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

User avatar
stanisolt
Posts: 354
Joined: August 6th 2012, 11:23 pm
Nation: Amuria
Location: Russian Federative Empire

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

Post by stanisolt » March 24th 2018, 2:28 am

It has been evident for some time now that a loud majority of members, including myself, have been calling for a summit to determine necessary reforms in the Alliance. Seeing as there has passed nearly a month since the conclusion of the past election, I have chosen to take the first step and initiate this summit.

The most thorough and organized medium for this summit is to use a method of proposal and passage. That is, I will compound a list of desired reforms and turn out a bill proposal to the AIN Senate, allowing for every topic to be discussed separately and be passed separately. Once that bill matures (when the bill reaches a set number of votes, which will be determined), I will propose the next reform bill.

I have so far created a list of reforms to be organized into separate bills. They are not strictly my ideas, and every single one, I have seen, has been a point of contention by at least one member, either publicly or privately. Insofar as credit goes, all members have expressed desire for a reformation of any part of AIN, so I claim no more credit than merely initiating the summit. All other credit belongs to members of the Alliance of Independent Nations.

This list as presented will be the order in which the reformation bills will churn out. Any edits will be applied to the list directly. With regards to the final item on the list, I plan there to be a discussion of the purpose of AIN. This will include topics such as whether AIN functions as a political bloc, a forum for diplomatic relations, or anything else. I also intend there to be a discussion on possibly moving to a fictional planet, alternative history scenario, or anything else. The bill will be introduced once there is a consensus on the matter. It is possible the bill will not come to fruition if the members settle on the status quo.

As such, this list is open to any additional topic ideas that are unrelated to the items on the list I have compiled. This summit is, first and foremost, meant to be a union-wide event. I hope that all current members have a say in proposed reforms. In the end, it is we who can change what kind of community we wish to be a part of.

That being said, I am open to all ideas with regards to how to proceed with the summit.
Last edited by stanisolt on July 17th 2018, 11:43 pm, edited 6 times in total.
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy
User avatar
Michael
President of the Alliance
President of the Alliance
Posts: 960
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

Post by Michael » March 24th 2018, 1:41 pm

Thank you, Stan, for creating this thread. I do believe that there needs to be some changes made to the Alliance, and so I am very willing for our members to discuss it here.

May I suggest each proposal for reform has its own topic thread (in the sub-forum I've made for you) so each reform can be discussed before being presented as an individual bill in the Senate, similar to the passage of the Charter a few months ago. On that topic, looking at your list, most of them will need some sort of amendment made to the Charter, so I am more than happy to provide help in writing those, as I did with your HM proposal a while back. Hopefully, that way, the bills can be kept short, sweet and to the point. :)

On the specifics of your proposals:
  • Side nations were slightly reformed with the Charter, reinforcing that members are allowed two, fully-participating nations. I think a second nation could be left optional, and shouldn't be bound by rules as to its location, wealth, or difference to the member's other nation. I am interested to hear what you (and other members) would wish to change about SNs.
  • I think the current application process and system works very well, but I do support dropping the city-building image requirement, and making it optional. Although, if that is the case, the alternative option for the user must be some form of RL images.
  • I know Honorary membership has been long debated, and reform was attempted a couple of months back. It is imperative, in my opinion, that we respect the work of old and prominent members, however, I am aware that they do take up space on the map, potentially limiting new members. In my view, honorary members must have their nation forums preserved and preferably have their position on the main Alliance Map also kept. The new map does differentiate between them and other nations, so I am interested to hear your thoughts on this, and whether the proposals would be the same or different to a few months ago.
  • I am currently planning to submit a quick amendment to the Charter, establishing the ABU as a sub-agency, as per the Summit discussions a few weeks ago. As for the current Alliance structure, I think it works very well, with a broad range of sub-agencies and agencies, covering a long list of activities. I'd love to hear what other ones people can think of. As for the Executive Council (I presume you are referencing to that, as there is no Executive Committee :P ) I again think it works well - it does the job it needs to do, and thus no change is needed here. What are your thoughts on reform here?
  • The elections in February worked well, were handled efficiently and provided a clear outcome. I don't see what needs to be changed about them. On the schedule, a year is the right term limit. 6-monthly elections were abandoned a while back, partly due to low activity, and now the election cycle is set in the Charter as annually, in February.
  • 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 :lol:
► Show Spoiler
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: 354
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

Post by stanisolt » March 24th 2018, 2:11 pm

Thank you, Michael. I have taken into account your input. As this is a membership initiative, I would prefer to see it kept that way. :) I also strongly believe that the method in which the Charter reform was done was very poorly implemented as it didn’t allow for any focus on one particular topic, instead allowing for multiple changes to be discussed simultaneously. That was very messy and and several members have complained about that. I don’t want the same mistake to be done here. Discussion will not be held concurrently and will be held on the thread with the bill proposal for simplicity. I believe that to be the best procedure for this.

