Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Article 6

VerdantHaven

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

This proposal is for an amendment to “Article 6 – Embassies” of the Forest Constitution

I am calling for this amendment in accordance with part 8.1.ii of the Constitution, and am posting it here for discussion and feedback from all residents of Forest, because it is your government, and I want to make sure we have largescale understanding and agreement before submitting it to the Founder for approval, and then putting it to public vote. I am putting forward this amendment as promised in my campaign platform, to further streamline the embassy and ambassador process!

The functions of this amendment can be summarized as follows:

1) Majorly simplify the language, which is presently unnecessarily complicated and confusing
2) To remove the onerous and absurd burden placed upon government ministers to spend as much as a week of their own time pursuing a region that applies for an embassy but then doesn’t fulfill other requirements.
3) To allow the streamlined creation of embassies with valid “successor regions” to embassy allies that are forced to re-found or re-locate (something requested several times already!)
4) To provide greater authority to the residents, not just the elected officials, with regards to proposing opening and closing of embassies.
5) To formalize the existence of “Ambassadors” and specify the foreign minister’s authority to appoint, remove, and instruct them as necessary.
6) To remove the requirement that a number of citizens to vouch for an otherwise qualified regional embassy request prior to the vote, instead seeking to fill the ambassador post.
7) Standardizing procedures to remove loopholes and clutter

Proposed New Text

6.1 Regions must have at least six WA nations in residence, and must have existed for at least six months, to be eligible for an embassy with Forest.

6.2 To establish embassies with Forest, eligible prospective regions must formally request embassies in game, and also send a telegram of intent to either the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper.

6.3 Once all requirements are met, either the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper will provide a suitable summary of the telegram received, and the government’s interpretation of it, to all residents via regional telegram, and will create the following poll: “Shall Forest open an embassy with [region]?”

Should the poll pass, the government will accept the embassy request in question.

6.4 Should a region with which Forest has an embassy cease to operate, and a new region is created as the unified, legitimate successor, the six month age requirement will be waived. Upon either satisfactory request of the successor region, or interest from within the Forest community, either the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper will provide a suitable summary of the relationship history to all residents via regional telegram, and will create the following poll: “Shall Forest continue embassies with [successor region], the official successor region of [former region]?”

Should the poll pass, the government will attempt to open an embassy with the identified region, following that region’s protocols for doing so, or will accept their request as appropriate. The government will also close the previous embassy should it still remain active.

6.5 Any resident nation of Forest can call for the creation of an embassy with another region, provided it meets the requirements of Clause 6.1, by posting to that effect on the RMB. If there is considerable interest from the Forest community, as determined by the regional government, either the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper will create the following poll: “Shall Forest request to open embassies with [prospective region]?”

Should the poll pass, the government will attempt to open an embassy with the identified region, following that region’s protocols for doing so.

6.6 Any resident nation of Forest can call for the closure of an embassy with another region, provided they post on the RMB legitimate reasons for their proposal. If there is considerable interest from the Forest community, as determined by the regional government, either the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper will create the following poll: “Shall Forest close embassies with [region]?”

Should the poll pass, the government will initiate closure of the embassy with the identified region.

6.7 All embassy-related polls falling under this section shall be posted for a duration of three days, open to native residents only, and shall have the options “Yes” and “No” as their choices. The opening of a new embassy, or the closure of an existing embassy, shall require a two-thirds majority (67%) to pass. The continuation of an embassy with an official successor region shall require a simple majority (50% +1) to pass.

6.8 Any given region can only be voted on for opening, continuation, and closure one time each during a given term of the Forest Keeper. An exception may be made if an extreme change of circumstances, as determined by the regional government and approved by the Founder, warrants an additional vote.

6.9 Either the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper may appoint or remove Ambassadors at their discretion from amongst resident nations in Forest. The designated foreign minister or Forest Keeper may assign the specific duties of ambassadors as needed. The government shall seek to fill the ambassador positions for new embassies prior to the opening of those embassies, and must strive to appoint and maintain active ambassadors for all regions with which existing embassies are present. In the event that no ambassador volunteers prior to the completion of a successful vote, the designated foreign minister in conjunction with the Forest Keeper may, at their discretion, elect to postpone the opening of the embassy until such time as an ambassador is found.

VerdantHaven

Please read this over, think about the changes, and post your thoughts on the matter!

The biggest point of discussion so far that I’ve had amongst the officers has been regarding ambassadors - should they be required for all embassies? Should they be identified before an embassy can be voted or approved? If so, what happens to an embassy when an ambassador CTE’s or leaves their post? What about existing embassies without ambassadors? Points have been made on both sides - I’m interested to hear from folks about this, and any other matters that cross your minds.

Turbeaux

Mount Seymour and VerdantHaven —I agree that an ambassador should be in position before embassies are established. Speaking of ambassadors, I would also like to see an effort to assign ones to the embassy regions currently lacking them!

Mount Seymour

As I wrote in the most recent telegram, my only major oustanding point is this:

Removing sponsorship for the most part but replacing it with a much simpler requirement that someone (resident in Forest for >30 days, possibly WA) has to volunteer to be the ambassador before we open embassies seems like a good plan to me. I can definitely get behind that.

Since this overhaul removes the entire sponsorship process, I think it’d be really nice to at least require an ambassador beforehand.

Kinectia

(KinectiA) I think having an ambassador assigned is a great idea and I also share Verdant’s concern about the potential tangled mess that could result if an assigned ambassador becomes unavailable. Maybe a volunteer ambassador who plans to be reliable could be set and the assignor could keep a backup list handy in case the plans get interrupted. So more of a soft assignment. That way there’s no need for dangling embassies waiting around for attention. For example, Idk if I can take on the full role because I can’t promise to log in every day, but I’d be glad to fill in when someone is out.
In re the simplification question anything more than one sentence per paragraph is too wordy for my preferences. I worked in law for a long time and have decided that most of it should be cut down like that. I don’t expect to see that change of course because long precedent dictates long winded declarations but I will support any efforts to make things as simple as possible and no simpler.

Turbeaux

Kinectia You should get yourself a tree icon over here: https://forest.freeflarum.com/d/6-welcome-to-the-forest-forum-post-here-to-receive-a-masking/166 !

VerdantHaven

I made some minor edits based on feedback received! In order to further simplify the structure and avoid repetition, the requirements for poll length, valid voters, responses, and passing ratios were merged. These did not change in any way the meaning of the amendment - it just condensed the information so it was written in one place instead of four places. Language was removed from 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6, and was all placed in a new 6.7.

I also made one edit in what is now 6.9 which does change meaning, based on feedback. This modification emphasizes the importance of appointing and maintaining ambassadors and obligates the government to attempt to fill these positions. I avoided language that prevents the creation of an embassy without an ambassador, or which carries consequence should an ambassador resign, as that could very much force us in to a corner we can’t get out of, but this will compel good-faith effort without trapping the region behind its own bureaucracy.

Kinectia

(KinectiA) This version of the amendment looks good. Maybe some more discussion is in order, re who is voting for embassies (not necessarily needed before passing the amendment). If there’s a long waiting time that’s discouraging. If we don’t have some firm guidelines in place though, then we will probably get a lot more people surfing in and immediately asking if the delegate is active and if they can join the government. There must be some balance.

I also like the idea of deciding about a potential embassy being a process, instead of a sudden vote. If all we know is the name of the requestor and the name of the region, and the vote is in 2 days, that doesn’t give much to go on. If we are going to be selective about who we ally with, we should know more about them.

Turbeaux

Kinectia I moved a puppet into Conifer well before an embassy vote was posted to get a sense of the regional culture and government. (I did the same for a region called Arbor but it was unimpressive). That may be a good idea moving forward.

VerdantHaven

Kinectia Glad this version is looking good to you! Your comment about things longer than a sentence being too long for a clause was the inspiration for much of the change. It isn’t quite that concise, but it’s a lot closer now!

Turbeaux I 100% like the idea of paying a visit like that first. The main issue is that 99% of embassy requests, including successful ones, are announced via an actual request showing up. Once that has occured, there are 7 days before it simply deletes itself. If a region reaches out to us in advance about potential future relations though, we definitely could do this. It might be worthwhile for an interested party to visit NWE on this basis, since their foreign minister has interest in working towards closer relations in the future, and certainly demonstrated an openness and willingness to talk about the matter.

Ruinenlust What can I say, you’re a good writer! I’ve made the nations/resident swap, per your suggestion. What do you think of MountSeymour’s proposed 6.10? As it leaves the option open as a “may choose…” clause, I think it’s reasonable.

Mount Seymour I get what you’re saying, and I like the gist of your proposed clause 6.10. I’ll work on a version of that to add! The main point of concern is that one can’t simply delay accepting an embassy request - they delete themselves 7 days after sending, regardless of resolution. That’s why there’s a bit of a rush on getting votes up, and why we want to simplify the process - there simply isn’t time for some of the bureaucracy we have written in to our current clause (literally, if a situation was such that we had to follow the full process in the Constitution every time, every embassy request would expire before a vote was even posted!). This is also the main reason why we didn’t want to force an ambassador to be found before accepting a request - if we could just sit on them until the position is filled, I think we’d all be in favor of that! What I may look at doing here is working what you’ve suggested in such a way that if the FM or FK chooses to delay opening until an ambassador is found, and it causes the embassy request to expire after an otherwise successful vote, it authorizes the immediate acceptance of a follow-up embassy request without further vote should an ambassador be found within a certain period of time. My worry there is that it starts getting back in to the sub-clauses, exceptions, and counter-exceptions that we’re trying to get rid of. I’ll see what I can do!

Thank you all for your additional feedback!

EDIT
After some consideration, I’ve attached an additional clause to the end of 6.9 to include the effect of the 6.10 suggestion from MountSeymour.

