| 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 (1,221 Views) | |
| sedge | Mar 7 2011, 04:44 AM Post #61 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Looks fine. Erm... could just say it triggers the challenge system automatically (so from the point the delegate steps down, there's 7 days for nominations). I'll accept the admins doing the checks if CG is OK with it - ultimately, it'd be her doing them, as I can only check for matching IPs on this forum.
OK. Edited by sedge, Mar 7 2011, 04:46 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | Mar 7 2011, 06:24 AM Post #62 |
|
Spammer
|
Mmk. I understand the concern about security checks, but I figure you could delegate external IP checking to someone in Intel and make the call based on that information only. How about for the Delegate: D: If the Delegate submits their resignation, elections for a new Delegate will begin immediately with a challenge period as set out in Article 6. The resigning Delegate will retain the position until elections are completed. So that would leave us with something like this: 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
|
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Mar 7 2011, 04:13 PM Post #63 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Looks good, and CG says she's fine with doing the security checks. I'm ready for it to be put up to vote, unless anyone else has anything to add. |
![]() |
|
| Whamabama | Mar 7 2011, 07:06 PM Post #64 |
|
Questionably Evil
|
As is I would not vote in favor, but I think by now everyone knows, but I doubt anyone cares. |
|
Those who don't create, dictate The structure of our world and preach hate | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Mar 7 2011, 07:54 PM Post #65 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Aw, Wham - of course we care - unfortunately, we don't agree. Lets see how things go for now - Nai doesn't seem interested in having a veto - if in the future, we find it's something that we need to add, then we can consider it then. The constitution isn't set in stone - if things don't work, we change it. |
![]() |
|
| Whamabama | Mar 7 2011, 10:29 PM Post #66 |
|
Questionably Evil
|
you can still vote, but my vote is still nay. |
|
Those who don't create, dictate The structure of our world and preach hate | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Mar 8 2011, 11:47 PM Post #67 |
|
Admin Slave
|
If there's no further suggestions, I'm going to put this up to vote tomorrow. |
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | Mar 9 2011, 06:45 AM Post #68 |
|
Spammer
|
Wham - over the lack of a veto? Or are there other issues that bother you in this draft? |
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| Whamabama | Mar 9 2011, 05:19 PM Post #69 |
|
Questionably Evil
|
Yes, the lack of a veto, leaves an important balance of power, and protection out of the constitution. Also ignores the realities of the true power of the delegate, who can simply make these forums disapear on the wfe. This has been a problem in the past with other delegates, and while I don't see you doing Anything remotely like that, we should build for the future, and we don't know who will be the next delegate of the region, nor the one after that. Maybe when NS actually dies perhaps you will still be in the seat, we just don't know. However it is a weakness in the constitution, one that needs to be fixed, and knowing something is a potential problem, and ignoring it for the sake of getting it done, and with the thought of, we can change it if it becomes a problem, just doesn't make sense to me. |
|
Those who don't create, dictate The structure of our world and preach hate | |
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | Mar 9 2011, 09:31 PM Post #70 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
Both sides are seemingly immovable here. Is there no middle ground? A compromise? I suggested one a while back, can no-one else come up with one? Else theres certain...issues being left open as dont need to be |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Mar 10 2011, 04:31 AM Post #71 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Yeah, I am kind of immovable I really don't think there's a problem with having members of the region decide on legislation, and the delegate being responsible for governing the region. There's no need to mix the roles - the delegate has enough power already - I don't want to appease someone who might 'get bored' with 'just' being able to control the WFE, WA votes, and government of the region. We shouldn't be electing someone like that in the first place, and I'd rather deal with that issue - ie by campaigning against someone who I felt would act like that, rather than trying to 'keep them interested' with extra powers. I also see no reason to give the delegate the power to override the will of the region on legislation.Anyhow, didn't put this up to vote today, since we had a bit more debate. Will likely do so tomorrow. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | Mar 10 2011, 10:43 PM Post #72 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
Have I already asked whether the challenge system sort of combats that? Because if the delegate used the veto innappropriately, then they could be removed. Incidently, that would be one thing that couldn't get vetoed. Or you could place limitations on the veto. Only certain issues are able to be vetoed? |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| Whamabama | Mar 10 2011, 10:50 PM Post #73 |
|
Questionably Evil
|
Regardless of that, and the thinking, "it will never happen to us" (has happened countless times to others thing that btw) There is still no balance of the power of the assembly. No redress for anyone who considers something wrong. Nothing at all for a group to come in, enter the assembly, and do whatever it is they want to do, so you could end up in the minority rather easily if that was to occur. So no balance of power = asking for a bad situation. and a very loud Nay vote. |
|
Those who don't create, dictate The structure of our world and preach hate | |
![]() |
|
| Spartan Termopylae | Mar 10 2011, 10:57 PM Post #74 |
|
The Fool on the Hill
|
Whamamba, can you think of any other way to obtain this balance short of a veto? Elsewise we're going round in circles "I want a delegate veto" "I don't, lets put this constitution to the vote" "But I'll vote nay" and we're stuck in an infinity loop, because no-one will comprimise. Won't someone pleas just look at the middle ground? All we have here are black and white, and all the many shades of grey in the middle are being ignored |
|
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die Liebe ist fur alle da | |
![]() |
|
| Whamabama | Mar 13 2011, 08:52 PM Post #75 |
|
Questionably Evil
|
Nai pointed out one that would be suitable.
Would satisfy the check in power of the assembly. We need to do something in regards to balancing the power of the assembly. To balance the power now would certainty be better than regretting it later. |
|
Those who don't create, dictate The structure of our world and preach hate | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic » |
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.


12:33 AM Jul 11