Forum:Global and regional issues/EUOIA
Admin note: This page contains discussion on EUOIA from February 2025 onwards. 2021 - 2024 discussion can be found here, Pre-2021 discussion has been moved to that page's "Discussion" page. There is plenty of material there (including flags, treaty proposals, etc.) which could be reused.
π TL;DR
This page will be used to develop (hopefully) final iteration of the EUOIA, a proposed union comprising of countries in the Eastern Ulethan Region. Some concepts have already been discussed outside of the wiki, but as this project grows it will be necessary to allow everyone in the region (and the world) to have a voice in this project.
πΊοΈ Discussion Structure
For this discussion forum, we will discuss the broad EUOIA organization and work our way down into the little details.
Structure for Discussion
All ideas will originate from the Topic Backlog in which people pitch potential topics to discuss. I will put them in a round based off of the "broadness" and importance of the topic
Approved topics for discussion in the round will be available for discussion for two weeks in which everybody gets to pitch solutions to the topic and others get to discuss about the topic.
After discussion ends, no more new nominations will occur. In this time period we will have one week to vote. All voting will take place on the wiki forum, and double voting will not be allowed. During the voting period, there will also be options to reopen the discussion period (and end the voting process early) to extend the discussion period by another week. If you have concerns or want this structure to change, please shoot out a PM or add a comment in the "Concerns" section.
Voting Procedure
Procedure for voting depends on the type of vote we are casting:
Set Amount of Winners
This method will be used when there can only be a set, static amount of winners (usually one). For this, we will use Single Transferable Voting. Such votes will be notates as STV.
Every member will RANK their votes, with 1 being most preferred, 2 being the second choice, 3 being the third choice, etc. You may choose to place two options equally or not rank an option entirely.
For example:
| Topic | Votes |
|---|---|
| Frome | (1) - ParrotMan (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Grimsby | (2) - ParrotMan (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Blue | (2) - ParrotMan (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Apple Pie | (3) - ParrotMan (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Porple |
Where "Frome" is my most preferred and "Apple Pie" is my least preferred. "Grimsby" and "Blue" are equal for me, so they are both "2", and Porple is left blank because I don't care for it. If you choose to not vote on certain topics, said topic will be always treated as a your last choice.
If you do not rank votes with numbers, all votes will be treated equally.
Dynamic Amount of Winners
This method will be used when there can be a nonstatic amount of winners. Each topic will win by simple majority (50% + 1), FPTP style. Such votes will be notated as Y/N FPTP
For example:
| Topic | Vote - No | Vote - Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Frome | Swan
Penguin Ox |
|
| Grimsby | Penguin | Swan
Ox |
| Blue | Penguin | Swan
Ox |
| Apple Pie | Swan | Penguin |
| Porple | Swan
Ox |
Here, "Grimsby" and "Blue" win. Apple Pie does not win since it only secured 50% of the vote, not 50% + 1.
Membership
If you wish to be a participating member of EUOIA, please put your country below. If we anticipate types of membership (observing states, etc...) and you feel that you might fall into that group, you can still put your country below. This list will not be permanent to allow members come and go as they please.
| Country | User |
|---|---|
 Wendmark-Denkuku
|
ParrotMan (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC) |
 Eshein
|
Ifgus (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC) |
| Lantia | Nehalem501 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC) |
 Izaland
|
Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC) |
 Miuro
|
Kyunzi (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC) |
 Neberly
|
Antoon (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC) |
 Kojo
|
Leowezy (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC) |
 Ugawa
|
Ominvar (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC) |
 Ogesten
|
Added on Request |
 Sanain Republic
|
Added on Request |
| Filo Islands | Added on Request |
 Canterra
|
Added on Request |
 Sapvuodma
|
Added on Request |
 Taira
|
Axaeve (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Sephyra | GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC) |
 Bloenland
|
CaribbeanIslandMapper (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
 Lingne
|
Souzzzzie (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Urksivo | Alomico (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC) |
 Remsphalia
|
Distel (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC) |
 Nuen
|
Gubble (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC) |
 Wyster
|
Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC) |
Topic Backlog
For some topics y'all want to discuss, put them in the region below. For topics currently in discussion (or already have been discussed) check the latter portions of this page. Put your username in the Concurring Users column if you also want this topic to be discussed, and Dissenting Users column if you do not want the topic to be discussed. If you don't feel either way, don't put your username in. Keep in mind that all topics will be discussed, I will just prioritize topics with more concurring users. The proposing user can withdraw topics based off of the concurring/dissenting benchmark.
| Topic | Proposing User | Additional Notes | Concurring Users | Dissenting Users |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flags & Symbols | ParrotMan (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC) | What flags and symbols will we choose to represent our union? | ||
| Locations for suborganizations | Ominvar (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC) | Since we voted to split up the government and place them in different locations, we should determine the location of the suborganizations. We should first vote on what suborganizations there are before voting on this topic, and then have separate votes for the locations of the suborganization headquarters. | ParrotMan (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC) | |
| Suborganizations | Ominvar | Moved back up to reduce conflicts with proposed treaties. | ||
| Naming Changes | ParrotMan (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC) | We have agreed to use "Eastern Ulethan Organization of Intergovernmental Associates" as our official name, but it gramatically incorrect. The correct version would be "East Ulethan Organization of Intergovernmental Associates". Should implement this correction? | ||
| Establishment of a Wiki Page | ParrotMan (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC) | When shall we make a wiki page for the EUOIA? | ||
| How do Nonbinding Laws, Mandatory Laws, and Treaties interact with each other? | ParrotMan (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC) | As we keep adding treaties, we should clarify and differentiate the role of nonbinding laws, mandatory laws, and treaties. | ||
π’ Current Rounds of Discussion
Round #3:
Topics Proposed By: ParrotMan, CaribbeanIslandMapper, Izaland Terramorphing Committee, GreenStumpyMonster
Round Start: April 19, 2025
Vote Start: May 3, 2025
Voting Method: STV, Y/N FPTP
Round End: May 17, 2025
Round Status: Discussions Only
Round Two Conflict Resolution
The previous round had one conflict that might need some clarification, where two motions passed that specified voting procedure (see "Only the highest decision making organ composed of the national heads-of-state is binding. The majority of agreements deciding among the elective body are non-binding and are more decentralised." from Topic #2 and "Four Core Institutions" from Topic #4). In the future, I will take more care into make sure conflicts do not show up. Heads up! This will be a simple Y/N vote.
| Conflict | Notes | Discussion | Vote - Yes | Vote - No |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who makes up the Executive Council? | Topic #4 lays the groundwork for the Executive Council, the "Executive Branch" of the EUOIA. Topic #2 implies that the executive council needs to be made up of the heads-of-states of all participating nations, while Topic #4 just requires representatives on behalf of heads-of-states.
Yes - Executive Council needs to consist of Heads-of-States No - Executive Council can consist of representatives on behalf of Heads-of-States |
ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Leowezy (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) | ||
| Do Executive Council Laws require approval from the Legislature? | Under the current system, only the Executive Branch may impose mandatory laws (Topic #2). However, all laws must pass through the legislature (Topic #4). Should mandatory laws originating from the executive branch have approval from the Legislative Assembly and the State Commission as well?
Yes - Mandatory Laws require Legislative Approval No - Mandatory Laws do not require Legislative Approval |
ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Leowezy (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) |
||
| Does the Legislative Assembly and the State Commission have the rights to initiate non-binding laws? | Topic #2 sets up a plan for mandatory and non-mandatory laws, with non-mandatory laws originating from the Legislative branch (Legislative Assembly + State Comission). Topic #4 requires that all laws originate from the Executive Branch. Should nonbinding laws originate from the Legislative Branch?
Yes - Nonbinding laws originate from the Legislative Branch, while binding laws originate from the Executive No - All laws originate from the Executive |
ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Leowezy (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) |
||
| Do laws originating from the Legislative Assembly and the State Commission require approval from the Executive Council? | Many countries around the world allow the executive branch to veto any bill they see fit. Under a binding and nonbinding law system, how can the executive branch influence nonbinding laws?
Yes - Nonbinding laws must seek approval from the Executive Branch No - Nonbinding laws do not require Executive Approval. |
ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Leowezy (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) |
Requirements for EUOIA Membership
Here, we can set up a system for what types of membership and the requirements to fulfill those membership types.
| Proposal | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full Membership, Observers | Ominvar (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC) | Full members:Must be in East Uletha.
Must be willing to work with others economically and diplomatically. Must have diplomatic relations with a supermajority of countries in EUOIA. New members must be approved by 3/4ths of existing members. Observers:Must have diplomatic relations with a supermajority of countries in EUOIA. States wishing to seek observer status must be approved by 2/3rds of EUOIA members. |
Currently a lot of countries actually do not have enough embassies (2/3) except for a few, particularly the newer countries. We should consider this. GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Whatever proposal we choose, I think we can all agree that all participating countries should work to extend their diplomatic system! - ParrotMan (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC) |
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(2) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (3) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) |
| Full Membership, Associates, Observers, Special Status | GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC) | Full Membership: Obviously has to be in East Uletha. They will most likely be the major hub in their sectors with the exception they have the redeeming features that make them influential continent wide. They must always willingly and constructively participate in discussions. They must always also help countries with lower status around them.
Associates: Countries that have a partnership with the union but do not have full voting rights such as vetoing. They may participate in certain committees and initiatives. Less prominent countries will be categorised as this. Observers: Non-member countries or organizations that wish to engage with the union without formal membership. They can attend meetings and access certain resources but cannot vote, instead relying on nearby powerful countries to vote. Special Status: Countries that have unique circumstances (e.g., post-conflict nations, territories with special needs) that require tailored support and integration processes. The rest of countries not here will be those unwilling to participate/unaware of EUOIA (least ideal). |
I'm not a huge fan of how Full Membership may compromise the sovereignty of member nations... ParrotMan (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I would like it to be optional to help other countries and also for there to be the option to abstain from some decisions of the organization, since if this path is taken, supranationalism would surpass the national interests of each country. DT Planner (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) |
(3) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(3) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (3) - DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (4) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (4) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) |
| Membership, Observers, Associates, Special Status | ParrotMan (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC) | Full Membership: Should generally be in East Uletha, but may be a bit more flexible (which accomodates overseas posessions, such as colonies). Must be willing to agree to mandatory treaties and recognize the EUOIA's government. New members must be approved by 2/3 supermajority of existing members. Such members can vote in the EUOIA legislature and executive branch
Observers: Countries that ratified a portion, but not all, mandatory treaties and extensively cooperates with the EUOIA on a supranational level (e.g., participating in open-border or the economic community) but do not meet the requirements to become a full member. Observers are approved when the parliament and executive approve ascension at a 2/3 supermajority vote. Observers can participate in debate in the Legislative Assembly and State commission, but not participate in the Executive Council. Observers may not vote in the legislative branch. Associates: Countries that are not observers but still wish to seek some to minimal cooperation with the EUOIA. Partner states ratify little to no mandatory treaties but participates in some EUOIA-level cooperation, such as open border policies or [components] of the economic community. Associates may not join parliamentary debate. Special Status: Countries or territories that do not comply with membership status, but are given special permissions to access specific EUOIA institutions, such as banking, etc... Each Special Country are granted specific permissions and the amount of permission given to countries are not uniform across all countries with Special Status. Special Status is confirmed with a 3/4 supermajority vote. Countries with special status must have good diplomatic ties with the EUOIA. Because of how vague and flexible the "Special Status" grants, there will not be a lot of countries that get this status. IRL examples can be the Vatican City, San Marino, Monaco, and Andorra being part of the Eurozone(-ish) without being part of the EU. |
It is quite problematic if the full member isn't in East Uletha because the whole purpose is to be most relevant to our continent; also I think Equatorial Izland is basically the equatorial version of the more prominent and important Izaland - overseas possessions is too broadly defined! Though I do agree with the idea of partners.GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, the borders of what we view as "Eastern Uletha" might change as the region shifts historically, geographically, and culturally. It might be best to omit that requirement. Also, I meant foreign territories directly administered by a member country, which isn't Equatorial Izaland -- oops! ParrotMan (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC) |
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(1) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) |
| Full Membership, Observers, Associates | Ominvar (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC) | Full Members:Must be located in East Uletha (defined as countries in Uletha, with ID number ranging from 18 to 33). Must be willing to work with other member states economically and diplomatically, and be at peace with all members of the EUOIA. Must be willing to participate in cooperative discussion and ratify mandatory treaties associated with the EUOIA (as well as the founding treaty of course). New members must be ratified by a 2/3rds supermajority of countries.
Observers: Countries willing to engage with the EUOIA, but that have not ratified the required treaties. Must cooperate economically/diplomatically with EUOIA, and observer status must be ratified by a 2/3rds supermajority of countries. Associates: Countries that are not observers but wishing to collaborate with EUOIA or rely on trade/diplomacy with the EUOIA. |
Restricting to certain ID Numbers is not realistic ParrotMan (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
We can probably remove the ID requirement thing then, as many people probably know what East Uletha is. Ominvar (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC) |
(3) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(2) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (3) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) |
Freedom of Movement
How should our Freedom of Movement system work? Should this be a Mandatory, or Non-binding Treaty?
| Proposal | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modified Schengen System
Non-binding |
ParrotMan (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC) | Participating countries keep open borders allowing for all sorts of free movement. Nonparticipating countries can choose to decide how to allow people cross the border (e.g., no visas + passport, or just a simple id, etc...) but is facilitated mainly through the EUOIA.
It's important to note that countries not part of this system can still choose to dictate how they pursue open borders (to specific countries, etc...) but just won't participate in widespread open borders. |
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(1) Leowezy (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) | |
| Various open border agreements between member states
Non-binding |
Ominvar (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC) | Various regions and states have open border agreements with each other (mostly independent of the EUOIA), choosing which countries to have open-border agreements with. | So would the treaty just set up the framework for this open border policy, not dictate it? - ParrotMan (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
I think it is best to do it open as a lot of countries have different characteristics and it is weird to allow open access between countries of significant distance. GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC) In my opinion, it's too much bureaucracy and allows for disunity should each state choose to have which borders open to who. I think it'd be better to have one system in which countries can choose to either join or not. I feel like countries not participating in a unified system can opt out and choose for themselves, anyways. ParrotMan (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC) |
(3) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(2) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) |
| (2) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC) |
Educational Exchanges
Will the EUOIA have a student exchange program similar to Europe's Erasmus program? Should this be a Mandatory, or Non-binding Treaty?
