General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Hello! I'm Llamas, the brilliant mastermind behind this plan, along with Campbell. So, I've taken the liberty of naming our theoretical über-government of the Warzones the "United Warzone Republic," because it sound kind of cool. Anywho, the basic thrust behind the idea is to unify all the Warzones under one government.

All Warzones, or at least the ones in the UWR, will be administered by a single government and use the same forums to conduct affairs. Each Warzone will be assigned a high-ranking government official to be governor, likely a cabinet member. Because the new embassy feature allows a nation to post on another region's RMB if they share an embassy, all RMB activity can be posted on a single region that will be chosen later. (Just any random or fair system.) A single WA force will be developed to deploy abroad, retake Warzones that have been conquered by enemy forces, and reinforce individual delegates who are in danger of losing control of their Warzone.

Now, before you leave because this sounds like stripping you of some of your sovereignty, I'd like to tell you that's exactly what we're doing, but it's not a bad thing, like it really sounds. When the 13 colonies agreed to form the United States, they lost their sovereignty. No longer could they declare war or set tariffs or do what they wanted, but we still see today how successful they became because of their realization that unity can make strength. Even in NS, union offers a large variety of advantages. Here's a short list.
1. Takes less people to govern; One person can be minister of defense for all regions, for example.
2. Increases efficiency because the best are chosen from a wider pool of candidates. Let's say you only have one person you think can be a good Minister of Defense. Not very good, because you can't compare potential candidates to pick the best. Now, let's say you pick the best Minister of Defense from a pool of three or four possible choices. He's probably going to be better, because you picked the best of the best, not just who was available.
3. Often, in NS, communities are too small for you to fill an entire government with all the positions you need to organize it. For example, our government here in WZ Asia requires at least 5 people to sit in the Politburo. However, when I scoured WZ Asia for potential candidates, I came up with a paltry four capable of taking a position of this much trust.
4. Unity allows for strength in negotiations. "We're a tiny Warzone who does stuff sometimes" won't really make any other regions tremble in fear. Now, try "We're the United Warzone Republic, with a sizeable defense force capable of conducting operations and an active community of about 20 nations." You can't stand up to a feeder or sinker, but you're definitely capable of negotiating as an equal with most other regions and maybe even having some real power on the massive stage that is interregional Gameplay.
5. Losing your region isn't losing the game. Heck, it won't even seriously disrupt you. Just move to another one of the Warzones until the occupying force gets bored and leaves. It's like TRR, but times six.
6. Allows us to make a single, concerted effort at recruitment. Rather than competing with each other for new players, we can pool our resources to buy more stamps and get more players to find us.
7. Increases activity. There's a fundamental concept in NS that activity must never slow down too much or stop, otherwise it's difficult to get up again. Let's say that a region has a roleplay going on. I originally post thrice a week, but get bored and start posting only twice. Now, all players are slowed down because they have to wait for my response to their activities. Also, they have less of an incentive to check the forums; if they know that there are probably not going to be new posts every four hours, then why check that often? Why not start checking every 8 hours instead? It slows down the game to not have enough activity, and thus increasing the amount of players increases their average activity as well.
8. Simplifies moderation, as now you only have one forum for moderators to check on.
9. There's a lot more reasons which can be put down to the basic principle of economies of scale, and this is just a short list.

So, that's how the UWR will work and why forming it is a good idea. If you have any questions, comments, queries, quizzes, or conundrums, comment below.

I, for the most part, support this. It sort of reminds me of the Spanish Autonomous Communities. This seems like it would take a long time, coordinated efforts, mass information movement, etc. to furfill though.

This is a good idea, but would come with the risk of diminishing the rich regional cultural identity we each have. I would propose a looser coalition, rather than one state. However many of the principles listed above can still come into play I believe.

I concur with that, I'd prefer a looser coalition. Perhaps we can share a forum, with different sections for different regions governments and such, but with one general board and maybe a coordinated military section. I'd say at least for now, cooperation above conglomeration.

I can see the argument in favor if a looser coalition, especially from a cultural standpoint. However, I think that a central government of some sort is still a good idea. A single forum, for example, would 1) Make communication and planning easier and 2) Avoid the creation of new and largely inactive forums created by new governments that do not last. A central government would be fairly easy to organize from there, even if there are still regional governments beneath it that could veto legislation by a supermajority of, say, two thirds. A central government of some description would also be essential for military integration, which I am definitely in favor of.
This isn't to say that individual regions would lose all sovereignty or the ability to have a regional legislature, but it would eliminate the problem of needing someone, anyone, in each ministerial position, even if they may not be suited to that particular position. To pick on one of my own here: Ismailiyah, while making a great Minister of Defense, is not necessarily the best person in foreign affairs, primarily because he's so enthusiastic that any threats to the Warzones, even casually, sets him off.  And while I don't fault him for that and trust him enough in the position as is, if there was a central government also handling foreign affairs, I would likely defer most of that position's duties for lack of a better candidate. (Don't worry Ismailiyah, we still love ya.)
Also, Llamas is right. Although we can make a compelling argument to defenderist regions why we deserve to be left in peace, threats of war or other sanctions against any GP region with half an ounce of dedication and organization more or less fall flat. At the very least, it would sound way more intimidating to say that we united the warzones and can field an army from all six communities.

