 |
Election for military judge
This poll is closed. |
| Archaic |
   |
2 |
20.00% |
| Drogue |
   |
3 |
30.00% |
| Elijah |
   |
1 |
10.00% |
| Jackson |
   |
2 |
20.00% |
| Urban Ranger |
   |
2 |
20.00% |
| Total: |
10 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:29
|
|
(God dammit!!!! I could swear I clicked the poll thing. Ah well, here we go again...)
Ok, heres the first election of the military judge panel (really needs a better name). The people who can stand are:
Archaic
Elijah
Drogue
Jackson (well done for revising your military stats on time, the figures look good )
Urban Ranger
Please note that I would have let Sheep stand, were it not for the military, his application would have been fully acceptable. Please do not take this personally, and this panel will be here to help you revise your figures so you can stand next time round.
It will be neutral, hopefully the judges will be able to eliminate any bias, and other judges will be able to spot bias, so in that respect I can assure all that there will be no national bias in this organisation, it will be independent and unlike the court, not an extension of foreign policy or a means of extending RP. Its probably more ooc than anything else, but looking at other threads, I think we can all agree it is essential.
As there are five people up for election and the number of people in the panel is five, then all are guaranteed a place, so this election defaults to selecting the chairman of this board. I personally would suggest Drogue as a good choice, he has proved himself a competent judge and capable of neutral judgement.
Good luck to all participants...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:29
|
|
I object to Sheep not being allowed to stand. Whatever YOU think of his military, that is for this body to decide. You are not the person to decide whether the people should eb allowed to vote for him or not. I suspect that people would not because of that, but it is their, not your decision to make. This is a democracy, anyone who wants to stand should be allowed too, and it is up to the people to decide eligability, rather than your view being more important than everyone else. Sorry for the rant, but if we are to be democratic, we should be democratic, not selective first, on the whim of the person posting the poll.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
I agree with Drogue. Elijah not everyone agrees with some of the things you say about how big a millitary force should be or how much a nation can spend on their millitary. I think that we all agree though that Sheeps millitary is a bit over the top he should be able to run if he wants and see if people vote for him or not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:29
|
|
I stated that there were conditions for people being able to stand (baring in mind that the first term is only to get thing up and running), and as the person running the first election, whereas the panel would run the rest, if someone broke that condition in my view, then they couldnt stand. Like you said, the panel may take a different view to me, and that is fine, but the panel doesnt exist until tomorrow.
If, in the panels view, someone is eligible to stand, then it is up to the panel to decide whether to hold re-elections, indeed, that may well be a good idea, but until that happens, I will poll the people who apply, and conform to the conditions specified.
In the case of Sheepsta, many of us agreed that he would not be able to field the military size he posted, which he didnt revise when I make the poll. I found the arguments convincing, and upon consulting the link on the Nationstates.net forum, as well as my own judgement, I decided that those conditions had been breached in that case. The panel is designed to help people revise their military stats, so upon that being the case, Sheepsta would be eligible for entry, and as long as he and Archaic can get on, he would be a valuable addition to, if I may say so, a reasonably good idea! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:29
|
|
So you are saying that a panel run on your rules, not completely democratically, can actually alter someones stats? That is wrong. Because this is OOC, is exactly why we are all equal before the people, and why the people can vote in who they want. Who are you to decide that there should be a panel, and that that panel has those far reaching powers. The only way this would work is if people are free to ignore it, and thus it is voluntary, such as the court. It gives legitimacy or not to figures, but it does not alter them. Indeed, it should still be democratic, and I am appauled that you believe you can impose a set of people upon us, without allowing us our free vote.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:29
|
|
It would be able to do so with more legitimacy after people are elected completely democratically, i.e. a re-election after this one creates the conditions for that to be possible.
We cant alter stats, we can merely ask them to change them, or post alternatives to them, for people to decide to use. We cant change them, I dont believe there is a mod for this forum, and even if there was, I wouldnt want to do that.
