Returning to the IPA: A Compromise Proposal

Returning to the IPA: A Compromise Proposal
Hello everyone. I'd like to thank everyone for their consideration into this topic. I, as residing Vice-President, will be presenting two points upon which create the May 10th Compromise in coordination with our Anniversary. Introduction: Some months ago, we lost a valued member to our society. Matts1390 said farewell to the IPA under good terms to found his own alliance, HACK. Matts1390 was a real asset to the IPA as he dedicated tons of funds to the alliance and to new members through free aid give aways to fun contests. No matter what, he was always giving back. Along with this, he is also tremendously powerful in comparison to the rest of the IPA. nearly 3,000 strength points above me, Matts1390 and his nation, Lime Rock, stand at a 15,000 NS with multiple nuclear weapons. In fact, Lime Rock came to our aid during the nuclear crisis in the most recent war. This sort of dedication to the defending allies and the free CN world are all characteristics we look for in our members, and Matts1390 contributed all of these and more during his time with us. Proposal: In recent days, I have been speaking with some members of our alliance and actively discussing possibilities of Matts1390's return to IPA. I firmly believe he will be a true asset to the community as a whole. However, Matts1390 will be leaving Presidential control of the alliance he founded. This is a very difficult move for any member, especially for one leaving a tight-knit community which they founded. Seeing as how Matts1390 was once part of our community as a very successful Ambassador, he obviously has leadership qualities and experience. However, leaving a personally-founded alliance is difficult, thus we have discussed the addition of a new position in the IPA to attract Matts1390 back to the IPA. He has stated that this is essential to his return as he would like to regain some say in the government. Breakdown of points: 1. Addition of new government position: Director of Intelligence. This is a position that some members have expressed interest in adding, as it would be valuable to the running of the IPA as as Cyber-National alliance. This position will run on the same election schedule as the rest and will report directly to the President, Vice-President, and Military Commander. From there, all intelligence will be released to the public as common knowledge to keep everyone on the same page. This chain of information will keep issues organized and avoid panic, especially in times of war. 2. Upon Matts1390's return, he will surrender all ties with HACK. His nation, Lime Rock, will be fully reaccepted as a IPA nation. Along with this, the initial term of the Director of Intelligence seat will be handed to Matts1390. This point of compromise is to allow government say by Matts1390, and with his knowledge of the CN world and previous experience, he will be able to successfully operate the test run of the new position. With the points stated above, in coordination with our One Year Anniversary, will help our alliance grow exponentially. Matts1390 is a valued member of the IPA community, and he would be a tremendous help to us not only in strength, but also in his contributions to the alliance in forms of aid and financial help. Along with this, the new government position will be introduced to further bolster the security of the alliance and to avoid unnecessary confusion in times of war and in times of peace. Thank you very much to everyone for your time and for your contributions to the alliance over this past year. We have grown so much, and it wouldn't have happened without your continued support!!! Long Live the IPA!!! -Granoladude Vice-President and Proud Member of the IPA

Provided that the position of Director of Intelligence is to be an elected position from that point on, corresponding with the rest of our positions, I agree. After a full term, Matts would have to stand for election like everyone else for whatever position he wished. Let us note that this is not creating a position for the purpose of creating a position. A DoI would be beneficial to the alliance. This is simply killing two birds with one stone in my opinion.

I am absolutely against this. We are a Democracy, we can't create new positions to attract new members. I have no problem with Matts, I didn't like it when he left however I could not be more against this. Besides the fact that this position is virtually useless (I did read the discussion of it on IRC), it is the Ambassadors job in my opinion (we do not need 6 positions for 45 people - I agree that if we had 100+ members then it would be useful), we should not attract new members by creating new positions for them. Matts say in the government is the same as any member, I am not in it but obviously I can still affect what decisions are made, he can do the same thing.

To Raz: Absolutely! The position will be free to anyone and everyone come the end of June when elections are up again. And I agree, a DoI would be a tremendous benefit. To Phoenix: I don't see the correlation between a DoI and an Ambassador as they handle two separate aspects of the government. However, this could work in benefit. If the Ambassador finds the work load to heavy during times of crisis, some of the work could be diverted to the DoI. In peace time, however, a DoI would be operational from the front instead of abroad. Various tasks could include keeping tabs on nuclear activity, war breakouts which we have no intention of involvement, etc. Basically, this position is designed for the internal use, whereas the ambassador is required to go beyond the alliance to open discussion between us and other nations/alliances. As for the use of a government position to attract members, I disagree completely as this is not what we are doing. The title of this entire statement is COMPROMISE. Matts1390 and his national strength and financial standing could be a tremendous benefit to the IPA as a whole. However, he left on good terms and with a position of power to form his own alliance. Thus, as we come, coincidentally, to the formation of a new leadership position, I saw it fit to offer the position to Matts1390 as he firmly requested a spot in the government to finalize his return. Matts1390 is a respected member of this community and he could be a tremendous benefit. This same situation has occurred in Democratic History as well in America: positions of power exchanged for a greater good. I can certainly see the greater good that will come of this. Thus, I see no problem with offering a new, and possibly challenging, government position to him to test run the idea for a term, in order to enable exponential growth through his help.

