OFFICIAL POLL: Domestic Minister Issue

[adaMada]

Originally posted by E_T
The problem I'm kind of having is the timeliness (or lack thereof) of this poll. Although the court might have required a few days to figure out what exactly it was going to do, IMHO, this poll should have been posted a few days earlier and have gotten this ball started rolling.

E_T

E_T,
You've got to give the court some credit -- it's not easy to get things rolling. Poly was down yesterday night (when it sounds like the court was going to have a meeting), elections didn't close until the afternoon of the fifteenth (late at night in some timezones), and I know several members of the court were discussing the issue on the 16th. (Remember, that's when the two members issued the injunction).

I'm not saying I'm happy with the time frame this puts us in -- but the court deserves some slack considering the circumstances, and this is the best way to start the resolution, even if it does add a few days to the end result. (The ConCon had hoped that such a poll as this would have been started a day or two ago, which is why we put in those three days, but it's obviously not that easy to get a meeting of the court, and perhaps we should have taken these sort of factors into account when considering the timeline).

-- adaMada

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by E_T
The problem I'm kind of having is the timeliness (or lack thereof) of this poll. Although the court might have required a few days to figure out what exactly it was going to do, IMHO, this poll should have been posted a few days earlier and have gotten this ball started rolling.

E_T

Exactly, this adds a week to the time for a DM to take over which is why I'm glad E_T is already doing it.

That's a quarter of the time in office. If this is the system we are to use, a poll to request to view the votes (I don't think a poll is necessary, if its a tie it should be known that you will look to see if any non-citizens had voted) should start within an hour of the end of the election.

[Sheik]

The problem I'm kind of having is the timeliness (or lack thereof) of this poll. Although the court might have required a few days to figure out what exactly it was going to do, IMHO, this poll should have been posted a few days earlier and have gotten this ball started rolling.

E_T

Thank you adaMada. We meet on Sundays and Poly was down. It also takes time to make a decision about what action to take. We have to propose a plan and then it has to be supported by the other justices. We will have a resolution shortly.

[Sheik]

That's a quarter of the time in office. If this is the system we are to use, a poll to request to view the votes (I don't think a poll is necessary, if its a tie it should be known that you will look to see if any non-citizens had voted) should start within an hour of the end of the election.

We can not skip this poll. This is the first time we have dealt with this issue so it took some time. If you want us to skip a poll like this in the future the senate will have to pass a law giving us that power.

[E_T]

GF, I could use some help with the next turnchat. Could I get you to do the PW aspect for this next Gameplay? I do know that you can reduce the Jungle crews by 5 workers, with the change to Democracy.

Hopefully, by Friday, they can have a better Idea of what they will be doing.

E_T

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Sheik
If you want us to skip a poll like this in the future the senate will have to pass a law giving us that power.

That's what I'm suggesting.

Originally posted by E_T
GF, I could use some help with the next turnchat. Could I get you to do the PW aspect for this next Gameplay? I do know that you can reduce the Jungle crews by 5 workers, with the change to Democracy.

Hopefully, by Friday, they can have a better Idea of what they will be doing.

E_T

I'll see if I can squeeze it in, this is a VERY hectic week.

[E_T]

Originally posted by Sheik


Thank you adaMada. We meet on Sundays and Poly was down. It also takes time to make a decision about what action to take. We have to propose a plan and then it has to be supported by the other justices. We will have a resolution shortly.

No problem and I fully understand. I just know that time is marchin' on and the month is only so long.

E_T

[Togas]

I have a great deal of respect for the Court, but in this instance, I have to say that The Court is doing the wrong thing here.

I'll admit that we made a mistake in the Con Con to add in Art. III Sec 5(a). Should have just left the power as is without requiring a poll of the people. Would save a few days.

But now that it's taken the Court three days to act on this "contested election" and decide to post a poll that will take another 3 days, then then spend several days reviewing voter records with no clear idea of what citizen registry to use and no idea how to decide how to disqualify voters .... we will be lucky if this matter is sorted out by December. Aggie's new government CANNOT survive with a Domestic Minister on hold. He's going to have to appoint a temporary one now or take on the very exhaustive duties himself.

I'd rather see the Court finish up the Mr Oranage vs. Reddawg case that's been lingering about for more than two weeks than delve into an election that has been resolved by the withdrawal of one of the parties from the race.

Please. Would you guys just call this issue "moot" and then discuss amongst yourselves how it will be handled next time?

--Togas

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Togas
I'd rather see the Court finish up the Mr Oranage vs. Reddawg case that's been lingering about for more than two weeks than delve into an election that has been resolved by the withdrawal of one of the parties from the race.

Unfortunately, GF has never been entirely consistent, and has not clearly stepped aside in direct messages with more than one member of the court AFAIK.

We understand that this is frustrating for a lot of you. However, the Constitution provides for the President to continue on missing a Minister. Aggie has sensibly chosen to do so. The court will be done long before December IMHO.

re case 5. Will be posting tonight.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Unfortunately, GF has never been entirely consistent, and has not clearly stepped aside in direct messages with more than one member of the court AFAIK.

We understand that this is frustrating for a lot of you. However, the Constitution provides for the President to continue on missing a Minister. Aggie has sensibly chosen to do so. The court will be done long before December IMHO.

re case 5. Will be posting tonight.

I have been very consistent, I have stated I would step down in every thread, I told Aggie to let E_T handle the DM duties while it was resolved. The only reason I have not completely "washed my hands" of the issue is because notyoueither said it would only take a few (2-3) days.

I don't see why the court is laying the situation at my feet as I have tried to make it easy on the system and insure we had a DM no matter what the elections status.

Since my actions have apparently done nothing but undermine the court and prevent the nation of Apolytonia from having a DM I hereby withdraw completely from the Democracy Game.

Apparently that is the only way this issue can be resolved. E_T is the DM, the court is unneeded, and we now know a new system for tied elections needs to be established.

There, I voted for myself and I am no longer a citizen of the game so my vote doesn't count and E_T won by one vote.

[E_T]

GF, you really don't need to leave the game entirely.

This NewCon, along with any other type of document of this nature, cannot be complete and have everything thought if in exacting detail. We like to think that this new document has everything we will need, but we then find things that were missed. THat's why it's ammendable, and this issue should be that catalist for the creation of a Ammendment to properly address this issue (#1 anybody).

I was actually looking forwad to you being one of the driving forces behind the proposal, discussion/compramise and submission to a vote to add it to the NewCon. I hope you'll stay for those reasons, atleast.

E_T

[Togas]

I didn't see any ambiguity in GF's withdrawal post prior to the termination of the election, nor has he ever changed his stance except after being told that the court has taken over and had the election up for review.

GF is so sincere in his desire to withdraw that he's willing to withdraw from the game to resolve this non issue.

Please, guys, for the love of our first New Con team, give up this injunction. There isn't a contested dispute.

--Togas

[Shiber]

I concur with Togas.
I for one don't want to see GF leave over this dispute.

[E_T]

I never had any problems with either GF conseeding or with the court working it out. I've held off from trying to fill staff positions because I was curious as to how the court would resove this (or future issues) and within what kind of timeframe. I'm fairly flexable.

I don't think that its something to quit the game over, but just as with anyone else, that's GF's progative. If he does go, I know that we'll miss him.

E_T

[=OttomusCeasar=]

So, has the Court simply decided it can't handle ties or our they going to try to come up with a system.

This is going to really suck if everytime we have a tie the court just pesters the candidates until one of them leaves the game.