I'll go over every issue brought up within this thread. So, here I go(grab a soda and get comfy):
Lazy Leaders, not a problem, I have never seen a lazy leader in my time in the DG, all leaders normally do the job they are given. Some put more effort into it than others, but those others tend to have more time to go over it, or they are not well-conversed enough with our rules to know exactly what they are allowed to do. I see no reason for you to call our leaders, who voulanteer for the job, to be called lazy, even if they did what they were suppose to. It is not there responsibility to do everything, part of that responsibility also lies on the citizens, and we have to do more to help them out, in making well thought-out instructions and plans. Hopefully, without the bickering and argueing that normally comes with demogame discussions. You call our leaders lazy? No, I say they've done an excellent job, and I personally am ashamed of everyone demanding they do the impossible, and then calling them lazy when they fail to do the impossible.
Yes, the spot vote system of olden days was alittle unfair, but I am not proposing we bring back that spot vote system. Which is why I am asking for us to atleast work together in this to get a working system that fits the wants and needs of everybody, but how can we determine the wants and needs of everybody if half of the people just keep saying "I will never like this idea," and how are you to know that you won't like it? No, you just don't want to like it. We can make it fair, effective, and economical (time saving), if we work together.
The current system worked in DG3, because what? We had 5 province's? The DG1 and DG2 we had double that amount and still more. Alot more choice's micromanagements, alot more everything.
Now back to my proposal for the Council Member at Large, there has been very few comments on this, what do you guys think? I personally think it would aid the leaders and citizens greatly. The person makes sure the leaders know the will of the citizenry, and the citizens know they are hearing it. It could help the leaders post more precise instructions, and save them the time, allowing them to deal with other issue's within there department. Does anyone have an suggestions or comments?
Now back to the spot vote system. Here is another general idea by me (yes once again), it is pretty much the same as the one before, but further defined:
Any decision not mentioned in a leaders instructions requires a 7/8's vote of the active citizens within the turnchat. If the leader of the deparment in question is avaible, and agree's to the choice, it is then marked down to a 4/5's of the active citizens within the turnchat. The DP may veto any decision he deems goes against the general will of the citizenry.(forum citizens) *The Council Member at large may also veto decisions made inside of the chat if he/she is present.
No Spot Vote can be taken if roughly 40% or less of the current quorum is present within the chat. (A 16 people quorum, so 7 in the chat)
Any instructions to be changed inside of the chat must have the leaders support and 4/5's of the partcipating citizens support. The DP and Council Member At Large may veto any decision made in the chat.
If a president/Council Member at large does veto a decision within the chat, the topic is either taken to the forums, or the veto is over-rided by either the leader of the department in question DP, or Council Member at Large I veto can only be over-rided if the over ride gets 7/8's support of the citizens present in the chat.
This, I believe is a fairly good system of checks and balance's, though I'm sure some of you think differantly. If you do, then please state what you think needs to be changed, and not just say what you think is wrong with it.
This allows that no one makes the decision alone, instructions can only be changed if the leader is present in the chat, and agree's with it, so it should not happen much. Personally, the Council Member at large will have a large role in the fairness of this system, if we do decide to make a poistion like it, if not then it would have to be changed. Nonetheless all of the parts in italics is what concerns the Council Member at large, remove them and you have it without him/her.
Though, as you can see gentlemen, there is a fairly large support for them though, and you'd be better in trying a compromise then down right refusing any suggestion, or the change's might be made without your consent (alittle piece missing from our rule system, minorities are severaly injuried in the decision making process, and it is unfair to them, but that is something differant).
Now, the choice is up to you. We can compromise on this and hopefully come out with a system that fits everybodies wants and needs, or we can bicker and argue untill one side gains enough support to screw the other side over.
Your Choice. I've already said which one I prefered.
