by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,4082,4092,4102,4112,4122,4132,414. . .2,6812,682»

Hi there, hello, it appears we have an Endocap now. Please do not go above 96 endorsements. That would end in you getting ejected, and I would rather that not happen.
Read the whole bill below

Thaecian Security Council Formalization Act

Author: Marvinville & Brototh
Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Preamble:

To create a system that will protect our region from internal and external threats,

Congress hereby agrees,

  • Section I - There shall be an established Security Council, which is responsible for protecting the region from internal and external threats to her sovereignty, safety, or security.

    • I. The Security Council has the right to eject and/or ban any nation as ordered by an established Court of law or by the Constitution or any law that permits ejections or bans to occur as long as such restrictions or legislation is followed.

  • Section II - The Security Council must consist of three nations, all of whom are appointed by the Prime Minister and confirmed by a simple majority vote in the House of Commons.

    • I. Once a Security Councilor is confirmed by the House of Commons, they shall serve on the Council until they resign, cease to exist, lose citizenship, are disqualified from holding office, or are removed from office.

    • II. A Security Councillor may be removed from office by either a two thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress, or a High Court order to remove them. Such order may only occur if the nation is found to have wrongfully ejected and/or banned a nation from Thaecia.

    • III. When appointed to office, a Security Councillor must be in the top thirty nations in regional influence. They may lose influence and go below this whilst in office.

  • Section III - All members on the Security Council shall have the region administration authorities of Border Control and Communications.

  • Section I - Members on the Security Council must have between the second most and fifteenth most endorsements in the region while they are in office.

    • I. Members on the Security Council must endorse all nations in the World Assembly within the first 7 days in office in order to increase their own endorsements.

  • Section II - All nations, excluding the Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, and members of the Security Council, must have at least 25% less endorsements than the elected World Assembly Delegate.

    • I. A nation may be ejected from the region if they surpasses the elected WA Delegate in endorsements or is within the 25% threshold of endorsements enacted by this Act.

    • II. The Vice Delegate and members of the Security Council shall not surpass the amount of endorsements of the elected World Assembly Delegate but may reach within the 25% threshold of endorsements enacted by this Act.

  • Section I - This Act shall not come into effect unless the referendum amending the Constitution triggered by Article IV passes. The ratification of said amendment constitutes the repeal of this Article.

  • Section II - This act requires a 2/3rds majority in Congress and 3/5ths approval by the region to pass.

  • Section III - If this Act is approved by Congress and the region in a referendum, Articles I and II shall become a new Legislative Resolution named “Thaecian Security Council Formalization Act.” All other Articles shall not be considered as part of the legislative resolution.

To remove Article III, Section II of the Thaecian Constitution and replace with the following:

  • Section II - There shall be an elected World Assembly Delegate of Thaecia.

    • Sub-section I - There may be a Vice Delegate serving at the pleasure of the World Asembly Delegate elected on a ticket with the Delegate or confirmed through a simple majority vote in a referendum.

    • Sub-section II - If the position of Delegate is vacant the Vice Delegate shall become the Delegate. A further line of succession may be provided for by law.

    • Sub-section III - To run for or hold the offices of World Assembly Delegate or Vice Delegate, a nation must be a member of the World Assembly.

    • Sub-section IV - The elected World Assembly Delegate must hold the most WA Endorsements in the region during their tenure in office. The Vice Delegate must hold between the second most and tenth most WA Endorsements in the region during their tenure in office.

    • Sub-section V - Should a nation surpass the legal World Assembly Delegate in Endorsements, the nation may be ejected from the region for a period of one WA update in order to allow the Delegate to retain power.

    • Sub-section VI - There may be other regulations established by law on regional endorsement limits.

Read dispatch

The Ambis wrote:Hi there, hello, it appears we have an Endocap now. Please do not go above 96 endorsements. That would end in you getting ejected, and I would rather that not happen.
Read the whole bill below

Thaecian Security Council Formalization Act

Author: Marvinville & Brototh
Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Preamble:

To create a system that will protect our region from internal and external threats,

Congress hereby agrees,

  • Section I - There shall be an established Security Council, which is responsible for protecting the region from internal and external threats to her sovereignty, safety, or security.

