Entry Procedures
-
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
Re: Entry Procedures
Good points and this needs a more thorough response that I don't currently have time to do.
I'll get back to you on this, but I am busy over the next few days. If I don't respond by Friday, nudge this thread and I will do so.
I'll get back to you on this, but I am busy over the next few days. If I don't respond by Friday, nudge this thread and I will do so.
-
- Posts: 2189
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:40 pm
Re: Entry Procedures
*nudge*
Also because it would be good to come to an agreement on this collectively, whether or not Farzan responds in detail. I take it that by this point people are either happy with my first proposal (if objections, voting by nations) or Nathan's proposal (if objections, voting by citizens), and we could decide on one of the two?
Also because it would be good to come to an agreement on this collectively, whether or not Farzan responds in detail. I take it that by this point people are either happy with my first proposal (if objections, voting by nations) or Nathan's proposal (if objections, voting by citizens), and we could decide on one of the two?
The character Andreas the Wise is on indefinite leave. But he does deserve a cool war ribbon.
However, this account still manages:
However, this account still manages:
Re: Entry Procedures
Oh, my bad. I hit finals and forgot all about this.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
~Sherlock Holmes
The character of Gerk ronAnaglea is dead.
My avatar contains (from left to right) the characters of Analis and Rafel.
Click here for my roleplaying Element List.
~Sherlock Holmes
The character of Gerk ronAnaglea is dead.
My avatar contains (from left to right) the characters of Analis and Rafel.
Click here for my roleplaying Element List.
-
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
Re: Entry Procedures
1.
The change in the structure is the move from voting being by nation to by national citizens. In other words the nations are no longer the core constituents, but the citizenry. This matters because it diminishes the sovereignty of the individual nation by preventing them from articulating their own interests in a forum built to promote them. The Union is a union of nations, not nationals, and should therefore provide a place for the consideration and articulation of national interest, rather than sidelining them.
2.
I don't think this concern is misplaced just becuase the current small nations happen to not mind it at present. We have to consider what might happen in the future. If individual nations feel they can't express their own interests because the voting is citizen-based rather than nation-based, there's a risk of the union fracturing in the future.
3.
But you have to work out who's a citizen of where and ensure that only they vote. If it's national, you just have one public post on the matter. If it's an issue of not knowing the obejctions, that can easily be accomodated by recommending that individual nations post the reasons for their No vote.
Bastion is inherently a political entity as it's a pooling of one of the most obvious forms of micronational sovereignty. It's no good to say that it shouldn't be, it is so inherently. The question is therefore one of how to manage that in the way that minimises the scope for conflict. Primary allegiance has to be to the member nations as this is a forum by and for nations. If citizenship is kicked up a level so that a group of non-nationals can outvote a nation, we have a problem.
First, because it forces people to split their loyalties. It's much easier to manage multi-citizen conflicts of interest in the national structure because they get a say without a vote, and aren't forced to choose one nation over another. The current set-up minimises the conflict by not forcing people to choose.
Second, if a block of non-citizens can consistently outvote a nation, and it need not even be a small one, then that nation will feel sidelined. If that happens, we have the significant risk of splits. It has bad echoes of the Grand Commonwealth.
Third, the national interest gets inherently sidelined because people aren't forced to come together in a national forum to work out how it might affect their nation and articulate a position accordingly. It sidelines the Cabinets by removing any decision-making power from them in the matter. That is a reduction of sovereignty in a matter of foreign affairs, and should be avoided. It also removes the ability to have private places to deliberate and consier things without the pressure of outside nations.
Finally, it makes lobbying and diplomacy much harder. If voting is by nation, there are diplomatic channels already in place to discuss matters and smooth out difficulties. It is much easier to discuss things at the national, collective level where things are in a much better position to be deliberated. By contrast, a citizen-wide vote removes this level of deliberation and diplomacy, making it much harder to lobby voters into supporting, or at least understanding, your concerns. Moreover, making things a matter of an individual vote increases the risk of personal conflict, which we've already seen a bit of. Keeping things national allows people a space to reflect, discuss and compromise that a flat citizen vote doesn't allow.
The change in the structure is the move from voting being by nation to by national citizens. In other words the nations are no longer the core constituents, but the citizenry. This matters because it diminishes the sovereignty of the individual nation by preventing them from articulating their own interests in a forum built to promote them. The Union is a union of nations, not nationals, and should therefore provide a place for the consideration and articulation of national interest, rather than sidelining them.
2.
I don't think this concern is misplaced just becuase the current small nations happen to not mind it at present. We have to consider what might happen in the future. If individual nations feel they can't express their own interests because the voting is citizen-based rather than nation-based, there's a risk of the union fracturing in the future.
3.
