OFFICIAL : Green Wealth

[GeneralTacticus]

Nobody's tried that so far, and no-one's used the Court either. Nobody would bother posting an impeachment for no reason at all, because it would be a waste of their time, too, and they wouldn't exactly endear themselves to most of the members.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Lemmy

Is there anyone here who would do anything other impeach a DoR who tried to do such a thing?

Then impeach his damn ass already and quit whining about it. If you're so sure everyone will vote for his impeachment, why not go for it. It might cost him the next elections, isn't that what you want?
All this talk about how wrong and unfair it is, and yet noone has even moved for impeachment.

Believe me. I'd love to impeach him. However, I can't. Why? Because, by the strictest reading of the constitution, Pan's done no wrong. Does that mean what he's done isn't wrong? HELL NO. He's still going against the very spirit of the consititution, which was supposed to prevent crap like this happening. So what should the solution be? Simple. The constitution needs to be ammended.

Originally posted by Lemmy
And Archaic, stop playing the victim here, Pande is being far more critisized then you when you posted and unconstitutional poll.

Which one specifically? The one I invalidated myself, or the one I posted thinking that my previous poll had been invalidated by the changing of the constitution? Besides, that's all rather irrelevant, isn't it? If I did something that was wrong, fine, I was in the wrong. But how dare Pan use that as an election issue then go and do something similar himself.

[Lemmy]

Believe me. I'd love to impeach him. However, I can't. Why? Because, by the strictest reading of the constitution, Pan's done no wrong. Does that mean what he's done isn't wrong? HELL NO. He's still going against the very spirit of the consititution, which was supposed to prevent crap like this happening. So what should the solution be? Simple. The constitution needs to be ammended.

The constitution leaves room for interpretation.

Director of Social Engineering:
Has the right of:
*Starting polls to ask the people what there wishes are in his area
*Ordering the commissioner to change the social engineering’s page
*Advising any other part of the government

Has the duties of:
*Starting polls to ask the people what there wishes are in his area
*Listing to the will of the people in his area
*Consulting for advice directors which are effected by changes made in the social engineering’s page
*Serving his faction the best he can

You have argued that he doesn't listen to the will of the people, and that he's not serving his faction the best he can by being biased, or rehashing previous polls, or whatever you want to call it...

Which one specifically? The one I invalidated myself, or the one I posted thinking that my previous poll had been invalidated by the changing of the constitution?

These are the polls i can find right now.
The first unconstitutional one:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70065

And the constitutional one:
Which received no criticism!

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70073

Now show me were we wrongfully critisized you more then you are doing with Pande here, or stop playing the poor victim.

Besides, that's all rather irrelevant, isn't it?

It's irrelevant? Then why bring it up in the first place?

But how dare Pan use that as an election issue then go and do something similar himself.

Pan didn't break the constitution here, at least not so apparent as you did, and he has every right to point out that when you were a Director, you didn't know, or didn't follow the constitution. You pick which is worse..

(btw, keep discussing, it's doing wonders for my post count )

[Lemmy]

Anyway, my main point was, don't blame the constitution if you don't have the guts to back up your words and impeach him.

[Archaic]

Full reply tomorrow morning (11pm here now), but here's the reference material for what happened during my term. It's really been blown all out of proportion.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70065

Already acknowledged in the thread it was wrong. Started a new one.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70073

Poll later made unconstitutional by Pan's amendment. (N.B. FM technically won this one. It couldn't win a majority on immediatly, but a majority wanted it.)

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70627

The amendment discussion.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70868

The amendment poll.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71552

Made a boo-boo posting the thread and invalidated it myself.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71554

The correct version of the above thread.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71613

The unofficial Knowledge Poll.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71760

Pan's attempt to impeach me.

[Lemmy]

It's really been blown all out of proportion.

I certainly agree to that...if you are referring to the events during your term.