    • I. The Security Council has the right to eject and/or ban any nation as ordered by an established Court of law or by the Constitution or any law that permits ejections or bans to occur as long as such restrictions or legislation is followed.

  • Section II - The Security Council must consist of three nations, all of whom are appointed by the Prime Minister and confirmed by a simple majority vote in the House of Commons.

    • I. Once a Security Councilor is confirmed by the House of Commons, they shall serve on the Council until they resign, cease to exist, lose citizenship, are disqualified from holding office, or are removed from office.

    • II. A Security Councillor may be removed from office by either a two thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress, or a High Court order to remove them. Such order may only occur if the nation is found to have wrongfully ejected and/or banned a nation from Thaecia.

    • III. When appointed to office, a Security Councillor must be in the top thirty nations in regional influence. They may lose influence and go below this whilst in office.

  • Section III - All members on the Security Council shall have the region administration authorities of Border Control and Communications.

  • Section I - Members on the Security Council must have between the second most and fifteenth most endorsements in the region while they are in office.

    • I. Members on the Security Council must endorse all nations in the World Assembly within the first 7 days in office in order to increase their own endorsements.

  • Section II - All nations, excluding the Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, and members of the Security Council, must have at least 25% less endorsements than the elected World Assembly Delegate.

    • I. A nation may be ejected from the region if they surpasses the elected WA Delegate in endorsements or is within the 25% threshold of endorsements enacted by this Act.

    • II. The Vice Delegate and members of the Security Council shall not surpass the amount of endorsements of the elected World Assembly Delegate but may reach within the 25% threshold of endorsements enacted by this Act.

  • Section I - This Act shall not come into effect unless the referendum amending the Constitution triggered by Article IV passes. The ratification of said amendment constitutes the repeal of this Article.

  • Section II - This act requires a 2/3rds majority in Congress and 3/5ths approval by the region to pass.

  • Section III - If this Act is approved by Congress and the region in a referendum, Articles I and II shall become a new Legislative Resolution named “Thaecian Security Council Formalization Act.” All other Articles shall not be considered as part of the legislative resolution.

To remove Article III, Section II of the Thaecian Constitution and replace with the following:

  • Section II - There shall be an elected World Assembly Delegate of Thaecia.

    • Sub-section I - There may be a Vice Delegate serving at the pleasure of the World Asembly Delegate elected on a ticket with the Delegate or confirmed through a simple majority vote in a referendum.

    • Sub-section II - If the position of Delegate is vacant the Vice Delegate shall become the Delegate. A further line of succession may be provided for by law.

    • Sub-section III - To run for or hold the offices of World Assembly Delegate or Vice Delegate, a nation must be a member of the World Assembly.

    • Sub-section IV - The elected World Assembly Delegate must hold the most WA Endorsements in the region during their tenure in office. The Vice Delegate must hold between the second most and tenth most WA Endorsements in the region during their tenure in office.

    • Sub-section V - Should a nation surpass the legal World Assembly Delegate in Endorsements, the nation may be ejected from the region for a period of one WA update in order to allow the Delegate to retain power.

    • Sub-section VI - There may be other regulations established by law on regional endorsement limits.

Read dispatch

Lol check my endos

Brototh wrote:Lol check my endos

You realize I technically have to eject you. Of course I’m not, since I don’t have enough influence, so, “I’ll let you off with a warning”

The Ambis wrote:You realize I technically have to eject you. Of course I’m not, since I don’t have enough influence, so, “I’ll let you off with a warning”

If the endocap is 96 and I have 96 endos then I am not breaking the rules lmao

Brototh wrote:If the endocap is 96 and I have 96 endos then I am not breaking the rules lmao

I. A nation may be ejected from the region if they surpasses the elected WA Delegate in endorsements or is within the 25% threshold of endorsements enacted by this Act.

II. The Vice Delegate and members of the Security Council shall not surpass the amount of endorsements of the elected World Assembly Delegate but may reach within the 25% threshold of endorsements enacted by this Act.

You part of that second groups?
EDIT: Also, btdubs Brototh, you need to appoint some councilors

The Ambis wrote:I. A nation may be ejected from the region if they surpasses the elected WA Delegate in endorsements or is within the 25% threshold of endorsements enacted by this Act.