Additionally, the reforms you are expressing doubt about, namely about the Honorary Membership system and the election system, are nevertheless subjects that I have discussed with multiple members in the past. While you have no issue with them, members do and so it is worth bringing it forward to discussion.

Also, I did mean the Executive Council, not the Executive Committee.
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy
User avatar
ulisse
Director of Infrastructure
Director of Infrastructure
Posts: 781
Joined: April 23rd 2015, 5:26 pm
Nation: Siculia
Location: Italy
Contact:

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

Post by ulisse » March 24th 2018, 2:24 pm

Here's my answer:

1 The sub-nations must remain optional. I think the current secondary nations are used to give some sap to the abandoned roleplay given by the poor participation.

2 The application system is already perfect. I am in favour of making the images in game optional.

3 For honorary members we must see well and discuss. I think these nations occupy space for new members and restrict roleplay, but we must preserve them so as not to "throw in the toilet" beautiful works.

4 A reform to the Executive Council must be made, but for the moment the structure of Ain is fine and works.

5 The election system is fine. In six months you can not achieve much. A year at the government is okay

6 If we are to make an imaginary world we must work a lot. I think we can leave things as they are.

Also I think we have to face a review in the schemes of roleplay and other parameters. There are other points that we have to address (such as the marketing and simtropolis issue), but they can be secondary problems.

I am already confident that this summit brings good things for the alliance
Member State Since 10th December 2015 Director of Public Services From March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018 - Director of Culture Since March 1, 2018 - Director of Infrastructure Since 1, 2018
User avatar
Michael
President of the Alliance
President of the Alliance
Posts: 960
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

Post by Michael » March 24th 2018, 2:30 pm

Of course Stan, this is a membership initiative. I was just airing my personal thoughts on the proposals raised.

Ulisee has made some great points, and I do agree, 6 months is not long enough for a Governmental term.
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: 354
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

Post by stanisolt » March 24th 2018, 2:44 pm

In fact, the main concerns about the election procedure have nothing to do with term lengths. They are functioning well and require no change. Concern has been shown over the tradition of the Executive Council’s influence over the elections, namely the nomination process. In a group of 20-30 active members that know each other rather well, it is easily perceived as a bias and/ a sign of preference over other members. This, in my view and the views of other members, has been likened to an aristocratic governance style and places members running in elections at a disadvantage if they are not nominated. I have heard this issue being raised even well before the election even began.
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy
User avatar
Michael
President of the Alliance
President of the Alliance
Posts: 960
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

Post by Michael » March 24th 2018, 2:57 pm

stanisolt wrote:Concern has been shown over the tradition of the Executive Council’s influence over the elections, namely the nomination process. In a group of 20-30 active members that know each other rather well, it is easily perceived as a bias and/ a sign of preference over other members. This, in my view and the views of other members, has been likened to an aristocratic governance style and places members running in elections at a disadvantage if they are not nominated. I have heard this issue being raised even well before the election even began.
Anyone can be nominated by anyone - it is not a privilege restricted to a President or EC member. If a President is stepping down (as Charlie did), it is customary to nominate someone to run as a candidate. It is equally customary for any member to endorse another.
I do see your reasoning, so would you propose banning endorsements and nominations altogether?
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
ulisse
Director of Infrastructure
Director of Infrastructure
Posts: 781
Joined: April 23rd 2015, 5:26 pm
Nation: Siculia
Location: Italy
Contact:

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

Post by ulisse » March 24th 2018, 3:02 pm

Michael wrote:
stanisolt wrote:Concern has been shown over the tradition of the Executive Council’s influence over the elections, namely the nomination process. In a group of 20-30 active members that know each other rather well, it is easily perceived as a bias and/ a sign of preference over other members. This, in my view and the views of other members, has been likened to an aristocratic governance style and places members running in elections at a disadvantage if they are not nominated. I have heard this issue being raised even well before the election even began.
Anyone can be nominated by anyone - it is not a privilege restricted to a President or EC member. If a President is stepping down (as Charlie did), it is customary to nominate someone to run as a candidate. It is equally customary for any member to endorse another.
I do see your reasoning, so would you propose banning endorsements and nominations altogether?

