the constitution is failing..

I know. Just felt like saying it. Tell you what. Draw up a draft, and we'll see what everyone wants. If nobody wants change, then no. I have a couple of ideas for the government myself actually.

So draw up your own draft, and we'll all see what you're getting at.
 
Why can't we have our cake and eat it too?
Calling a Convention shouldn't mean we must yield a new Constitution.
 
Zemnaya Svoboda:
I also dislike any kind of invading or offensive action. It's inherently aggressive and wrong.

On the other hand when it is impossible to obey the law it becomes worthless, and we are around that point. I'm entirely sure I want the changes Fulhead Land or Blue Wolf want though.
Click to expand...
Woah woah woah. That was supposed to be:

... I'm not entirely sure I want the changes Fulhead Land or Blue Wolf want though.
Click to expand...
 
What if there was a vote? Simple majority of "Should We Have a Convention?"
Worst case scenario: we get a little more activity in the NS Discussion forums for about a week.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I fear that there are people who, even if that vote did pass, would purposely try to derail the discussion.
Click to expand...
Now that's just crazy talk it's not like there's this jingoistic faction residing in the North Pacific that would spur the Del to break the law and ban someone purposely and stop any debate they don't approve of?
 
Simple majority of whom?

A simple majority of less than all is not a majority; its a minority in absolute numbers.

Quite a few in the RA rarely vote, and it is one reason why for some issues the Constitution requires a majority of all RA member, and not a majority of the RA who participate in a vote.

Most likely a constitutional conference would require at least as much support as a Constitutional amendment.
 
Quite a few in the RA rarely vote, and it is one reason why for some issues the Constitution requires a majority of all RA member, and not a majority of the RA who participate in a vote.
Click to expand...

That's why we need a change... AI is dictator...
 
Either way ends the same, one way just gets more involved in writing which i suppose is more open to abuse, in a way.

I mean last time we did it we had all the ADN goombas come out of the woodwork, signed up under odd names and wrote a constitution for us.
 
Fulhead, enough with the ADN crap; it would be just as likely that the NPO or the invaider-verse would do the same thing, so that's neother here or there.

The closest analogy in the Constitution to a constitutional convention is the amendment process, so logic would oint to that as a basis for what support would be needed to pass.

Just remember that a consttutional convention is quite likely to make things far worse than what you think things are like now. The last one that was tried almost failed because no one could agree on much of anything. Trust me I was there, i know for a fact that is what almost happened, and most RA members won't get involved in it. It would simply be a way to make things more complicated, noy less.

Fuhead, your thread is just a re-run of Poltsamaa's a few months back; and guess what there isn't one single original idea that has been put forward in either thread. It seems to me, it is merely the same people recycling the same argument in a new packaging, simply because.

Fulhead you havent been happy in TN since Pixiedanc fell. I'm not sure why you want to stay here, since the Lexicon seems much more to your liking, especially now that alll of the democrats have left the place.
 
Fulhead, enough with the ADN crap; it would be just as likely that the NPO or the invaider-verse would do the same thing, so that's neother here or there.
Click to expand...

But dearest Gross you doth forget, I was there too. And Guess what, the ADN did come just as I said. I was mearly pointing out that nay convention or change has to be our RA's and not done on someone elses interests..prehaps as was done before? I just used the ADN Goombahs as an example. Touchy subject prehaps?


Just remember that a consttutional convention is quite likely to make things far worse than what you think things are like now. The last one that was tried almost failed because no one could agree on much of anything. Trust me I was there, i know for a fact that is what almost happened, and most RA members won't get involved in it. It would simply be a way to make things more complicated, noy less.
Click to expand...

Had you been paying attention oh PM of ours you'd have seen that a convention was just one of the ideas brought up. We were debating a convention vs just one big set of ammendments. But your anti-convention comments will have been taken on board I'm sure.

Fulhead you havent been happy in TN since Pixiedanc fell. I'm not sure why you want to stay here, since the Lexicon seems much more to your liking, especially now that alll of the democrats have left the place.
Click to expand...
Just being around you fills me with an inner warmth and glow of happiness Gross. :)


But in all seriousness you can sit here and throw as much crap about me and this thread you want but every tiome you do remember you alienate yourself from more and more people and you just show yourself up to be a arse. You criticise me for having "not given new ideas"...all your criticism of me, of Blue Wolf, of The Lexicon, of everyone just shows you have no new ideas of your own. Your stuck in the antiquated past.

To quote Mao here for a second, a permenant revolution has to take place, not just a revolution of TNPs modus operandi but in the entire game. If that doesnt ccur the game will further stagnate until there is no game. Players like Gross dont help this to occur.

I srongly urge everyone that wants a good gaming experience to come together and to shake off the shackles of the past. We can change this game. Or we will fall.
 
