 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
Well, when the quorum amendment gets passed, changing the con will become a little easier again. As I said, I have a few ideas.
- Allow judges to also hold an executive position.
- Extend the nomination period to 5 days (the last vote closely failed)
- Put the responsibilities of the MoI under those of the MoDST, then give the responsibilty for science to the president.
Thoughts?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch
For the judge:
No. We need to keep it seperate. But they should be allowed to be delegate (officially). |
Well, honestly there's no difference in someone being a delegate in a turnchat or actually holding the position.
quote: The MoI can be later a hell of a job, not as bad as MoD, but a fair amount of work............. |
Yes, but the MoDST doesn't have that much to do and we'd reduce our gov to 4 + 3 positions.
The three porposals all aim in the same direction: to make the game run more smoothly. A position less in our gov will make it easier to fill all of them, allwoing judges to hold exec. positions will allow people who care about the DG to participate more (eg. me) and extending the nomination period will asure better that everybody actually sees that thread (not like now).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
another point:
i would like to change the way the game is played in a rather strong way:
the pres (or someone else if the pres doesn't has time or internet) plays exactly one turn each day and posts the savegame. of course he is free to chat/instant mess. with anybody he would like to while doing so.
this will get us rid of empty turn chats, weeks without anything happening and will bring us closer to a realistic history: the world doesn't stop, because of illnesses, missing cabinet members, legal disputes or whatsoever in one country. sometimes the history of the world is boring for decades, sometimes events go faster than anyone could imagine. those are hard times for democracies (or every other form of government where more than one person has to decide), but they are interesting as well.
|
The idea doesn't sound bad, but I would rather suggest every other day, gives the citizens more time to decide.......
And Yes, I think it would speed up the game...............
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tamerlin
I don't think a Judge should be allowed to hold an executive position. Should a problem require a judgement and he would be Judge and party in the same case. |
It's easy to take that into account and replace that judge with the president like in impeachments. Maybe a judge shouldn't be allowed to also be president then...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
Furthermore, when we can't fill our elected positions with people, what's better, a little conflict of interest or the DG not moving forward at all?
quote: Yes, there is a huge difference:
A delegate has to follow the ministers orders, whereas the minister makes the orders! |
and in essence the delegate makes the orders himself because the minister didn't give any or not enough -> not much of a difference
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
On the other hand, Gilgamensh, playing one day out of two would not speed the game as we would play 3 and half turns a week... and I really like the turn chats where I can get in touch with and have fun with my fellow Apolytonians...
|
I like it as well (getting in touch) with my fellow Lemurians .
That was mainly a suggestion towards our people here.......
And after rethinking it: who It would only mean 3 1/2 turns per week............plus what do you want to do, if the Pres. doesn't run the turn?
quote:
and in essence the delegate makes the orders himself because the minister didn't give any or not enough -> not much of a difference
|
That is a problem of the active Minister, the delegate shouldn't really make the orders, he should be following the guidelines given by his superior......
quote:
Furthermore, when we can't fill our elected positions with people, what's better, a little conflict of interest or the DG not moving forward at all?
|
That is a good question.............
But because of the possible problems, which could occure, I am still against a mix of government and court..................even as it might not be in the interrest of the game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
DoT,
good point about the delegate, didn't think about this one..........
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pedrunn
reduce the number of position is a must. But i dont like the mix you are proposing. |
What's your idea then? Still giving all MoI to the Pres? I'm not very fond of that mix... Other opinions to this and the mix I proposed in my first post?
To sum some of the discussion up:
-reduce the court to one judge,
why not, but not introduce jury decisions! I'm against this, since the judge's decision can be appealed and I don't want us voting on cases with the low turnout we sometimes have.
-don't let judges hold executive positions
if we reduce the court to one member I'd explicetely forbid that one to be a delegate
-extend nominations and even elections to a week
I just think it's too much time, announce your interest for a position and wait up to two weeks to actually get it, so still prefer 5 days each.
Last edited by mapfi on 18-04-2003 at 14:21
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
Nomination:
Another suggestion:
Anyone can nominate himself at any time, but from 7 days before till 1 day before the voting, he has to hold a speech, otherwise he won't be allowed in the poll (in other words, not a choice in the poll).
