(Discussion) New Constitution

First Draft:

Article I

The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of democracy, the rule of law and individual sovereignty while being an organisation that pools its sovereignty for the good of all nations in the region. All sovereign member states of the World Alliance are subject to its laws as enacted by the General Assembly and enforced by the Court of Justice. The World Alliance shall maintain peace, security and stability within the region.

Article II Member State rights

The World Alliance shall respect the inherent rights of each member state, which include, but not limited to, the following: right to exist, right to self defense, right to free association, right to express opinion, right to self-determination, right to due process and a fair trial, right to participate in the World Alliance General Assembly, right to enter into treaties and agreements, and right to excise sovereignty and independence.

Article III General Assembly


The General Assembly is made up of the all nations in the World Alliance that register on the forum, but no one may register more than one nation. Puppet nations are not members of the General Assembly.


The role of the General Assembly is to pass proposals into resolutions that are binding on all member nations of the World Alliance region. Proposals are passed into resolutions (and World Alliance law) after a three day voting period by a simple majority. The Secretary General may cast an addition casting vote in the event of a tie.


Article IV The General Secretary


The General Secretary shall be elected every three months by the members of the General Assembly. Vacancies shall be elected in the same manner and hold office for the remainder of the term.


The General Secretary is chair of both the General Assembly and the Security Council and is responsible for managing the procedures of those bodies.


The General Secretary shall appoint the Minister of Offence (subject to ratification by the General Assembly) who is a member of the Security Council.


In the absence of the General Secretary the General Assembly may elect one of their number to temporary act as General Secretary – be Acting General Secretary.


The General Assembly may impeach the General Secretary for acting outside their authority or if they have been inactive for more than 4 days without stating for how long they intended to be away from the forum. Impeachment needs a two-thirds majority to pass.


Article V The Founder


The Founder nation if active shall be a member of the Security Council.


The Founder has the right to eject/ban anyone from the region that he feels presents a threat to it without having to clear it with anyone prior.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the RMB
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Court of Justice.


The Founder may also restrict the delegate controls if necessary and post the reason why on the forum.

Article VI The World Assembly Delegate

The World Assembly Delegate is elected by the members of the World Assembly in the region and is a member of the Security Council and their main responsibility is to manage the regions position in World Assembly affairs.

The World Assembly Delegate may also have the right to eject/ban anyone from the region (when the WA Delegate controls are on) that that he feels presents a threat to it without having to clear it with anyone prior.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the RMB
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Court of Justice.

Article VII Admins and Moderators

There shall be Admins to administer the Forum.
Admins may take any appropriate actions against anyone that they believe presents a threat to the forum or the constitution.
1. The reason for the action shall be stated on the forum
2. Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may request a trial regarding their actions.
3. If a trial is requested evidence shall be provided in the World Alliance Court of Justice.

Admin power may be given to members of the Security Council to aid them in their role.

Moderator power shall be given to members of the forum to aid the functioning of the forum.

There should always be at least two Admins. New Admins shall be appointed with the approval of a majority of the Admin Team. Admins may be removed either by a majority vote of the Admin Team or both a simple majority of the Security Council and a simple majority the General Assembly.

The Admins shall elect a Head Admin who shall be a member of the Security Council.

Article VIII The Security Council

The Security Council shall consist of:
The General Secretary
The Founder
The World Assembly Delegate
The Head Admin
Minister of Offence who is responsible for all military missions conducted outside of the World Alliance.
Minister of Home Affairs, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for the granting and denying of citizenship, retention of members, the conduct of elections (should appoint an impartial Returning Officer to run elections).
Minister of Foreign Affairs, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for the granting of diplomatic rights on the forum and issuing of embassies, the appointment of ambassadors to other regions with forums, the issuing of updates to post in foreign forums.
Minister of Culture, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for managing cultural and historical institutions and events and the developing of things of interest for members of the forum.
Minister for Role Play, elected by the General Assembly every three months (vacancies shall be filled after a by-election for the remainder of the term), is responsible for managing all aspects of role play.

The Secretary General may carry out the duties of any minister if the minister fails to do so.

A person may hold more than one position but in any Security Council votes they only have one vote accept the Secretary General who as an additional casting vote in the event of a tie.

The Security Council should discuss and agree the actions of its members with regard to policy and regulations and these should be held in public on the forum.

Article IX The Court of Justice

The Court of Justice is the sole judiciary and law interpreter of the World Alliance composed of three members elected by the General Assembly, They serve until removed or they resign. They cannot also be members of the Security Council. From amongst themselves they shall elect a Chief Justice.

Two members of the General Assembly can move a motion for dismissal of any individual judge including the Chief Justice and if at least 25% of the members of the General Assembly or 10 members whichever is the least vote then with a simple majority the named member of the Court of Justice is removed and a new election shall take place, in which the person just dismissed may not stand, but they can stand in future Court of Justice elections.

