Ratification of the Constitution - Page 2

Jon Shafer · June 21, 2002, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
We have 150 members and there is 33 votes?

???

That's right. I guess the vast majority of our population just signed up and that's about it.

Panag · June 21, 2002, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

That's right. I guess the vast majority of our population just signed up and that's about it.

hi ,

or the are in weekend , or they live in a place where they are asleep now , .....

maybe we have to make poll's 5 days , just to toggle this one , ....

have a nice day

Jon Shafer · June 21, 2002, 17:51

Amendments in the Works:

1: Creation of a court or judicial group to deal with disagreements (details will be worked out in a thread that I make later).

2: Limits on elections (who can run, when, why, how, etc.). Things that will be included: you can't run for multiple elections (duh), you can't run in an election if you're already voted to another position (you can resign first though).

3: Clarification for Polls: An official reduction on the amount of time for game-decision polls to 36 hours, and clarification on the finite definition of 'repolling'.

I put official support on all of these proposed amendments. A discussion thread will be opened for each soon, and I call for the UFC to ratify them all.

civman2000 · June 21, 2002, 19:21

It is impossible to make a 36 hour poll, only multiples of 24.

Note that if this is passed before amendmnet 3 is made, teh whole government could be (technically) shut down because almost all polls between turnchats would be invalid.

Panag · June 21, 2002, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
It is impossible to make a 36 hour poll, only multiples of 24.

Note that if this is passed before amendmnet 3 is made, teh whole government could be (technically) shut down because almost all polls between turnchats would be invalid.

hi ,

, but we have to start somewhere , ...

Mr. President , .....

have a nice day

Jon Shafer · June 21, 2002, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
It is impossible to make a 36 hour poll, only multiples of 24.

Note that if this is passed before amendmnet 3 is made, teh whole government could be (technically) shut down because almost all polls between turnchats would be invalid.

What you mean is that it's impossible to make a 36 hour poll that you can set to end in 36 hours. Most of the game-decision polls won't have expiration dates/times anyways, but a give a general idea on what the people want to get done.

And CM, I think we can ignore that bit in lieu of shutting down the government.

Besides, it's not problem unless someone calls for it to be invalid, and I doubt people are that dumb to do something like that for a decision poll (but we might as well add it to the Constitution).

Keep in mind here guys, I'm trying to accomodate you here. I'll get the entire UFC behind an amendment if I feel it's better for us all (like the 3 official ones I've proposed that other have suggested). I simply feel there ought to be some set of rules because things have gotten really weird lately, and that is causing problems (who can do what, when, and why).

Panag · June 21, 2002, 19:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

What you mean is that it's impossible to make a 36 hour poll that you can set to end in 36 hours. Most of the game-decision polls won't have expiration dates/times anyways, but a give a general idea on what the people want to get done.

And CM, I think we can ignore that bit in lieu of shutting down the government.

Besides, it's not problem unless someone calls for it to be invalid, and I doubt people are that dumb to do something like that for a decision poll (but we might as well add it to the Constitution).

Keep in mind here guys, I'm trying to accomodate you here. I'll get the entire UFC behind an amendment if I feel it's better for us all (like the 3 official ones I've proposed that other have suggested). I simply feel there ought to be some set of rules because things have gotten really weird lately, and that is causing problems (who can do what, when, and why).

hi ,

we have to start somewhere , every nation does , and its amended , checked , and updated , because "old" stuff does not work , ...

that is how it works in the real world , and in most "gaming civilizations" , ....

have a nice day

Proserpine · June 21, 2002, 21:26

2 points, one minor, one major.

Minor 1st: I think you mean "interpret" not "interrupt".

Major: I would propose that it be written into the CoL that the Pres. has tiebreak power in the event of a tie within the Cabinet (and only in that case). In all other instances decisions should be debated by the people (in TC) and/or polled. Accepting that latterly these decisions may be fairly general, as has been mentioned elsewhere.

civman2000 · June 21, 2002, 22:56

Trip: I know, that's why I said "could...(technically)". The point is that it is possible.

Proposed Amendment: The City Planner should be in charge of the draft, though they are strongly advised to discuss it with teh Minister of War.

I see no reason why the president should control the draft

Timeline · June 21, 2002, 23:01

Isn't the Prez the one who decleares draft IRL, oh he probably needs permission from the senate too. But the Defense Secratary can't declear a draft...and a governer can't say "Ok! Some of you are now being drafted!"

Hmmm, I don't really care I just thought it made the most sense to go to Mr President.