II. The Vice Delegate and members of the Security Council shall not surpass the amount of endorsements of the elected World Assembly Delegate but may reach within the 25% threshold of endorsements enacted by this Act.

You part of that second groups?
EDIT: Also, btdubs Brototh, you need to appoint some councilors

1. Technically the law has not passed yet because I haven't signed it
2. You must be making that up because the version the Senate passed is "Section II - All nations must have a number of endorsements below 90% of the Delegate's total endorsements, rounded down.". Where are you getting this 25% version from?

Brototh wrote:1. Technically the law has not passed yet because I haven't signed it
2. You must be making that up because the version the Senate passed is "Section II - All nations must have a number of endorsements below 90% of the Delegate's total endorsements, rounded down.". Where are you getting this 25% version from?

1) Why do we have an endocap then
2) Ummmm Marvs original bill. It’s not like I was the one to link the actual one to the WFE or anything…

Walks away whistling

The law hasn't been signed into law = there is no endo cap

yw for me solving these problems

Of altonianic islands, The Ambis, and Lukaymmunki

For an update on the Easter egg hunt I have gotten four Easter’s eggs while Ambis has gotten zero.

Lukaymmunki wrote:For an update on the Easter egg hunt I have gotten four Easter’s eggs while Ambis has gotten zero.

I DONT KNOW HOW THE HECK HES DOING IT!

Lukaymmunki wrote:For an update on the Easter egg hunt I have gotten four Easter’s eggs while Ambis has gotten zero.

Wait what Easter egg hunt?

Ambis can probably explain better than I can.

Of altonianic islands

Thaecia Today Polling Institute - Generic Ballot/Approval Poll
43 real voters, September 26 - September 30

The following is a summary of the Generic Ballot portion of TTPI's first official Generic Ballot/Approval Poll. Thank you to all our lovely respondents.

*All party crosstab data that is included excludes PTD due to L.R. 030's prohibition of inclusion of data that could compromise individuals, since it is fairly obvious who the one PTD reply is.

Question 1: Do you want Madame Prime Minister Brototh to run for a third term?

Yes - 51.2%
No - 25.6%
Unsure - 23.3%

We at Thaecia Today expected this to be far more of a landslide for the Madame Prime Minister than it was. Our analysts expected 70-80+% of respondents to want a third term from the extremely popular incumbent. The data does not represent that.

Breakdown by party -

FREE - 44.4% Yes, 33.3% No, 22.2% Unsure
TGP - 44.4% Unsure, 33.3% Yes, 22.2% No
ALT - 75% Yes, 25% Unsure, 0% No
IND - 56.3% Yes, 31.3% No, 12.5% Unsure

Obviously, PM Brototh's best numbers are with ALT, with zero members saying they did not want her to run for a third term. Surprisingly, her next highest stat was with Independents, which she won an outright majority of by 25 points. From there, it had relatively similar results with TGP and FREE.

Question 2: If Madame Prime Minister Brototh did not run for reelection and it came down to the following two candidates, who would you vote for?

Lukaymmunki - 46.5%
Marvinville - 37.2%
Other - 16.3%

Once again, these were not the results our analysts were expecting. We were expecting a blow out for Senate Marvinville, but that does not seem to have materialized, even with parity in party turnout in the poll. This has shifted our outlook on this possible race from Likely Marv to Tilt Marv. When it comes down to it, we still think FREE's advantage in party membership will prevail.

Breakdown by party -

FREE - 100% Marv, 0% Luka, 0% Other
TGP - 100% Luka, 0% Marv, 0% Other
ALT - 50% Luka, 37.5% Other, 12.5% Marv
IND - 43.8% Luka, 37.5% Marv, 18.8% Other

Both Marv and Luka sweep their respective home bases, leaving the rest to battle for Independents and ALT members. Luka is surprisingly strong in ALT, winning 50-13, however there are a lot of undecided voters. The Independents actually mirrored the final poll results shockingly well. Luka narrowly carries them in this poll, but with that level of undecideds, it's completely up for grabs. Again, FREE and TGP voter bases were equivalent in this poll, which is likely not representative of the actual electorate. However with a 9 point lead, Luka has some wiggle room, hence the Tilt Marv rating.

Question 3: If the November General Election were held today, which party would you vote for?