Or let me rephrase:
from day vote-7 till vote-1 speech time, and during election time arguements between the canidates.
Nomination at any time till 1 day before voting.
Reducing the court: Don't think we should do it. We have choosen 3 judges to avoid deadlocks.
Also: What do you want to do, if the last judge isn't there? It already happened and delayed the game quite a bit (no insult/whatever meant). With three judges, we have backup-possibilty/redundancy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
|
|
aachen, germany
Aug 1999 time: 05:27
|
|
thats no good, how do you define what a speech is?
"hi, vote me!" for example?
do we want legal disputes decided by the court whether "vote me, because i'm the right man" is a speech?
as the candidates normally are rather engaged posters here anywhere, i don't think we have to make any rules on that question.
about the judges: 3 is a minimum that shouldn't be lowered.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
It was mainly an idea:
And for the speech:
I mean, it is up to the voters afterwards to see, if they accepted his speech.............
But how you like the idea in general?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
|
|
aachen, germany
Aug 1999 time: 05:27
|
|
if its up to the voters how they liked the speech, than its up to the voters as well how they liked the non speech, or rather what the candidate in question writes elsewhere
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
The reason why I suggested a speech before, is as a last conformation that he will run for this office, instead of having the nomination thread.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
|
|
aachen, germany
Aug 1999 time: 05:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gilgamensch
... unless he personally would have assigned a delegate prior to the election. |
we could also incorporate the us system of "running mates"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
runnning mates? What is this?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
I don't think that's something that would work - we already have problems getting ministers, so vice is just another spot that won't get filled.
Nor do I like Gilg's idea of nomination.
He's right though in saying only one judge would be problematic because he could disappear but then the same thing is true when the President is missing. And the judge would only be elected for one month as well, just that the election shouldn't be held at the same time as the others.
quote: We have choosen 3 judges to avoid deadlocks. | How's there going to be a deadlock with only one?
quote: 3 is a minimum that shouldn't be lowered. | Why do we need 3 judges? In the public hearing everyone can voice their opinion and then we just need someone to look through the whole con and write up a ruling. One is enough for that. A lot of RL courts only hold one judge as well.
No thoughts on giving the MoI's powers to Pres or MoDST?
Last edited by mapfi on 19-04-2003 at 01:30
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
|
|
aachen, germany
Aug 1999 time: 05:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mapfi
vice is just another spot that won't get filled. |
a vice might be filled easier, less work to do, and of course, most people who would run for an office could be vice to another, the same as most people are delegates to some office.
quote: Originally posted by mapfi
A lot of RL courts only hold one judge as well.
|
yep, those courts dealing with small shoplifters. supreme courts normally have 5 or 7 judges.
quote: Originally posted by mapfi
No thoughts on giving the MoI's powers to Pres or MoDST? |
IF! we are goint to reduce the number of ministers, we should first decide in which way we want the different deptments to be distributed among the ministries:
a) to distribute work fairly
or b) to put in one office what is closely related (for instance domestic affairs and infrastructure
|
|
|  |
 |
|
child of Thor
|
|
I like the idea in theory of the Pres playing turns every other day - regardless of which polls do or don't get finished etc.
It would speed the game up.....may even kinda force people to take part, if the game goes on without them - but not to their exact liking?
Or maybe it would do the exact opposite? Not sure....i think for myself i would want to get my votes cast so i would check often(although RL has a big say in this).
The main problem would be the work load for all the ministers - they would have a much shorter window in which to do all their polls/tasks, and report back to the president.
Still the idea is a nice one - much more like RL, life goes on even without your input. The Pres would have alot of power, and responsibility. What would happen if he played ahead and lost half the nation's cities? Or am i taking this point out of it's origonal context?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: a) to distribute work fairly
or b) to put in one office what is closely related (for instance domestic affairs and infrastructure |
My proposal was going for a) because b) would mean a hell of a job for MoDA. And I do think it would be wise to cut one position - people have said so before and the current election shows it's clearly necessary.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|