View Topic

Just look at how much power a region like New Hyperion was able to get. If we wanted to, we could already destroy Wintreath from the inside. Absolute veto is the only thing that is fool-proof from a security stand-point. We will never agree with Wintermoot on everything. That's just the way it is, since no one will ever agree with everything any one member does. But we need fail-safes like these.

And, again realistically, I don't think anyone really pours as much work into the region as Wintermoot does. This isn't some cheap praise to receive praise in return, this is just stating a fact that the region would most likely fall without Wintermoot. I am beyond a shadow of a doubt the second most active person, but I don't recruit at all, and I have no knowledge of programming. Chanku has knowledge of programming, but is a bit inactive, and all the other Riksråd members also have skills that would make them candidates to fill Wintermoot's shoes in the event that he isn't around anymore, but none of us quite have all the necessary traits to fill his shoes.

My trust isn't so much in Wintermoot himself (though I do trust him), it's more in the office he holds. Practically, complete veto authority works best when given to said office alone. It may not be to everyone's tastes 100% of the time, but in my mind, it is the only fool-proof security measure, and no other solution is 100% pleasing either.

What would the Officers be for? It doesn't look like we're expanding the Storting's power, so wouldn't these positions be superfluous?

Anyone?

What would the Officers be for? It doesn't look like we're expanding the Storting's power, so wouldn't these positions be superfluous?

Anyone?

I imagine they are to furfill the other duties of the current Storting, such as being judges, and possibly to also provide a legislative authority other than Wintermoot, like if a debate gets too rowdy and he isn't around somone would need to bang the gavel.

Though that's just my interpretation having read it.


On the previous ideas:
I would say that Wintermoot is a great guy and a fantastic Monarch, however that doesn't mean he is perfect, everyone, absolutely everyone can (and will) make mistakes, its only human, I don't think it would be best for him or the region.

Though I have been woefully bad at convincing anyone of anything regarding any of this, and I'm just tired of it. Thus my position stands as, if it doesn't have the Monarch being absolute dictator who can decree as they wish; and neither does it have an absolute open assembly that can do whatever it wants, then I will reluctantly agree.


The act itself in the original post, is quite alright as far as I can see though, it seems pretty cogent and we'll written, no major critisims from me, and I am quite alright with the structure it presents that would be in place.

I also agree with others that giving absolute veto power to the monarch would be the better solution here. I think given how vital the position is in the running of the region, and how much trust we already give Wintermoot who holds it, that it both makes sense and is a logical extension of that trust to give the position that power.

I would suggest an addition that if the monarch chooses to veto, that they are also required to provide reasoning. This will give the Storting clear guidelines as to what is wrong with the law, and whether it can be fixed with modifications or whether it should just be dropped.

Other than that, I think the proposal is sound.

I agree with Wuufu.

I'm comfortable with the idea of Wintermoot having a full veto. However, in so far as I'm sure that he wouldn't do something against the wishes of the majority of the community anyway (without good reason), I don't see the harm in including a supermajority anyway. Either we're right, and we never have to use it, or we're wrong, and it comes in handy.

Probably a silly question: whenever you mention 2/3 or 3/4, does this refer to a fraction of the whole Storting, or just those who voted on a particular law?

And here's a crazy idea I want to throw out there: what are people's thoughts on the Speaker being selected by lottery? Or by having a rotating speakership between all members of the Storting? It would obviously have to have mechanisms in place to avoid inactive members and members who do not wish to serve.

Overall, I like this proposal. We'd obviously have to decide how many officers would be needed and what they'd specifically do, but that shouldn't be difficult.

As for the monarch veto, I trust Wintermoot, though I personally feel a 3/4 supermajority would be better in case it were needed. I just don't think an absolute veto is necessary. It would require a ridiculous number of people a ridiculous amount of time to overthrow Wintermoot or destroy the region with a 3/4 supermajority.

Also, I like the idea of a prerequisite to vote/hold office, whether this be time/activity/involvement, though I'm not really sure of what specifically that should entail.

By the way, what's with terms starting in December rather than January?

Probably a silly question: whenever you mention 2/3 or 3/4, does this refer to a fraction of the whole Storting, or just those who voted on a particular law?

And here's a crazy idea I want to throw out there: what are people's thoughts on the Speaker being selected by lottery? Or by having a rotating speakership between all members of the Storting? It would obviously have to have mechanisms in place to avoid inactive members and members who do not wish to serve.

