[PROPOSAL] Alternate Award Reform

I believe the Honors Wall Act strips away the spirit and value of our awards system. It attempts to solve problems with completely unrelated solutions and upends our traditional system of awards. Yes, reform is necessary. Yes, there are problems to solve. Yes, it is foolish to cling to tradition when it is no longer working. However, it CAN work, without hugely drastic changes, and these problems can be solved in a much more measured way. To this end I present the following legislation proposals:

  1. I propose an amendment to the Pacificum Orientale Awards Act which replaces all the text with the contents of the first reply to this thread.

  2. I propose a resolution with the contents of the second reply of this thread.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE EAST PACIFIC

SECTION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

…1.1. This act shall be known and cited as ”The Pacificum Orientale Awards Act”.

…1.2. For the purposes of this act, “Ribbon” is defined as an image with the pixel dimensions of 106 pixels by 29 pixels designed to act as a badge proof of holding an honor instituted by this act.

…1.3. Presenting a ribbon in any public space shall be prohibited unless one of the following is true:
……1.3.1. It is being presented informatively, to indicate what the ribbon for a certain honor is;
……1.3.2. It is being presented to indicate that the related honor has been awarded to an individual through the legal processes established by this Act; or
……1.3.3. It is being presented by an individual who has been awarded the related honor through the legal processes established by this Act, and is being presented solely as their own badge proof.

…1.4. The granting of any ribbon or titled honor which is not explicitly permitted by this Act shall be prohibited unless in the case of a major military operation, in which case, the honors themselves must specifically relate to the operation in question, and must be granted by the Delegate or a related military authority.

…1.5. The violation of prohibitions set forth by this act shall be an indictable offense known as “Stolen Valor.” There shall be no minimum sentencing for this offense, and the maximum sentencing shall be a 30 day regional ban. The maximum sentence shall be reserved only for acts of Stolen Valor which intentionally and harmfully deceive the public or undermine this act.

…1.6. Sections of regional services may be renamed after an impactful individual as an additional honor to those outlined within this act.

…1.7. The respective administrative authorities of subcommunities and internal organizations recognized by the Magisterium shall be empowered to create awards to honor substantial contributors to the community without regard for the provisions or restrictions of this act.

SECTION II. ORDER OF THE GOLDEN OCELOT

…2.1. “The Order of the Golden Ocelot” shall be the highest honor in the region, and shall be reserved for those nations who have had a long lasting impact upon the region as a result of extraordinary service above and beyond what is expected of their positions.

…2.2. A resolution shall be created, entitled “The Order of the Golden Ocelot.” It shall be maintained with a clause for each member of the order, detailing their accomplishments. This resolution may not be repealed.

…2.3. To award an individual with the Order of the Golden Ocelot, an amendment must be made to this resolution.

…2.4. If members of the Order of the Golden Ocelot perform additional deeds which are deemed worthy of the Order, an amendment must be made to their clause detailing these additional accomplishments.

…2.5. The Magisterium shall not grant the Order of the Golden Ocelot for deeds which fall solely under the category of a single Executive Honor.

…2.6. In addition to a ribbon, the Order of the Golden Ocelot shall include a medal. The designs for both the ribbon and the medal shall be the traditional models maintained in previous editions of this act.

SECTION III. EXECUTIVE HONORS

…3.1. The Delegate shall be empowered to grant Executive Honors at any point during their term. Recipients of executive honors shall be documented in a thread maintained in the Executive forum. The only Executive Honors are those established within this Section.

…3.2. The Magisterium shall be empowered to revoke Executive Honors with a majority vote. In this case, no Delegate may award the same honor to the same individual.

…3.3. The Order of Valor may be granted to exceptional military combatants and commanders who have distinguished themselves through their service to the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army through consistent updating, triggering, or other military involvement.

…3.4. The Order of Artistry may be granted to those nations who have contributed in the realm of art and design, such as through Executive promotions, the flag of The East Pacific, or other government-related graphics.

…3.5. The Order of Culture may be granted to those nations who have made exceptional contributions in the realm of engagement and event-planning within the region and in the form of interregional events involving The East Pacific.

…3.6. The Order of Hospitality may be granted to those nations who have demonstrated personability and success in the task of recruiting individuals to The East Pacific region or its government, and/or subsequently guiding new nations to integration within the region.

…3.7. The Order of Jurisprudence may be granted to those nations within the Magisterium or the Conclave which have made substantial positive contributions to The East Pacific through the creation, refinement, or interpretation of its legal system.