I wish I had a dollar for every time someone mentioned me in their post over the last two weeks...

Anyways, I'm here for the public service announcement that we have drifted way off topic so let’s get back on it you lot!

The Constitution does need rewriting, this one is “working” but is so dull, boring, and filled with red tape that people are leaving left are right.
 
At the very least they are suppose to nurture an environment which is in constant change and thus is at least moderately exciting. Risks must be taken in life in order for it to be fun but the Constitution prohibits risks and as such it abolishes many aspects which make Nationstates a fun game.
 
Blue Wolf II:
At the very least they are suppose to nurture an environment which is in constant change and thus is at least moderately exciting. Risks must be taken in life in order for it to be fun but the Constitution prohibits risks and as such it abolishes many aspects which make Nationstates a fun game.
Click to expand...
The Constitution's purpose is to nurture an environment that offers a modicum of safety in protocol and enumerated rights and limits.

What we typically find "exciting" actually comes from individual attempts to carefully circumvent the Constitution or to flaunt its bounds and march across it deliberately and outright.

In short, wishing to exchange a strong and effective Constitution for a weaker and more exploitable document strikes me as silly.
 
But you just said you wanted it to be fun and exciting?

Also, if we make our Constitution more flexible, won't it allow more people to escape our justice system?
 
More flexible = More Fun, More Exciting.

Cause and effect.

I don't know EM, do you have something in mind? I really can't say as the idea has no actual outline at all.
 
Blue Wolf II:
More flexible = More Fun, More Exciting.

Cause and effect.

I don't know EM, do you have something in mind? I really can't say as the idea has no actual outline at all.
Click to expand...
Prelinary discussion to hedge up support and general vision, FD to perfect every nuance in language. Unter tried something like is in Novemeber but it died of neglect and waves of new revisions later in the term until abandoned in Jan. I say get the vision right, then hammer it out article by article in individual votes.
 
I think what BW is trying to say is that (and this struck me with the 'red tape' saying) is that, instead of ammendment after ammendment, just write another one. I remember we had five ammendment votes going at once one time. Also, there are no real checks and balances.

And by flexibility he means not as direct. For instance, the Prime Minister's authorities are not clearly defined because of the people whom portray it. Right now, Grosse is only acting as a Security Council member. All of the other offices carry out their duties. The Prime Minister is either a dictator or not important, and if they are important, it is only in certain areas. Its like the UK. The Monarch is only important because they are there.

So there is no flexibility. Grosse is acting as a security council member. I still don't know what Prime Minister is for. For me, if not a rewrite of the Constitution, a rewrite of the office of Prime Minister.
 
I think what BW is trying to say is that (and this struck me with the 'red tape' saying) is that, instead of ammendment after ammendment, just write another one. I remember we had five ammendment votes going at once one time. Also, there are no real checks and balances.
Click to expand...

Just write another Constitution? Do you have any idea how long that might take?

And by flexibility he means not as direct. For instance, the Prime Minister's authorities are not clearly defined because of the people whom portray it. Right now, Grosse is only acting as a Security Council member. All of the other offices carry out their duties. The Prime Minister is either a dictator or not important, and if they are important, it is only in certain areas. Its like the UK. The Monarch is only important because they are there
Click to expand...

It is madness to think that you could run a region solely with a Cabinet, you mentioned the United Kingdom, there there is a Cabinet, run by the Prime Minister. Not all the ministries have been fully functioning this term, in fact due to a number of them leaving not many have.

So there is no flexibility. Grosse is acting as a security council member. I still don't know what Prime Minister is for. For me, if not a rewrite of the Constitution, a rewrite of the office of Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

You keep saying our Constitution is not 'flexible' but I am still unsure as to what this actually means and how you want to change it to make it more 'flexible'. The Prime Minister serves as head of the government of The North Pacific, which seems logical to me.
 
Oh, sugar, you're so right, we shouldn't do anything at all because, oh god be forsaken, it would just take ever so long! In fact, let's just stop living, it just takes so long!

For the rest of it, you’re just being stubborn, arrogant, and the devil's advocate.
 
Oh, sugar, you're so right, we shouldn't do anything at all because, oh god be forsaken, it would just take ever so long! In fact, let's just stop living, it just takes so long!
Click to expand...

I think it's a perfectly reasonable point, especially since not everyone is in agreement with you that the Constitution needs a rewrite.

For the rest of it, you’re just being stubborn, arrogant, and the devil's advocate.
Click to expand...

How?
 
How? By refuting points which don't need refuting, like how much time things take. Everything takes time, to use it as an excuse to never do something at all is just down right silly.
 
Again, I think the point that these things would take a lot of time is a valid point and that not many people actually agree with you that it really needs doing. You are more than welcome to draw up your own 'flexible' Constitution and I will be more than happy to look at it, but I do not think that drawing up a whole new Constitution is a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top