City Center > Taijitu Founder Committee

The Founder Conference

(1/3) > >>

Eluvatar:
What is the agenda of this conference?

Currently, I understand the agenda to be:


* Resolving the conflict between certain Founders, the current in particular and a process for in general for the good of the region.
* Taijitu politics and the Founders (and how it may be appropriate or inappropriate to act using the founder nation due to said politics).
* Considering changing the list of founders, possibly creating a founder emeritus or reserve group of trusted former founders.
* Considering changing the founder commitee bylaws.
The agenda may be revised.

Why is this conference being called?

Due to a recent series of events, to whit:

A few weeks ago, tensions which from what I can tell were unfocused became a conflict largely between two factions within the region, the two factions broadly being centered around the members of the Centre and Progressive Parties. (I'm a member of the Progressive Party, but I'm trying to write this bit as neutrally as possible). Generally speaking the Centre faction are in favor of more powerful elected officials and an Independent foreign policy, while the Progressive faction are in favor of the continued supremacy of direct democracy (the Ecclesia) and Sovreigntist foreign policy.

If the terms Independent and Sovreigntist are unclear, the below two documents seek to define the two ideologies, at least in general terms.

(click to show/hide)The Independent Manifesto
We, the undersigned governments; cognizant of our shared identity as Independent regions; committed to elaborating and clarifying the common elements that characterize Independence; and determined to promoted our shared ideals and objectives in the NationStates world; do hereby affirm:

Identity

I. An Independent region is characterized by its emphasis on a strong and vibrant internal community and a political system that encourages stability, participation and growth. Regional life and identity are driven primarily by the political and cultural elements of the region, and not by a focus on military activity for its own sake.

II. An Independent region rejects the Raider/Defender dichotomy and does not take a position in the middle of the spectrum. An Independent region instead identifies separate, more complex and nuanced, interests for their community, which do not fit in the Raider/Defender dichotomy, such as: maximizing regional activity and stability; increasing the region’s influence and impact in the interregional stage; developing strong ties with like-minded communities and regions; and protecting the sovereignty of friendly and aligned regions.

III. An Imperialist region is functionally also an Independent region in terms of possessing the characteristics outlined in this statement. However, Imperialist regions have additional characteristics that do not apply to all Independent regions, and Independent and Imperialist regions have had at periods separate historical traditions, despite sharing common origins.

Diplomacy

IV. An Independent region adopts a pragmatic approach towards diplomacy. An Independent region’s diplomacy is not guided by dogmatism or intransigence. The ultimate objective of an Independent region’s diplomacy is to maximize utility for the region, as defined by the regional interests. Therefore, the fundamental principle of an Independent region’s foreign policy is the rational evaluation of decisions on an issue-by-issue basis, based on how they serve the regional interests.

V. An Independent region has a vested interest in pursuing an active and prolific foreign policy, staying at the forefront of the interregional diplomatic scene. An Independent region does not a priori or universally favor neutral or moderate positions, and does not shy away from engaging in interregional events.

VI. An Independent region is not averse to collaborating with Raider, Defender, or other regions that do not subscribe to the Independent ideology. Such collaboration can exist on the basis of shared mutually beneficial interests, and on the condition that the other parties will acknowledge and respect the Independent region’s freedom to act in any capacity its self-interests dictate, and will not try to impose their own ideology on the Independent region.

Military

VII. An Independent military is an instrument of foreign policy, at the disposal of the government of the Independent region. An Independent region is not averse to using its Independent military, and does not recognize any external and universal moralistic elements as dictating the use of its Independent military. Rather, an Independent region employs its Independent military in order to effect the military objectives dictated by the region’s diplomatic interests, and in any way necessary to achieve these objectives. This includes offensive, defensive, reinforcement, or refounding operations.

VIII. An Independent military does not a priori and universally take a position against any type of military operations for external moralistic reasons, nor does it commit to conducting a single type of military operations for its own sake. Furthermore, an Independent military is not under any burden to try to balance the amount of operations of different kinds. Rather, decisions and guidelines on the types of military operations an Independent military may execute are adopted on the basis of regional interests and can be reevaluated on a case-specific basis.

