My thoughts

[Markus]

To be honest I quite agree with Kermah, 50 days is way too long for this to take and I hope Beatrice will understand when I say that communication for large swathes of this has been lacking from her end, it honestly shouldn't take days for people in the leadership team to be told what the concerns are and it certainly shouldn't take a thread like this.

Based on everything read here, on Discord and focusing around Altona's five points and accounting for the concerns of other players as well the following is what I suggest

replacing the current Constitution with:

This does not make wholesale structural change, what it does is change a long winded, wordy and at times confusing way of expressing how the region works (based on Markus's input ) into what I hope is a more user friendly explanation of the various roles (based on Nova's groundwork), who currently holds them and what their responsibilities are. Ideally a version of this, if adopted, would be sent out as a welcome PM when someone joins.

The introduction of the Roleplay Managers I believe accomplishes Altona's point 1 of "Have no GC involvement in determining what RP is permitted" - the Roleplay Managers essentially operates as the RP Rule makers thus removing that authority from the GC and transferring it to them.

The Order of the Pen inclusion takes on Ffion's suggestion of a way of dealing with the nobility issue highlighted in Altona's point 2. Induction into the nobility has always been a reward for good roleplay as well as several years ago for legislative stuff and service. That it hasn't been updated in years is an oversight and it is no wonder that it has the perception it has. The approach proposed is to remove the inactive members titles (this is what the nobility amendment is about permitting), the remaining nobility would then be transferred to the Order of Pen from where they (not the GC) can admit new members. Think of it like this a player does a good RP, the Order of the Pen thinks "hey that's good." they can go the GC and ask for the player to be inducted, the GC then makes a formal announcement acknowledging the player and the reason. The idea is that by making the group in effect self growing, it becomes what it should have always been a status awarded for roleplay and avoids the neglect it's had in recent years.

Addressing point 3 - "sort the mods out" this is underway, a few days ago Beatrice posted on discord the application form for Discord Mod's, and I expect that when those applications are processed attention will be paid to wanting people in the role who will provide the support network new players need.

on Altona's point 4 - this is largely in terms of the example down to Beatrice to resolve. I will by way of explanation highlight that this isn't the first time a knee jerk of that type has happened, some of us who've been around a while have seen it before and I've been here long enough to have seen it more than once so I'm sort of desensitized to that at this point. To go back to the Mods for a second in providing the support network we will ensure proactivity.

I'm not going to say much on point 5 - I do think RL has played a role over the last couple of years in that player activity levels have dropped and the number of open RP's had reduced so perhaps we slipped into cliques without thinking, I also think that discord banter has proven unhelpful. I have included the RP event management/running under the RP Mod responsibilities.

What I've put up here I believe addresses what it can address in terms of the GC involvement in RP admin, the nobility and the mods. Everything else that's been raised is going to be down to all of us to address ourselves as it concerns player attitude. I will add that if players believe gaming is occurring or has occurred then as the current RP Mod Rob does have the power to remove events from the Canon, I'm not suggesting Rob run around knocking players on the head, but his role has the tools it requires to keep people within the spirit of the RP.

Thanks for the work you put in for writing it. It is fine by me. I have just a couple of suggestions or questions. Please do not take them personally, I want to consider worse case scenarios that I hope do not happen.

1.   “ Decisions regarding the actions of an NPC shall require the consultation of three players who may NOT be the roleplay managers,”
   I am curious, why can’t they be roleplay managers?

2.   Who moderates the Discord Mods, the Chancellor, Cartographer etc especially on Discord? I am concerned that the new moderation powers on Discord will be abused and used to suppress dissent and criticism or simply to punish players for perceived past grievances when such moderation powers did not exist.

3.   If we want to file an appeal or a compliant regarding abuse of Discord mod powers, we do it with the Lord Chief Justice, right?

4.   If the Lord Chief Justice abuses his powers what options we as regular players have? Where do we file a complaint then?

5.   “- If any individual holding an office fails to log in to the forum for a period of fourteen days without posting a Leave of Absence they shall be deemed as having vacated their position”
Does this apply to Discord mods? Because right now we have a Discord Mod who I believe does not even have an account on the forum.

6.   Should we add the responsibility of recruiting to the RP Moderator ?

[Achkaerin]

Thanks for the work you put in for writing it. It is fine by me. I have just a couple of suggestions or questions. Please do not take them personally, I want to consider worse case scenarios that I hope do not happen.