Llamas wrote:Because the new embassy feature allows a nation to post on another region's RMB if they share an embassy, all RMB activity can be posted on a single region that will be chosen later. (Just any random or fair system.)

This particular proposal I would lean against. Regional activity and community are2014-07-21 born out of game-based activity, which is frequently best expressed via RMB. While I am fine conducting official business on one RMB, I would lean against any proposal that would discourage growing community, even if it is something of a regionalist measure.

Edit: What I would lean towards is more of a unity state like the UK (based on my American knowledge of the UK system, at least). A single central government with devolved administrations as communities grow to develop their own ideals.

When I say I support this, I mean that I agree with Ismailiyah, and Apulita on having a looser coalition. A united, coalition forum would be nice. However, as been said multiple times, this would possibly weaken culture, especially if we were to use only one RBM.

On a lighter note, it's interesting how we've come up with three different metaphors for this, Llamas says it would be similar to the 13 colonies, I see a slightly looser one as being the Spanish Autonomous Communities, and Campbell sees it as the UK.

I think we can have one forum and multiple RMBs. In my experience only a small cadre of those who post on RMBs are also active on forums, so a single integrated forum would bring us closer to equal activity on both, if that makes sense.
I also think it would entice other regions to embrace Warzone communities as equal, needing only to apply for diplomatic status once instead of six times.

I agree with Campbell

It would be interesting to run a poll to see whether people support a central government or a loose coalition.

Vote here: http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=UWRSov&bb=on

The process used will be the IRV-method of voting, designed to prevent spoiler effects. If you want to learn more about this process, check out the videos here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Your options are:
1. Unitary State. One RMB, one set of forums, one community, and one government. Rather than remain divided and separate, the Warzone communities would blend into one to conduct all affairs together and avoid conflict.
2. Federation. Like the US; Same Forums, different RMB's. What rights are granted to the individual warzones are enshrined in the constitution. These kinds of governments tend to be less flexible or capable of change when it is required, so not my recommendation. The main upside is that you can be sure that none of the Warzones will ever leave and you make sure that their rights will be trampled on.
3. Autonomous Communities. Similar to the countries of the UK or autonomous communities of Spain, each region would be granted a degree of independence by the central government, allowing all Warzones to remain distinct but unified. RMB's would be separate, but the forums would be unified with separate sections. My recommendation.
4. Confederation. Similar to the EU. WZ's would be free to leave and they'll be united only in having a single military. RMB and forums would be separate, but a small section would be created for both to discuss.
5. International agreement. All WZ's would remain completely divided, sharing only an alliance where they agree to back each other and cooperate in military affairs.

Thats great, but put it on the main thread

Seems the vote went to Autonomous Communities.

So far. I don't know that everyone's voted yet.
Llamas, is there a time limit on this, or a mechanism to check when everyone's voted?

Shouldn't we be able to tell? Just by counting?

I have voted. Maybe if we all say that, we will know who hasn't voted.

The vote's going to end on the first of August, but it's pretty clear that the idea of Autonomous Communities will probably win. I'll begin writing a constitution with this in mind pretty soon.

EDIT: Here's the document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UtYOGPHqFYue0eqHFNEN-C5rQ67DvN-cb-mT5C3T6hE/edit?usp=sharing

I have voted

Erms…  

"Section 2. The Prime Minister, hereafter referred to as the PM, shall be head of the Cabinet and oversee its operation and smooth running. The PM shall be selected by a majority vote of the PLA. In the case of extenuating circumstances demanding immediate actions, the PM may declare a state of emergency. In a state of emergency, the PM may create or amend legislation of his own accord. However, any legislation passed by the Chairman must be presented before the PLA and the Senate, either of which may then repeal the legislation by a simple majority vote."

Other than that, I like how the whole thing is shaping up.
Perhaps under the "Additional Concerns" section, a bit reaffirming that membership is voluntary and individual regions retain the right to pass legislation so long as it does not directly contradict the UWR.

I am also curious… will other regions still establish relations with individual warzones, the UWR, or both?

Managed to finish my first draft of the constitution! For the most part, the government is based on the government of WZ Asia, with a few key differences. Those are that the regions have the right to a reasonable degree of autonomy, and the inclusion of an upper house to the now bicameral legislature in which all Constituent Regions are granted equal representation.

To Campbell: The UWR shall be in charge of foreign affairs, as it's meant to be a single government with all regions being given considerable autonomy to establish their own laws and regulations to apply within their own borders. I'll fix that part with the Chairman, that was a typo.

I really like this. I do have one question, the position of Delegate is what in the Constitution?

Crisisies wrote:I really like this. I do have one question, the position of Delegate is what in the Constitution?

Aah. There's not really a delegate, because we're going to have up to six different regions. Each region will get to pick its own delegate and decide how they want to do that. One idea could be to have elections for two positions at once; WA Delegate and Senator. A region could decide to give the same person both these positions, thus allowing them to skip having an extra election.

One idea might be to have monthly elections to choose a delegate to represent the whole republic. Or a cycle, starting with campbell, then apulita then arekyra etc

One idea might be to have monthly elections to choose a delegate to represent the whole republic. Or a cycle, starting with campbell, then apulita then arekyra etc

I've voted, the constitution is looking quite nice so far.

Ismailiyah's cycle idea sounds nice. It would allow us all to have equal power just at different times.