Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
-
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:30 pm
Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
Delegates, and interested individuals,
As mentioned in my policy platform during the election, I would like to facilitate a discussion on the wording of the SCUE Treaty, as this was a point of contention between the former SCUE Administrator, his supporters, and his detractors.
To briefly summarize those points of contention and provide some of my thoughts for discussion:
(1) Removal of a nation - at present, the Treaty only deals with removal by a nation withdrawing from SCUE "due to death or otherwise." I think we need to define what constitutes "death or otherwise," perhaps along the lines that the MCS defines "death". "Otherwise" would be better expanded to cover off scenarios such as annexation (given the Stars situation with Hamland, for example). Perhaps it is common sense to have the SCUE definition regarding "death" of a member state the same as that used by the MCS, given that (generally) SCUE members are MCS members?
(2) Clarification of SCUE obligation to enforce taxation - Duke Sinclair's interpretation of this clause of the Treaty as allowing him to impose supranational taxes was tenuous at best; however, I think the episode outlines the importance of clarifying this clause to ensure that SCUE remains an independent third-party service provider to its members, as opposed to a taxing authority on them, punishing or rewarding members based on their active use of the software.
(3) Role of signatory nations in decision-making - I think the Treaty could use more substance with respect to how non-administrative (i.e. policy) decisions are presented or adopted. It's simply not enough to say that the Treaty can simply be amended by a majority. I think we need to discuss whether we need to specify a quorum, and I think that there should be some form of authorization in the Treaty to allow the SCUE Administrator to act as the chairman of a council of all members that follows a formal set of Rules of Order.
Furthermore, the Treaty itself is over five years old at this point and it may well be time for it to undergo a significant update in order to remain relevant and allow SCUE to meet the community's current expectations (as well as those expectations foreseen within the next 3 to 5 years). When the Treaty was authored, we were all less educated and wise at the time, and the wording of the Treaty generally reflects that. I think through discussion we can collectively polish this document into a stronger legal format, needless to say.
One question that needs to be raised as well relates to the distribution of currency. At present, a nation that joins SCUE receives no currency for each citizen who already possesses a SCUE user account. In a community where new micronations are increasingly populated by existing participants (as new immigrants are a rarity), this means there is a high probability that the new member will receive no currency upon joining SCUE. This immediately places the new member in a difficult, if not impossible, situation. I would argue that the current means of assigning currency is not viable nor practical any longer and I would suggest we need to have a discussion about whether there is a better system or measure to use for currency distribution.
I'd appreciate your feedback on the items I've briefly discussed above, and if you have any further suggestions for improvement to SCUE, please do share.
Liam
As mentioned in my policy platform during the election, I would like to facilitate a discussion on the wording of the SCUE Treaty, as this was a point of contention between the former SCUE Administrator, his supporters, and his detractors.
To briefly summarize those points of contention and provide some of my thoughts for discussion:
(1) Removal of a nation - at present, the Treaty only deals with removal by a nation withdrawing from SCUE "due to death or otherwise." I think we need to define what constitutes "death or otherwise," perhaps along the lines that the MCS defines "death". "Otherwise" would be better expanded to cover off scenarios such as annexation (given the Stars situation with Hamland, for example). Perhaps it is common sense to have the SCUE definition regarding "death" of a member state the same as that used by the MCS, given that (generally) SCUE members are MCS members?
(2) Clarification of SCUE obligation to enforce taxation - Duke Sinclair's interpretation of this clause of the Treaty as allowing him to impose supranational taxes was tenuous at best; however, I think the episode outlines the importance of clarifying this clause to ensure that SCUE remains an independent third-party service provider to its members, as opposed to a taxing authority on them, punishing or rewarding members based on their active use of the software.
(3) Role of signatory nations in decision-making - I think the Treaty could use more substance with respect to how non-administrative (i.e. policy) decisions are presented or adopted. It's simply not enough to say that the Treaty can simply be amended by a majority. I think we need to discuss whether we need to specify a quorum, and I think that there should be some form of authorization in the Treaty to allow the SCUE Administrator to act as the chairman of a council of all members that follows a formal set of Rules of Order.
Furthermore, the Treaty itself is over five years old at this point and it may well be time for it to undergo a significant update in order to remain relevant and allow SCUE to meet the community's current expectations (as well as those expectations foreseen within the next 3 to 5 years). When the Treaty was authored, we were all less educated and wise at the time, and the wording of the Treaty generally reflects that. I think through discussion we can collectively polish this document into a stronger legal format, needless to say.