But you have to work out who's a citizen of where and ensure that only they vote. If it's national, you just have one public post on the matter. If it's an issue of not knowing the obejctions, that can easily be accomodated by recommending that individual nations post the reasons for their No vote.
Bastion is inherently a political entity as it's a pooling of one of the most obvious forms of micronational sovereignty. It's no good to say that it shouldn't be, it is so inherently. The question is therefore one of how to manage that in the way that minimises the scope for conflict. Primary allegiance has to be to the member nations as this is a forum by and for nations. If citizenship is kicked up a level so that a group of non-nationals can outvote a nation, we have a problem.
First, because it forces people to split their loyalties. It's much easier to manage multi-citizen conflicts of interest in the national structure because they get a say without a vote, and aren't forced to choose one nation over another. The current set-up minimises the conflict by not forcing people to choose.
Second, if a block of non-citizens can consistently outvote a nation, and it need not even be a small one, then that nation will feel sidelined. If that happens, we have the significant risk of splits. It has bad echoes of the Grand Commonwealth.
Third, the national interest gets inherently sidelined because people aren't forced to come together in a national forum to work out how it might affect their nation and articulate a position accordingly. It sidelines the Cabinets by removing any decision-making power from them in the matter. That is a reduction of sovereignty in a matter of foreign affairs, and should be avoided. It also removes the ability to have private places to deliberate and consier things without the pressure of outside nations.
Finally, it makes lobbying and diplomacy much harder. If voting is by nation, there are diplomatic channels already in place to discuss matters and smooth out difficulties. It is much easier to discuss things at the national, collective level where things are in a much better position to be deliberated. By contrast, a citizen-wide vote removes this level of deliberation and diplomacy, making it much harder to lobby voters into supporting, or at least understanding, your concerns. Moreover, making things a matter of an individual vote increases the risk of personal conflict, which we've already seen a bit of. Keeping things national allows people a space to reflect, discuss and compromise that a flat citizen vote doesn't allow.
- Jacobus Loki
- The plaything of capricious Archons...
- Posts: 1982
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:52 am
Re: Entry Procedures
His Radiance makes good points. Why not let sleeping dogs lie, at least for the nonce? I don't see any nation beating down the doors to get in.
Jacobus Loki
Once and Future King of the Ma'alanje
Prophet of Loki, Wielder of the Sword of Madness
Shireroth sumus. Tempus in parte nostrum est.
Once and Future King of the Ma'alanje
Prophet of Loki, Wielder of the Sword of Madness
Shireroth sumus. Tempus in parte nostrum est.
Re: Entry Procedures
Yeah, that does make a lot of sense. Sometimes I forget that this is actually a relatively large community, and trying to organize a democratic system is not necessarily going to work out very well.
I'm fine with letting this be for now, but reserve the right to reopen discussion at a later date if the same problems keep arising.
I'm fine with letting this be for now, but reserve the right to reopen discussion at a later date if the same problems keep arising.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
~Sherlock Holmes
The character of Gerk ronAnaglea is dead.
My avatar contains (from left to right) the characters of Analis and Rafel.
Click here for my roleplaying Element List.
~Sherlock Holmes
The character of Gerk ronAnaglea is dead.
My avatar contains (from left to right) the characters of Analis and Rafel.
Click here for my roleplaying Element List.
Re: Entry Procedures
While I can't find any particular fault with any particular argument Farzan is proposing, I still feel that the sum of all the small things he praises adds up to a lesser system with more flaws than simply doing citizen-based voting.
-
- Posts: 2189
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:40 pm
Re: Entry Procedures
I think at base people's preferences largely comes down to how you view this forum as being set up - as between the people on it, or the nations on it. I (and I suspect some of the other early members) view it as by the people, because of how the early discussions developed. Farzan (and I suspect various of the not-quite-so-early members) view it as by the nations because this is how it has practically functioned since Antica and Babkha joined.
At this stage, to keep this moving, perhaps the best thing is to say which we prefer and see which model has more widespread support. Most people seem happy with the wording of one of the two.
At this stage, to keep this moving, perhaps the best thing is to say which we prefer and see which model has more widespread support. Most people seem happy with the wording of one of the two.
The character Andreas the Wise is on indefinite leave. But he does deserve a cool war ribbon.
However, this account still manages:
However, this account still manages:
Re: Entry Procedures
Do it by people, cuts down on bureaucracy (there only has to be one vote instead of eight or whatever).
-
- Posts: 2189
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:40 pm
Re: Entry Procedures
Since asking for that didn't work, I'll make a poll here.Andreas the Wise wrote:At this stage, to keep this moving, perhaps the best thing is to say which we prefer and see which model has more widespread support. Most people seem happy with the wording of one of the two.
The character Andreas the Wise is on indefinite leave. But he does deserve a cool war ribbon.
However, this account still manages:
However, this account still manages: