Initiation of the Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations

User avatar
jmsepe
Director of Economics
Director of Economics
Posts: 1586
Joined: April 16th 2014, 5:32 am
Nation: Teiko
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Initiation of the Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations

Postby jmsepe » March 29th 2018, 8:30 am

That's a long discussion. :lol:

I'm proposing to drastically change the roleplay and nonrp government of AIN. Greg already mentioned a few ideas which I am only currently enforcing (i.e. AEA Director is not jmsepe but Sennoza Kou from Teiko). I think, all agencies and their subunits must be addressed through rp characters. The General Assembly can be headed by an elected Secretary General which is also in rp. The Executive Council is no longer necessary. We only need a few mods to keep up with the administration of AIN. The role of the Pres, VP can be taken by an elected rp Secretary-General (e.g. John Colucci is elected as AIN sec-gen).

I have no issues with side nations but quite frankly, I don't see why everyone wants one because evidently most people can't get even get active with one. Regarding the Charlie-Dryan model, this is not true. Both Karasem and Zambezi is not poor and small, it is poor and big. Karasem has a population of more than 100 million people while Zambezi has more than 30 million. Land area wise, both nations are also big. A true rich and big, poor and small model is Mikenstein-Sint Cunera.

One year is apparently sufficient for newly elected officials. Members in position which will not function can either get booted or be advised to resign.

I don't want a fictional world for AIN. That's too much of everything and I don't think people have ample spare time to work on the necessary items needed.

I agree that the whole community must vote on whether we will award a member an honorary status provided that the vote must be based on merit alone and each member would explain his vote. Otherwise, we are just politicizing the award.
Image
What good would it bring if a man gains the whole world but loses his soul the one he loves?

EXPERIENCE AND DEDICATION
User avatar
Michael
President of the Alliance
President of the Alliance
Posts: 861
Joined: January 26th 2016, 5:39 pm
Nation: Mikenstein & Sint Cunera
Location: London, UK, EU
Contact:

Re: Initiation of the Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations

Postby Michael » March 29th 2018, 9:24 am

Jm has certainly mentioned something which got me thinking. I do think that the idea of RP names for agency chiefs is a good one, after all agencies do have a location in AIN. The current member directors, I assume would be responsible for managing that agency, as they currently do, and then for election season, jm, for instance would put together the manifesto for Sennoza Kou to continue to run the AEA. Am I correct in reading that? If so, I like that idea.

As for the EC, we do need admins and global mods from a purely practical standpoint, and the number at current (2 and 2) is working well imo. As for the P and VP, here’s an idea: both positions continue to exist, but one takes the lead for running the forums and website (from a practical point of view) and the other runs the RP side of the Alliance, in the same manner as any Director, and in the way jm described.

The difficulty with the Allaince is the blurring of the RP and forum management- both need to be done, and the EC is on the forum management side.
Image---------------Image
WikiForum-----------------------------WikiForum----

Member State since 5th March 2016
Global Moderator since 4th March 2017
President since 1st March 2018

Send me a message!
User avatar
Agunter999
Posts: 674
Joined: February 17th 2013, 10:51 pm
Nation: Freiga
Location: UK

Re: Initiation of the Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations

Postby Agunter999 » March 29th 2018, 8:44 pm

I've mentioned the whole separation of rp and IRL roles plenty of times, totally separate them, have the AIN leadership rp and then a non rp management version. Like USNW did.

Not a new concept, I've mentioned it before
User avatar
stanisolt
Posts: 277
Joined: August 6th 2012, 11:23 pm
Nation: Amuria
Location: Russian Federative Empire

Re: Initiation of the Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations

Postby stanisolt » March 29th 2018, 10:16 pm

Michael wrote:As for the EC, we do need admins and global mods from a purely practical standpoint, and the number at current (2 and 2) is working well imo. As for the P and VP, here’s an idea: both positions continue to exist, but one takes the lead for running the forums and website (from a practical point of view) and the other runs the RP side of the Alliance, in the same manner as any Director, and in the way jm described.

The difficulty with the Allaince is the blurring of the RP and forum management- both need to be done, and the EC is on the forum management side.


The EC is unnecessary for a group as big as AIN, it's too much already. The EC should be scrapped completely and be replaced by 2 forum administrators and 3 forum moderators, who merely look over the forums to enforce forum rules and prevent spamming. They can be chosen by the members through voting. No appointments. No roleplay leadership. If, for example, an Amurian becomes President of AIN, I shouldn't get any perks in terms of forum privileges or be seen as some leader of AIN. Instead, I merely roleplay a character that leads discussions. No more. I strongly agree with both JM and Agunter with regards to this. Besides, the roles that are "granted" to the EC could easily be substituted by a truly democratic process. With a group as small as ours, there's no reason why it couldn't work.
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy
User avatar
Ramon
Vice President of the Alliance
Vice President of the Alliance
Posts: 363
Joined: August 15th 2015, 10:51 pm
Nation: Santa Catarina
Location: São José, Brazil

Re: Initiation of the Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations

Postby Ramon » March 30th 2018, 2:30 am

So, lets start:

1) Reformation of the policy on side, or secondary, nations
I think it is good at it is nowadays and doesn't need any changes. I create a limitation size for the main continents, allowing bigger countries just in Africa and in the Middle East for obviously reasons.

2) Reformation of the application system, including the city-builder picture requirement
So, about the application system I think we just need to remove the obligatority of the city-building images, the times changed and we should just allow people to show their abilities on doing whatever they want with images, we have to keep the obligatority of images, but not limit it for city-building.

3) Reformation of the Honorary Member system
I don't think remove them from the main map will solve the question, maybe, just maybe, we would create a time limit for Honorary Membership, not making it forever like today, people usually just forget this Alliance and this part of their life, so a period up to 2 years is good in my opinion.

4) Reformation of the function and purpose of the various agencies of the AIN government, including the Executive Committee
The agencies division is good as it is. The Executive Committee is serving us very well in this form and I think it should be keep as it is.

5) Reformation of the election process
I don't these problems, anyone can be appointed and you even can run by your very own wish. A term of 1 year is enough and more or less than that would create problems, such as inactive, excess of bureocracy, etc. The 1 year term system showed itself the best. I don't like the idea about roleplaying with people from your country, that would create more bureocracy and you know better than me what bureocracy brings, death.

6) Reformation of the nature of AIN itself, in terms of roleplaying in particular.
A fictional world is not the best idea in my opinion. Just like Michael said: "I don't think a fictional world is a practical idea; nor do I believe alternative history is the right way to go. In terms of what AIN is, I have always thought it of a looser political union than the EU, stronger than the UN, and with a bit of NATO thrown in, though that concoction may just be my view"

7) Reformation on the Executive Council
In my very own opinion, destroy the EC is a mad idea, the EC takes place in the main decisions of the Alliance and in emergency cases, so it should be keep. The forum is administrate by the EC and fiscalized by the old members to keep all in order. Besides that, I agree mostly with Michael. I think that make the whole EC open to vote is crazyness, there are members that are not qualificated for being administrators, as example, in my very own opinion. Everything needs leaders, and its not different in the AIN. The members of Global Moderation were choosen by a democratic process made by members who were elect by you all, they just pointed confident people for this role, if it helps, I would support changing the rule that says the Global Moderators are choosen by the VP for being through a voting in the EC.
Vice-President of the Alliance since March 1st, 2018
Speaker of the Alliance from March 1st, 2017 to March 1st, 2018
Need help? Send me a message!
Visit the Commonwealth of Santa Catarina!
Wiki · Forum · Ministry of International Relations
kendallhart808
Speaker of the Alliance
Speaker of the Alliance
Posts: 791
Joined: August 15th 2015, 1:22 pm
Nation: Carolina
Location: NC

Re: Initiation of the Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations

Postby kendallhart808 » March 30th 2018, 3:40 am

I'm going to go ahead and say my thoughts about these changes and then go hide for another two days until my leave is up :lol: . Let me tell you why I think this alliance is going down a down-hill slope. We all hate each other. Now while that's an exaggeration I think most of you know it has some truth to it. I will never rejoin that Skype chat because all people do 95% of the time is argue. Single handedly that is driving the alliance apart. We all have at least some animosity toward someone else and then people just become miserable because that animosity comes out.

There are two ideas that I've seen that are ummm...not the best, the idea of taking out the executive council and the idea of a seperate world. The separate world is just too much work and honestly I kinda like the idea that this is based in the real life world. For the executive council, I think that the idea of doing away with the council in totality causes the alliance to lose it's main directing force. The executive council is very much there for executive action but it is also there to provide a direction for the alliance. At the same time, I'm not sure if I would let just one or two moderators enforce the rules because then personal bias could come into moderating, but the alliance shouldn't vote on punishments because that's bureaucracy to the extreme and nothing would get done. I think that the executive council is a good balance between quick action and protecting against bias that we couldn't really replace.