1.   “ Decisions regarding the actions of an NPC shall require the consultation of three players who may NOT be the roleplay managers,”
   I am curious, why can’t they be roleplay managers?

2.   Who moderates the Discord Mods, the Chancellor, Cartographer etc especially on Discord? I am concerned that the new moderation powers on Discord will be abused and used to suppress dissent and criticism or simply to punish players for perceived past grievances when such moderation powers did not exist.

3.   If we want to file an appeal or a compliant regarding abuse of Discord mod powers, we do it with the Lord Chief Justice, right?

4.   If the Lord Chief Justice abuses his powers what options we as regular players have? Where do we file a complaint then?

5.   “- If any individual holding an office fails to log in to the forum for a period of fourteen days without posting a Leave of Absence they shall be deemed as having vacated their position”
Does this apply to Discord mods? Because right now we have a Discord Mod who I believe does not even have an account on the forum.

6.   Should we add the responsibility of recruiting to the RP Moderator ?

Question 1 - This section is largely a copy and paste from Nova so I would check his reasoning. To my mind it's maybe something to do with the perception of the RP rule makers involving themselves in what the NPC's do. But I do suggest clarifying with Nova.

Question 2 - That should be the Lord Chief Justice or potentially Hobbes as he is the server owner.

Question 3 - Yes

Question 4 - With the Chancellery so Grand Chancellor or Vice Chancellor, personally I recommend both.

Question 5 - A very good point which will be addressed alongside including Hobbe's role as server owner.

Question 6 - Agreed, I would spread this between the RP Mod and RP Manager.

[Achkaerin]

1- To reply to question 1 of Markus: when we talked about it, Rob told us how Dave proceeded, and how it was a good practice to be kept, so I personally put it in my draft.

2- Also Hobbes is quite inactive, so unfortunately the function of supervising isn't working well.

3- For the guidance suggestion, I'd also make a post published on the forum so that even us, older RPers may easily consult it.

4- Over the recruitment, I think it better if it's just the RP manager(s) doing such, as to allow RP Moderators to fully focus on the RP, knowing that it's already a heavy task and there is much mentoring to do. But that's just a view which I don't particularly have any other argument in favour.

5- Is there a way to have in all transparence, the text updated that you maintain Achkaerin? Perhaps a GoogleDoc which may just view? So that when we post things here, we can “be on the same page”.

6- Also, much important question which haven't been addressed and so which I reiterate: “From the current draft, Chancellery appoints all position: question; who appoints the Chancellery, and how to question appointment?
Same question regarding the future eventual update of this text?”

Re Hobbes - yes he's not that inactive but as server owner he's the only person right now with a higher admin level than myself and CGJ on there, so it's worth being aware that he is an appropriate person to talk to if people become concerned.

Re Guidance - yes that would be the plan to have a post and coded version of the post, this makes it easier to send out.

Re document - at some point tomorrow I will do that, do be aware that I may not have updated the whole thing by that point, but you will be able to see it tomorrow.

Re Chancellery - I don't think it would be a case of questioning the appointment as such. What I think you're asking about is a process in the event of there not being a GC, I think in that situation I believe your suggestion of having the LCJ preside over a process to determine a successor would be appropriate. I will also add that the process to remove the GC or any office holder would have to require inactivity on their part or not doing their job, violation of the criminal code etc - in other words there would need to be reasonable grounds to do so.

[RobertAgira]

1- To reply to question 1 of Markus: when we talked about it, Rob told us how Dave proceeded, and how it was a good practice to be kept, so I personally put it in my draft.

2- Also Hobbes is quite inactive, so unfortunately the function of supervising isn't working well.

3- For the guidance suggestion, I'd also make a post published on the forum so that even us, older RPers may easily consult it.

4- Over the recruitment, I think it better if it's just the RP manager(s) doing such, as to allow RP Moderators to fully focus on the RP, knowing that it's already a heavy task and there is much mentoring to do. But that's just a view which I don't particularly have any other argument in favour.

5- Is there a way to have in all transparence, the text updated that you maintain Achkaerin? Perhaps a GoogleDoc which may just view? So that when we post things here, we can “be on the same page”.

6- Also, much important question which haven't been addressed and so which I reiterate: “From the current draft, Chancellery appoints all position: question; who appoints the Chancellery, and how to question appointment?
Same question regarding the future eventual update of this text?”

Dave always had a system where if he had an idea about something with an NPC so for example the "Sandwich Club" he would first pick three random members of the forum not involved in the RP and ask them their opinion with a simple yes/no question. He went with the majority. It was my intent to carry that on as I think its a good idea. I'm not sure that perhaps having set people taking on that role is good as it takes away the flexibility of it being people not attached. So for example if we say one of the people is Markus and the question is about something between Samantra and Safraen then Markus may have a vested interest. I think putting something in about the RP Mod consulting before starting anything with an NPC is a good idea I just don't think we need to say who it is.

[Achkaerin]

Can I just query whether Markus was suggesting the RP Managers be the three set people or suggesting that they should be in the pool of players so to speak that the three are picked from?

[Tytor]

My impression was that it was the latter.

[Markus]

Dave always had a system where if he had an idea about something with an NPC so for example the "Sandwich Club" he would first pick three random members of the forum not involved in the RP and ask them their opinion with a simple yes/no question. He went with the majority. It was my intent to carry that on as I think its a good idea. I'm not sure that perhaps having set people taking on that role is good as it takes away the flexibility of it being people not attached. So for example if we say one of the people is Markus and the question is about something between Samantra and Safraen then Markus may have a vested interest. I think putting something in about the RP Mod consulting before starting anything with an NPC is a good idea I just don't think we need to say who it is.

Thanks for explaining, Robert.

Ach and Tytor are right in suspecting that the query was not why we do not restrict consultations to RP managers but why we exclude them from the consultations. From my reading of the draft their role is minor and have no authority over NPCs so why not also include them in the pool of players that can be asked by the RP Mod? I am not saying they should be given priority just that the RP Mod be allowed to use them in the three players consultation process.

It's a minor issue so it's fine either way of course.

[Achkaerin]

“Re Chancellery - I don't think it would be a case of questioning the appointment as such. What I think you're asking about is a process in the event of there not being a GC, I think in that situation I believe your suggestion of having the LCJ preside over a process to determine a successor would be appropriate. I will also add that the process to remove the GC or any office holder would have to require inactivity on their part or not doing their job, violation of the criminal code etc - in other words there would need to be reasonable grounds to do so.”

I don't see any reason to not include a way to be able to re-appoint the Chancellery, and to be able to change the text.
Current situation is that if anyone have a concern with an office, they need to pass through the Chancellery to have it reappointed for instance. Making the Chancellery, which is so far only “by God's will” the most powerful office. It is only fair that this office can be appointed or removed by the players through a democratic vote.
The same goes for the amendment of the text as I've proposed.

And I just said that this will be included as per your earlier suggestion. What I pointed out was I believe a language issue - I don't view it as "questioning the appointment" when it comes to the GC I view it as "what are the grounds to remove the GC and what is the process to appoint a new one?"

[Altona]

In terms of the reason I started all this I had a few problems I voiced. You could maybe sum these up in 7 areas. For each I've put my thoughts on whether I think the proposals impact them.

1. No clear definition of people's powers and the perception of authority for some when there was none. The new  proposal seems to clear these up. I think if we paired this with a kind of regional guide for people when they signed up this perception will largely be gone.

2. No support for newcomers We relied on one person doing this. We should now see this load spread over several people.

3. The Mundus "Pecking Order" I think this is something that will only be seen in game over time if people change their attitudes and realise their are no winners on Mundus just stories. The test for this will come when the region next gets someone who does something that will challenge this perception.

4. "Gaming" Similar to Problem 3 - People should be expected to have to announce their RP before it takes place and people should react in an IC manner. We'll see in time.

5. Actual Gaming I think giving the people a method to influence the rules means we may get some good ideas that will stop gaming so I think this should become much less of an issue.

6. Arguements breaking out The new mods should hopefully be able to solve this and the new RP Mod support should ensure that once a rulings made no one can have any complains

7. Knee Jerk reactions of behalf of those with authority The plan should see this cut down and hopefully stopped altogether

My one thing that comes to mind though is the constition doesn't as far as I could see say how the RP Mod etc is appointed or I may have missed something.

I'd also urge during this process not appointing anyone to mod positions or RP Manager etc. There are a lot of people kind of hanging on to see what changes might happen and we could end up with a similar perception of everyone being from the same cliques and controlling everything.

[Achkaerin]

My one thing that comes to mind though is the constition doesn't as far as I could see say how the RP Mod etc is appointed or I may have missed something.

I'd also urge during this process not appointing anyone to mod positions or RP Manager etc. There are a lot of people kind of hanging on to see what changes might happen and we could end up with a similar perception of everyone being from the same cliques and controlling everything.

In terms of appointing the RP Mod etc, this is along the same lines as what Nova has commented on. Under the proposal the Grand Chancellor has "c) Appointing office holders where required;" - the words office holders refer to the Vice Chancellor, RP Managers, RP Mod, Discord Mods and the LCJ. So the Grand Chancellor would appoint them. Appointing the Grand Chancellor would as Nova has indicated require some form of electoral process (this will be added when I update the text), if people believe it would useful to include who appoints who under each office then that can be done.

In terms of the second point, there won't be any appointments until this is completed.

I'm also going to give advance warning that for most of tomorrow I will not be around, I will be back in late afternoon/early evening though.

[RobertAgira]

Markus just PM'd me to ask me a question and its made me go back and re-read the proposal

Can this "Decisions regarding the actions of an NPC shall require the consultation of three players who may not be the roleplay managers, the Roleplay Moderator shall abide by the majority view. Consulted players are expected to act considerate of the NPC’s history, policies, relationships etc."

Read as

"Decisions regarding the actions of an NPC shall require the consultation of three players who may not necessarily be the roleplay managers, the Roleplay Moderator shall abide by the majority view. Consulted players are expected to act considerate of the NPC’s history, policies, relationships etc." - I don't see why they may not be consulted if for example it was something to do with Tamora and Markus was a RP Manager it would seem odd not to consult him, or Libby for Rodina etc.

[Achkaerin]

Markus just PM'd me to ask me a question and its made me go back and re-read the proposal

Can this "Decisions regarding the actions of an NPC shall require the consultation of three players who may not be the roleplay managers, the Roleplay Moderator shall abide by the majority view. Consulted players are expected to act considerate of the NPC’s history, policies, relationships etc."

Read as

"Decisions regarding the actions of an NPC shall require the consultation of three players who may not necessarily be the roleplay managers, the Roleplay Moderator shall abide by the majority view. Consulted players are expected to act considerate of the NPC’s history, policies, relationships etc." - I don't see why they may not be consulted if for example it was something to do with Tamora and Markus was a RP Manager it would seem odd not to consult him, or Libby for Rodina etc.

Yes will do.

[Achkaerin]

Updated text (if I've missed anything let me know) I have kept the forum administrator names on to avoid masking confusion:

Forum Administrators - There are currently three forum administrators, Beatrice, CGJ and Achkaerin, their responsibilities are:
a) Maintaining and updating the forum
b) Addressing forum issues encountered by members of the forum.
c) Notifying the membership of the region of issues of concern administration wise.

The Chancellery - this comprises the Grand Chancellor, currently Beatrice and the Vice Chancellor, currently CGJ, their responsibilities are:
a) Ensuring the safety and stability of The Independent Order;
b) Conducting Nationstates inter regional diplomacy.
c) Appointing office holders where required;
d) Removing office holders where there exists reasonable grounds to do so:
e) Administering the official chatroom of the region, the NationStates region, and any other official off-forum locations;
f) Advising office holders where requested;
g) Maintaining and updating the Criminal Code and Discord Code of Conduct (with the consultation of the Lord Chief Justice).
h) Investigating complaints concerning the Lord Chief Justice.
i) Inducting (and removing when inactive) members of the Order of the Pen upon instruction of the Order.
 
The Roleplay Managers - There are three Roleplay Managers in simple terms this group generally manages the roleplay rules and assists new members they have the following responsibilities:
a) Welcoming newcomers in the region
b) Mentoring newcomers
c) Recruiting new members
d) Amending the Roleplay Rules, (all amendments require a unanimous vote and the agreement of the Roleplay Moderator and where needed the consultation of the cartographer)
e) Maintenance of a Roleplay Guide designed to assist and inform the players of the region of aspects of the Regional roleplay.

Roleplay Moderator -The Roleplay Moderator is the person responsible for ensuring the roleplay rules are followed they have the following responsibilities:
a) Welcoming newcomers in the region
b) Mentoring newcomers in the region
c) Recruiting new members
d) Managing NPCs
e) Enforcing the Roleplay rules
f) Settling disputes between players
g) Managing the RP canon
h) Taking measures in regards to players that are not complying with the Roleplay rules
i) Making realism rulings.
j) Creating and managing regular RP events (delegating where necessary)
k) Granting RP rewards (with consultation where necessary)

- Any decision to change a historic event in the RP Canon shall require a public consultation to take place, to ensure that players have the chance to raise awareness of issues.  A decision to remove a current event or current post from the RP Canon shall require an announcement on the forum with reasoning.

- Decisions regarding the actions of an NPC shall require the consultation of three players who may not necessarily be the roleplay managers, the Roleplay Moderator shall abide by the majority view. Consulted players are expected to act considerate of the NPC’s history, policies, relationships etc

- Decisions regarding the creation, enlarging, reducing, relocating and dissolving of NPC’s and other map decisions shall require consultation with the cartographer.

The Lord Chief Justice - The Lord Chief Justice is the person who ensures that the forum rules are being followed as well as other responsibilities in respect of accountability, they are responsible for:
a) Advising the Office Holders when asked;
b) Ensuring all Actions by office holders are made in compliance, and are themselves compliant with the Criminal Code and Roleplay Rules;
c) Investigating complaints originating outside the Regional Roleplay and determining a reasonable action.
d) Investigating where it is suspected that any member or institution of the government has acted in error, as defined by law;
e) Hearing appeals from players on matters regarding Regional Roleplay.
f) Enforcing the Criminal Code and Discord Code of Conduct.
g) Overseeing processes to remove the Grand Chancellor should there exist reasonable grounds to do so.

- Should the Lord Chief Justice determine that a body (office holder) has acted in error, they may issue an Order to remedy the matter.

Discord Mods - there are four Discord Mods they are responsible for:
a) Monitoring the regional discord
b) Enforcing the discord code of conduct.

- Those with Discord Moderation powers operate a three strike system, strike one is a first warning, strike two is a final warning, strike three is a mute. Continuing beyond strike three can see longer mutes, server kicks and server bans employed depending on the nature of the issue.

Order of the Pen - this is a non authority role, it is available to all players and is granted for Roleplay contribution, it is formally awarded by the Grand Chancellor on the instruction of existing members of this order.

Miscellaneous

- This document and the Criminal Code (2013) shall extend fully to all parts Independent Order, including the forum, NationStates region, official chatroom and any official off-forum locations. Additionally the Forum Terms of Service shall be considered part of this document, as defined by law;

- If any individual holding an office that requires a forum presence fails to log in to the forum for a period of fourteen days without posting a Leave of Absence they shall be deemed as having vacated their position. Vacancies, including those arising from resignation, shall be filled:
a) Where a deputy or vice exists, by said deputy or vice; or
b) Where no such deputy or vice exists, or if the deputy or vice has also gone inactive, by the usual procedures specified in this document.

- for the purposes of this document reasonable grounds to remove an office holder shall include but not limited to - violation of the criminal code, violation of the discord code of conduct or inactivity.

- Any member may submit a proposal to amend this document by posting of the proposal in the Conference Hall forum, the proposal shall be debated for no less than seven (7) days and be followed by a two (2) day vote.

Document link (as requested)

[Achkaerin]

Thank you Achkaerin for the tremendous work, hat's down.

1- Question to make sure I understand this correctly, if for instance one was to say “let's remove Achkaerin from Forum Administrators”, since your name is in the text, it'd have to follow the process “- Any member may submit a proposal to amend this document by posting of the proposal in the Conference Hall forum, the proposal shall be debated for no less than seven (7) days and be followed by a two (2) day vote.”, correct? In addition to (g) of the LCJ which personally I am not at ease of since that means there is no clear process, while Chancellery is an essential role and I think it make sense to have the way it is appointed in in the constitution.

2- For the “d) Amending the Roleplay Rules, (all amendments require a unanimous vote and the agreement of the Roleplay Moderator and where needed the consultation of the cartographer)” I'd have not said “RP Moderator” but well “RP Managers”, since there are 3 (which is a lot already IMO) and their role is to precisely have a “meta” view.

3- Even if the Cartographper is defined in the RP Rules, I think it'd have been better if he was defined there, as to ease the understanding for a newcomer for instance of all the roles.

4- Since we abolished the nobility system, why not rename the Lord Chief Justice by “Super Moderator” or something like that? No real idea in mind, it's just I find odd given that nobility is now out with such name. Or maybe “Speaker”? Honestly no real idea.

1 - to change the text yes that would be the process. Also the Chancellory process is in there but perhaps g) should read "Overseeing the election of a new Grand Chancellor should it be required"

2 - Probably should read "Consultation of the Roleplay Moderator" I think it makes sense for the RP Mod to be at least asked about a prospective rule change before it happens as they have to enforce it.

