Important discussion on Article X based on a breach of electoral code

[Provolution]

President Daveshack has wrongfully nominated and appointed a non-registered Fanatannian citizen as his Vice President. Even though Donsig is a household name for the DGs, many find it unfair that Daveshack has bypassed several perfectly eligible candidates registered prior to the 1 of March election day.

The following candidates were bypassed based on other technicalities:

Civanator: came slightly too late for the nominations
Blackheart: nominated registered citizen
Nobody: Nominated registered citizens

I need to see these principles added into our constitution.

All positions in a term within the Chain of Command, city naming list and unit naming list MUST be registered prior to relevant election day. All appointments of the VP must be substantiated, validated and argumented for in the choice of the various candidates, and not kept secret on the PMs as it is a forum game. I would also make this JR inquire whether or not the appoinment of Donsig has violated the Right to Information, and would request President Daveshack to post all the PMed answers of nominated candidates in the Judicial Review thread, as the public should know the process that lead to this selection. Finally, I would also like to mention that a violation of election codes and principles could lead to a CC if the JR is ignored on its fair merits. I give the President the benefit of the doubt here, and would give due time to find a proper and legitimate replacement.

Question: Did the President follow the election laws and appointment laws when appointing a non-registered citizen as President ?

Follow up questions.

1. Did the President respect the Right to Information win choosing between the nominated candidates and why are not the process of selecting the appointed VP presented in the Public?

2. Should the Vice Presidential Appointment Process be public or private?

3. Is the Judiciary itself neutral in this process, or will they favor an old known name over legally registered citizens?

4. Do we need a regulated procedure for the VP appointment ?

5. Will a suspension of the non-registered citizen be required per the constitution and conventional DG principles be required and would equality to the law and equal citizen rights be more important than cronyism, historical bonds and favoritism based on personal preference?

Here follows the cited law:

Article X. The government will consist of four branches: Strategic Branch, Tactical Branch, Judicial Branch, and the General Assembly,

Article X. The Strategic Branch consists of the President, the Vice President,
and the Consuls. The Consuls, as listed below, are in tasked with deciding on the broader picture of how $COUNTRY_NAME will operate.
1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple areas of different Consuls. He/she will also decide on any strategic tasks not designated to another consul in this constitution. The President is the primary designated player. He/she has the following responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee a responsibility: Naming of Cities and Units, Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed officials remain in office until removed by a President. The President also leads discussion on how to use military and scientific great leaders.

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may take over the President's tasks when the President is absent. If the President should be removed from office for any reason the Vice President will then take the position of President and appoint a Vice President. The Vice President must be approved by a majority of the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

Article X. The government will consist of four branches: Strategic Branch, Tactical Branch, Judicial Branch, and the General Assembly,

For this section I propose the following amendment:

Article X. The government will consist of four branches: Strategic Branch, Tactical Branch, Judicial Branch, and the General Assembly, and each official in the Chain of Command must be a registered citizen prior to the election date of the Presidential Election with retroactive powers.

New section to be looked at.

Article X. The Strategic Branch consists of the President, the Vice President,
and the Consuls. The Consuls, as listed below, are in tasked with deciding on the broader picture of how $COUNTRY_NAME will operate.
1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple areas of different Consuls. He/she will also decide on any strategic tasks not designated to another consul in this constitution. The President is the primary designated player. He/she has the following responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee a responsibility: , Naming of Cities and Units, Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed officials remain in office until removed by a President. The President also leads discussion on how to use military and scientific great leaders.

Here the main problem is that the VP appointment process is not specified.
It is also not specified the VP is a citizen or not, which should be mandatory.
Also, the VP should be subject to a citizen approval poll as well as a Consular approval in said citizen approval poll. Here is the amendment proposal:

Article X. The Strategic Branch consists of the President, the Vice President,
and the Consuls. The Consuls, as listed below, are in tasked with deciding on the broader picture of how $COUNTRY_NAME will operate.
1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple areas of different Consuls. He/she will also decide on any strategic tasks not designated to another consul in this constitution. The President is the primary designated player. He/she has the following responsibilities, and may appoint a pre-election registered citizen to oversee a responsibility: Vice President, Naming of Cities and Units, Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed officials remain in office until removed by a President. The President also leads discussion on how to use military and scientific great leaders.

