GS Session 2

[EternusIV]

Senators-

 

It makes things tremendously easier if you include empire numbers on all your posts and votes and stuff...even proxies Most of you have em in your sig which is super nice

 

I don't mind looking them up - just makes things go smmooooooooth

 

I think we are all caught up on vote and membership additions!

[Sha'thar of the Gosht Kohr]

"The Gosht Kohr (2296) vote;

 

GS BILL 061704-2-06 (as amended): Yes

 

I would like to ask my fellow sentients to begin considering how best we may overcome the interstellar distances which currently seperate senate members? Are there exploration tactics we may actually employ which would speed our being in direct contact?

 

Are there senators and empires who are in direct contact now?

 

As senate members do come into contact with one another, trade will grow. Moreover, I hope that an organized structure of mutual defense is created. A pride will fall if not guarded by every member.

 

As matters progress, I think we should consider the formation of a senatorial force of arms, for the specific duty of protecting member empires and the goals of the senate.

 

But this is for the future.

 

-Sha'thar

[EternusIV]

I'll be honest....the name of my empire is....the Everlasting....SPAWN

 

So - we are in the business of spreading out....growing...beocming more prolific than the spam we produce on these boards :lol:

 

With that in mind, I'm inclined to comment a bit on each of these proposals. I love the premise....I just wonder if its a bit too restrictive? A matter of taste, I'm sure.

 

1) All Sentients are absolutely sovereign within their homesystems and in all systems up to two conventional jumps out from those Home Systems, provided these are through two-way warp points; and every member of the Galactic Senate agrees to mutually recognize the sovereign territory of every other member.

 

I understand exactly how this might be applied Are you saying that in the event there are say...I don't know...five systems between two homeworlds, that each empire has control of the systems that are respectively accessible in two-directions? In other words....the 'other side' of a 1-way WP belongs to the neighbor? If so, I like this....and have a feeling that this exact arrangment will occur more than once.

 

2) In cases where two governments share a border less than two jumps out from their homeworld the two neigbors shall agree to a negotiated border.

 

The catch-all for paragraph number one. Nice. But which controls if the second jump is a 1-way into your neighbor's space? Will the first paragraph control?

 

3) Members mutually agree to publically proclaim which systems shall constitute their outer borders and to identify to the Galactic Community the rules each race shall employ in granting entry to others. This should alert conventional travelers that they are entering sovereign territory without disclosing all of a members system names, thereby indangering the sovereignty of that member's government. In sovereign systems behind the border members may have their defense forces set to what ever state of readiness they deem appropriate, but system beacons and or picket fleets set to "Romeo" shall operate in the border Systems to inform those spacefarers who do not frequent these frequencies that they are approaching sovereign territory.

 

Publically proclaim....as in...on these boards? Hmmm. Thats a tough one But perhaps necessary. Perhaps we can give Senators the option of establishing borders privately before requiring open publication of system names?

 

4) Members are encouraged to recognize the sovereignty of non-members according to these same rules to the extent practicable under the circumstances.

 

Encouraged is a nice word. I like it

 

5) All systems outside of a Galactically recognized border shall be considered free space and the freedom to travel, explore, and colonize in these open, neutral territories shall be respected.

 

Doesn't this tie our hands in establishing trade routes if we were to apply the letter of the law?

 

6) All Members shall set their fleets on non-hostile orders while traveling in neutral space, unless they are officially at war. Members may never generally attack other spacefarers in neutral territory, but instead may attack only declared enemies and their allies.

 

I agree with the idea, entirely. However - how do we ascertain such things as declared enemies and allies? How does this prevent those early accidents from happening? What if ROEs are not set between Senate members yet?

 

7) The Secretary of the Senate shall appoint a worthy member to be the keeper of border information. This information should be made public to all so that unnecessary hostilities shall be avoided.

 

Good idea if we go public.

 

8) Should a colony in neutral space become so large and prosperous that a government wishes to annex it as sovereign territory, then the member (or non-member) shall petition this body for recognition thereof. Recognition shall be granted on a simple majorty vote of all members. If recognition is granted, then that region shall be deemed sovereign territorty subject to the rules governing border systems.

 

I don't like this. The Hegemony of Shrubbists can decide the fate of a colony between two or three neighbors? :lol:

 

9) No member shall jump through any known one-way jump point or any Warp Point of rating "F" or above without first soliciting notice and comment to insure that this one-way or potentially one-way warp point does not lead to the sovereign territory of another government.

 

My senior explorer and internal security adviser almost swallowed their petals when they saw this one

 

 

 

 

 

I love the ideas.

 

However, to break the ice, I wonder if we could utilize the System Beacons for such a purpose. There is something instinctially sound about the concept of "First in Time, First in Right"...or....Finders Keepers....Last One There is a Rotten Egg....

 

The Beacons give us a nice clean way of establishing territory without requireing public disclosure...if you see a beacon that belongs to a different empire, we can pass a law that says we will respect that beacon.

 

Perhaps exceptions apply....if someone has a beacon two systems away from my homeworld (and as an aside...If you are within FOUR (sometims SEVEN) systems of my Homeworld within every known direction...you WILL know! New Senators -- PICKET FLEETS are your friends....don't let somebody stumble on to your home system with a scout ship! )

 

We can use existing Picket Fleets as another device to establish territory. We can change the Fleet name to include the initials "GS" to notify everyone that the picket fleet is indeed a picket fleet designed to establish borders. (I can see MMB busting out the "GS" stencil now and branding all of his carrier-pirate fleets with GS :lol: )

 

In other words, Senators, I think we can accomplish a sound territory policy without compromising system names. I might take the time to draft such a proposal but wanted to get a feel of how others in the Senate might view the issue in contrast to the current, and brilliant, GSBill that Senator Logion has proposed.

[EternusIV]

Sorry about the jumble of posts....I have limited time and am addressing game stuff as I think of them

 

 

In response to a couple of emails, I think this is a legitimate bill to bring up...what do we do about mass default abstention?

 

================================================================================

===

GS BILL 062404-2-07 PROPOSAL: ETERNUS Revision to Charter Amendment Process

================================================================================

===

Deadline for Second: June 28, 2004 11:59pm MST

 

REQUIRES 2/3 VOTE

 

The current process to amend the Charter reads as follows:

 

Amendment

1) These Charter Requirements may be amended through Bylaw, with approval of two thirds of the entire Galactic Senate

 

In the interest of clarity and promoting Senate effectiveness, the following revision to the Charter Amendment Process is now effective:

 

Amendment

1) These Charter Requirements may be amended through Bylaw, with approval of two thirds of the Galactic Senate that actively cast a vote in the session in which the charter amendment is proposed (ie. exclude default abstention votes) provided that at least 5 members actively vote in such session

 

SECONDED: NO

================================================================================

===

 

Note that the normal bylaw process for non-charter issues simply compares yes to no votes and ignores the "abstain" votes. Should we ignore abtain votes for the purposes of amending the charter, too? I'm hesitant to go that far...but removing default abstention votes might make it easier for the active Senate members to get new legislation moving.

 

 

 

I'll make it no secret....I still think its vital that we have a system in place to prevent bogus empires from voting on Senate issues....especially when the Senate starts passing legislation that will impact member empires direcetly (ie issues of territory and defense) Had I thought about this issue earlier, I would have simply drafted it in the original Charter amendment.....and would have.

 

Hence, I've watered down the original proposal from GS Session 1 and present the honorable Senate with a re-packaged Privacy pre-requisite for voting (this will still allow players to vote with multiple positions)

 

What good is a Senate if we have bogus votes? The only way to really verify the legitimacy of an empire is by using the Privacy Option built into the game. Many of you may not see this issue as clearly as I do....but down the line...it may be the downfall of the entire system (ie some hosebag logs in 1000000 fake empire names to join the Senate to prevent legislation from taking place)

 

I also included an optional method for obtaining verification through a private means (a bit messy...but thought I'd at least provide the option...if you an think of a smoother way to handle private verification, let me know....maybe give your empire number to three 'trusted' active and verified Senate Members instead of the Secreatry?)

 

================================================================================

===

GS BILL 062404-2-08 PROPOSAL: ETERNUS Amended Voting Requirement [Requires Privacy Option to be set on 'Yes']

================================================================================

===

Deadline for Second: June 28, 2004 11:59pm MST

 

REQUIRES 2/3 VOTE

 

The voting process will include the following requirement:

 

Voting requirement change: Every member empire must be verified in order to have effective voting powers. In the event a member empire refuss to verify, all votes by the empire are null and void immediately and retroactively [excluding Session 1 Bylaw Votes]

 

Verification: All members must have their privacy settings to 'NO' when verified.

Privacy checks shall be conducted by 2 volunteer member players on the turn after admission into the Galactic Senate, or the turn after this bylaw is passed, whichever comes first.

 

One an empire is verified by this process, they may toggle their privacy settings to YES.

 

Private Verification Procedure: In the event an empire wants to have their empire privately verified without announcing their empire number to the boards, the empire may sign with a three-letter ID code with the terms 'PRIVATE VERIFICATION' somewhere in the body, in lieu of submitting the empire number in the proclomation. The empire will then PM or EMAIL the Secretary of the Senate their Empire ID number for verification purposes who will in turn submit it to one other person for dual verification. You have the honor of the Secretary and the asignee that your identity will remain anonymous. Once verified, the new empire will be required to post their empire number but can retain their privacy settings to YES.

 

 

SECONDED: No

================================================================================

===

[The Benthis Collective]

Good Senator Eternus, I believe you are reading the old version of the bill we filed. The new version should be after it in this same thread.

 

I would, however, like to comment on system beacons. While not entirely useless, their utility for border markers is highly questionable. Firstly, they are very expensive relative to their cost in orders, resources, and space when one considers they burn out very quickly. Secondly, my government is not prepared to concede sovereignty to anyone that merely drops a beacon. If there are to be presumptions they ought to be in favor of free and open use, lest the spaceways be completely blocked by ships doing nothing but shooting off System Markers. I am not yet even ready to concede that the presence of a colony is enough to capture an entire system, although it may be enough to secure sovereignty over an individual planet. Thirdly, system beacons create a candy trail for bad guys to follow.

 

The Amended version of our bill seeks to have neutral territories declared free and open Neutral Zones so that we know where the intersteller "highways of commerce" are located. This seemed like a better alternative than declaring which systems we all claim as sovereign.

 

We whole heartedly agree about the utility of picket fleets.

 

Senator Logion 4579

[EternusIV]

I think I was reviewing the right version...but now I understand where you are coming from.

 

What do you think of the picket/beacon method as alternatives to claim space in lieu of listing the systems publically?

 

I agree about candy trails...I'm reluctant to use System Beacons for that very reason.

 

However, I don't see myself willing to publish sytem names and am happy to keep my many (and costly - order-wise) picket fleets in place as my method of marking territory.

[The Benthis Collective]

"The Gosht Kohr (2296) vote;

 

GS BILL 061704-2-06 (as amended): Yes

 

I would like to ask my fellow sentients to begin considering how best we may overcome the interstellar distances which currently seperate senate members? Are there exploration tactics we may actually employ which would speed our being in direct contact?

 

Are there senators and empires who are in direct contact now?

 

As senate members do come into contact with one another, trade will grow. Moreover, I hope that an organized structure of mutual defense is created. A pride will fall if not guarded by every member.

 

As matters progress, I think we should consider the formation of a senatorial force of arms, for the specific duty of protecting member empires and the goals of the senate.

 

But this is for the future.

 

-Sha'thar

Right Honorable Senator Sha'thar

 

We would like to echo your sentiments concerning a hopeful future of trade and prosperity. The Benthii have yet to reach any other spacefaring civilizations except through electronic fora like this one. We look forward to liking up with all races of goodwill.

 

Senator Logion 4579

[The Benthis Collective]

I think I was reviewing the right version...but now I understand where you are coming from.

 

What do you think of the picket/beacon method as alternatives to claim space in lieu of listing the systems publically?

 

I agree about candy trails...I'm reluctant to use System Beacons for that very reason.

 

However, I don't see myself willing to publish sytem names and am happy to keep my many (and costly - order-wise) picket fleets in place as my method of marking territory.

Picketing ones borders is almost universally practiced by prudent governments. It is the most practical way to secure and police a border. Requireing them, however, ultimately raises the issue of which sort of orders can be given to the picket fleets. Not all races are willing to place the picket fleets within their sovereign territories on "R." Those that do would have to have in effect two borders: one for saying stay out and one a jump behind for forcing an intruder out. That effectively doubles the cost of border security.

 

The Boo would like to see complete openness regarding system claims. The Benthii, on the other hand, see this as premature since galactic civilization is only recently reborn. In time the only appropriate territorial system might be one that is open and obvious to all. Now, however, with too few of our number linked up we must wait. Complete openness is just too dangerous now.

 

Hence the idea that we declare not what is sovereign, but what isn't. In a sense it is a backtenticled way of saying we in the Galactic Senate are not so greedy that we take everyting we can fly to and drop a beacon in. Rather it is a recognition that most of us only really need the systems in our immediate vacinity (3 jumps out) and the rest we are willing to share with the other members of the Galactic community so that we can trade and ultimately obtain ever high levels of prosperity through comparative advantage. The Neutral Zone idea creates a commons where all may trade, travel, and extract resources.

 

Senator Logion 4579

[The Benthis Collective]

2) In cases where two governments share a border less than two jumps out from their homeworld the two neigbors shall agree to a negotiated border.

 

The catch-all for paragraph number one. Nice. But which controls if the second jump is a 1-way into your neighbor's space? Will the first paragraph control?

 

The way Senator Perota explained it to me, the perspective of the HomeSystem is used to determine onewayedness. If Sys A is connected to Sys B via a two way, but Sys B is connected to Sys C via a one way, then only A and B would be sovereign.

 

Senator Logion 4570

[The Benthis Collective]

Sorry about the jumble of posts....I have limited time and am addressing game stuff as I think of them

 

 

In response to a couple of emails, I think this is a legitimate bill to bring up...what do we do about mass default abstention?

 

================================================================================

===

GS BILL 062404-2-07 PROPOSAL: ETERNUS Revision to Charter Amendment Process

================================================================================

===

Deadline for Second: June 28, 2004 11:59pm MST

 

REQUIRES 2/3 VOTE

 

The current process to amend the Charter reads as follows:

 

Amendment

1) These Charter Requirements may be amended through Bylaw, with approval of two thirds of the entire Galactic Senate

 

In the interest of clarity and promoting Senate effectiveness, the following revision to the Charter Amendment Process is now effective:

 

Amendment

1) These Charter Requirements may be amended through Bylaw, with approval of two thirds of the Galactic Senate that actively cast a vote in the session in which the charter amendment is proposed (ie. exclude default abstention votes) provided that at least 5 members actively vote in such session

 

SECONDED: NO

================================================================================

===

 

Note that the normal bylaw process for non-charter issues simply compares yes to no votes and ignores the "abstain" votes. Should we ignore abtain votes for the purposes of amending the charter, too? I'm hesitant to go that far...but removing default abstention votes might make it easier for the active Senate members to get new legislation moving.

 

 

 

I'll make it no secret....I still think its vital that we have a system in place to prevent bogus empires from voting on Senate issues....especially when the Senate starts passing legislation that will impact member empires direcetly (ie issues of territory and defense) Had I thought about this issue earlier, I would have simply drafted it in the original Charter amendment.....and would have.

 

Hence, I've watered down the original proposal from GS Session 1 and present the honorable Senate with a re-packaged Privacy pre-requisite for voting (this will still allow players to vote with multiple positions)

 

What good is a Senate if we have bogus votes? The only way to really verify the legitimacy of an empire is by using the Privacy Option built into the game. Many of you may not see this issue as clearly as I do....but down the line...it may be the downfall of the entire system (ie some hosebag logs in 1000000 fake empire names to join the Senate to prevent legislation from taking place)

 

I also included an optional method for obtaining verification through a private means (a bit messy...but thought I'd at least provide the option...if you an think of a smoother way to handle private verification, let me know....maybe give your empire number to three 'trusted' active and verified Senate Members instead of the Secreatry?)

 

================================================================================

===

GS BILL 062404-2-08 PROPOSAL: ETERNUS Amended Voting Requirement [Requires Privacy Option to be set on 'Yes']

================================================================================

===

Deadline for Second: June 28, 2004 11:59pm MST

 

REQUIRES 2/3 VOTE

 

The voting process will include the following requirement:

 

Voting requirement change: Every member empire must be verified in order to have effective voting powers. In the event a member empire refuss to verify, all votes by the empire are null and void immediately and retroactively [excluding Session 1 Bylaw Votes]

 

Verification: All members must have their privacy settings to 'NO' when verified.

Privacy checks shall be conducted by 2 volunteer member players on the turn after admission into the Galactic Senate, or the turn after this bylaw is passed, whichever comes first.

 

One an empire is verified by this process, they may toggle their privacy settings to YES.

 

Private Verification Procedure: In the event an empire wants to have their empire privately verified without announcing their empire number to the boards, the empire may sign with a three-letter ID code with the terms 'PRIVATE VERIFICATION' somewhere in the body, in lieu of submitting the empire number in the proclomation. The empire will then PM or EMAIL the Secretary of the Senate their Empire ID number for verification purposes who will in turn submit it to one other person for dual verification. You have the honor of the Secretary and the asignee that your identity will remain anonymous. Once verified, the new empire will be required to post their empire number but can retain their privacy settings to YES.

 

 

SECONDED: No

================================================================================

===

The Benthii will second both of the Right Honorable Senator Eternus' bills.

