are not going to change anything about the system of government we currently have or our democratic norms, we are simply making a cosmetic change to more accurately reflect the way that our government is currently organized which is, as it stands now, pretty much a Constitutional Monarchy in all but name. This cosmetic change simply reflects the way our government is currently organized as well as opening potential for new cultural and roleplay opportunities. I support this change for these reasons and I honestly think that this would be in the best interests of the region.

Arenado is right which is why we need to review whether we actually need the office of founder. The office of founder is pretty much a monarchical position anyways.

Owl Archipelago wrote:Except we cannot turn into an autocratic state unless people support that idea and I know that on that matter I can speak for everyone. Nobody wants that. Japan is called an Empire and it is a democratic country. Will anyone expect us to act differently, I don’t think so. We are allied to Osiris and they are a monarchy.

Yes but the Japanese Emperor doesn't have any powers anymore but when people go on our administration page they will see all these powers we have entrusted in the emperor.

Toerana Iii, Arenado

Arenado wrote:We are currently in the discussion period for this Amendment.

Then could someone please explain me what makes Thalassia a constitutional monarchy instead of anything else?

I don't see anything preventing Thalassia from being a Union or anything else more democratic-friendly than an empire. The United Nations I believe are a good exemple that a Union can have founding members above the other without calling it an Empire.

The term "Empire" implies ideas of conquests and submission. You're referring to UK's exemple for an Empire that is now a constitutional Monarchy, but the history that brought UK where it now stands is full of conquests, submission tragedies, inequalities and basically everything but democracy.

I'm not against a Monarchy per se, but it does not seems to fit with Thalassia's history, or at least not with the recent one and I surely did not joined a Monarchy.

It seems to me that taking the decision to change to a Constitutional Monarchy is a lot more than just a "cosmetic" amendemant

New Camelot Of Avalonia, Toerana Iii, Arenado, Tirr Savattstra

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:snip

The reason why I think a Constitutional Monarchy would be more beneficial is that is would more accurately reflect our government now and would open new cultural opportunities, like titles and the like, along with roleplay events. I do honestly believe that it would be in the best interests of Thalassia.

Hopal wrote:Arenado is right which is why we need to review whether we actually need the office of founder. The office of founder is pretty much a monarchical position anyways.

We need a Founder for several reasons, as people who were in Pacifica can attest being founderless is outright dangerous, it opens you to threats of coups, invasions and attacks from some incredibly unsavory characters that Pacifica and other founderless regions have suffered. Quite frankly, a Founder is vital for the Security of the region.

Thucydide wrote:snip

We are currently a Constitutional Monarchy in practice, we have a democratic government that is elected by the people and a Head of State.

Toerana Iii, Owl Archipelago

Post self-deleted by Arenado.

Couldn't agree with you more, the "Founder" is a bit like an eternal constitutional monarchy.

Owl Archipelago, Arenado

I don’t mean to oppose those in power but I want to say that you are not giving us reasons to change you are not giving us a reason to become a constitutional monarchy we need a reason. I don’t see the advantages. So please tell us how this can help in full scale

Mornicoder, Toerana Iii, Zentata

I have no problem with the theory of the change, and do not see this as a undemocratic change. The only objection for me is that I don't like tthe sound of "Empire" or "Emperor/Empress", it sounds a bit aggressive to me. I'm only bringing this objection up because this is a purely cosmetic change, and therefore it has a lot to do with the feel of the region.

I personally prefer something like Principality of Thalassia, or even Kingdom. I know in Swiss Cantons, some are the Republic and Canton of [Canton name], so I think another idea might be the Kingdom (or Principality, etc.) and Republic of Thalassia. That means we could both reference a monarch as part of Thalassia's essence as well as a democratically elected Prime Minister.

The Kingdom and Republic of Thalassia

Le Royaume et République de Thalassie

The Republic and Kingdom of Thalassia

La République et Royaume de Thalassie

The Principality and Republic of Thalassia

La Principauté et République de Thalassie

The Republic and Principality of Thalassia

La République et Principauté de Thalassie

Arenado wrote:The reason why I think a Constitutional Monarchy would be more beneficial is that is would more accurately reflect our government now and would open new cultural opportunities, like titles and the like, along with roleplay events. I do honestly believe that it would be in the best interests of Thalassia.

I hadn't thought about this before so I'm interested in how it might work? Would IC RP reference the Thalassian regional government and constitutional monarchy setup? How does the Thalassian government appear in RP if it even does?

Badivermeraed, Owl Archipelago, Monkelandd, Tirr Savattstra, The Lustrous Ones

Holy Land Of Germania wrote:snip

The point I am making is that we already operate as a Constitutional Monarchy in practice. The advantage is that it accurately reflects the government and the region, along with new opportunities for culture and for roleplay.

New Camelot Of Avalonia wrote:snip

The Amendment has been amended to not mention Empire but to be a referendum on the question of a Constitutional Monarchy, the specific title will be discussed and voted on if the Amendment is successful.

