DG4 Discussion - Const: Article G

[FortyJ]

Somebody just tell me when this thing is over so I can go back to having fun in this forum.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig


Cyc, the game plan is to write the constitution to lay out some general principles that we'd like to adhere to, then write the CoL to give those principles some meat. We cannot write up general principles if we do not decide what they are. You are the one who is not following the game plan. You want to rush through a meaningless constitution then write the CoL, deciding the specifics and guiding principles at that time.

It is not inappropriate to decide NOW whether we want elected or appointed leaders.

For the purposes of THIS article, what is the general principle then?

No - I don't care about deputies. I don't care how they are determined. It doesn't matter for right now.

Everyone here is wanting the same blasted thing. At the end of a fixed time period, all elected officials are removed from office, allowing a new set of officials to take over.

That's it. This discussion has gotten way out of hand with talk of deputies,mid-term replacements, vacancies, appointments, etc. I'm responsible for some of it.

But it's not relevant to this decision.

We've got a list of options. I propose that we poll that list, then the top 2 in a run-off.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I thought you already did that...

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire

Everyone here is wanting the same blasted thing. At the end of a fixed time period, all elected officials are removed from office, allowing a new set of officials to take over.

-- Ravensfire

I will try one more time...

Now we do not all want the same blasted thing. I want to know if this article is going to once and for all keep us from appointing officals mid-term. No one wants to talk about that now. I see no point in delaying the discussin and decision on this general principle until we write the CoL. I want this article to be worded so that we will not have appointments.

 

[Cyc]

donsig think about it like this. If the big guy was writing a "Book of Life" and he wrote a one line Article about men and women getting maried. He would probably say something like ~

"And men and women will pledge their love to each other in a bond of marriage until death does part them."

He wouldn't put something in this book that looks like this ~

"And men and women will pledge their love to each other in a bond of marriage until death does part them, unless something happens one day where they will get divorced, and then there is the matter of child custody and support, in which case we will then figure out who gets the house...""

 

[donsig]

That's very helpful Cyc. I never would have thought about it in that context. So, how would the Big Guy write this article? Would it forbid appointed positions or not?

 

[ravensfire]

Wow, the wheels go round and round.

Where, oh where is the relevance of worrying about appointing officials when we are discussing the length of an term? Explain that, donsig. Please.

You have tried, and tried, and failed to demonstrate in any way the relevance, or importance of even thinking about that issue at this point in time. Is there a single other person who is concerned about your issue relevant to this discussion about Article G?

Tell me, assume that all vacant offices must be filled by an election, what will Article G look like. Then, assume that all vacant office must be filled by appointments, what will Article G look like.

Stalemates belong in chess, but we've managed to come to one here.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by donsig
That's very helpful Cyc. I never would have thought about it in that context. So, how would the Big Guy write this article? Would it forbid appointed positions or not?

*Cyc grabs the 2 X 4 and whacks donsig a good one. Now Cyc has donsig's complete attention...*

He would probably write it like one of the proposed one line Articles that we are now considering, donsig. To continue using the same analogy (it seems to be favorable with you), appointed positions would be similar to re-marrying and/or new girlfriends/boyfriends. The possibility of remarraige/new friends is a subsequent situation of the original intent. It MAY happen, but then again it MAY NOT. Something like that is contingent on something that MIGHT happen. Why write an Article on a contingency?

 

[Cyc]

OK, since no one else will do the damn thing, I will post a poll proposal, and then post a poll on this.

This poll proposal includes options for Art. G that uses the direct quotes from the people that posted them. Hopefully, this will make everyone of these people feel comfortable with the options.

Article G - Wording Of

Please choose one of the following options to be used as the wording of Article G of the DG4 Constitution.

1. All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

2. All offices so designated by the legislature shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.

3. All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

4. Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.

5. All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month.

6. Removal of article, each branch specifies procedures.


The winning option for this poll shall be Article G in the DG4 Constitution. (Except #6, obviously.)

This poll will remain open or 4 days.
Discussion can be found here.
There is no abstain option.

I will post this poll tonight .

 

[Bootstoots]

Why can't we simply write Article G like it is in the DG2 constitution (as posted in the first post of the thread) and have it interpreted to allow leaders or deputies to be appointed if the law states it to be so? This worked just fine in DG2, from what I can understand. I do know where both donsig and Cyc are coming from, but why can't we just interpret this same article as we did in DG2?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Where, oh where is the relevance of worrying about appointing officials when we are discussing the length of an term? Explain that, donsig. Please.