To Phoenix: I don't see the correlation between a DoI and an Ambassador as they handle two separate aspects of the government. However, this could work in benefit. If the Ambassador finds the work load to heavy during times of crisis, some of the work could be diverted to the DoI. In peace time, however, a DoI would be operational from the front instead of abroad. Various tasks could include keeping tabs on nuclear activity, war breakouts which we have no intention of involvement, etc. Basically, this position is designed for the internal use, whereas the ambassador is required to go beyond the alliance to open discussion between us and other nations/alliances. Well, this is not a bad idea but I think that it would really weaken the power of the Ambassador first off. It's the ambassadors job to contact other alliances in times of war and such, if there was a DoI, then it'd be his job. What is left for the ambassador to do? I really feel at this stage, we should let the ambassador handle this such matters. As for the use of a government position to attract members, I disagree completely as this is not what we are doing. The title of this entire statement is COMPROMISE. Matts1390 and his national strength and financial standing could be a tremendous benefit to the IPA as a whole. You are contradicting yourself there. First you say we are not creating a government position to attract a member, then you say that if we were to attract him, he'd be very useful. I don't disagree, but we are still creating a special position (which I feel is not needed at this stage), and so we are attracting a member by giving him that position without an election. As I said, we're a Democracy. What we should do is have a poll (and we need one anyway to amend our Constitution anyway, which would be required) and if the rest of the alliance thinks that this is a good idea then we'll go with it?

I completely understand. I meant that this isn't setting a trend for creating a new position every time a member joins. That is where I disagreed with the use of attracting members by new positions. I see this as more of a creation of a position that is need (in my opinion) and it could be easily filled by a new member. The Ambassador/DoI conflict can be resolved if it passed, and you bring up a good point about that problem of who'll be gaining/losing power if we do go into motion with this act. A poll will be opening soon for this proposal if we get a bit more support or criticism so that any amendments to the compromise can be made. A formal poll will be held in a matter of days (by this weekend).

It is a great idea. There are ways we can further separate the Ambasadorand DoI, but I will continue expanding on my current thoughts, and post my suggestions when we start the priliminary discussion about amending the Constitution. As I said, I think this is a good idea, but I think there is more we can do with it than has initially been proposed. I fully endorse this idea as it will benefit the alliance in many more ways than one. - Bart

the conflicts between ambassador and DOI i really believe can be resolved by defining the job role of the new position. First and foremost the ambassador is the public and legal representative of this alliance to other nations and alliances. I see the DOI as more of an information gathering and filtering position. If he is actively talking to other nations and alliances in an official capacity he is not doing his job right. Just my opinion.

I would object if there was no poll, but as there is going to be one and if the vote goes in favour, I would have no problems at all. I agree that the DoI and Ambassador jobs and the differences bwtween them would need to be clarified.

I second dcornwall. A DoI makes information available to the alliance and collects it. A DoI does not post on forums, does not negotiate, does not represent us, and does not set policy. A DoI exists as a resource for the alliance. Alien, you said we do not need 6 positions for 45 people. And we do not need 6 positions, this is true. However, unlike in the real world, on CN positions cost the alliance nothing, drastically altering the cost-benefit ratio. I do not have a problem with giving work to every member who wants it and splitting up everything the alliance could be doing that way.

Alien, you said we do not need 6 positions for 45 people. And we do not need 6 positions, this is true. However, unlike in the real world, on CN positions cost the alliance nothing, drastically altering the cost-benefit ratio. I do not have a problem with giving work to every member who wants it and splitting up everything the alliance could be doing that way. Well, in fact there is a cost. First, it's more tabs for other officers to keep - when an officer does something wrong, it's a lot worse than when a member does. Second, it reduces the power of other officers. We are also already having a lack of people running for office, take a look at the last elections. It's not all that much a Democracy if there is one candidate for each position in every election. If you want to do some sort of job, then you can do it without having a special title attached.

Well, in fact there is a cost. First, it's more tabs for other officers to keep - when an officer does something wrong, it's a lot worse than when a member does. Second, it reduces the power of other officers. We are also already having a lack of people running for office, take a look at the last elections. It's not all that much a Democracy if there is one candidate for each position in every election. If you want to do some sort of job, then you can do it without having a special title attached. Perhaps we can make some positions elected, and have some of them appointed, therefore forcing people to run for only a few of the offices. We can do it like the United States. A President and Vice-President are elected, and then they appoint a cabinet consisting of the other five offices (Ambassador, Militia Commander, DoR, DoP, DoI).

I'd rather we remain a Democracy... United States has over 500 different positions, we have 5.

Alright: Start listing the tweaks that you would like to see made to the proposal. I am shooting for an open poll beginning tomorrow (Friday). I'll edit the original post to specify exact definitions between Ambassador and DoI. One measure of difference that I liked is Raz's suggestion. "A DoI makes information available to the alliance and collects it. A DoI does not post on forums, does not negotiate, does not represent us, and does not set policy. A DoI exists as a resource for the alliance. " I would modify this slightly to allow forum access to the DoI in a restricted manner, regarding Intelligence issues of course, as everyone is free to post generally. However, when assuming the role of DoI for a post, it would be restricted to a Briefing Room or the like where officials may discuss and plan before releasing issues to common knowledge. Let the games begin!

We should not be engaging in spying or other activities that could sully our reputation, just the collection and analysis of information of use to us. Therefore, to what extent would a "briefing room" be needed? In response to Bart's suggestions, I am quite opposed to the President and VP picking everyone. I do see, however, the value of appointed positions in some sense. Let's consider preserving every position we have, but allowing officers to delegate specific tasks to members; call them, say, agents. So we could have Recruitment Agents, Trade Agents, GATO Liaison Agents, etc. etc. This would provide each "agent" someone to whom he/she is responsible, an officer who could not pass the buck. Officers, of course, would answer to voters in our frequent elections. We need to have a small core of officers who are changed frequently who take responsibility for what happens. A two-person team is too small, and the posts of President and VP don't change often enough to make our democracy vibrant without more officers.

View Full Version: Returning to the IPA: A Compromise Proposal