User blog comment:Jeremiah Garland/Roleplay Reformation Proposal - Please Read/@comment-4879311-20130127034907

This is all awesome great, and I like the idea......... if it were applied to the Administration of this wiki. Democracy really can not and really should  not  be applied in role play. It is great and all, no doubt about it, but there are many things that get me: So let's start with the involvement of Role Play Wars and anything else assorted. And I am going to use the recent Romanian-Persian Conflict as an example a swell as the English-Spanish Conflicts that have happened. The ability to dictate whether you should let a country declare war and invad eor not is just not right. Yes, we all understand, it is one thing if Romania invaded the Ø Army of Persia with many allies, and another if you are England fighting Pearson Wright with armies clashing. It seems completely unfair to many other countries too, but the reality of it is, it is great that you don't want to fight Romania, totally understandable. Let's deny war. Cool. Done. That doesn't mean Romania is going to say "Oh ok, I guess we can't then". That is pure stupidity if England, Spain and any other country did that, unless they had a very valid reason. Yes this is all virtual. Cool beans. But to be able to deny the fact of invasion is not right. Sure, you really shouldn't play the idiotic (there really is a better word but can not be said) mov eof picking on weak countries. There is a better way I am sure. But to have a council of people denying what a country can or can not due, foreignly, such as wars, should not be dictated. Having a country means there is a Domestic and Foreign Policy you deal with. It is great to hear that Persia does not want to be in wars unless to help out an ally, unlike Romania, but if and when a country invades you, you should not do what Persia did and ask the legitimacy of the war. Assuming the title as leader of a country means you acknowledge the fact that you could lose it due to war by another country. Knowing this, you should as soon as you take office build an army. If the RPC is going to stay in existence and have some say in conflicts, it should be as follows: (Ejemplo [Example in Spanish]) John Doe assumes the country of Hesse. He will be given immunity for 3 Months from all attacks or until heuilds a suitable army to defend itself with as well as alliances. Whichever comes first. I will say it was unfair to invade Goldvane whom had Ø Military. Next, the Democratic aspect of the Council and how representation will be applied. It is great that you want to do it democratically, nice idea and all, but it is way too complicated this whole system proposed to keep track of, in my opinion. And from what I understand there is a re-election process at some point, and thats a part that makes it completely complicated. We go out there having people who are loved just because of how funny they are and are nominated, while others, like very unpopular (excuse the term) John Breaslys arent nomknated. Its no doubt alot of people dont like John, Im going to give you straight out facts, and I think this isnt new info to John. So excuse me for the term John. Now these people are smart in role play but not many like them because of how they act and anything assorted, they are not nominated. This worries me that we will have tons of famous loveable dont know hows in the council, while the smart Breaslys are on the sidelines watching. 2 People is easy to get and bribe, like, lets take my case, all it takes is telling Liz (whom I love so very much) can you do so and so on bla bla bla, and someone else that likes me, to be nominated. Its really that easy. And then from what I understand they nail it down. So maybe there are Breaslys in here, but in the end all there maybe are the Celeb Wikians who dont know much about RP other than Spain sucks and England can be idiotic alongside w ehave power hungry Romania, France #Ø and all these stupid Ø People countries I hav enever heard of but loke because they invented Chocolate. This worries me alot, and could totally bring us back to what we are in now. If we are to reform the council this is what should be done: Firstly, get rid of these chambers. It divides us more and is complicated. At the most, we should have that for "elections" but really shouldnt have it. We keep it the way w ehave it now, just with 10 People 5/5 Split, Conservatives and (Freaking xD) Liberals. Secondly, look into the experience of said role player/wikian (I will agree that we should have one or two know little/nothings on the council that doesnt role play, sometimes they do have good ideas, but not a full council) and see if they should be "running". They should be then go onto the "final round" and be voted in. Now if there is a re-election process, it needs to go and keep it to "lifetime service" unless there is a valid reason most agree with to remove said person. In all honesty, the reason the RPC wa smade wa sjust to hand out countries. Now it seems to have become a power grab and dictator of everything in RPC "No, Sven on you side makes it unfair", "Spain sucks", "Power-hungry bastard", etc. is the reason we are in this need for reformation crisis. If we are going to put in place a system that could take us back to square one again, then there is no point into reforming it. There really isn't. And if that is what we are going to do, then let us get it over with and go back to the Old System. Though even if we do reform the council it does bother me. However, I am willing to work with people today.
 * 1) Involvement in Wars, and any other things the Council will be involved in
 * 2) The Election Process