Onto the other matters. While I definitely understand the idea of having polar opposite side nations and main nations, I think that in itself isn't really a good idea. I say this because I think side nations should be something that you have a real passion for, something other than your main nation that you want to explore. And if someone has a wealthy country in Australia, I don't think they should be prevented from having a wealthy country in Europe just because we want polar opposite side nations. I think in the long term you are just limiting the number of side nations with that rule. However, in terms of like size and power projection, I get that we want to limit one person from having a massive amount of power.

Another thing that I wanted to address is just the stigma against big countries. I was talking about this with Stan and basically what we said was that because our countries are so far apart and so small, unless you are in the East Asia region, there are limited options for roleplay. The other thing with this is that I think a lot of people in this alliance have "compromise nations" because they can't get the nation they really want. You can see this (I think) with like Amuria, Carolina, maybe even Santa Catarina. Opening up and allowing people to have larger countries possibly encompassing the entire borders of a country would allow for people to be more invested in their nation and I also think it would open up some very interesting roleplay. Personally, I will say that I have thought about putting in a bill for a US-like-nation because without it, I'm not sure how much longer I will stay in the alliance. I'm at the point where I love Carolina but I'm in this alliance so that it can be like my dream/goal to conduct foreign affairs and possibly be President of the United States, so everything else is just simply not entirely there for me. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks this, and if there are multiple large countries, they would play off of each other to a degree which helps the smaller ones.

Anyway...that was a rant and I didn't really answer all the questions but I think I've gotten my point across.
User avatar
Michael
President of the Alliance
President of the Alliance
Posts: 861
Joined: January 26th 2016, 5:39 pm
Nation: Mikenstein & Sint Cunera
Location: London, UK, EU
Contact:

Re: Initiation of the Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations

Postby Michael » April 2nd 2018, 4:51 pm

I was thinking more about the role of the EC, and role-play leadership when I checked something in the Charter.
Stan, your suggestion of a role-play leader of the Alliance does already exist:

P1.01 The Alliance Council serves as the roleplay leadership of the Alliance, and is responsible for overseeing all roleplay and Alliance events between member states.
P1.02 The Vice President of the Alliance serves as the Director General of the Alliance Council, and bears ultimate responsibility for the effective management and operation of all of the activities of the Council’s other members.


The Alliance Council is our RP government, and Ramon, as VP, in-charge of overseeing the RP side of it. I see no reason why he couldn't inherit the style of the proposed directors, i.e. have a pseudonym and run the Alliance Council, including the General Assembly under that pseudonym.

That way, the VP becomes truer to their role of organising Alliance events, and the President is, and remains a non-roleplay position.
Image---------------Image
WikiForum-----------------------------WikiForum----

Member State since 5th March 2016
Global Moderator since 4th March 2017
President since 1st March 2018

Send me a message!
User avatar
stanisolt
Posts: 277
Joined: August 6th 2012, 11:23 pm
Nation: Amuria
Location: Russian Federative Empire

Re: Initiation of the Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations

Postby stanisolt » April 2nd 2018, 6:48 pm

Michael wrote:I was thinking more about the role of the EC, and role-play leadership when I checked something in the Charter.
Stan, your suggestion of a role-play leader of the Alliance does already exist:

P1.01 The Alliance Council serves as the roleplay leadership of the Alliance, and is responsible for overseeing all roleplay and Alliance events between member states.
P1.02 The Vice President of the Alliance serves as the Director General of the Alliance Council, and bears ultimate responsibility for the effective management and operation of all of the activities of the Council’s other members.


Right, when I mentioned roleplay leadership, I meant roleplayed leadership. The Charter states the Alliance Council holds “roleplay leadership”, as in leadership in roleplay. I personally am of the view that there doesn’t necessarily need to be an organized body that needs to oversee roleplay, as it could just as easily be done through scrutiny by other members. For the most part, it’s already an implicit enforcer of realistic roleplay.

Michael wrote:The Alliance Council is our RP government, and Ramon, as VP, in-charge of overseeing the RP side of it. I see no reason why he couldn't inherit the style of the proposed directors, i.e. have a pseudonym and run the Alliance Council, including the General Assembly under that pseudonym.

That way, the VP becomes truer to their role of organising Alliance events, and the President is, and remains a non-roleplay position.


Yeah, I agree that the VP could be a pseudonym, but I also think the President could also have this trait. Essentially the two posts would be little more than a title you won for a unique character you roleplay through. :P
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy

Return to “Summit on the Future of the Alliance of Independent Nations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest