Blog of Admin
Dec 28, 2009 - 18:38
Response to Change Request 22/2009 - Presidential Tickets
Change Request 22/2009
Submission Date: Dec 16, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request:
Presidential Tickets
Whereas there remains no clear line of succession for the presidency should the president resign, be removed, or for any reason be unavailable for an extended period of time, the following is proposed:
1. Each presidential nominee will name a vice-presidential running mate.
2. The names of the vice-presidential running mates will be added to the presidential election ballot prior to the start of voting, and will appear immediately after and on the same line as the names of the presidential candidate with whom they are running.
The enactment of this proposition will make the vice president an elected position.
Administrator's Response:
Accepted.
However, the technical implementation of displaying the name of the running mate on the ballot will be developed later.
In the mean time, the following rule will be applied:
As specified by Change Request 16/2009 on the succession of the president, the succession line will be based on the officials list. To ensure that the running mates can be considered elected officials, all presidential candidates must specify their running mate in the candidates debate topic BEFORE voting starts. Whenever such running mate will then be appointed vice president, and placed on the top of the officials list, he or she will be a legal successor to the position of President in case the elected president leaves office for any reason.
Status: Accepted. Effective now.
Comments: 2
Dec 28, 2009 - 14:41
Response to Change Request 21/2009 - Criminal Fines
Change Request 21/2009
Submission Date: Dec 16, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request:
Criminal Fines
As a result of the Admin's decision in the appellate matter of Titulia v. Norton et al., it is clear that the
possible ramifications for criminal acts must be codified. While the Admin has recognized the General Court's right to ban citizens, Admin cited a lack of constitutional provision for Admin's reversal of the fines.
THEREFORE, it is proposed the following be added the Constitution:
While a ban against a citizen is an accepted punishment for criminal acts in Titulia, such a punishment is extreme for many offenses, and lesser penalties should be available to the General Court.
The General Court shall have the ability to levy fines against citizens convicted of a crime. In the event that a criminal matter has been legislated in Titulia, it shall be amended to specify a fine. In the future, such legislation shall have fines in their original text. When criminal legislation exists, that law will define the largest fine that may be levied for that crime but shall not make such a fine mandatory.
The General Court will be able to levy fines in the event that there is no criminal statute in Titulia but when the offender has committed what is internationally considered to be a crime. Such crimes would likely be committed against the state. The largest fine that the Court may levy in instances where no Titulian criminal statute exists will be T$1000.
Fines will always be paid directly to the Government of Titulia.
Administrator's Response:
This is, in itself, NOT a change request to the existing constitution or this website. Therefore, as requested, the Administrator has nothing to do with it.
We assume, however, that the implicit (unstated) intent of the requestor is to ask the Administrator to enforce the payment of such fines in case the convicted citizen is not willing to do that voluntarily.
If this is really the implicit request, we need to look into the legal implications of the Administrator confiscating funds from citizens.
By examining the T&C and the "About" page of the Bank of Titulia, we concluded that it would actually be a violation of the T&C and breach of real world laws if we confiscated funds from citizens who have actually paid real world money for it. Therefore, the Aministrator will not be in the position to enforce fines, i.e. confiscating funds from citizens not willing to pay fines.
Status: See above for detailed description.
Comments: 2
Dec 28, 2009 - 14:36
Response to Change Request 20/2009 - Increase Referral Commission
Change Request 20/2009
Submission Date: Dec 14, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request:
Increase Referral Commission
I propose we lobby the Admin to increase the reward from the referral commission from t$10 to t$100.
It is evidence that the current reward is not an incentive to increase immigration. It needs to be increased.
Administrator's Response:
The real value of a tollar can be debated, however, there is only one real measure today we can work with: Several citizens paid USD 0.01 for a tollar, therefore for those, the value of a tollar is definitely known.
This change request asks for the valuation of a "click" at USD 1.
This is way too much. It is possible today to purchase clicks e.g. with Google or facebook at much lower than USD 1.
Therefore, a click simply isn't worth T$100. Valuating any commodity at a higher price than its real world value (whenever exists) would amount to inflating away the value of a tollar of those citizens who decided to pay real money for it.
Status: Rejected
Comments: 1
Dec 25, 2009 - 13:05
Response to Change Request 19/2009 - Creation of 2 Titulias
Change Request 19/2009
Submission Date: Dec 13, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request:
Creation of 2 Titulias
So as to increase participation of all and make things generally more interesting, I propose we divide Titulia into two independent nations (e.g., North Titulia & South Titulia, or East Titulia and West Titulia), so we can have 2 political administrations simultaneously (perhaps competition and war, otherwise cooperation). I just think something like this would add some needed novelty and variation into what is otherwise a worned out experiment.
Administrator's Response:
Accepted.
This change request requires a complete redesign and redevelopment of the Titulia website. This will have, consequently, a serious negative impact on the Administrator's response time to any other change requests during the next couple of months.
Status: Under conceptual design. Estimated completion date: April 2010.
Submission Date: Dec 13, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request:
Creation of 2 Titulias
So as to increase participation of all and make things generally more interesting, I propose we divide Titulia into two independent nations (e.g., North Titulia & South Titulia, or East Titulia and West Titulia), so we can have 2 political administrations simultaneously (perhaps competition and war, otherwise cooperation). I just think something like this would add some needed novelty and variation into what is otherwise a worned out experiment.
Administrator's Response:
Accepted.
This change request requires a complete redesign and redevelopment of the Titulia website. This will have, consequently, a serious negative impact on the Administrator's response time to any other change requests during the next couple of months.
Status: Under conceptual design. Estimated completion date: April 2010.
Comments: 1
Dec 25, 2009 - 12:58
Response to Change Request 18/2009 - Fugitive Property Confiscation Act
Change Request 18/2009
Submission Date: Dec 3, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request:
Fugitive Property Confiscation Act
Due to recent emigration of legally convicted citizens (convicted emigrees) and a dearth of legal recourse for the payment of creditors, fines and Court fees left unpaid, I move that the following proposed legislation be adopted:
In the event that a convicted citizen should emigrate from the republic before paying all lawful debts, fines and Court fees, then the Court shall have the power to confiscate said convicted emigree's property: real, commercial and liquid.
In the event that the convicted emigree transferred the property or interest therein to another citizen or organization, which was not a lawful creditor or the Government of Titulia, within seven (7) days prior to emigration, then the Court shall have the power to compel the citizen or organization in receipt of the convicted emigree's property to forfeit the property to the Court.
In the event that the property confiscated is not liquid in nature, the Court has the right to sell said property at a reasonable rate to the highest bidder in an openly announced auction.
In the event that excess funds remain once all creditors, fines and Court fees are paid, then the remainder of said property will escheat to the Government of Titulia for the benefit of the Titulian populace.
All claims to a convicted emigrees property must be made to the Court within seven (7) days of the convicted citizen's emigration.
In the event that a convicted emigree leaves property to another citizen or organization and no claim comes against the property of said emigree, then the disbursement of property will remain untouched by the Court.
Administrator's Response:
This change request is accepted.
Technically, this is what the Administrator will do to implement this change request:
Upon specific request from the President based upon a court decision, the Administrator will transfer all requested property of any emigrated convicted citizen to the Government. Then, the Government will be responsible for distributing that property as required by law.
However, the following restrictions must be applied:
1. The definition of "emigration" is that the citizen presses the emigrate button on their profile page, therefore disable themselves from logging in in the future. Simply not visiting the site cannot currently be considered as emigration.
2. The change request does not provide the definition of a "lawful creditor". Our definition of a "lawful creditor" is anyone who honestly entered into any business arrangement with the citizen in question and therefore received funds or property. Any payment or property transfer of a citizen under criminal proceedings to third parties will be deemed lawful by default, unless specifically proven otherwise.
Status: Effective now.
Submission Date: Dec 3, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request:
Fugitive Property Confiscation Act
Due to recent emigration of legally convicted citizens (convicted emigrees) and a dearth of legal recourse for the payment of creditors, fines and Court fees left unpaid, I move that the following proposed legislation be adopted:
In the event that a convicted citizen should emigrate from the republic before paying all lawful debts, fines and Court fees, then the Court shall have the power to confiscate said convicted emigree's property: real, commercial and liquid.
In the event that the convicted emigree transferred the property or interest therein to another citizen or organization, which was not a lawful creditor or the Government of Titulia, within seven (7) days prior to emigration, then the Court shall have the power to compel the citizen or organization in receipt of the convicted emigree's property to forfeit the property to the Court.
In the event that the property confiscated is not liquid in nature, the Court has the right to sell said property at a reasonable rate to the highest bidder in an openly announced auction.
In the event that excess funds remain once all creditors, fines and Court fees are paid, then the remainder of said property will escheat to the Government of Titulia for the benefit of the Titulian populace.
All claims to a convicted emigrees property must be made to the Court within seven (7) days of the convicted citizen's emigration.
In the event that a convicted emigree leaves property to another citizen or organization and no claim comes against the property of said emigree, then the disbursement of property will remain untouched by the Court.
Administrator's Response:
This change request is accepted.
Technically, this is what the Administrator will do to implement this change request:
Upon specific request from the President based upon a court decision, the Administrator will transfer all requested property of any emigrated convicted citizen to the Government. Then, the Government will be responsible for distributing that property as required by law.
However, the following restrictions must be applied:
1. The definition of "emigration" is that the citizen presses the emigrate button on their profile page, therefore disable themselves from logging in in the future. Simply not visiting the site cannot currently be considered as emigration.
2. The change request does not provide the definition of a "lawful creditor". Our definition of a "lawful creditor" is anyone who honestly entered into any business arrangement with the citizen in question and therefore received funds or property. Any payment or property transfer of a citizen under criminal proceedings to third parties will be deemed lawful by default, unless specifically proven otherwise.
Status: Effective now.
Comments: 0
Dec 25, 2009 - 12:24
Response to Change Request 17/2009 - Proposition Voting Time Period
Change Request 17/2009
Submission Date: Dec 3, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request:
Proposition Voting Time Period
Currently, Government-related propositions have a defined time they are open for voting (i.e., confirmation nomination is open for 5 days).
To keep citizen's focused only on recent propositions, it is proposed that:
All normal (Non-government defined) propositions be open for voting for ten (10) days.
Should the proposition reach 20 votes, with the majority in affirmative, then it proceeds to substantive, as is currently the case.
Original Proposition created by Gregory Hock
Administrator's Response:
This is NOT a change request to the constitution or to this website. The current 5 day rule is a citizen created one, and the Administrator has nothing to do with it. It is up to the executive power to apply any change to this rule in the future.
Status: Not applicable.
Submission Date: Dec 3, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request:
Proposition Voting Time Period
Currently, Government-related propositions have a defined time they are open for voting (i.e., confirmation nomination is open for 5 days).
To keep citizen's focused only on recent propositions, it is proposed that:
All normal (Non-government defined) propositions be open for voting for ten (10) days.
Should the proposition reach 20 votes, with the majority in affirmative, then it proceeds to substantive, as is currently the case.
Original Proposition created by Gregory Hock
Administrator's Response:
This is NOT a change request to the constitution or to this website. The current 5 day rule is a citizen created one, and the Administrator has nothing to do with it. It is up to the executive power to apply any change to this rule in the future.
Status: Not applicable.
Comments: 0
Dec 25, 2009 - 12:20
Response to Change Request 16/2009 - On the Succession of the President
Change Request 16/2009
Submission Date: Nov 19, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request: On the succession of the president
The following Substantive Proposition was approved today by the people, and I am submitting it to you on their behalf:
Recalling Article III (The Presidency) of the Constitution:
5) The President shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Per change request 13/2009, submitted by President McVicker, 'absence' is also acknowledged as a reason for impeachment.
It is proposed that the following be added to section 5):
If the President is removed from office by impeachment or other lawful means, the line of succession will follow the priority of listing of officials in the 'Officials' page. It is acknowledged that not every President will create the same cabinet (number of positions or title names). Thus, the cabinet member listed on the top of the list will succeed the President. If that official is unable to serve, then the next official down the list is selected, etc., until an able official is found. Only officials who have gained their position through direct election or other appropriate nomination voting can succeed the President (The staff of the Post and the Judiciary are not in the line of sucession). If no able official can succeed the President, then a new Presidential election will be called by the Administrator.
(Original Proposition Posted by Gregory Hock on 11/10/2009)
Note: The phrase "(The staff of the Post and the Judiciary are not in the line of succesion)" was added to the original proposition based on review comments and agreed upon by the author.
Administrator's Response:
Accepted.
Status: Effective now. Actual text of Constitution to be updated soon.
The Administrator apologizes for the previous erroneous response to this change request.
Submission Date: Nov 19, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request: On the succession of the president
The following Substantive Proposition was approved today by the people, and I am submitting it to you on their behalf:
Recalling Article III (The Presidency) of the Constitution:
5) The President shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Per change request 13/2009, submitted by President McVicker, 'absence' is also acknowledged as a reason for impeachment.
It is proposed that the following be added to section 5):
If the President is removed from office by impeachment or other lawful means, the line of succession will follow the priority of listing of officials in the 'Officials' page. It is acknowledged that not every President will create the same cabinet (number of positions or title names). Thus, the cabinet member listed on the top of the list will succeed the President. If that official is unable to serve, then the next official down the list is selected, etc., until an able official is found. Only officials who have gained their position through direct election or other appropriate nomination voting can succeed the President (The staff of the Post and the Judiciary are not in the line of sucession). If no able official can succeed the President, then a new Presidential election will be called by the Administrator.
(Original Proposition Posted by Gregory Hock on 11/10/2009)
Note: The phrase "(The staff of the Post and the Judiciary are not in the line of succesion)" was added to the original proposition based on review comments and agreed upon by the author.
Administrator's Response:
Accepted.
Status: Effective now. Actual text of Constitution to be updated soon.
The Administrator apologizes for the previous erroneous response to this change request.
Comments: 3
Dec 07, 2009 - 15:59
On the Role of the Administrator & The Future of the Titulia Website
The public debate about the role of the Administrator has heated up, again. This reinforces the need to rethink some of the fundamental principles of how the website of the Republic operates. The purpose of this memo is to explain the current standpoint of the Administrator and some of the dilemmas that need to be resolved.
1. THE FACTS AND THE CURRENT SETUP
The Repubic of Titulia, as an online virtual nation, needs at least one website to exist. The mission of the Administrator is to create, operate and further develop this website, as a service to the Republic.
When designing this website, the Administrator faced the following very difficult question: What functionality should the website support, i.e. what processes the website should enforce, versus what processes the website would not support, i.e. not enforce, therefore leaving it up to the citizens to do anything in any way they wish.
There could have been two extreme answers to this question:
(1A) We could have created software functionality for everything that can be done in Titulia, therefore leaving no room for citizens to change political processes whatsoever. The description of those rules (i.e. the Constitution) would be carved into stone and could not ever be changed. This would have practically resulted in a typical Online Multiplayer Role Playing Game, whereas you "play" according to the given rules, but you can never change those rules.
(1B) We could have decided not to regulate anything and leave everything up to the citizens to discuss and decide based on whatever rules they can agree upon. In this case, the result would have been nothing more than a discussion board, and would probably have resulted in total chaos, whereas nothing is enforced, so for example everyone can declare themselves president based on whatever custom created elections they have chosen to declare valid.
The current design of the Titulia website is somewhere in between.