Any member of the General Assembly, including members of the Court themselves, can bring an issue before the Court of Justice.

In the event of a shortage of competent and capable Justices or in response to an event otherwise deemed necessary by the Chief Justice, the Court of Justice may appoint as temporary members citizens or citizens of friendly regions, to hear particular cases, if deemed to be competent and capable by the Chief Justice.

Players if found guilty in a court case may have their forum rights restricted or be banned from the forum and can be banned and ejected from the region by the Court of Justice as part of the sentence for a specified time or unlimited in the case of banning.

Assembly Members, the General Secretary, Admins, Ministers and Justices if found guilty in a court case may be removed from office by the Court of Justice as part of the sentence for a specified time.

The Founder and Root Admins if found guilty in a court case may be requested not to use some or all of their powers by the Court of Justice as part of the sentence for a specified time. Failure to comply will be taken very seriously.

Article X Constitutional Revisions

Each proposal to amend or replace the constitution shall undergo a constitutional convention for at least one week, which shall be administered by the Secretary General where discussion of the proposal and changes to it shall be discussed. After this time the caller of the constitutional convention shall state when they wish their proposal (original or changed) to be put before the General Assembly to vote on. The proposal needs a three-quarter majority to pass.

I assume that the Security Council will make the laws so that could replace “General Assembly” in Article I. The “Court of Justice” could be replaced with whatever the new system will be.

However the purpose of this draft is to replace the interim arrangements with something that the members of the forum have agreed to, not to leave areas open to future agreement.

Article II Member State rights – you seem to be speaking of member rights within the association. However something needs to be said about their rights to speak (without their posts being deleted) and their right to a fair hearing if accused of something.

We have a language problem here. Admin rights are not just being a Moderator of the whole forum, they have extra rights with regard to accounts and we need to agree that you will appoint at least one other person to have these Admin rights. I have no problem with a residency requirement, but I am not sure about the length of time. Why not 60 days?

Lack of Court of Justice

I think this is a bad idea. I can work on some wording but would like members of the new Security Council to have a meaningful debate on the issue.

Great Eurussia wrote:
As I have told you, a judiciary should never be absent in a democratic society. However, it must complement the new format of regional government. Because we have witnessed how lackluster the previous Courts have been and how it can be easily abused. Therefore we wish to have a complete checks and balances.

Xolox wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:
As I have told you, a judiciary should never be absent in a democratic society. However, it must complement the new format of regional government. Because we have witnessed how lackluster the previous Courts have been and how it can be easily abused. Therefore we wish to have a complete checks and balances.

You proposed that the security council be both the executive and legislative body. Why not judicial as well? We could just combine them all into one. We could treat court cases like passages of law, require 3/4ths vote to declare some innocent or guilty.

Great Eurussia wrote:

We have a language problem here. Admin rights are not just being a Moderator of the whole forum, they have extra rights with regard to accounts and we need to agree that you will appoint at least one other person to have these Admin rights. I have no problem with a residency requirement, but I am not sure about the length of time. Why not 60 days?

Why? What are the criteria? And knowing that you are new to the region, why insist too much on this? Besides, we do not have any problems regarding whoever controls the Forums and by default it is the Founder of the region who should have the complete authority on the Forums. And for the interest of the region, he should enjoy the right to choose whom he believe to have the credibility to grant the admin rights on the Forums you are talking about. We do not want to have a scenario where there are lots of moderators just to suit your demands of having someone be given the same moderator powers like the Founder and one day we all wake up the history of the World Alliance is deleted forever on the Forums.

Great Eurussia wrote:

Xolox wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:
As I have told you, a judiciary should never be absent in a democratic society. However, it must complement the new format of regional government. Because we have witnessed how lackluster the previous Courts have been and how it can be easily abused. Therefore we wish to have a complete checks and balances.

You proposed that the security council be both the executive and legislative body. Why not judicial as well? We could just combine them all into one. We could treat court cases like passages of law, require 3/4ths vote to declare some innocent or guilty.

Great idea! However, to make it more impartial and fair, I suggest that for example, Nation A charges Nation B of any violations before the Security Council, the President himself nor any member of the council (if willing) will take charge first of getting the facts where all parties will be heard their evidences and proofs and that one in-charge will recommend to the Council of the proper punishments which the Council will then decide to make verdict via 75% approval of all member states.

But if the one charged for a case is a member of the Council, that nation cannot be in charge of handling the case and will not be allowed to vote on the recommendation of the verdict.

What do you think?

South Macwick wrote:I am not happy about voting rights. We talk about being a democratic region but restrict the voting for Security Council members to those people who have land on the role play map, restrict voting for the President to those people who are registered on the forum and restrict voting for the Vice President to those who have nations in the NS World Assembly. Do we need to remove our commitment to democracy or qualify it in some way?