I believe the answer to your first question is that the fraction refers to those who vote on the veto.

I have suggested in my proposal (which I should probably update soon) the idea of legislators drawn by lot, but in my proposal they only last for the duration of the discussion/vote of the law. The problem with it in this proposal is that the term lengths are 3 months, which is kind of long for something in which the member did not prepare for by running. Also, as you said a mechanism would have to be put in place to avoid inactive members, which may be pretty difficult, considering half of Wintreath's citizens have not been active in the past month.

So if we were to draw by lot, there would probably have to be reduced term lengths, but I don't think much gets done in any time less than that. We're already almost done with this term, and not much got done (the elections took up a quarter of the term).

Ah, but see, Wintreath is actually a small fish in this pond called NationStates. The Pacific, home to the NPO, and many other raiding and imperialist groups with comparable size and skill could thoroughly destroy us if we allow anything less than absolute veto by the monarch.

I have a feeling most of the people who've been involved with R/D gameplay for awhile would agree with me. The newer members, specifically those new to the game and living in this sheltered haven called Wintreath, might underestimate just how devious, skilled and huge these hostile groups are.

Granted, the very fact that we're isolationist and a relatively small fish does provide protection to a certain extent, but some of these groups destroy regions for shits and giggles.

Actually, since I've been observing Chanku's appeal to the chat ops team down in the technical area, I can no longer claim to have that much trust in the monarch. My trust is largely irrelevant, given that this is a UCR, but as per the latitude that is allowed here for the moment, it would be best to restrict such a veto only to areas directly under the purview of defence, e.g. declarations of war and so forth.

But let me be clear. Some form of absolute veto is still necessary in certain areas for the stability of the region, and the logical office to hold it is still that of the monarch, even if my own personal opinion of the person holding that office has slightly darkened as of this writing.

I'm fine with absolute veto. It's a UCR and, to be frank, Wintreath will always be dependent upon Wintermoot. We're not like other UCR's on free hosting; we have actual monetary costs associated with running our community.

That is true.

I am still pretty new to this, so maybe I am a little bit naive when it comes to the dickishness of others, but I could agree that an absolute veto may be needed in some areas, though I don't feel like it is necessary in all.

I feel that we need a Speaker for the revamped Storting, but nothing in terms of other officers. And Wintermoot has a stake in most everything that affects what is ultimately region in one way or another. So if anything, we do need an absolute veto to ensure that the legislature doesn't pass something that's egregiously bad. It's not like we would put someone in power who will abuse the authority, and neither would anyone here who be a potential successor.

Probably a silly question: whenever you mention 2/3 or 3/4, does this refer to a fraction of the whole Storting, or just those who voted on a particular law?

I would like to raise this question as well. Precedent implies that it only refers to the individuals who voted but now that this will involve the entire citizenry, perhaps the clauses can be edited to reflect the intention of the author? Meanwhile, I don't see the harm of keeping the method of overriding a veto through a supermajority vote, be it 2/3 or 3/4.

Sorry for the long delay in getting back...after recent events I needed a break from a lot of the official business of the region and NationStates.

Over the last week, I've given the matter a lot of thought, and while I'm flattered that so many trust me with absolute veto authority, I've decided to stick with a 2/3 override ability. Usually when a region or group wants to influence another region, it's over foreign or military policy, which is already full authority of the Monarchy (Article II Section 6). Even if for some reason someone wanted to try to influence us, the best counter to that would be a strong native community, which we have. But more problematic for me is the fact that an absolute veto would make the Storting irrelevant...if I'm to always have my way anyway, what's the point of a Storting? It would be more efficient for me to just decree everything. I feel that I already have the absolute authorities that I need to protect the region and its principles and values, and I'm not really all that interested in creating a rubber-stamp legislature.

With that being said, if there are still concerns over foreign influence, as I said before I think the best way to counter that would be to place restrictions on voting rights...require so many posts, or so much time here, or so much work...something that makes voters have to be active and contributing to the community. It would at least force any foreign agents to put in time and effort to the region. I would still be willing to hear proposals to that regard if people think it's a good idea.

Otherwise, I would like to move to Article III and IV. The big thing with Article III is how are we going to select judges for judicial panels if we no longer have an Overhusen or Underhusen? And with Article IV, I'm kind of interested in switching to instant-runoff voting in order to avoid runoffs for Speaker elections, although our experiment with it last year wasn't that popular. =/