Military judge election (use this one, I messed up the last one)

[Whaleboy]

(God dammit!!!! I could swear I clicked the poll thing. Ah well, here we go again...)

Ok, heres the first election of the military judge panel (really needs a better name). The people who can stand are:

Archaic
Elijah
Drogue
Jackson (well done for revising your military stats on time, the figures look good )
Urban Ranger

Please note that I would have let Sheep stand, were it not for the military, his application would have been fully acceptable. Please do not take this personally, and this panel will be here to help you revise your figures so you can stand next time round.

It will be neutral, hopefully the judges will be able to eliminate any bias, and other judges will be able to spot bias, so in that respect I can assure all that there will be no national bias in this organisation, it will be independent and unlike the court, not an extension of foreign policy or a means of extending RP. Its probably more ooc than anything else, but looking at other threads, I think we can all agree it is essential.

As there are five people up for election and the number of people in the panel is five, then all are guaranteed a place, so this election defaults to selecting the chairman of this board. I personally would suggest Drogue as a good choice, he has proved himself a competent judge and capable of neutral judgement.

Good luck to all participants...

[Whaleboy]

By the way, you have 2 days

[GeneralTacticus]

Hmmm... in the next election, are we going to have a stipulation that no personal opinions may be expressed in the initial post? And if you think Drogue is the best candidate, why did you apparently vote for yourself?

[Whaleboy]

We could, although I'm not sure it would achieve anything, I may have polled this election but I'm still subjective.

I said Drogue would be a good choice, not the best choice!

[Giovanni Wine]

Elijah, I have just one minor question to ask about this poll.

If (according to the other thread) there are going to be 5 military judges, and if (as we currently have) there are only 5 candidates... why having elections at all?

If there are 5 different candidates for 5 different spots there is no need to have an election IMO, they should just take the position and that's it.

Saluti

[Archaic]

As there are five people up for election and the number of people in the panel is five, then all are guaranteed a place, so this election defaults to selecting the chairman of this board. I personally would suggest Drogue as a good choice, he has proved himself a competent judge and capable of neutral judgement.

[Giovanni Wine]

Oooops

That's what you get for not fully reading the first post I guess

/Giovanni Wine runs away in shame

[Urban Ranger]

What does the chairman do?

[Whaleboy]

He'd be the guy who ends up PM'ing people making them aware of their overstated militaries. He'd also be the one who'd post up on the threads, other than that, just chair debates and keep it all sane, the usual stuff chairpeople do.

[Urban Ranger]

Okay, thanks.

[Drogue]

I object to Sheep not being allowed to stand. Whatever YOU think of his military, that is for this body to decide. You are not the person to decide whether the people should eb allowed to vote for him or not. I suspect that people would not because of that, but it is their, not your decision to make. This is a democracy, anyone who wants to stand should be allowed too, and it is up to the people to decide eligability, rather than your view being more important than everyone else. Sorry for the rant, but if we are to be democratic, we should be democratic, not selective first, on the whim of the person posting the poll.

[Jack_www]

I agree with Drogue. Elijah not everyone agrees with some of the things you say about how big a millitary force should be or how much a nation can spend on their millitary. I think that we all agree though that Sheeps millitary is a bit over the top he should be able to run if he wants and see if people vote for him or not.

[Whaleboy]

Tough

I came up with the concept, and until I give birth to it, its my baby!

What the panel does after the election, whether it wants to hold re-elections or include people in after the elections, then that is up to the panel, indeed if the panel can argue that certain peoples militaries are realistic, I will support their election standing.

[Drogue]

If you want to be taken seriously in a democratic society, be democratic when electing officials. It is not your baby. It may be your idea, but this is a regional thing. The Court was my idea, but I don't presume to be able to decide who can or cannot run (talking of that, we need new elections, which I will post soon). Who represents the people is up to them.

[Whaleboy]

I stated that there were conditions for people being able to stand (baring in mind that the first term is only to get thing up and running), and as the person running the first election, whereas the panel would run the rest, if someone broke that condition in my view, then they couldnt stand. Like you said, the panel may take a different view to me, and that is fine, but the panel doesnt exist until tomorrow.

If, in the panels view, someone is eligible to stand, then it is up to the panel to decide whether to hold re-elections, indeed, that may well be a good idea, but until that happens, I will poll the people who apply, and conform to the conditions specified.

In the case of Sheepsta, many of us agreed that he would not be able to field the military size he posted, which he didnt revise when I make the poll. I found the arguments convincing, and upon consulting the link on the Nationstates.net forum, as well as my own judgement, I decided that those conditions had been breached in that case. The panel is designed to help people revise their military stats, so upon that being the case, Sheepsta would be eligible for entry, and as long as he and Archaic can get on, he would be a valuable addition to, if I may say so, a reasonably good idea!