South Macwick wrote:I have included a section called “Article VIII Judicial Procedure”, which hopefully will ensure that the judicial procedure will not be held up by low levels of activity. I have changed the procedure for amending the constitution and put in writing an idea for the transitory provisions.

There are no ministers such as minister of recruitment and no method to appoint them. Do we what something about ministers?

I have no problem with the Founder being both the Root Admin of the forum and it being his decision alone who he appoints as Joint Admin. The Founder and forum Admin have to be able to be held to account and without an alternative forum Admin the Founder cannot be told to not carry out admin tasks as a punishment. I think Moderators have the power to delete posts so this could happen anyway. That is why it is important that the right people are made moderators and admins. I am saying there should be at least two people who have Admin rights not loads of people, just at least two.

Not having a separate judiciary doesn’t work in real life, which is why they are separate, but that of course does not mean it can’t work in NS. Why isn’t a simple majority good enough for a verdict? It is in real life.

South Macwick wrote:I note that I’ll have to do a third draft as I have the number of elected members of the Security Council wrong, according to the regions Factbook Entry there are 13.

I note that Xolox likes the second draft, but Eurussia wants the Judicial Procedure at least reduced so it can be set and changed more easily by the passing of a law. I would be interested in the views of other members of the Security Council.

It appears that Eurussia want the Security Council to be able to appoint ministers and this is not an issue for me. Do we want it to be able to appoint any forum member or do we want it to allocate minister responsibilities only to existing members of the Security Council?

We still need to address the problem of “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of democracy” because it does not. How about “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of a representative type of government”. The constitution sets out which groups of people elected which representatives in the Security Council. With the removal of the reference to democracy there might be a reluctance of those in disagreement with the way things are being done to rebel rouse with an appeal to democracy over the rule of law as happened in the recent past.

In Article VI there are some question marks over whether the Founder should get a permanent seat on the Security Council. Please can people express their opinions?

Xolox wrote:

South Macwick wrote:I note that I’ll have to do a third draft as I have the number of elected members of the Security Council wrong, according to the regions Factbook Entry there are 13.

I note that Xolox likes the second draft, but Eurussia wants the Judicial Procedure at least reduced so it can be set and changed more easily by the passing of a law. I would be interested in the views of other members of the Security Council.

It appears that Eurussia want the Security Council to be able to appoint ministers and this is not an issue for me. Do we want it to be able to appoint any forum member or do we want it to allocate minister responsibilities only to existing members of the Security Council?

We still need to address the problem of “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of democracy” because it does not. How about “The region of World Alliance upholds the tenants of a representative type of government”. The constitution sets out which groups of people elected which representatives in the Security Council. With the removal of the reference to democracy there might be a reluctance of those in disagreement with the way things are being done to rebel rouse with an appeal to democracy over the rule of law as happened in the recent past.

In Article VI there are some question marks over whether the Founder should get a permanent seat on the Security Council. Please can people express their opinions?

I think the founder should have a permanent seat on the security council, but not necessarily at the head.

South Macwick wrote:I have no problem with the Founder having a permanent seat on the Security Council and can change the numbers accordingly. I do not understand how this can be done without reference to the Founder nation. I am happy to change all references to the “Founder” to the “Founder nation”.

I oppose the idea that any one person should have a veto on what the Security Council passes, especially someone not elected. If Eurussia believes something is not good for the region he should have to argue his case like anyone else, not dictate to the region. As I have said the Founder and the Root Admin must be accountable to the wider membership.

The WA Delegate is the Vice President and is on the Security Council.

Great Eurussia wrote:I agree on that, "Founding Nation" rather than Founder having permanent seat in the council just like the WA Delegate. Although I oppose your notion that just because the Founder is not elected, it shall not have veto powers. Going directly to the point, the Founder will always want the best for 'his region' and thus, just like before, this veto power ensures that just in case a coalition of nations (puppets if not yet discovered) undermines the Council and use it to pass laws that could endanger the region of the Founder, at the very least, that veto power can come in to use. Just like before, there is no worry since it can be regulated by law anyways.

South Macwick wrote:The problem seems to be that you wish to use the word “veto” and I clearly do not, but I think we agree that the Founder Nation has a role in protecting the region and this is included in the draft constitution as is the way the Founder Nation is held accountable for their actions. The Security Council is the sovereign body of the region and its decisions are final and no one should have the power to veto their decisions. The Founder Nation is one voice among many and it has to be assumed that everyone wants what is best for the region and that we believe that open debate and democracy are the ways to achieve this and bring everyone along.

If the Security Council is controlled by puppets then each puppets status would need to be decided in the “courts”. The draft constitution excludes people with an interest being involved in the court case and so it should be possible for the Founder Nation to take action and then go to court to prove that the action was legitimate and the recent law passed by the Security Council was not valid because of the proven irregularities. And this does not involve the Founder Nation having a veto.

South Macwick wrote:Please can other nations post their views of a Founder Nations’ veto and if we need one considering the powers they have set out in Article VI?