Tweet
Originally posted by notyoueither
There are contradictions between clauses and amendments. For instance, the ministers were originally empowered to decide the validity of official polls. When the court was created the intent was to move that function to the court (I believe). However, nothing was said about that power of the ministers. So now either the ministers, the court, or both? If both, which is superior to the other?
There are some subtle flaws. The clause on polling standards mentions that unofficial polls must identify themselves. The court was collectively dumb struck when we discovered that along with it's implications during a chat. Thus official polls do not need to identify themselves (although they should) and every poll started to serve some useful, but transient purpose is granted the status of 'official'.
In some cases the current Code of Laws is too specific and detailed. For instance, when the game began the movers and shakers had no problem with turn chats. At the beginning of a game chats are a very good way to go. There is not much to do in any given turn. The parts of the CoL dealing with the playing of the game were written to mandate turn 'chats'. Now, that same group of people are less able to participate. We need others who can lead. Some of the most qualified are unavailable for chats so they do not run. Even though there are other, effective ways to play the actual game we are left with 'chats' being mandated and the game suffering.
Some things are completely missing. such as a chain of command. When a post is vacant it should be filled by the person above that post in the chain. If the president is missing, then the person available below should step up, or some such. Now, when someone is missing we have chaos.
We can go back and amend, that is correct. However amending has a high standard for approval. We would be better served with a junior set of laws that are more specific and can be changed easily as the situation warrants. That CoL would be subordinate to a Constitution which would deal with the broad strokes and general principles. Ideally, it would not require amendment very often.
In short, we can amend the current CoL until the cows come home as each new problem is encountered. Why don't we just do it right once and get it done with?
There are contradictions between clauses and amendments. For instance, the ministers were originally empowered to decide the validity of official polls. When the court was created the intent was to move that function to the court (I believe). However, nothing was said about that power of the ministers. So now either the ministers, the court, or both? If both, which is superior to the other?
There are some subtle flaws. The clause on polling standards mentions that unofficial polls must identify themselves. The court was collectively dumb struck when we discovered that along with it's implications during a chat. Thus official polls do not need to identify themselves (although they should) and every poll started to serve some useful, but transient purpose is granted the status of 'official'.
In some cases the current Code of Laws is too specific and detailed. For instance, when the game began the movers and shakers had no problem with turn chats. At the beginning of a game chats are a very good way to go. There is not much to do in any given turn. The parts of the CoL dealing with the playing of the game were written to mandate turn 'chats'. Now, that same group of people are less able to participate. We need others who can lead. Some of the most qualified are unavailable for chats so they do not run. Even though there are other, effective ways to play the actual game we are left with 'chats' being mandated and the game suffering.
Some things are completely missing. such as a chain of command. When a post is vacant it should be filled by the person above that post in the chain. If the president is missing, then the person available below should step up, or some such. Now, when someone is missing we have chaos.
We can go back and amend, that is correct. However amending has a high standard for approval. We would be better served with a junior set of laws that are more specific and can be changed easily as the situation warrants. That CoL would be subordinate to a Constitution which would deal with the broad strokes and general principles. Ideally, it would not require amendment very often.
In short, we can amend the current CoL until the cows come home as each new problem is encountered. Why don't we just do it right once and get it done with?
, good post , now , do the people want it to be changed , .....
do the people want a col that is good , ...
sometimes it seems that there are only a few that want to bring a change , ....
and yes we should do it right , ones and for all , ...
BUT , what is "right" , .....
we can only build a col if there is more feedback
have a nice day
.
Comment