“In the event that no ambassador volunteers prior to the completion of a successful vote, the designated foreign minister in conjunction with the Forest Keeper may, at their discretion, elect to postpone the opening of the embassy until such time as an ambassador is found.”

This way it will not prevent a vote from happening within the limited time we have to do such a thing, but allows the FK/FM to suspend opening an embassy until the ambassadorship is filled. Having it be a matter of consultation between them provides a bit of a check and balance to the ability to functionally override a vote, albeit temporarily, and will help ensure that all efforts are made to resolve the situation quickly.

DarthedDroids

I have no major thoughts on the proposed changes, apart from agreeing that successor regions are definitely an exception to be made and I approve of this new addition.

Ruinenlust

Hello all,

At Verdant Haven’s request, here is my feedback on the changes:

Re: 6.7 (and associated changes to the previous subsections) –
I like this. I think that putting the thresholds for successful voting outcomes into one new clause is both helpful and in keeping with our goal of making this as concise and easy to follow along with as possible. seal of approval

Re: 6.9 –
I also like this. There is one minor change for language fluency that I would recommend: in the first sentence, it should say “…from amongst resident nations in Forest,” not “nations resident.” Otherwise it would have to say “nations residing,” but I like “resident nations” more, since we’ve already been using that phrase.

Other than that, I think this achieves a good compromise between the desire to have some sense of accountability and activity, and also not painting ourselves into a corner. If having an ambassador (to say nothing of these sponsors and such) were a hard, nonnegotiable requirement, especially if it carried consequences in the event of current ambassadors resigning or CTE’ing, then it would just create a headache for whoever happens to the foreign minister and the forest keeper, without actually providing a commensurate or greater scale of benefit should everything be working smoothly. Unlike in real life, I think we can rely on ourselves to act in good faith without having a strict set of consequences should this fall by the wayside temporarily. And as always, NS should fall more into the category of “fun” and “interesting,” not “boring” or “draining.” This is a great compromise that VH has penned, in my opinion.

seal of approval pending the switch of “nations” and “resident”

I think VH is really on the ball with this stuff, and I am honored that this revised Article 6 is essentially just a tweaked version of my initial rough draft. I hope that this will go towards improving our legal system, and that it will give future Foreign Ministers (since I’m not going to be around forever, contrary to popular belief) a decent blueprint for going about things that is easier to understand and more accessible than the current version, which is sort of a cobbled together mess of multiple iterations and tweaks. I hope the people vote for it.

Ruinenlust :-)

Mount Seymour

I’m good with this compromise as long as the Foreign Minister/FK has the ability to say “no, sorry, no one was willing to volunteer for ambassador so we can’t open this embassy”.

I appreciate the sentiment of 6.9, but I worry that it doesn’t actually accomplish anything that we wanted from sponsorship in the first place. The reason we adopted the sponsorship amendment was because people were voting for establishing embassies with almost every single region that came up but were then unwilling to commit anything to them. Sponsorship may not have been the most efficient solution, but I’d really like for there to be at least some possibility that we can decisively say no to embassy requests if no one in Forest is willing to commit. It doesn’t need to be a requirement (i.e., “if we don’t have an ambassador then we can’t establish embassies”), but I would suggest at least providing the option (i.e., “if we don’t have an ambassador, the Foreign Minister/FK can call off the vote”, or “the vote threshold is raised”, or something else along those lines).

As it stands with this amendment, there’s no way to allow for what happens if the government cannot “fill the ambassador positions for new embassies prior to the opening of those embassies”. Yes, the government will seek to fill the position, and I trust that indeed Ruinenlust or any future Foreign Minister will do that to the best of their ability, but in the end if the vote passes and no one has volunteered, we now have a new embassy that no one is willing to commit to – exactly the same result as if we did not have 6.9.

And isn’t that essentially how things ran before the sponsorship amendment? I don’t see this as a compromise so much as a return to the pre-sponsorship status quo, just with a line of extra encouragement for the Foreign Minister to keep doing what he/she was already attempting to do. Keep in mind that although we may find sponsorship to be a headache, we found the pre-sponsorship status quo enough of a headache that we went through this exact same process to change it.

I would suggest the following addition:

6.10 Should the government find itself unable to fill the ambassador position for a new embassy prior to the opening of that embassy, the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper may choose to postpone the embassy vote indefinitely until the ambassador position has been filled. If there is considerable interest from the Forest community, as determined by the regional government, the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper may choose to continue with the embassy vote.

Yes, it’s not perfectly simple. But I don’t think it makes much more work for the Foreign Minister, and frankly, sometimes what’s simplest shouldn’t trump what’s best.

Mount Seymour

VerdantHaven That works for me!

Turbeaux

I moved my observation puppet over to NWE to observe them over time.

VerdantHaven

Thank you for the feedback, all! I have polished the product to the best of my ability, and am now submitting it for approval from our Founder so that it can, hopefully, be brought to a vote. I believe this will greatly improve and simplify our embassy processes, and thank everyone for their involvement!

Turbeaux

VerdantHaven I hope that Errin approves it!