 |
| |
|
|
Timeline
|
 |
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
For example, if we all agree on the compromise in this thread (without officially amending the constitution), Ninot will probably structurate the CoL this way, while keeping an old-school copy (like skywalker asked). The next president is likely to continue, and the next too. |
Who is to say that? Should we just assume they will do it as was done before?
If there is no amendment for this, we run the risk of the CoL being "restructured" again, by the President who asserts there is no law dictating to him how to add amendments.
This won't overburden the constitution, imo, it will compliment it nicely. It will also ensure we have a neat, clean, easy to read document for generations to come. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
Who am I to say this ? I finished my studies in political sciences, and even if my knowledge of politics is limited, I know that many things are not written, because they don't need to. Britain is the most spectacular example of this, since there is no constitution. The Brits derive their way to do politics from several texts very old (the oldest, the magna carta, comes from the 13th century).
Who am I to say this ? I'm someone who sees people fleeing from the democracy Game because of endless constitutional quibble. Some polls are important, like the big judicial amendment, but some aren't. There is no need to clutter the forum (and frighten casual players) with unimportant polls. We are already talking about ourselves too much, rather than talking about the game. I don't want the demogame to be a small circle of elites who make new procedures for the sake of it.
Who am I to say this ? Someone who has enough common sense to see this matter actually interests 10 people (appreciation based on the number of posters in this thread). I'm also someone who sees no president ever bothering making a new structure of the CoL, except if he's an extremist from this thread (and there are no extremists here, since everybody seems to agree with the compromise).
I'm adamant about this : suggesting amendments for every little thing will kill the constitution, beause nobody will bother to read it, except those who wrote it.
That's because I like having a readable constitution that I like the compromise. For the very same reason, I'd vote against it if you propose it in the form of an amendment. Every responsible constitutionalist should do the same.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timeline
|
|
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Who am I to say this ? I, I, I.........  |
 Spiff, if I didn't know better I'd think you were getting a bit excited.
When I ask "Who can say this?" I am merely pointing out tht no one can say what people will do in the future. This amendment would be insurance against further problems. But I digress.
Btw, this is not Britain 
quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I adree with Spiffor on this, and would add the recent MoE amendment to the list of unneeded ones. Just let's do it, and if someone really feels like changing it in the future, we can deal then. |
The MoE poll is going to be approved or disapproved shortly. So more debate on that is not needed. I hope it passes, because unlike you, I think it IS needed.
Also, about making these changes now, how are you going to make Ninot do it (or anyone els for that matter) without a rule or some type of vote? It is defrauding the people (I feel) to just institute this suggestion without a vote first, especially considering the results of the "Reword" poll .
I will consult with Ninot on this issue and see what needs to be done for him to accept this. I just hope other Presidents follow in his steps (although I doubt that will happen).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Btw, this is not Britain |
I hope more people could understand this is not America either. How many time could we read "in the US, they do like this and like that" to justify a position ?
I gave Britain as an extreme example of ways to do politics without having strict rules for everything. People have a margin out of the texts : texts give a direction when one is needed, because people have reasons to hesitate.
I don't see hesitation in this matter. The rewording poll is irrelevant, because the compromise wasn't a possible answer (even if you suggested it in the thread). Should we post an unofficial poll with the compromise, I'm sure it will win by a landslide among its 20 voters. Tsk.
You're eager to talk big word with "defrauding the people" and such. But do you even realize "the people" you're talking about don't care about it at all ? The only people who have a genuine interest in this are those who posted here, even just to say "yea, I like this".
"The people", in the way I see it, don't want to participate in quibbles over small things. For example, the first MoE proposal (mine) was something new, where the people had a decision on something relatively important : replacing 2 minor ministries by a middle-powered one. This poll got 50 answers, and 84% yes.
Now, your last MoE poll only had 29 voters. Why ? Because it only suggested to reword the thing, without bringing anything news. People don't really care about the precise wording of the constitution, they care about how the game is played. I also see the important refusal as a sign people tend to dislike amendments diarrhea.
You feel a rewording of the MoE is necessary, like precise rules for the way to write the constitution. But you're forgetting an extremely important point : the contition is a tool for us, whose purpose it to be useful, not to be here.
You fall into the trap all bureacucracies experience : you permanently add things to the text, without ever suggesting deletions. I'm against this trend. We're a "Democracy Game", not a "Bureacracy Boredom". Should we become a bureaucracy boredom, I think many people will do like SirRalph warned : leave the game because the fun is sucked out.
When I see your eagerness to make rules for every single matter, I now understand what civman meant by "the constitution will suck the fun out of the game". You might ask who I am to talk on behalf of the others ? Nothing more than a person who's seen this thread. You should look at it carefully, it's very interesting 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timeline
|
|
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I hope more people could understand this is not America either. |
No kidding, and I understand this isn't America. That's one of the reasons I pushed for this change in the first place.
quote:
Should we post an unofficial poll with the compromise, I'm sure it will win by a landslide among its 20 voters. Tsk. |
What's that supposed to mean?
