| 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: |
| Constitutional draft | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 12 2011, 01:10 AM (1,222 Views) | |
| Spartan Termopylae | Feb 24 2011, 12:31 AM Post #46 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
How can people prove their judgement if it's not put to the test? Perhaps add a stipulation that any nominee must have held office before? But if someone's not ambitious, then they should not be in the Council, because the Council should have ambition for the region. And theres nowt wrong with young members aspiring to positions. Far as the region's concerned, I'm a young member. But if the ambitious young nations can't aspire to one of the upper echelons of government, which the Council sounds to be, then it will just turn into an old boys club. Is that what we want? |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Feb 24 2011, 12:35 AM Post #47 |
|
Admin Slave
|
The Council of 3 isn't supposed to be particularly active - it literally just decides on citizenship applications. It's not part of the government, it doesn't make laws, and it can be overruled by the Assembly (the legislative body). Ambitious new members should be proving themselves in a position which can make a difference to the region - so helping out Officers, or by actually becoming an Officer. If you look at the moment, there's only one person in the region who could really be considered to be doing an Officer's job - myself. That'd mean 3 other vacancies for people to prove themselves in a role with real power, along with the chance to help existing officers. Edited by sedge, Feb 24 2011, 12:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | Feb 24 2011, 12:39 AM Post #48 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
Have the officers and their responsibilities been defined yet? I don't remember seeing it. (I'm not picking a fight there, I'm just curious, and I've not seen it. I could be wrong there) By that I mean....their specific titles and the like Edit: Plus, I'm mostly trying to come up with ways to overcome objections to things in order to help all this along. Could be I'm proving a hinderance to it all, too, which could be awkward Edited by Spartan Termopylae, Feb 24 2011, 12:40 AM.
|
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Feb 24 2011, 01:05 AM Post #49 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Nah, I'm glad there's someone arguing about this ![]() The role of the Officers (7a) is: "Officers of the region are responsible for carrying out the governmental functions of the region." It's deliberately vague, partly to stop the constitution being eye-bleedingly long, and also to allow the Officers (and the Delegate, who heads the government) the freedom to expand and contract the functions of the government as they choose. There aren't specific titles - that is up to the delegate to decide. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | Feb 24 2011, 01:12 AM Post #50 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
Ah, deliberate vaguearies (I don't care it's spelled wrong, it's one in the freakin' morning. Give or take). They're on a sort of contract basis then? Tasks that are done as and when needed, then when there is no longer any need for the office to be held by an officer, said post is disbanded? |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Feb 24 2011, 01:18 AM Post #51 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Something like that - as the delegate assigns roles, it allows them freedom & flexibility, especially when campaigning - having officers doing different things is a good way of differentiating oneself from other candidates. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | Feb 24 2011, 07:07 AM Post #52 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
Ah, OK. That makes sense. I still think that a rotation with fixed terms is a way to overcome at leats part of an objection to the Council's existance, though |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | Feb 24 2011, 03:19 PM Post #53 |
|
Spammer
|
It's not so much a question of the contents as phrasing and organization. I'd like to reword the section on the challenge system especially and try to collapse the two different sections on it (Delegate vs. Officers) into one. I'll post up a revised draft later today after I teach. EDIT: Or I'll catch up on the rest of the forum instead... still getting used to this concept of sleep. I'll try again tomorrow. [/edit]
This is the thing, though - as I see it, the only reason we would ever deny someone citizenship once they'd met the basic requirements (nation in region and forum account) would be for security concerns - correct me if I'm wrong, there, because that's the assumption that's driving my whole argument. If I'm right, that means we would always need at least one member with IP vision, unless in practice we had forum admins reporting to the Co3 and in essence controlling that portion of the Co3's decision, which would just be a mess to legislate. I'd rather have citizenship automatically granted upon meeting the requirements and posting a statement of intent, unless the nation in question failed to pass a security check. Phrased that way, it allows us either to default to a security check by the admins, or for an additional/alternative body to be created by legislation if we feel the need to formalize it later (e.g., the Officer in charge of Intel operations plus two elected citizens, or something like that). As with the Co3, we could require the reasons for a denial of citizenship to be posted, with a vote from the Assembly required either to confirm the denial of citizenship, or to override the decision of the security check people (I don't care which).