IX. An Independent region has a vested interest in maintaining an active and versatile Independent military, capable of executing both offensive and defensive military operations. An Independent military endeavors to participate in military operations of all kinds that are appropriate for training purposes: missions representing realistic military conditions and which do not constitute hostilities against other gameplay regions.

Signatories

(click to show/hide)On Behalf of Europeia:
[*]Malashaan, President
[*]Anumia, Foreign Minister
[*]Kraketopia, Grand Admiral
[*]North East Somerset, Director of the Europeian Intelligence Agency[/list]
On Behalf of Balder:
[*]Rach Erickson, Queen
[*]North East Somerset, Crown Prince[/list]
On Behalf of Osiris:
[*]Joshua Bluteisen, Pharoah[/list]
On Behalf of The Land of Kings and Emperors:
[*]OnderKelkia, Emperor[/list]
On Behalf of Equilism:
[*]Millitarism, Officer
[*]Rogamark, Officer[/list]
On Behalf of The North Pacific:
[*]r3naissanc3r, Delegate
[*]McMasterdonia, Minister of Foreign Affairs[/list]
On Behalf of The New Inquisition:
[*]Charles Cerebella, König
[*]Torrin von Vonno, Foreign Minister
[*]OnderKelkia, Commander of the Armed Forces[/list]
On Behalf of Albion:
[*]Charles Cerebella, King[/list]
On Behalf of The West Pacific:
[*]Intelligent Holograms, Prime Minister[/list]
On Behalf of Ainur:
[*]Jack Dawkins, First Minister[/list]
[align=center][/align]
(click to show/hide)On Regional Sovereignty
By Eluvatar, Funkadelia, Myroria

Every community deserves sovereignty. By virtue of its very existence, a community, no matter how small, is imbued with the right to continue that existence without interference from outside agents.

This seems like a statement most people would agree with, but when applied to NationStates it is decried by some, and compromised by many. Usually, the compromise sounds something like this, though often couched in many more words:

“It is my community’s right to violate other communities’ sovereignty!”

This is to be a manifesto describing a philosophy called Sovereigntism. Now is the best time for Sovereigntists to publish their views and beliefs - as now is the time that the sovereignty of communities is most threatened by external forces seeking to promote their own designs at the expense of native communities.


Before we begin our discussion of how to safeguard a community’s sovereignty, we must address what sovereignty is and who deserves it.

Regions are established by a community for that community. Speaking in terms of “regions” instead of “communities” is an easy way to sooth any cognitive dissonance that may arise from disrupting one. A “region” is a simple gameplay mechanic - no more deserving of independence than a tree.

But just as a tree houses an entire ecosystem, a region houses a community. A region is founded by players seeking a home for themselves to do with as they please and they alone are its caretakers. “Tagging regions”, “taking delegacies”, “clearing RMBs”, and “spreading influence” are all convenient, euphemistic ways of saying the same thing: “disrupting communities”.

Though different methods of aggression cause different degrees of harm, any intrusion into a community’s sovereignty - whether it be “tagging regions” to claim them as one’s own, taking delegacies to exert direct control, clearing RMBs to suppress dissent, or participating in governance on behalf of a foreign power to “spread influence” - all result in harm to a region’s native community.

Sovereigntists are dedicated to preserving the independence of any region and its native community from outside aggression. The only time anyone may safely say a region no longer has a community is when that region ceases to exist. Any earlier, and one infringes on the right of a person or people to make their own decisions.

Are there exceptions to this rule? Are all regions home to a community?

Dominions or colonies established by a region are an extension of the sovereignty of their mother, though dominions stolen by force from a pre-existing community, as Imperialists often do, are not legitimate. They may, and should, be liberated from their occupier. Puppet storage regions, likewise, are exempt from the same guarantees given to other regions; they are more like a lifeless filing cabinet than a thriving coral reef. Other regions, such as those dedicated to Nazism or fascism, are mostly dedicated to cause others grief. These regions, based entirely around real-life philosophies dedicated to the oppression of real people, are hardly deserving of the self-determination other communities enjoy.


Since its birth, every conflict in NationStates has had two sides: those trying to build a community, and those trying to corrupt it.

