Discussion on more amendments

[mapfi]

Well, when the quorum amendment gets passed, changing the con will become a little easier again. As I said, I have a few ideas.

- Allow judges to also hold an executive position.

- Extend the nomination period to 5 days (the last vote closely failed)

- Put the responsibilities of the MoI under those of the MoDST, then give the responsibilty for science to the president.

Thoughts?

[Gilgamensch]

For the judge:

No. We need to keep it seperate. But they should be allowed to be delegate (officially).

5 days I still would prefer, people more participating..........

And the last one:

Mainly No. The MoI can be later a hell of a job, not as bad as MoD, but a fair amount of work.............

[mapfi]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
For the judge:
No. We need to keep it seperate. But they should be allowed to be delegate (officially).

Well, honestly there's no difference in someone being a delegate in a turnchat or actually holding the position.

The MoI can be later a hell of a job, not as bad as MoD, but a fair amount of work.............

Yes, but the MoDST doesn't have that much to do and we'd reduce our gov to 4 + 3 positions.

The three porposals all aim in the same direction: to make the game run more smoothly. A position less in our gov will make it easier to fill all of them, allwoing judges to hold exec. positions will allow people who care about the DG to participate more (eg. me) and extending the nomination period will asure better that everybody actually sees that thread (not like now).

[Pedrunn]

- First make the number for the validation of the poll composed of people who has posted here in the last two months.

- Allow judges to also hold an executive position.

Another idea. Why not give the judicial power to only one people rather than three. We can live just with Senior Justice. The senior justice intead of a public hearing thread makes a jury poll to decide what to do with the citizen who is outzide the law. But i am ok with judges with gov. positions

- Extend the nomination period to 5 days (the last vote closely failed)

I was the one who tried the amendment

- Put the responsibilities of the MoI under those of the MoDST, then give the responsibilty for science to the president.

reduce the number of position is a must. But i dont like the mix you are proposing.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

judges as ministers:
this shall not be! its already problematic when a judge acts as delegate. we haven't seen a really problematic case so far (and i hope we don't) but if some time it will happen, we will recognize that we are already mixing up too much to sort responsabilities.

fewer ministers:
can be talked about, but if so i would prefer a general debatte and reports from the ministers so far about their experiences.

nominations (& elections):
why not one week each? this will allow both kinds of people (weekend-onliners and university-/school-/office-onliners; do those words exist? ) to fully participate.

another point:
i would like to change the way the game is played in a rather strong way:
the pres (or someone else if the pres doesn't has time or internet) plays exactly one turn each day and posts the savegame. of course he is free to chat/instant mess. with anybody he would like to while doing so.
this will get us rid of empty turn chats, weeks without anything happening and will bring us closer to a realistic history: the world doesn't stop, because of illnesses, missing cabinet members, legal disputes or whatsoever in one country. sometimes the history of the world is boring for decades, sometimes events go faster than anyone could imagine. those are hard times for democracies (or every other form of government where more than one person has to decide), but they are interesting as well.

[Gilgamensch]

Well, honestly there's no difference in someone being a delegate in a turnchat or actually holding the position.

Yes, there is a huge difference:

A delegate has to follow the ministers orders, whereas the minister makes the orders!

Yes, but the MoDST doesn't have that much to do and we'd reduce our gov to 4 + 3 positions.

The three porposals all aim in the same direction: to make the game run more smoothly. A position less in our gov will make it easier to fill all of them, allwoing judges to hold exec. positions will allow people who care about the DG to participate more (eg. me) and extending the nomination period will asure better that everybody actually sees that thread (not like now).

The five days, I could live with, but still would prefer, that people would be more active...............I actually might nominate myself for I don't know yet, as nowbody is there...........

Reducing the positions: ............

[Gilgamensch]

another point:
i would like to change the way the game is played in a rather strong way:
the pres (or someone else if the pres doesn't has time or internet) plays exactly one turn each day and posts the savegame. of course he is free to chat/instant mess. with anybody he would like to while doing so.
this will get us rid of empty turn chats, weeks without anything happening and will bring us closer to a realistic history: the world doesn't stop, because of illnesses, missing cabinet members, legal disputes or whatsoever in one country. sometimes the history of the world is boring for decades, sometimes events go faster than anyone could imagine. those are hard times for democracies (or every other form of government where more than one person has to decide), but they are interesting as well.

The idea doesn't sound bad, but I would rather suggest every other day, gives the citizens more time to decide.......
And Yes, I think it would speed up the game...............

