«12. . .142143144145146147148. . .635636»
I'd want to try to jumpstart our forums, which could stand to have a bit more activity. It's not an easy feat, but I imagine we could develop ways for the community to get a little closer, more interactive, such as working on our regional maps, developing more polls, collaborating on WA legislation, et cetera. I find the policies of our past few delegates mostly agreeable, so I'd run with the intention of a continuation of those policies for the most part.
Expand capitalism on the region and defend ourselves against communist oppressors.
Vote Grellania.
Two things have become clear since I returned to the IDU last month. First, we need to adopt a more appropriate govenment struvture for the IDU based on the forum, and second, we need to re-establish a stronger basis for RP on the forum, including returning the IDUC to that side of the forum and regional activity.
As to the former, I think we need a form of what is known as a strong mayor (Delegate) / commission (all IDU players) format and thus simplify day to day governance. The IDUC was originally developed as a role play years ago, and perhaps it will work better again in that mode. We also need to take steps to revive the map, and come up with a system where the map files are stored in a spot that is more easily accessible (Dropbox? Google Drive?) and make it easier for different people with the same software to work with; that would help solve the unsolveable issue of who has access to maintain the maps when a primary cartographer can't be reached for months or years on end. Having various maps for different features would then provide a lot of source materials for RP within the IDU forums.
Settling the primary format for the Delegate and regional governance will then allow up to revise and update the regional constitution and get it up to date.
By doing these things on the forums, that will allow the IDU to induce and create more forum activity, and give us ways to attract new nations and players (and WAs) to the ISU. We also need to see how to make the proposal writing service more active again. I really don't like the trend of the last several years in the WA of an endless cycle of adopting resolutions and then turning around and promptly repealing them. In fact when I vote on repeals, I am voting against, I would like the IDU to push for a "repeal/replace" a/k/a "amendment" option, I don't like the lack of such a system; I've favored it for years, and there no reason why the NS software can't be tweaked to treat an amendment as a "repeal" and "replace" coding wise, and allow fixes to flawed resolutions without relying on promised replaceements.
From a coding perspective, there are a lot of reasons why an amendment process would not work, and there are so many reasons why the coding cannot be simply changed. If you saw the back-end, you'd understand.
I think it could be as simple as running the current coding in two parts (repeal, and adopt) and not as a single operation.
Repeal and adopt isn't the same as an amendment process, though. An amendment process is where you change text within an extant resolution, as opposed to repealing and voting on a replacement in the same vote. Anyway, that's neither here nor there since it's not going to happen.
You say you always vote against repeals. Will you do this as Delegate, or will you wait until the region has had its say.
Secondly, you have a fractious relationship with TNP, who is our closest ally and treatied partner. How would that relationship fare if you were elected Delegate?
Repeal and adopt could be the equivalent of an amendment for WA purposes.
I will follow the custom of following the regional vote before a vote closes, and it is unlikelt that I would do otherwise except in the most extreme extenuating circumstances. This is the exact same policy that I followed during my prior terms as Delegate here.
TNP? Well that's up to TNP. As Delegate, i would represent the IDU, not TNP and my actions would reflect this. The situation developed over the last two to three years and was not something I wanted. But I do have principles, and that fact that the current controlling force there wanted complete control and wanted complete control of the forums and the region to get it is not something I ever agreed with or was willing to compromise my principles over. I left TNP for the IDU for similar reasons a decade ago, so it was the obvious thing for me to d again. But I am far less likely to return there this time even if things ever do vhange there again.
That's not exactly what I asked. We have a treaty with TNP, and as I said, they are our closest partners. If they wanted futher relations or inter-regional events, would you be ok with that? Or, diplomatically speaking, would you as Head of Government be able to be civil with their Head of Government?
There are quite a number of WA authors based here in the IDU, and we treasure our treaty and relationship with TNP because of the vote-stack clause. An interruption in relations would not be great.
Remember I was the one who fought in both regions to get an exchange of Embassies a long time ago, and I was the one who served as mediator in order to get that treaty written and ratified, especially over there.
If there's any reason for concern. it would be from that side. Over the years there have been those in TNP who still do not understand that treaty. I won't be the causation of any disputes or problems with TNP; I cannot guarantee what TNP's current leadership group will do.
I think you're overplaying both your own part, and the characters of the current TNP leadership. As MoFA, and as a previous many time Delegate, I have zero problems with TNP and find the region to continue to be cordial and helpful to IDU members. I've had my issues with Asta and COE in the past, but we've always put them aside when working on inter-regional activities.
Just a correction to the above, I was misremembering, and Grosse was an asset to me/the region when passing the IDU-TNP treaty (I was confusing it with the WALL Treaty which happened while Grosse was on sabbatical from the game).
Sanctions, to be clear-- I'm trying to leave that dispute there and not bring it here. You'd be surprised how many TNP old-timers are being shoved aside for COE and Asta's benefit, but I'm not going to name names, just that it's been going on foot three years plus and I'm not the only one on their agenda. And let's just leave it at that. You might find your time better served by getting clearly stated assurances from them and not from me as the IDU isn"t their turf.
They're not running for delegate of the IDU, so I'm not asking for their assurances.
They are our foremost partner, and should they come to us for any reason, I want to know that our Delegate won't tell them where to shove it.
I have served, and will serve the interests of the IDU. I can't speak for them nor do I want to. What you're missing is the possibility that they will resist dealing with me in any capacity, but I am prepared to address that sort of thing when and if it happens. What I will not do is put TNP above the IDU, which is the clear implication of your line of questioning.
Did they stack for Scion's current repeal at vote? If they did, it must've been a short short one before they put their vote against..
I don't know if Scion requested one. You have to request.
And the stack is only when it immediately goes to vote, if the regional poll tells the Delegate to vote against thereafter, (s)he must do so,
Congratulations, and best wishes.
Grellania and Nova sodor
I didn't request, but that was because based on their forum discussion, it no longer looks like TNP plans on carrying out that clause in good faith.
That's not true at all, I had a read - they're perfectly within their rights if the poll says no, which it did.
I agree, they're within their rights if their poll says no. But based on the discussion, it seems that they intend on simply holding forum votes before resolutions are put to vote, which means they would not be obligated to stack in favor of our resolutions ever, unless of course they voted in favor of it, in which case that provision of the treaty wouldn't matter anyway. I'm not criticizing them, I'm just pointing out that the particular provision of the treaty is no longer as effective as it once was.
It's still an important part of our foreign relations, nevertheless.
I agree absolutely, TNP is still one of our oldest and closest friends and allies and how they interpret that clause won't change that.
What do the candidates think of:
1. Updating our regional "charter"/"constitution". It's severely out of date (still references the UN!) and we tend to ignore it anyway (e.g. we don't hold elections when it tells us to).
2. Establishing a regional crest/seal/coat of arms that we can use on official publications. Also possible a new flag? Might be good to reinvent the region to attract (and keep) new members.
Embassy Policy has been put into a dispatch and pinned to the WFE. Hopefully will be more noticable! Please up-vote :)
«12. . .142143144145146147148. . .635636»
Advertisement