An OFFICIAL, non-amendment poll looks like the way to go at this point. And I am sure far more than 20 would vote on it Spiffor  . It's a good idea, after all.
quote:
You're eager to talk big word with "defrauding the people" and such. But do you even realize "the people" you're talking about don't care about it at all? |
Sigh. First, I am sure many more people care about it than post in this thread.
Second, its the principle of the matter that is important. Even if you don't think so, EVERYONE must be given the CHANCE to vote on it, even if that vote has no hope of effecting the outcome.
I am sure there are a great many people who will enjoy the benefits of an easy to read CoL.
quote:
For example, thefirst MoE proposal (mine) was something new, where the people had a decision on something relatively important : replacing 2 minor ministries by a middle-powered one. This poll got 50 answers, and 84% yes.
Now, your last MoE poll only had 29 voters. Why ? |
Sigh again. It's not like you to try to compare one of your polls with someone els's. I thought you were above that Spiff  .
Also, it's not right to try to take credit for this idea of merging the two positions when it was something MANY of discussed from Long before that poll. I don't recall who raised the issue from the start (maybe it was you, I don't remember) but many many many people helped in the formation and development of this idea, not just yourself.
quote:
People don't really care about the precise wording of the constitution, |
Then why did 32 out of 46 voters already vote in favor of rewording your amendment in this poll?
Yes, that's right. This was already once voted on and approved by a super majority once, but out of fairness (and a respect for what is really a minority of the people) I decided to host a repoll. -Of course not as many will vote! Duh, they are probably sick of voting on the same thing twice, I don't blame them.
quote:
You fall into the trap all bureacucracies experience : you permanently add things to the text, without ever suggesting deletions. |
Where the HECK did you get that from?
quote:
When I see your eagerness to make rules for every single matter, I now understand what civman meant by "the constitution will suck the fun out of the game". |
Huh?
Calm down Spiffor, I am only trying to strike a compromise here, and get this matter settled. I consider it part of my job as Vice President.
Last edited by Timeline on 24-07-2002 at 00:51
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Epistax
We're a democracy, the US is largely a republic. This is shown by: We poll people on plenty of things, where as the US polls elected officials. Technically US citizens only elect the Legislative branch, which convenes the electroral college to elect the Executive, who picks the Judicial branch.
</knowledge> |
Absolutely. I know this and have no qualms with this. I m just saying, is their really anything wrong with using the US as a basic model for certain things that apply?
quote:
There are many governments which have lasted longer, yet we dont draw from them. We are not a complete model of the US, but t is not a bad idea to get ideas from the US, but we musn't be a copy of the US. |
There have definately been governments that have been around longer, like I said, but not MANY governments have lasted longer like you say. I hope you are not confused between what I mean of a government, and what is known as a culture. For example, France, as a culture is indeed many times older than the US. But its current government was established after wwII.
Thats beside the point. Epistax and Will, you make it sound like I said we need to base every aspect of our government on the US's, I did not. I said it wouldn't be a bad model to look at, meaning, in certain situations it could be beneficial to get ideas from it. I mean, we already have. The CoL is basically a Constituion, a written document made by the US forfathers to set the framework in which the government would work. Thats only one example.
Kman
P.S. I dunno if i was just misunderstood, or maybe I wrote my previous post poorly, but I clearly communictaed something other than what I meant to and sprked some needless 'micro-controversy.' I apologize.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
Kramerman :
Actually, most institutions are indeed younger than the US (probably except Britain), but many governments in Europe have a different political culture from the US, with different yet interesting viws to make a democracy function.
For example, I see many Americans are diehard supporters of absolute freedom of speech, while some Europeans (myself and SirRalph possibly more) imagine limiting it. This comes mostly from the evolution of our political culture : the old censorship has evolved into some forbiddings in Europe. For example, in France, it is forbidden to "incicte to racial hate" : words can kill, so we forbid such words. In Germany, it is forbidden to create a "nazi party" and a "communist party" ; I think the latest version of the nazi party has been forbidden as well.
Democracies do not follow the same line, with the oldest being the most advanced on this line. There are differences among democracies, and we should either imagine something completely new (group method in polls), or take example from different countries, including the US but not exclusively. I think I'm not the only one who thinks a "this is done like that in the US" isn't an appealing argument. Probably, most US followers here will think the same if my motivation in an issue is "this is done like that in France". The only appealing argument IMO is "this is good for our democracy".
The US has good achievments, like other democracies, but should we take a model, Athens democracy should be ours, because we're a direct democracy with about 80 people, not 300 million.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-07-2002 22:19
!!!!)
|
|