[AdamTG02]

*sigh* Neither of the polls at issue are unconstitutional. As Archaic said, the Constitution was later amended to invalidate that poll, but the point is that at the time it was posted, the poll was constitutional. Likewise, as Archaic also pointed out, this current poll is constitutional -- it does not go against any provision of the Constitution. It may be an undemocratic policy to throw out the results of the first poll (although that's open to debate), but it is perfectly legitimate under the Constitution. (Why do I say it might be undemocratic, given that polls are generally democratic, and more polling is generally good for democracy? Because the impetus for this poll came not from the people -- Maniac admitted that his proposal was meant only as a "what if" exploration -- but from a Director who didn't want to implement a democratically chosen policy.

Pande, I know you feel strongly about this issue. I feel likewise strongly that we shouldn't be sacrificing a Knowledge-based society in order to implement economic goals which, while principled, would lead to less total wealth and scientific knowledge. Neither of our opinions is definitive; the majority opinion is. And if the majority chooses Green/Wealth in this poll, it will be the legitimate democratic decision. But personally, I'm annoyed -- because a majority voted for Knowledge, a majority voted for Free Market, and now those majorities are being ignored.

I haven't come out openly with my opinions on economics, mainly because I didn't want to alienate any potential support. To tell the truth, I was torn -- I want a Green economy, ideally, but I also want the increased wealth Free Market will bring. The deciding factor for me, in the first poll, was that with a 70% Research rate, Green would be just as fast-researching as FM. So I voted Green on the first poll, the one that tied.

I changed my vote for several reasons. First, it's always been my desire to further Democracy, and to foster good relations with foreign Democracies. This is what I attempted to do as DFA. At present, the largest foreign Democracy is Morgan Industries. Although Morgan has tolerated our Planned economic system for years, it is a major point that strains our relations with him. Green would do the same. And personally, I view the furtherment and encouragement of Democracy abroad as more important than a balanced economic system at home.

Green would be more efficient -- that's an important consideration. But Green/Wealth loses the main benefit of that efficiency by preventing a Paradigm Economy. The Fundamentalist Gaians, with their early indoctrination in recycling techniques, could likely pull such a feat off. Not so the Peacekeepers -- our very devotion to the democratic process makes our economy less efficient, as local, regional, and national bureaucracies all have to be dealt with.

Without a Paradigm Economy, Green's research output is significantly inferior to Free Market. That's not to say that research is the most important goal, but it is an important goal -- and, for me personally, it may be the most important.

But to get back to the previous point, I changed my vote to FM in the second poll for several reasons. One was that, even with the recent reforms, we still produce significant amounts of ecological damage. While a Green economy would mitigate these, it would not end them. Free Market would exacerbate these damages -- but maybe that's what we need, to serve as a wake-up call and remind our Governors that ecological damage should be tolerated only when there is no other option. A certain amount of minerals will produce eco-damage; the amount of damage is reduced in Green, and increased in Free Market, but the threshold for damage remains the same. As the most powerful economy on the planet, the UN Peacekeepers can afford to eliminate this environmental damage -- a task as easy under Free Market as under Green, and, due to increased vulnerability to Mind Worms, more urgent.

The other reason why I chose Free Market is military. In large part, even with a Planned Economy, our war against Yang depends on probes. If we are to use our probes to take territory and units instead of simply fighting a holding action, we need funds. These funds would be much more accessible in a Free Market than under Green. Furthermore, if we voted in a research rate under Green which was comparable to Free Market -- as I would advocate -- our energy income would be even less. Even without Free Market, we have not had the political will to land troops on the Hive continent. With mind control probes, we could break the hypnotic hold of the Hive on its subjects and allow them to democratically choose their fate -- and we have no reason to doubt that their democratic choice would be to join us. With a foothold on the Hive continent, the much-discussed pacifist unrest of a Free Market would be muted. And with sufficient funds, we could subvert the controls of Yang's own military units, upgrade them to state-of-the-art technology, and use them against him.