Final article section subjected to scrutiny and amendment proposal:

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may take over the President's tasks when the President is absent. If the President should be removed from office for any reason the Vice President will then take the position of President and appoint a Vice President. The Vice President must be approved by a majority of the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

This is the second most important position in the nation and should be considered as such. Under all circumstances, the VP should be considered and
approved by the Consuls and given a tie between the Consuls in a public approval poll. For the proper procedure I propose the following amendment:

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may take over the President's tasks when the President is absent. If the President should be removed from office for any reason the Vice President will then take the position of President and appoint a Vice President. The Vice President must be approved by a majority of the consuls, if the Vice President DELETE is appointed mid-term.ADD is contested in a Consular tie vote, the Vice President nominee is put up for a public approval poll

By the way, I may need to reconsider my signature again,

 

[Strider]

Ahh... give it up. I've never been best friends with Donsig, but it's not like he's going to be doing much anyway.

It's not worth the trouble.

 

[mhcarver]

LEts see I just skimmed this over so
A why must a person be registered before the election? couldn't a citizen come mid-term and be appointed?
B Why does VP selection need to be public? the people elected the president, he should be able to choose the Vice President he wants
C Your contorting the right to information act, it was made with the specific intention of making info about the gameplay easy to find, not to investigate why the president appointed whoever he thought was the most able citizen to serve in a position
D

5. Will a suspension of the non-registered citizen be required per the constitution and conventional DG principles be required and would equality to the law and equal citizen rights be more important than cronyism, historical bonds and favoritism based on personal preference?

This doesn't make much sense to me but shouldn't the worst case be that apointee was removed from office? that would heal all the damage

It seems to me as if you are turning this whole issue into a witchhunt , yes donsig is not registered, but as long as he does register I don't see where the harm is in letting him be VP, provided he registers. BTW this would also go for a user X who had just registered mid-term provided that the president thought that person could do the job they were appointed to fully.

 

[Strider]

A why must a person be registered before the election? couldn't a citizen come mid-term and be appointed?

I believe what he's saying is that the person in question still hasn't registered as a citizen.

B Why does VP selection need to be public? the people elected the president, he should be able to choose the Vice President he wants

Well, the President should announce his VP before the start of the election. However I believe the VP is still subject to a confirmation poll.

C Your contorting the right to information act, it was made with the specific intention of making info about the gameplay easy to find, not to investigate why the president appointed whoever he thought was the most able citizen to serve in a position

Sorry to break it to you, but there is no right of information act.

 

[Provolution]

Mhcarver

Hey , this is not a withchunt, of the nominated candidates, I support Donsig the most.
However, I want the law to be equal, so my criticism is on the constitutional document itself. We cannot treat some citizens very strict, and other very leniently, that is a very unhealthy view you got there Mhcarver.

 

[Rik Meleet]

All donsig needs to do is register and all is fine. There is no need to make a big fuss out of this.

 

[Provolution]

we still make the amendments.

 

[mhcarver]

@ Provo
I read through the document to quickly but a first and very hasty skim by me it seemed like an attack on the appointment, confirmation and somewhat more regulation like confirmation is fine but I think as long as the person registers before being appointed they should be allowed to serve, unless the system is changed so the VP is elected on a running mate system . for example instead of Chieftess the ticket would read Chieftess-Furiey. Just my thoughts, sorry for the initially harsh language .

@ strider
I understand that donsig has not yet registered however I don't like the language about a pre-election registered citizen must be appointed.

 

[Strider]

@ Provo
I read through the document to quickly but a first and very hasty skim by me it seemed like an attack on the appointment, confirmation and somewhat more regulation like confirmation is fine but I think as long as the person registers before being appointed they should be allowed to serve, unless the system is changed so the VP is elected on a running mate system . for example instead of Chieftess the ticket would read Chieftess-Furiey. Just my thoughts, sorry for the initially harsh language .

That was actually a very promising aspect (having Leader's and deputies run on the same ticket), but unluckily it was forgotten about .