…3.8. The Order of Maintenance may be granted to those individuals who work behind the scenes of the government, providing support to the regional community by creating or strengthening its infrastructure.

…3.9. The Order of the Parrot may be granted to those diplomats and Foreign Affairs policy-makers or advisors who have demonstrated tact and pride in the execution of their duties as they represent The East Pacific abroad, improve its relations with foreign regions or organizations, or make a significant impact on behalf of The East Pacific on a global stage.

…3.10. The Order of the Horse may be granted to those Delegates who have made an exceptional mark on The East Pacific through their unique leadership and delegation, especially through crisis or uncertainty. The Order of the Horse may only be granted to an individual when at least one year has passed since the end of their Delegacy.

…3.11. The ribbons of Executive Honors shall be set by the Delegate. If no ribbon exists, the Honor may still be awarded.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE EAST PACIFIC

SECTION I. CITATION

…1.1. This resolution shall be known and cited as the “Order of the Golden Ocelot.”

SECTION II. FINDINGS

…2.1. The historical Order of the Golden Ocelot has served as the highest civilian and military award in The East Pacific for years.

…2.2. This resolution is the continuation of these years of tradition.

…2.3. This resolution is mandated and protected by the Pacificum Orientale Awards Act.

…2.4. This resolution represents the gratitude, respect, and love of the community which these individuals have helped in so many ways.

SECTION III. ORDER OF THE GOLDEN OCELOT

…3.1. 1 Infinite Loop, inducted by Delegate Ramaeus on 19 August 2015, for founding the Confederated East Pacific.

…3.2. A Slanted Black Stripe, inducted by Delegate Ramaeus on 19 August 2015, for leading the efforts to free The East Pacific from the Empire.

…3.3. Bachtendekuppen, inducted by Delegate Ramaeus on 19 August 2015, for creation of the modern Executive structure of The East Pacific.

…3.4. East Malaysia, inducted by Delegate Ramaeus on 19 August 2015, for long-term service as a Vizier, Administrator, and several other roles.

…3.5. Packilvania, inducted by Delegate Ramaeus on 19 August 2015, for continually assimilating us against our will.

…3.6. Todd McCloud, inducted by Delegate Ramaeus on 19 August 2015, for outstanding service as Delegate of The East Pacific.

…3.7. Xoriet, inducted by Delegate Ramaeus on 19 August 2015, for outstanding service as Erelim General of The Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army.

etc.

As stated in the Honors Wall Act thread, all my reasons for opposing the current system and any system based off it. They all apply here.

I will not support what I already called paint on a corpse.

ALL your reasons apply here? So the reasoning of personal Delegate awards undermining the existing system, for example? Which is explicitly banned by this proposal?

Did you actually read my proposal or did you just see that there were multiple executive awards without tiers and decide to oppose it based SOLELY on that?

General support.

That being said,

…1.6. Commendations of current East Pacifican citizens within the Security Council shall be supported by the Executive government, except in cases of satire or extremely poor quality, in which case, the decision shall remain in the hands of the Delegate.

I don’t really feel comfortable with this. I get the intentions behind it, but on the other hand - what if the nominee themself truly just isn’t commendable, or if the quality concerns exist even if they’re not extremely poor?

…1.8. The respective administrative authorities of subcommunities and internal organizations recognized by the Magisterium shall be empowered to create awards to honor substantial contributors to the community without regard for the provisions or restrictions of this act.

What if the Exec wants to give awards for a contest? Or N-Day? Or Z-Day? Or other such special event?

Recipients of executive honors shall be documented in a thread maintained in the Executive forum.

One thing I do like about Nociav’s proposal is the dispatch. It does make sense to keep a centrallized dispatch with all awards we can think of. Why not do that instead?

…3.10. The Order of the Horse may be granted to those Delegates who have made an exceptional mark on The East Pacific through their unique leadership and delegation, especially through crisis or uncertainty. The Order of the Horse may only be granted to an individual when at least one year has passed since the end of their Delegacy.

I’m not sure giving Delegates Delegate-specific awards is much of a good idea. The other Awards are pretty relatively easy to get involved in those areas, but Delegate itself is a bit difficult. Why not make this an award for anyone who takes a strong step up in general Executive leadership?

Also - are Executive honors awarded once or can be awarded multiple times? If the former, why not the latter? Also, why have the ribbons of Executive honors be set by the Delegate - wouldn’t that decrease standardization and also (in some way) make it so Delegates can personally customize awards if they feel like it?

