Shaitan
der Besucher
Correct, Bill. The intent is that if somebody runs and they win they must take the new office over the current one.
Framing the Code of Laws - Citizen Discussion and Debate
- Thread starter Shaitan
- Start date
Shaitan
der Besucher
Version 1.8
Text changes are marked in blue like usual. There are a large number of organization changes so the previous numbers we were referring to are no longer applicable (the things are still there but the index is different).
The big changes were for clarity. As disorganizer pointed out, it's a hard read. Related parts are indicated but not referenced. What I did was:
Text changes are marked in blue like usual. There are a large number of organization changes so the previous numbers we were referring to are no longer applicable (the things are still there but the index is different).
The big changes were for clarity. As disorganizer pointed out, it's a hard read. Related parts are indicated but not referenced. What I did was:
- Combine Executive (Presidency) and Executive (Council) sections.
- Moved Council Vote into Executive section.
- Combine Senate (Governor) and Congress (citizen) into Legislative section.
- Moved Legislative Vote section into Legislative section.
- Moved Province section into Senate (Gov) section.
- Moved Judicial Review section into Judiciary section.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Constitution C, et al, v1.9
Major change is election laws were moved to the Code of Standards. Two major elements of the election laws are new business (cyclical elections and allowing candidates to run for 1 position) and the entire section is essentially rules for polling, which is a standard.
Major change is election laws were moved to the Code of Standards. Two major elements of the election laws are new business (cyclical elections and allowing candidates to run for 1 position) and the entire section is essentially rules for polling, which is a standard.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Shaitan
der Besucher
The sidebar discussion & poll are progressing. Are there any other issues with the Code? I don't have anything else in the Laws so I'll throw out some Standards issues that I'd like to implement while we wait on the sidebar to complete:
No vote changes. Once a vote is cast, it is cast. No more having Duke switch votes. A couple reasons. First - changing a vote is not something that is ever possible in any voting situation. Second - there's no actual way to verify what people voted in the first place. No, I don't think or intimate that people are cheating in this manner but it is possible and casts a cloud over tight polls when it is done.
No poll changes: Once a poll is up and active and has received a vote it should not be changed. If it turns out that other options should have been presented then post a new one. You could even put a link in the bad poll and tell people to go to the other one instead. Changing poll options in the middle of a poll invalidates all of the votes that have come before the change.
Absolutely no changing of someone else's poll: You wouldn't dream of editing somebody elses posts to change what they say but it seems to be a constant temptation to edit other people's polls to change what they are asking. This almost happened twice last term. One the owner popped up to object and I objected on the other one.
No vote changes. Once a vote is cast, it is cast. No more having Duke switch votes. A couple reasons. First - changing a vote is not something that is ever possible in any voting situation. Second - there's no actual way to verify what people voted in the first place. No, I don't think or intimate that people are cheating in this manner but it is possible and casts a cloud over tight polls when it is done.
No poll changes: Once a poll is up and active and has received a vote it should not be changed. If it turns out that other options should have been presented then post a new one. You could even put a link in the bad poll and tell people to go to the other one instead. Changing poll options in the middle of a poll invalidates all of the votes that have come before the change.
Absolutely no changing of someone else's poll: You wouldn't dream of editing somebody elses posts to change what they say but it seems to be a constant temptation to edit other people's polls to change what they are asking. This almost happened twice last term. One the owner popped up to object and I objected on the other one.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
you should add: if something is wrong, the poll is closed with a link to the repaired poll
Waterz
Talking Dog
well i was just going to recommend that we should have political parties.Yes, i know it is against the constitution, but maybe parties could get citizens more involved in government. See we could have it based on Australian Parliament. See the party with the majority of seats would become the leadership, government of the day. And the President or PrimeMinister will choose what positions the citizens will be and then the opposition or other parties say democrats and Labor could vote for or against it. We could even had houses of parliament. Senate and the House of Representatives.
Shaitan
der Besucher
I don't think I could support a system where membership in a particular party was a prerequisite to any particular office. Wouldn't a system like this tend to fractionalize the game into different power groups?
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
That was the reason why the parties were disallowed. For example you, waterz, would not have being able to hold the office you hold now, as the parties would have corrupted the elections.
Nevertheless, "parties" or "groups" lobbying for special interests may me a thought. But only together with a rule that a elected official must leave membership of any organizations he was in at the moment he accepts nomination.
Nevertheless, "parties" or "groups" lobbying for special interests may me a thought. But only together with a rule that a elected official must leave membership of any organizations he was in at the moment he accepts nomination.
Shaitan
der Besucher
We have citizen groups which are formed to promote particular agendas. Citizen groups are allowed to lobby and promote their choice for candidacy.
Shaitan
der Besucher
The current version prohibits moderators from running for office as they must remain impartial in order to do their primary job effectively. I submit that moderators should be able to run for the judicial positions as those are by definition and intent impartial offices.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
i think to protect the mods we should not allow this. rumors may be that they are partial in some cases. and as they are the "last line of decission", they should not have any office (no decission-taking position). they can still run for major or any other positions there (not chat-rep, as this is a decision taking one).
Shaitan
der Besucher
Rumors of partiality are possible no matter who is in the judicial position. The regular course of a mod's job can trigger things like this, as can any leadership decision.
The judicial positions aren't classical decision makers. They don't decide anything in the game play itself, just in the rules. Arbitrating and ruling on if a rule fits or not shouldn't conflict with regular mod duties and vice versa.
The judicial positions aren't classical decision makers. They don't decide anything in the game play itself, just in the rules. Arbitrating and ruling on if a rule fits or not shouldn't conflict with regular mod duties and vice versa.
Shaitan
der Besucher
The sidebar discussion has resulted in A-3-d changing to:
"Citizens may create polls on any topic."
If a problem does arrise from this we can enact a standard to deal with it.
"Citizens may create polls on any topic."
If a problem does arrise from this we can enact a standard to deal with it.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Bravo!
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I believe the Mods should remain in their current capacity. They are above the game, so to speak, and should not have a ruling hand in the Government.
Section H: Moderators
Article 1: Moderators are responsible for handling elections, site maintenance and record keeping on the members, polls, etc.
Article 2: They are also responsible for clarifying the Constitution if there is confusion on one or more of its points.
Article 3: These are NOT elected positions. They have NO council Power.
Let's keep the Mods as Mods.
Section H: Moderators
Article 1: Moderators are responsible for handling elections, site maintenance and record keeping on the members, polls, etc.
Article 2: They are also responsible for clarifying the Constitution if there is confusion on one or more of its points.
Article 3: These are NOT elected positions. They have NO council Power.
Let's keep the Mods as Mods.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Alrighty then. I'll withdraw my proposal for mods in the judiciary.
Any other items for discussion?
Any other items for discussion?
Shaitan
der Besucher
It has been 3 days with no comments of any items still needing to be discussed. I will wait 1 more day and then post a poll for acceptance of the Code of Laws.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Please wait a little longer (couple more days). I am too damned busy to to review all of your work.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Will do, Cyc. Since attendance is generally lower on the weekends also, I'll wait until Tuesday morning. If no other issues have been brought up by then I'll post the poll.
Similar threads
- Poll