One question that needs to be raised as well relates to the distribution of currency. At present, a nation that joins SCUE receives no currency for each citizen who already possesses a SCUE user account. In a community where new micronations are increasingly populated by existing participants (as new immigrants are a rarity), this means there is a high probability that the new member will receive no currency upon joining SCUE. This immediately places the new member in a difficult, if not impossible, situation. I would argue that the current means of assigning currency is not viable nor practical any longer and I would suggest we need to have a discussion about whether there is a better system or measure to use for currency distribution.
I'd appreciate your feedback on the items I've briefly discussed above, and if you have any further suggestions for improvement to SCUE, please do share.
Liam
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
I'm glad this is brought up for discussion
1. If a nation has been removed from the MCS for inactivity, then the Administration here should safely assume the same.
2. Agreed.
3. I believe that any change to the main treaty should be performed by ratification of state parties rather than signature votes.
That said, I believe the main treaty needs a considerable re-write to define:
- admittance
- removal of a state
- accreditation of representatives of a state (we need to be sure that whoevever posts here or posts requests is legitamately speaking for his/her country)
I also agree on country redistribution. Perhaps, "dead nations" could have their funds allocated to a central fund, from which new nations would get a start-up capital? I don't particularly like the idea of creating currency as it contributes to inflation and death of economy.
1. If a nation has been removed from the MCS for inactivity, then the Administration here should safely assume the same.
2. Agreed.
3. I believe that any change to the main treaty should be performed by ratification of state parties rather than signature votes.
That said, I believe the main treaty needs a considerable re-write to define:
- admittance
- removal of a state
- accreditation of representatives of a state (we need to be sure that whoevever posts here or posts requests is legitamately speaking for his/her country)
I also agree on country redistribution. Perhaps, "dead nations" could have their funds allocated to a central fund, from which new nations would get a start-up capital? I don't particularly like the idea of creating currency as it contributes to inflation and death of economy.
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
New nations founded by existing members can receive funds from other nations, and other existing members, so this really shouldn't be an issue. If someone wants to establish a new country, and they want that country to be a SCUE member, then they should be willing to allocate funds to that country from their existing accounts. If they aren't willing to do even that, then they either shouldn't be establishing a new country, or they shouldn't be applying for SCUE membership. Personally, I used funds from Passas and Haifa to establish Passio-Corum, which now has arguably the most active economy in the world. I see no reason why other members shouldn't be able to do the same.Liam Sinclair wrote:One question that needs to be raised as well relates to the distribution of currency. At present, a nation that joins SCUE receives no currency for each citizen who already possesses a SCUE user account. In a community where new micronations are increasingly populated by existing participants (as new immigrants are a rarity), this means there is a high probability that the new member will receive no currency upon joining SCUE. This immediately places the new member in a difficult, if not impossible, situation. I would argue that the current means of assigning currency is not viable nor practical any longer and I would suggest we need to have a discussion about whether there is a better system or measure to use for currency distribution.
Unless you're using your money to buy goods for actual prices, like most countries aren't, then inflation isn't a concern for you. Simply increasing the amount of currency held by nations will not result in inflation unless most countries are actually using their currency to buy stuff. On that note, if anything will result in "death of economy," it will be the lack of usage of currency, not inflation. Rather than worrying about how money is distributed, the bank should worry about how the money is used. If it isn't being used, then it is worthless. Insofar as SCUE currency is almost completely worthless, there is basically no reason for countries to retain their membership.Ric wrote:I also agree on country redistribution. Perhaps, "dead nations" could have their funds allocated to a central fund, from which new nations would get a start-up capital? I don't particularly like the idea of creating currency as it contributes to inflation and death of economy.
Edit: Rather than creating some sort of international checking account using funds from dead countries, SCUE should adopt more stringent policies for new members, and existing members should be held to higher standards regarding the use of their money. Namely, applicants should be required to provide some sort of comprehensible plan regarding economic development for their country, while existing members should be obliged to find ways to use their currency. Any applicants who fail to provide a plan should not be permitted, while members who fail to use their currency for a given period of time should simply be booted. Otherwise, the bank should expand and improve its ability to provide loans to nations, perhaps even going so far as to make it so that all new members are loaned their starting funds, rather than being granted them.
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."
-
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:12 pm
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
The bank should be 0% involved in politics and, except for the most basic of functions, leave it up to the nations to self-administer.
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
A bank with no centralized power or planning will simply not work. It hasn't worked in the past, it isn't working now, and it will not work in the future. It is that simple.
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
The joke here being that the SCUE is obviously not a bank?
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
-
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:12 pm
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
It is a 0% interest bank that gives away "free" money to new nations.
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
That's an interesting point, Jack. If it isn't a bank, then what is it? I think Giles is right, and the fact that he's right points to the biggest glaring problem within the bank. In order to become effective and useful, it might need to be completely restructured.