This was a post about democratic processes and economic policy, and has strayed into military policy. But my point stands. For research, for diplomacy, and for war, a Free Market is what we need right now. Is it principled? I believe it is -- because, as projections have shown, the population will actually be happier under a Free Market than under a Green economy. The contention that it "ruined Earth" is not entirely correct -- Free Markets were the cause of much devastation, true, but they were also the creators of much wealth -- and wealth allows the creation and fostering of beauty. After the turbulent phase of industrial development -- which, I will grant, produced possibly more environmental damage than did the sum total of all human existence to that point -- the societies of Earth replenished and regrew much of their forests and ecosystems. It was nuclear war, not capitalism, that doomed Earth -- because when we left, even with the grave problems, things were gradually getting better, before they took a sudden and final turn for the worse.

As I'm fond of saying, I believe that "principle trumps pragmatism." Doing the right thing is more important than doing that which is in your interest. The problem, for me at least, is that I see principles pointing in both directions. The principle of environmental stewardship is opposed in this instance by the principles of knowledge, cooperation, and huamn happiness. I don't believe adopting a Free Market means that we have given up our stewardship. So, although torn, I voted at the first repoll, and again here, to institute a Free Market economy.

May the best system win.

[Lemmy]

*sigh* Neither of the polls at issue are unconstitutional.

When i refer to 'the unconstitutional poll', i refer to the one started by Archaic with no time limit, and a biased first post.

[Cedayon]

Thank you, Adam, for the best post in the thread (and the best one I've seen in quite some time).

As for this poll, I don't care anymore because FM is beating the doo-doo out of G+W I think I over-reacted initially because I saw it as a fairly blatant refusal by Pan to implement FM. I see now that there are legitimate reasons for having this poll now, even if I consider them somewhat flimsy.

Just don't pull this again, ok Pan? Either make sure that all the options to be considered are in the first poll, or immediately note in the first poll that there are new options to consider and start the new poll right then. A possible way of doing this is starting a discussion thread before the first poll to gather ideas on what options should be considered. None of this "waiting till FM wins to start another poll" business.

[GeneralTacticus]

Bah. Either way, this poll will probably reflect democracy better than the last one, simply because more people have voted; and it doesn't seem like anything has changed.

And btw, I've opened a discussion thread on an amendment to prvent this from happening in future. As the only real argument in favour of polling this seems to be that it's not explicitly prohibited, this should remove that concern in the future.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
Taking away the polls I posted with errors in the poll (Forgot to put in an end time, etc), I only posted 2 polls. Furthermore, you said I was wrong to do so. And Pan used that as an election issue now not once, but twice. Yet when Pan does it, you suddenly change your tune? Double ****ing standards.

The differnce is that I am not polling two times the same question pretending that the first poll was invalid, unlike you. These two polls I posted are about the same subject but have clearly different choices.

Pan, both of those two did the research and showed Green/Wealth to be inferior to FM, or weren't you paying attention? Guess what both of them again voted for? Oh yes, and lookie at the vote totals too. Weren't you complaining at the end of the last one and saying "There's too many votes!". Guess you can throw that particular whinge out the window.

So just because you think that "FM is superior" I shouldnt post it ? We all know your general scale of superiority which is based on yourself being superior to the rest of the world. The vote total is not strange at all, given there was 21 voters last time. On the other hand, the poll before had 12 voters, so the one with 21 voters seemed strange indeed.
-----

Originally posted by General Tacticus
I wouldn't support Archaic posting such a poll, and neither should anyone. By the same token, neither should anyone support Pan posting this one.

You certainly are a saint or a liar (most of the first are both anyway) to pretend you "wouldn't support Archaic posting such a poll" while you actually supported him polling two times the same poll while we Judges have said the first poll was not invalid.

As for this one, I maintain that the only reason why Pande would posted this poll and simply declared the reuslt sof the last one null and void is that he didn't want to accept the results. Anyone remember Milosevic after Kosovo? He lost most of the elections, and because he didn't like the results, he just declared that they were invalid. Pretty much what can be seen here.

I didnt declare the results null and void, I said, even before the poll was close, that seeing the discussion about Green/Wealth, which was not proposed in the FM/Green Final, I would make a yes/no poll to the Green/Wealth proposition.