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
Trip: I know, that's why I said "could...(technically)". The point is that it is possible.

Proposed Amendment: The City Planner should be in charge of the draft, though they are strongly advised to discuss it with teh Minister of War.

I see no reason why the president should control the draft

civman2000 · June 21, 2002, 23:15

It's something in the specific cities, just a special form of production, just like whipping, the city planner should control it.

Jon Shafer · June 21, 2002, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
It's something in the specific cities, just a special form of production, just like whipping, the city planner should control it.

Perhaps the City Planner decides when or when not to, but has to have the President approve of this decision?

civman2000 · June 22, 2002, 07:21

i just don't see the logic behind that.

Timeline · June 22, 2002, 07:54

Go ahead, change, I really don't care 1 way or the other on that issue. It's not important to me.

Panag · June 22, 2002, 08:14

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
Trip: I know, that's why I said "could...(technically)". The point is that it is possible.

Proposed Amendment: The City Planner should be in charge of the draft, though they are strongly advised to discuss it with teh Minister of War.

I see no reason why the president should control the draft

hi ,

"draft" ,

, ...

, only in case of a national emergency , like mobilization , and only after a vote of the people , ...
and a vote of the government , seperate , then there should be a justified call as on to the draft , ....

have a nice day

Jon Shafer · June 22, 2002, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
i just don't see the logic behind that.

Are you referring to a draft in one city, or a full-scale mobilization? What I'm referring to is starting full-scale drafting in every city for a major war. If you mean just a draft to fill in a city so that it doesn't go into civil disorder, then sure, that can be up to the PW Minister.

notyoueither · June 22, 2002, 18:52

Some positive developments. Encouraging.

Jon Shafer · June 22, 2002, 19:07

I told you guys already, I'm not on some sadistic rampage, I'm just trying to gain some kind of stability here as soon as possible. I'm not against amendments, I'm not saying this is a perfect document, and I'm not against what people are proposing here. But how long do you think it would be before discussions on each and every subject brought up here would take? It could be another month or more until everything is at a point where most people see it as a fit document. Pick the thing apart, give suggestions, and we can fix it as soon as possible. Criticism of the constructive sort is always welcome.

Panag · June 22, 2002, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
I told you guys already, I'm not on some sadistic rampage, I'm just trying to gain some kind of stability here as soon as possible. I'm not against amendments, I'm not saying this is a perfect document, and I'm not against what people are proposing here. But how long do you think it would be before discussions on each and every subject brought up here would take? It could be another month or more until everything is at a point where most people see it as a fit document. Pick the thing apart, give suggestions, and we can fix it as soon as possible. Criticism of the constructive sort is always welcome.

hi ,

agreed , now we , ahem , read you , have to sell that to the people , .....

we should have some form of "law" , rather fast , it beats no law , and otherwise we are still talking about in 20 years , ......

panag > gives boxes of banana's to the President , so he can give them to the people , ....

have a nice day

Duddha · June 22, 2002, 22:35

I have a question. How many terms can people serve?

civman2000 · June 22, 2002, 23:26

infinite. Trip: in a full scale thing, the SMC would probably play a larger part but the city planner should also have a say. It still makes no sesne for thje president to be in charge of it though.

Jon Shafer · June 25, 2002, 03:27

Well, looks like the Constitution passed with a super-majority (2/3), so not even the people who wanted that can complain.

I'll get working on those proposed amendments, as well as adding this to the "The Apolytonian Government" locked and stickied thread at the top.

Captain · June 25, 2002, 10:56

Wait a minute, the Constitution doesn't make sense. It's vague on some key things.

Regarding the polling, does the Constitution make the NEW poll invalid if carried out WITHIN 3 weeks, or the OLD poll invalid? Or does it mean the NEW poll is invalid is carried out AFTER 3 weeks? Or the OLD poll is invalid if a repoll is done AFTER 3 weeks?

Second, what do we mean by 2/3? Do we mean 2/3 of ALL citizens? Or just 2/3 of voters within a poll?

Jon Shafer · June 25, 2002, 11:01

2/3 of people that voted. We've never gotten more than 70 people to vote in a single poll, and that's quite bit less than half our total population. No way anyone can ever get a majority of citizens in any poll, even if people vote unanimously.

What I meant with the polling bit is that if you repoll before 3 weeks, then the repoll is invalid. If you repoll after 3 weeks, and the opposite option wins, then the first poll is overruled by the second repoll.

Maybe I should clarify.