| Proposal | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EUHEEP - East Uletha Higher Education Exchange Program Non binding treaty |
Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC) | The Euheep allows students to study in other member nations without tuition fees and promote international research programs. | I likes! ParrotMan (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Could there be an easier acronym as EUHEEP is kinda long - even EEP? (Keep the full name but just use Education Exchange Programme - EEP - for short) Sjk23 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC) |
ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Leowezy (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) |
Military System
Will the EUOIA have a common army, or have a network of military cooperation? How extensive should this system be? Should this be a Mandatory, or Non-binding Treaty?
| Proposal | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joint Training Initiatives
Non-binding |
Ominvar (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC) | The EUOIA will arrange joint training sessions between the militaries of countries willing to participate on occasion. | I prefer this option since perhaps some countries with high military capacity want to have autonomy and avoid participating in distant conflicts.
DT Planner (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) |
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(1) Leowezy (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) |
| Mutual protection w/ Joint Training Initatives
Mandatory |
(+Ominvar) | An add-on to Ominvar's proposal (so there will still be OPTIONAL Joint Training Initatives), but adding on that the EUOIA should include a pledge from each country to protect each other in case of war as a deterrent to possible invasions from outsiders. However, the EUOIA should probably adapt a policy active neutrality should we go down this path. | This option could ignore the fact that there are many EUOIA countries that are very distant from each other and that they preferred not to participate in distant conflicts. Perhaps it would be better to make an optional mutual protection treaty within the EUOIA.
DT Planner (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) I'd still like to urge for a mandatory mutual protection treaty as it prepares the the continent against attacks, especially during the fallout of the Great War. Historically, the EUOIA would not have been stretched to the borders that are as of now, and, although it there is less emphasis on mutual protection nowadays I think it is still important to implement it - ParrotMan (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC) |
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(2) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - DT Planner (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) |
Common Market
How will the EUOIA's market behave? Should this be a Mandatory, or Non-binding Treaty?
| Proposal | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Market Economy
Mandatory |
ParrotMan (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC) | The EUOIA historically should be built off of open markets in the first place, especially after repairing the damage after the Great War... Open Markets foster better competition which develops all economies as each country has different needs. This aims to promote economic growth, create jobs, and enhance competitiveness by removing trade barriers and encouraging greater integration among member states.
(pretty please :<) (> ?) |
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(1) Leowezy (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (1) - Axaeve (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (2) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) | |
| (1) - Awesomeboy123 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) |
π³οΈ Previous Discussions & Votes
All outcomes and voting logic is posted here for full transparency. Message me if you have any concerns. Winning topics are tagged with "π ".
Round #2:
Topics Proposed By: ParrotMan, GreenStumpyMonster, Ominvar, Gubble
Round Start: March 21, 2025
Vote Start: April 4, 2025
Voting Method: STV
Round End: April 11, 2025
Round Status: Closed;
What System of Founding Agreements Shall We Use?
The EUOIA will need to have a founding document, sort of a "constitution". How should this be executed? The previous discussion focused on multiple, different treaty systems.
| Proposal | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes | π |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-EUOIA Free Trade Agreement, succeeded by EUOIA Founding Document | Ominvar (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC) | A free trade agreement between some countries in the Darcodian Sea/Gulf of Volta region should precede the modern EUOIA, which will encompass a wider range of nations and will be stronger. | (3) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (3) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (3) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Souzzzzie (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (3) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
||
| Pre-EUOIA Free Trade Agreement, succeeded by "basic" EUOIA Founding Document, then have different treaties expanding on founding document. | ParrotMan (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC) | A spinoff of Ominvar's proposal but specifies that the founding document is very basic and additional treaties are tacked on to grant the EUOIA additional powers among members
Founding Treaty/Document:This is a treaty that allowed all founding members to join the union. This founding treaty describes the bare, legal framework that gives the EUOIA supranational status. Mandatory Treaties:These treaties are mandatory when joining the EUOIA. The status of such treaties are dictated by the founding treaty. Any amendment to the Founding Document or subsequent Mandatory Treaties are mandatory. All accessions/removals to members of the EUOIA must be done through Mandatory Treaties, for example. Opt-in Treaties: These treaties are optional for members in the EUOIA. Some examples could be a common currency, or free travel. |
(2) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Leowezy (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
π | |
| Pre-EUOIA, Great-war era non-aggression, collaborative agreement. Succeeded by EUOIA Founding Agreement. | Gubble (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC) | Originated as a post-war agreement of non-aggression and mutual collaboration for the regeneration of areas damaged by the war. EUOIA Founding Agreement is introduced multiple decades later, loosely linked to and superseding the post-war agreement, including 3-pillars:
- Economic Collaboration - Social Collaboration - Security Collaboration |
(1) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Distel (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Leowezy (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Ominvar (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
||
| Reopen proposals | [N/A] | Should you find these options unsatisfactory. This topic will be nullified and be up for discussion/voting in the next round. |
How Far Does the Supranational Organization's Powers Go?