Now that this framework describing sovereignty has been set up, it seems like something most people would agree with. Few people would say that anyone is not deserving of the right to make their own choices, but unfortunately, in NationStates, this view is prevalent. As mentioned above, though, it is often not presented in such blunt terms:

“If a region doesn’t want to be raided, it should just refound itself.”

“Imperialism is simply an extension of my region’s foreign policy - we are above the same old R/D game.”

“It’s my region’s right to play this game however we want, and people who disagree with us are taking themselves too seriously.”

Sovereigntists should recognize these statements, and statements like them, for what they are:

“I think that enforcing my will on other people is fun.”

Earlier we discussed exceptions to the guarantee of sovereignty given to all communities. Here is another:

No region has the sovereign right to violate another region’s own sovereignty.

In this affirmation Sovereigntism sounds a lot like defenderism. This is no accident, though the reality of the situation is more complex; just as Imperialists and raiders often cooperate to subdue founderless regions, Sovereigntists and defenders cooperate to liberate regions from their occupiers.

In the practical reality of its philosophy, though, Sovereigntism encapsulates defenderism and more. Most defender philosophy falls into two camps: the “defending is morally righteous” camp and the “raiding must be opposed” camp. Sovereigntism, on the other hand, takes a “big picture” view: defenses and liberations are extensions of a policy guaranteeing the independence of any community, rather than simple feel-goodism. This ethical policy is one that remains true to the origins of the defending groups that came before us. These groups were founded as associations of mutual defense, which would reach out to new regions as they were threatened. Much in the same way, Sovereigntism is a policy that is based on mutual defense given the understanding that most regions would like to be protected from invasion. This is a return to the ethos of defenders of the past, one of mutual inter-regional respect.


Sovereigntism, as a rule, postulates the right of every community in every region to make its own choices and decide its own future. Sovereigntists oppose imperialism in all its forms - whether it be the direct methods of raiders and Imperialists or the less direct methods used by many regions and organizations to exert influence in places they don’t belong.

Generally speaking, every community deserves its independence. The only people that should guide a community are those that call it home. Anyone else is simply infringing upon their sovereignty.

Anyone that endorses this position is a Sovereigntist at heart.
These tensions cohered around a proposal to scrap the Ecclesia, declare the "Glorious Revolution" disastrous, and hold a constitutional convention. After this proposal failed 12:10 (less than 2/3 to amend the constitution), the Ecclesia instead decided to hold a constitutional convention, which has stalled.

The Citizen-Delegate, St Oz, is opposed to the Progressive faction. Before the aforementioned proposal and as Oz was elected, the Ecclesia discussed and voted, as per practice since the Glorious Revolution, on a request to open relations (an embassy exchange) from 10000 Islands on November 2nd through 13th. 10000 Islands is a well-known defender region, friendship with which can be seen as a Sovreigntist policy. A week or so after the vote concluded November 13th, forum administrator Dyr Nasad created a subforum for it November 20th.

Delegate St Oz did not accept 10000 Islands Delegate Paffnia's proposals to construct (onsite) embassies of November 25th, December 6th, and December 13th. Delegate St Oz rejected 2 embassy requests December 16th, presumably including the 10000 Islands embassy request of the 13th. Citizen-Delegate and forum administrator St Oz deleted the embassy subforum December 16th. Paffnia pointed out the disappearance of the embassy subforum and rejection / expiration of onsite requests December 23rd. At some point between the 16th and 24th, Paffnia proposed an embassy once again (I can find no record of when it was exactly).