3 - Will add

4 - Lord Chief Justice is not a noble rank, it's a position title which is why it hasn't changed.

[Beatrice]

The process we've embarked on and the work we've seen through collaboration, cooperation and understanding (while overdue) are wonderful to see. While we recognize that the issues are more in attitudes and such, common sense structural changes will compliment this process of renewing understanding across the entirety of our community. From new members to old members, we are all part of the same community and must treat and respect each other as such. I know that I have not done the best in that, and in ways had grown jaded toward open RPs but I'll be trying to put some out there and I'm excited to see where they go.

Somewhere along the way I think some of us forgot what we were even writing about, perhaps not even feeling inspired but responding just for the sake of responding. It may not be apparent but I am quite fond of character-driven narratives, and some of my most passionate works are when it's as if I'm not writing but relaying a story which is being told to me. There's sparks of inspiration there that are growing, and I hope to see the sorts of RPs which would see a bunch of people together, no pre-determined ending or in-between, just to see where things go. Let's not forget the first time I invited diplomats to Rokkenjima we saw an ambassador get assassinated and a General nearly openly indicate his willingness for a coup. I'm looking forward to that sort of open-ended, organic RP which made the Order a great region to role-play in.

As Bill and Ted said better than I ever could, we need to be excellent to each other, and where I haven't been excellent I apologize and promise to do better in the future. There should be no people here who are made to feel they're on the outside, and I will tirelessly to see that our community is one of full inclusion and embraces all the wonderful ideas out there in our minds. We're on the right track, we need to stay on it and never again take things for granted. Our community is special and we've all a part to play in maintaining it into the years which follow.

[Altona]

I think we're reaching a point where we are now just going over wordings and the odd little bit. I think we should perhaps start a clock on things. Its been 51 days since all this started. Should we maybe not consider doing something like say Sunday the thing gets put out in a referendum or something until say the Wednesday.

[Achkaerin]

Updated Text:

Forum Administrators - There are currently three forum administrators, Beatrice, CGJ and Achkaerin, their responsibilities are:
a) Maintaining and updating the forum
b) Addressing forum issues encountered by members of the forum.
c) Notifying the membership of the region of issues of concern administration wise.

The Chancellery - this comprises the Grand Chancellor, currently Beatrice and the Vice Chancellor, currently CGJ, their responsibilities are:
a) Ensuring the safety and stability of The Independent Order;
b) Conducting Nationstates inter regional diplomacy.
c) Appointing office holders where required;
d) Removing office holders where there exists reasonable grounds to do so:
e) Administering the official chatroom of the region, the NationStates region, and any other official off-forum locations;
f) Advising office holders where requested;
g) Maintaining and updating the Criminal Code and Discord Code of Conduct (with the consultation of the Lord Chief Justice).
h) Investigating complaints concerning the Lord Chief Justice.
i) Inducting (and removing when inactive) members of the Order of the Pen upon instruction of the Order.
 
The Roleplay Managers - There are three Roleplay Managers in simple terms this group generally manages the roleplay rules and assists new members they have the following responsibilities:
a) Welcoming newcomers in the region
b) Mentoring newcomers
c) Recruiting new members
d) Amending the Roleplay Rules, (all amendments require a unanimous vote and the consultation of the Roleplay Moderator and where needed the consultation of the cartographer)
e) Maintenance of a Roleplay Guide designed to assist and inform the players of the region of aspects of the Regional roleplay.

Roleplay Moderator -The Roleplay Moderator is the person responsible for ensuring the roleplay rules are followed they have the following responsibilities:
a) Welcoming newcomers in the region
b) Mentoring newcomers in the region
c) Recruiting new members
d) Managing NPCs
e) Enforcing the Roleplay rules
f) Settling disputes between players
g) Managing the RP canon
h) Taking measures in regards to players that are not complying with the Roleplay rules
i) Making realism rulings.
j) Creating and managing regular RP events (delegating where necessary)
k) Granting RP rewards (with consultation where necessary)

- Any decision to change a historic event in the RP Canon shall require a public consultation to take place, to ensure that players have the chance to raise awareness of issues.  A decision to remove a current event or current post from the RP Canon shall require an announcement on the forum with reasoning.