The EUOIA, as determined in the previous round of discussions, will be based off a Supranational model. How much power does this umbrella organization get, and what protections can we grant to each individual country to protect sovereignty?
| Proposal | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes | π |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreements made in EUOIA are binding, and countries must allocate funding/resources to EUOIA. The EUOIA should have a parliament with delegates from each EUOIA member. | Ominvar (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC) | This is somewhat similar to the real-world European Union, and in my opinion, gives the organization sufficient power while protecting state sovereignty. | The area covered by EUOIA is much larger and more diverse than the EU. As such, basing the organisations powers on the EU seems unrealistic. | (3) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (3) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (3) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (3) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
|
| Only the highest decision making organ composed of the national heads-of-state is binding. The majority of agreements deciding among the elective body are non-binding and are more decentralised. | Gubble (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC) | Leans more towards an intergovernmental organisation. | (2) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Leowezy (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Souzzzzie (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
π | |
| All laws are binding, but only the executive branch can propose laws (comprised of the head of states or persons representing). Bills must pass the legislature with majority. After leaving the EUOIA, the bill must be ratified by the majority of countries' parliaments to become law. | ParrotMan (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC) | Essentially here, member countries have a huge, HUGE say on how laws are passed. The executive council is the sole body that can propose laws, the legislature can only serve to approve and amend laws. Member countries get one last chance to vote against the law in their own parliaments. | (1) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Leowezy (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Ominvar (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
||
| Reopen proposals | [N/A] | Should you find these options unsatisfactory. This topic will be nullified and be up for discussion/voting in the next round. |
Location of Headquarters
The Headquarters of the EUOIA will need to be placed somewhere. Where will we place it, and what procedures will dictate the location of the headquarters?
| Topic | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dzenkuku-Utera Metropolitan Area | ParrotMan (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC) | Izaland and I have proposed to make an autonomous zone that stretches from Dzenkuku-Utera to Kimunnay. This area would be perfect for this organization, close to both the Northern and Southern areas of Eastern Uletha. The autonomous zone would also help insulate the EUOIA from favoring one country over the other. The area in question is here, but we have yet to establish such a zone on the map. | (2) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (3) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Ominvar (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (3) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
||
| Switzerland Style but with rotations | ParrotMan (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC) | Have the government split up and be placed in different corners of the EUOIA, and such functions be rotated throughout the country after every governmental... voting this option means the next round will have a vote on how the location will be determined. | (3) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (3) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (2) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
||
| Switzerland Style but no rotations | ParrotMan (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC) | Have the government split up and be placed in different corners of the EUOIA, but the location will be set in stone (nowadays, this is viable as technology progresses)... voting this option means the next round will have a vote of the location of headquarters. | (1) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Leowezy (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Souzzzzie (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
π | |
| Reopen proposals | [N/A] | Should you find these options unsatisfactory. This topic will be nullified and be up for discussion/voting in the next round. | (1) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) |
System of Government
How will our government behave (how are laws passed, and what standards must those laws pass?)
| Topic | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes | π |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four Core Institutions | ParrotMan (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC) | I propose that we have core institutions that maintain the balance of power throughout the EUOIA. These institutions are specified under a "founding document"
Legislative Assembly - Legislative Citizens across the EUOIA directly elect the people's assembly and its makeup is proportional to population. The People's Assembly can only pass bills into laws, but can not propose bills. It can override State Commission decisions with a supermajority vote. State Commission - Legislative The State Commission is made up of delegates on the behalf of each member state -- each member state gets two seats. The State Commission can choose to veto or amend laws to be sent back to the Assembly. It can not propose bills or pass bills into law. It approves the makeup of the Court of Justice. Court of Justice - Judicial The Court of Justice serves to EUOIA interpret laws, as well ensuring laws are being interpreted uniformly across the whole union. Executive Council - Executive The Executive Council serves as the sole executive body, comprised of the one delegate from each member state. It is the sole body that can propose laws. Its makeup must be approved by the Legislative Assembly. The leader of the Executive Council, approved by the Assembly, serves as the figurehead of the Union. It proposes the makeup of the Court of Justice.
Feel free to ask for clarification or for an amendment to my proposal π΅ |
(1) - Axaeve (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Leowezy (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Antoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Ominvar (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - Souzzzzie (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC) (1) - DT Planner (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
π | |
| Reopen proposals | [N/A] | Should you find these options unsatisfactory. This topic will be nullified and be up for discussion/voting in the next round. | (2) - ParrotMan (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC) |
Round #1:
Topic Proposed By: [N/A]
Round Start: February 28, 2025
Vote Start: March 14, 2025
Voting Method: STV
Round End: March 21, 2025
Round Status: Closed
What Will EUOIA Stand For?