With none of the Founders logging in, Taijitu Founder ceased to exist December 24th. After reviving Taijitu Founder a couple hours later with some disquiet Myroria acted as the founder nation to accept the embassy December 24th, around 3 PM EST. St Oz aborted this within 2 hours, and Of the US acting as the founder nation ordered embassy closure with The North Pacific and Lazarus (two regional allies) a few more hours later around 11 PM. Following some further back and forth (see below), which ended with Myroria changing the password to the founder nation after someone proposed embassies with The Black Riders using the founder nation, St Oz proclaimed non-recognition of the constitution. (The Delegate retains access to regional controls).
(click to show/hide)2015-12-24 15:00:15 EST: Taijitu Founder agreed to construct embassies between Taijitu and 10000 Islands.
2015-12-24 16:45:36 EST: St Oz aborted construction of embassies between Taijitu and 10000 Islands.
2015-12-24 22:19:46 EST: Taijitu Founder ordered the closure of embassies between Taijitu and The North Pacific.
2015-12-24 22:55:41 EST: Taijitu Founder ordered the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Lazarus.
2015-12-24 23:21:28 EST: Taijitu Founder cancelled the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Lazarus.
2015-12-24 23:21:34 EST: Taijitu Founder cancelled the closure of embassies between Taijitu and The North Pacific.
2015-12-25 00:52:40 EST: Taijitu Founder ordered the closure of embassies between Taijitu and The North Pacific.
2015-12-25 00:52:48 EST: Taijitu Founder ordered the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Lazarus.
2015-12-25 01:15:48 EST: Taijitu Founder cancelled the closure of embassies between Taijitu and The North Pacific.
2015-12-25 01:16:01 EST: Taijitu Founder cancelled the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Lazarus.
2015-12-25 03:35:33 EST: St Oz ordered the closure of embassies between Taijitu and The North Pacific.
2015-12-25 03:35:44 EST: St Oz ordered the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Spiritus.
2015-12-25 03:35:57 EST: St Oz ordered the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Lazarus.
2015-12-25 13:21:30 EST: St Oz cancelled the closure of embassies between Taijitu and The North Pacific.
2015-12-25 13:21:41 EST: St Oz cancelled the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Lazarus.
2015-12-25 13:21:47 EST: St Oz cancelled the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Spiritus.
2015-12-25 17:47:29 EST: Paffnia proposed constructing embassies between 10000 Islands and Taijitu.
2015-12-25 22:17:56 EST: Taijitu Founder rejected a request from 10000 Islands for an embassy with Taijitu.
2015-12-25 23:54:42 EST: Taijitu Founder ordered the closure of embassies between Taijitu and The North Pacific.
2015-12-25 23:54:52 EST: Taijitu Founder ordered the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Lazarus.
2015-12-25 23:55:27 EST: Taijitu Founder proposed constructing embassies between Taijitu and The Black Riders.
2015-12-25 23:59:26 EST: Taijitu Founder withdrew a request for embassies between Taijitu and The Black Riders.
2015-12-26 00:05:29 EST: Taijitu Founder cancelled the closure of embassies between Taijitu and Lazarus.
2015-12-26 00:05:37 EST: Taijitu Founder cancelled the closure of embassies between Taijitu and The North Pacific.
Prydania noticed the lockout quickly. Following discussion over the next fifteen hours Myroria then formally called for a founder conference to resolve the conflict.

Who is attending this conference?

Myroria, Gulliver, Of the US, Sovereign Dixie, Allama, PoD Gunner, and I are attending. If PoD Gunner shows up (which is possible) he will join the attendees. If St Oz is interested he will join the attendees as well. Other Taijituans are free to observe or comment here.

When is this conference?

I see no reason not to begin immediately. I think we should try to conclude by January 10th, though if there's consensus that we need just a bit more time we can extend it for perhaps another week, or however long we decide is necessary.

Where should comments be made by others?

Taijitu citizens should feel free to comment here.

What's been agreed to in the past regarding the Founder nation?

In 2011 when the region was refounded, I led an effort to be clearer about who is responsible for the Founder nation and how we should act. Following public discussions, three polls were held of the citizens at that time, deciding on 5 founders who would be Sovereign Dixie, Gulliver, PoD Gunner, Myroria, and I, and deciding on the below bylaws for the committee:


--- Quote from: Bylaws ---Committee Bylaws
1. The Taijitu Founders Committee, hereafter called the Founders, is incorporated in Taijitu and subject to its jurisprudence. The Founders reserve the right to ignore arbitrary or capricious exercise of the judiciary's power by unanimous agreement.
2. The Founders will decide on rules and mechanisms for accessing Taijitu Founder by a majority vote.
3. The Founders may expel a member of the Founders, hereafter called a Founder, by the unanimous consent of the other founders.
4. The citizens of Taijitu, hereafter called the citizens, may propose a new Founder by a majority vote. The Founders may admit a proposed new founder by majority vote.
5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent of the Founders with the consent of the citizens.
6. The Founders must seek to have an odd number of members.
7. Whenever these bylaws refer to the consent of the citizens of Taijitu a vote must be held for at least one week. Forum membership may be a requirement to vote.
8. Each Founder must promise to follow these bylaws.
9. Each Founder must make themselves available to each Senate during its term.
--- End quote ---

Under this system, during the Republic of 2011-2014, the committee voted to grant the Senate and cabinet access to the private RSS feed of Founder events, to facilitate the practice then followed of the Senate voting on Taijitu Founder nationstates issues. (This policy is no longer relevant). The final clause regarding Senate terms is no longer applicable. Myroria, Gulliver, PoD Gunner, Sovereign Dixie, and I pledged to follow these bylaws here. Following the Glorious Revolution (the establishment of the direct democracy of the Ecclesia by consensus) Myroria added St Oz and held an election, without objection, for 2 more founders, which saw the selection of Allama and Of the US.

In general, it has been understood that the Founder(s) should not "coup". History of how the previous Founder nation was handled is available here.

Why is this topic locked?

Because the permissions of this subforum only allow members of the committee (Founders) to reply to locked topics (excepting that administrators and global moderators may also do so: I would ask them to refrain from doing so).


I open the floor, asking that as attendees we try to be constructive and expedient.

I am willing to function as chair, unless we'd like someone else to do it.

Gulliver:
Looks like I'm going first.

I suggest we write into the bylaws the specific times when the founders may act and the procedures for doing so. The two situations I suggest is ejecting invaders and enforcing lawful decisions to remove the delegate from power if the delegate refuses to comply. Just what the latter would involve, I am unsure of  but could possibly be ejecting the rogue delegate or making them non-executive.

As for the procedure, I would suggest allowing one founder to act, then publicly bring the action to the rest of the founders to either uphold or reject. I am unsure what the threshold for upholding should be, possibly unanimous consent.

I am unsure if we want official mechanisms for non-founders reviewing or overturning such founder actions.

We may need to cut down on the number of people with founder access.

Of The US:
I do not believe that the public should be involved in founder decisions(unless of course it is something like dealing with a rouge delegate, but even then, only after it has been dealt with). I think a supermajority would be good for upholding a founders decision in most situations(I am for some transparency in this matter but for the most part its not something that is necessary to running the region).

 As far as how many people should have access, I think the number now is good, the current group of people are diverse enough to have a wide range of views.

Eluvatar:
I should share my initial thoughts regarding the agenda items, I suppose.

Resolving the conflict between certain Founders, the current in particular and a process for in general for the good of the region.

This is, I think, the most challenging item on the agenda. I don't think it's too much to expect one another not to be complete assholes to each other, but the past few months have not borne that out.

We aren't supposed to be monolithic. We don't need to agree all the time, or even most of the time. But I think we need to have mutual respect to function as a group. I do think it's damaging for us to express contempt for one another or one another's ideas.

This is true of the region as a whole: I would encourage everyone to avoid contempt and discourage it. I think it's even more true of this committee, however, as we have the capacity to do irreversible damage if we allow ourselves to.

Unfortunately I am not sure how to go about fixing this. A first step, I think, would be to ask all of us here to promise to be more careful with one another. To be respectful. I am failing to conceive of a way to maintain such a commitment, however.

Taijitu politics and the Founders (and how it may be appropriate or inappropriate to act using the founder nation due to said politics).

In certain circumstances it is appropriate to expect people with administrative privileges of one kind or another to refrain from acting in situations they are themselves involved in. For example, one typically expects moderators to try to avoid moderating an argument they are themselves participating in. I don't think that's entirely viable with the founder nation, however. There are simply too few of us, and the dangers of inaction potentially too great.

I think some kind of objective standards of when action is needed would be better. Gulliver's suggestions, I think, fit that paradigm. I believe it is necessary and proper to use the founder nation to allow the replacement of a rogue Delegate or to expel an invading force.

