Nice work guys.
Jack_www (or ZargonX), could you outline the differences between your drafts? (I'm too lazy to find them myself.
)
I have some comments on your version, Jack_www:
On senators: the team is the senate. Why require a certain number of posts? I might be in danger of failing this requirement, as I won't have PTW at the start of the game. But I think I can honestly determine whether or not to recuse myself, and I think every member should do the same.
If we set a max cap, we will have to worry about when and how to kick truly inactive (in other words, gone) members. But that's an if; and if we do, I think we should have a specific thread every other week or so for citizens to say "here" or some such, so they don't have to go find a thread to spam.
On other post requirements in general: I also don't see the point of requiring posts of governmental candidates; on the other hand, I hope anyone with enough interest to run for office would meet these requirements.
On the judiciary: currently, our team is small enough that I hope major issues can be settled out of court. That said, we do need one just in case. The SP game has had several cases go to trial (the court must agree to hear a case), two of which have been major.
But why tie up members with what will hopefully be a minor branch of government? I think we should operate in more of an open jury system.
Here's a rough idea: one Judge somehow takes office (appointment, election, whatever). This Judge will decide whether cases have enough merit to be heard. (Perhaps the Prez and VP can form a triad to vote on this part of the process.)
Any citizens interested in judging cases may sign on for jury duty. A certain number from this pool (perhaps 4) who had signed up prior to the case in question would be randomly selected to hear any case brought to trial.
I know this system sounds like it might become corrupted, but I think we're small enough we can avoid that. The random selection, and signing on before a case, would hopefully avoid having a slew of opinionated jurists.
What do you think?


I have some comments on your version, Jack_www:
On senators: the team is the senate. Why require a certain number of posts? I might be in danger of failing this requirement, as I won't have PTW at the start of the game. But I think I can honestly determine whether or not to recuse myself, and I think every member should do the same.
If we set a max cap, we will have to worry about when and how to kick truly inactive (in other words, gone) members. But that's an if; and if we do, I think we should have a specific thread every other week or so for citizens to say "here" or some such, so they don't have to go find a thread to spam.
On other post requirements in general: I also don't see the point of requiring posts of governmental candidates; on the other hand, I hope anyone with enough interest to run for office would meet these requirements.
On the judiciary: currently, our team is small enough that I hope major issues can be settled out of court. That said, we do need one just in case. The SP game has had several cases go to trial (the court must agree to hear a case), two of which have been major.
But why tie up members with what will hopefully be a minor branch of government? I think we should operate in more of an open jury system.
Here's a rough idea: one Judge somehow takes office (appointment, election, whatever). This Judge will decide whether cases have enough merit to be heard. (Perhaps the Prez and VP can form a triad to vote on this part of the process.)
Any citizens interested in judging cases may sign on for jury duty. A certain number from this pool (perhaps 4) who had signed up prior to the case in question would be randomly selected to hear any case brought to trial.
I know this system sounds like it might become corrupted, but I think we're small enough we can avoid that. The random selection, and signing on before a case, would hopefully avoid having a slew of opinionated jurists.
What do you think?
Comment