Official: 3 Proposed Ammendments of the Constitution - Page 2

Timeline · July 4, 2002, 07:59

Agh, just saw an interesting statement by Trip from many days ago.

Quote:

I'll change the Constitution tomorrow once I get back to Colorado.

It looks like he is planning on changing it, and would therefore quilify this poll as a revote, which makes it invalid.... LOL.

Maybe I am fighting a losing battle here (those are the kinds I usually fight *sigh*) but I still believe we should add what is stated in the first post of this thread to the constitution, and not just throw a bunch of

-The Minister of Econ may do this
-The Minister of Econ may not do that

Into our great constitution. The Ammendment proposed in this thread is simply putting into practice what you proposed Spiff. Just converting it into a more Constitution-like form, and will give our great Code of Laws cohesion.

MrWhereItsAt · July 4, 2002, 08:25

Hmm. So many voting for "yes" to all options, yet no-one is owning up by telling us WHY they are saying yes, especially since even Timeline seems to be having second thoughts regarding (at least) the Ambassadors issue.

C'mon people! Us naysayers are hogging the floor here! Let's see some posted support for the Amendments if you vote yes for them.

And does anyone really want to forfeit the right for any citizen to propose War? Do you really want a Presidential veto, even where there may be an otherwise unanimous feeling in the other direction?

Timeline · July 4, 2002, 08:43

Well, the war section has been considered "corrupted" so the results cannot be considered "official". Unfortunately I really messed this poll up, but section 1, the main reason for starting the thread and biggest issue here, is still to be considered valid.

What are your thoughts on section 1 wia? (see my last 2 posts)

MrWhereItsAt · July 4, 2002, 09:00

Well, after having read (most of) the Constitution

, I feel qualified to say that option 1 is fine with me, and I certainly haven't seen any opposition from anyone else to that part.

Hopefully this means your poll wan't completely in vain.

Spiffor · July 4, 2002, 10:12

Timeline :
You are right, my amendment proposal wasn't in constitutional form. Hence, your proposal would fit better in the constitution. I think the Minister of Economy would have to remind his competences (and the 84% approval of them) in his specific thread / site, leaving the constitution details-free.

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 19:16

On the important issue of amendments... you could have start a discussion first (one of them there might have been, I forget though), and you could have made a seperate poll for each... The way the poll is set up makes things terribly confusing, and I even know what's going on (for the most part

).

From what I can discern, most people feel that 'commanders' 'aides' 'ambassadors'... whatever you call them are a good idea, but shouldn't be required.

Timeline · July 4, 2002, 22:08

Well taken Trip.

I do suggest that the MoE be placed into the constitution, as people have voted for it once, and over 2/3 seem to accept what I proposed, so let's not delay.

I will repost/rephrase a new official poll on the "aid/assistant" topic, as I feel there has been quite enough of the discussion here about it.

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline
Well taken Trip.

I do suggest that the MoE be placed into the constitution, as people have voted for it once, and over 2/3 seem to accept what I proposed, so let's not delay.

I will repost/rephrase a new official poll on the "aid/assistant" topic, as I feel there has been quite enough of the discussion here about it.

Start up a discussion on each (if there isn't already one) always, it's just easier that way.

If more people say 'no it shouldn't be required' then there's no real reason to make an amendment of it. As I've stated in other threads, if ministers want the convenience of an aide, then they can appoint one themselves.

notyoueither · July 5, 2002, 00:27

I'm sorry Timeline, but any poll where there are multiple choices for one side or the other is biased. Even if bias is not the intent. It skews results because it will lead to more votes falling for the weighted answer due to there being more reasons given for that answer and more things listed that any given voter may agree with towards that answer. Does that make sense?

Also. I believe the polling standards thread prescribed a prepoll discussion thread for any valid poll on such questions of such import to our constitution. These stealth polls really are a bit... opportunistic (or it may appear so). Uber and Trip are following this custom. Why aren't you?

Panag · July 6, 2002, 09:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline
Good Points....

What do you think about my previous statement?:

I think any Minister or Executive Officer should be able to enlist as many Deputies, Ambassadors, Generals, Secretaries etc, etc, as he/she wants. And each Minister is allowed to construct their office how they see fit.

The only problem I see with this: If Ministers are allowed to appoint anyone into their office, it could give rise to the ugly head of party politics, I fear. This is more how it works in contemporary US Democracy.

hi ,

, there should be a kind of limit on it , and some form of control , ...

have a nice day

Panag · July 6, 2002, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm sorry Timeline, but any poll where there are multiple choices for one side or the other is biased. Even if bias is not the intent. It skews results because it will lead to more votes falling for the weighted answer due to there being more reasons given for that answer and more things listed that any given voter may agree with towards that answer. Does that make sense?

Also. I believe the polling standards thread prescribed a prepoll discussion thread for any valid poll on such questions of such import to our constitution. These stealth polls really are a bit... opportunistic (or it may appear so). Uber and Trip are following this custom. Why aren't you?

hi ,

, more Q's in a poll , and the way the Q's are asked , .....
there should be some people who could only work on poll's , a poll is asked by some-one in the government , and a small panel looks at how the Q's could be , ....

maybe we should also control or stop "unofficial" poll's , ...

have a nice day