Post

Region: Forest

Messages
The Eclectic Republic of Difinbelk 1 year 345 days agoEdited Jutsa wrote: Hi everyone! So I had a couple of quick questions that you may or may not care about, related to Official Business^TM So I had gone through the constitution a few times (in no small part because I keep forgetting swathes of it here and there), and I noticed a few things that I thought might be interesting changes down the road, but wasn't sure if they'd be everyone's cup of tea. There are a few things, but since we've got... like, over four months to go over them, and this one thing is already a bit lengthy and peculiar enough on its own, I'll just bring up the one now and see what you guys think about it. The thing I wanted to ask everyone about first is actually two similar clauses in the constitution, regarding the populace of Forest calling for either amendments or a Forest Keeper's removal from office. More specifically, Articles 5.1-iv and 9.1-iii. If you hadn't noticed them before, they're... kinda interesting, aren't they? xD So, to briefly go over what they do: 9.1-iii allows for 25% of Forest's total WA population to call for a constitutional amendment (within 2 weeks) and bring it to vote (to which it may be vetoed by yours truly), while 5.1-iv allows for I (or any Forest Keeper) to be removed if a vote is called by 33% of Forest's total WA population within a one-week period (assuming it hasn't already happened before in the same term). At present as this is written, this would mean that if any one or group of people who wanted to propose even a small change to the amendment or get an extremely-undesirable-but-not-technically/legally-bad-enough-to-get-Ruinenlust's-boot Forest Keeper out of office (and they'd have only one chance to, at that), then they would need to mass telegram Forestians and pray that those who are active, see it, care, agree and reply are WA members. As of now, that means we'd need consensus from 31 individuals from that specific group just to call a veto-able amendment to vote, as well as 41 such individuals just to call my Forest Keepership into vote. Now, I'd brought this up once before on discord and gotten the opinion (admittedly from only one individual) that these are more-or-less formalities as a weapon of last resort, in case Ruinenlust happens to have disappeared/gone crazy and the Forest Keeper is truly awful to the point everyone actually cares. It could very well be argued that the whole point of these clauses is they're not to be used - although I'd argue they might as well not even be in there if that's the case. However, I just wanted to see if anyone would be interested in bringing these percentages down somewhat to at least make them more realistic options. I mean, we'd need something very massive to not have apathy already; I'd personally be fine with even just having 5-10% of WA members who've been here for over a month (just in case random raider wizardry) be able to call either an amendment or for my removal. I personally think it'd strike a far nicer balance between preventing random spam/government hassle/coup/minority unelected legislator rule, and giving folks more freedom to bring about amendment drafts (and hopefully promote more discussions on them) as well as the ability to boot out an electee they frankly cannot wait several months longer to get rid of. As a side note, in case this region gets very small (say we have like 15 WA members for some reason), we could always either pass an amendment down the line to raise the limit again, or simply add a minimum count of WA nations as well so both requirements need to be met. So, that's basically my idea: reduce the %s of articles 5.1-iv and 9.1-iii so they're more viable, without becoming too viable. If you all feel like they really should remain excessively impossible options (or even should be removed, because as I said I can also see good reason for this), please feel free to argue those viewpoints as well. Or, if you're not interested in the slightest, feel free to disregard this message lol. But I did want to raise this idea with everyone just in case anyone was interested in giving the average Forestian more power over the government. Anyhow, sorry for the massive text wall for that one idea xD Hope everyone's doing well, and like I say ad nauseam, please do telegram me if you have any questions/concerns/just feel like typing about general NS things ;p I’d be up for debating changing the amendment referendum policy because yeah, 31 people is kind of a lot when (don’t quote me on this, I’d have to check WA-exclusive poll turnout) I doubt we have 31 active/invested, unique general members on the rmb in any given week, but I do also feel like the 1/3 measure for starting impeachment referenda is justifiable especially given that it can only happen once in a term, so if, for example, we have a major WA-member raid happen, they could potentially overthrow the native leadership and we’d have no recourse. In other news, idk what rps we have going rn, but Difinbelk’s currently going through a fairly long, semi-significant decline in both Weather and Environmental Beauty^1,2, and looking at the Regional Map’s description³ of Difinol lands, I could see the (temporarily?) declining support for environmentalism turning from a domestic issue into an international one bc of the threats to the area’s unique biodiversity. ¹ nation=difinbelk/detail=trend/censusid=63 ² nation=difinbelk/detail=trend/censusid=41 ³ Other Maps, Oceanic Forest subregions, “The Puloanyar” Jutsa and The Forest of Aeneas

Messages

The Eclectic Republic of Difinbelk 1 year 345 days agoEdited

Hi everyone! So I had a couple of quick questions that you may or may not care about, related to Official Business^TM

So I had gone through the constitution a few times (in no small part because I keep forgetting swathes of it here and there), and I noticed a few things that I thought might be interesting changes down the road, but wasn't sure if they'd be everyone's cup of tea. There are a few things, but since we've got... like, over four months to go over them, and this one thing is already a bit lengthy and peculiar enough on its own, I'll just bring up the one now and see what you guys think about it.

