The second Civiltas Constitutional Convention

[Equuleus]

Lets start will proposals for needed changes.


Here are some things I think we need.

Clear Rules for GMs*

Game Rules*

You need 4 endorsements - yourself to make a bill but there is no limit to how many you can make.*

More power for the states*

Give the Cabinet some powers other than just the free bills*

Include a nominal President*

Work out all the facts and figures before we start*

Stop the cheating in elections with ATLEAST a 72 hour wait. And other things.*

Get the Cons back for game balance*

 

[Red Door]

What does clear rules for GMs mean? And what would you change about the game rules?

I agree on four endorsements.

I think giving more power to the states will be difficult without more members, I honestly think it's hard to represent different states in Model Parliament as it is, but giving power to the states would be worse IMO.

I don't see why a Cabinet should have more than free bills, what else would you propose they have?

I want to agree on the nominal president, but would they do, and I think it was defeated on a vote already.

I think the current facts and figures we have our fine.

Agree on voting rights amendment.

And I don't see how a Constitution Convention will get the Conservatives back, I think we just need to enter discussions with them to see if they want to come back.

 

[Splime]

I say that we need to remove any power the states have, as it overcomplicates things to the extreme.

Also, a redo of all parties would be good.

 

[jeps]

Disband completely all existing parties.

Reform them exactly the same if you will, but for now disband everything. (minor parties have more chance this way)

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Power for the states wouldn't overcomplicate matters; it would make things more interesting by allowing a degree of autonomy. If Equuleus really wants the Conservatives back to have more game balance, I can tell you that it'll be a lot easier if the states are afforded certain rights. Even if that doesn't concern you, I still think we should do it just to add some variety.

 

[Smidgey]

We should have states so that we can limit the power of the federal government.

 

[Splime]

We should have states so that we can limit the power of the federal government.

Well, I'm considering being GM, and if we have separate states, with separate laws and legislatures, then there's no way I could GM, as the work included would be way too much.

States could be automated by GMs though. That way, if the libertarians want to lessen federal power, there is still power elsewhere.

 

[Aramazd]

Just a couple of my opinions on these things:

Clear Rules for GMs*
Game Rules*

Elaborate please.

You need 4 endorsements - yourself to make a bill but there is no limit to how many you can make.*

Okay

More power for the states*

IMO, having states was a big mistake, I sorry I originally supported it. Perhaps after we get a national government running smoothly we can have states.

Give the Cabinet some powers other than just the free bills*

Again elaborate

Include a nominal President*

Why?

Work out all the facts and figures before we start*

Good Idea.

Stop the cheating in elections with ATLEAST a 72 hour wait. And other things.*

IMO, 72 is too long. I would say 24-48 hours, but also I would include a minimum amount of activity (say 1 post a week, unless the poster has notified that they won't be here).

Get the Cons back for game balance*

How would you do that?

I think it would be a good idea to have everyone re-sign-up and scrap the existing parties


Also, I would support Splime as a GM, no doubt he can devote more time to this than I have.

 

[Ball Lightning]

We should have a totally new start for members and parliament, if people want, i can make a new thread for the sign ups.

 

[Red Door]

Power for the states wouldn't overcomplicate matters; it would make things more interesting by allowing a degree of autonomy. If Equuleus really wants the Conservatives back to have more game balance, I can tell you that it'll be a lot easier if the states are afforded certain rights. Even if that doesn't concern you, I still think we should do it just to add some variety.

I agree with the Conservative part, but there's no way it doesn't overcomplicate matters. It makes it so we're dealing with 5 parliaments instead of 1, and that's a problem, especially when we only have 20 active members of Parliament at most.

We should have states so that we can limit the power of the federal government.

If this was real life, I'd agree with you, but this is Model Parliament of a dead Parliament and our first priority should be to get going again.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Well, we musn't sacrifice long-term stability for the sake of expediency. Adding state powers won't have to create extra complexity if we arrange it such that the locals mimic the nationals. In the U.S., state constitutions generally follow the format of the national one, yet there is still room for individuality. Would it complicate things? Sure. I just don't see how it overcomplicates things.

 

[Perfection]

Clear Rules for GMs*

Game Rules*

I think we should divvy up the constitution and the game rules into two seperate documents. GMs should be able to vote on game rules because they are a part of the game but not the constitution.

You need 4 endorsements - yourself to make a bill but there is no limit to how many you can make.*

What's wrong with the current endorsement scheme

More power for the states*

Include a nominal President*

why add more crap

Give the Cabinet some powers other than just the free bills*

Cabinets should not have power as bills, period. They should have power to dictate what the department does within the confines of the legislation.

Work out all the facts and figures before we start*

That's impossible. There are an infinite number of facts and figures we could work out. We need to determine what we want now. And a system of how we can get more from the GM (like a thread where you ask for info and give a reason why you need the info so GMs aren't bogged down doing filler details).

Stop the cheating in elections with ATLEAST a 72 hour wait. And other things.*

I'm not a big fan of the whole wait period thing. It just makes more sense to me to just make it so noone can vote for stuff that was put to vote before joining but all stuff after joining should be fair game. We want these people to legislate and vote and waiting long times will discourage newbs.

Get the Cons back for game balance*

We can't force that. But remember we can always have issues within a liberal framework. There's certainly a fair amount of dissent among the liberals here.

 

[LucyDuke]

We should have states so that we can limit the power of the federal government.

Any simulation has to sacrifice details. States don't fit well here.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

I would like to make a suggestion: the subforum is currently filled with lots of confusing threads, many of them duplicates. Now, I do not know how far you wish to go in "starting over," but to me this means starting basically from scratch, except for the few necessary details already mentioned. I therefore think it would be wise if we cleaned up the forum a bit, locking/moving/deleting the threads which are no longer relevant to distinguish them from the current session.

 

[Ball Lightning]

I fully agree with you GO.