The new, revamped Constitution - Citizen Discussion

[donsig]

I'm not accusing anyone of any wrong doing. I certainly understand Shaitan's point of over focusing because I'm guilty of that, too.

Unfortunately, I have two problems with the proposed poll for immediate implementation. First, people have already voted in the approval poll and may well have based their votes on its implementation clause. Second, I have already voted no in that poll. While I could ask to have my vote changed I am very uneasy about doing so. While the moderators can see who has voted they cannot tell how anyone voted. For this reason I am against vote changing in principle. I prefer we scrap the original poll and start one that says the new constitution will go into effect upon approval.

Now, I'm not going to launch any investigations or whine if this isn't done. I had already made up my mind to start a poll for immediate activation of the constitution in the event it was approved. I just think that one poll for approval and immediate implementation would be better than two polls.

 

[Shaitan]

What a shame that we've got a mess after a month of cleaning

Instead of concurrent polls let's do consecutive ones. When the approval poll is complete we'll have the other poll to clarify implementation. That way if some people voted YES because of the delayed implementation, they'll have the opportunity to vote NO to the immediate implementation.

I very much do not want to start a precedent for pulling polls that are in progress.

 

[disorganizer]

what would happen if we just add an article to the old constitution which states no action is to be taken conflicting with the new one?
this will get less confusing than implementing the new constitution without laws.
we had so many points where we agreed that this or that should be made clear in the laws, and so we left those things out. the constitution is not able to stand alone. clearification on many things will be needed by the laws.
the game is running, you know, so we cant experiment with the rules, as this will spoil many ppl.

 

[Shaitan]

Let's just kick butt on the Code and we won't have a problem no matter what. Let's just stick to making it clear and not allow any more "new business" and it'll be done lickety split.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Let's just kick butt on the Code and we won't have a problem no matter what. Let's just stick to making it clear and not allow any more "new business" and it'll be done lickety split.

Since it has taken us a month to get agreement on a vague document I do not see how we can expect to agree on one that must be more specific any time soon.

I certainly wouldn't agee to be bound to 'no new business' since I haven't even read the code of laws yet! I do know we left a major point out of the constitution regarding what it takes to pass laws. That has to be worked out. Then are we going to run into the same problem with standards? We can't activate the laws till we approve the standards?

Let's get the new constitution approved and implemented, active or in place - what ever you want to call it - and then lets talk laws. I really think we are better off enacting the laws piecemeal anyway. We could enact the ones that have general agreement first and then hammer out the areas of disagreement. This way we do not risk holding up the whole process because of disagreements.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
What a shame that we've got a mess after a month of cleaning

Instead of concurrent polls let's do consecutive ones. When the approval poll is complete we'll have the other poll to clarify implementation. That way if some people voted YES because of the delayed implementation, they'll have the opportunity to vote NO to the immediate implementation.

I very much do not want to start a precedent for pulling polls that are in progress.

Yes, and it's a shame we have to delay the activation of the new constitution while we wait for two polls to each run for 48 hours (and then each have a cabinet vote?) when one poll and cabinet vote would do.

 

[Shaitan]

I meant no new issues should be brought in during the building of the Code. No brand new stuff. Whatever is needed to support what's already there is fine. Everything from the original Constitution is there (except what was removed due to changes in the Big "C" of course - things like the At-Large council). Clean it up and put a shirt on it.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
I meant no new issues should be brought in during the building of the Code. No brand new stuff. Whatever is needed to support what's already there is fine. Everything from the original Constitution is there (except what was removed due to changes in the Big "C" of course - things like the At-Large council). Clean it up and put a shirt on it.

I guess I'm really not on the ball here. I thought part of this program was gettig rid of the bad things in the constitution. Splitting the old constitution into three parts with varying levels of changeability is a step in the right direction but I thought that while we were at it we'd be getting rid of poor rules outright rather than just carrying them over to the laws and then changing the bad laws later.

 

[disorganizer]

well, donsig, thats why we discuss the laws. they are only taken over from the old now, but we change it before posting for poll.
as i recap you were the one saying that we have to get it going fast. some other said we should rework it totally. ;-)

 

[disorganizer]

to clear it more:
making things quick has the disadvantage that you have to carry old things over and change them later. or you stand there without rules.
redoing it would have had the advantage that we could have redone all "bad" laws with enough time. i even proposed living with the old one and developing the new one in parallel, with adopted ammendments to the old constitution if we find something new. the new would maybe only have been usable for the next game, but it would have been totally redone.

 

[donsig]

Our fundamental disagreement disorganizer is that I am confident that we can proceed without the code of laws while you think there would be only chaos without the code of laws. I find your stance incredible given the fact that you have called for the total dissolution of our government several times!

 

[disorganizer]

i never called for total disoluton of the rules though. clear(!) und unmisunderstandable principle rules are needed. some of them are missing here because of the wording of the articles is chosed to be clearified by the book of laws. i procaim that the governmental positions are imho not needed at all, which is not the same as deleting the rules. i also think that in the effort to word the rules like real-life juritical papers, they get too complicated to understand. we tend to forget that some ppl just flock in here and just dont understand what we, as we wrote this document for weeks, clearly understand and though we cant understand why they dont understand it.
i am wondering why you were pro the 3 books, as you dont seem to like the law-book. what would we need the laws for if we can run without them? they would be useless.

 

[disorganizer]

btw: i am able to follow one wish and at the same time help out our nation without self-interest. this is what i did here. i tried to put the PPO-thoughts in here, but did not insist on these because this would have stopped and cluttered the thread with off-topic posts. which would have been useless for our development.

and also: i am able to comply to a compromise if no way out is to be seen. even if i dont get my interest thru.

 

[donsig]

I'm not calling for total dissolution of the rules either. I'm just trying to get the new constitution approved. It will at least give us something to fall back on should anyone try to usurp power. Once it is the rule of the land we can then pass the important laws and standards. The important ones will be the ones that we find we need to keep things in line and going the way we want. If the game continues with no problems (as I suspect it will) there will be no rush to pass many laws. We will have acheived one of the PPO ideas of minimalizing the rules without harming the game. I am retiring from government and have no fears that anyone nominated for term four will try to take power into their own hands.

 

[Shaitan]

How 'bout those Laws?