Now, perhaps I can come up wiyh a better analogy to describe this poll - it's equivalent to having a tie in the tech poll between two chocies, one of which you want and the other you don't. The one you don't want wins, so you post a new poll proposing the one you want as part of a beeline which someone idly suggested, and say that the previous poll is now replaced.

Actually this would rather be a poll between the winner of the Science poll and another tech that has been forgotten.

Wouldn't the best test of an impeachment be simply to do the poll and see if the majority of people support it? If people don't want someone impeached, they vote it down, and the impeachment fails.

Why not ? Discuss it to make it an amendment, but as far as the constitutiton states it :

Impeachment and Resignations:
Every member of our faction is recognised the right to bring foreword the issue of impeachment of any government official at any time. The constitutional court will look at the demand and determine if an impeachment progress has to be started within 48 hours of the impeachment demand
The rules for the poll:
*There has to be started a one-choice-poll with the options: YEA, NEA and ABSTAIN
*5 days open
* 2/3 YEA vote to pass the proposal or under 1/3 NEA vote to pass the proposal

the rules for the first post:
*The unbiased reason why the person in question could be impeached
*The job of the person in question
*The time when the poll ends

If impeachment happens the alpha talent takes his place until a new election has been held.

-----

[Orginally posted by AdamTG

Because the impetus for this poll came not from the people -- Maniac admitted that his proposal was meant only as a "what if" exploration -- but from a Director who didn't want to implement a democratically chosen policy.
[/quote]

Thank you for your bright post, that has, as always, calmed down the situation. I wish to clarify some points though :
- Not only Maniac but also Cedayon have discussed about this poll, so it does come from the people. You can easily guess I would never have thought of Green/Wealth at the first place.
- My fonction being to carry the people's will, it is not my job to guess if people are serious or not. Moreover, even "what if" -- especially "what if" -- suggestions have to be polled, and especially in the DoSE, where there is not much to poll.
- Where did I refuse to implement a democratically chosen policy ?
By posting a yes/no poll about a question that hasnt been raised (raised by a poll) before ? This poll doesnt ignore what hasnt been voted before, but the "what if " question has a right to be anyway.
Or is it by not ordering a switch to FM ? The poll wasn't finished, I cant give orders without a poll being finished. I would really like to hear your explanations about that.

[Cedayon]

The only real remaining question I have, Pan, is: Why did you wait until after the FM v. Green tie-breaker poll was finished to post this one? Why did you not just immediately (upon discovering the G+W should be considered) declare the tie-breaker poll incomplete and post a poll with all 3 options (FM, pure Green, Green + Wealth)? There probably would have been complaints because it was already in the tie-breaker stage and whatnot, but it wouldn't have looked as bad as this did.

Well, there is another question, actually: If FM wins this poll (as seems likely), will you give the order that we switch to FM at the beginning of this coming (Saturday the 8th) turnchat? Or will there be something else?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Cedayon
The only real remaining question I have, Pan, is: Why did you wait until after the FM v. Green tie-breaker poll was finished to post this one? Why did you not just immediately (upon discovering the G+W should be considered) declare the tie-breaker poll incomplete and post a poll with all 3 options (FM, pure Green, Green + Wealth)? There probably would have been complaints because it was already in the tie-breaker stage and whatnot, but it wouldn't have looked as bad as this did.

Because constitutionnaly, I have to give all the informations needed by the people (not all stats, byt least the current SE settings), and I couldnt tell which one was opposed to Green/Wealth. People would have voted diffrently according to what the vote actually was : Green Wealth against Green Knowledge ; Green Wealth against FM Knowledge ; and there was no way I could say what they would actually voting for or/and against. I couldnt cancel the poll and make a new one with the three, because the third option wasnt validated as a runner up. Moreover, it would have been a biased poll because green votes would have been splitted.
And I had no reasons to invalidate this poll -- I still have not, and I dont invalidate it.

Well, there is another question, actually: If FM wins this poll (as seems likely), will you give the order that we switch to FM at the beginning of this coming (Saturday the 8th) turnchat? Or will there be something else?

