Anyone else find this ironic? or at least amusing?

[Captain]

A little while back there was a clamouring for less constitutional debates and more playing of the game...

... and now, the very same people who lamented about how discussion about rules and laws and polls and whatnot was dominating the forum, have now become the most avid proponents of rewriting all of the above! I'm sure I don't need to name names.

But I'm not criticizing them, just pointing out that this was bound to happen. The last hullaballoo about Constitutional issues was the Presidential election (that resulted in the Court being "speedily" created with almost 100% support). But then came the reactionaries who decried the "waste of time" and energy spent on revising our COL. Just play the game they said.

And we did. It was fun. But we never resolved those issues. Is it any wonder that it comes back to bite us in the rear?

Predicted it was that these things are cyclical. Flood, ebb and flow. Soon enough, this too will die down. The elections are coming, and the focus will shift again. The one thing that might cause a more catastrophic effect is the return to school for many students.

We can see that in a few weeks, there will be a silent period as many of our citizens readjust to their real life commitments. Do not let the game die there. There will be a return, if we are not too hasty to declare a game "dead".


Let us try to be patient in the current proceedings as well. These things take time. Consider the Court Amendment and the current Impeachment Amendment. Yes, they have taken weeks (months) to develop, but look at how much support they have - because the issues have been hashed out beforehand, allowing enough time for all interested to have their say, and the resulting consensus is less likely to be controversial than a hastily enacted proposal that only narrowly succeeded.

Admittedly, the original COL was rushed into place because we had to get on with the game instead of endless deliberation, but it was rushed. We do have a job to do to clean it up, making sure to eliminate internal contradictions, tighten up the allowable interpretation of vague terms and sentences, and generally make it more readable.

But it takes time and the tyranny of the urgent, the haste to do something because "something must be done", is a poor lead to follow. Think things through. It takes less time to do it right than to rush it now and fix it later.


---
btw, let's not give Uber (or Skywalker) all the credit either... others (namely GePap et al) have been debating the same for quite some time and laying the groundwork for these proposals long before "Revolution" was announced - and doing it without the sound and fury of teenage angst and an MTV style attention span.

[UnOrthOdOx]

You will find that I was one of the ones who was crying to get back in the game and leave the discussions alone. I am still mostly refraining from them now. I only post potential flaws in what I see. I still say that the game must go on. Are these reforms the answer? I don't know. Will they pass? Maybe. If they do, you can bet they will create all new problems that have nor been planned for. No system is ever going to be perfect, that's life.

[Inverse Icarus]

I noted that in the Revolution thread itself. People have been complaining for a while now, I'm just loud enough to make everyone see them.

[Kuciwalker]

In the earlier debate, we could have been playing the game, and eventually did. Now, growing bureaucratic tendencies have made that at least very difficult, so to continue we need to fix the system.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Captain
A little while back there was a clamouring for less constitutional debates and more playing of the game...

... and now, the very same people who lamented about how discussion about rules and laws and polls and whatnot was dominating the forum, have now become the most avid proponents of rewriting all of the above! I'm sure I don't need to name names.

That could be me....

I certainly was anti-Constitution at the start, and still am to some degree, but I have long realized that maintaining a simple "less=best" attitude will not help at all here. The vast majority wants long-winded, specific, covering-all-eventuality laws, amendments, reforms etc. I and others who argue for less crap cannot hope to maintain an extreme attitude if we are to help this game along, which should be the foremost concern for all here, neglecting politics or petty squabbles.

Thus, it is much more useful to work with the reforms etc that are clearly needed ( oh the IRONY! ), and to get them right so we can stop the Constitution debates all the more quickly (with luck). It has been made painfully obvious that things can't trundle along nicely based on goodwill and mutual understandings and acceptances of responsibilities as in the Civ2 game, so rules are needed, and everyone, regardless of their stance on any issue, has a vested interest in seeing them done right.

Or you could just say I'm a mass of contradictions if you like. :shrug:

[notyoueither]

Hmmm. I believe part of the problem is a lack of distinction between a constitution and a code of laws.

A constitution should state general principles in broad strokes that define the character of a nation. It should not need to be reworded to suit changing circumstances. It may be amended, rarely, to address concerns the author(s) were completely oblivious to. It should be very hard to change, thus the tyranny of a passing majority may be avoided. A constitution normally requires a very high standard of amendment (way beyond 67% of the voters, it often requires regional approval which can be much more difficult).

A code of laws is something more malleable. It must abide by the constitution, but it is adapted more readily to address current circumstances. For instance, laws may be passed with 50% plus 1 approval.

For instance, 'all citizens must be allowed to vote' would be a very good statement for a constitution. 'Citizens will be defined by those who have posted within the last 24 weeks' would be a possible law (not necessarily a very good one).

So long as the law abides the general principle, it is good. This allows the nation to evolve more naturally and with less disruption. For instance, perhaps school is abolished and we are flooded with permanent personages... then the definition of citizenship might change. One does not amend the constitution to cope with the influx, one passes a new law which must pass muster with the principles stated in the constitution.

et voila... one arrives at a republic which lives or dies by principles such as that the citizens will be free to express themselves. That principle will have been enunciated by a group of 18th century farmers who barely had news sheets (not papers), but it will still be valid to pertain to laws concerning 20th century broadcast media.