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
Inflation is perennially a topic we're worried about, but Duke Sinclair is right - unless money is being regularly spent, inflation is not a problem. The only time's I've known it to be a serious problem was back in Novatainia's post-based economy, when our king decided to buy something with crown funds for a ridiculous amount of money, and the person receiving that money could then spend it (this action about tripled the money in circulation, I think); and way back in the day before my time I gather it was a problem in the ICEO when there were formulas to be exploited to make money?
Either way, it's money in circulation that's the problem, not money in existence. Money from dead nations is technically placed in the admin account, but for all intents and purposes, it's deleted from the economy, because it's out of circulation. Likewise, in giving money to a new nation, it's irrelevant whether it's taken from the admin account or created out of thin air - it's money added to circulation. The SCUE was founded on the principle of keeping the amount of money in circulation approximately equal to the number of actual micronationalists in the economy - how well that's worked is a different matter, but inflation clearly hasn't been a problem. So I think giving new nations some starting funds even when all their citizens are already in the economy is probably fine - less than you would give for new citizens, sure, but some. You just have to ask yourself whether people will game the system and create new nations purely to give them more money in their private funds - if nations declare their citizens when entering and the adminstrator keeps tabs on this, it's probably fine to manage. To be honest, we've had far more problem historically with nations dying and their remaining citizens carving up the government funds rather than letting be removed (cf. Antica or Flanders), thereby making themselves very wealthy in comparison to others.
Either way, it's money in circulation that's the problem, not money in existence. Money from dead nations is technically placed in the admin account, but for all intents and purposes, it's deleted from the economy, because it's out of circulation. Likewise, in giving money to a new nation, it's irrelevant whether it's taken from the admin account or created out of thin air - it's money added to circulation. The SCUE was founded on the principle of keeping the amount of money in circulation approximately equal to the number of actual micronationalists in the economy - how well that's worked is a different matter, but inflation clearly hasn't been a problem. So I think giving new nations some starting funds even when all their citizens are already in the economy is probably fine - less than you would give for new citizens, sure, but some. You just have to ask yourself whether people will game the system and create new nations purely to give them more money in their private funds - if nations declare their citizens when entering and the adminstrator keeps tabs on this, it's probably fine to manage. To be honest, we've had far more problem historically with nations dying and their remaining citizens carving up the government funds rather than letting be removed (cf. Antica or Flanders), thereby making themselves very wealthy in comparison to others.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
New nations run by existing members should only be eligible for loans. Someone should not be able to receive a free 7500 Sc for creating a new nation, when they already control 21,000 in existing countries where they're a member. If they want that 7500 Sc, they should have to request a loan from the bank, which might offer special rates specifically for this purpose. Giving away free money to repeat members is a sure way to reduce the overall legitimacy of the bank, even if it doesn't impact the overall value of the currency.Andreas the Wise wrote:Either way, it's money in circulation that's the problem, not money in existence. Money from dead nations is technically placed in the admin account, but for all intents and purposes, it's deleted from the economy, because it's out of circulation. Likewise, in giving money to a new nation, it's irrelevant whether it's taken from the admin account or created out of thin air - it's money added to circulation. The SCUE was founded on the principle of keeping the amount of money in circulation approximately equal to the number of actual micronationalists in the economy - how well that's worked is a different matter, but inflation clearly hasn't been a problem. So I think giving new nations some starting funds even when all their citizens are already in the economy is probably fine - less than you would give for new citizens, sure, but some. You just have to ask yourself whether people will game the system and create new nations purely to give them more money in their private funds - if nations declare their citizens when entering and the adminstrator keeps tabs on this, it's probably fine to manage. To be honest, we've had far more problem historically with nations dying and their remaining citizens carving up the government funds rather than letting be removed (cf. Antica or Flanders), thereby making themselves very wealthy in comparison to others.
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 5:46 am
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
I think the creation of new currency should be tied directly to the joining of new real people. When someone registers their first account, they get some newly-minted money. New nations of old people only get money if someone cares enough to invest in them.
-
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
Just throwing something in this fighting pit: I know that at the moment this would be impossible without an overhaul of the SCUE Bank system, but perhaps it could be considered to create a system of exchange rates between nations? And perhaps a chance to block the import and export of money to other nations (but this is besides the point I want to make)?
One of the things that could strengthen the value of a coin could be the activity/transactions/...
I myself am no expert and honestly not that interested (but I have to admit that I enjoyed the thought of exchange rates like in the MX2-system of Sander), but I'm sure you guys could come up with some nifty way to make a calculation which would be more or less fair (and nations who disagree with an unfair exchange rate of another country could always 'embargo' trade).