 

Senator Logion 4579

[ali-t-akua]

GS BILL 062404-2-07: Yes

GS BILL 062404-2-08: Yes

 

Senator Ali-t-akua

[Kurassier]

GS BILL 062404-2-07: Yes

GS BILL 062404-2-08: Yes

 

 

Alcorn the Honored One

Sabeli Ecok, 2996

[Kurassier]

1) All Sentients are absolutely sovereign within their homesystems and in all systems up to two conventional jumps out from those Home Systems, provided these are through two-way warp points; and every member of the Galactic Senate agrees to mutually recognize the sovereign territory of every other member.

2) In cases where two governments share a border less than two jumps out from their homeworld the two neigbors shall agree to a negotiated border.

3) Members mutually agree to publically proclaim which systems shall constitute their outer borders and to identify to the Galactic Community the rules each race shall employ in granting entry to others. This should alert conventional travelers that they are entering sovereign territory without disclosing all of a members system names, thereby indangering the sovereignty of that member's government. In sovereign systems behind the border members may have their defense forces set to what ever state of readiness they deem appropriate, but system beacons and or picket fleets set to "Romeo" shall operate in the border Systems to inform those spacefarers who do not frequent these frequencies that they are approaching sovereign territory.

4) Members are encouraged to recognize the sovereignty of non-members according to these same rules to the extent practicable under the circumstances.

5) All systems outside of a Galactically recognized border shall be considered free space and the freedom to travel, explore, and colonize in these open, neutral territories shall be respected.

6) All Members shall set their fleets on non-hostile orders while traveling in neutral space, unless they are officially at war. Members may never generally attack other spacefarers in neutral territory, but instead may attack only declared enemies and their allies.

7) The Secretary of the Senate shall appoint a worthy member to be the keeper of border information. This information should be made public to all so that unnecessary hostilities shall be avoided.

8) Should a colony in neutral space become so large and prosperous that a government wishes to annex it as sovereign territory, then the member (or non-member) shall petition this body for recognition thereof. Recognition shall be granted on a simple majorty vote of all members. If recognition is granted, then that region shall be deemed sovereign territorty subject to the rules governing border systems.

9) No member shall jump through any known one-way jump point or any Warp Point of rating "F" or above without first soliciting notice and comment to insure that this one-way or potentially one-way warp point does not lead to the sovereign territory of another government.

 

I have to vote No.

I like the general premise, it is the territorial provisions that bother me. I already consider all systems with colonies and all systems between systems with colonies and my HW as well as all systems adjacent to a colony system, to be Sabeli sovereign territory. If I vote yes to the bill as is, that would change my current sovereignty position, which I can not do.

In addition, it is the policy of the Sabeli to SURV and WARP in the same turn. I do not intend to change this policy. Keeping in mind, the only ships that do this are Explorer ships with a non confrontational ROE. (Actually I'm lobbying Pete to add and ROE BB (for Buy a Beer), but so far he hasn't added it.

 

Alcorn the Honored One

Sabeli Ecok, 2996

 

Oh, the other provisions of this bill are ok.

[The Benthis Collective]

I have to vote No.

I like the general premise, it is the territorial provisions that bother me. I already consider all systems with colonies and all systems between systems with colonies and my HW as well as all systems adjacent to a colony system, to be Sabeli sovereign territory. If I vote yes to the bill as is, that would change my current sovereignty position, which I can not do.

In addition, it is the policy of the Sabeli to SURV and WARP in the same turn. I do not intend to change this policy. Keeping in mind, the only ships that do this are Explorer ships with a non confrontational ROE. (Actually I'm lobbying Pete to add and ROE BB (for Buy a Beer), but so far he hasn't added it.

 

Alcorn the Honored One

Sabeli Ecok, 2996

 

Oh, the other provisions of this bill are ok.

Right Honorable Senator Alcron

 

The Amended version of bill-06 might be more to your liking.

 

As for the territorial issues it is partly to guarantee everyone a minimum residue of sovereignty. It also serves to ensure that beyond the point states, 3 jumps out under the Amended version, there is a spirit of commpromise, sharing, and free navigation.

 

All in all, though, I believe no one here seeks to retroactively strip any government of any rights. This should not be interpreted as an ex post facto law.

 

Senator Logion 4579

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

All in all, though, I believe no one here seeks to retroactively strip any government of any rights. This should not be interpreted as an ex post facto law.

 

Senator Logion 4579

But as written, it is. If it said "all territories discovered after 2004/6/30" then you would have a valid point.

The Zraaknod Brotherhood (2084) must vote NO on the current draft of this bill. We submit, however, than something of this nature must be passed, either in this session or the next. Otherwise the Senate is merely flapping its wings with no intent to fly.