Nationific, Portugal And Great Britannia, The 3Nd German Republic

New Camelot Of Avalonia wrote:

The Kingdom and Republic of Thalassia

Le Royaume et République de Thalassie

The Republic and Kingdom of Thalassia

La République et Royaume de Thalassie

The Principality and Republic of Thalassia

La Principauté et République de Thalassie

The Republic and Principality of Thalassia

La République et Principauté de Thalassie

You forgot the portuguese version

Nationific

I think doing this gives Thalassia a lot of opportunities (as said) so I agree withArenado.

Veaetmar, Arenado

When amendments get amended in a game

That's when you know people actually care for Thalassia.

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

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=portugal_and_great_britannia/detail=factbook/id=1299415

Hello again.

So, you all know that my Federation has dominions right?

Then, I re-updated my dominions factbook that was far behind the other.

I remade the maps, remade the flags, and, soon, there will be the history for each dominion in Portuguese and English.

Until then, go and visit and see their flags and their maps.

Have a good day,

Portugal And Great Britannia

Nationific, Ayeinc, Arenado

This can give Thalasia a lot of opportunities so I will submit only if we do what New Camelot Of Avalonia says not an Empire but something else. Also keep the democracy we have in place. Also you forgot the German version of the name(JK)

Nationific, Zentata, Arenado

Wow. 90 new messages over the amendment. Now that's what I call debate! I'll have to actually read through the discussion to fully understand it, but I am abstaining during the vote. I abstained during the cabinet vote, and I will be doing so here.

Also, only a couple of instances of double-posting! Good job Thalassia!

Nationific, Veaetmar, Zentata, Arenado, Monkelandd, Portugal And Great Britannia, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal

Portugal And Great Britannia wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/nation=portugal_and_great_britannia/detail=factbook/id=1299415

Hello again.

So, you all know that my Federation has dominions right?

Then, I re-updated my dominions factbook that was far behind the other.

I remade the maps, remade the flags, and, soon, there will be the history for each dominion in Portuguese and English.

Until then, go and visit and see their flags and their maps.

Have a good day,

Portugal And Great Britannia

These will be of particular interest to people who live in these places IRL. I'd certainly like to see how the history of your dominions stack up against the history of where I live!

Ayeinc, Zentata, Portugal And Great Britannia

I do not understand why people are getting mad at New Camelot Of Avalonia for not including their language. I'm sorry, but you cannot expect other people to know your language, so please stop this nit-picking. Thank you.

New Camelot Of Avalonia, Toerana Iii, Nationific, Ayeinc, Monkelandd, The 3Nd German Republic, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal, Holy Land Of Germania

Nationific wrote:These will be of particular interest to people who live in these places IRL. I'd certainly like to see how the history of your dominions stack up against the history of where I live!

I will make as original as possible, because I have many ideas for them, like given them a unique history, unique characters and events.

Someone make a mod for HOI4 after this XD

Nationific, Ayeinc, Owl Archipelago, Zentata, Arenado, Monkelandd, The 3Nd German Republic, Holy Land Of Germania

I am an anti-monarchist for many reasons, but I will accept it if the majority wants it on the vote.

Mornicoder, Nationific, Veaetmar, Arenado, Monkelandd, Portugal And Great Britannia, The 3Nd German Republic, Tirr Savattstra, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal, Holy Land Of Germania

I don't like the idea of a monarchy. Despite my nation in-game technically being one (albeit a very bizarre version of it that is basically nothing like a traditional monarchy), I strongly dislike it as a political system. Legitimate power stems from the consent of the people, not from God, from blood, from conquest, or any other source. The establishment of a monarchy is inherently contradictory to the ideas that all people are free and equal before the eyes of the law.

If it is necessary to alter our political system, I'd say we switch to a semi-presidential system, with the founder being the President.

Ayeinc, Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal

Kalderisara wrote:I don't like the idea of a monarchy. Despite my nation in-game technically being one (albeit a very bizarre version of it that is basically nothing like a traditional monarchy), I strongly dislike it as a political system. Legitimate power stems from the consent of the people, not from God, from blood, from conquest, or any other source. The establishment of a monarchy is inherently contradictory to the ideas that all people are free and equal before the eyes of the law.

If it is necessary to alter our political system, I'd say we switch to a semi-presidential system, with the founder being the President.

Due to the previous problems that the Pacifica had, according to what I read here, the monarchy is the only solution .I agree, a monarch in the real world has no legitimacy of the people, sovereignty should belong to the people and the head of state should be elected.

Arenado, Portugal And Great Britannia

Clarkstan wrote:Due to the previous problems that the Pacifica had, according to what I read here, the monarchy is the only solution .

From what I read in the museum, Pacifica failed because its founder (repeatedly) abandoned the game. What difference would it make if the founder is a "king" and not "president" or simply "founder"?

Monkelandd, The Lustrous Ones, Hopal

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