Some processes (i.e. the elections, the monetary system and property rules) are automated, therefore enforced, others are completely left to the imagination of the citizens and their elected leaders.
The difficulty in this setup is that those processes that are automated, can not be changed by the citizens whenever they wish. They can only be changed by the Aministrator.
2. THE CURRENT PROBLEMS
As explained above, many things, completely up to the imagination of the People, could be accomplished without any changes to the fundamental processes that are automated.
Yet, the fact is that the majority of the initiatives of elected or aspiring politicians are aimed at changes to those limited number of processes that the Administrators have chosen to automate.
Thus the political life of Titulia more or less became a game played between The People of Titulia versus the Administrator, whereas the people vote for some sort of change to the functionality of the website and the Administrator is trying to reorganize their limited rersources to respond to those.
Whenever the response of the Admnistrator is not perceived satisfactory, there is widespread public frustration in those circles that came up with the idea.
This can not continue.
Therefore we will have to move in the direction of either (1A) or (1B) above. We are still undecided, and we are hoping that some discussion into this matter will help us decide the future direction of this Website.
3. THE DEMANDS OF THE "ANTI-ADMIN PARTY"
This unfortunate "People versus Admin" mentality has now reached the level that we have a so called "Anti-Admin Party". Since their list of demands are currently discussed and are very relevant to the topic of this post, we have decided to respond to those in detail below.
First of all, in principle, we agree with ALL of those demands.
The difficulty is that many of these demands seem to overlook the fundamental question:
DO YOU WANT THE WEBSITE TO ENFORCE ANY SPECIFIC RULE OR NOT? If you want the website to enforce a specific rule, you are implicitly asking for a piece software to do this. These will be the rules that the citizens can not change freely, and the purpose of the Constitution is to list those rules. Changes to these "supported" or "enforced" processes will always have to remain under the authority of the Administrator.
Having said
Comments: 2
Nov 25, 2009 - 03:16
On Change Request 15/2009 - Creation of a Legislature
This is the first of a series pf posts in which we respond in detail to Change Request 15/2009 on the creation of a legislature. In our next post, upon analyzing the potential responses to this post, we will be coming forward with a plan of phased implementation, with the definition of the first phase.
First, some general statements:
1. As stated earlier, the change request is accepted in principle and will be scheduled for implementation in phases.
2. We will be asking the president to consider some technical changes to ease implementation. The purpose of this post is to help citizens understand the difficulties we face with this change request.
3. The change request is extremely complicated in terms of technicalities. Specifically, we have to consider what parts of the processes to support, therefore enforce, by software, and what parts leave to citizens to complete manually, therefore leaving room for breaches of rules. The ideal solution would be to enforce all rules by software, i.e. making breaches of rules technically impossible. However, this requirement is contradictory to the other important consideration, which is the ease and speed of implementation. We will have to make trade-offs here.
Second, we will analyze the change request itself in detail, in reference to our blog post of February 12, in which we have listed all the questions that need to be answered to be able to create a legislature. (See http://www.titulia.com/blog/view/172/About-a-Future-Titulian-Senate.html )
Below follow the original questions, with the relevant text, or the essence of the change request copied in:
(Please note we originally used the term "Senate", whereas the change request uses "Congress", this is now used interchangeably.) We also point out some of the points where clarification will be needed before implementation can begin.
WHAT DOES THE SENATE LOOK LIKE?
- How many senators are there?
This is not explicitly specified in the change request, however, from the description of the "five regions", it can be concluded that each region would have 1 seat, therefore the change request asks for a senate of 5 members.
- When should the senate be established (i.e. at what population of the Republic)?
The change request is immediate, i.e. as soon as it can be implemented.
- Does the senate itself have its officials, e.g. a president of the Senate or any other? If yes, what are their powers? Who nominates them, elects them and how? (Admin's note: this would double the work...)
The change request does not mention any officials, however, it implicitly appoints the vice president as one, by allowing him to decide on tie votes. Please note that the current constitution does not mention a vice president.