I would go a little bit farther, however, and suggest that in a situation where the Delegate is at war with the region's legal government, it is appropriate not only to remove their executive powers but also to generally make use of regional controls on behalf of the region. Ideally, by implementing the will of the region's choice for replacement Delegate, but also in any other reasonable manner. It would be reasonable, I argue, to update the World Factbook Entry or other regional settings in line with the will of the region's legal government.

Indeed, I'm having trouble seeing why uncontroversial actions should be prohibited for the Founder. Previously, I was opposed, and wished to avoid having anyone but the Delegate touch regional controls. Over time, however, I've been convinced otherwise. There's nothing wrong, I'd argue, with the Founders updating the list of Regional Officers and the World Factbook Entry following an election or resignation. There's nothing wrong with fiddling with recruitment controls in consultation with the recruitment group. Nothing wrong with editing the World Factbook Entry should a law pass requiring it. Et cetera.

In the case of this particular incident, a statutory argument can be made that as the Delegate Act establishes the Citizen-Delegate as head of state and responsible for foreign policy, they are personally responsible for implementing foreign policy decisions of the Ecclesia and therefore personally responsible for creating and closing embassies. At the same time, the argument can be made that each vote of the Ecclesia to open or close relations with another region has the weight of statute itself. Furthermore, for well over a year now the decisions on embassies have regularly been made by the Ecclesia, and implemented without question. No law has been adopted to change this.

I believe that given the available context, once St Oz made the claim as Citizen-Delegate that he was legally empowered to overrule Ecclesia decisions on embassies, citing the Delegacy Act, it would have been appropriate for the Founders to step back and let St Oz and the Ecclesia figure that out. Until that point, however, I don't think there was any misstep in implementing Ecclesia decisions as they were understood to be the law of the land.

I do think, however, that in any case where the Delegate may seem to be acting illegally, we should try to avoid acting if we have personal involvement in that policy. If only involved Founders are available and the matter seems legally completely clear-cut, then sure, but otherwise no.

The theoretical balancing act we have to run is between being some sort of super-government (which we definitely shouldn't be) and tacitly endorsing a rogue Delegate's actions through inaction. I think this balance is better found collectively than individually, so when in doubt we should consult with one another. If the best course of action is unclear, then we should wait for it to become clear.

tl;dr: We should freely implement non-controversial decisions, but for legal disputes we should wait for the regional government to come to a clear decision and then enforce it.

Considering changing the list of founders, possibly creating a founder emeritus or reserve group of trusted former founders.

Concerning a founder emeritus or reserve group, that seems like a viable idea. The role of reserve founders, as I see it, would be as people who can rejoin the committee on an expedited basis (without consulting the body of citizens), but who do not have access to the founder nation and do not vote.

Concerning changing the list of founders in general, I would support rebooting the list with an election like the one from 2011. Perhaps somewhat like this.

Considering changing the founder commitee bylaws.

We should definitely strike or revise clause 9 as the Senate hasn't existed in over a year and is not guaranteed to exist in the future, and certainly isn't expected to have terms. Depending on whether we institute a reserve list, we may or may not want to replace clause 9 with an activity requirement such as maintaining citizenship and/or logging on at least once a week.

We may want to strike clause 6 as it seems to have been ignored and doesn't seem altogether helpful.

Otherwise I think it makes more sense to pursue the goals of this conference by adopting some rules as allowed by clause 2, which we can do by majority vote rather than unanimous consent.

In terms of what rules I'd like to see, I'd be pleased with requirements to consult and communicate: I see no reason not to note down every action we take with the Founder Nation so we know who did what, and to consult on possibly controversial actions. I see no particular reason not to consult publicly, but have no interest in insisting on that. I don't think we need detailed rules on what is or is not controversial (and requires consultation).

Myroria:
For the most part I agree with Eluvatar and Gulliver. Better communication is essential. Some actions I took with the founder were rash and mistaken, but I think that no one on the committee should coup - that is, declare the legitimately-elected government dissolved - nor should any of the other founders support that course of action. To me, it is essential to add language to that effect to the bylaws.

I would support another founder election in a similar vein to the one that happened in 2011.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page