As brought up in the previous discussion, we might be a little doubtful on what EUOIA stands for. Should we keep it as the Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies?
| Acronym | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes | π |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies | [N/A] | Current iteration of EUOIA. | For me this is still te preferred acronym. Not because it goes back a long time, but for some of the words. With 'organisation' i think of a partnership/agency/group. Also i like the 'independant' as for it's too soon to be part of a federation or even a union like the EU. That's because i don't know what other countries/territories will be part, how developed they are and what principles they have. I have no special preference for the 'allies'-part.Antoon (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC) | (4) - ParrotMan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
(3) - Ominvar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC) (3) - Axaeve (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (2) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (4) Sjk23 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC) (2) - DT Planner (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
|
| Eastern Uletha Open Integration Agreement | Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC) | The Eastern Uletha Open Integration Agreement (EUOIA) is a regional intergovernmental organization aimed at fostering economic, political, and cultural cooperation among its member states. Established in the aftermath of the Great War, EUOIA was conceived as a framework for ensuring stability, economic prosperity, and regional integration across Eastern Uletha.
EUOIA is built on three core principles:
Key Functions and Policies
|
I like these core principles but I don't know about this acronym π€; I also suggest that you amend the first two words to "East Ulethan" as it is more grammatically correct in English :) - ParrotMan (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
With 'Agreement' i'm more thinking of a document/statement rather then an organisation. Maybe because English isn't my first language. Also i'm not sure if the principles, functions and policies have anything to do with what the EUOIA stands for. I would have thought that to be a different discussion for a later time.Antoon (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC) |
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
(4) - Ominvar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC) (1) - Axaeve (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (3) Sjk23 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC) (1) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (4) - DT Planner (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
|
| East Ulethan Organization for Intergovernmental Accord | ParrotMan (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC) | Hopefully this reflects Izaland's proposed core values as well. | The same as with 'Agreement' i feel that 'Accord' more refers to a document rather then an organisation. But that may well be my lack in the English language. Antoon (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Hmm... I can see how that might cause such an implication. I'll propose another one! ParrotMan (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC) |
(3) - ParrotMan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
(2) - Ominvar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC) () - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (5) - DT Planner (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
|
| East Ulethan Organization for Intergovernmental Affairs | ParrotMan (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC) | An iteration of my previous proposal | This one actually sounds the most professional and easy to understand. It is the most logical one, I think. GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
"Intergovernmental Affairs" may seem a bit broad and vague, and "affairs" may not have much of a positive connotation. Ominvar (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC) |
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
(5) - Ominvar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC) (2) - Axaeve (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (5) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (2) Sjk23 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC) (3) - DT Planner (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
|
| Eastern Ulethan Organization of Intergovernmental Associates | ParrotMan (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC) | Another iteration of my previous proposal
Proposed by Ifgus of Eshein in the previous discussion. |
I like this one more, as associates seems nice and formal. Ominvar (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC) | (1) - ParrotMan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
(1) - Ominvar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC) (4) - Axaeve (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (3) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (1) Sjk23 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC) (1) - DT Planner (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
π |
| Reopen proposals | [N/A] | Should you find these options unsatisfactory. This topic will be nullified and be up for discussion/voting in the next round. |
What Sort of Union are We Aiming For?
What kind of union will EUOIA be? Will it be a strictly economic union, militaristic union, political union, or a sort-of mix?
| Type of Union | Nominator | Nominator's Notes | Discussion | Votes | π |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supranationalism | ParrotMan (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC) | I really like Izaland's proposed core values of EUOIA and I hope that it sticks around, but I also want to see a more extensive approach to the EUOIA. Supranational Unions takes some power from member states to create the conditions that reflect extensive cooperation between member states, such as common markets, economic development, etc... Such unions would also allow member states to collectively have a louder voice on the international stage.