[Tamerlin]

I agree with Gilgamensch, I don't think a Judge should be allowed to hold an executive position. Should a problem require a judgement and he would be Judge and party in the same case.



I agree the court could be reduced to one Senior Judge... to the condition this same judge is not allowed to hold an executive position.

Your proposal is rather bold Zaphod and would help the game to proceed steadily but IMO the President and the ministers would have to produce a lot of work if we want the citizens to be informed. Each turn, or each second turn, means a report... As far as I am concerned I don't have the time to post a MoDA report each day.

On the other hand, Gilgamensh, playing one day out of two would not speed the game as we would play 3 and half ( ) turns a week... and I really like the turn chats where I can get in touch with and have fun with my fellow Apolytonians...

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

actually it doesn't mean a report every day, only the savegame and reports of gossip, news from the world diplomatic agreements done or broken if necessary, the rest can be done by the free media or those people who want to hold that office next term

[mapfi]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I don't think a Judge should be allowed to hold an executive position. Should a problem require a judgement and he would be Judge and party in the same case.

It's easy to take that into account and replace that judge with the president like in impeachments. Maybe a judge shouldn't be allowed to also be president then...

[mapfi]

Furthermore, when we can't fill our elected positions with people, what's better, a little conflict of interest or the DG not moving forward at all?

Yes, there is a huge difference:

A delegate has to follow the ministers orders, whereas the minister makes the orders!

and in essence the delegate makes the orders himself because the minister didn't give any or not enough -> not much of a difference

[Gilgamensch]

On the other hand, Gilgamensh, playing one day out of two would not speed the game as we would play 3 and half turns a week... and I really like the turn chats where I can get in touch with and have fun with my fellow Apolytonians...

I like it as well (getting in touch) with my fellow Lemurians .
That was mainly a suggestion towards our people here.......
And after rethinking it: who It would only mean 3 1/2 turns per week............plus what do you want to do, if the Pres. doesn't run the turn?

and in essence the delegate makes the orders himself because the minister didn't give any or not enough -> not much of a difference

That is a problem of the active Minister, the delegate shouldn't really make the orders, he should be following the guidelines given by his superior......

Furthermore, when we can't fill our elected positions with people, what's better, a little conflict of interest or the DG not moving forward at all?

That is a good question.............
But because of the possible problems, which could occure, I am still against a mix of government and court..................even as it might not be in the interrest of the game.

[Devil of Truth]

I’m not a great fan of mixing the judicial branch with government. It could lead to serious problems with, for example, impeachments. However, in the interests of keeping this DG moving along, I wouldn’t necessarily oppose this amendment. Just a though: It is a lot of responsibility placed upon a delegate (who wasn’t democratically elected) to hold a judicial and ministerial position.

I think fewer ministers and judges make sense. Our government and judiciary is almost larger than our (active) citizenry!

The period for both nominations and elections should be extended. Five days sound good. A week makes more sense.

Zaphod:
I like you plan, but I think it needs some tweaking. Consider this. We all suffer from the terrible affliction called real-life. If we force a Pres to play at a set speed, it may make the position a lot less attractive. Which would lead to nobody wanting the position...

[Gilgamensch]

DoT,

good point about the delegate, didn't think about this one..........

[mapfi]

Originally posted by Pedrunn
reduce the number of position is a must. But i dont like the mix you are proposing.

What's your idea then? Still giving all MoI to the Pres? I'm not very fond of that mix... Other opinions to this and the mix I proposed in my first post?

To sum some of the discussion up:

-reduce the court to one judge,
why not, but not introduce jury decisions! I'm against this, since the judge's decision can be appealed and I don't want us voting on cases with the low turnout we sometimes have.

-don't let judges hold executive positions
if we reduce the court to one member I'd explicetely forbid that one to be a delegate

-extend nominations and even elections to a week
I just think it's too much time, announce your interest for a position and wait up to two weeks to actually get it, so still prefer 5 days each.

[Gilgamensch]

Nomination:

Another suggestion:

Anyone can nominate himself at any time, but from 7 days before till 1 day before the voting, he has to hold a speech, otherwise he won't be allowed in the poll (in other words, not a choice in the poll).

Or let me rephrase:

from day vote-7 till vote-1 speech time, and during election time arguements between the canidates.

Nomination at any time till 1 day before voting.

Reducing the court: Don't think we should do it. We have choosen 3 judges to avoid deadlocks.

