I was thinking that now is the time for us to introduce foreign diplomats (edit: I referred to them as foreign representatives in the title, but it should be diplomats) for the U3P, to deal with foreign disputes and to maintain good relations with our neighbours. However, when I'd finished drafting a proposal (which you'll see below) I realised we can't simply introduce foreign diplomats and leave it at that. What we need is a formal decision-making process, so that we have the mechanisms for introducing things like foreign diplomats and future laws in the first place. By extension, we'll also need a formal citizenship process in order to define who the electorate is.

Below I've drafted a basic outline for these three things. It's not especially detailed, because I could be completely out-of-touch and my suggestions are rejected, but if there's support for it I can produce a detailed draft later.

Fist of all, what I suggest is that we introduce two foreign diplomats, who would have a series of key roles:

• visit our neighbours to ensure friendly relations
• represent us on the world stage
• act as a point of contact for foreign parties
• take responsibility for constructing embassies abroad and organising the construction of foreign countries' embassies at home

They'd be elected every month by the registered voters of the U3P, but if this proves too short we can extend it to every two months. There wouldn't be any term limits, so they can serve until either they step down or they're removed by the electorate in the next election. We could introduce a recall mechanism, but I don't want to overcomplicate things when we don't need a complex mechanism like that. Should we ever need a recall mechanism I'm sure we could introduce it at the time (I'll come onto that later).

The aforementioned electorate would consist of all U3P registered voters, but no one else. Likewise, foreign diplomat candidates must be registered voters too. Any non-citizens and non-registered voters would be free to participate in debates and discussions, but they'd have no voting or candidacy rights.

Secondly, a system of direct democracy would give us a mechanism for introducing reforms. For example, if we wanted to introduce recall elections we couldn't do that by simply clicking our figures - we'd need a formal mechanism. Such a system could either exist through official decision-makers (i.e. legislators) or through the people, and this latter option will maximise flexibility, simplicity and democracy.

The process would go as follows:

• a citizen wishing to bring about reform would draft an official proposal, like I've done with this post
• the post would provide a space for the proposal to be discussed and debated by anyone would wishes to take part (citizen or otherwise)
• after at least 48 hours (longer if the person making the proposal wishes) a formal vote can be opened on the subreddit, on the proposal
• after another 48 hours the vote would come to a close and the proposer would count up the votes and declare the results in a formal results post
• if a majority vote in favour the reform is transferred into law, and if a majority vote against the reform it is formally rejected and no change takes place
• the same process would be followed for repealing a law or amending one, but just with the proposal being for a repeal or amendment

What the system would do is ensure simplicity. We'd have as many laws as we want, and nothing more - even if that means we have no laws at all. It would also mean we'd have a legitimate, indisputable system for settling debates and discussions.

Thirdly, I come onto the matter of a citizenship process. This is the part that most worries me, because whilst it's vital we have a citizenship process they usually tend to become either bureaucratic and unpopular or simple and easily-abused. My thoughts are that we should have a two-tier citizenship system, where citizenship itself is easy to obtain and maintain but voter registration is harder to keep. This prevents old, trusted players from losing citizenship because they've had a period of inactivity but it also prevents those not active in the U3P from abusing elections and initiatives.

Tier one - citizenship:

• this would be largely ceremonial. Being a citizen does not grant you any particular rights (like voting rights), but it's simply a sign that you're 'part of the community', so to speak.
• citizenship could only be obtained by either owning or renting developed property (like an apartment, house, shop or hotel) in the U3P for at least 10 days
• you'd lose eligitibiltiy by being banned from the server, by being convicted of a crime by the U3P, by not owning or renting any property for at least a month or through a community veto
• a community veto would be a simple vote on blocking somebody's citizenship, which would be done through the initiative process outlined above

Tier two - registered voter:

• this would grant you the right to vote and the right to run for office, but it'd be harder to keep than citizenship
• to be eligible you must be a citizen and you must prove your activity every four weeks
• activity could be proved by screenshotting yourself with the town eligibility sign once every four weeks, with yourself in view and your debug info shown (by pressing F3). Once you've taken the screenshot it must be posted to a stickied voter registration post on the subreddit
• the eligibility sign would be placed on a small plinth in the town, with its information updated every week with the date
• fairlure to prove your activity after four weeks would result in a loss of voter registration, but not citizenship. Meanwhile, a loss of citizenship would result in a loss of voter registration

I've tried to keep this as simple as possible, but if anyone has any suggestions for making it simpler they'd be much appreciated.

The final thing to discuss is how we'd go about introducing any of these proposals. If people like them I plan on redrafting them (so that they'd take the form of laws) and follow the initiative system, so that they're introduced with a vote. I'll also submit each separately, so that if one proposal's liked but not the others we don't lose the baby with the bathwater. However, if there's little support I'll either see how they can be adjusted to be more popular or drop them.

Thanks for your time, as I realise this post is pretty big. :)