Quorums are a nightmare when you're dealing with NS - too many people float in and out in terms of activity. Higher majority requirements wouldn't hurt, but they wouldn't help, either. You can't use democracy to protect people against the hazards of democracy. I'm just thinking - it's as easy to invade a legislature as it is to invade a region. We can either choose to allow that avenue of change, or we can make it harder somehow. As a last suggestion (because I do not want to add the complication of a separate judiciary into this mix), possibly a unanimous vote of the Officers + Delegate could veto legislation. That is, the decision of a representative democracy could overturn the decision of the direct democracy. That's the last suggestion I'll make on the topic, because I see the appeal in a GCR of simply allowing the majority to rule unquestioned, come what may. Edited by Naivetry, Feb 25 2011, 05:53 AM.
|
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Feb 28 2011, 11:49 PM Post #54 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Sorry I haven't replied to your points yet - I read them, and put of replying... and kept doing so. Maybe I'll do it tomorrow? I really do want to see us agree on a constitution... |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Mar 4 2011, 08:01 PM Post #55 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Those kinds of situations are hard to prevent with regulations - as anything secure enough to stop it happening will likely act as a massive barrier to new members getting involved. It's part of the reason for keeping the Council of Three - it can make those kinds of subjective decisions, and deny applications if it thinks there's an 'invasion' of the Assembly going on. As for quorums, I was thinking of something minor - like a minimum of 5 votes cast in total, so we don't have people trying to pass stuff when everyone else is away on holiday. The 75% requirement for constitutional amendments already gives minorities a significant protection. Anyhow, I'm still willing to change Article 3, Clause B so that the Assembly chooses replacement Co3 members. |
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | Mar 5 2011, 11:51 PM Post #56 |
|
Spammer
|
Yeah, I just don't like the Co3 thing as the body that does the checking. And I really, really want to make this as short as humanly possible without making it ineffective. So, working on draft now. |
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | Mar 6 2011, 05:22 AM Post #57 |
|
Spammer
|
The Constitution of The Rejected Realms Article 1: Preamble
Article 2: Citizenship
Article 3: The Assembly
Article 4: The WA Delegate
Article 5: Officers
Article 6: The Challenge System
Edited by Naivetry, Mar 6 2011, 06:13 AM.
|
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | Mar 6 2011, 05:50 AM Post #58 |
|
Spammer
|
Well, it fits on two screens. Mostly I tweaked the wording and combined the former Article 6 and 8 in order to get it down to this length, but there are a couple of major changes that need feedback and quite possibly some argument. 1) Replaced the Co3 with forum administrators running a security check. 2) Stuck the section on the RRA into the preamble; there's no reason to spend an entire article talking about an organization which explicitly does not fall under the scope of this constitution, I figure. 3) Refined the tie-breaking mechanism for elections. 4) Described the vote for contested elections as a plurality vote, 'cause that's what it is... but if that's too technical or unfamiliar a term, I'd be happy to switch it back. Thoughts? |
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Mar 6 2011, 05:25 PM Post #59 |
|
Admin Slave
|
It's mainly fine.
That should apply to delegate elections only, as otherwise we may find ourselves not processing applications half the time. Also, do we need something for when the delegate steps down? Not entirely happy about having the administrators being responsible for deciding on citizenship applications - it seems contradictory to your complaint that the Co3 "puts 3 big, intimidating bouncers in front of the door marked citizenship", but I could accept it if others would prefer things that way. Finally, what about putting a basic quorum in for votes, as outlined a few posts above? Edited by sedge, Mar 6 2011, 05:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | Mar 7 2011, 02:33 AM Post #60 |
|
Spammer
|
Mm, k. I'll tweak it to say,
Heh. Nonsense - the Delegate isn't allowed to step down! Once you're in the chair, you're stuck for seven years! ...Yeah, it would probably be a good idea to have something in mind. Not sure what, though. Automatic elections make the most sense, probably, but that could get complicated.My reasoning behind having the forum administrators check applications is that it's really just a matter of regional security, and I think putting the forum administrators (or someone else with IP vision) in charge should make that clear. Forum administrators are like referees - they're not supposed to be on anyone's team. They're just a fact of forum life, kind of the way Founders are in a democratic UCR, there to make sure things keep running smoothly and safely and everyone plays nice. They're not political in the same way that a Co3 would have to be. I suppose we could put in a quorum. My major objection to them is the difficulty of finding the balance between an effective guarantee of representation and potentially crippling the government. 5 is low enough to avoid bringing the government to a halt in periods of low activity, but a quorum of 5 means it would take 3 people voting yes in order to pass laws or treaties instead of the 1 or 2 people it would take without a quorum... and I'm not sure that's enough of a difference to make it worthwhile. Maybe add it in a separate piece of legislation if it becomes an issue? |
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic » |



Mostly I tweaked the wording and combined the former Article 6 and 8 in order to get it down to this length, but there are a couple of major changes that need feedback and quite possibly some argument.
12:33 AM Jul 11