- Decisions regarding the actions of an NPC shall require the consultation of three players who may not necessarily be the roleplay managers, the Roleplay Moderator shall abide by the majority view. Consulted players are expected to act considerate of the NPC’s history, policies, relationships etc

- Decisions regarding the creation, enlarging, reducing, relocating and dissolving of NPC’s and other map decisions shall require consultation with the cartographer.

The Cartographer - the Cartographer is the person responsible for the RP world map they have the following responsibilities:
a) To maintain and update the RP Map (by removing inactive nations and adding new ones)
b) Making proposals in respect of the map to the Roleplay Manager or Roleplay Moderator

The Lord Chief Justice - The Lord Chief Justice is the person who ensures that the forum rules are being followed as well as other responsibilities in respect of accountability, they are responsible for:
a) Advising the Office Holders when asked;
b) Ensuring all Actions by office holders are made in compliance, and are themselves compliant with the Criminal Code and Roleplay Rules;
c) Investigating complaints originating outside the Regional Roleplay and determining a reasonable action.
d) Investigating where it is suspected that any member or institution of the government has acted in error, as defined by law;
e) Hearing appeals from players on matters regarding Regional Roleplay.
f) Enforcing the Criminal Code and Discord Code of Conduct.
g) Overseeing, by majority vote, the election of a new Grand Chancellor should it be required (Removal of the previous Grand Chancellor shall require reasonable grounds).

- Should the Lord Chief Justice determine that a body (office holder) has acted in error, they may issue an Order to remedy the matter.

Discord Mods - there are four Discord Mods they are responsible for:
a) Monitoring the regional discord
b) Enforcing the discord code of conduct.

- Those with Discord Moderation powers operate a three strike system, strike one is a first warning, strike two is a final warning, strike three is a mute. Continuing beyond strike three can see longer mutes, server kicks and server bans employed depending on the nature of the issue.

Order of the Pen - this is a non authority role, it is available to all players and is granted for Roleplay contribution, it is formally awarded by the Grand Chancellor on the instruction of existing members of this order.

Miscellaneous

- This document and the Criminal Code (2013) shall extend fully to all parts Independent Order, including the forum, NationStates region, official chatroom and any official off-forum locations. Additionally the Forum Terms of Service shall be considered part of this document, as defined by law;

- If any individual holding an office that requires a forum presence fails to log in to the forum for a period of fourteen days without posting a Leave of Absence they shall be deemed as having vacated their position. Vacancies, including those arising from resignation, shall be filled:
a) Where a deputy or vice exists, by said deputy or vice; or
b) Where no such deputy or vice exists, or if the deputy or vice has also gone inactive, by the usual procedures specified in this document.

- To remove an office holder for a violation of the forum rules shall require first the establishment that such a violation occurred, as per the procedures of this document, and then a confidence vote of the office holder lasting for two (2) days, the process is overseen by the Lord Chief Justice (or Grand Chancellor should the Lord Chief Justice be the subject of the matter). A confidence vote not concerning a forum rule violation may be held at any time and overseen by the same. No office holder who has been the subject of an unsuccessful confidence vote shall face another one for six months, without the leave of the Grand Chancellor (or Lord Chief Justice if the Grand Chancellor be the office holder).

- for the purposes of this document reasonable grounds to remove an office holder shall include but not limited to - violation of the criminal code, violation of the discord code of conduct or inactivity.

- Any member may submit a proposal to amend this document by posting of the proposal in the Conference Hall forum, the proposal shall be debated for no less than seven (7) days and be followed by a two (2) day vote.

As per Altona's above point, I'm going to suggest Beatrice present the final version of this in accordance with standing procedure on Friday meaning that provided the petition threshold for opposition (3 people) isn't met that this will become the Constitution on Tuesday.

[Achkaerin]

Superb.

However for the “- To remove an office holder shall require first the establishment of reasonable grounds for the removal and then a confidence vote of the office holder lasting for two (2) days, the process is overseen by the Lord Chief Justice (or Grand Chancellor should the Lord Chief Justice be the subject of the matter)” I see the first part as futile, “shall require first the establishment of reasonable grounds for the removal”, since or it concerns a position directly appointed by the Chancellor so therefore can address the issue rapidly; or it concerns directly the Chancellor, therefore process could be locked because that is open to interpretation meaning that for instance if a majority wished to change, it could not. Which is why I proposed that as per the text used to amend and update the text, to make it open and a decision of the majority of players.

If you wish to remove an office holder then you need reasonable grounds to do so and that means as defined under this. Equally "Loss of confidence" could be a ground, however we should not leave it open to the abuse of "remove this person because a player does not like a person who holds an office."