People are free to ignore it, but by the same token people are free to ignore them.
quote:
I am appauled that you believe you can impose a set of people upon us
|
Thats a straw man. I am not imposing rules, I merely stated conditions and then people can stand according to those, and by standing you would agree to comply with those conditions, as all who are standing are doing so.
Like I said, this panel would not be able to change anything. I could have fullfilled the roles entirely myself, or chosen members by invitation only, but an election according to conditions was the more logical choice, as it is more likely to be recognised by others if they have a say in how it is made up.
Like I said, no official powers, no powers that an individual member of this forum does not have, merely a collection of minds that enables the actual judgement to occur, implimentation of that judgement can be handled by anyone, and is non-compulsory like the court, however, for pragmatic reasons nations would be advised to comply with the conclusions of this panel.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sheep
|
 |
The Hand of Sheep, the Hand of Death
Mar 2002 time: 15:29
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Archaic
It simply means that you'd have a large military relative to your size and economy, not meaning you can make a military to a level which you could not possibily maintain. |
My military, lets see. All Mt. Gravatt men are conscriptyed for two years training at the age of 17. They are then able to be called up at 24 hours notice. I do not see what is wrong with the military sizes and you are yet to be able to offer me sufficent proof why I can;t have 4.5% to 5% of my population in all four branches of the military.
quote: Originally posted by Archaic
Irrelevant to the level of your military, and to its technology with the blockade preventing imports. |
my technology, is reasonable. All members of the Treaty of Mt.Gravatt and other various friendly nations work together in all aspects of technology. As for the blockade, ever hear of the Berlin Blockade. Aeroplanes have been flying non stop to Sheepsta with the military hardware we cannot produce, and other needed items unable to be produced by Sheepstan factories yet, around the clock. Sorry my good friend but unless you want to shoot down every plane leaving or enetring Sheepstan air space and cause a nuclear exchange, your blockade means nothing to us.
quote: Originally posted by Archaic
It was a statement Sheep that no one in their right mind would vote for you with your outlandish military stats, not what you're implying. |
Let me see. It says
quote: Originally posted by Archaic
For now at least, there's no reason to disqualify him from being included in the vote. |
Which basically means. Hey I think Sheep has a rats arses chance of getting in so its all good. But if he ever does I will have to try and make him illegiable.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Archaic
|
 |
Washed up SMAC/X University Specialist
Nov 2001 time: 15:29
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sheep
My military, lets see. All Mt. Gravatt men are conscriptyed for two years training at the age of 17. They are then able to be called up at 24 hours notice. I do not see what is wrong with the military sizes and you are yet to be able to offer me sufficent proof why I can;t have 4.5% to 5% of my population in all four branches of the military.
|
We've offered it many times Sheep. It's not our fault if you can't understand.
quote: Originally posted by Sheep
my technology, is reasonable. All members of the Treaty of Mt.Gravatt and other various friendly nations work together in all aspects of technology. As for the blockade, ever hear of the Berlin Blockade. Aeroplanes have been flying non stop to Sheepsta with the military hardware we cannot produce, and other needed items unable to be produced by Sheepstan factories yet, around the clock. Sorry my good friend but unless you want to shoot down every plane leaving or enetring Sheepstan air space and cause a nuclear exchange, your blockade means nothing to us. |
I'd like to know how Aeroplanes are getting past the blockade which spans both sea and air. Furthermore, I'd like to know exactly how you could possibily airlift that much equipment that frequently without ruining the economies of the countries airlifting it to you.
quote: Originally posted by Sheep
Let me see. It says
Which basically means. Hey I think Sheep has a rats arses chance of getting in so its all good. But if he ever does I will have to try and make him illegiable. |
No, it means..
"Until we get a panel together and can decide exactly what is and isn't a realistic military level given all our circumstances, we can't ban someone from participating based upon that. If however in our next elections we do establish this, we can then say someone may not be up for election on that basis."
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|