This approach is similar to what the European Union is like today. Should we vote this we can determine how strong or weak such a governing organization could be. |
I wonder if there should be a parliament for the EUOIA (just like the EU irl) that countries send delegates to? I think we should have only an economic/political union. Ominvar (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I would love to see that! But for now, let's determine if such an idea is viable π ParrotMan (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC) On another note, history-wise, we could say that the EUOIA originated as an Intergov't organization which gradually transitioned Supranationalism as geopolitics in the region advances, but I'm getting ahead of myself here. ParrotMan (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC) |
(1) - ParrotMan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
(1) - Ominvar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC) (1) - Axaeve (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (2) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (1) Sjk23 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC) (2) - DT Planner (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
π |
| Intergovernmental organization | Leowezy (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC) | An intergovernmental organization, like the African Union or the Union of South American Nations, facilitates multilateral agreements between its members, but member states retain more autonomy. Since East Uletha encompasses many different cultural spheres with much looser historical connections than Europe, I think such an approach would be more realistic. Also, within such a framework individual countries are still able to work more closely together on a case-by-case-basis, the other way around is more difficult. Leowezy (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC) | Maybe i can agree on Izaland's values, but will that go for all the members of EUOIA? Also i'm not sure if all countries have similar development ratings. To me it seems this discussion is a bit too soon. But should i have to choose between the two types for now, i choose this one. Antoon (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC) | (3) - ParrotMan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
(3) - Ominvar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC) (3) - Axaeve (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (1) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (2) Sjk23 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC) (3) - DT Planner (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
|
| A mix between an Intergovernmental Organization and Supranationalism | ParrotMan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC) | Some (but not all) functions would be regulated with a high governing body while still allowing for a higher(ish) level of autonomy in member states with a framework to allow countries to collaborate with a case-by-case basis.
This approach would be similar to the European Union in its early days, although probably weaker. We can determine what this looks like specifically in later rounds should we choose this path. |
(2) - ParrotMan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
(2) - Ominvar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC) (2) - Axaeve (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (3) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC) (4) Sjk23 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC) (1) DT Planner (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
||
| A cooperation organisation | GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC) | An organisation in which everyone in theory has an equal say but the member states are voted to have the power to veto on important issues. All members are required to cooperate and also take into interests of smaller states to retain their higher stataus. The countries will be encouraged to help each other with incentives from doing tasks like engaging in trading blocs though this is not necessary but does limit the privilege to be considered as a member state. This ensures some people can keep autonomy as they wish but limits their say if they aren't willing to collaborate.
GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC) |
This sounds nice but can you expand on what you're envisioning about here? ParrotMan (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC) | (3) - Ominvar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
(3) Sjk23 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC) (4) - Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
|
| Reopen proposals | [N/A] | Should you find these options unsatisfactory. This topic will be nullified and be up for discussion/voting in the next round. |
π€ Concerns?
I am confused about some aspects of this post.
- Why exactly is a new post needed, if discussion here already proceeded substantially and the nature of the project has seemingly not changed much? I don't see any downside to why you would not continue there. If the page seems to bloated with old and irrelevant material, you can hide such parts using spoilers for example. But if we start a new post everytime we want to move the direction of a discussion, discussions will fizzle out more.
- Secondly, what is the difference between "Motion to begin EUOIA project" and "Motion to Take Over EUOIA as MSTR is No Longer Regularly Active"?
- Second and a half-ly, even if mstr is no longer active, how and why would someone "take over" a discussion on the forum - you could still just built upon the previous discussion, it doesn't seem to me like any of the material there is only accessible to mstr?
- And lastly, mappers are free to coordinate their bi- or multilateral cooperations anywhere they like, including Discord, the Metaverse, or per carrier pigeon. But it is an established rule that anything that affects other mappers or that claims some form of community-wide validity needs to be discussed and decided on in the forum. That is not a matter of efficiency or ease of use but of transparency and fostering a community where everyone feels (and is) heard.
Please address these points before going into further details. Thanks! Leowezy (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- I like the questions of Leowezy being answered too. Last week i received a message from Parrotman with an invitation to the Discord-server, as my territory of Neberly is in East Uletha. Parrotman highly encouraged me to join "as many other mappers use is as a medium for communication and coordination as Eastern Uletha becomes a busier place. For EUOIA stuff, we will continue to post stuff on the forum but most of our decision making will take place on Discord." I'm not a member yet of Discord and i'm not looking for another way to discuss topics in our 'corner of the world'. For me this forum works fine, also as it can be viewed by all Opengeofiction-members and not just the ones getting an invitation. Antoon (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hey guys! Both of you raised very valid points and concerns as I have not clarified some aspects of this post, to which my reply below helps clarify some issues that have emerged.
- To reply to Leowezy's questions:
- I did originally want to proceed with the "hiding elements in the previous discussion" idea, but I'm quite new to the wiki and that I didn't know how that would quite work out. If you are able to do that, feel free to delete this page and move everything to the other -- with the expandable feature -- thanks!
- "Motion to Begin EUOIA Project" is to just find a general consensus on whether or not if the majority of those in the region are interested and want to resurrect the EUOIA project; "Motion to Take Over EUOIA as MSTR is No Longer Regularly Active" is to clarify whether or not if we are looking to bring back EUOIA specifically or if we want to make another supranational union, dropping the EUOIA namesake.
- The whole point of a new forum (or per the first question a revived discussion on the old forum) is to rebuild from the ground up, as the needs and requirements of the EU region has fluctuated over the past few years of when the discussion kind of died out. We've seen new countries pop up in this region and recently we have collectively revised the history in the region (which is emerging on the wiki) and I have found that the current working EUOIA doesn't fit as well as it might've before... it might just be easier to scrap everything, and start over again... and recycling some elements from the previous discussion (such as flag ideas, etc...) are already being considered.