I was not speaking literally, it is a hyperbole. Delegate awards were one of the issues I listed. If you look back, you will see that I had a lot more that I took issue with. Those remain unresolved eg. publicity, complexity, motivation, among others. Additionally, it lacks the fundamental ideas that underpinned my system.

This is not melding my system and the current one. It is the current system with Delegate awards abolished. As such, I will not be supporting it.

Hyperbole doesn’t help here. Neither does this incredible vagueness. It seems like you just won’t support any proposal that isn’t specifically your own. There is no attempt to compromise on your part, even as I have tried my best to address as many of your issues as I could.

I never said I was going to “meld the systems.” I said I was going to make a counterproposal which addresses the core issues you brought up without going to incredibly extremes and uprooting part of our culture in the name of mechanical, style-less efficiency - between “Tier One, Tier Two, Tier Three” and the removal of the name “Order of the Golden Ocelot.”

  1. Good point on SC, I’ll remove.
  2. For RP awards, that’s something I would be comfortable adding as an amendment, but would want to discuss in depth with the communities first. For N Day and Z Day…I don’t like the idea of awards for those. Everyone gets 3 awards a year? Kinda eh.
  3. Vussul’s proposal for a dispatch is definitely one I can get behind. By “instead”, do you mean no forum thread at all? Idk how to feel about that tbh. I could be for it or against it.
  4. The reason I did Delegate-specific awards is because every delegate is immediately awarded the OGO by their successor (or idk if that’s actually the case anymore but it definitely used to be a big thing) which might diminish it. The idea is to put exceptional leadership into a category to reserve the exclusive highest order in the region for the best of the best in multiple categories.
  5. Executive awards are once per person. Why not the latter? Similarly to what I added for the OGO, I envisioned a system where updates were made when exceptional service was shown, but I also kinda expect awards to be given only when people are “done”, yk? Kinda like SC Commends. I’d like to foster that culture as much as I can through structure.
  6. Why have ribbons set by the Delegate? Because I hate the idea of images in a law. It’s an aesthetic nightmare. I also played very much with the idea of it being “the first design instituted by a Delegate is the permanent design” but I didn’t want to specifically burden the next Delegate with designing all of them, yk?

My arguments are in the other thread. I will not go in a circle restating them here, restating counter arguments again here, etc. I am giving you the general idea my arguments in the other thread get at. I made my points clear there. I will not restate them again and again.

Then I misunderstood your intention of what your idea was.

This is just false. I will support a proposal that will accomplish the goals I set for my proposal.

There is no compromise here since this is fundamentally at odds with my proposal, despite addressing the problem of Delegate awards.

“There is no compromise here […] despite addressing the problem of Delegate awards.”

I think what you mean is that there definitely is compromise here, but you just want more. Which is fine. But when you say one thing instead of another - such as your earlier hyperbole - just to crap on my ideas, rather than to try solving anything, it doesn’t help anyone. This is why it seems to me you’re not even considering other possibilities. Whether or not it’s “just false”, it’s the way you come off when you’re belligerent about different ideas and willfully unhelpful.

Compromise is always “fundamentally at odds” with the two things it’s trying to compromise between. Notably, this proposal is also at odds with the current system.

I’d like to work to address your issues. I was hoping to not have to read through twenty thousand textwalls in order to get the gist of them, but ig I was foolish to think that.

This is actually proving really annoying to do, and kinda unwieldy. How would y’all feel about separate resolutions for different “generations” of the OGO? Idk. This is a headscratcher.

I am belligerent about awards reform. I do not deny that. You and Arbiter Zukchiva both helped develop the initial idea of the Honors Wall Act. Why you both suddenly shifted and put up stiff resistance to it after the work went into creating the Act is bewildering and extremely frustrating. You and Arbiter Zukchiva both had opportunity to oppose this when it was still a concept being developed.

Where did your sudden shifts of opinion come from? Why did you not tell me before I worked out the details and presented the Act? Did I misunderstand what your intention was in helping create the concept in the Ministry of Outreach? Tell me so I can know.

I think Aiv made it clear in his first post why he is making a new proposal.

I support this proposal. I wasnt able to read the Hall of Heros bill at first, and now that ive read it over a few times, this is a better proposal and keeps our unique identity in our awards. If you believe the awards are overcrowded, you can ask to take the OGO away from people. Just be prelared with good arguments as to why some people shouldnt have an OGO.