The appointment process must be absolutely revised. Could create some bias.....
Member State Since 10th December 2015 Director of Public Services From March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018 - Director of Culture Since March 1, 2018 - Director of Infrastructure Since 1, 2018
User avatar
Jost Van Kortag
Posts: 167
Joined: April 23rd 2016, 11:30 pm
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

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

Post by Jost Van Kortag » March 24th 2018, 6:13 pm

I'm pretty happy that finally this Summit is taking place. Now, long story short:

1) Reformation of the policy on side, or secondary, nations
In my opinion, we should keep things as they already are except for a rule that could be added. Referring to what I love to call the "Charlie-Dryan model", I'd like to introduce an obligation making so that any eventual side nation should be opposite to the main one in terms of dimensions, economy and stability. Great examples are New Duveland (big and wealthy) and Zambezi (small and poor), or Nakama (big and wealthy) and Karasem (small and poor).

2) Reformation of the application system, including the city-builder picture requirement
This for what concerns me is the main point of this summit. City-builder pictures can be really a pain to deal with for many potential new members; when I applied, I had to buy a game that I don't even like, download mods (and many of you know how much I struggled for and with them), created pics who do not resemble at all what I had in mind and it took me a year to finally be admitted. During this year, I spoke about AIN with two friends of mine who initially were pretty interested in joining as well... Until they discovered that they had to buy a game, download mods and struggle to create pics who never in the world would have looked like the cities they had in mind.
Making city-builder pics optional in my opinion would finally remove this enormous block preventing potentially good members to join us.
We are struggling to make AIN much more realistic than before, meaning that our main focus is not city-building anymore; realism requires most of all knowledges in history, politics, economics and geography, matters that have become our new focuses by now, making city-building skills merely optional. So why force new members to deal with something that even for us has become optional and secondarily important?

I totally agree on introducing the possibility to show other kinds of pics in the application and to keep compulsory the presence of a graphic image of the applying nation; if the applicant doesn't have particular skills in drawing or designing, then real life pics could fit as well.

3) Reformation of the Honorary Member system
For what concerns this issue, I agree with Stan's past proposal to move Honorary members on another map, in order to free some space for eventual new applications. Not much more to say about this, it looks pretty obvious and immediate to me...

4) Reformation of the function and purpose of the various agencies of the AIN government, including the Executive Committee
I'll leave the discussion about this to whoever wants to provide a good solution I'd be glad to approve.

5) Reformation of the election process
The election process isn't that much flawed for what I could see, although I honestly share Stan's concerns about perhaps the figures of the President and Vice-President. In my opinion, if we keep these charges we should then role-play them, so every candidate should personify a candidate sent by his own country(es) and the General Assembly should vote which one suits better to represent AIN. Otherwise, if it is a global technical moderator what we are looking for, then let's just call him that way and give hime no more, nor less importance and powers than the ones allowed by this role...

6) Reformation of the nature of AIN itself, in terms of roleplaying in particular.
Although I'd be extremely favorable to the creation of a new fictional world, I must recognize that it would be incredibly difficult to create one out of basically nothing. We might try, perhaps as a side project while we keep our activities in AIN as they are until we feel ready to switch to the other planet... If you agree, I can start dropping down some ideas, after all I love creating fictional lands lol...
User avatar
Billy
Posts: 374
Joined: March 29th 2016, 7:41 am
Nation: Jarraban

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

Post by Billy » March 25th 2018, 8:31 am

1. I like the idea of side nations being "opposite" to main ones, as it would ensure power/dominance (for lack of a better word) is distributed relatively equally throughout the Alliance. The thought of individual members having two large nations is a little concerning in this regard, and I'd support taking steps to try and prevent it.

2. CJ images should remain a requirement IMO. City-building is fundamental to this union and we need members who are committed to all aspects of their nation and the Alliance. Relaxing the requirements merely opens the door for potential members whose applications might be half-hearted, lacking in detail and full of holes. In saying that, I think the current minimum of 10 is probably too high - even 3-4 high quality pics would suffice. Don't think they're really necessary at all for side nations either.

3. Honorary status should be determined by an AIN-wide vote, similar to how new nations are voted in. "Three significant contributions" is too arbitrary for me and potentially excludes members who may have put considerable detail and effort into nation-building, roleplay and CJ pics. Anthony is a good example.

4. Executive Council could do with some reform. Think this requires another brainstorm in itself. Otherwise, the agency and sub-agency structure works well in its present format.

