Public Investigation#3: Term3-Elections - Spice Traders

[disorganizer]

i interpret you, cyc, as a not-guilty, right?

so i see 3 positions here:
warning letter
final warning
no punishment

any demands for a higher punishment?
the action would be as follows:
i would leave open this thread for discussion for 3 more days (sunday night). then i will post a "punish, dont punish, abstain" poll.
this will also be open for 3 days. if dont punish is the result, all is ok and the investigation is closed. if not, then i will post a punishment-type-poll. at the moment, this will be "warning-letter, first and final warning-letter, abstain". also up for 3 days. the result will then be the punishment.
would this be ok (as it is the first time to do this)?

 

[Rain]

What you have here is an example of a lobby in my opinion. A lobby is not a polical party but it is a political influence group. In fact businesses or trade organizations commonly form lobby groups to achieve the goals of the organization to use only one example. They are not parties per se since they do not have a broad spectrum of interest in the political arena. Now the next step from a lobby is a political party. In a democratic arena it will be impossible to prevent the exsitence of lobbies or psuedo political parties. The distinction i assuem you are trying to make is that we wish to avoid rigid party voting. This in itself is difficult to achieve if you wish to permit the esistence of lobbies since any political body is going to try to act in a unified fashion either on a specific goal or goals.

The key point is do the individuals elected owe their position to the party primarily or to their individual merit. Bascially if support derives from being a member of the guild they are de facto a party. What differnce does this make in the end? It is only significant insofar as individuals are obligated to vote on party lines. In real situations such voting is enforced by moral suasion, internal organizational mechanisms and the difficulty of being re-elected on one's own individual merits. The first two exist only in a very weak sense if at all in this game. The 3rd is a real possiblity. However, I do not on the face of the situation see how it can be avoided. The implementation of regualtions to prohibit such parties/lobbies will only drive them underground, not eradicate their existence. Further such groups consist of citizens who have the right to choose how they shall vote and represent themselves.

I understand the objective of the desire to avoid party politics/lobbies but i do not see how you can fully eliminate political cooperation among citizens nor is that necessarily a desirable goal in my opinion.

 

[Chieftess]

The one confusion that I have is that accepted/unaccepted actions are not specific, or specified cleary in the const.

So, it's up to the individual to guess at what's acceptable and what's not. If they're not politacally adept (like me), then they have no idea if what they're doing is ok or not.

 

[disorganizer]

thats what we have the warning-letters for.

 

[philippe]

look i got a pm from them BUT i dont think that is bad.
i see no problem.
its like to say:hey that guy wants to get minister show your support IF you want to.you are NOT forced to do it.its just a suggestion.
no punishment

 

[Shaitan]

I agree with Donsig's analysis. I also agree with Chieftess - this is not clear in the Constitution. Parties are not allowed. What are parties? You can't find any definition whatsoever in our official document.

I say no punishment, for two reasons. First, I don't think there was any intent or colusion. Second, I don't think you can break a rule that isn't there and that rule is too vague to enforce.

 

[punkbass2000]

So, the rule that isn't there is too vague?

 

[Plexus]

I really don't get why we can't have parties, is it because of the possible rift it would create between rival factions? Sounds kinda Marxist/Leninist to me.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Plexus
I really don't get why we can't have parties, is it because of the possible rift it would create between rival factions? Sounds kinda Marxist/Leninist to me.

Well, the DuckofFlanders is known as the *Marxistic Demo game Mod*!

 

[Dragoten]

I say no punishment...

This law is not specific and must be changed

 

[Eklektikos]

I don't think Chieftess should be punished for those PMs. I saw them more as a reminder that those candidates shared my inclination towards promoting trade, than as a political party style "These are our candidates, it is your duty to vote for them" communication. They didn't influence my voting beyond raising my awareness of those candidates. I voted for only two of them, and in only one case for the position mentioned in the PM. If we punish Chieftess for this, then what exactly are Citizen's Groups for?

 

[disorganizer]

Since i still have negative voice for this issue, the citizen poll is posted here.

 

[eyrei]

The only problem I have with those PMs (hmmm, I wonder why I didn't receive one?) is that they imply that the other candidates for those positions do not support aggressive trade with our neighbors. While this does not cause a problem when sent to a very active and informed citizen, when sent to someone who does not have the time to peruse the entire forum, they may be taken in a way that effectively libels the other candidates.

If the Spice Traders Guild wishes to promote it's members, it needs to find a difference between it's members and the other candidates other than membership to this citizens group. I suggest a carefully worded warning letter.