Discussion: Killing the Three Term Clause

[Darkness' Edge]

The clause barring anyone from being in office for more than three terms may well need changing. Barring anyone from standing in the same office for more than three terms may well be necessary, but otherwise, we may run into some problems.

For several of us, we've been in office since the game started. For the December term, this will mean people like DBTS, TKG and Lemmy, some of our best people, will be ineligible to run. At a point in the game where we're really having trouble scraping together a cabinet, this may be impossible to fill. I've stood aside for this month so that I will be eligible for the December term, but if the Constitution stays at is, I don't know what sort of cabinet there will be then.

[Hercules]

Probably a wooden cabinet and a bit of furniture
I thought there was a bit more competition this month as more people came out of the woodwork. I 'd be inclined not to panic. Yet.

[moomin]

I'm all for scraping it. Let the posts rotate, but let people who are actually playing the game do so.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Can't we just say that, where the three terms have been reached by a candidate, they are ineligible to stand unless there is no alternative candidate who hasn't finished three consecutive terms?

This lets new people try their hand, but gives us a way out if there are no such volunteers.

[AdamTG02]

MWIA: I thought that that system was the one we had adopted.

DE: Why scrap it? All it means is that after three terms, a Minister needs to run for a different post. That way, we get a decent amount of turnover and allow new candidates more of an opportunity to strive for the position.

[Method]

FYI:

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
ARTICLE II: Government policy

Office Terms:
All office terms shall last one month. A member can run for a different office at the end of his term, but he cannot change offices during it. If a member is elected three times into any government office, that member may not run for any government office the fourth consecutive term. After the fourth term he may run for any government office that is available. If this rule let not have a fully seated government, the rule will be deemed invalid for that term.

[AdamTG02]

Thanks for the info, TKG. I had thought we decided on a different form of term limits in the discussion, and I have to admit I didn't read the Constitution in-depth because I thought it would reflect what was proposed in the discussion beforehand.

In any case, is there support for amending the Constitution to allow Directors to run for an office after three terms, just not the same one? And to allow them to stay in an office for four terms, if no one else steps up as a candidate?

[DeathByTheSword]

well because we have the highlighted part in there we dont have to deleted it......but do we want to block people from government seats when they already done a great job? on the other hand...deleting it would make it hard for newbies to get in the government.

[Method]

If this rule let not have a fully seated government, the rule will be deemed invalid for that term.

which is why this is there

[GeneralTacticus]

I'd support just getting rid of the sentence that says "may not run for any government office." Just say they can't be reelected into the same one.

[Darkness' Edge]

Me too.

IMHO, this would solve the problem.

It would stop me from having to step down this term, and stop TKG, DBTS and Lemmy from having to step down next term.

The bandaid clause in the current constitution really isn't good enough.

[GeneralTacticus]

It would stop me from having to step down this term, and stop TKG, DBTS and Lemmy from having to step down next term.

You forgot to mention me. I switched posts once, but I'll still have been in office for 3 terms.

[moomin]

I agree that the bandaid is not enough. The current constitution is harmful to us right now, in these very elections. The cop-out clause does nothing to rectify that.

[GeneralTacticus]

Can anyone present any arguments against removing the rule? If not, shall we put it to a poll?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Ah, the hell with it.

Why can't we just offer incentives to the judges if they ignore this particular bit of the CoL? Or even just tell them it doesn't apply?

This is our game dammit, we shouldn't be slave to the CoL WE created. Why not just have a poll to confirm ignoring this entire clause?