- Whom do the senators represent? A party? A geographical area (tricky)? Everybody? Anyone who voted for them? Some other subset of citizens?
The change request defines members of the upper house as representatives of a "region", of which there would be five. It is currently unclear from the change request how the number of citizens of a "region" would affect the setup of the senate.
WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF THE SENATE?
- How do we define the powers of the Senate in relation to the powers of the President? For example, is the president legally required to act according to the passed resolutions of the Senate? Does this apply to everything or to a defined set of areas? What would those areas be?
The relationship between the powers of the congress and those of the president is not explained in the change request.
- How do we define the powers of the Senate in relation to the powers of the Administrator when it comes to propositions that require changes to the website of the Republic?
It is assumed there will be no changes to these procedures - the president would have to continue submitting change requests to the Administrator, this time based on acts of the legislature.
HOW IS THE SENATE ELECTED?
- Who elects the senators?
All citizens of a "region" would be able to vote for the representative of that region.
- Who can be nominated for senator? Anyone, party members? Are there any other criteria?
Anyone of that "region".
Comments: 4
Nov 20, 2009 - 01:48
Official Responses to Change Requests to the Constitution
As of today, the Administrator responds to two recent change requests to this website as follows:
Change Request 16/2009
Submission Date: Nov 19, 2009
Submitted by: President Hock
Change Request: on the succession of the president
The following Substantive Proposition was approved today by the people, and I am submitting it to you on their behalf:
Recalling Article III (The Presidency) of the Constitution:
5) The President shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Per change request 13/2009, submitted by President McVicker, 'absence' is also acknowledged as a reason for impeachment.
It is proposed that the following be added to section 5):
If the President is removed from office by impeachment or other lawful means, the line of succession will follow the priority of listing of officials in the 'Officials' page. It is acknowledged that not every President will create the same cabinet (number of positions or title names). Thus, the cabinet member listed on the top of the list will succeed the President. If that official is unable to serve, then the next official down the list is selected, etc., until an able official is found. Only officials who have gained their position through direct election or other appropriate nomination voting can succeed the President (The staff of the Post and the Judiciary are not in the line of sucession). If no able official can succeed the President, then a new Presidential election will be called by the Administrator.
(Original Proposition Posted by Gregory Hock on 11/10/2009)
Note: The phrase "(The staff of the Post and the Judiciary are not in the line of succesion)" was added to the original proposition based on review comments and agreed upon by the author.
Administrator's Response:
At the moment, the president can prematurely leave his / her office in one of the following two ways:
1. The President emigrates
2. The president is constitutionally removed from his office for the breach of the Terms & Conditions.
In any of these cases, the president is either not willing, or not suitable to perform his / her job and should not have any further influence on the political life of Titulia.
On the other hand, the citizens listed on the Officials page are not necessarily elected officials. They are appointed by the president.
This proposition basically means that the succeeding president would be appointed by the outgoing president, who already proved himself unsuitable or unwilling to serve the republic.
We do not want to allow this, therefore this change request is rejected.
In case of the president leaving prematurely for any of these two reasons, elections will be called immediately, and the republic will have to exist without a president for 9 - 12 days. We see this as a lesser problem than having a president selected and appointed by an unsuitable person.
Status: Rejected.
----------------------------------
Change Request 15/2009
Submission Date: Oct 30, 2009
Submitted by: President McVicker
Change Request: on the creation of a legislature
The legislature would consist of two houses.
The lower house would consist of the entire citizenry (as now) and would be the place where any new propositions were introduced. Any citizen would be able to submit a proposition to this house, including the President, cabinet members and members of Congress. Propositions would reach substantive status based upon whatever proposition legislation exists at that point, whether it be as now, or amended. Nomination and budget propositions would only require a simple affirmative majority in this house, in order to pass. As now, nomination and budget propositions would not be required to pass to substantive status and both of these forms of proposition would be active for 5 days only. All other original propositions would be active for 7 days only.
The upper house would consist of those members elected to Congress by the cit
Comments: 0