5. Agree with Stan's point about Executive Council influence over elections, and not sure its arms are as independent as they could be. Difficult to think how this might be improved as members tend to take sides in debates/discussions. As for terms, 12 months is fine - shorter and those in leadership positions couldn't achieve much, longer and things start becoming aristocratic.

6. I had a big discussion with Kendall about this not long ago (was in a thread somewhere, can't remember which). One of my concerns is that moving too heavily towards one aspect of the Alliance, whether it be roleplay, nation-building or CJ stuff, is likely to alienate members. Also refer back to my second point regarding how nations require detail, effort and attention on all fronts to work well. Would additionally like to see much less politicking and agendas as they have caused division of late.


As for moving to fictional planets, realms or realities, this is massive no from myself and 90% of members. Most have gone to great lengths to build their nations, and histories, politics, etc. would be drastically altered in other realities/locations. I wouldn't want to alter my nation and bet nearly everyone else is in the same position.
Jarrabanian Commonwealth
Wiki | Forums | Media
User avatar
Gregor
Posts: 1381
Joined: December 25th 2011, 2:30 pm
Nation: Oka
Location: Lausanne
Contact:

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

Post by Gregor » March 25th 2018, 9:56 am

Reformation of the policy on side, or secondary, nations

-l agee with the points federico advanced.

-There is a reason why they are "side" nations, and both their size and economy should show it.

-I think having a side nation should first and foremost allow for RP our main nations couldn't do

Reformation of the application system, including the city-builder picture requirement

-I'll always support the conservation of city building images, it's always been important to visualise this nation, and a nation in ASia let's say with a city using a picture from tokyo for example seems very lame and lazy indeed

-Though I understand that some members don't like the City Building aspect, and I realise the alliance goes further than that, I don't wish to compromise on creativity, and thus would support that own content is absolutely necessary, lest it be drawing, photoshop, collage, 3D etc

Reformation of the Honorary Member system

-An own forum, archive - remove them from the map but keep their memory on the forum

Reformation of the function and purpose of the various agencies of the AIN government, including the Executive Committee

-It seems fine for me in it's current form, maybe it's a good idea to use national representatives and RP rather than us posting as members, like Ulisse isnt director of XX, but Giorgio Colucci from Siculia

-Reformation of the election process

/

Reformation of the nature of AIN itself, in terms of roleplaying in particular.

-The nature shouldn't change much I believe, it's always been an ambivalent union between the RP side and City Building side. An only RP union would alienate many of us and is the union we are I believe

-A new planet shouldn't be necessary, but the exclusion zone map seems harsh, should a great nation appears in one of these zones, a compromise should be found, it's a bit hypocritical that we snatch these areas and block them.
_____________

Image
Oka City AIN Cultural Capital 2018
User avatar
Nanami
Posts: 1054
Joined: December 28th 2011, 1:32 pm
Nation: Nakama & Karasem
Location: Miyauchi, Nakama
Contact:

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

Post by Nanami » March 25th 2018, 11:46 am

Well said initiation stan, we might need to discuss this. :D

Reformation of the policy on side, or secondary, nations
as one of the member with secondary nation, I would say that secondary nation will work as "alter ego" of that member. What I mean basically similar like what people before me said, both nation should pretty much different each other, not very close each other and in different development stage. I had to say Nakama and Karasem not really an ideal example since Karasem not necessary to be small, I would like refer to ND-Zambezi instea. but hey as an example of Karasem, it would be an interesting nation to roleplay with as there are a lot of possible interaction to do for example is about investment, trading and maybe something to do with its demographic (currently Karasem is the only member in AIN with majority muslim population).

In other hand if a member intend to apply a new nation as a second nation but it has larger economy etc than their current one, I think it pretty much the new nation will work as his/her main nation instead consider how this concept works. So yeah I won't against any member to propose something larger than their current nation AS LONG AS their second one not a "copy" of first one, not in the same region, make sense (as it realistic enough) and some other aspect that might already mentioned by members before me.

Reformation of the application system, including the city-builder picture requirement
I would agree with how greg think in the possible future aplication works. Members should not be limited their pictures to be in game city builders, it could also be done by using 3d programs, cad or maybe even some edited map from certain games (example far cry 3 with its map editor possible to create an unique image).

Reformation of the Honorary Member system
for me, just let them in the map but just consider them in different universe (not in the current official map).

As a second possible option, I think their geography aspect could change to suit the situation (example make it more realistic) but we should maintain the main aspect intact.