 

[Provolution]

Provo
I read through the document to quickly but a first and very hasty skim by me it seemed like an attack on the appointment, confirmation and somewhat more regulation like confirmation is fine but I think as long as the person registers before being appointed they should be allowed to serve, unless the system is changed so the VP is elected on a running mate system . for example instead of Chieftess the ticket would read Chieftess-Furiey. Just my thoughts, sorry for the initially harsh language .

Mhcarver
Indeed you were wrong. You attacked me preemptively without reading the material properly, which is probably due to your friendship to your past legal colleagues, your issues with me in the past and so on. Please take kinder on myfuture posts to balance out your tilted harsh bias.

I support either a running mate ballot OR Consular approval followed by a public approval poll. Under all circumstances citizen registry should be mandatory. Yet, this must be part of the constitution. I am not surprised I meet this collective bias, but you should really look into the craftsmanship of this flawed constitution than passing accuastory remarks on someone pointing out integral and systemic flaws that damage the stability and credibility of the system. I accept your apology, and will maintain my obje tive criteria stance in this case. I also support Donsig, but it must be done the right way.
Conceivably, we should make this a mid term appointment with Consular Approval, that is the only way to make this legitimate. 15 of March for Donsig then, next time we can do it right.

 

[blackheart]

Too broad.

What this proposes is too broad. If we want to fix people who aren't registered holding office, focus on that. I don't see why we need to invent a brand new system to choose the VP, or why the Judiciary's role and (un)biasness questioned, or why secret friendship circles are being brought up...

 

[Provolution]

Well Blackheart, I do not expect any support from you here, so I ignore you for now.

 

[blackheart]

Well Blackheart, I do not expect any support from you here, so I ignore you for now.

My goodness. Is this the basis of intelligent discussion? Someone doesn't agree with you, you ignore them? If this is the case Provolution, you can stop the lectures about acting like children and focus on your own growth.

 

[Provolution]

ok Blackheart, here come the teaspoon for the Adolescent.

Several of us will reintroduce the Running mate concept into the constitution OR make a proper and valid approval process. You may ignore it, but you cannot make all of us ignore it. And about the unbiased Judiciary and friendship circles, I would certainly raise a question when a non-registered citizen is in the CoC and that is not covered by the law.
Then we should fix the laws, and not stop processes to fix them.

 

[blackheart]

ok Blackheart, here come the teaspoon for the Adolescent.

Several of us will reintroduce the Running mate concept into the constitution OR make a proper and valid approval process. You may ignore it, but you cannot make all of us ignore it. And about the unbiased Judiciary and friendship circles, I would certainly raise a question when a non-registered citizen is in the CoC and that is not covered by the law.
Then we should fix the laws, and not stop processes to fix them.

Thank's for the spoon friend .

Read 2 posts up. As I said before, this is good and all, but too broad of a topic for one discussion thread. This is turning into a big witchhunt. I was one of the candidates turned down, and I'm not crying foul.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no conspiracy to stop anything, just a mere mention of one of the difficult hurdles your proposal will face in its present form. I can ignore it, because I don't see a problem with the current system for VPs. Others can do whatever they want, they're not children that need to be lead by the hand.

 

[ravensfire]

Well Blackheart, I do not expect any support from you here, so I ignore you for now.

Holy cow - you've got to be kidding me, Provo! Are you seriously that insecure that someone that (I know - it's a shock!) doesn't like your idea is worthy of ignoring?

Very few ideas have total and absolute support. I can't think of a single person here that has supported everything I've tossed out - yet I don't ignore them. There are even some that are against just about anything I like, but I don't ignore them. In fact, those that are against an idea can find the holes that other might have missed. A great example of that is Strider.

Provo - you have demonstrated time and time again that you just can't handle critiscm. Guess what - you have to learn.

You can't ignore everyone.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

Holy cow - you've got to be kidding me, Provo! Are you seriously that insecure that someone that (I know - it's a shock!) doesn't like your idea is worthy of ignoring?

Very few ideas have total and absolute support. I can't think of a single person here that has supported everything I've tossed out - yet I don't ignore them. There are even some that are against just about anything I like, but I don't ignore them. In fact, those that are against an idea can find the holes that other might have missed. A great example of that is Strider.

Provo - you have demonstrated time and time again that you just can't handle critiscm. Guess what - you have to learn.

You can't ignore everyone.