It doesn't solve all the problems, but that way a nation can have as much money as it wants, without looking to other nations (the more money, the more chance that the currency will be cheaper, except if the economy is active, etc.).
One of the things that could strengthen the value of a coin could be the activity/transactions/...
I myself am no expert and honestly not that interested (but I have to admit that I enjoyed the thought of exchange rates like in the MX2-system of Sander), but I'm sure you guys could come up with some nifty way to make a calculation which would be more or less fair (and nations who disagree with an unfair exchange rate of another country could always 'embargo' trade).
It doesn't solve all the problems, but that way a nation can have as much money as it wants, without looking to other nations (the more money, the more chance that the currency will be cheaper, except if the economy is active, etc.).
Honoured Servant of the Jingdaoese Heavenly Light and the Kaiseress of Shireroth
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
As I understand it, there's no practical way to set up a meaningful exchange rate between SCUE Currency and currencies not associated with SCUE, mostly because the SCUE Currency doesn't have any of its own value. An accurate exchange rate would need to reflect the relationship between the value of the foreign currency and the SCX Credit, which is backed by the market. From there, you could determine an exchange rate between the foreign currency and SCUE currency. That said, this is quite the headache, and it would probably be much more practical to simply acquire a reserve of SCUE currency and/or SCX credits.
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
I take it that the administration has decided to continue pursuing a policy of total uselessness and inactivity? No one else has any aims at making this shit useful?
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."
Re: Taking up the Reigns - Items for Discussion
The SCUE does need considerable reform. I'm posting this partly to make you aware of the fact that we have had to resort to a new short term measure of introducing a new currency.
There is a substantial problem you now have, in that any overhaul potentially wipes the wealth of significant sectors of the community. I would hate to see Duke Sinclairs model be destroyed by a substantial overhaul of the SCUE. In terms of having a functional simulated economy, his is a good model which has gained a lot from this system. I am also aware that many micronationalists will potentially own substantial sums of money, which means that overhaul will bankrupt them.
Exchange rates is something countries will have to sort bi-laterally if they want some sort of functional model. A country which agrees to a rate of exchange will have to manage their money supply and also the rate of inflation present with their own goods.
I think that the problems of the SCUE have been political rather than economic. The countries involved all had to make sure they had an interest in making this work and it appears that countries have not made either credible commitments or have been active to the same extent. Potentially it was too easy to enter, potentially even the attitudes of different countries made certain factors unsustainable. If there is to be a functioning economy, it will need countries to work on agreements in good faith and for them to make it work together. As we see in the real world, politics is a key element of making currency unions work.
There are institutional problems, which I have mentioned elsewhere in Hamland, but this is not the blockage to the next moves available. In fact, I can see a good future for this in terms of the simulated economy. That is not something I have retained my interest in being a part of over time, but it is something many have. So they are welcome to put forward those arguments.
As for my own steps, I believe that our secondary currency is something I've had to propose because the system here doesn't appear credible enough any more. Trade with other countries will be easier with bi-lateral agreements and potential currency sharing than through continued use of the SCUE for our real economy, as opposed to the simulated one. This could be the dawn of different economic systems and models in the micronational hobby though, something I think would be of use.
There is a substantial problem you now have, in that any overhaul potentially wipes the wealth of significant sectors of the community. I would hate to see Duke Sinclairs model be destroyed by a substantial overhaul of the SCUE. In terms of having a functional simulated economy, his is a good model which has gained a lot from this system. I am also aware that many micronationalists will potentially own substantial sums of money, which means that overhaul will bankrupt them.
Exchange rates is something countries will have to sort bi-laterally if they want some sort of functional model. A country which agrees to a rate of exchange will have to manage their money supply and also the rate of inflation present with their own goods.
I think that the problems of the SCUE have been political rather than economic. The countries involved all had to make sure they had an interest in making this work and it appears that countries have not made either credible commitments or have been active to the same extent. Potentially it was too easy to enter, potentially even the attitudes of different countries made certain factors unsustainable. If there is to be a functioning economy, it will need countries to work on agreements in good faith and for them to make it work together. As we see in the real world, politics is a key element of making currency unions work.
There are institutional problems, which I have mentioned elsewhere in Hamland, but this is not the blockage to the next moves available. In fact, I can see a good future for this in terms of the simulated economy. That is not something I have retained my interest in being a part of over time, but it is something many have. So they are welcome to put forward those arguments.
As for my own steps, I believe that our secondary currency is something I've had to propose because the system here doesn't appear credible enough any more. Trade with other countries will be easier with bi-lateral agreements and potential currency sharing than through continued use of the SCUE for our real economy, as opposed to the simulated one. This could be the dawn of different economic systems and models in the micronational hobby though, something I think would be of use.