OFFICIAL POLL: Domestic Minister Issue

[Arnelos]

WOW

A visit by the powerful and merciless Ming...

[notyoueither]

So then, Ghengis. Just to be clear, I have permission to post that PM on this forum?

[Ming]

As long as he agrees... no problem here

[Panag]

hi ,

, maybe for next time we should not use PM's , this way the evidence can be taken of the threads , ......

have a nice day

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So then, Ghengis. Just to be clear, I have permission to post that PM on this forum?

Yes, and for the record I didn't want to use PMs. The only reason I PMd nye is because he MADE me do it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Yes, and for the record I didn't want to use PMs. The only reason I PMd nye is because he MADE me do it.

hi ,

ahem , did he twist your arm or something , ........?

could this matter be cleared out ones and for all , ...?

have a nice day

[notyoueither]

Posted without further comment:

GhengisFarb wrote on 16-11-2002 05:55:

notyoueither wrote on 16-11-2002 01:30:

We are wondering if you intend to stand behind your concession. That is your right and is somewhat heroic. If however, you wish the court to run it's course in this matter we will.

In either case we will post our decision as to how this situation of a tied 2 way race is to be resolved.

nye

I have thought about this, and there is only one city I would do differently than E_T and that is Ghengistown. Other than that my primary concepts were for setting procedures to name cities, etc.

If E_T would be willing to let me control Ghengistown in my own way, with 6 Egyptian workers, and set the naming procedures I would be more than willing to let him control all other cities, worker/settlers and budget.

Perhaps I could be Deputy in charge of that one city and naming procedures.

[GhengisFarb™]

And behold!

The infamous PM the court has so often referred to where I laid out my plot to take over all Domestic issues and become Emperor of Apolytonia.

Its much more peaceful in exile.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now, please do not blame GF for this, and do not blame the court. It is GF's right to communicate his intentions with the court. It is the courts responsibility to interpret his public and private communications. That is being done.

[Sheik]

You then used my willingness to assist you to destroy my reputation and lied about working to set a procedure because you have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do so.

GhengisFarb you know nothing regarding what The Court has done to set up a procedure for future ties.

I will let you know that we are working on a solution and are taking it very seriously. I know that we will have a solution once The Senate is established.

[Sheik]

You then used my willingness to assist you to destroy my reputation.

Personally:

I do not believe that your reputation has been heavily damaged and if any damage has been done to your reputation it was done as a result of your actions, not The Court's.

[Togas]

Originally posted by E_T
I really don't think that the ConCon had thought that we would ever see a tie and/or thought that the courts would work quickly to resolve this kind of thing.

We were more focused on the Trip v. Ninot election and the abundance of questionable votes. But we did put in that The Court would resolve ties...

Personally, I just thought they'd flip a coin, Rock-Paper-Scissor, or do a vote amongst themselves (5 members) to break the tie.

I have a couple of solution ideas/amendments already, but I'm going to wait and see if The Court has already made a solution before I post anything.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas


We were more focused on the Trip v. Ninot election and the abundance of questionable votes. But we did put in that The Court would resolve ties...

Personally, I just thought they'd flip a coin, Rock-Paper-Scissor, or do a vote amongst themselves (5 members) to break the tie.

I have a couple of solution ideas/amendments already, but I'm going to wait and see if The Court has already made a solution before I post anything.

--Togas

It sounds like the NewCon has given the Court WAAAAYYY to much leeway on their options... Even if the Court came up with a precedent, I wouldn't be comfortable with the fact that there's really nothing to stop a future Court from violating that precedent and establishing their own (even with the general respect of Common Law concepts by the Court, this is not legally established anywhere I know of). I'd be far more comfortable if a way to handle ties was [Iexplicitly[/I] handled in the constitution... so, IMO, Togas go ahead and present whatever you have if you have it (please!). If not, I'm sure the rest of us will dig something up as well.

[E_T]

I agree with Arnelos, the proceedure should be set in stone.

E_T

[Aggie]

My intitial and current belief is that such a tie could be considered under the rule that says if nobody gets 50% we have a runoff. It is very likley that the 2nd vote could be different, but we would have to establish rules for a tie on the runoff vote. One suggestion is that either the senate votes or the seated minister+pres vote(the reason for not the vp vote is that since the Pres appoints the VP, it could lead to a situation where the pres would appoint the vp to vote down a candidate). Since the senate has 4 less votes than the population as a whole(the 3 ministers/vp/pres) the vote could be tied. With the ministers with only 3 people the vote here wouldn't be tied. Just some ideas. Do you all want me to post a thread called"Preadmendment discussion on election ties" and top it or do you want the discussion to be left in the thread.
Aggie