Military judge election (use this one, I messed up the last one)

Whaleboy · June 21, 2003, 08:13

(God dammit!!!! I could swear I clicked the poll thing. Ah well, here we go again...)

Ok, heres the first election of the military judge panel (really needs a better name). The people who can stand are:

Archaic
Elijah
Drogue
Jackson (well done for revising your military stats on time, the figures look good )
Urban Ranger

Please note that I would have let Sheep stand, were it not for the military, his application would have been fully acceptable. Please do not take this personally, and this panel will be here to help you revise your figures so you can stand next time round.

It will be neutral, hopefully the judges will be able to eliminate any bias, and other judges will be able to spot bias, so in that respect I can assure all that there will be no national bias in this organisation, it will be independent and unlike the court, not an extension of foreign policy or a means of extending RP. Its probably more ooc than anything else, but looking at other threads, I think we can all agree it is essential.

As there are five people up for election and the number of people in the panel is five, then all are guaranteed a place, so this election defaults to selecting the chairman of this board. I personally would suggest Drogue as a good choice, he has proved himself a competent judge and capable of neutral judgement.

Good luck to all participants...

Whaleboy · June 21, 2003, 08:16

By the way, you have 2 days

GeneralTacticus · June 21, 2003, 08:20

Hmmm... in the next election, are we going to have a stipulation that no personal opinions may be expressed in the initial post? And if you think Drogue is the best candidate, why did you apparently vote for yourself?

Whaleboy · June 21, 2003, 08:30

We could, although I'm not sure it would achieve anything, I may have polled this election but I'm still subjective.

I said Drogue would be a good choice, not the best choice!

Giovanni Wine · June 21, 2003, 10:25

Elijah, I have just one minor question to ask about this poll.

If (according to the other thread) there are going to be 5 military judges, and if (as we currently have) there are only 5 candidates... why having elections at all?

If there are 5 different candidates for 5 different spots there is no need to have an election IMO, they should just take the position and that's it.

Saluti

Archaic · June 21, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

As there are five people up for election and the number of people in the panel is five, then all are guaranteed a place, so this election defaults to selecting the chairman of this board. I personally would suggest Drogue as a good choice, he has proved himself a competent judge and capable of neutral judgement.

Giovanni Wine · June 21, 2003, 10:57

Oooops

That's what you get for not fully reading the first post I guess

/Giovanni Wine runs away in shame

Urban Ranger · June 21, 2003, 11:36

What does the chairman do?

Whaleboy · June 21, 2003, 11:42

He'd be the guy who ends up PM'ing people making them aware of their overstated militaries. He'd also be the one who'd post up on the threads, other than that, just chair debates and keep it all sane, the usual stuff chairpeople do.

Urban Ranger · June 21, 2003, 11:47

Okay, thanks.

Drogue · June 21, 2003, 18:26

I object to Sheep not being allowed to stand. Whatever YOU think of his military, that is for this body to decide. You are not the person to decide whether the people should eb allowed to vote for him or not. I suspect that people would not because of that, but it is their, not your decision to make. This is a democracy, anyone who wants to stand should be allowed too, and it is up to the people to decide eligability, rather than your view being more important than everyone else. Sorry for the rant, but if we are to be democratic, we should be democratic, not selective first, on the whim of the person posting the poll.

Jack_www · June 21, 2003, 18:47

I agree with Drogue. Elijah not everyone agrees with some of the things you say about how big a millitary force should be or how much a nation can spend on their millitary. I think that we all agree though that Sheeps millitary is a bit over the top he should be able to run if he wants and see if people vote for him or not.

Whaleboy · June 22, 2003, 18:12

Tough

I came up with the concept, and until I give birth to it, its my baby!

What the panel does after the election, whether it wants to hold re-elections or include people in after the elections, then that is up to the panel, indeed if the panel can argue that certain peoples militaries are realistic, I will support their election standing.

Drogue · June 22, 2003, 18:47

If you want to be taken seriously in a democratic society, be democratic when electing officials. It is not your baby. It may be your idea, but this is a regional thing. The Court was my idea, but I don't presume to be able to decide who can or cannot run (talking of that, we need new elections, which I will post soon). Who represents the people is up to them.

Whaleboy · June 22, 2003, 18:56

I stated that there were conditions for people being able to stand (baring in mind that the first term is only to get thing up and running), and as the person running the first election, whereas the panel would run the rest, if someone broke that condition in my view, then they couldnt stand. Like you said, the panel may take a different view to me, and that is fine, but the panel doesnt exist until tomorrow.

