Democratic Libertarian Party HQ - Page 9

Drogue · January 21, 2003, 08:04

Does a Governorship also carry the 3 term maximum?

Archaic · January 21, 2003, 08:51

I wasn't aware that there was a 3 term max. for governorships. It'll have to be investigated. I was however planning to take governorship of the Alecrast region once it's established, which shouldn't be too long with all these sea bases being proposed and the coming war with the Hive. That could well be a few terms away though I suppose.

GeneralTacticus · January 21, 2003, 09:00

Quote:

Does a Governorship also carry the 3 term maximum?

I assumed so; I don't see any reason why it shouldn't, although of course remaining Centralis governor perpetually has an appeal.

Anyway, the Constitution seems to imply it; it refers to 'Office Terms', making no distinction between Governors and Directors.

Quote:

I wasn't aware that there was a 3 term max. for governorships. It'll have to be investigated. I was however planning to take governorship of the Alecrast region once it's established, which shouldn't be too long with all these sea bases being proposed and the coming war with the Hive. That could well be a few terms away though I suppose.

Whatever you like. Your decision.

Archaic · January 21, 2003, 09:08

Well, I see no reason why I can't stand for Centralis in the meanwhile, especially with how long it could be before Alecrast is established. Is the 3 terms only a consecutive maximum, or a maximum for the length of the game?

GeneralTacticus · January 21, 2003, 09:22

Consecutive. It just says that no-one may stand for a fourth term in a row.

Archaic · January 21, 2003, 09:32

No worries then. Alecrast wouldn't be established this term or next most likely, so I can fill in for a while then it's back to you. ^^;

GeneralTacticus · January 21, 2003, 09:40

Well, that' settled then. Just hope you don't lose the election, when it comes around.

Archaic · January 21, 2003, 10:28

Yes....well.....erm......maybe Tass should stand instead of me then? ^^;

Archaic · January 23, 2003, 02:13

Speaking of which actually, where is Tass?

GeneralTacticus · January 23, 2003, 02:14

He's currently online - he seems to have been devoting rather more time to NS and the OT than to the DG.

GeneralTacticus · January 23, 2003, 02:17

His last post was here.

Archaic · January 23, 2003, 02:44

Ah, fair enough. Oh well.

Cedayon · January 23, 2003, 13:51

If you need someone of similar views (which I think I am) to take care of a position during a term you can't run, I'd be happy to if there isn't someone else better qualified.

Archaic · January 24, 2003, 04:48

Well.....if you're willing, I could use your help right now with comparative statistics for FM vs. Planned/Green for the upcoming elections.

Cedayon · January 24, 2003, 14:25

Of course, what sort of comparison and which statistics? Did you already see the table in the energy allocation thread?

Cedayon · January 25, 2003, 13:53

I've been gathering some data off and on since I got the save file:

I've got the
(total pop)/(talents)/(citizens)/(drones)/(eco damage)/(specialists)
table for all the bases under the three possible SE settings, sorted by region. I've also got a
(minerals)/(total energy)/(ECs)/(Research)
table for the same.

They're a bit large, where should they be posted?

Archaic · January 25, 2003, 22:09

Perfect. Just what I would've asked for in my wildest dreams. Could you email them to archaic#nocturnal.com please? (Replace # with @. Don't want to tempt spam bots.)

Cedayon · January 25, 2003, 23:37

I emailed you with the data as an attachment.

I hope it helps

Archaic · February 3, 2003, 05:42

It did indeed. Not in the election, but in something far more important.

Let them eat cake!

Wahoo! A Free Market is the first step towards a truly Libertarian society. A hearty thanks to all who made this possible.

Wheee~!

GeneralTacticus · February 3, 2003, 05:46

Unfortunately, it didn't take Pande long to try to overturn the results by posting a new poll. gathering information on what people want or making a new proposition after a reasonable interval is one thing, repolling something that doesn't need repolling and the result of which you plainly don;t like is quite another.

(especially considering that he implied that there'd been something fishy going on with the voting in the last poll, as if the number of voters was particularly unusual)

Archaic · February 3, 2003, 06:00

Keyword being try. His poll is unconstitutional, is it not?

As for the number of voters.....Xx;; Give me a break. This was an election as important as the directorships. Of course similar numbers of people would vote for this. Especially considering how many new people we've had join recently who are Pro-Market. Cedayon, the Facists....

GeneralTacticus · February 3, 2003, 06:06

I don't actually know if the poll is constitutional; DBTS hasn't applied any of the recent amendments to it, and I don't know if the constitution even contains anything on this, but i think it should be obvious to anyone that you cannot simply post a poll on one thing with a result you don't want, then change things slightly and repoll it before the previous results are actually applied.

As for teh number of voters - of coruse, but since when has logic stood in Pan's way when he has an ideology to defend?

Archaic · February 3, 2003, 06:18

Agreed. Then again, Pan has quite the habit of missing the obvious when it gets in the way of his ideology, doesn't he?

Indeed. Though by standing up for idiocy like that, it's not like he's doing his ideology any favours.

GeneralTacticus · February 3, 2003, 06:23

He wouldn't exactly be doing it any favours if he allowed it to be democratically defeated, now would he?

Archaic · February 3, 2003, 06:28

Better perhaps to let it be democratically defeated and try to rally next term than to whinge and whine and put people off anything associated with you.

GeneralTacticus · February 3, 2003, 06:32

Well, that is, of course, assuming that people would actually have any interest in voting for it by the next elections. Or that he's actually willing to admit defeat in the elections.

Regardless, I agree that this isn't likely to do him very much good, as long as we don't let him get away with it.

Cedayon · February 3, 2003, 06:38

Two Econ polls for the same turnchat is definately past the "suspicious" line.

One thing, though, is I'm not sure the constitution says he can't do this.

I guess we have to see how the votes fall. If FM wins this one and he tries something else to overturn it, it will be time to consider an impeachment.

edit - and an amendment, definately an amendment, along the lines of "The results of at most one poll for each SE category will appy to each turnchat"

GeneralTacticus · February 3, 2003, 06:38

Well, one thing's for sure: We've got a ready-made campaign issue for next term, and the polls only closed a few days ago.

GeneralTacticus · February 3, 2003, 06:40

Quote:

One thing, though, is I'm not sure the constitution says he can't do this.

It doesn't; It doesn't mention anything about this kind of situation but I think basic comon sense dictates that this kind of stuff should not be allowed.I suppose we could always post up an amendment to make it absolutely clear that this should ot be done - that is if DBTS actually puts it into the constitution.

Cedayon · February 3, 2003, 06:43

I strongly suspect that if Archaic had been elected and tried to pull something like this after a Green victory he would have been torn to pieces by the CCCP/STEP before the ink dried on the new poll.