FREE - 23.3%
TGP - 23.3%
ALT - 23.3%
IND - 23.3%
PTD - 7%

Here's where the results tend to break down a bit. Prior polls have almost always overestimated far left/IND vote shares and underestimated FREE. As it stands currently, we think this data reflects a near repeat of the past midterms in terms of the popular vote. This might change, but be exceptionally cautious about data showing TGP and ALT neck and neck with FREE - in all likelihood, it just ain't gonna happen.

The Party breakdown on this is boring. All parties voted for their own members, most unaffiliated voters selected Independents. Not a single party got more than two Independent votes.

---

And that covers the Generic Ballot portion. There's a bunch of interesting data with the approval ratings, but that'll happen tomorrow.

Korsinia, Islonia, Cerdenia, Lukaymmunki, and 2 othersLothern, and Evimeria

Lothern wrote:snip

Ah yes, "The Pheonix Party", the party that will rebuild what TGP has failed to do...we have dismissed that claim.(Mass Effect reference)

Jokes aside, good luck with the new party, I'm sure it will go well....

After getting voted out in the midterms, it's good to see you all decided to rebrand. However, its also disappointing to see how questionable of a manifesto that is.

I see maybe a vague attempt to appeal to moderate right-wingers in your Domestic Policy, but then I have to remember that your party quite literally has some of the most left-wing Congresspeople this region has seen present-day besides the progressives. It doesn't help that your platform also very much lacks details:

"We support expanding and creating more relationships upon the world stage," in what way? With what regions? Are there any exceptions?

"We believe that the conversation about Unicameralism should be reopened considering the narrow margin it passed by last time"...is really wanting a "conversation" actually a policy? Is the plan to hold another referendum or is it to just talk? Well, I'm talking about it now so i guess you succeeded(?)

Well, I'm looking forward to seeing how the Second Phoenix Party performs.

Of altonianic islands

Snowflame wrote:Ah yes, "The Pheonix Party", the party that will rebuild what TGP has failed to do...we have dismissed that claim.(Mass Effect reference)

Jokes aside, good luck with the new party, I'm sure it will go well....

After getting voted out in the midterms, it's good to see you all decided to rebrand. However, its also disappointing to see how questionable of a manifesto that is.

I see maybe a vague attempt to appeal to moderate right-wingers in your Domestic Policy, but then I have to remember that your party quite literally has some of the most left-wing Congresspeople this region has seen present-day besides the progressives. It doesn't help that your platform also very much lacks details:

"We support expanding and creating more relationships upon the world stage," in what way? With what regions? Are there any exceptions?

"We believe that the conversation about Unicameralism should be reopened considering the narrow margin it passed by last time"...is really wanting a "conversation" actually a policy? Is the plan to hold another referendum or is it to just talk? Well, I'm talking about it now so i guess you succeeded(?)

Well, I'm looking forward to seeing how the Second Phoenix Party performs.

Really sorry Snow, but have you had a wasp in your pants these past few days? You managed to antagonize Bow with such plain misrepresentations that he politely asked me to remove the Recruitment Act from the docket because of "Snow's bull**** I'm just concerned this is gonna hurt future participation in the long run." And now this. FREE has been clamoring for TGP to rebrand for literally months, and when they finally do, this is your reaction. Jesus.

Toerana V and Primo order

Of altonianic islands wrote:

In no way have I antagonized Bow lol. If anything, I have been the target of constant attacks. Even people who disagree with me when it comes to the Recruitment Act have publicly said that the words used against me were incredibly harsh.

Also, I do not remember FREE, as a party, ever telling TGP to rebrand. I know people HAVE told TGP to rebrand(because the name TGP is relatively controversial), but I'm positive that wasn't a party thing.

Also Also, I was simply asking TGP to explain their policies. The manifesto lacks details. I'm trying to get a sense of where they stand on policies.

Of altonianic islands

Snowflame wrote:In no way have I antagonized Bow lol. If anything, I have been the target of constant attacks. Even people who disagree with me when it comes to the Recruitment Act have publicly said that the words used against me were incredibly harsh.

Also, I do not remember FREE, as a party, ever telling TGP to rebrand. I know people HAVE told TGP to rebrand(because the name TGP is relatively controversial), but I'm positive that wasn't a party thing.

Also Also, I was simply asking TGP to explain their policies. The manifesto lacks details. I'm trying to get a sense of where they stand on policies.