The thing I wanted to ask everyone about first is actually two similar clauses in the constitution, regarding the populace of Forest calling for either amendments or a Forest Keeper's removal from office. More specifically, Articles 5.1-iv and 9.1-iii. If you hadn't noticed them before, they're... kinda interesting, aren't they? xD

So, to briefly go over what they do: 9.1-iii allows for 25% of Forest's total WA population to call for a constitutional amendment (within 2 weeks) and bring it to vote (to which it may be vetoed by yours truly), while 5.1-iv allows for I (or any Forest Keeper) to be removed if a vote is called by 33% of Forest's total WA population within a one-week period (assuming it hasn't already happened before in the same term).

At present as this is written, this would mean that if any one or group of people who wanted to propose even a small change to the amendment or get an extremely-undesirable-but-not-technically/legally-bad-enough-to-get-Ruinenlust's-boot Forest Keeper out of office (and they'd have only one chance to, at that), then they would need to mass telegram Forestians and pray that those who are active, see it, care, agree and reply are WA members. As of now, that means we'd need consensus from 31 individuals from that specific group just to call a veto-able amendment to vote, as well as 41 such individuals just to call my Forest Keepership into vote.

Now, I'd brought this up once before on discord and gotten the opinion (admittedly from only one individual) that these are more-or-less formalities as a weapon of last resort, in case Ruinenlust happens to have disappeared/gone crazy and the Forest Keeper is truly awful to the point everyone actually cares. It could very well be argued that the whole point of these clauses is they're not to be used - although I'd argue they might as well not even be in there if that's the case. However, I just wanted to see if anyone would be interested in bringing these percentages down somewhat to at least make them more realistic options.

I mean, we'd need something very massive to not have apathy already; I'd personally be fine with even just having 5-10% of WA members who've been here for over a month (just in case random raider wizardry) be able to call either an amendment or for my removal. I personally think it'd strike a far nicer balance between preventing random spam/government hassle/coup/minority unelected legislator rule, and giving folks more freedom to bring about amendment drafts (and hopefully promote more discussions on them) as well as the ability to boot out an electee they frankly cannot wait several months longer to get rid of.

As a side note, in case this region gets very small (say we have like 15 WA members for some reason), we could always either pass an amendment down the line to raise the limit again, or simply add a minimum count of WA nations as well so both requirements need to be met.

So, that's basically my idea: reduce the %s of articles 5.1-iv and 9.1-iii so they're more viable, without becoming too viable. If you all feel like they really should remain excessively impossible options (or even should be removed, because as I said I can also see good reason for this), please feel free to argue those viewpoints as well. Or, if you're not interested in the slightest, feel free to disregard this message lol. But I did want to raise this idea with everyone just in case anyone was interested in giving the average Forestian more power over the government.

Anyhow, sorry for the massive text wall for that one idea xD Hope everyone's doing well, and like I say ad nauseam, please do telegram me if you have any questions/concerns/just feel like typing about general NS things ;p

I’d be up for debating changing the amendment referendum policy because yeah, 31 people is kind of a lot when (don’t quote me on this, I’d have to check WA-exclusive poll turnout) I doubt we have 31 active/invested, unique general members on the rmb in any given week, but I do also feel like the 1/3 measure for starting impeachment referenda is justifiable especially given that it can only happen once in a term, so if, for example, we have a major WA-member raid happen, they could potentially overthrow the native leadership and we’d have no recourse.

In other news, idk what rps we have going rn, but Difinbelk’s currently going through a fairly long, semi-significant decline in both Weather and Environmental Beauty^1,2, and looking at the Regional Map’s description³ of Difinol lands, I could see the (temporarily?) declining support for environmentalism turning from a domestic issue into an international one bc of the threats to the area’s unique biodiversity.
¹ nation=difinbelk/detail=trend/censusid=63
² nation=difinbelk/detail=trend/censusid=41
³ Other Maps, Oceanic Forest subregions, “The Puloanyar”

Jutsa and The Forest of Aeneas

Context • Report