You have tried, and tried, and failed to demonstrate in any way the relevance, or importance of even thinking about that issue at this point in time. Is there a single other person who is concerned about your issue relevant to this discussion about Article G?

Tell me, assume that all vacant offices must be filled by an election, what will Article G look like. Then, assume that all vacant office must be filled by appointments, what will Article G look like.

-- Ravensfire

They would look like this:

All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. All such offices that are vacant must be filled by elections.

All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. All such offices that are vacant must be filled by appointments.

You see these are general differences. We pick one (or a similar one) add it to the constitution then proceed to the CoL where we detail the appointment or election process as called for in the article we chose.

Can we now take our heads from out of our behinds and decide the general policy we want for DG4?

 

[zorven]

I see donsig's point. How we choose to word things in the Constitution can have an effect on what we are able to do in the CoL. Therefore you should have an idea what you want to do in the CoL so that you can allow for it in the Constitution. For one example, in Cyc's poll:

"4. Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law."

If this wording is adopted, you could not have appointed deputies assume the Leader position because a Leader must be elected.

Anyhow, most here seem to think this needs to be polled, so lets poll this and see what happens.....

 

[Cyc]

That is simply not true, zorven. First of all, I support appointed Replacements for Leaders, just as I support appointed Deputies, just so you know where I'm coming from.

If #4 wins (a little anxious for that one, eh? ), it would allow for the CoL to state in one of its sub sections that if a duly elected Leader was not able to finish their Term, a suitable replacement could be temporarily appointed by the President, to fulfill the duties of said Leader. In plain English, the Leader was elected by the full citizenry for a Term fixed by Law. When that Leader bailed or was impeached (whatever) the Temporary Replacement was appointed by the President to make sure the will of the People was properly administered by that Office. I Personally had to take over the responsibilities of the Domestic Department at the end of a Term when there was no time for an election and there was no deputy. Appointment was the only option that made sense. Doing anything else in the replacement of a Leader anytime at all in a Term is wasting time in my opinion. I also think the Leader should appoint their deputy. That's common sense. But none of this matters.

What matters is we get this Article written and set as Article G. We can make Laws and Standards in the CoL and the CoS that support this Article depending on the views and opinions of the Congress as we move through this mess.

I will post the poll now.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Cyc
If #4 wins (a little anxious for that one, eh? ),

No, just picked it as an example.

it would allow for the CoL to state in one of its sub sections that if a duly elected Leader was not able to finish their Term, a suitable replacement could be temporarily appointed by the President, to fulfill the duties of said Leader. In plain English, the Leader was elected by the full citizenry for a Term fixed by Law. When that Leader bailed or was impeached (whatever) the Temporary Replacement was appointed by the President to make sure the will of the People was properly administered by that Office.

I have to disagree. Any replacement, temp or otherwise, is the de factor Leader and as such would need to be elected to be compliant with this proposal.

 

[Cyc]

Not if the Law says otherwise, young man.

 

[zorven]

In my opinion any such law would then contradict the Constititution, old man

 

[Cyc]

That's because you don't really understand the nature of what we're doing here, zorven.

 

[Cyc]

The Poll for this thread has been posted right here. Please vote.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

A reasonable compromise would be that any appointee can be confirmed by the people in an election, should that appointee ever need to be elevated to leader status. While I share Cyc's views on appointments to the letter, I would not be against having a 48 hour nomination/election process to fill an unexpected vacancy. The (appointed) deputy would maintain temporary control of the office, and would be entitled to run for the vacant leadership position. If there are no other nominees then the deputy gets the job, as things would work the same as they would in an uncontested election.

So, now I just thought of something else. Not to make things more confusing, but what the hey, it's late.

Throughout our history, in the event of uncontested elections an election never takes place. Our constitution should be wary of these fortunate people as well. Why should they get all the Constitutional perks of leadership just because no one else was interested in the position?

I am starting to think that the word "elected" is the biggest hindrance to our reaching a consensus on this article. Is there any way to draft this article without using this word, or do we really have to re-think everything to allow this word to stay? If appointments go, then uncontested election process should go as well.....unless we can somehow lose the word "elected" from this article.

This should be interesting. I'm waiting...................................

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Cyc
That's because you don't really understand the nature of what we're doing here, zorven.

Please enlighten me.

edit: this is not meant sarcastically.