-- Ravensfire

Well I did not ignore him, I actually answered his "comment" prior to your condemning post, but Blackhearts criticism is more a rejection than an addition and too generic to address in particular as it dismisses the entire effort.
I can indeed handle criticism, and I answered him. I wrote for now, but answered him a couple of posts down the road. He rejeted the need for a reform, arrogant, he rejected the need to consider equal rights, arrogant, he considered the citizen registry as irrelevant to VP, arrogant and he considered my specific inputs as irrelevant, arrogant.

However, you have repeatedly publicly stated that my posts are not the bytes worth posted onm unreadable, redundant, you skip them, you laugh at them and so on. On my side, I have not publicly tried to besmudge you pr your posts, and actually worked around them, yes even deleting posts on your request. Most of the time I humbly submit to your double standards Ravensfire, and that is the only way I can survive here. However, backing up Blackhearts comment when you yourself actually saw something that needs to be fixed does not make sense. Do you want to fix this flaw or not ?
If everything was so "commonsensical" why do we need laws?
Why do we have a judiciary? Rejecting the registry is the singularly most stupid concept I have seen this game, and if someone else proposed it, would probably meet a totally different reception. I just saw how this thread was received for example, from the usual suspects.

 

[ravensfire]

Provo, you're reading the words, and not getting the meaning behind them. That's my fault - if the reader doesn't understand the message, the fault lies with the message.

Yes - his critiscm was a rejection. And? He doesn't like your idea, and I'm sure there are others. Quite honestly, I think it's mostly pointless as well, but adding a quick request to the EO to verify citizenship is easy and painless. Hence, my suggested change.

Now, you took his rejection entirely too hard. He didn't like your idea, and so he's now totally against you, he's now "arrogant"? Who's the arrogant one here? Who's the one with their head in the clouds, ignoring those unworthy? Oh, that's right, he rejected your view of "equal rights", so now he's prejuidiced, so it's okay to ignore him. Methinks thou shouldst peer into a mirror.

Now - onto your critiscm of me. Let's see, unreadable, redundant, skip them, more of the the same. Yup - guilty as charged. I skip most of your posts. You write long, lengthy passages that bring in way too many ideas entirely unrelated to the discussion. You don't write well for comprehension. You love long posts without summaries. Provo - I don't have the time to read through your novellas. There are some good ideas in there, but they are hidden in so much fluff it's not worth my time to puzzle through them.

I backed up blackheart because of your complete misread of his comments, and especially because of the "ignore" remark. I think my initial thought was "pathetic" when I read that. Hence, my response. Something you just might want to keep in mind - I've said that this isn't a bad idea, tossed out a suggestion, and haven't changed my mind. Get it? This concept, right now, has my support. I don't see anything wrong with having the EO verify that officials are citizens.

Nobody here is rejecting the registry. What we're doing is asking you to relax. This is the first term, and it's been a somewhat chaotic start. Simple things like "Hey, donsig, do you know you haven't posted in the registry" would have fixed this. Just out of curiosity, what do you think the EO will probably do when they find someone that is a candidate that hasn't registered? Hint - they'll just ask them to register.

Good grief, Provo - not a single person has rejected this on it's merits. You found a problem, nobody is questioning that. The questions are about how to handle it. Is the additional complexity worth it? In the instant case, what benefit is there by ignoring some courtesy, and asking reminding someone during the first term that they didn't register. Some of us have been doing this long enough that we forget little things like that.

Provo - relax and have some fun in this game.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Black_Hole]

what is this 'fun' you speak of ravensfire?

 

[DaveShack]

Let's review what we already have. Ok, maybe it hasn't all been ratified, but that's just a matter of time.

• To hold an office, one must be registered as a citizen.
• We often make exceptions for oversights, almost always during term 1, and there must be a reasonable time period imposed. For practical purposes, we normally limit post-registration (registration to correct an oversight of this type) to the same time period under which an official can be declared absent.
• Appointments are subject to an approval poll, private, Y/N/A format, with 48 hours duration.

To convince me to support, or vote for, any other system will require a considerable amount of convincing. I can't remember a single successful attempt to invalidate an appointment.

FYI I have taken action to ensure that the current controversy is resolved, one way or the other, within 24 hours.