[Beatrice]

Updated Text:

As per Altona's above point, I'm going to suggest Beatrice present the final version of this in accordance with standing procedure on Friday meaning that provided the petition threshold for opposition (3 people) isn't met that this will become the Constitution on Tuesday.

It shall be so.

[Beatrice]

Once we have the new Constitution in place, and even leading up to its implementation, I hope we all rememer that all of us have a hand in the responsibility of healing and moving forward as a community. I will do all that I can to address the concerns of the community, rebuild links and trust with players who have felt ostracized, and do my best to encourage and engage with the stories which will be told once everyone is back to RPing full time. We've got 8 years behind us which, while blessing our region with a rich history and culture, we've also got work to ensure that new and future members of our region have the same opportunities that we, as older members, have had to leave their mark on this wonderful tapestry we share. Our stories, from vignettes to international events, all weave just a part of that tapestry. It is our common heritage and as I've said before we can't allow complacency or comfort to blind us to issues in the future. While we can all agree that recent times have not been pleasant I'm thankful that we're facing them, addressing them, and I can only hope that this work sees us grow closer and bring us all back onto the same page.

I'm confident, just as we've seen with the structural changes, that we're capable of solving that side of the equation, and I believe we're seeing promising signs there. Let's keep things moving in the right direction and keep these lines of communication fully open because, when we're talking to each other, the things we can get done I feel there is no limits to.

[Markus]

If you wish to remove an office holder then you need reasonable grounds to do so and that means as defined under this. Equally "Loss of confidence" could be a ground, however we should not leave it open to the abuse of "remove this person because a player does not like a person who holds an office."

Lack of confidence is reason enough. The current proposal creates the opportunity for abuse as the Chancellor can block the removal of the Chief Justice and vice versa.

So I propose a compromise. If an unsuccessful confidence vote for removal was held in the previous 3 ( or 6 months,how  people hwre think it is best) then shall require first the establishment of reasonable grounds for the removal. That way the office holders are not ar risk of being spammed with confidence votes every two weeks and the players have a way to express they dissatisfaction without needing the consent of those in power.

How does that sound?

[Achkaerin]

Lack of confidence is reason enough. The current proposal creates the opportunity for abuse as the Chancellor can block the removal of the Chief Justice and vice versa.

So I propose a compromise. If an unsuccessful confidence vote for removal was held in the previous 3 ( or 6 months,how  people hwre think it is best) then shall require first the establishment of reasonable grounds for the removal. That way the office holders are not ar risk of being spammed with confidence votes every two weeks and the players have a way to express they dissatisfaction without needing the consent of those in power.

How does that sound?

That defeats the point of reasonable grounds being required - when you call for the confidence vote it is fair that you identify the reason, if the reason is "Because they broke the criminal code." for example then it's reasonable, not to mention critical, to first determine that such a thing happened before any vote occurs. so I would suggest:

"To remove an office holder for a violation of the forum rules shall require first the establishment that such a violation occurred, as per the procedures of this document, and then a confidence vote of the office holder lasting for two (2) days, the process is overseen by the Lord Chief Justice (or Grand Chancellor should the Lord Chief Justice be the subject of the matter). A confidence vote not concerning a forum rule violation may be held at any time and overseen by the same. No office holder who has been the subject of an unsuccessful confidence vote shall face another one for six months, without the leave of the Grand Chancellor (or Lord Chief Justice if the Grand Chancellor be the office holder)."

[Markus]

That defeats the point of reasonable grounds being required - when you call for the confidence vote it is fair that you identify the reason, if the reason is "Because they broke the criminal code." for example then it's reasonable, not to mention critical, to first determine that such a thing happened before any vote occurs. so I would suggest:

"To remove an office holder for a violation of the forum rules shall require first the establishment that such a violation occurred, as per the procedures of this document, and then a confidence vote of the office holder lasting for two (2) days, the process is overseen by the Lord Chief Justice (or Grand Chancellor should the Lord Chief Justice be the subject of the matter). A confidence vote not concerning a forum rule violation may be held at any time and overseen by the same. No office holder who has been the subject of an unsuccessful confidence vote shall face another one for six months, without the leave of the Grand Chancellor (or Lord Chief Justice if the Grand Chancellor be the office holder)."

As far as I am concerned, that addresses all my concerns.  I am pleased with the proposed draft.

Thanks.