- Although I have considered carrier pigeon, wiki forums, and more recently Pictionary as a mode of communication over the topic of EUOIA, for the past few months I have grown a discord server that communicates about mapping, history, and commercial bits in the region and I thought it would be more convenient if we just communicated it through there. Obviously, I didn't consider the transparency and "putting the idea to the rest of the world" aspects until a few days ago when Izaland brought up this concern, which is why I'm pushing the previous Proposals for Communicating and Voting. Obviously, using Discord as the sole means of idea pitching, voting, and discussing is never going to happen, as I do agree that the community shouldn't be gatekept from collaborating in the EUOIA project. However, I do want to determine discord's role in this discussion (e.g., as an auxiliary for discussion?) for this post. However, I think that we can all agree that from now on, anything that is discussed outside of the wiki pertaining to EUOIA will have to be posted on the wiki anyways.
- To reply to Antoon's question:
- Firstly, I want to apologize if you were feeling offended in any means -- that was not my intention. This invitation obviously occurred before Izaland's concerns. As per other concerns you have brought up, please read my reply to Leowezy.
- Hope to hear from y'all soon! ParrotMan (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest i think i was a bit annoyed by the way the discord-server was brought on to me. But from the answers and the way this page is revised i take it every decision concerning the EUOIA or it's follow-up will (also) be discussed here in the open, and that's good enough for me. On the whole i quite enjoy the bits of mapping i do, still after over 10 years i'm part of this project. But also it isn't my main priority with things going on in private and work. So i only invest bits of time here and can't do much more then follow what others do and post here. It would be too much for me to follow or take part in discussions on different platforms. Therefore i'm curious to the ideas and discussion that come. Antoon (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I had a look at the old EUIOA page; in fact it not only contained an old (~up to 2024) discussion, but even a pre-2021 discussion which was moved to that page's talk page. This reminds me how long this topic has been going on... Facilitating and finalizing discussion on this topic has clearly been challenging.
- May I propose the following before you start on the contentual discussion:
- I do see now how a new forum post might be needed...
- but please remove the voting on wiki vs discord. Anyone is free to use discord or other means of communication to discuss ideas as they seem fit, but each proposal needs to be spelled out and eventually voted on on the wiki.
- Please also remove the voting records from the discord discussion. It gives members who are not active on discord the wrong impression that formal parts of the decision making take place there. If there is a wide consensus on specific questions among so many members, it should be easy to reestablish that on-site. Also, I still don't clearly understand the difference between the first two motions, but it might not matter anyway.
- I have highlighted the link to the past dicussion more prominently at the start of this forum post.
- I would advise (personal opinion) to structure the discussion process a little more clearly. If you already have a proposal agreed upon by a dozen members, spell it out clearly and give non-discord members the opportunity to comment and, if they like, declare they would like to join. Past discussions on EUOIA seem to have failed in my eyes because the discussion dragged on too long, getting deeper and deeper into the details of the inner workings of the union and the regulations it would set before anything concrete was finalised. To avoid this happening a third time, I would advise to start with a "bare minimum" of a union: name; type of union (economic, defense, ...); member states; structure for how further details will be added later (see next point).
- Once an EUOIA (or differently named union) and a list of participating mappers is established, you could then use the treaty system from the past discussion to flesh it out. That system has the benefit that individual member countries might be allowed to opt in or out of treaties as they which, reducing the complexity of discussion and voting by a lot. These treaties could range from defining the union's flag over freedom of movement and trade to defense clauses. But this discussion should probably only start after the "bare minimum" union is up and running, including a dedicated wiki article. Again, this is my personal opinion as a normal member, not as regional admin.
- I do see now how a new forum post might be needed...
- Best, Leowezy (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Will do! Thanks for the guidance! π ParrotMan (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)!
- I have corrected the voting guidelines above, since they were not properly corrected to what Leowezy said. Official votes do not take place in full or in part on Discord. It is one thing to have a user commit their territory to the project in an unofficial platform, but official votes that are supposed to be open to the public take place only here for transparency, to be maximally inclusive of those who do not use other platforms, and to avoid confusion. If someone does not have a wiki account, I'm happy to get it set up. All they have to do is send me a message on the OGF messaging system. On another note, votes are typically open or two weeks to allow for participants that do not get online to check the wiki regularly. Cheers. — Alessa (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Alessa, I will extend the discussion period per your recommendation. However I'd really prefer if we also allow discord as an option for voting as it is more immediate and easier to vote there. There are ways to ensure transparency like providing names or screenshots (in the form of links as I do not want to clog the servers on OGF) and if that is your concern - ParrotMan (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)