If, in the panels view, someone is eligible to stand, then it is up to the panel to decide whether to hold re-elections, indeed, that may well be a good idea, but until that happens, I will poll the people who apply, and conform to the conditions specified.

In the case of Sheepsta, many of us agreed that he would not be able to field the military size he posted, which he didnt revise when I make the poll. I found the arguments convincing, and upon consulting the link on the Nationstates.net forum, as well as my own judgement, I decided that those conditions had been breached in that case. The panel is designed to help people revise their military stats, so upon that being the case, Sheepsta would be eligible for entry, and as long as he and Archaic can get on, he would be a valuable addition to, if I may say so, a reasonably good idea!

Drogue · June 22, 2003, 19:36

That is true, however since others may not like the way you set it up, they may decide that the panel is to be ignored, as it was not a regional decision, but that of one nation.

Whaleboy · June 22, 2003, 19:50

The panel is more ooc than not, as we're dealing with peoples posts actual content, not how it related to our nations as we would with RP.

People are free to ignore it, but then, that can change with the next elections. Also, look at the role of the panel.

It PM's people asking for them to revise military stats to given figures or thereabouts, if it fails to comply, we can post up the offending nation, and then the figures that the region can RP with. *Its not god modding when we're all doing it

jk*

Drogue · June 22, 2003, 20:26

So you are saying that a panel run on your rules, not completely democratically, can actually alter someones stats? That is wrong. Because this is OOC, is exactly why we are all equal before the people, and why the people can vote in who they want. Who are you to decide that there should be a panel, and that that panel has those far reaching powers. The only way this would work is if people are free to ignore it, and thus it is voluntary, such as the court. It gives legitimacy or not to figures, but it does not alter them. Indeed, it should still be democratic, and I am appauled that you believe you can impose a set of people upon us, without allowing us our free vote.

Whaleboy · June 22, 2003, 20:41

It would be able to do so with more legitimacy after people are elected completely democratically, i.e. a re-election after this one creates the conditions for that to be possible.

We cant alter stats, we can merely ask them to change them, or post alternatives to them, for people to decide to use. We cant change them, I dont believe there is a mod for this forum, and even if there was, I wouldnt want to do that.

People are free to ignore it, but by the same token people are free to ignore them.

Quote:

I am appauled that you believe you can impose a set of people upon us

Thats a straw man. I am not imposing rules, I merely stated conditions and then people can stand according to those, and by standing you would agree to comply with those conditions, as all who are standing are doing so.

Like I said, this panel would not be able to change anything. I could have fullfilled the roles entirely myself, or chosen members by invitation only, but an election according to conditions was the more logical choice, as it is more likely to be recognised by others if they have a say in how it is made up.

Like I said, no official powers, no powers that an individual member of this forum does not have, merely a collection of minds that enables the actual judgement to occur, implimentation of that judgement can be handled by anyone, and is non-compulsory like the court, however, for pragmatic reasons nations would be advised to comply with the conclusions of this panel.

Archaic · June 22, 2003, 22:12

I think I have to stand with Drogue in this. Sheeps military *is* overstated, but unless we have a massive amount of idiots come into the forum, not understand how any of this works, and vote for him, it's not like he'd get elected with those outlandish military stats, is it? For now at least, there's no reason to disqualify him from being included in the vote.

Urban Ranger · June 22, 2003, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I object to Sheep not being allowed to stand.

I disagree.

As I stated in the other thread, apparent conflict between Sheep and Archaic is strong and frequent. This will be destructive to the panel. We can accept one or none, but not both.

This is not a matter of democracy, this is a matter of whether you want a functional panel or not.

Archaic · June 22, 2003, 22:54

I would think however that the votes for me and Sheep would be mutually exclusive. With the people who would be voting, you would either get a situation where I'm in, or a situation where Sheep's in, or neither, but not both.

Sheep · June 23, 2003, 03:25

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Please note that I would have let Sheep stand, were it not for the military, his application would have been fully acceptable. Please do not take this personally, and this panel will be here to help you revise your figures so you can stand next time round.

I wont. I would of revised them however I do not see where they are going wrong. Also I would like to add any judgements on Sheepsta including Archaic will be ignored for the express purpose of the unlikeliness of impartiality or no bias.

Mr. President · June 23, 2003, 05:05

I think at this point everyone is completely biased against everyone else, so it should all cancel out.

Quote:

I do not see where they are going wrong.

