Discussion on third party nominations

Frozzy · March 14, 2003, 05:16

I believe, that the president of a party can nominate any member of his/her party. However, the party can only nominate one member per position. Also, the member being nominated by the third party is bound to this nomination, unless s/he says otherwise.

Any thoughts on third party nominations?

Devil of Truth · March 14, 2003, 05:39

Hark, is that a can of worms opening?

You have some good points that I generally agree with. However, it would require some major changes to the connie to allow for parties etc. That should be fun.

I would like to throw in my two cents here. If party leaders are allowed to nominate members, there should be some intra party due process to nominate those members in the first place. Otherwise the party system will become bogged down by popularity contests, pseudo-nepotism and absenteeism.

Gilgamensch · March 14, 2003, 07:43

It doesn't sound to bad, but:

some pro and contra's:

1.) How should the court be sure that this person actually wants to commit himself to this position? (worst case scenario) He might have not the time or isn't willing. (he even might have not read the post saying so...)
2.) Why then only restrict it to one candidate per job?
3.) How do you want to make sure, that the 'party-system' will not change the game? Shall parties be recognised by the connie?

Locutus · March 14, 2003, 13:16

Quote:

1.) How should the court be sure that this person actually wants to commit himself to this position? (worst case scenario) He might have not the time or isn't willing. (he even might have not read the post saying so...)

For this reason alone a nomination should only be considered valid if a person confirms his nomination himself...

If others want to put forth someone, that's fine by me, but such suggestions are just that - suggestions - until they are confirmed by the nominee himself...

Frozzy · March 14, 2003, 14:04

I agree with DoT. Perhaps there could be an intra-party system, and the nomination by the party is not considered valid, unless sufficient proof (e.g. a link to post(s)) that the nominee in question is ready to take on the job.

H Tower · March 14, 2003, 15:30

i say leave as is, if the person can't be bothered to make a simple, "i want to run for X" post in a five day span, they really shouldn't be considered for the position.

And the connie should NOT recognize parties, only guarantee the freedom to make and belong to them.

mapfi · March 14, 2003, 17:21

it's a three day span.... maybe that's actually rather short, wouldn't hurt to extend that for the election in a month, any thoughts?

H Tower · March 14, 2003, 17:24

was confusing this with the civ2 game where it's 5 days of nominations and 3 for elections.

mapfi · March 14, 2003, 17:31

I think a 5-day election is a must, but extending the nomination period to also 5 days would be a rather good idea in my opinion.

Locutus · March 14, 2003, 17:52

I can agree with that, it's not like the nominations interfere with the regular affairs of state...

Frozzy · March 14, 2003, 21:27

So... two possible amendments:

1) Parties can nominate if suffiecient proof is given
2) 5 day nomination periods.

Any comments?

H Tower · March 15, 2003, 01:05

1)

2)

Locutus · March 15, 2003, 11:00

2nd HT

Pedrunn · March 15, 2003, 15:41

2nd HT.

Quote:

i say leave as is, if the person can't be bothered to make a simple, "i want to run for X" post in a five day span, they really shouldn't be considered for the position.

I was the one who actually wrote the part on the constitution about election. And my idea was exacly that. If someone cant post phrase in the nomination thread doens deserve to be in the position he wants.
Last election was a exception because this rule was not clear and Tamerlin ended up being harmed. But like by the same reason most of the court cases of this DG where in the first month the reason was that the people are learning the connie. Not because Tamerlin ddnt deserve the position.
I am against third party nominations.

I also helped modelling the time of the election. And the idea was that a too big election period could interere with the course of the game. So i actually suggested a 2 days nominations period. Now that i am more mature i see that the nomination thread doesnt interfere with nothing about the running of the game. So i am in favour of having a 5 day nomination period.

Locutus · March 15, 2003, 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Pedrunn
Now that i am more mature

Nah, nevermind... Too easy