Poll -- Would you Ratify the New Con?

[ThePlagueRat]

I agree with trevman in some issues...
e.g. about the role of the President/VP

I would not vote to ratify it yet.
The points we made in the discussion thread should be included.
Especially diverging power between Senate and Cabinet.

Yeah, some flaws there are...
Otherwise, con con has done a fine job!

[notyoueither]

Please take some time and read the thing. Then think about the way we do things now.

Then take into account that none of the 4 members of the Con Con got what we wanted in every case.

Then consider whether you would prefer to keep what we have now.

Will things be adjusted due to issues brought up? Yes. But do you really want to pick an issue and make it a hill to die on? If we all do that for our pet issue, the thing will not get done.

Up to you.

[ruby_maser]

minister of economy?

it was whispered of elsewhere and now I can't find the thread, but what has become of the minister of economy?

Article I : Section 1(j) states the president "MAY" appoint advisors as he feels necessary.

IMO, we need the graphical and statistical information that this position (with acknowledgement to Reddawg for his tireless effort) provides. Even if only in some sort of advisory capacity to the executive branch, it needs to be a specified position empowered to recommend actions and influence decisions (at least).

I would prefer an elected position but in such case as it would be a required position chosen by the president, the graphical and statistical data compiled should be open to the public so as to guarantee healthy debate, provide a check against presidential impunity, and insure we continue to retain the benefits that this type of economic analysis provides.

[ruby_maser]

minister of economy?

to guarantee healthy debate, provide a check against presidential impunity, and insure we continue to retain the benefits that this type of economic analysis provides.

sorry if that was a little dramatic

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Will things be adjusted due to issues brought up? Yes. But do you really want to pick an issue and make it a hill to die on? If we all do that for our pet issue, the thing will not get done.

Before I vote, I'll see what's being adjusted and figure how power will be distributed in practice.
By now, things look almost good.
But how pure can democracy be implemented ?

This should be the final constitution (ever) ,
and should include all democratic principles.
If it does, I'll vote to ratify it.

Then other things can be sorted by different amendments.

[Will 5001]

Hello everyone again, just had a quick look through it, very americanised! Hmmm, I don't know, I suppose I will abstain, we don't desperately need to change the current code of laws. The senate has way too much power, in fact I have just convinced myself to vote no !! (Has anyone ever thought that a Communist system would work quite well in this size game?)

P.S Is there anything like the Jungle Gazzette around?

[Will 5001]

Oh, I just realised, it's closed!!!

[notyoueither]

'The senate has way too much power'

Gah...

[UnOrthOdOx]

Anything like the Jungle Gazette?

No, there is nothing else like it. Just stick with the original, and you will be fine.

[Meshelic]

Will 5001 the Jungle Gazette is still here and is apparently better than ever before!

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Will 5001

The senate has way too much power, in fact I have just convinced myself to vote no !! (Has anyone ever thought that a Communist system would work quite well in this size game?)

Yeah, why don't we just call it the C3CG ?
Sorry, but I'm into democratic philosophy right here...

[jdjdjd]

I thought I poster here already?

Am I losing my mind? Did I respond in another thread? Is Monday Football a releif to watch this year with out Dennis Miller? Will ther Here It Is Winos win another game? Wil Underdog get back in time to save Sweet Polly Purebread?

These and other questions...but back on topic:

I would like to thank those who have worked on this constitution, I'm sure it took a lot of time. However, I still see no reason to change the old one. The old one allows itself to be changed by amendment when need be and allows itself to be interpreted when unclear by the Court or by practice. The new constitution is very long and will take time to get used to, and we still have ministers who can't even follow the simple polling rules in place now (how can you forget a time limit?!).

Also, if you do continue forward, do something with the Senate idea, like scrap it. We don't need a Senate, everyone in the game is already a Senator unofficially, since we all can post polls, discussions, vote, etc..

So, I voted no. Obviously I am outnumbered, but that isn't the first nor will it be the last time I;m on the short end of the vote.

Thanks again, adaMada, Apoc, nye & Togas.

BTW, old or new con, my services are available for legal consultation and/or representation, free of charge. Just dial 1-800-Jungle Law (please wait till we discover the dial first, until then PM me).

[adaMada]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
I thought I poster here already?

Am I losing my mind? Did I respond in another thread? Is Monday Football a releif to watch this year with out Dennis Miller? Will ther Here It Is Winos win another game? Wil Underdog get back in time to save Sweet Polly Purebread?

These and other questions...but back on topic:

I would like to thank those who have worked on this constitution, I'm sure it took a lot of time. However, I still see no reason to change the old one. The old one allows itself to be changed by amendment when need be and allows itself to be interpreted when unclear by the Court or by practice. The new constitution is very long and will take time to get used to, and we still have ministers who can't even follow the simple polling rules in place now (how can you forget a time limit?!).

Also, if you do continue forward, do something with the Senate idea, like scrap it. We don't need a Senate, everyone in the game is already a Senator unofficially, since we all can post polls, discussions, vote, etc..

So, I voted no. Obviously I am outnumbered, but that isn't the first nor will it be the last time I;m on the short end of the vote.

Thanks again, adaMada, Apoc, nye & Togas.

BTW, old or new con, my services are available for legal consultation and/or representation, free of charge. Just dial 1-800-Jungle Law (please wait till we discover the dial first, until then PM me).

jdjdjd,
You've gotta remember, it was only our intention to make about three major changes to the Senate (the name we came up with for the players):
1) Allow the Senate to pass 'laws'. Makes changing minor things about the way we play the game possible without full-fledged amendments.
2) Prevent the elected officials from proposing laws. Considering the amount of power they already have, that they can vote, that they can convince someone else to propose for them, and that there are only four, it seemed like a good idea .
3) Allow the Senate to figure out it's own way of organizing itself, so it can deal with number one.

SOME organization is clearly needed for number one to be successful -- as UnOrthO has pointed out, someone's gotta compile the laws). Having said that, the Con Con members never intended the Senate to be complex, or even much different from what we have now. I don't mean to say that radical changes to the Senate aren't possible within the framework we've laid out -- but we didn't create the framework with the intention of a complex system. Voting for NewCon isn't voting for a complex senate -- it's voting for the power to decide how to use your new powers best yourself.

I personally feel that our proposed system is much better than the one we have now. By streamlining the ministers, giving the players to make changes in government without changing the CoL itself, and by clearly either dealing with the important issues or delegating them to a body to deal with, we've solved many of the conflicts we've encountered so far.

Of course, your vote is your own, and I you make several very good points. Having said that, I'd urge everyone to spend a bit of time thinking about the day to day positive affects of this CoL, and not the negative ones.

-- adaMada

[jdjdjd]

adaMada,

I still beleive that if it ain't fixed don't break it. I've been against this thing from the start, so I'm jaded.

....however....since it is inevitable that it will pass, I will review again and keep as open a mind as possible and see if I have addl criticism/acolades, and all you have to is give me your best Jungle Ball player



Oh all right, I'll do it anyway

[notyoueither]

jdjdjd, why should we fix what we've got 1 amendment at a time? What was the point of the Revolution of the recent past?

Who controls GLs? Is the Executive or the Court supreme in interpreting polls? Who controls pop rushing? What happens when a Minister goes AWOL?

You of all people must be aware that there are significant gaps, contradictions, and anomolies in the CoL as it stands. What is the problem with plugging and fixing as many of them as possible in one go?