Reformation of the function and purpose of the various agencies of the AIN government, including the Executive Committee
I don't have much word to say tbh. current one is fine for me but yeah it might need more improvement.

Reformation of the election process
Current 1 year election loop is working I think.

Reformation of the nature of AIN itself, in terms of roleplaying in particular.
While I'm being the one who thinking about alternate history and different world method, I would say either method might drastically changes a member nation. As a simple example is that if world war 1 works differently, members from europe may have really different aspects. Although I have to say that it still possible to actually "direct" the alternate history for a nation to make it matched with current condition in that different universe.

Forward the alternate history model, we can say that current AIN as the UN of alternate history present day and it might also contains NPCs of nations that on that timeline. we need to think how we do with NPC.

Another possible model is to create our own planet. but this already proven to be very hard and not really practical (consider how USNW work before it fall back in 2014). mostly is about the amount of works we need to do to create it and yeah fit our current nation into it.

Aside from the point above, I would like to propose the Joint NPC system for roleplaying purpose. the Joint NPC system is a nation that create by more than one member just to work as an "object" of certain roleplaying. as for example is that we create a troubled failed state in middle eastern by several members and then those members may roleplay there like interfering in the conflicts etc. Just make sure that the NPC not counted owned by one member instead by several members and they don't roleplay as it. Any decision done by that NPC country would be a concluded by discussion of members.

Another possible stuff that I've been thinking is that we make an alternate timeline of current history with the point of divergence is very recently (for example the recent east asia crisis turned into war etc) but we keep them as an independent timeline and we may continue forward the roleplay in our current world timeline. It would be for sake of roleplay.

+--------------+
oh well thats a wall of text lol..
Meriah 2019 - Spirit of AIN Serika 2019 - Discover the Future
Image
User avatar
JellyStar285
Posts: 123
Joined: August 6th 2016, 3:02 pm
Nation: Deimenovinas
Location: Detroit
Contact:

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

Post by JellyStar285 » March 28th 2018, 11:58 pm

I'm really glad that this thread was opened, as it allows the members to show their views on ideas that AIN faces at the current moment. Hopefully the changes that the members want come to be for the benefit of everyone.

With the proposals that you want opinions on,
  • With side nations, I think that the way it works at the moment is just fine and doesn't really need to be modified, as the second charter cleared it up well.
  • The city-builder picture requirement should be loosened a bit. Like Billy said, 3-4 pictures should be enough as we are a city building union (kinda).
  • I could go on and on about the Honorary Member system. To make a long story short, I hate the way it works right now. It needs a whole lot of change, as it appears that it hasn't since we got the new website. I think that Honorary members should be voted in by members like when a nation is accepted in the Alliance. They should have their own little sub-forum in order to honor them, but they need their own little map showing where they are. This opens up space for new nations as I personally think that nations who haven't spoken in 3 years shouldn't be prevent new nations. Its good to honor great members, but we need to do it at a better place, at a better time. It appears that most members also agree with moving them to their own map.
  • Regarding the various agencies of AIN, I don't have anything to say.
  • The election process seems fine at the moment, but hopefully more people try to go for higher positions like president (wink wink I'm gonna try to be the youngest president of AIN at 14 years and 1 month :) ).
  • Ain needs a bit of a boost when it comes to roleplay. I love things like the Warship capture that Illium did a while ago or the Riyadh Nuclear Crisis. I want us to do more cool and interesting things.
Hopefully I did my part...
"The drawing board is the only thing I can go back to". —Malovia
User avatar
stanisolt
Posts: 354
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

Post by stanisolt » March 29th 2018, 12:24 am

Thank you everyone for your input! I'll be posting the first series of reformations into the Senate on Friday (a full week after posting the initiation). The thread will become the area of discussion, as well. Once we get enough people agreeing to move it to voting, I'll request that the reform go into voting. :)
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoyevskyy
User avatar
JellyStar285
Posts: 123
Joined: August 6th 2016, 3:02 pm
Nation: Deimenovinas
Location: Detroit
Contact:

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

Post by JellyStar285 » March 29th 2018, 1:34 am

stanisolt wrote:Thank you everyone for your input! I'll be posting the first series of reformations into the Senate on Friday (a full week after posting the initiation). The thread will become the area of discussion, as well. Once we get enough people agreeing to move it to voting, I'll request that the reform go into voting. :)
Sounds like a plan! :clap:
"The drawing board is the only thing I can go back to". —Malovia
Post Reply

Return to “The Future of the Alliance”