Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Welcome to The Rejected Realms

Government:

Delegate: Wabbitslayah
Officer: Frattastan (Foreign Affairs)
Officer: Marilyn Manson Freaks (Outreach)
Officer: PowerPAOK (Media)
Officer: Relfa (Culture)

Other Officials:

Speaker: Vulturret
RRA High Commander: Frattastan
RRA Commander: Guy
RRA Commander: Wopruthien
Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Constitutional draft
Topic Started: Feb 12 2011, 01:10 AM (1,223 Views)
Whamabama
Member Avatar
Questionably Evil
I have no problem with the limited veto option. We can give the delegate 1 veto, that after being used will not reset till 6 weeks, or until the same legislation is brought back up, even if altered.
Those who don't create, dictate
The structure of our world and preach hate
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
6 weeks? How often do you think we'll be having laws up for vote?

Spartan Termopylae
 
In the game, a head of state with no power is more useless than the Queen, and what a sad state of affairs that is.

The delegate isn't Head of State - we don't have one. They're Head of Government, which is an entirely different role.

I'm 100% against any form of veto for the delegate over the wishes of the citizens of the region, and that stance isn't going to change.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Methinks that either we need to come up with something different, then, or take a vote on how it stands currently. I vote....try to think of something new first, something that will placate both sides of the argument. I'll try think of something to help, but no promises. I suggest everyone else try to do the same
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Whamabama
Member Avatar
Questionably Evil
I can compromise on number of vetos, but to be head of the government, and have no more say than anyone else makes little sense.

Most importantly after watching regions continually going through problems because the delegate was in their eyes a servant to the community where the actual power of the delegate was unreconized, in conjuction with a delegate unhappy about the situation, and simply replacing the government, and the forum. I don't understand wanting to create the same situation that causes that here.
Those who don't create, dictate
The structure of our world and preach hate
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
But the delegate shouldn't have more of a say on stuff where we as a region collectively make a decision. There's plenty of power of the government (ie, the delegate runs it) - any delegate with some imagination could find plenty to do with that power.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Ways out of this deadlock? I'm tempted to have competing version of the constitution put up to vote...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Why not give the delegate two votes instead of a veto? It removes that, but also adds a little bit for those who think like Whamamba
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Naivetry
Member Avatar
Spammer
Okay, just some brief comments because I am enforcing a 1 am bedtime on myself for as long as I can stand it, which gives me about 45 minutes to write this and swap...

1) The current draft could be more simplified/shorter. By the time I got to the challenge system, my eyes were glazing over - and I was honestly trying to pay attention. Then again, my ideal constitution for TRR would fit on a single screen, and I realize that may not be entirely realistic. But a girl can dream, no?

2) To disagree with NC, I'm not a fan of the Co3. It's served us well so far, but if it becomes permanent, that puts 3 big, intimidating bouncers in front of the door marked citizenship, which is no way to encourage people to get involved. If we want this to be a club, sure. If we want people who aren't already our friends or associates to participate, then I'd like the process to be more clearly objective. It's hard enough to get legitimately new (or even old!) players even to join the forum as is, let alone submit to a verdict of approved or rejected by a group of elites here, just in order to have a say in what goes on. Security is what's really our concern - so just put in the requirements for citizenship, and add that all prospective citizens may be subject to a security check.

3) I could care less about a veto, but the idea of checks and balances - some recourse for minorities - could use more thought. And I'm out of time. :( I'll be back tomorrow.
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation]
~
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
An idea on the Council. What if we use a rotation system? Fixed terms. Take an example from history. Rome, before the last dictator and then the Principate, had two men known as Consuls who essentially acted as the heads of state. They were men voted to the position by the Senate, served for a year, then stepped aside for the next man. They could be consul multiple times, but rarely in sequence. What if we had similar rules for the Council? Instead of the Council choosing a replacement, the assembly do so. As such a role is somewhat less.....obtrusive to ones free time than the Delegacy, finding people to take on the job shouldn't be quite so difficult. I, for one, would object to becoming delegate, but would be happy with a lesser position, if you get where I'm going with this (I'm not demanding a seat here, just using an example). Because I have time to squeeze something less involved into my life, but no the delegacy. Do you get what I'm saying? I hope so, cos I'll start rambling soon
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
You could always take my place - I was only put in the Co3 as we needed a quick replacement for BI.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Naivetry
Feb 23 2011, 06:00 AM
1) The current draft could be more simplified/shorter. By the time I got to the challenge system, my eyes were glazing over - and I was honestly trying to pay attention. Then again, my ideal constitution for TRR would fit on a single screen, and I realize that may not be entirely realistic. But a girl can dream, no?
Is it really that long? Given that we wouldn't really need any other rules, I don't think it's that bad. It sets out how thing work - which parts of it are unnecessary?

Quote:
 
2) To disagree with NC, I'm not a fan of the Co3. It's served us well so far, but if it becomes permanent, that puts 3 big, intimidating bouncers in front of the door marked citizenship, which is no way to encourage people to get involved. If we want this to be a club, sure. If we want people who aren't already our friends or associates to participate, then I'd like the process to be more clearly objective. It's hard enough to get legitimately new (or even old!) players even to join the forum as is, let alone submit to a verdict of approved or rejected by a group of elites here, just in order to have a say in what goes on. Security is what's really our concern - so just put in the requirements for citizenship, and add that all prospective citizens may be subject to a security check.

Someone (or some group of people) have to be empowered to make a judgement on citizenship applications, particularly as sometimes there'll be intel issues to discuss when considering them. I like the Council of Three, but would be open to having it more democratic - for example by having replacements elected rather than appointed.

Quote:
 
3) I could care less about a veto, but the idea of checks and balances - some recourse for minorities - could use more thought. And I'm out of time. :( I'll be back tomorrow.

Higher majority requirements or a quorum? I could accept them so long as the bar wasn't set so high that it was impossible to pass anything.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Not quite what I was angling for, Sedge, but thanks :P. But you get what I'm saying, right?
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
I understand the need for less demanding positions, but we do have Officers, and there will be need for others to assist in government work.

I accept that having the Assembly choose replacements would be a better idea, but I'm not sold on term limits in the Co3.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Prevents it becoming an old boy's club. Regular rotation can get more people involved in the running of the region, and stops the more....stubbornly intransigent from barring valid citizens in order to swing votes the way they wish. Just another check and balence
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
But membership of the Co3 isn't something for ambitious young members to aspire to - it's supposed to contain experienced, trustworthy members who have proved their judgement.

Also, if the Co3 is unfairly banning people from citizenship, they can appeal to the Assembly, which can overrule the Co3's decision.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic »
Locked Topic