Also: What do you want to do, if the last judge isn't there? It already happened and delayed the game quite a bit (no insult/whatever meant). With three judges, we have backup-possibilty/redundancy.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

thats no good, how do you define what a speech is?
"hi, vote me!" for example?
do we want legal disputes decided by the court whether "vote me, because i'm the right man" is a speech?
as the candidates normally are rather engaged posters here anywhere, i don't think we have to make any rules on that question.

about the judges: 3 is a minimum that shouldn't be lowered.

[Gilgamensch]

It was mainly an idea:

And for the speech:

I mean, it is up to the voters afterwards to see, if they accepted his speech.............

But how you like the idea in general?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

if its up to the voters how they liked the speech, than its up to the voters as well how they liked the non speech, or rather what the candidate in question writes elsewhere

[Gilgamensch]

The reason why I suggested a speech before, is as a last conformation that he will run for this office, instead of having the nomination thread.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

brings back problems, when that speech period is during that week, the candidate is in last holidays before becoming president, is the press-bureau of his party allowed to post his speech for him in that case?

[Gilgamensch]

In this case, I would even say, that parties might be recognised (don't forget that I am not really pro-parties ). The only thing which we then might have to sharpen is the impeachment.

He would need to be there after (s)he is elected, if not, an automated impeachement (what I wouldn't expect really), like within 24/48 hours, unless he personally would have assigned a delegate prior to the election.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
... unless he personally would have assigned a delegate prior to the election.

we could also incorporate the us system of "running mates"

[Gilgamensch]

runnning mates? What is this?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well afaik, a candidate for presidency chooses his to be vice president during their strange innerparty nomination process (aka pre-elections) and then actually candidate as team. we could use a similar system (not the preelections of course, that can be done by the partys themselves if they really want it ) for all ministers and the pres. given the small amount of people nominating themselves it would be wise of course to allow you to run as first candidate for one office and as vice (which would actually be the first one on the delegates list) for at least one other.

EDIT: actually if i see that right, thats pretty much what you proposed already above

[Gilgamensch]

Yep, looks like we were talking about the same thing, just different names in mind

[mapfi]

I don't think that's something that would work - we already have problems getting ministers, so vice is just another spot that won't get filled.
Nor do I like Gilg's idea of nomination.
He's right though in saying only one judge would be problematic because he could disappear but then the same thing is true when the President is missing. And the judge would only be elected for one month as well, just that the election shouldn't be held at the same time as the others.

We have choosen 3 judges to avoid deadlocks.

How's there going to be a deadlock with only one?

3 is a minimum that shouldn't be lowered.

Why do we need 3 judges? In the public hearing everyone can voice their opinion and then we just need someone to look through the whole con and write up a ruling. One is enough for that. A lot of RL courts only hold one judge as well.

No thoughts on giving the MoI's powers to Pres or MoDST?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by mapfi
vice is just another spot that won't get filled.

a vice might be filled easier, less work to do, and of course, most people who would run for an office could be vice to another, the same as most people are delegates to some office.

Originally posted by mapfi
A lot of RL courts only hold one judge as well.

yep, those courts dealing with small shoplifters. supreme courts normally have 5 or 7 judges.

Originally posted by mapfi
No thoughts on giving the MoI's powers to Pres or MoDST?

IF! we are goint to reduce the number of ministers, we should first decide in which way we want the different deptments to be distributed among the ministries:
a) to distribute work fairly
or b) to put in one office what is closely related (for instance domestic affairs and infrastructure

[child of Thor]

I like the idea in theory of the Pres playing turns every other day - regardless of which polls do or don't get finished etc.
It would speed the game up.....may even kinda force people to take part, if the game goes on without them - but not to their exact liking?
Or maybe it would do the exact opposite? Not sure....i think for myself i would want to get my votes cast so i would check often(although RL has a big say in this).
The main problem would be the work load for all the ministers - they would have a much shorter window in which to do all their polls/tasks, and report back to the president.
Still the idea is a nice one - much more like RL, life goes on even without your input. The Pres would have alot of power, and responsibility. What would happen if he played ahead and lost half the nation's cities? Or am i taking this point out of it's origonal context?

[mapfi]

a) to distribute work fairly
or b) to put in one office what is closely related (for instance domestic affairs and infrastructure

My proposal was going for a) because b) would mean a hell of a job for MoDA. And I do think it would be wise to cut one position - people have said so before and the current election shows it's clearly necessary.