discussion: "Service of Constitutional Protection"

[disorganizer]

Do we need a "Service of Constitutional Protection" (Federal Police) to check our actions and to answer questions about constitutional affairs?

my personal opinion:
yes.
this service should be neutral and not be part of the government and no government-official should take part. instead, DOF and DOM should be the leaders of this service, and maybe 1-2 citizens should "work" for them checking our actions... this service could have a thread in the main forum where citizens can post to point the departments attention to something they think conflicts the constitution. also, one representative of the department should be available at turn-chats and be voiced.

discussion please....

 

[Cyc]

Well, if DOM and DOF are going to be the Leaders, you can count me out. The moderators are only to enforce Forum rules and quell the forum riots. They should not be involved in Governmental affairs.

 

[disorganizer]

well, we are on discussion here ;-).
i thought with DOF having designed the game, he could easily answer what was behind a special part of the constitution. but hey, we can also do without them... but i must insist on the point that no government officials should be in there.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Cyc
The moderators are only to enforce Forum rules and quell the forum riots.

Well, for this game we do already try to make sure the constitution is being followed. That, aside from normal moderator duties, is our job for this game; to make sure it is played within the parameters given.

I agree though, that DOF and I should not be the leaders of this idea. Although many people come to us for clarification of the constitution, we have no power to make changes to it on our own.

We do rely upon the citizens to make us aware of some of the things going on in the forum. We simply cannot read every post that is being made for the game.

Feel free to ask us for clarification on issues and we will be happy to provide whatever assitance we can if any issues do arise.

A special organization is not needed for any citizen to do this though. Anyone can bring things they see as conflicts to the attention of DOF and I and it will get addressed.

If you do, however, want to actively organize and search out situations, then, I guess, that's all the better.

Standard Disclaimer: This should not target other players, but specific issues. Personal attacks on other players will not be tolerated.

 

[Cyc]

I agree with you Duke. I also agree with Dis that the watchdog committee should be created. Even if it is a small one, people should have a group that they can turn to for assistance that is not Government or Mod associated.

 

[Immortal]

I can help, but its among the million and a half other things I am trying to balance out right now, but I'll give an effort!


EDIT: after reading Cyc's post, maybe I shouldn't.

 

[Shaitan]

Is it necessary to have an official group to do this? Any citizen can call out against abuses to the Constitution. A citizen group dedicated to monitoring this would fit into the existing framework of the game and have the same net effect.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Is it necessary to have an official group to do this? Any citizen can call out against abuses to the Constitution. A citizen group dedicated to monitoring this would fit into the existing framework of the game and have the same net effect.

No, it's not a necessity, but neither is the newspaper. It's just another way that citizens can get involved in the game.

And, as I said before, anyone that sees an element they are concerned about can bring it to the attention of the Mods and it will be addressed.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
And, as I said before, anyone that sees an element they are concerned about can bring it to the attention of the Mods and it will be addressed.

That's what I mean. There is already a method in place to cover this. Is it necessary to make this an official organization chartered in the Constitution? Will that make it more effective? Why is a citizen group not sufficient?

Don't get me wrong. I think it's vital that citizens watch against misuse and abuse of the officials. I just think that we should use the methods and means already defined. Since we've already got citizen groups and we've already got a method for citizens to report abuses it seems that a citizen watchdog group is all that is required here.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Is it necessary to make this an official organization chartered in the Constitution?

Why is a citizen group not sufficient?

Since we've already got citizen groups and we've already got a method for citizens to report abuses it seems that a citizen watchdog group is all that is required here.

Am I wrong here? I thought that all this was going to be was a citizen watchdog group?

I didn't read anything about it planning to be an offical organization in the constitution. Or, am I missing some 'back story' to this whole thing?

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
Am I wrong here? I thought that all this was going to be was a citizen watchdog group?

I didn't read anything about it planning to be an offical organization in the constitution. Or, am I missing some 'back story' to this whole thing?

Um...I'm not sure. Disorganizer's original proposal called for a couple of special considerations such as the organization being head up by the Mods, having a special thread, getting voiced in the chat and having an exlusionary membership.

The Mods have disqualified themselves from the leadership role and current events have voiced everybody in the chat. Every citizen group gets a thread. We're basically left with a citizen group that does not welcome government employees as members. This might make an untenable member pool however. As I've pointed out before there aren't very many citizens who are not appointed or elected officials of one sort or another.

 

[donsig]

We're basically left with a citizen group that does not welcome government employees as members.

I guess the question boils down to whether someone can form a citizen's group that has 'exclusive membership'.

This gets more real world all the time...

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by donsig


I guess the question boils down to whether someone can form a citizen's group that has 'exclusive membership'.

This gets more real world all the time...

Personally, I don't see a problem with this in this instance. If the stated goals of the citizen group is to be a watchdog against the government then it would be a conflict of interest for government employees to be a part of it.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Um...I'm not sure. Disorganizer's original proposal called for a couple of special considerations such as the organization being head up by the Mods, having a special thread, getting voiced in the chat and having an exlusionary membership.

The special thread is just like we have for the newspaper. A sticky thread, but otherwise normal.

The chat part is something that would have to be done within the game. Since it now sounds like everyone will have a voice in the chat, that doesn't seem like much of an issue.

They may want it where certain people do not join, but they cannot make it where someone does not join. If someone wants to be part of this citizens group, and they are a citizen (which is everyone in the game), they can be a part of this citizens group.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Personally, I don't see a problem with this in this instance. If the stated goals of the citizen group is to be a watchdog against the government then it would be a conflict of interest for government employees to be a part of it.

They cannot be watchdog group against the government. The 'government' is really people playing the game that happen to have been elected. That means they would be singling out people in the game, which cannot happen.

They would be a watchdog group that is meant to ensure the constitution is followed; by all citizens. If it happens to be that most of the issues are brought up about actions by the government, then that is fine, but t cannot specifically target them and exclude others.

It may be a fine line, but it is one that needs to be followed. If someone brings an issue to this group and it is not followed through with just because the issue it is about was done by someone who is not in the government, that will not be tolerated.

 

[Shaitan]

Got it, Duke.

A government watchdog group would not be appropriate but a Constitutional watchdog group would be fine. A Constitutional watchdog group should not exclude government employees as members.

Clarification: Disorganizer actually had specified that it would be a Constitutional watchdog group. The government watchdog aspect developed from the government employee exclusion.

 

[disorganizer]

i thought of the group as a kind of "neutral" council for constitutional inquiries. as we have some powerfull decision-taking actions in (for example) the chat, we will soon need this for clearing vetos and devoicing. but also to maybe stop discussions on some of the matters which clutter the other threads.

i maybe stated it as part of the government, but meant a kind of citizen group. just a more official function. (like, for example census office).