:shrug: It's bully 101 to play the victim.

Maybe instead of trying to make Luka and TGP in general feel like crap you should, I don't know, focus on your job as Senate Chairman? As someone with access to a poll of about two thirds of the electorate, your approval ratings are terrible.

Of altonianic islands wrote::shrug: It's bully 101 to play the victim.

Maybe instead of trying to make Luka and TGP in general feel like crap you should, I don't know, focus on your job as Senate Chairman? As someone with access to a poll of about two thirds of the electorate, your approval ratings are terrible.

How is me being constantly baited on discord and teamed up on me playing the victim?

"your approval ratings are terrible." Yes, I'm sure they are lol. You spent days asking right-wingers to vote in your poll, which means that obviously
1. Right-Wingers were not voting.
2. TGP got a majority of votes in your poll

I mean come on, in the poll Marv is trailing by so many points that you literally had to change the predictions for the race. The poll is obviously far from accurate.
Also you say I'm playing the victim but just used a very out-of-context poll to attack me.

Of altonianic islands

Snowflame wrote:How is me being constantly baited on discord and teamed up on me playing the victim?

"your approval ratings are terrible." Yes, I'm sure they are lol. You spent days asking right-wingers to vote in your poll, which means that obviously
1. Right-Wingers were not voting.
2. TGP got a majority of votes in your poll

I mean come on, in the poll Marv is trailing by so many points that you literally had to change the predictions for the race. The poll is obviously far from accurate.
Also you say I'm playing the victim but just used a very out-of-context poll to attack me.

With all due respect, FREE got 32% of the vote in the midterm and TGP got 27% - they're both on equal footing in this poll. TGP accounted for literally 21% of the total responses lol. Maybe get your facts straight first. If you actually looked at the crosstabs I supplied you'd know this.

But go on and continue to deflect the point, I don't mind.

The fact of the matter is Bow literally asked me to withdraw the bill from the docket because he thought you were harming the region, so I'm pretty sure which side is closer to accurate.

Of altonianic islands wrote:Snip

"FREE got 32% of the vote in the midterm"....FREE won four seats though, TGP lost seats lol.

The fact of the matter is that if you look at discord and even this RMB in fact
1. I have been constantly attacked and baited
2. You even used an out-of-context poll against me...for some reason? The conversation was about me wanting to know TGP's policies since they changed them.
3. People who disagreed with me have said that the words spoken about me were too harsh.

So, I have zero clue what you mean by "accurate". A lot of people were against the bill, I just happened to be one of the more outspoken critics.

Of altonianic islands

Snowflame wrote:"FREE got 32% of the vote in the midterm"....FREE won four seats though, TGP lost seats lol.

The fact of the matter is that if you look at discord and even this RMB in fact
1. I have been constantly attacked and baited
2. You even used an out-of-context poll against me...for some reason? The conversation was about me wanting to know TGP's policies since they changed them.
3. People who disagreed with me have said that the words spoken about me were too harsh.

So, I have zero clue what you mean by "accurate". A lot of people were against the bill, I just happened to be one of the more outspoken critics.

1. It was by the narrowest skin of the teeth, where about a dozen things had to go wrong for TGP. Not saying it was a good thing, just saying it's super misrepresentative to suggest FREE was by any means safe getting four seats.

2. This was to point out that people in glass houses maybe shouldn't through stones.

3. Could you kindly tell me where exactly these messages are, I can't seem to find them.

Post self-deleted by Lukaymmunki.

The argument he is referring to is a small debate between him, Altys and Bow where Bow made some passive aggressive jokes and Altys disagreed based upon personal experience.

Of altonianic islands wrote:Snip

1. Losing a bunch of seats in a chamber is more than "narrowest skin of the teeth". ALT took TGP votes which is true because ALT is very moderate. TGP could have lost votes because of policy(which would make sense since they literally made a new manifesto with new policies). And FREE was and still is very safe. FREE has some of the largest member counts since the 2019 Unity Party which I think had a peak of around 50 members.

2. What?

3. I'm not going to scroll through hundreds of discord messages to prove a point. I'm sure you can do so

«12. . .2,4082,4092,4102,4112,4122,4132,414. . .2,6812,682»

Advertisement