Having term limits codified in law was the most popular choice in the poll:
Term limits codified in to Law 54.55%
Custom 18.18%
No Term Limits 24.24%
Abstain 3.03%

So now we must decide what type of term limits we want. Please post your ideas.

-the Wolf

term limits for the tri: 2 terms, then abstain from tri-positions for at least 2 terms

term limits for the Chief Justice and the other Judiciary major positions: 3 terms, abstain for at least 1 term...

for my other suggestions, please check the poll thread: I can't remember everything but:

no limits for governors, office holders CAN do other jobs (except tri-member cannot just change seats)...

:hmm: that's it for now I think...

Tri-members should indeed be limited to 2 terms on, but then 1 term off for ANY tri-position, although I see Stilgar's merit in 2 terms off as well...

The judiciary system should be as independent as possible, so I believe there should be a 1 term on, 1 term off limit to that. Except when a case is being handled, I believe the people should be able to finish the matter as an outgoing Chief Justice or whatever their position. Mind you: prosecutors and defenders do not necessarily have to serve 1 term and then step down, as they don't rule over a case.

All ministers: 2 terms on, 1 turn off for that specific ministry?

Governors and such can serve any amount of terms as far as I'm concerned.

that's why I proposed a 3turn-limit for the judiciary... I feel that it might take a while for them to complete their tasks and therefore I want(ed) to give them this time... In addition having diverse term-limits for tri and the Judiciary will strongly limit the possible influence from the tri on this branch... (This would be the case on a 1 term on, 1 term off - agreement as well, of course ;) )

For all positions, the limit should be:

"No citizen can be elected more than twice in a row to the same position."

Several key points to this.

1. "More than twice in a row" - this is the limitation, but it allows for a citizen to be appointed mid-term, then still have two full terms they can be elected to the office.

2. "More than twice in a row" - nothing is preventing a citizen from sitting out a term, then running again in term 4.

3. "can be elected" - if the office goes vacant (nobody runs for the office), that citizen may be appointed to that office.

4. "same position" - this means that each Governorship will be a different position.

It's clear, it's simple and it accomplishes the goals of term limits without being an undue burden.

EDIT: Slight change in wording, per DS' comment. "twice in a row" to "more than twice in a row"

-- Ravensfire

For all positions, the limit should be:

"No citizen can be elected twice in a row to the same position."

Several key points to this.

1. "Twice in a row" - this is the limitation, but it allows for a citizen to be appointed mid-term, then still have two full terms they can be elected to the office.

2. "Twice in a row" - nothing is preventing a citizen from sitting out a term, then running again in term 4.

3. "can be elected" - if the office goes vacant (nobody runs for the office), that citizen may be appointed to that office.

4. "same position" - this means that each Governorship will be a different position.

It's clear, it's simple and it accomplishes the goals of term limits without being an undue burden.

-- Ravensfire

I agree with you here. This was what I have been thinking of; I thank you for put it is a concise and intelligent (I would have spent 200 words or so and never come to such a way of saying it).

-the Wolf

For all positions, the limit should be:

"No citizen can be elected twice in a row to the same position."


To make this consistent with your other writings on the subject, I suspect you missed a couple of words.

"No citizen can be elected more than twice in a row to the same position."

To make this consistent with your other writings on the subject, I suspect you missed a couple of words.

"No citizen can be elected more than twice in a row to the same position."

I agree with it as first written:
No citizen can be elected twice in a row to the same position

-the Wolf

No, DS is correct about what I'm wanting - 2 terms max. As written, it's just one term.

Thanks, DS. I'll be editing that post quickly!

-- Ravensfire

I have said before that I believe it should be one term consecutive max, but I agree with the rest of your post, Ravensfire.

-the Wolf

How many terms is something we can expect some disagreement on, so depending on whether discussion lands firmly on one side or the other, a poll is probably at the end of this tunnel. ;)

In favor of two terms, we have had some difficulty in the past getting more than two people who can commit to the top job. Changing from the "President is DP" to "elected DP pool" method helped that a bit, but we're still not getting many takers for the job.

If participation is high, as it should be, then all of our positions will be decided between several candidates based on merit, and a single term as the limit potentially denies the people the ability to choose the person they want. (well, any term limits deny the people a potential choice, but that's moot at this point)

The claim that incumbents and veterans have an unfair advantage seems to be untrue this game, at least on the surface. Fully half of the people who would make it onto my list of folks who must be nominated for something are either complete newcomers or lurkers with really high participation levels. Maybe more than half, thinking about it.

Anyway, just some random ramblings. :)

How many terms is something we can expect some disagreement on, so depending on whether discussion lands firmly on one side or the other, a poll is probably at the end of this tunnel.

I started this thread to find out what options need to be on the poll. ;)

-the Wolf

For all positions, the limit should be:

"No citizen can be elected more than twice in a row to the same position."

.........
4. "same position" - this means that each Governorship will be a different position.

It's clear, it's simple and it accomplishes the goals of term limits without being an undue burden.

-- Ravensfire

Fine by me but I wouldn't need to include the governors in this. Or could we give them a longer term-limit? I cannot really explain but that would feel right to me.. (sorry for the lack of argument here :blush: )

Do you think there should be a different term-limit-setting for the Judiciary branch than for the tri? I think it would be a good idea for the above mentioned reasons...

Stilgar

I don't see the need for term limits on the Judiciary, myself.

-the Wolf

Exectutive/ Tri: 2 term limit, then at least a 3 term break
Judiciary: 3 term limit, 1 term break
Governer: Until they step down or are defeated in an election

Explainations:
Exectutive/ Tri- This is realistic and Prevents people from going adam-sally- adam-sally, but allows great leaders:lol: to be voted in, after a break

Judiciary- Long enough limit to make a mark, and short enough "off time" to get bakc in there if they were good

Governer- If they are a good enough governer to get elcted over and over, they will evntually move on up to bigger positions, so why mess with excelence

Governer- If they are a good enough governer to get elcted over and over, they will evntually move on up to bigger positions, so why mess with excelence

I don't think you understand just how powerful governors can be; they choose what will be built in their cities.

-the Wolf

Can't the Exec/Tri/ Minister of Interior? Decision-man/ God(S)(Philophers if we get confucian ism) over rule them ?

If they can't I go for a 4 term limit, and then a 2 term absence. Also in the begging will there be a governer of the capital city?

Governors are mostly independant and can't be overruled in most things.

-the Wolf

I don't see the need for term limits on the Judiciary, myself.

-the Wolf

Well simple: They have huge power! they have to stick to the law but can "stretch" certain aspects or play down others of the CoL. Furthermore I don't want any high positions without term-limits... gov's aren't that much of a problem for me...