My general reasoning for opposition has remained consistent. When I became aware of the project, I brought up various concerns I’ve since voiced here - mainly and primarily, the lack of minor awards. Specifically, I brought up that idea twice - once as a personal preference but oh well kinda thing, another as a more fleshed out idea I proposed. In other words, since day 1 I was concerned about the removal of more minor awards for a single government award. I also stated here that I’d support your proposal if it was fixed to include minor awards.

The main thing that’s changed since this was being developed is that I decided to commit to my opposition once you posted your proposal publically, rather than handwaving my feelings away (and thus, not really opposing the proposal during its development). That is, of course, unfair to you - and for that, I apologize. I get the frustration you’re feeling with having done work only for people to start attacking it when they could’ve done so way earlier, having been through it in the summer. It’s a tendency I have to hide my true thoughts until the last chance to speak up - something I’ve realized recently. I’ll start working on it.

I think people deserve recognition for participating and helping us succeed in those events.

(or idk if that’s actually the case anymore but it definitely used to be a big thing)

that was really only Marr and Lib & me and Lib, afaik

but ig

  1. Executive awards are once per person. Why not the latter? Similarly to what I added for the OGO, I envisioned a system where updates were made when exceptional service was shown, but I also kinda expect awards to be given only when people are “done”, yk? Kinda like SC Commends. I’d like to foster that culture as much as I can through structure.

but couldn’t an OGO serve as that capstone? It’d also add to its unique structure

Why have ribbons set by the Delegate? Because I hate the idea of images in a law. It’s an aesthetic nightmare. I also played very much with the idea of it being “the first design instituted by a Delegate is the permanent design” but I didn’t want to specifically burden the next Delegate with designing all of them, yk?

which i get but then it kinda goes contrary to standardization.

I made six suggestions in that thread that I can find. Long conversations went by when I didn’t read a single thing, mainly because I was too busy at all the times I remembered to start getting involved in an extensive process. But since you brought it up, here’s how I helped:

  1. I suggested an award for CTE’d nations (rejected)
  2. I refined that to suggest an award for nations who have “concluded their service” (rejected)
  3. I opposed making the top award too exclusive as to exclude people like Serge (kinda went nowhere)
  4. I further suggested an oldies-specific award (ignored)
  5. I agreed that we have been too liberal with OGOs (not that we should remove OGOs)
  6. I agreed that granting awards en masse at the end of a term is bad (not solved with either proposal here)

I never supported your proposal. I never knew much about it. I supported the general idea of reform, and tried to offer my input, but it was largely rejected in the few cases I had the time and energy to actually offer it. There has been no shift in opinion. And I certainly had no hand in creating the concept.

Sure, I had the opportunity to oppose it in the Executive thread, and I am sorry that it took until it was sent to the Magisterium for me to take the time to understand the full breadth of it, but just because something was developed within the Executive doesn’t mean that the Magisterium, or really any citizen, should just rubber stamp it.

  1. N Day and Z Day are extremely common and extremely popular events. If we give out awards do everyone in the server, then they’re meaningless. Not to mention, the awards system will get overcomplicated and oversaturated if every active person in TEP adds three ribbons to their signature every year ad infinitum. Operations, on the other hand, are much more (a) impactful on the region’s image/strength, (b) rare and exciting occasions, and (c) limited in personnel.
  2. OGO does apply that logic as well but the point here is to solve the argument that all the awards are too overcrowded. This makes them all exclusive. And if the minor awards are still pretty exclusive, then yet again that draws people away from the OGO and into categories better suited for acknowledging their specific talents/contributions without diminishing those talents/contributions. I suppose, in line with Honors Wall, we could do tiers to the minor awards, but I still really don’t like that idea, because it lacks style and liveliness.
  3. For ribbons, how about “The first ribbon to be announced via Executive Order by the Delegate shall be the permanent ribbon for its associated Executive Honor. If no ribbon exists, the Honor may still be awarded.”

If you both, Grand Vizier Mangegneithe and Arbiter Zukchiva, had raised your objections as strongly in the Ministry of Outreach, the work that went into the proposal would not have been wasted. That is what really confused and frustrated me. I am not asking for a rubber stamp.

As of now, I am tabling the proposal. I don’t have the drive to continue it.

Whatever proposal you both develop, I hope it succeeds where the last system failed.

yeah i get it and all i can say is im sorry. i’ll try to be more honest with my thoughts to prevent future scenarios, should we find ourselves in similar situations again in the future >.<