Sheep · June 23, 2003, 05:08

Mr. President,

Well if you think you can direct me. Without pissing me off, and with allowing me the slightest bit of allowance. Mind you I do have compulsory military service, have a very very high sepnding on military (through NS) and Have many allies helping each other out, feel free to contact me.

MSN: liammaddrell@hotmail.com
AIM: sheepmaddrell

Sheep · June 23, 2003, 05:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
I think I have to stand with Drogue in this. Sheeps military *is* overstated, but unless we have a massive amount of idiots come into the forum, not understand how any of this works, and vote for him, it's not like he'd get elected with those outlandish military stats, is it? For now at least, there's no reason to disqualify him from being included in the vote.

I find this funny. In other words, democracy is great, just so long as I don;t lose power.

Archaic · June 23, 2003, 05:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
Mind you I do have compulsory military service, have a very very high sepnding on military (through NS)

It simply means that you'd have a large military relative to your size and economy, not meaning you can make a military to a level which you could not possibily maintain.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
and Have many allies helping each other out

Irrelevant to the level of your military, and to its technology with the blockade preventing imports.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
I find this funny. In other words, democracy is great, just so long as I don;t lose power.

It was a statement Sheep that no one in their right mind would vote for you with your outlandish military stats, not what you're implying.

Sheep · June 23, 2003, 05:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
It simply means that you'd have a large military relative to your size and economy, not meaning you can make a military to a level which you could not possibily maintain.

My military, lets see. All Mt. Gravatt men are conscriptyed for two years training at the age of 17. They are then able to be called up at 24 hours notice. I do not see what is wrong with the military sizes and you are yet to be able to offer me sufficent proof why I can;t have 4.5% to 5% of my population in all four branches of the military.

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
Irrelevant to the level of your military, and to its technology with the blockade preventing imports.

my technology, is reasonable. All members of the Treaty of Mt.Gravatt and other various friendly nations work together in all aspects of technology. As for the blockade, ever hear of the Berlin Blockade. Aeroplanes have been flying non stop to Sheepsta with the military hardware we cannot produce, and other needed items unable to be produced by Sheepstan factories yet, around the clock. Sorry my good friend but unless you want to shoot down every plane leaving or enetring Sheepstan air space and cause a nuclear exchange, your blockade means nothing to us.

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
It was a statement Sheep that no one in their right mind would vote for you with your outlandish military stats, not what you're implying.

Let me see. It says

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
For now at least, there's no reason to disqualify him from being included in the vote.

Which basically means. Hey I think Sheep has a rats arses chance of getting in so its all good. But if he ever does I will have to try and make him illegiable.

Archaic · June 23, 2003, 06:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
My military, lets see. All Mt. Gravatt men are conscriptyed for two years training at the age of 17. They are then able to be called up at 24 hours notice. I do not see what is wrong with the military sizes and you are yet to be able to offer me sufficent proof why I can;t have 4.5% to 5% of my population in all four branches of the military.

We've offered it many times Sheep. It's not our fault if you can't understand.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
my technology, is reasonable. All members of the Treaty of Mt.Gravatt and other various friendly nations work together in all aspects of technology. As for the blockade, ever hear of the Berlin Blockade. Aeroplanes have been flying non stop to Sheepsta with the military hardware we cannot produce, and other needed items unable to be produced by Sheepstan factories yet, around the clock. Sorry my good friend but unless you want to shoot down every plane leaving or enetring Sheepstan air space and cause a nuclear exchange, your blockade means nothing to us.

I'd like to know how Aeroplanes are getting past the blockade which spans both sea and air. Furthermore, I'd like to know exactly how you could possibily airlift that much equipment that frequently without ruining the economies of the countries airlifting it to you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
Let me see. It says

Which basically means. Hey I think Sheep has a rats arses chance of getting in so its all good. But if he ever does I will have to try and make him illegiable.

No, it means..
"Until we get a panel together and can decide exactly what is and isn't a realistic military level given all our circumstances, we can't ban someone from participating based upon that. If however in our next elections we do establish this, we can then say someone may not be up for election on that basis."

Sheep · June 23, 2003, 06:11

First oif all airlifting and the souther sea routes are still open. Second of all the transports are still coming in. Mainly due to the fact that if they were attacked by your forces we would consider it an act of war.

There are no resolutions allowing for a blockade, nor is there any justification. If war was to start it would be your fault.

On another point, Field Marshall Dunning would like to announce that the Special Forces have been returned to their home countries. We no longer feel the need for them. They are allowed to go home to their families for some leave.