Though I know the engine of history is the struggle between classes, I cannot foresee future
-- Pandemoniak,
-- in For I have walked with the Drones

[GeneralTacticus]

You certainly are a saint or a liar (most of the first are both anyway) to pretend you "wouldn't support Archaic posting such a poll" while you actually supported him polling two times the same poll while we Judges have said the first poll was not invalid.

The reason the first poll was considered invalid was because it ave no clear indication of what to actually do. A maority voted for FM, but were unable to agree on when it should be used. There was no such case in the previous poll.

The vote total is not strange at all, given there was 21 voters last time.

There were 18 voters last time. 21 was from the DSE elections.

I didnt declare the results null and void, I said, even before the poll was close, that seeing the discussion about Green/Wealth, which was not proposed in the FM/Green Final, I would make a yes/no poll to the Green/Wealth proposition.

Don't bother trying to wiggle out of this. You HAVE declared the previous poll null and void, because if Green wins this poll, it won't matter a bit what the results of the last poll were, and if it doesn't, it still won't matter.

Actually this would rather be a poll between the winner of the Science poll and another tech that has been forgotten.

Hardly. The choice on offer (Green) has already been polled on and rejected. That you chose to tack a values system on the end of it means diddly-squat; it's equivalent to proposing that a particular tech be chosen as part of a beeline.

Why not ? Discuss it to make it an amendment, but as far as the constitutiton states it :

Iwasn;t saying that bit isn't a good idea, merely that as neither Maniac nor I am objective on this issue, and the court seems pretty dead, we can't send it through any kind of approval process, and if the impeachment really shouldn't take place then the people would vote it down.

- Not only Maniac but also Cedayon have discussed about this poll, so it does come from the people. You can easily guess I would never have thought of Green/Wealth at the first place.

Discussing it is very different to asking for it. Archaic and I "discussed" using fundy at one point too, neither of us wanted to use it.

- Where did I refuse to implement a democratically chosen policy ?

By voiding a valid poll in favour of this one. No matter how much you try to deny it, that is exactly what you have done. The previos poll, which was valid, is now irrelevant because of your positng this poll. Hence you have voided it.

- My fonction being to carry the people's will, it is not my job to guess if people are serious or not.

The fact that they never actually asked for it to be polled would seem a good indication that they weren't seriosuly considering it. It's not your job to do things because you think people may want you to do them, either.

By posting a yes/no poll about a question that hasnt been raised (raised by a poll) before ? This poll doesnt ignore what hasnt been voted before, but the "what if " question has a right to be anyway.

Yes it does. The choice is the same as the last one: FM or Green? The fact that you've included a values system is irrelevant when the issue is economics.

Moreover, it would have been a biased poll because green votes would have been splitted.

Hardly. There's nothing preventing you from starting a seperate poll asking if we should switch to Wealth if we did to Green.

Or is it by not ordering a switch to FM ? The poll wasn't finished, I cant give orders without a poll being finished. I would really like to hear your explanations about that

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75595

Note these four words: "This poll is closed." The fact that an economics poll didn't include an option to vote for a values sytem is irrelevant.

I couldnt cancel the poll and make a new one with the three, because the third option wasnt validated as a runner up.

And yet you have now cancelled the poll in any case in order to create a new one. Anyone else see the incosistency here?

Though I know the engine of history is the struggle between classes, I cannot foresee future

Translation: I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to throw another poll out the window if I don't like the result.

[Lemmy]

By voiding a valid poll in favour of this one. No matter how much you try to deny it, that is exactly what you have done. The previos poll, which was valid, is now irrelevant because of your positng this poll. Hence you have voided it.

And yet you have now cancelled the poll in any case in order to create a new one. Anyone else see the incosistency here?

No, if you read the poll options, you'll notice Stick to FM 40/20/40. It should be clear that Pande has already accepted FM as the current SE choice, but since there is no turnchat between now and the end of this poll, there was no time to implement it yet.