OFFICIAL DISCUSSION: Nominations, Debates and Elections
- Thread starter Chieftess
- Start date
- Status
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
We should go along with the previous nomination procedures. But for this DG, we should lift the "Run only one election per term" restrictions to running only two.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
we need to move over our current code of laws piece regarding the election cycle, but we may need to alter it depending on how the alternate governement idea goes...
I don't see how the two would be linked. In fact, all the nomination cycle is, is this:
1 - Nominate for whatever positions are available.
2 - Hold Debates.
3 - Vote for who you think the best person will be.
Nominations would be held on the 24th at 0:00GMT
Debates would be held on the 26th at 0:00GMT
Elections would be held on the 27th at 0:00GMT
Dates would start 2 days earlier in February.
Can't get any simplier (or harder) than that.
1 - Nominate for whatever positions are available.
2 - Hold Debates.
3 - Vote for who you think the best person will be.
Nominations would be held on the 24th at 0:00GMT
Debates would be held on the 26th at 0:00GMT
Elections would be held on the 27th at 0:00GMT
Dates would start 2 days earlier in February.
Can't get any simplier (or harder) than that.
Each person should be able to accept a nomination in each branch, and hold a position in each branch.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Erm, I would be against that since there would be a conflict of interest. Take for example citizen Bill. He is both the Vice President and the Judge Advocate. When a PI has been placed by a 3rd party against the president. Then Bill would have to proceed with the PI proceedings that would (if there is a strong evidence) impeach the president making Bill the vice president.DaveShack said:
CivGeneral said:
That's why our courts need to emulate real courts, and require judicial recusal whenever there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Ashburnham
King
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 827
I would prefer sticking with the "1 nomination, 1 office" rule we've had. However, something will need to be done about the late-game situation of having more provinces than governors. Perhaps we could allow someone in office to take up the mantle of governor if it was absolutely necessary.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I agree with Ash, 1 office per player, but leave Governorships and Mayors optional, unless these are contested. In fact, I would rather vote for a good minister running for both a governorship and a ministry than some drughead trying to seize the governorship in order to halt/stall/sabotage the game. We need some flexibility on the Provinces.
mhcarver
Newspaper Mogul
I think that in order to get more contested elections we should allow people to run for two offices but be allowed to hold a governorship and another position , I'm sorry but I hate uncontested elections(even if I won three terms on the Judiciary from them)
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Here is a post I made about this issue so please see here. I put it in the wrong thread.
It should always be one office per person. To get more people involved we need to give people good reasons to wanting to be part of this game, such as they can have a small role in government so that they feel they are part of the team. What game had the highest participation rate? We could see what went right in that game comparedd to the others.
It should always be one office per person. To get more people involved we need to give people good reasons to wanting to be part of this game, such as they can have a small role in government so that they feel they are part of the team. What game had the highest participation rate? We could see what went right in that game comparedd to the others.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
1 person, 1 race, 1 office. Mayors don't count as office, they have advisory power only.
For debates, I would suggest going to three thread - 1 for each branch. A little complicated, but would still work. Given our usual pathetic amount of real debate, this should suffice.
CT, instead of absolute dates, use days from the end of the month. EX: Elections start 4 days before the end of the month. Keeps the times the same from month to month.
-- Ravensfire
For debates, I would suggest going to three thread - 1 for each branch. A little complicated, but would still work. Given our usual pathetic amount of real debate, this should suffice.
CT, instead of absolute dates, use days from the end of the month. EX: Elections start 4 days before the end of the month. Keeps the times the same from month to month.
-- Ravensfire
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
classical_hero said:
DG1 and DG2 has the highest partcipation rates, and that is what I've been saying for about two weeks now.
On a side note, lets let people run for more than one poistion. We've never had any problem with it before, and I see no need to continue with our current mindset of creating more problems, for our own goals.
We don't have enough people, lets face it, and letting people run for more than one poistion will help us fill some of them, atleast untill we get more people. Stop messing the game up for your own petty believes and use logic for once.
Allowing people to run for two offices would at least make most offices contests, which has got to be better. Though that opens up the can of worms when someone wins more than one office, how do we handle the one that person doesn't pick. The runner up wins concept led to some pretty big legal battles, especially when we had like 4 candidates and 3 of them won other offices, leaving the 4th place candidate to win with 2 votes. 
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
DaveShack said:Allowing people to run for two offices would at least make most offices contests, which has got to be better. Though that opens up the can of worms when someone wins more than one office, how do we handle the one that person doesn't pick. The runner up wins concept led to some pretty big legal battles, especially when we had like 4 candidates and 3 of them won other offices, leaving the 4th place candidate to win with 2 votes.
Just stick with the old way, if someone does not like that "two-vote" leader, they can always challange the election.
Nobody
Gangster
i think it should be clear the there is no debate in the nomination (maybe a little banter) thread and election thread just the debate thread. i know this seems silly but i think it should be just so everyone gets a chance to campaign and not get left behind like my first election about 7 people voted against me before i got to make my case just that my opponent was well known.
Nobody said:
Hmm, the concept you're after presents a problem. What you really want is for the debate to conclude prior to the election starting. Why have two threads (nomination and debate) for people to read prior to the election, when we could put debate in the same thread as nominations and have only one thread. This might have the side effect of drowning out the nth'ing which goes on in the nominations, which is just useless drivel anyway and ought to be considered to be borderline spam, if not actual.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Elections discussion summary:
Discussion points:
-- Ravensfire
- Basic cycle is Nominate, Debate, Vote
Discussion points:
- Timeframe
- Absolute (nominations on 26th, polls on 28th, etc)
- Relative (nomination 8 days before month end, polls 4 days before end, etc)
- Limitations on accepted nominations
- DG 5: Only 1
- 1 per branch
- 2
- Unlimited
- If allowing multiple acceptances, how to handle multiple wins?
- 1 debate thread per branch?
-- Ravensfire
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
part of the alternate government was that people could hold 2 offices, 1 from the tactical/strategic area, and one DP or administrative positionravensfire said:
blackheart
unenlightened
DaveShack said:
I know I didn't bother to read the only debate thread which had real debate in it. Debate in the nomination or election thread, otherwise nomination thread be just people nominating/accepting/declining and a waste of useful space.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
